Is Saddam Hussein bankrolling terror to save himself from a U.S. invasion?

[philippe]

and the money that saddam gets for his oil is used to buy even more weapons but he said its for food.uhm yeah.....food
no food but this
he must be terminated or else he is going to use biochemical weapons

 

[G-Man]

But in order to change the Iraqi goverment to a democracy you have to take over Iraq, and sadly it cannot be done without any civilian casualties.

Today Saddam is a minor player but the mossad and the CIA believe he'll get a nuclear weapon within 2-5 years and that he still controls over chimical, biological and possibly radio-active weapons. If he'll get the bomb he'll be able to do pretty much whatever he wants. What if he'll tell Israel that if all the jews in it won't leave to europe within a week he'll launch a nuke on Tel Aviv? What if he'll force Iran to give him a long range missile and threaten europe? He's gotta be sttoped.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Hitro
Muslim fundamentalists call the US the great Satan, not "the Arab world". I haven't heard Jordan's king say that for example.

If I were the King of America I'd probably not called Arabs ragheads either, that is diplomacy. I'm talking about the layfolk. They insult and ravage our society and culture constantly, as quickly as speaking, calling us corrupt, decedant, and all kinds of other wonderful things. It goes beyond that constructive critisism to really vitolic hatred of differences.

Yet, if I point out that they wear a tablecloth on their head I get reprimanded thats right , when you do it here, cut it out, LEFTY. Discusting double standard, but that is more on the part of people here that think a blind embrace of everyones culture is a pragmatic course of action.

Originally posted by CurtSibling
The difference between Saddam and Hilter is that Germany had
the finest army in the world in 1940-42.

Saddam had the finest army in the Middle East in 1991. By a large degree too, it was one of the highest funded and largest in the world; Saddam had purchased more modern Soviet equipment than any other nation.

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Saddam, on the hand, has a large force but it is deplorably trained,
the hardware is second-rate and crewed by men who lack
motivation and knowledge to use the weapons.
The so-called elite Baathist-guard are cannon-fodder to a real army,
such as those fielded by the USA, UK and Europe.

NOW they might be... but once again, back in 1991 they were certainly not a third-rate army of the dictatorship. I get the feeling people constantly under-estimate how good the Iraq army was in 1991, and that it was only routed by superior tactics and the BEST equipment.

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Saddam is a different animal, what is he going to do?
Invade Israel and Europe?

Its not about traditional invasion, it is about nuclear blackmail. He figured out he couldn't win a traditional war a decade ago when he tried; now he is looking for an asymetrical way to win the same fight.

Originally posted by G-Man
But in order to change the Iraqi goverment to a democracy you have to take over Iraq, and sadly it cannot be done without any civilian casualties.

Unfortunately, the fewer the civilian casualties the higher the American casualties. I'd have no problem making the choice, but it doesn't help stem the tide of critisism by people who are shocked to find out that war means death.

 

[G-Man]

Just like in any other war in the post-WWII era between a democracy and a non-democracy the democratic country always has to sacrifice some of it's men for the purpose of saving civilians lifes. Sadly it is rarely apriciated by these civilians.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Greadius
If I were the King of America I'd probably not called Arabs ragheads either, that is diplomacy. I'm talking about the layfolk. They insult and ravage our society and culture constantly, as quickly as speaking, calling us corrupt, decedant, and all kinds of other wonderful things. It goes beyond that constructive critisism to really vitolic hatred of differences.

Yet, if I point out that they wear a tablecloth on their head I get reprimanded. Discusting double standard, but that is more on the part of people here that think a blind embrace of everyones culture is a pragmatic course of action.

I don't see a double standard there. We (the Western world) critisize the Arab world for being backwards and hostile towards us. Just like you did. Now how can that be justified if we act racist or arrogant towards them as well. If you want to be better then them, you must act better than them. Many people in the West, in particular the US call the Arabs or even Muslims in general "evil" (or equivalent things). That is not a bit better than "great Satan". As long as people here do that we have no right to critisize them.
So far for morals. Now political correctness is a different thing. If you or I make a joke about what they wear or how they pray, that doesn't have to be racism but is often branded as that. It's a sad fact about our society, but one that reaches far beyond our view of the Arab world.

