How Did Saddam Hussein Become a Grave Threat?

[on-ramp]

Long but eye-opening.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff42.html

[Rodeo]

Wow. Read the first two pages so far. Appears to be really well researched, fully documented, and factual. I'm printing it, will be easier to read

[kach22i]

Lew Rockwell, long time Libertarian candiate for President and very smart guy. There is very little he has written that I strongly disagreed with. Most of his stuff is spot on.

[techweenie]

Good stuff. But the people who really need to read it, won't.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

He wasn't a grave threat, he was a mass grave threat.

[Rodeo]

He was a grave threat to Iraqis that did not obey him, no one is arguing otherwise.

[aways]

Idah Saidan Wa Sanah Jadidah!

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Rodeo
He was a grave threat to Iraqis that did not obey him, no one is arguing otherwise.

Hussein, and the Ba'athists, are and were a type of socialist party. They guaranteed freedom of religion to the more than 3 million Christians living in Iraq, and to other lesser known religions. That is in the process of being eliminated by radical Islamists, supported by the Bush'ists.

Any time a muslim cleric stuck up his head to grab power for Shiria Law and Islam, Hussein remove it.

Hussein's undoing was his involvement with the US federal government beginning in the mid-70's (or slightly earlier) and ratcheting up during the Reagan era, finally culminating with his ill advised, US encouraged, military operation against Iran during the early to mid-1980's. Showing Iraqi military prowess, the Iranians kicked their asses, and without US supplied real time satellite imagery of Iranian positions, and other intelligence, would have gone into and occupied substantial portions of Iraq. As it was, the best the Iraqi's did was a return to the approximate borders ante bellum. That was against a country run by clerics located right next door.

Fast forward to 1990, Hussein swallows whole the idea that if he settles differences with Kuwait militarily, the US government won't care. That was and is the mark of someone that simply doesn't understand US government history of 20th century, world wide geo-political hegemony. In short, he was a strategic fool.

But, in the thirty years of ruling Iraq; other than the military deaths during the failed invasion of both Iran and Kuwait, Hussein and the Ba'athists killed fewer Iraqi citizens than the Bush'ists have in the last two and one half years.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by fastpat
***in the thirty years of ruling Iraq; other than the military deaths during the failed invasion of both Iran and Kuwait, Hussein and the Ba'athists killed fewer Iraqi citizens than the Bush'ists have in the last two and one half years.

I'm no fan of this war, but I find it difficult to believe that Saddam did not kill more than than the 30,000 (?) Iraqi civilians killed since April of 03

[techweenie]

Originally posted by fastpat


Fast forward to 1990, Hussein swallows whole the idea that if he settles differences with Kuwait militarily, the US government won't care. That was and is the mark of someone that simply doesn't understand US government history of 20th century, world wide geo-political hegemony. In short, he was a strategic fool.

Well, he did ask if the U.S. would intervene if he moved on Kuwait, and the U.S. gave him a vaugely neutral answer... From his perspective, why would he think his former allies and weapons suppliers would turn against thim?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Rodeo
I'm no fan of this war, but I find it difficult to believe that Saddam did not kill more than than the 30,000 (?) Iraqi civilians killed since April of 03

The number killed since April '03 is likely north of 100,000. RNC press releases claim Saddam killed 300,000 during his dictatorship, but he's presently on trial for killing 180-some villagers. It will be interesting to see what other charges are eventually brought against him.

I suspect the Iraqis started with this smaller atrocity because 1.) it's very clear cut, and 2.) it doesn't implicate the U.S. like the "chemical attack" charges do.

[Rodeo]

I was using the 30,000 number cited by the president. Probably no one knows the actual number of Iraqi deaths, or ever will.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Rodeo
I'm no fan of this war, but I find it difficult to believe that Saddam did not kill more than than the 30,000 (?) Iraqi civilians killed since April of 03

Where are the bodies? Like the faked "genocide" in Kosovo and Serbia, governments routinely lie for their own agenda.

