no problem, though i'm no expert on any of this. i'm very ignorant in the history, geography and politics of the middle east and of iraq. i think that you've taken too simplistic a view on your analysis of the US occupation of iraq, however, but i could be wrong.
I don't know if I was to simplistic about this - I'm following the whole thing since the No-WMD-Bomb exploded over here. But even if I absorb any news about the Backgrounds, I still don't understand the reasons.
i think he has been estimated to have killed over 300,000 of his own citizens. i could be wrong.
The closest estimation I heard so far is about
40,000 deaths - without adding casualties of wars. But quite frankly, I wouldn't give my cat to Bush either.
regardless, i had edited by post, and i think you quoted my prior to the edit. i think there are many ways that saddam was a threat to the united states, and to any other countries that he opposed, and i cited one example. i don't think he was a major threat, but i think that simply claiming that he was zero threat is a bit too simplistic.
Regarding your Edit: Well, right now the Terrorists will also think that the US is weak, won't they? Maybe this is exactly what Osama had in Mind ... Scary thought, isn't it?
Honestly - I think Saddam had a minor role in the decision to go into Iraq. There are much worse Dictators around the world. And most importantly: Real terrorist-states like the pakistan border/Afghanistan.
Did you watch the embedded Video that talks about the "threat"?
here's what i think is pretty well documented:
1. saddam used chemical weapons against the kurds.
2. saddam didn't mind simple UN restrictions.
from these, i think it can be induced that, assuming that saddam didn't exhaust his entire chemical stock pile on the kurds, that saddam probably wouldn't dispose of his weapons willfully, as he didn't really like to follow our rules.
of course, it's only induction, but it didn't help his case when he wouldn't let UN weapon inspectors in the country.
1. Yes, that's what he did.
2. That's not exactly true:
In late 2002 Saddam Hussein, in a letter to Hans Blix, invited UN weapons inspectors back into the country. Subsequently the Security Council issued
resolution 1441 authorizing new inspections in Iraq.
In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program. Some former UNSCOM inspectors disagree about whether the United States could know for certain whether or not Iraq had renewed production of weapons of mass destruction.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Between_Gulf_Wars
and those reports could be any of the above. i would suspect that the headlines will be distortions of the actual content, but i really don't know for certain.
Maybe you send me a link if you stumble over these articles. It would be interesting to see the way Fox told the story back then.
i think i agree. but i can see why folks in israel certainly would disagree, and i can see why the US is actively backing israel. in the grand scheme of things, my opinions are likely niave and worthless, so i'm not really going to pass much judgement here.
Your thoughts aren't worthless - all you say can lead to new ideas and you have the chance to learn some new things about it. By the way: Me, too.
well, i think we're splitting hairs now. saddam used fear to gain power, and he created fear through torture, murder and violence. if that doesn't make saddam a terrorist, then i suggest that we simply stop using the word "terrorist".
You're right that he used terror, but the common definition of terrorism doesn't fit about his inner politics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
"In many countries, acts of terrorism are legally distinguished from criminal acts done for other purposes (see below for particular definitions). Common principles amongst legal definitions of terrorism provide an emerging consensus as to meaning and also foster cooperation between law enforcement personnel in different countries."
Anyway: It's not that important to discuss about the term.
Do you think that the Bush-Administration also did try to scare the people to gain political support - beside the daily Terror Coverage in the Media?
and frankly, i don't think the label that we throw upon him really matters. i think that saddam's actions matter. he was a ruthless, heartless, disgusting human, and even though i'm not certain the US involvement in iraq will lead to anything more positive than the negatives it creates, i'm glad that saddam was removed from power.
I was also glad that he was removed - but in the Aftermath it would have been much better if he would be still there in terms of Casualties and general stabillity. Quite frankly - I would have liked to hear his side of the story instead "removing him" from doing so.
those that bought the WMD and 911 hype also seemed to buy the hype about iraq being a done deal. militarily, it has been a cake walk, but obviously, we're still there, as we removed their government. i don't really understand how others thought we'd be out of there in any short amount of time.
Well, I guess it was the missing understanding of the conflict between Shia, Ķurdish communities and the Arab Sunnis. But the Administration knew this if they really listened to the Muslim Public Affairs Council and their Middle-East experts in general. I don't think it's a good Idea to pull out yet. That would a catastrophe in terms of Terrorism and especially Anti-Americanism.
while i wish that the government hadn't duped so many people here, i'm more upset that these people are so easily and readily duped. these people are given sexy, ******** answers because anything that requires any thought doesn't sell. i'm ashamed of those here that supported the US involvement in iraq for stupid reasons, and didn't even give it thought enough to consider what we'd do once we removed saddam. i think it's quite sad that people could be behind this involvement, and then simply change their minds when it isn't finished within a year.
That doesn't surprise me at all. Most people all over the World thought Saddam has something to do with 9/11. That's how it was implied by the Government. Only experts knew this wasn't the case - and they failed to speak up.
i respect those that have been against the war the entire time-- at least those that had arguments, and not catch phrases. at least they've had the guts to really have some sort of an opinion, while i've been largely undecided, which is much easier.
*lol* I understand this. But on the other Hand it's strange to meet you at JREF/Politics in this case.
i'm not sure what you're getting at. i think that some wanted US involvement in iraq. i think that the these people used 911 as a good chance to get into iraq.
that doesn't mean that these people didn't have any valid reasons for US involvement, nor does it mean that these people didn't have any nefarious reasons for US involvement; it means that these people understand that the american public-- much of it-- is intellectually lazy, so support has to be obtained when ever it can.
I was talking about the Fact that many Americans probably felt that they got a revenge - before they realized that it was a Hoax and the 9/11 perpetrators are still free and mostly unharmed.
i don't feel badly for us at all. we've all got excellent lives, a good economy, and all the chances we need for success. i feel badly for those that are not so lucky so as to be born in a place like the US, or any other modern, western country, where freedoms and food are taken for granted. i feel badly for the poor folk in iraq who have gone from one bad situation to another.
i don't like those that attempt to use the misery of the people of iraq to push political agenda. i think the people of iraq deserve objective, serious argument, so that the best decisions on their behalf can be made.
and i'm not one to have anything to do with those decisions. i'm sure many of my understandings of iraq and the middle east are inaccurate.
Well, I think so, too - and I hope that the Bush-Administration keep their promise to give them Freedom in Iraq. Right now there are
2 million refugees since 2003...