Saddam had the finest army in the Middle East in 1991. By a large degree too, it was one of the highest funded and largest in the world; Saddam had purchased more modern Soviet equipment than any other nation.

Still Iraq was and has never been more than a regional power. They also wouldn't have become more soon. Nukes alone don't do that. Or is Pakistan today the same power as the U.S. or China?
Curt is right, comparing Iraq with Nazi Germany is nonsense. A war with Iraq would definetely be won today, as it was easily won back then. A war with Nazi Germany on the other side would have meant (in 1938 for example) and has meant a huge sacrifice as well as a huge risk of defeat (look at France).

Its not about traditional invasion, it is about nuclear blackmail. He figured out he couldn't win a traditional war a decade ago when he tried; now he is looking for an asymetrical way to win the same fight.

How stupid do you think he is?
He couldn't win a conventional war, he couldn't win a war with weapons of mass destruction. Even if he could obtain one or two nukes that wouldn't be enough to destroy the whole Western world. On the other hand Iraq would be blown off the Earth. That can hardly be called a win, it's not even a tie.
And do you really think he thought he'd win the Gulf War? He didn't think the West would attack him, or at least he gambled about that, but he won't have thought he could beat the whole Western world. But they didn't intervene in his war with Iran (in fact the U.S even supported him) so he hoped they wouldn't intervene in Kuwait. Which turned out as wrong, the world had changed. So he tried to gain support among the Arabs, that's why he fired at Israel. Attacks that never brought Israel anywhere close to "defeat". A pure propaganda measure.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by NY Hoya


and I suppose after he conquered the Kuwaiti people and exorcised those demons he was going to pack up and leave? After all, he just wanted to prove to himself that he was still powerful...

You show a tremendous lack of knowledge of the subject, pal.
Why do you think Germany re-armed in the 1930's?

For fun?

Don't be stupid.

It was to win back pride by crushing an enemy to show they still
had the power. Saddam is no different...

PS
-yourself.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Greadius
If I were the King of America I'd probably not called Arabs ragheads either, that is diplomacy. I'm talking about the layfolk. They insult and ravage our society and culture constantly, as quickly as speaking, calling us corrupt, decedant, and all kinds of other wonderful things. It goes beyond that constructive critisism to really vitolic hatred of differences.

You are right about this, no-one likes racial slurs.
North America is supposedly a Republic, not a monarchy.
Fortunatley you, Greadius have no chance of being a king.

Yet, if I point out that they wear a tablecloth on their head I get reprimanded. Discusting double standard, but that is more on the part of people here that think a blind embrace of everyones culture is a pragmatic course of action.[/QUOTE]

It's like saying all North Americans are oafish cowboys.
Offensive, untrue and a racial slur.
As I said, racism is bad.

Saddam had the finest army in the Middle East in 1991. By a large degree too, it was one of the highest funded and largest in the world; Saddam had purchased more modern Soviet equipment than any other nation.[/QUOTE]

The army was mostly low-motivation conscripts,
The human materiel was not of the highest cailbre.
By 'modern hardware' I assume you mean the T55 and T62
tanks that British Tornados and US F16s made such a mess out of?
The more hardware and enemy troops, means a bigger target list, that's all.

NOW they might be... but once again, back in 1991 they were certainly not a third-rate army of the dictatorship. I get the feeling people constantly under-estimate how good the Iraq army was in 1991, and that it was only routed by superior tactics and the BEST equipment.[/QUOTE]

They actually were the 4th biggest army in the world.
But size does not mean quality.
Actually our tactics and hardware WERE superior.
The courage of the Allied service men and women was a deciding
factor too, of course.

Its not about traditional invasion, it is about nuclear blackmail. He figured out he couldn't win a traditional war a decade ago when he tried; now he is looking for an asymetrical way to win the same fight.[/QUOTE]

Do you honestly think he would use them?
Why isn't America scared of the other nuclear nations?
Because they aren't about to use the damn bombs.
Even Saddam understands the consequences of atomic war...