Hussein's war against Iran, again promulgated by Reagan's geniuses, killed nearly 2.5 million on both sides, more than half Iranians. Post Kuwaiti "liberation' (returning the country to despotic rule), Bush I and Clinton presided over the deaths of more than 100,000 Iraqi's through denial of certain food and medical supplies. Those were nearly all civilian deaths, and are well documented.

Forward to today, the illegal invasion of 2003 killed approximately 65,000 Iraqi soldiers defending their nation; and over the time from 2003 to today, from between 27,000 to 31,000 Iraqi's have been killed by direct US action.

In your and my name, as authorized by US government thugs.

[Mulhollanddose]

Saddam funded and harbored al qaeda. Osama had a resume. Saddam had the ego of a megolomaniac. The UN was giving Saddam aid-and-comfort and making him a rich man...Shake well and pour.

[creaturecat]

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by fastpat
Where are the bodies? Like the faked "genocide" in Kosovo and Serbia, governments routinely lie for their own agenda.

You are so right wing that you have entered the confusion of the left. You have unwittingly joined forces with the socialists. (regarding Kosovo, you are right; regarding Iraq you are wrong)

Post Kuwaiti "liberation' (returning the country to despotic rule), Bush I and Clinton presided over the deaths of more than 100,000 Iraqi's through denial of certain food and medical supplies. Those were nearly all civilian deaths, and are well documented.

Iraqis died during Saddam's reign, not because of sanctions, but because of Saddam Hussein. It is no secret that Saddam was making quite a fortune on the "oil for food" scam. He had access to weapons. He had access to medicine and food, but chose to allow the people to starve...Kofi Annan allowed this to happen.

Your source for these leftist lies, please?

Forward to today, the illegal invasion of 2003 killed approximately 65,000 Iraqi soldiers defending their nation; and over the time from 2003 to today, from between 27,000 to 31,000 Iraqi's have been killed by direct US action.

In your and my name, as authorized by US government thugs.

It was a totally legal invasion. They weren't "defending their nation", they were defending the tyrant, half-heartedly.

Iraqbodycount.net?...You are offering a leftist propaganda arm for your evidence?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Saddam funded and harbored al qaeda.

No, that's not only not true, but in fact Hussein took numerous actions against those in Al Qaeda. You're spouting Bush'ist dogma, which is garbage.

Osama had a resume.

More Bush'ist gibbberish.

Saddam had the ego of a megolomaniac.

So what, even if that's true, that's of no concern to any American. The majority of Iraqi's wanted Hussein and the Ba'athists in power, who are you to force them to have otherwise. Hmmm? Oh, yes, ask the Turks about how much they want an autonomous Kurdistan just south of their border. That's why they wanted Hussein to remain in power, he partially curbed Kurdish nationalism. The Kurds want that portion of Kurdistan with Turkish borders, and that within Iranian borders too; you willing to sacrifice American lives to help them? When will you be going?

The UN was giving Saddam aid-and-comfort and making him a rich man...Shake well and pour.

Again, that's meaningless gibberish, the mewlings of a childish, as opposed to the innocent childlike, person.

Saddam governed about 2/3's of Iraq, never more than that, as you'll learn from any honest soldier, no one ever completely controlled Iraq in that countries entire history.

What was between the UN and Iraq is, again, not the business of America and Americans. Iraq couldn't attack and defeat a country run by clerics right next door, the idea that Iraq was or could have posed a threat to America is too silly to discuss.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by fastpat
No, that's not only not true, but in fact Hussein took numerous actions against those in Al Qaeda. You're spouting Bush'ist dogma, which is garbage.

There is no question he had a working relationship with al qaeda. Do you need proof, or would you prefer to bend yours knees to the leftist propaganda ministers?

You are beginning to embarrass yourself, Pat.

[Mulhollanddose]

[klaucke]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Do you need proof?

Yes, show us. We already buried this in another thread, citing where the admininstration has admitted there was no current link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Powell admitted there was no evidence.