Originally posted by FranchiseBlade How would he have attacked someone else? He was hemmed in. Furthermore if we had gone through with the peace deal, that would have put thousands of CIA, and FBI folks on the ground in Iraq, and would have allowed for democratic elections, he would have been gone anyway, more than likely, but if he wasn't, how would he or his vile sons get out from under the no fly zones, U.S. intel agents, UN insepctors etc. in order to attack someone else? So you trusted saddam? What's the trust based on? I can't know for sure the what if's, none of us can, but I don't see how he would have ever been a threat, considering the position he was in, and what we could have had in place to guard against such actions. Furthermore if he did manage to attack someone, it would have been the end for him. He would have tried, and even if he temporarily succeeded like he did with Kuwait, he would have been crushed. The difference being that it wouldn't have been us starting that one, it would have been Saddam. We might have put together a large and meaningful coalition, and the burdon would have been shared. No way to guard against the threat. * How long, if ever, does it take to find out who's behind terrorist acts? * Again, what happens if he choses to attack others when the US is already embroiled in other conflicts and cannot respond? Has anyone else exhibited the wherewithal to accomplish what would need to be done? * Say he lobs one of the new missiles that he was working on over to Israel (and we all are aware that there's no such thing as 'hemming in' either terrorists or missiles). What if it happened to carry some WMD killing thousands of Israelis, who then respond w/ WMD of their own. A region-wide war starts. All oil shipments stop. We are possibly on the brink of a World War, and the global economy is in ruins. All purely specultive, a few of the realistic scenarios we would be presented with over the next 20 years or more. And once again if he managed to attack somebody, it wouldn't have been the U.S. all the intel points to him not being a threat to the U.S. Not an immediate and direct threat to the US, right? But he was a threat to the region, which would require our intervention. And I doubt that anyone would argue that he wouldn't harm US interests directly as soon as he had the means, which was inevitable. So we just let our children inherit the mess?
Deckard, I won't argue the point that the timing may not have been right. Maybe it wasn't. If people knew that saddam didn't have WMD and most definitely was not going to assist terrorists, then maybe the war was not yet necessary. My sense is that they felt he was maybe not immediate, but an imminent threat, to not just the US (by sponsoring terrorism), but to arguably the most volatile region on the planet. They believed that the timing was right to take him out since he was in breach of his post-war agreements/UN resolutions. I am only speculating, so I won't argue the point. I imagine that it's just as likely that some other factors were involved.
OK, it appears by all potential definitions given above, Iran was the right target, and Iraq was not as listed below. Then again, maybe those rebels are trying to pull an Ahmed Chalabi on us. But Iran does sponsor Hezbollah which is responsible for the deaths of some 400 Marines, and some folks feel they are more likely the ones responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, and they actually have gone further along in their nuke program, and they used chemical weapons versus Iraq, and they have actual Al Qaeda leaders in *custody*. Unfortunately, we shot our wad in Iraq. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/27/iran.nuclear/ Iran 'rushing to build nuke bomb' From National Security Correspondent David Ensor Tuesday, April 27, 2004 Posted: 9:17 PM EDT (0117 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An Iranian opposition group with sources inside Iran's military is making public a list of the senior military personnel and military units it says are involved in Iran's secret nuclear weapons programs. The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) says in a summary of its findings that Iran is rushing to complete a first nuclear bomb in "between one and two years." The opposition group says the nuclear weapons effort by a special military unit functioning secretly outside the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization is under the personal supervision of the Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's supreme ruler. . . . http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/world/story/1323337p-8486645c.html Iran may be running parallel military, civilian nuke programs, U.S. officials say By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Last Updated 4:52 pm PDT Tuesday, April 27, 2004 VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran may be running a covert military nuclear program parallel to the peaceful one it has opened to international scrutiny in efforts to dispel suspicions it has weapons ambitions, U.S. officials said Tuesday. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said new intelligence on Iran's nuclear activities was strengthening suspicions of two programs - one that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency have access to and another, run by the military and geared toward making nuclear weapons. "We are beginning to see indications that there is a parallel military program," one of the officials told The Associated Press. The source cautioned that the "limited evidence" was not enough to draw firm conclusions. . . .