Unfortunately, the fewer the civilian casualties the higher the American casualties. I'd have no problem making the choice, but it doesn't help stem the tide of critisism by people who are shocked to find out that war means death. [/QUOTE]

Your ability to judge million of innocent people is chilling.
If America goes to war, casualties are part of the deal.
And is it only America who is going to handle this war on Iraq, then?
That saves the rest of the global coalition a load of trouble.
Somehow I think it'll be an Allied affair.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Hitler was a nonsensical opponnent in the early 30's before he built his army, but Britain and France didn't take his threats/aspirations too seriously.
It's the same thing with Iraq today, just different in content.
I don't think Iraq will ever be more than a regional force but I'm sure Saddam won't die out quietly.
Nuclear force is major detterance, maybe not for countries big and far away like germany or usa, but certainly is for Israel.

It's enough that saddam get's his hands on a dirty bomb of some kind and puts it in the wrong hands.

I don't think he will actually use a nuke tho, too many arabs in the middle east and only 6 million israelies.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Hitler was a nonsensical opponnent in the early 30's before he built his army, but Britain and France didn't take his threats/aspirations too seriously.
It's the same thing with Iraq today, just different in content.
I don't think Iraq will ever be more than a regional force but I'm sure Saddam won't die out quietly.
Nuclear force is major detterance, maybe not for countries big and far away like germany or usa, but certainly is for Israel.

It's enough that saddam get's his hands on a dirty bomb of some kind and puts it in the wrong hands.

I don't think he will actually use a nuke tho, too many arabs in the middle east and only 6 million israelies.

There were some who did take it seriously.
But the thing is, Saddam has not got the same type of nation
as Germany in the 1930's and 40's.

He will not have the same threat level.
And America will not give him a chance to do anything.

I just an all-out war to remove him will be a costly a pointless mess.

This desired war by North America will have dire consequences...

Saddam will die soon anyway, he is thought to have cancer.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


You show a tremendous lack of knowledge of the subject, pal.
Why do you think Germany re-armed in the 1930's?

For fun?

Don't be stupid.

It was to win back pride by crushing an enemy to show they still
had the power. Saddam is no different...

PS
-yourself.

Germany didn't re-arm...
They built the largest army in the shortest amount of time in modern history.
Hitler used the backstab methodology to gain power for his megalmoniac aspirations of the white race.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


There were some who did take it seriously.
But the thing is, Saddam has not got the same type of nation
as Germany in the 1930's and 40's.

He will not have the same threat level.
And America will not give him a chance to do anything.

I just an all-out war to remove him will be a costly a pointless mess.

This desired war by North America will have dire consequences...

Saddam will die soon anyway, he is thought to have cancer.

His generals are no less mad than him.
You have to be mad to be a senior general serving saddam.
Anyway a war like that shouldn't be that much of a mess.
It could be done quickly and efficiently, the only thing that can happen is a few thousand casualties and some missiles on Israel.

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe


His generals are no less mad than him.
You have to be mad to be a senior general serving saddam.
Anyway a war like that shouldn't be that much of a mess.
It could be done quickly and efficiently, the only thing that can happen is a few thousand casualties and some missiles on Israel.

All that is needed now is just maybe a bomb under the table at one of the meetings with his generals or a few well-placed snipers. If we take out the high command, we can move in through all the chaos and have a much easier time with it.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Hitro
I don't see a double standard there.

I was accusing people on our side of the double standard actually I didn't make that clear, sorry.

Originally posted by Hitro
If you want to be better then them, you must act better than them.

I don't want to be better than 'them' meaning the peaceful, God-fearing, Muslims doing back breaking labor for dictatorships. They're fine and dandy

Originally posted by Hitro
Many people in the West, in particular the US call the Arabs or even Muslims in general "evil" (or equivalent things). That is not a bit better than "great Satan". As long as people here do that we have no right to critisize them.

Correction: I have the right to critisize whomever I want as long as I don't lie about non-public figures
And here I go.... the terrorists are evil. The people that support and cheer the murder of civilians are grossly misguided and almost evil. It is my contention that their culture is producing a whole lot of this evil, and therefor, since the culture of the Arabs is causing a disproportionate number of political murderers, there is something flawed with the culture. Is that okay?

