Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
K, I'm going to try and make it clear: yes! Saddam did want to take over the Middle East. Yes, he wanted to take out Israel and even attack the US. The problem was, all he had was an outdated military with no real weapons, and paintings of missles that really couldn't do any harm. I have ambitions to have my daughter take over the world, but we lack the means so I don't think that any government will consider us a threat. Do you see? Had Iraq utilized it's only strength, a large number of soldiers, they would have been descimated from the air by missles and bombs. The Soviets are arming China now and have their own oil, so they don't care about Iraq enough to sell them weapons. The US isn't going to sell Iraq weapons. France wouldn't dare because if they were caught, they'd be in a shitload of trouble with it's friends the UK, Germany, Spain, and Italy.
So in review: Saddam never changed his outlook. He still wanted to kill everyone and dominate everything. He lacked the means. He was not innocent, he was not dangerous. There is a difference.
Iraq lacked the means to endanger the US, therefore attacking them was not an act of protection. Protection is the only legal excuse for invading and ovethroing a government. Saddam's intent won't change that fact. Saddam was not a threat to the US. Saddam was only a minor threat to his neighbors. Saddam was a threat to the Iraqis.
|
Alright willravel sir, have it your way. Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone. Or it was a minor threat (not a major threat) but no danger to America. But Sadaam was a danger to Israel, and to his own people. He was not dangerous, but he wanted to kill everyone and dominate everything. But he wasn't a threat to anyone outside of his people in Iraq. But he wanted to take over the Middle East, and attack the US if only he somehow had the means (paging Dr. AQ Khan!). But he could never get the means, so he could only kill his people and try to dominate the Middle East by killing everyone. I'm so confused.