cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
A couple of fine points I think might be worthy of inserting here. Note that I'm not going to suggest that Hussein was a sweet guy or anything. I think it might be worthwhile to note that the first thing a nation does when it goes to war is demonize the other guy.
Saddam Hussein did kill a hell of a lot of people who were trying to overthrow him. He used gas on them. Abraham Lincoln killed a hell of a lot of people who just wanted to secede from his country and do things differently. His troops used gas on those people too. Woodrow Wilson also authorized US troops to use gas on our enemies during the first world war.
Hussein made and used weapons of mass destruction and would likely have made and used more if given the opportunity. He had a handful of major insurgent population groups within his own borders. He had a handful of neighbors that would have invaded his country and killed him in a heartbeat if they thought his ability to strike back was weak. So he probably had a to walk a thin line between self preserving chest thumping and not giving the US/UN the idea that he actually had something and was going to use it.
Hussein is such a violent madman that we supported him and his regime through war efforts and due to his charity work he was given the keys to the city of Detroit.
As we're finding out, its hard to keep a thumb on the crazy people in Iraq without being pretty tough with them. As we're going to find out, its going to be a real treat to keep a thumb on Iraq's neighbors without the buffer that Hussein provided between Iran and Saudi Arabia/Israel.
The bottom line is that we had whittled Husseins military and influence in the area to a nub. He had nothing and no real way to do anything to us, although I guess anythings possible. We left him there as long as we could to act as a buffer and when it became obvious that he could no longer perform in that role, we moved in to secure the area for a variety of economic and political reasons. I just dont think that the prospect of his using or sponsoring an attack on the US was in the top three.
Freebird, I actually dont agree with a good number of things you said, but respect your opinion. You might want to leave out the 'naive' comments until you do a little more reading in perspective, or at least spell it correctly
Saddam Hussein did kill a hell of a lot of people who were trying to overthrow him. He used gas on them. Abraham Lincoln killed a hell of a lot of people who just wanted to secede from his country and do things differently. His troops used gas on those people too. Woodrow Wilson also authorized US troops to use gas on our enemies during the first world war.
Hussein made and used weapons of mass destruction and would likely have made and used more if given the opportunity. He had a handful of major insurgent population groups within his own borders. He had a handful of neighbors that would have invaded his country and killed him in a heartbeat if they thought his ability to strike back was weak. So he probably had a to walk a thin line between self preserving chest thumping and not giving the US/UN the idea that he actually had something and was going to use it.
Hussein is such a violent madman that we supported him and his regime through war efforts and due to his charity work he was given the keys to the city of Detroit.
As we're finding out, its hard to keep a thumb on the crazy people in Iraq without being pretty tough with them. As we're going to find out, its going to be a real treat to keep a thumb on Iraq's neighbors without the buffer that Hussein provided between Iran and Saudi Arabia/Israel.
The bottom line is that we had whittled Husseins military and influence in the area to a nub. He had nothing and no real way to do anything to us, although I guess anythings possible. We left him there as long as we could to act as a buffer and when it became obvious that he could no longer perform in that role, we moved in to secure the area for a variety of economic and political reasons. I just dont think that the prospect of his using or sponsoring an attack on the US was in the top three.
Freebird, I actually dont agree with a good number of things you said, but respect your opinion. You might want to leave out the 'naive' comments until you do a little more reading in perspective, or at least spell it correctly