Originally posted by Hitro
Or is Pakistan today the same power as the U.S. or China?

Nope, but they are part of the 'nuclear club', which means they get completely different treatment on the international scene. Not all nuclear powers are created the same, but no nuclear and non-nuclear powers are treated the same.

Originally posted by Hitro
How stupid do you think he is?

Very.

Originally posted by Hitro
He couldn't win a conventional war, he couldn't win a war with weapons of mass destruction. Even if he could obtain one or two nukes that wouldn't be enough to destroy the whole Western world. On the other hand Iraq would be blown off the Earth. That can hardly be called a win, it's not even a tie.

Tell IceBlaze that he has to die because we have more nukes anyway so he'll loose in the big picture on the long run. That is why I specified BLACKMAIL; No Western nation WANTS to be the one that gets a few nukes lobbed at it because the tensions went too high. Blackmail doesn't mean you use it as anything more than bargaining leverage. The BIGGEST bargaining leverage would be how to stop Saddam from spreading to technology to groups that wouldn't hesitate to use it and leave no clear calling card.

Originally posted by Hitro
but he won't have thought he could beat the whole Western world. But they didn't intervene in his war with Iran (in fact the U.S even supported him) so he hoped they wouldn't intervene in Kuwait.

Actually, he hoped he could inflict enough casualties upon the West that the war would loose public support.

Originally posted by Hitro
Attacks that never brought Israel anywhere close to "defeat". A pure propaganda measure.

Oh, I know. I didn't mean to say Isreal was close to defeat; I meant to say he didn't attack Israel until he was staring defeat in the face.

Originally posted by CurtSibling
You are right about this, no-one likes racial slurs.
North America is supposedly a Republic, not a monarchy.
Fortunatley you, Greadius have no chance of being a king.

Way too much responsibility for me
I was just drawing a parrallel about being PC when you're important and a public figure. Remember, Nixon liked Jewish people in public...

Originally posted by CurtSibling
It's like saying all North Americans are oafish cowboys.
Offensive, untrue and a racial slur.
As I said, racism is bad.

It is absolutely NOT the same, and it is NOT about race. I don't insult people for what they were born with. If you can show me ONE person who was born with a tablecloth on their head I'll NEVER say it again. It is a cultural CHOICE they make. And it is NOT untrue... I can't remember the last time I've seen one WITHOUT some cloth on their head.
Its more like saying "Americans wear jeans" and me taking offense to it. I wear jeans. So what? Some raghead wants to pick on me for my fashion sense they're free to do so

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Do you honestly think he would use them?
Why isn't America scared of the other nuclear nations?
Because they aren't about to use the damn bombs.
Even Saddam understands the consequences of atomic war...

You put much more faith in a meglomaniac dictator than I do. I don't think it is my place to say millions of people have to loose their lives because nobody thought Saddam would actually do that. I've seen very little regard for human life stemming from the Muslim world, and Saddam apparently wants to be its leader. That scares me more than the paranoid Chinese.
And we DO fear other nuclear nations. That is why we placate China and Russia (during the Cold War) where we would have pushed around other nations; and they do the same to us.

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Your ability to judge million of innocent people is chilling.
If America goes to war, casualties are part of the deal.
And is it only America who is going to handle this war on Iraq, then?
That saves the rest of the global coalition a load of trouble.
Somehow I think it'll be an Allied affair.

Yeah, it probably will be. Principle remains the same though; brutal air campaigns save our lives and cost their lives while achieving the same objective. And its important to keep in mind that the objective is toppling the regime, not killing Iraqis.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Greadius
I was accusing people on our side of the double standard actually I didn't make that clear, sorry.

"There" as in "In what you were talking about"...
Just in case you weren't sarcastic, which is sometimes hard to tell in this forum...

Correction: I have the right to critisize whomever I want as long as I don't lie about non-public figures

I was talking about morals and not about the constitution of a country that guarantees the "right to bear arms".
And definetely not about interpretations of the above.

