So are you saying there wasn't at least one bunch of crazies prepared to, and capable of, launching some of those dirty weapons during the war proper... I mean that's the doomsday scenario in Pakistan isn't it, rogue militants getting their hands on the toys?God Save the Queen wrote:
cam, keep it rule dude. this is a man that wouldnt even use the phone and stay at one place for more than an X amount of hours for fear of being discovered by US intelligence. Im not saying he had the capability to launch chemical missles, but if he did, by the time he was caught he lost the ability to run anything in his country other than the loyalists he surrounded himself with. body guards dude.
by the time he was in his spider hole, he was struggling to find a place to sleep. Things didnt go according to plan for saddam.
Im amazed at how you make the assumption that saddam thought everything through before hand but when it comes the American invasion, you have no problem believing that we were winging it and figuring out as we went along.
Im amazed at how you make the assumption that saddam thought everything through before hand but when it comes the American invasion, you have no problem believing that we were winging it and figuring out as we went along.
He did ground his airforce. Fact. He intended to fight the US through insurgency? Possibly/probably. An airforce is no good to an insurgency? Fact. Not firing chemical weapons at your foe when everything is evidently lost? Ain't buying it.
have you read any of my earlier posts. if he used chem weapons his plans of ruling iraq afterwards would be null and void, in his mind.Braddock wrote:
So are you saying there wasn't at least one bunch of crazies prepared to, and capable of, launching some of those dirty weapons during the war proper... I mean that's the doomsday scenario in Pakistan isn't it, rogue militants getting their hands on the toys?God Save the Queen wrote:
cam, keep it rule dude. this is a man that wouldnt even use the phone and stay at one place for more than an X amount of hours for fear of being discovered by US intelligence. Im not saying he had the capability to launch chemical missles, but if he did, by the time he was caught he lost the ability to run anything in his country other than the loyalists he surrounded himself with. body guards dude.
This is the same argument used to explain why Iran won't nuke Israel... it would be detrimental to the Iranian population too.SgtHeihn wrote:
He was waiting for the great jihad. you can't dirty bomb the population that you need to fight for you.Braddock wrote:
It fucking-well-was restraint... I would have cracked and succumbed to the temptation to fire my dirty missiles after about a week down in that hole.SgtHeihn wrote:
It wasn't restraint, he planned to embroil us in a war of Insurgency. Oh and I didn't invade, I was a Combat Instructor at that time. I was out drinking, so I missed GWB's phone call asking for my advice on what to do.
The guy must have great will power.
he couldnt even find a loyal driver to take him around, what makes you think he had any command and control capabilites in a spider hole. he didnt. Im surprised you cant see that.CameronPoe wrote:
He did ground his airforce. Fact. He intended to fight the US through insurgency? Possibly/probably. An airforce is no good to an insurgency? Fact. Not firing chemical weapons at your foe when everything is evidently lost? Ain't buying it.
nothing was evidently lost to saddam!
do you know what the first thing he said to the Americans when he was captured?
"I am President Saddam Hussein, King of Iraq, and I am willing to negotiate"
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-10-20 11:01:00)
He didn't think all was lost. He was still proclaiming he was the ruler of Iraq when he was on trial, the guy went fruit loops.CameronPoe wrote:
He did ground his airforce. Fact. He intended to fight the US through insurgency? Possibly/probably. An airforce is no good to an insurgency? Fact. Not firing chemical weapons at your foe when everything is evidently lost? Ain't buying it.
If no-one was loyal to him then how exactly did he last so long in hiding? I agree he made some monumental tactical errors and incorrect assumptions but in all the chaos of post-Saddam Iraq not one single chemical weapon was used, between Saddam's forces, looters, insurgents from outside Iraq. I don't buy the 'meaningful threat' thing one tiny little bit. Not least because Iraq is thousands of miles away and the fact that the notion of pre-emptive war in a distant nation when you are vastly militarily superior is repugnant.God Save the Queen wrote:
he couldnt even find a loyal driver to take him around, what makes you think he had any command and control capabilites in a spider hole. he didnt. Im surprised you cant see that.CameronPoe wrote:
He did ground his airforce. Fact. He intended to fight the US through insurgency? Possibly/probably. An airforce is no good to an insurgency? Fact. Not firing chemical weapons at your foe when everything is evidently lost? Ain't buying it.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-10-20 11:05:54)
"I am President Saddam Hussein, King of Iraq, and I am willing to negotiate" are not the words of someone who accepts the situtation for what it is.
So we are to believe that Saddam Hussein, a man who would not even engage the US in a stand up fight when they were in the middle of invading his country, was somehow going to launch a preemptive strike on the Western world had he not been toppled from power when he was? Your theory pretty much proves that your presumptive reason for going in in the first place was profoundly incorrect.
Im not making a case for the invasion, you know I thought it was bullshit, but the facts say that Saddam had many capablities in defending his nation that he didnt use, that he thought that international public opinion and US domestic wouldnt allow a protracted guerrila war, that he thought hell be back running things once we left.CameronPoe wrote:
If no-one was loyal to him then how exactly did he last so long in hiding? I agree he made some monumental tactical errors and incorrect assumptions but in all the chaos of post-Saddam Iraq not one single chemical weapon was used, between Saddam's forces, looters, insurgents from outside Iraq. I don't buy the 'meaningful threat' thing one tiny little bit. Not least because Iraq is thousands of miles away.God Save the Queen wrote:
he couldnt even find a loyal driver to take him around, what makes you think he had any command and control capabilites in a spider hole. he didnt. Im surprised you cant see that.CameronPoe wrote:
He did ground his airforce. Fact. He intended to fight the US through insurgency? Possibly/probably. An airforce is no good to an insurgency? Fact. Not firing chemical weapons at your foe when everything is evidently lost? Ain't buying it.
