Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Not even a little. I cited evidence for most of them and if pressed could cite evidence for all of them.
This is an extreme case of apple and oranges and you're getting so far off topic it's silly. Saddam Hussein and by extension Iraq was not a threat to the US or our allies in 2003. Demonstrate otherwise with verifiable evidence or concede.
He wasn't as far as I know. This is why I asked you for a link. I'd like to research your claim. If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, you've got a really powerful argument coming your way.
|
Why not answer a question? Why do you think Saddam engaged Israel in the 1991 Persian Gulf war? Israel was not a part of the coalition, nor did Israel have anything to do with Saddam's alleged dispute with Kuwait. I believe his intent was to get Israel involved in the conflict to then develop an anti-Israel coalition of his own, which could have tripped the region into chaos leading to world war. People who are willing to act in such a manner are a threat to every peace loving human on the planet, including you. Here is a link, for what good it will do.
Quote:
Iraq launches missile strikes
If Iraq was to be forced to obey UN resolutions, the Iraqi government made it no secret that it would respond by attacking Israel, who was allowed to ignore them without any action from the UN. Before the war started, Tariq Aziz, Iraqi Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, was asked, “if war starts…will you attack Israel?” His response was, “Yes, absolutely, yes.”[33] The Iraqis hoped that attacking Israel would draw them into the war. It was expected that this would then lead to the withdrawal of the US' Arab allies, who would be reluctant to fight alongside the state that was, according to their views, colonising Palestinian land. Israel did not join the coalition, and all Arab states stayed in the coalition.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
After ignoring the above point, you can ignore this one:
When Saddam was faced with certain defeat, why do you think he employed a slash and burn strategy of Kuwait's oil infrastructure? Wouldn't a reasonable peaceful leader under the circumstances he faced, simply accept defeat and accept the determination of the UN and the "world" consensus against his act of aggression?
You would trust a guy displaying these forms of defiance, and accept him as nonthreatening to peace and stability?