And here I go.... the terrorists are evil. The people that support and cheer the murder of civilians are grossly misguided and almost evil. It is my contention that their culture is producing a whole lot of this evil, and therefor, since the culture of the Arabs is causing a disproportionate number of political murderers, there is something flawed with the culture. Is that okay?

That alone, yes! I agree, I actually dislike all cultures.
I just want to add that western culture "produced" such things as Fascism (including National Socialism), Communism, industrial mass extinction, nerve gas, the atomic bomb, boybands, colonialism, death squadrons, school shootings, etc.
Not that this was of any relevance...

Tell IceBlaze that he has to die because we have more nukes anyway so he'll loose in the big picture on the long run.

"IceBlaZe you have to die because we..." - you (Greadius) are missing my point. They know it as well so Iraq won't just start a nuclear war. The possibility of giving nukes to terrorists is there, but it's also there with the Russian Mafia for example. Still it is a valid concern but that was already discussed in another thread some time ago.

I've seen very little regard for human life stemming from the Muslim world, and Saddam apparently wants to be its leader.

Saddam wants to be in power, the more power, the better. But he is not an Islamic fundamentalist zealot. He is a populist that says what is popular to gain support. That's why he attacks Israel and the U.S.. When he attacked Iran that was not to spread Islam...

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Hitro
"There" as in "In what you were talking about"...
Just in case you weren't sarcastic, which is sometimes hard to tell in this forum...

I'm confused now

Originally posted by Hitro
I just want to add that western culture "produced" such things as Fascism (including National Socialism), Communism, industrial mass extinction, nerve gas, the atomic bomb, boybands, colonialism, death squadrons, school shootings, etc.

Are people in the West dancing in the streets over these things? Yes, no? Fascism... wasn't that another form of dicatorships which have existed as long as states?
Communism... that really didn't catch on the West too well, amatterfact, it has killed many more people in Russia and China than anywhere in the West. Industrial mass extinction; I have no idea what that is. Nerve gas and atomic weapons: Yes, they were an outgrowth of TECHNOLOGY and the West has been on the forefront of preventing their future us. Amatterfact, half the problem with Saddam is that hasn't shown restraint in using chemical weapons and we doubt he will with atomic. Boybands and colonialism.. guilty as charge... although one of them is in our past not present. And school shootings... I guess pointing out where universal education came from, and has negative side effects would be pointless. Its tough to have murder in schools when people can't go to school, 'eh?

Originally posted by Hitro
Saddam wants to be in power, the more power, the better. But he is not an Islamic fundamentalist zealot. He is a populist that says what is popular to gain support. That's why he attacks Israel and the U.S.. When he attacked Iran that was not to spread Islam...

Aren't populists supposed to be, like, popular?
But his original stated goal and plan was to rebuild the Babylonian empire; the largest statue in Iraq not of Saddam is of Nebuchadnezzar, the conquerer of the Middle East under the Babylonian empire 2500 years ago. Nebuchadnezzar and Hitler are his idols, he wants to conquer and expand just like they did. THAT is why he invaded Iran. And in his invasion of Iran, he showed no regard for human life on either side, using nerve gas more frequently on the battlefield than it was used in WW1, and using it on civilians Kurds.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Greadius
Aren't populists supposed to be, like, popular?

They are supposed to try to gain popularity through popular measures. Like being anti-Israel in an Arab state. Or being against immigration in Europe. Not necessarily being popular in the first place.

But his original stated goal and plan was to rebuild the Babylonian empire

Which failed. But it never envolved getting Iraq destroyed by throwing it into a nuclear war. And it was not motivated by Islam. Which was my point.

Are people in the West dancing in the streets over these things? Yes, no?

Yes, they did cheer these things at some time. They cheer and cheered dictators, they cheer and cheered wars. That's a fact. You said "there is something flawed with the culture" about Islam, and I agree on that. I just wanted to say that there's something flawed with every culture...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hitro
"There" as in "In what you were talking about"...
Just in case you weren't sarcastic, which is sometimes hard to tell in this forum...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm confused now

You said "I was accusing people on our side of the double standard actually", I meant the same (our side), not theirs, although I said "I don't see a double standard there".
Not that important...

