Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
so you'd be fine with Saddam Hussein controlling 75 percent of the world's oil?
How would this have happened?
He wasn't going to stop at Kuwait. he was going to take over Saudi Arabia and probably the entire peninsula. That must be close to 75 percent.
Did you see this bit of news yesterday:Well we should never have been there in the first place, but that about sums it up.
Think Progress » Saddam Hussein Considered Security Agreement With U.S. To Counter Threat From Fanatics In IranYesterday, the National Security Archive released declassified FBI reports detailing both the bureaus interrogations and casual conversations with former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. According to the documents, Hussein told FBI agent George Piro (one of only a few agents who spoke Arabic) that he let the world believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he feared appearing weak to what he considered his countrys real threat, Iran:
Apparently there was no need to fight them at all.
Well I'm afraid that ignores reality. You inspire people to hate you when you bomb their country and kill friends, family, and countrymen. Or when sanctions imposed on a country kill hundreds of thousands of people. Or when you militarily occupy their holy lands or throw out their elected leaders for repressive regimes.
I don't think those things were what motivated al qaeda, though.
Osama has stated that those were among his motivations. However, there are always going to be those who simply hate the United States for no reason, but you give them potential allies when you give them bread-and-butter issues they can use to recruit others.
Osama has stated that those were among his motivations. However, there are always going to be those who simply hate the United States for no reason, but you give them potential allies when you give them bread-and-butter issues they can use to recruit others.
What did bin Laden say was his reasoning? That we had occupied Saudi? What would happen if Saddam controlled the Arabian Peninsula?
That was one of his reasons. He saw our military presence there as disrespecting Islam, and he also didn't like that we support the Saudi Arabian government which he sees as repressive. I'm not sure I understand the Saddam question, but Osama and Saddam were not allies to begin with.
That was one of his reasons. He saw our military presence there as disrespecting Islam, and he also didn't like that we support the Saudi Arabian government which he sees as repressive. I'm not sure I understand the Saddam question, but Osama and Saddam were not allies to begin with.
It would follow that your opinion would be we should have pulled out of Saudi Arabia because bin Laden listed it as his reasons and because you don't advocate foreign intervention.
Well we should never have been there in the first place, but that about sums it up.
How would this have happened?
He wasn't going to stop at Kuwait. he was going to take over Saudi Arabia and probably the entire peninsula. That must be close to 75 percent.
Well one interesting anecdote about that is Osama offered to defend Saudi Arabia from Saddam in 1991 if it became necessary. However, Iraq was a third-world country. I find Iraq taking over the entire peninsula to be highly unlikely. They couldn't even defeat Iran which was a single country, let alone take over many different countries.
Did you see this bit of news yesterday:Well we should never have been there in the first place, but that about sums it up.
Think Progress » Saddam Hussein Considered Security Agreement With U.S. To Counter Threat From Fanatics In IranYesterday, the National Security Archive released declassified FBI reports detailing both the bureaus interrogations and casual conversations with former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. According to the documents, Hussein told FBI agent George Piro (one of only a few agents who spoke Arabic) that he let the world believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he feared appearing weak to what he considered his countrys real threat, Iran:
Apparently there was no need to fight them at all.
I've heard that argument before, that he simply wanted Iran to believe he had the WMD's, but I hadn't seen this report. This shows that there were no WMD's we had to worry about, but we all knew that before this so I don't really see this as being groundbreaking. But it certainly does show once again that the Iraqi invasion was unnecessary.
If you did your homework you would know WW2 was a setup as well.Sounds like the attitude most Americans had just before WWII.The idiot GoP simply adopted the FDR/Truman thing about being world police and now they can't let go.
Why do we have to 'fight them' anywhere?
I find I really don't care who runs Iran as long as they leave me alone.
I don't think those things were what motivated al qaeda, though.
Osama has stated that those were among his motivations. However, there are always going to be those who simply hate the United States for no reason, but you give them potential allies when you give them bread-and-butter issues they can use to recruit others.
Allowing fear of what others think to paralyze you into inaction makes you weak.
If what I am doing is right, and you don't like me for it, too damned bad.
It would follow that your opinion would be we should have pulled out of Saudi Arabia because bin Laden listed it as his reasons and because you don't advocate foreign intervention.
