If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Saddam Hussien and the nuclear thingy
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Why does he want to bomb us? What possible good could come of it for him? What is the point in wiping out billions of people? I'm so annoyed with him my life has just got good but now he wants to kill us all! It's just not fair. And with Bush or whoever wanting to kill him so that he can't kill us don't they realise that they will have to kill all of the people below him as well cos otherwise they will finish off his work for him. grr I know I don't have all the facts for this or anything but what I do know really scares me and it pisses me off that one man can cause this much havoc. Oh and have you also noticed that just because there is no proof of bin ladens death that the americans have started up all this Iraq crap again just to take the media away from the fact that they may not have succeeded in killing bin laden?
0
Comments
live with it.
If the real truth in all this mess were known the men whose heads would be on the chopping block would undoubtedly be very different from those being held up to the masses by the press and media.
Why does he want to bomb us?
What makes you think he does? I mean, if there is no reason for it, and SSOOOOO many reasons not to.... why would he want to?
Uh, so you've seen evidence that Saddam understands tactical and strategic decisions? LMAO
We;ve tried your route in the past and it hasnt brought us any close to lasting security now has it?
Nice for the military industrial complex and those who win big off it like the Bush family but for the planet it only results in further misery and deprivation.
Time to put the guns away boys and start acting as a constructive force for decency and empowerment not hegemony in the world.
Saddam is a madman and if he had had any sense he would have pulled out of Kuwait before the UN deadline (or not invaded Kuwait in the first place!!). But once he was at war, he managed to evade assassination numerous times, used identical 'doubles' to fool attempts, launched his scud missiles from the top of trucks he would then hide under bridges (result: the allies had an absolute nightmare trying to find them and destroy them), and most humiliating for the West, he deployed hundreds of cardboard tanks across the country. He waited for the West to declare that 80% of Iraqi tanks had been destroyed after three days of fighting, then released a picture of six laughing Iraqis lifting up a cardboard 'tank', which is what the Allies had been shooting up.
At the end most of his army was destroyed anyway, and if he weren't a lunatic he wouldn't have invaded Kuwait, or stayed in Kuwait when it was clear he was going to get his arse kicked. But he knows how to fool opponents, as he's proven many times over the years, and seems to make the most of whatever resources he has at hand. It'd be unwise to underestimate him.
Europe tried your route and got Hitler.
I'll take my route, thanks. Lasting peace? No such thing. But at least I get to have a part in trying to protect people from maniacs like Hitler, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein.
Aladdin,
Interesting to see you assume that Saddam is responsible for any of those actions which you think were smart, all are basic stuff and Saddam didn't implement the wooden (not cardboard) tanks. His generals did. He was hiding somewhere.
Do you actually think launching SCUDs was a sound tactical or strategice decision? You're not helping your argument here...
LOL...well, maybe in Iraq using dummy vehicles is a major decision. In most Armies, it's just S.O.P.
And maybe using doubles is also a major decision....but it isn't exactly unique or genius to think of it. Hitler, Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt all used doubles during WWII.
1-Saddam in the 80’s was no 1 allay of the US because then he was fighting the newly established Islamic country Iran. The war went on for 8 years. During all this time the US supplied Iraq with every weapon possible to win the war which included chemical weapons and the rest of it.
2- To your knowledge Kwait is part of Iraq but it was taken from Iraq in the 60’s by the Britain who were then occupying Iraq and declared Kwait as a separate country. Of course because of the rich oil that was found in it then.
3- After the Iranian – Iraq war stoped and he could not defeat Iran, the US realised that they have supplied him with a lot of weapons and technology which they needed to take away because he became very powerful.
How to do that. The Excuse (Kwait)
4- Saddam was convinced by the US that he can claim kwait back. He was foolish enough to believe the US politicians. So he invaded Kwait and the rest happened from there. Now the US had a good reason to try to get red of him. The Americans in the 90’s just wanted to take his weapons away which they did almost 99%.
5- Why now all the fuss well because a dick head president thinks he can boost the ailing US economy by inventing some kind of a war which would first make people not to think about domestic issues and second because of the pressure the president is having from Weapons industry lobby.
So just to let u know the US has never interfered in some other country business because as they say “for the world peace, freedom and democracy”. These slogans are just for people like you to believe. The real intervention into other countries affairs comes from pure American own interests. Example – North Korea and Vietnam and in both wars American did not won and it will not in this.
Britain created Iraq at the same time. Iraq wasn't a country, either. And you're inferring Iraq doesn't have any oil. Really?
So let me get this straight. You're claiming that Kuwait was an excuse to knock Saddam's power down. Gee whiz, what would we have done if Saddam had been a nice ruler and not invaded another country?
Let's see...I assume this is based on the reports of the comments by a US female diplomat that she didn't think the US would object if Iraq made efforts to change the ownership of a few oilfields.
Let's look at this for a minute.
1. We are to believe that an Arab man takes the advice of/listens to a female as representing the United States. Any understanding of Arab culture?
2. We are to leap from "efforts" to "war". The comments could have as easily referred to negotiations (and that is probably how they were taken by the American).
3. The reply was clearly an opinion.
In other words, your whole paragraph is fantasy.
Uh, huh.... I take it you prefer the Hussein type of democracy?
Good for the Americans they have Bush as a president because he will be the cause of their down fall. Mark the words. The Muslims are 1.2 Billion and they will not be silent for a long time.
Obviously your historical knowledge of Iraq isnt quite as exrensive as youd like to think Greenhat. Iraq was formerly (prior to sanctions and Bush Sr.s invasion) one of the hallmarks of secular society in the Islamic world. Women enjoyed a high degree of professional qualification and education and even held positions of expertise and authority.
Given that Madeleine Albright was able to tell Saddam a thing or two in her day indicates that it is not so far a stretch to believe that he would take the word and encouragement of a US diplomat, female or no, after having taken the US at it's word previously without consequence when he was prompted to invade Iran.
Funny that you don't address the other two points, isn't it? Of course, we could just point to this as another failure of your favorite approach..jaw-jaw...
Well strangely enough, with Ashcroft as Attorney General and his history of pushing for limitations on civil rights and constutional freedoms, Id say we could be moving in just that direction if he gets his way! :rolleyes:
So, let me get this straight. It's OK for Hussein but not for Ashcroft?