Saddam Hussein was NOT a threat
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Monday, October 18, 2004 20:09
VIEWED: 12413
PAGE 1 of 6
Having watched the so called "debates" from the USA about the Iraq Occupation I was shocked that not even the Democrates would admit the truth...
Saddam was simply NOT a threat to the USA.
And you won't hear that on the news either as the USA has commited itself to killing and imprisoning anyone it sees fit too. Welcome to fascism.
To qualify my statement about Saddam - As we all know, after The Gulf War we saw a defeated and isolated Saddam and his Bathist Party. Sure, there were uprisings from the Kurds and the Shiites but Bush Sr. just ignored thier plees for assistance in ousting Saddam back in 1990.
Basically, they were slaughtered while American troops looked on and No-Fly-Zones were created. The policy being that Kurds and Shia were not important to the USA. Oil is. As long as Saddam stayed in place and the oil flowed, the USA could care less about people. UN Sanctions were placed at US insistance that only succeeded in hurting the Iraqi people and giving Saddam a chance to pile up cash. This bait and switch is familiar to anyone who knows American foreign policy history (Central America gringo! Read a little history!).
That is, this is typical of the USA. Publically condemn while grabbing the cash under the table.
Now, even Kerry had said that Saddam was a threat to the USA.
How???
Let's see... no connection to the 9/11 terrorists. No that's not it.
No WMDS. No nukes or bio weapons. Certainly no ballistic capability.
No terrorist harbouring. That is, no terrorists were in Iraq.
No terrorist funding. Sure, Saddam has given money to Hamas, but that's been going on for decades and Hamas is a legitimate organisation... Zionist arguments accepted.
Worse, it's been proven that the information that sent the USA to Iraq isn't just "faulty", to quote the 9/11 Commission, but was completely cooked up by Cheney and his Wolf pack. Hell, Cheney made more visits to the CIA in the last term than every other Vice President in the history of the USA ever did.
So tell me America... why are you so willing to live with a lie?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And before people start calling me crazy, I'm not the only one who agrees Saddam is no threat, never was.
The Memory Hole (great website!)
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
Colin Powell
24 February 2001
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ghoulie, you forgot about his big model airplane.
Surely THAT was a threat!
...........Ruxton
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"First, Saddam had used WMD — against Iran in the mid-1980s, and he later used them against his own people, killing more than 5,000 civilians in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988.
Second, Saddam had possessed WMD, as he acknowledged to the United Nations after his ouster from Kuwait in February 1991. Moreover, until at least the early 1990s, U.S., British, French, German and Israeli intelligence agencies had underestimated his biological and nuclear programs. And all of them — along with the Clinton administration, the U.N. and both supporters and opponents of the war — assumed Saddam still had substantial quantities of WMD.
Third, Saddam had maintained the capability to produce WMD. In 1991, the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) discovered that Iraq possessed a workable design for an implosion-type nuclear weapon though not yet the necessary fissile material. If the material could be obtained elsewhere — from Russia, Pakistan or North Korea — Iraq was believed able to produce a bomb within a year. Iraq retained facilities as well as teams of scientists and engineers. And during the past year, the Iraq Survey Group, the U.S. inspection team, discovered a program to develop long-range missiles. The overall evidence led the team's head, David Kay, to say "Iraq was in clear violation" of a U.N. resolution demanding full accounting of WMD.
Fourth, Saddam had the intent. After the withdrawal of U.N. inspectors in 1998 and the erosion of international support for sanctions, Saddam counted on being free sooner or later to fully resume oil sales and rebuild his weapons. He continued to menace his neighbors, brutalize his people and cooperate with terrorist groups. He told Arab journalists in late 2002 that he was playing for time in the face of renewed American and coalition pressure.
In the aftermath of 9/11 and as murderously evident in Madrid, it is far better to act decisively against the most lethal threats rather than hope to deter them or to retaliate following a mass casualty attack. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said, 9/11 altered the balance of risk. Ultimately, the nature of Saddam's regime, his record of aggression and his capability and intent posed a major strategic threat. Despite the bitter and often partisan controversies that have erupted about the path to war, the case for the use of force remains compelling."
- www.usatoday.com
Yeah, what were we thinking. Saddam surely wasn't a threat.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
"First, Saddam had used WMD — against Iran in the mid-1980s, and he later used them against his own people, killing more than 5,000 civilians in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988.
Sorry, but that's all easily dismissed. And it's exactly what the Bush propoganda machine is pumping out.
First, the Kurds were gassed by American bought Sarin gas deployed fromAmerican bought helicopters. And if this was such a concern in 1988 for Americans then I even have a picture of Donald "Rummy" Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam "Sadly Insane" Hussein to show just the opposite was true.
Huh? Yup!
After that... USAToday only puts forth the the usual and illogical Bushite ideology. Is USAToday a propoganda rag for the Bushites?
I guess so.