Oh well if we are talking hypothetically what Sadam might have done in 20 or 30 years, I suppose he could have been an imminet threat then, If so that was something to deal with then. Twenty or thirty years ago all sorts of countries or leaders looked like hypothetical threats. Many of themdidn't seem like they could be trusted. It is pathetic to have our troops killed over such specuclation, not to mention killing innocent Iraqi children, whether totally intentionally or in operations where the likelihood approaches 100%. This is very weak. Searcing for straws to defend the killing that is problematic now in a non-hypothetical sense.
I'm not saying I trusted him. I'm saying you negotiate the offer, and if it doesn't work out then we aren't any further than away then it is now. At the same time just because he said that doesn't automatically mean he's lying. Weapons inspectors did get back inside Iraq. He was the one that turned out to be telling the truth when it came to the aluminum tubing. But, there is no way I automatically trust the guy. And negotiations would definitely procede with that in mind. Well the idea put forth was that he wanted greatness was trying to get WMD's so that he could expand his power, etc. Terrorism doesn't help him do this. Otherwise damage is being done, and his power doesn't grow, and IRaq control doesn't increase. The only possible way it does help him is if people know he's behind it. Bin Laden has some power because people know he's the head of a group that took out the WTC. So the terrorism angle doesn't work either. Saddam doesn't get anything out of that. Saddam hasn't shown throughout his history any indication that he would back terrorist attacks against the U.S. The intel indicated that he wasn't a threat in this way, Saddam's history didn't point to this type of threat either. As far as attacking others... There is a no fly zone, weapons inspectors running around his country, and all that is even if we didn't pursue the deal to put our own intel guys on the ground in Iraq. How is he going to attack anyone without us knowing? Saddam was already in the process of destroying the his new missles when we attacked. I can't remember the exact percentage that he'd had time to destroy, but they weren't going to be a threat. But again last time Saddam attacked his neighbor we didn't have problems building a huge coalition, and that was end of that. Should Saddam start anything, we wouldn't have had to have the same kind of troop numbers that we do now. Why was it inevitable that he would have the means? He wanted them no doubt, but I don't see that it was inevitable. It's not like he was being left alone. Inspectors, No Fly Zones, possibly thousands of U.S. CIA and FBI agents on the ground in IRaq. I don't believe he would have been able to start something. If he did want to start something, his best bet would have been to start being a model UN citizen and claim harrassment from Kuwait or Iran or something, and try and get UN help in fighting. Because anything he did on his own, would have been the end for him.
As far as my original post goes. My title was inflamatory, designed to draw attention. I don't deny that. I think the title is essentially if not totally true. The issue deserves to draw attention. As some have said this stuff happens in war. That is one reason why you don't do it electively. The article was from ABC News. It was presented as a killing of four children celebrating the attack on a humvee. The ABC News team seemed to pesent the Iraqi witnessesses as reliable. Often times they don't do this. Show me where they didn't. What reason did I have to doubt this? I never assumed that the killing was done deliberately, execution style, but we do know that occasionally troops crack under the pressure of combat and go crazy like that, too. Those who got hysterical by the title, attacked it by denials from other articles, which may or not be true. Can anyone actually deny that US troops soemtimes lie about such things, too? It is undoubtedly true that US troops have killed many innocent Iraqi children. Do they do this on purpose? They bomb nighborhoods where innocent children live, knowing that unless a near miracle happens innocent children will die. This has been done for over 13 years, in many cases in which the neighborhoods weren't even firing back. Such an extremely unlikely occurrence that innocent children won't die, gives people like Cohen and other defenders of similar actions by Israelis much comfort to the point where the aerial bombers (pilots) are viewed as law abiding totally moral admirable humans and those who explode suicide bombs or roadside bombs are viewed as inhuman animals whose death is to be celebrated. I don't see it that way nor do I believe the Israeli elite airmen who protested this type of policy see it that way either.