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Hitro
But it never envolved getting Iraq destroyed by throwing it into a nuclear war.

And nuclear blackmail is the new route he wants to embark on. See, in nuclear war they actually USE the weapons; nuclear blackmail is just threatening to use them.

Originally posted by Hitro
Yes, they did cheer these things at some time. They cheer and cheered dictators, they cheer and cheered wars. That's a fact. You said "there is something flawed with the culture" about Islam, and I agree on that. I just wanted to say that there's something flawed with every culture...

Right... well that will just get us nowhere. A puddle and an ocean are both bodies of water too, ya know?
I was talking about modern culture... Western at that... lets say in the last decade because I hate apologizing for European atrocities. Now can we compare and get somewhere?

 

[Ouchgeddon]

If Saddam were to ever confirm that he possesses nuclear weapons, I don't think he would ever get the chance to use them. The rest of the world (his enemies especially) would tkae him to be too much of a threat/too unstable. All it would take is to nuke Iraq first...the more nukes the better, in order to ensure that wherever the silos are they're history. Saddam is unlikely to possess any useful detection devices capable of scanning orbital missiles, so he'd probably be taking his bedtime camel's milk before realising all the firey stuff is nuclear conflagaration/the furnaces of hell. I doubt anyone will complain, after all it is Saddam who used tromp all over the Mid East's nicely tended gardens. Dare you to complain in the face of another round of nukes I know, I know, nuclear free far all/winter, protesting citizens and whatnot...

About this racism stuff...It doesn't seem so much race based as ideology based (Jewish people excepted). Not everyone in the Towers were white anglosaxons born in the USA. I fact Muslims died in the atatck too...But did they care? No! They cheered. After all, Arabs and other Muslims aren't real people if they ever go to America for reasons other than mass death and destruction, are they?

Which bring me to this: You know that saying about, "Those who do battle with monsters must be wary that they do not become monsters themselves"? If you were a demon hunter, and there was a weapon that could destroy countless demons but required the sacrifice of other humans' souls, would you use it? It kills demons, after all...Destroying evil and all. Parralel to this, how holy is one really when you use the "Great Satan's" own technology against it, and use tactics even it abbhors? Irony it is not, poetic justice it is not.

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by Ouchgeddon
Parralel to this, how holy is one really when you use the "Great Satan's" own technology against it, and use tactics even it abbhors? Irony it is not, poetic justice it is not.

Suicide bombers don't understand irony, and poetry is of little use to the dead.

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
You show a tremendous lack of knowledge of the subject, pal.
Why do you think Germany re-armed in the 1930's?

For fun?

Don't be stupid.

It was to win back pride by crushing an enemy to show they still
had the power. Saddam is no different...

PS
-yourself.

Damn you're thickheaded. I've never seen someone profess to be as open minded as you do on the one hand be so condescending on the other. Why did Germany re-arm during the 1930s? Because Hitler required a powerful army to back up his plans. Of course the humiliation of the German nation at Versailles helped him immensely in that goal. The German people may have gone along with Hitler's plans because of pride issues, but that wasn't the reason for it.

You are trying to compare two situations that are completely different. In the first, it was the pride of the people that was offended, in the second it was the pride of one man, Saddam. In any case, the reasons for each instance are a little deeper than pride.

Iraq had serious problems with Kuwait and the invasion had less to do with pride issues stemming from the conflict with Iran than those grievances. Iraq felt that Kuwait was acting as a proxy for Washington, waging a financial war of sorts against them in conjunction with the other Gulf States. There was a dispute over a couple of islands in the Gulf that Iraq wanted to secure deep water passage for its oil tankers. There were other reasons. Perhaps further down that list is that Saddam's pride was hurt after the war with Iran.

My original point remains that your statement "Conquest is not on Saddam's agenda" is shortsighted at best. He has engaged in conquest in the past, and the only reason it isn't on his immediate agenda is because he has problems maintaining his power on the domestic front. At least we agree that he needs to go.