How many of you think that Sadam would have never done something?

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
WAIT A MINUTE.


so now we are trying to justify a war based on what someone MIGHT have done in the future??

YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.

Umm, THE WHOLE POLICY OF PREEMPTIVE STRIKE IS BASED ON THAT JUSTIFICATION. This ain't some new, crazy thing. Now, whether that policy is correct is another story. Bush obviously thinks so, and he has said so publically. I support this policy, when there is unquestionable intelligence available. In Iraq, the intelligence was clearly easily questioned because the U.N. had found no WMD's.

Now, can anyone give me unquestionable intelligence that Saddam would have done something?

 

[syzygy]

saddam was infamous for his miscalculations. a few of the basics:

1- he rose to become dictator of police state that in modern times had few if any rivals.
2- he had murdered tens of thousands of political opponents and regime undesirables.
3- he engaged his nation in two destructive wars, both for reasons of prestige and personal gain.
4- he flouted u.n. resolutions for over a decade, breaking 17 altogether -more if france and company had usual their way.
5- his sickening empire was slated to be inherited by two sons who one can argue were worse, in every measure, than their father.

saddam's baathist regime was typical among totalitarian states, historically speaking, because given the ravages, faliures, and totatlly inept rule saddam managed to consolidate power to a degree just as great as if he had managed any tangible political successes. he grew stronger as his nation became weaker.
many had predicted a breaking point was in the offing but saddam's particular deviltry was in defying
his doomsayers.

 

[Strk]

I doubt Saddam would have used them as in nuke a city, but he would have used them in the sense of "give me X amount of stuff or I will nuke a city".(Kind of like North Korea does, which, by the way, just had the estimates of its potential nukes increased)

One of his sons probably would have released them though.

 

[Gand1]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
WAIT A MINUTE.


so now we are trying to justify a war based on what someone MIGHT have done in the future??

YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.

Umm, THE WHOLE POLICY OF PREEMPTIVE STRIKE IS BASED ON THAT JUSTIFICATION. This ain't some new, crazy thing. Now, whether that policy is correct is another story. Bush obviously thinks so, and he has said so publically. I support this policy, when there is unquestionable intelligence available. In Iraq, the intelligence was clearly easily questioned because the U.N. had found no WMD's.

Now, can anyone give me unquestionable intelligence that Saddam would have done something?

Ding, ding ding! We have a winner! -
I support this policy, when there is unquestionable intelligence available. In Iraq, the intelligence was clearly easily questioned because the U.N. had found no WMD's.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Hardcore
And there's a reason why nobody in the Bush administration has suggested he did such things

You sure about this?

 

[Gaard]

Poll question = Would he have used them?

Just so we're clear, used what?