Quote:
Second, Saddam had possessed WMD,
NONE of it NUCLEAR... let's be clear. The ones he bought from the USA was for the Iran War (mustard gas, sarin, etc. Iraq is famous for using this illegal tactic. The USA is famous for selling death without guilt). Right. So we know about those. And the US told the UN about them right? RIGHT?!?!??
Was that the Weapons Expo of 1988? Lots of US weaponry for sale that week I'll tell ya! Lots of deals to be had!!!
Heh, heh... come on. Bring this one up again. I dare ya.
Besides - why not get Saddam for that during the Gulf War? Why now? Huh? Get real... the USA doesn't give a rats ass about the Kurds and Bush Sr. left the Kurds to die in Turkey after the Gulf War. So don't tell me this crap, it's just not true.
America never cared about the Kurds. Never, ever. Never will.
The USA has the worst record of any industrial nation offering foreign aid, btw.
Quote:
Third, Saddam had maintained the capability to produce WMD.
Not a reason for War. Period. Try again.
Quote:
Fourth, Saddam had the intent.
Again, not a reason for WAR. Grrr.
Quote:
In the aftermath of 9/11
No connection to Saddam to 9/11. Period.
Quote:
and as murderously evident in Madrid,
That train bombing had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda.
Quote:
it is far better to act decisively against the most lethal threats rather than hope to deter them or to retaliate following a mass casualty attack.
Which GWB has absolutely no intention fo doing. His actions prove this.
Quote:
As British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said, 9/11 altered the balance of risk.
Phoney Tony? Don't even bother to quote a PM who is two steps away from being impeached.
Quote:
Ultimately, the nature of Saddam's regime, his record of aggression
lol! The he's a "bad guy" defence. That only works in 6 year old court.
Quote:
and his capability and intent posed a major strategic threat.
See, my point is that he wasn't. And hey, Powell agreed with me in Feb 2001.
Quote:
Despite the bitter and often partisan
I'm Canadian so...
Quote:
controversies that have erupted about the path to war, the case for the use of force remains compelling."
- www.usatoday.com
USAToday is a tabloid! Try to find actual writers who you like instead of quoting from pulp found in the grocery store check out.
Sorry JimNightshade, but rebutting crap from bad US newspapers is like shooting fish in a really small barrel. And if I can do it... gotta wonder why all of the USA is dumber than me.
Well, except John Stewart!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
I'm Canadian so... gotta wonder why all of the USA is dumber than me.
FUCK CANADA
http://www.negativepositive.org/fuck-canada.html
That was a real
pathetic performance you canucks showed at the Athens Olympics!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
^^^ kept waiting for you to show up. Nice first post in the "Real World" forums.
Your Mum must be so proud.
BTW, I feel the need to point out that recently, Canada is still one of the TOP nations to live in thanks to it's EXTREEMLY high Quality of life indecator issued from the UN.
Also, our famous Peace Keepers have returned from yet another fine tour of service, this time in Kosovo.
Which just goes to show... Canada is still a great nation. The USA is still... the USA.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And all of them — along with the Clinton administration, the U.N. and both supporters and opponents of the war — assumed Saddam still had substantial quantities of WMD.
Not according to Hans Blix or Scott Ritter (one of our CIA/ weapons inspectors)
Quote:
discovered a program to develop long-range missiles
In other words, they had plans, they had programs, they had designs- but no WMD and no delivery capability.
Now, if we hold Iraq to the strict letter of UN resolutions on accounting for WMD, what about Israel?? It's an open secret that Israel already posseses nuclear weapons, and there is solid evidence that at least during the early 90's was producing Sarin. (It was found out due to the unfortunate crash of one of their cargo jets carrying 3 of 4 necessary ingredients for Sarin into a tennement apartment building in Amsterdam).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
you dispute the article. Thats ok. But show me evidence. You offer your opinion without backing it up. Both sides even agree Saddom was a threat. Why do you even try arguing the point?
I think it's because you hate everything about America and just find the bad in it. Why dont you turn your efforts to your own country. You yell fascism at others while you live in a very fascist country. Yes, Canada is fasicist. I dont have time to go looking for links all day but I will give you this one for now: http://weblogs.therightsociety.com/rob/archive/2004/07/25/1277.aspx
4 More Years
Vote Bush 2004
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
you dispute the article. Thats ok. But show me evidence. You offer your opinion without backing it up. Both sides even agree Saddom was a threat. Why do you even try arguing the point?
It's obvious. Both sides are lieing. They have thier reasons.
See, there are already legal issues when WAR is threatened. The USA completely ignored it's own laws as well as any reasonable definition one must give to go to war. Such as, a direct threat... which didn't exist.
Who thinks this? EVERYONE BUT THE USA.
Quote:
I think it's because you hate everything about America and just find the bad in it. Why dont you turn your efforts to your own country. You yell fascism at others while you live in a very fascist country. Yes, Canada is fasicist. I dont have time to go looking for links all day but I will give you this one for now: http://weblogs.therightsociety.com/rob/archive/2004/07/25/1277.aspx
4 More Years
Vote Bush 2004
*Chuckle*... if so why didn't the USA attack us? Hmm?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME