OMG! What if Saddam:

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: cheapbidder01

Originally posted by: seawolf21
After the war, it doesn't matter if Saddam doesn't have (or destroyed) WMD. It doesn't matter if he escapes capture. Sure, it will be a bit embarrassing, but we're running the show in Baghdad and the voters are not going to penalize Bush on these two points.

But it does matter if Saddam gets away. If he's still alive, it means he's plotting revenge. We will all be in more danger. First, Bush lets Osama get away, now he's picking on Saddam. If he lets Saddam get away too. That would be 2 for 2 or 0% success.

God you people are morons.. Its painful to read the stupidity here sometimes...

BUSH did not "let" Bin Laden get away.. He has escaped capture by hiding in very remote and rural areas. If you blame Bush for that, you should also be pointing toward Clinton who refused to do anything about Bin Laden when we actually KNEW where he was.

"Picking on Saddam".. Put down your pot pipe and think for a second, PLEASE.. Saddam is a mass murderer, a tyrant, willing to kill his own people in scores.. Bush is not "picking" on him.. Bush is addressing a problem the rest of the world is unable to solve.

 

[seawolf21]

Bush is not solving a problem the world is unable to solve.

Saddam is a Middle East problem and is a US-problem because of our interests in the area. The 10% of the known oil reserves in Iraq is not that important but what is important is the more than 30% sitting south of Iraq. Nothing's going to change after Saddam is gone. Any Middle East problem will still become a US-problem.

Terrorism is mostly a US problem but spills into the Western world and Bush is not solving it either. Terrorism isn't going away after we "free" the Iraqi public and neither are we preventing WMDs falling in the wrong hands. There are a handful of countries with proven WMD capabilities can be enticed to be sell to the highest bidder.

Will the world be a better place a year from now? Probably for the Iraqi public but that's about it.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: 1YellowPeril
The USA will be in big trouble if Saddam:


Any other worse case scenarios?

1YP

Sure . . . worst case . . . the coalition enters Baghdad and Saddam sets off all his WMD in one huge orgy of destruction - killing millions of his own people in a "suicide-bomber" statement to cause a general Arab-West war. :Q

I really think he is "mad" enough to do it and his loyal guards will carry it out . . . we'd better hope special ops can find the WMDs before they are used.

 

[Metalloid]

1. Sure the US won't be able to respond to it very well, but overall it would be a good thing that happens. If I were Bush, I would rather look bad than have those few soldiers not be set free.

Listen to what you are saying. You don't want POWs to be set free?

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Zakath15
I am most afraid of what will happen if Saddam uses chemical weapons. Not of Saddam's actions, but of Bush's reactions.

Didn't Rumsfeld intimate, at one point, that use of nuclear weapons was a possibility? That scares the #$%#$ outta me. I hope to heck that NEVER happens no matter what Saddam throws at us as there's no telling what that nutjob in North Korea will lob toward Japan and the U.S. west coast.

the use of nuclear devices is always a possiblity. They say it for the deterrence effect...the moment a nuc is used is the moment it loses the political power it has...deterrence.

I guess it depends on the delivery system. Be it artillery or bomber.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Metalloid15
1. Sure the US won't be able to respond to it very well, but overall it would be a good thing that happens. If I were Bush, I would rather look bad than have those few soldiers not be set free.

Listen to what you are saying. You don't want POWs to be set free?

First of all that is impossible. Saddam will NEVER set the POWs free as long as he is in charge. Very likely the POWs are held very near him as a shield.

Doesn't anyone else think that Saddam will "pull down the temple" in his final moments?

And are we TESTING IRAQI POWs for infectious diseases? I wouldn't put it past Saddam deliberately infecting his own shock-troops likely to surrender so as to get to weaken the coalition . . . :Q

And I don't think WE will EVER use tactical nukes - that is what Saddam would like to rouse the Arab world to action.