Originally posted by Herod
Saddam did this way back when he was a US backed dictator fighting the evil Iranians.
We "backed" him mildly and temporarily to rid ourselves of a greater enemy. I don't see what's so damning about this.
Originally posted by Herod
By the same token, is anyone concerned with who originally gave him the weapons, or who taught his people how to make them? Both of the answers begin with U and end with A, with only one part of the acronym in between. The war ended, Saddam stopped folowing orders, and we decided it was time he died (anyone having some Stalin/Trotsky flashbacks?).
First off, we didn't give him "the weapons." We gave him some. Though you might be hard pressed to present a source for such data. Assuming you can, however, what's your point? I don't care how we got in the situation, so much as how we're to get out of it. As far as I can make out, you're just trying to remind us that America is imperfect, as the procurement of the weapons means nothing when the issue is how to deal with the fact that they've been procured.
Originally posted by Herod
I think if Hussein still did have weapons, or if he intended to use them on the U.S. of A he would have done so. Because let's face it, as long as we keep a decent eye on him -which we have been doing for a long while- , I much doubt that he will be able to contribute to any standing arsenal.
If he doesn't have the weapons, why is he hassling inspectors? Doing so is clearly hazardous to his health, if you know what I mean. Regardless, there is always the potential threat of Saddam supplying others who ARE capable of coming at us, even if he himself cannot. All the same, the weapons shouldn't be in his hands, and the evidence tells us that they are, in direct violation of the UN's order and the US' very reasonable ultimatum. End of story.
Originally posted by Herod
If we should have any concerns right now, I think they should lie with North Korea, who have certainly violated more human rights laws of late, threatened more countries, and expressed more anti-American sentiments than Iraq. Additonally, they've openly admitted to building nuclear weapons, and turned away U.N. inspectors, and diplomats, and more importantly rejected U.N. orders to stop their behavior.
I'm going to defer to the experts in the US government, who probably know what they're doing, strategy-wise. For one, its been said that the situation with North Korea is remarkably similar to that of the Soviets not long ago, which was eventually resolved peacefully by focusing, in negotiations, on their human rights record. Perhaps the idea is to deal with Saddam and then dispatch the same gameplan in regards to North Korea.