Marinerhodes

I must admit that I too wondered about that.

I think the answer is quite simple like all schoolyard bullies Saddam liked
to flex his muscle not because he had something to prove but because he enjoyed the chaos and fear around the world when he did. Terrorizing people was always a strong suite with Saddam.

There is another possibility. According to the captured Iraqi Nuclear Scientists, Saddam was kept as much in the dark about Iraqs WMD strength as was the rest of the world. Its possible Saddam though he was defending something at that point when in fact he was defending nothing because his own advisors were feeding him false information.

This is all speculation of course...

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Phoenix

Well its hard to talk about 1 with discussing the other as they are somewhat linked...

1. Brits, french Germans etc never gave Bush anything. The intel came from the CIA. Like Bush, They simply assumed that Saddam was cheating without proof, the difference is thqt they didnt act on a assumption. As they say Assumption is the mother**** of all disaster.

2. No, thats what you HOPE and PRAY might happen. What will happen has yet to be written. The Muslims have been at war with each other for centuries, if you really think that declaring "democracy" in Iraq is going to change that, you might as well declare "mission accomplished" for the civil war you about to start.

3. As for Iran. The fact that the new president is a hardliner doesnt really change much internationally. The fact the the ultra extremist Guardian Consul still has final say in most everything makes the election almost moot. I think the rhetoric will go up but everything else will stay the same, meaning Iran will continue to try and get the bomb. the real question is what is th rest of the world going to do about it?

Wrong

Mr. Blair was the first one talking about 45 min threat Saddam can pose to the west.

If you are anti-war, it is fine. I can get it but don't tell us that Bush lied to go to war. Bush didn't need to risk too many lives if there was no logical reason to invade a country like Iraq.

Btw, Saddam was a threat, IMO. He used WMDs on his own people and neighboring countries. If you are a leader of a 300 milion nation, you can't take any chance. Saddam COULD be a sleeping monster and had to be dealt with. I am happy he is gone.

I don't think there is ever gonna be a civil war in IRAQ. That is what Europeans and Liberals think all over the world. That is not gonna happen.

3- As for my homeland, we Iranians want better relations with the west but not under this brutal regime. What we need is that Europeans cut their talks with the terrorist mullahs and support the Iranians for reforms and democracy.
And Majority of Iranian people don't want any type of Nuke under the rule of mullahs because it is simply too dangerous to give things to Mullahs whom cant be trusted at all.
The regime of Iran is not a responsible regime and shouldnt be trusted at all.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Marinerhodes

I must admit that I too wondered about that.

I think the answer is quite simple like all schoolyard bullies Saddam liked
to flex his muscle not because he had something to prove but because he enjoyed the chaos and fear around the world when he did. Terrorizing people was always a strong suite with Saddam.

There is another possibility. According to the captured Iraqi Nuclear Scientists, Saddam was kept as much in the dark about Iraqs WMD strength as was the rest of the world. Its possible Saddam though he was defending something at that point when in fact he was defending nothing because his own advisors were feeding him false information.

This is all speculation of course...

I am not an expert in Politics, but the world is not a place to flex your muscles by threatening the other nations. Those other nations will take it seriously and react.

Btw, Saddam cheated and fooled UN for 12 yrs and that was enough.
He made a mockery of UN and western countries.
He had to be removed from power with use of force.

Originally Posted by WorldWatcher

Hmm I suppose it could happen but how would they ever unite? One big difference is Sunni and Shia muslim, why would they unite to invade Europe? Also Egypt and Syria did merge to become the United Arab Republic sometime in the mid 20th century to try to unite Arab nationalism, almost got Yemen in as well, but it failed and collapsed in 1961.
Kuwait backs the US, Saudi arabia's government does to some degree. Egypt's government does as well. Iran's public seems pro american. Iraq is changing to a democracy. Turkey is close to Europe as well
If you include Northern African Arab countries, then Tunisia is close to Europe, and Morocco and extremely close ties to the US and Europe spanning many years.
It seems like it would be near impossible to unite the Arab states.But that is just my opinion.

I'm not just talking about only Arab countries uniting, but most if not all Muslim countries uniting.

As to how they will unite? Since I guessing you are a Westerner, you probably don't know a little fact, that most all Muslims beileve in.