Well his interview with Dan Rather exposed him as a deluded soul, as many paranoid dictators often become - like Mao for instance.God Save the Queen wrote:
Im not making a case for the invasion, you know I thought it was bullshit, but the facts say that Saddam had many capablities in defending his nation that he didnt use, that he thought that international public opinion and US domestic wouldnt allow a protracted guerrila war, that he thought hell be back running things once we left.
theories?Braddock wrote:
So we are to believe that Saddam Hussein, a man who would not even engage the US in a stand up fight when they were in the middle of invading his country, was somehow going to launch a preemptive strike on the Western world had he not been toppled from power when he was? Your theory pretty much proves that your presumptive reason for going in in the first place was profoundly incorrect.
facts.
I dont think Ive touched on the justification of an invasion. I dont know how many times Ive gotta say Im not making that argument, Im simply stating facts about what happened during and after the invasion.
Or in other words, that he wasn't the gun-toting lunatic that Bush said he was.God Save the Queen wrote:
Im not making a case for the invasion, you know I thought it was bullshit, but the facts say that Saddam had many capablities in defending his nation that he didnt use, that he thought that international public opinion and US domestic wouldnt allow a protracted guerrila war, that he thought hell be back running things once we left.CameronPoe wrote:
If no-one was loyal to him then how exactly did he last so long in hiding? I agree he made some monumental tactical errors and incorrect assumptions but in all the chaos of post-Saddam Iraq not one single chemical weapon was used, between Saddam's forces, looters, insurgents from outside Iraq. I don't buy the 'meaningful threat' thing one tiny little bit. Not least because Iraq is thousands of miles away.God Save the Queen wrote:
he couldnt even find a loyal driver to take him around, what makes you think he had any command and control capabilites in a spider hole. he didnt. Im surprised you cant see that.
And yet we are being slowly fed the same bullshit again in relation to Iran.
he was a gun toting lunatic. he was a maniac. but his biggest concern after the first gulf war was to stay in control of Iraq. Everything he did from 1991 til 2003 was to keep himself in power, overcoming various security crisis for the baathists.
braddock, why you coming at me with this angle, you know I dont believe it was a justifiable invasion. Im just calling it man. It really sounds like you are giving saddam hussein the benefit of the doubt in relation to his plans with iraq.
braddock, why you coming at me with this angle, you know I dont believe it was a justifiable invasion. Im just calling it man. It really sounds like you are giving saddam hussein the benefit of the doubt in relation to his plans with iraq.
the best way to hurt iran is to leave iraq and let the iranians worry about an occupation. that will fuck up irans plans.
I know that, I'm not going on the offensive against you here... in fact most of what you're saying checks out completely (the airforce not being deployed and so on). My point is that Iraq launching preemptive attacks on anyone would have worked against Saddam holding onto power as he would ultimately been crushed by Western forces (as was proven) and hence the invasion on the grounds of US domestic security was a sham, making Bush a criminal in the eyes of the US constitution.God Save the Queen wrote:
he was a gun toting lunatic. he was a maniac. but his biggest concern after the first gulf war was to stay in control of Iraq. Everything he did from 1991 til 2003 was to keep himself in power, overcoming various security crisis for the baathists.
braddock, why you coming at me with this angle, you know I dont believe it was a justifiable invasion. Im just calling it man. It really sounds like you are giving saddam hussein the benefit of the doubt in relation to his plans with iraq.
Too many questionsCameronPoe wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7677551.stm
50,000 Iraqis march in Baghdad demanding the US leave Iraq "Get out occupier!" as a draft agreement on troops prepares to go to the Iraqi parliament. What happens if the parliament rejects the deal? Will the US do the decent thing and give the Iraqi people their unfettered sovereignty again? When the UN mandate expires will they pack their bags?
First, it should be kept in mind that those protesters were largely Sadr supporters, though I have no doubt that a large portion of the population wants the US out. At least, on the face of it.
They probably don't mind US help when there is trouble though, and they probably appreciate the training, and money, and bullets, and vehicles, and logistics, bases, help with reconstruction, etc etc
seems to be positive steps in the negotiations
We put Saddam in power ? Hardly trueMason4Assassin444 wrote:
Hussein was killing his own people. Almost 30 years ago. We put Saddam in power. And there is alot of bad people/dictators. Let's cherry pick the ones we want to break our economy on. Its ok. marines are still hiring.usmarine wrote:
georgia was not killing its own people last time i checked. nor did they gas their own people. and they are our ally. but, small facts. put yur tin foil back on.
Also, the Iraq war is NOT the cause of our economic troubles
CorrectS3v3N wrote:
The Soviets.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Who gave him the weapons?usmarine wrote:
????? ok. guess you never talked to an actual iraqi.
he also invaded kuwait memba?
Conventional arms, Iraq '73 - '90
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2003/12/ … eapons.jpg
Last edited by Vax (2008-10-20 14:02:28)
Ahh democracy, the right to bitch and not have Saddam kill you for doing so.
Except going to a barber might now get you a beheading.Pug wrote:
Ahh democracy, the right to bitch and not have Saddam kill you for doing so.
Well, I thought it was ironic anyway