[QUOTE]Originally posted by brantshali
[B]

I've thought about the linkage to September 11, but just don't see enough information to link Saddam in any appreciable way to an immediate threat to our nation.

 

I understand what you meant. I was responding in a more generic manner that, though I know that Bush is using 9-11 as a major argument for resolving issues with Iraq now, I am not comfortable that there is a strong enough linkage to make it an immediate imperative.

I believe I read somewhere in my research on the subject that there is no intelligence directly linking him to 9-11 or any other direct terrorist threat since that time.

I agree that his regime needs to be ended, but I'm just not quite comfortable with the timeline or what is truly driving the need right now.

I just finished reading a report on the weapons inspections and other information regarding the sanctions currently in place and there does not appear to be any appreciable evidence that Saddam has built up his stock of weapons of mass destruction or the components needed to develop them since the inspectors were last in Iraq in, I believe, 1999.

Does this make him less of a threat? Not really. However, if he wasn't enough of a direct threat 3 or 4 years ago, what has changed to make him one today. That's the basic question that I'm asking...and not just to you but to myself as well. I simply don't know the answer yet.

 

His failure to follow the UN resolutions (16 of them I think). His not allowing inspectors unfettered inspections. Plus, who really knows what he has since there are no inspectors there to report. His behavior says he's hiding something and Bush wants to do what the world wants him to do, by giving Saddam 1 more chance to allow inspectors. If he doesn't, then all hell will break lose and God help us all.

 

From http://www.debka.com/:
[QUOTE]Saddam Hussein wasted no time before calling his leadership and parliament into emergency sessions Saturday, October 12, in response respond to the congressional endorsement US president George W. Bush gained for waging war on Iraq...

...the Iraqi ruler also demanded that his successor be named in case he comes to harm in the hostilities. Only one name was put forward by, Saddam

 

I think Saddam's failure to follow the resolutions is a strong cause for UN action, but not for unpopular and unsupported unilateral action by the US.

My fear is that, while the US is the big dog today, that will not always be the case. There will come a time when the US drifts out of power and another country will have it's time in the sun. Do we REALLY want to set a precedent that says that when you're on top it is okay for international law and policy to apply only to those that aren't powerful enough to ignore it?

By unilaterally going into Iraq (or anyplace for that matter) without UN support, that is exactly what we would be doing. Is there a time and place when this is acceptable behavior? Of course. Just as it is acceptable to use deadly force when an intruder breaks into your home and threatens your family it is acceptable in the international community to do the same when you are directly threatened by another country.

However, I think it's tenuous at best to claim that Saddam possesses the ability to immediately threaten our borders or our interests.

Again, I'm not arguing the need to do something, just saying that we might want to look at the situation with a longer range plan than the US typically looks at things.

 

Disturbing stuff if anyone wants to read more about Saddam Hussein's sons.... http://www.msnbc.com/news/820190.asp?pne=msn

 

Guntersmurf, I just got around to reading those two articles you linked us with above.. I have to say those are both VERY informative reading.

 

to tell you the truth, I really don't trust American media... there's been an inreasing trend in selective reporting, judged in comparison to other nations' reporting.

The only good news out there seems to come ironically enough from evil imperialists Britain, the BBC, and the News Hour on KCET. On a side note, Daljit Daliwal is damn hot!!

 

Sounds like some fine young men and a quality family.

 

wdavis -



Thanks for the figures. I understand helping some countries that have tried to help us (ironic that Iran was helpful in some cases, isn't it?) Some of the other $ - I don't know enough about the circumstances to offer up an opinion.



My .02 on how to eliminate terrorism? I don't think it'll be possible for quite some time. We'll have to do our best to try and contain it.



I believe that we have to really invest in the "human resources" end of the spy business - all of our high tech weaponry is better suited to fighting cold war enemies like Russia. Not nearly as useful for hunting down terrorists in caves. Gotta infiltrate their "cells" - a dangerous and time consuming process. The problem is that it's going to be very difficult to stop an attack when the terrorist is willing to die for what he/she believes. There's just no simple way to go about it.



I think that DJSang has some valid points concerning our role in the world - much of the resentment seems to spring not from our success but from our policies that basically serve our interests - largely oil. We're in bed with the Saudis - why? Many Saudi citizens hate us - but the ruling families are making $$$ The Saudi "government" is one of the more oppressive Arab governments but the U.S. is behind them all the way - much to the dismay of ordinary Saudis. I believe that the lion's share of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. OIL!!! That's what drives much of our "foreign policy"



My wife and I have travelled abroad extensively and it is interesting to note how "the man on the street" in different countries perceive us. Many Americans sadly don't really ever look beyond their own neighborhood - completely ignorant of the rest of the world.



lig