They believe in a set of prophecies which states they will form an empire under one great leader for a final Jihad. Both Sunni and Shia believe this, they also believe this will cause them to unite. This will be the catalyst for their unifcation.

I posted a long article on this, there is alot of detail involved but if you want to read it heres the thread;
The rising of an Empire and the future invasion of Europe!

If it wasn't for this common belief, I'd say they would never unite. But this belief is there, and it is every radicals dream that the Muslims do form a Caliphate (Islamic Empire).

Like I said if we do not introduce an openess and democracy to the Middle East, then Muslim Society will remain shut off to the rest of the world, and radical influence will surely and most definately take over, once they do they will force this prophecy into being.

That is why I am saying Iraq is our last best chance of doing this. What George W. Bush is doing is absolutely right. Even though it is still a long shot, it is better than nothing. This will give the more moderate Muslims a chance to dominate Islamic world, which is what we need to prevent a future war.

Unfortunatley the Europeans do not seem to be cooperating, their liberal mindset has deluded them into thinking that this is US aggression. Most of them even go as far as to hope that Bush fails, with no regards for the consecouence of the Iraqi people. Nevertheless when this Islamic Empire comes to be, the Europeans themselves will bear the brunt of it because of their own stupidity.

20 years from now I can almost guarantee you George W. Bush will be seen as a hero and visionary who tried to prevent WWIII.

Phoenix

No actually you are mistaken. The 45 min claim came from Iyad Allewi who was a CIA informant. Like many of the claims that came from Allewi, Chelbi and 'Curveball' that data proved to be bogus. Tony Blair just stupidly used it without checking his source, just like Bush did with the Niger Yellow cake. So now we are moving into the "could have been a threat". That is NOT what Bush told us. Bush repeatively told us Iraq was an "immient danger to US security". That either means Bush is the most incompetant president in US history or he's a liar. Saddam was a very evil man, but the sanctions limited his ability to threaten his neighbors. Had we really wanted Saddam to die, it could have been done quietly.

As for cheating and fooling the UN, there are several countries guilty about that including the US and Isreal (which has been in violation for 30 years with its settlements). We dont see anyone wanting to bomb them.

As for Iran

I know lots of Iranians in Paris, were educated in France, UK or the USA. The all want better ties with the west. The Problem is the government you just elected seems to want to do precisely the opposite. It has alienated traditional European allies such as France and the UK. So I am not sure you speak for the majority of Iranians. There is also the guardian consul who HATES the west. Frankly I dont see who relations can improve in such circumstances...

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Had we really wanted Saddam to die, it could have been done quietly.

Wrong. For as hard as we have been trying to eliminate him, these attempts were never successful. For decades. Nothing is just as easy as it seems.

Originally Posted by Italian Guy

Wrong. For as hard as we have been trying to eliminate him, these attempts were never successful. For decades. Nothing is just as easy as it seems.

Do you have access to Classified CIA data? The only known assasination attempt of Saddam organized by the USA was a cruise missile strike in 2003 after the war started. The US has a law the prevents assasinations of world leaders. Of course you know the saying "there is no crime if you don't get caught". The point is if the CIA did try, you would never know.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Do you have access to Classified CIA data? The only known assasination attempt of Saddam organized by the USA was a cruise missile strike in 2003 after the war started. The US has a law the prevents assasinations of world leaders. Of course you know the saying "there is no crime if you don't get caught". The point is if the CIA did try, you would never know.

Yes I do have access (kidding ). I just said it's well known that both the US and some internal opponents repeatedly tried to kill him, via poison or other ways. He surrounded himself with dozens of doubles. because they tried to kill him a lot of times. Of course the CIA was well involved in many of those attempts. Or what other way were you referring to when you said that making him die was something that "could have done quietly"?

Originally Posted by mmarsh

That either means Bush is the most incompetant president in US history or he's a liar

There you go again, breaking the rules. Flaming a country or it's leader(s) is a no-no.

Originally Posted by Missileer

There you go again, breaking the rules. Flaming a country or it's leader(s) is a no-no.

Why have a politics section if you can't criticize a leader? Just seems that there is a big difference between criticizing a country, which is usually a generalisation, and criticising an individual who is in the public arena and the criticism revolves around the actions of that individual.

Just appears to me that mmarsh's comments are in context with his argument.