Well we should never have been there in the first place, but that about sums it up.
Dude, no disrespect intended because we agree on a lot of things, but if you could see through my eyes for 10 minutes you'd change that opinion in a heartbeat.
Yeah, we had business being there. Saddam's army raped, pillaged and plundered a country for its oil. There is such a thing as doing what's right just because it's right, that no backwards-assed arguments can surmount.
False premise. The bombs don't get dropped until we get attacked, and they are given fair warning.
They attack us, they threaten to wipe us out and swear (and I believe them, just look at the centuries we've been dealing with them) they will continue to try to eradicate non-believers, or bring them into bondage. They are given the opportunity to evacuate and they choose not to.
There's a difference between being good and right, and being weak and foolish. They are not one and the same thing. Neither is being good and right synonomous with refusing to defend oneself or stand up for the weak and vulnerable.
If you did your homework you would know WW2 was a setup as well.Sounds like the attitude most Americans had just before WWII.The idiot GoP simply adopted the FDR/Truman thing about being world police and now they can't let go.
Why do we have to 'fight them' anywhere?
I find I really don't care who runs Iran as long as they leave me alone.
OMG OMG Britney shaves her papaya !!!Idiots.
Osama has stated that those were among his motivations. However, there are always going to be those who simply hate the United States for no reason, but you give them potential allies when you give them bread-and-butter issues they can use to recruit others.
Allowing fear of what others think to paralyze you into inaction makes you weak.
If what I am doing is right, and you don't like me for it, too damned bad.
However, I would argue that sanctions that only hurt the populace of a country and dropping bombs that kill civilians aren't right, and we shouldn't be surprised when people are angry about it.
Well we should never have been there in the first place, but that about sums it up.
Dude, no disrespect intended because we agree on a lot of things, but if you could see through my eyes for 10 minutes you'd change that opinion in a heartbeat.
Yeah, we had business being there. Saddam's army raped, pillaged and plundered a country for its oil. There is such a thing as doing what's right just because it's right, that no backwards-assed arguments can surmount.
No disrespect taken, I have absolutely no problem with differing opinions.
Saddam was wrong for invading Kuwait, but I don't see it as being right for our own government to plunder the American taxpayers so that they can play world police. I also don't see it as being right for the government to rape the Constitution by putting our troops in harms way through undeclared wars.
Allowing fear of what others think to paralyze you into inaction makes you weak.
If what I am doing is right, and you don't like me for it, too damned bad.
However, I would argue that sanctions that only hurt the populace of a country and dropping bombs that kill civilians aren't right, and we shouldn't be surprised when people are angry about it.
What's your point? I'm not surprised. I don't give a damn. If you're that concerned, you might want to think about getting rid of your leader.
Like I'm sure a LOT of Americans are thinking right now.
Dude, no disrespect intended because we agree on a lot of things, but if you could see through my eyes for 10 minutes you'd change that opinion in a heartbeat.
Yeah, we had business being there. Saddam's army raped, pillaged and plundered a country for its oil. There is such a thing as doing what's right just because it's right, that no backwards-assed arguments can surmount.
No disrespect taken, I have absolutely no problem with differing opinions.
Saddam was wrong for invading Kuwait, but I don't see it as being right for our own government to plunder the American taxpayers so that they can play world police. I also don't see it as being right for the government to rape the Constitution by putting our troops in harms way through undeclared wars.
You didn't do your homework. The US was piad in gold, by Kuwait for our part in the First Gulf War. We even got rela gold Kuwait Liberation Medals the government took away from us and replaced with crap.
Did you see this bit of news yesterday:
Think Progress » Saddam Hussein Considered Security Agreement With U.S. To Counter Threat From Fanatics In Iran
Apparently there was no need to fight them at all.
I've heard that argument before, that he simply wanted Iran to believe he had the WMD's, but I hadn't seen this report. This shows that there were no WMD's we had to worry about, but we all knew that before this so I don't really see this as being groundbreaking. But it certainly does show once again that the Iraqi invasion was unnecessary.
Monday morning quarterbacking us usually 100% correct.
Like Kev said, many of us suspected it all along. Confirmation is just a bonus. Poor Dubya, his "legacy" gets dimmer and dimmer.
