Why didn't he set fire to Iraq's oil installations. Why didn't he use chemical weapons on American troops [let's assume for the sake of argument that he's got them]? Why didn't he fire off a few surface-to-surface missiles into Israel? Why didn't he slaughter the Kurds living within his borders? Why didn't he do one single thing that was feared he might do before this war started? Is it because he's not quite the monster he's been portrayed as being? Is it because he cares more about the Iraqi people than was earlier believed and didn't want huge numbers of civilian casualties? Does he fear a post-war trial? Is he concerned about what history will say about him?
What I don't get is that if he wasn't going to do any of the things that we feared he'd do, then why didn't he just walk away from Iraq a couple of months ago and save all parties concerned a lot of time and money? Or would he have lost too much face if he didn't at least go through the motions of fighting the enemy?
So Why DIDN'T Saddam . . . ?
He tried but we didn't give him the chance?
Perhaps he didn't because of that, and he would have looked bad when he was trying to shore up sympathy in the rest of the world.
But, I don't think he was ever a threat to the US. I don't think he was a real threat to much anyone as long as we were in the region, and Isreal can more than take care of themselves.
Perhaps he didn't because of that, and he would have looked bad when he was trying to shore up sympathy in the rest of the world.
But, I don't think he was ever a threat to the US. I don't think he was a real threat to much anyone as long as we were in the region, and Isreal can more than take care of themselves.
Saddam didn't have a chance? The run up to the war took many months. He could have prepared the several things I mentioned during that time. Then Bush gave him the ultimatum: "Ya got 48 hours to get out of Dodge." Saddam could have then set the wheels in motion for a variety of bad things. But strangly, nothing happened. I'm still wondering why.
Dr. Ron 
TM "Do it 'till you're sick of it. Do it 'till you can't do it no more." Jesse Winchester
TM "Do it 'till you're sick of it. Do it 'till you can't do it no more." Jesse WinchesterMaybe none of it was real, Sadam didn't have the Weopons, the U.S. did (planted them there to defend against Islamic upheaval), and Sadam was uncontrolable and therefore needed to be eliminated so the US could install a controlable dictator? Look at what is going on now? I see no Iraqi leaders taking charge, how can you have democracy in a religious state? Religion does not work within a lack of free religious beliefs. Thats why the good ol' USA has freedom of religion. Imagine if we all had to be "New Christians" because Bush said so and if you were not, you would be killed and punished? Thats Iraq and the Middle east except we are talking Muslim faith, not Christioan, Saddam or no Sadamm you can't give democracy and freedom yet say you have no freedom to believe what faith you choose..
I'm afraid your post doesn't really address my question. Saddam was threatened with extinction. He's been characterized as a monster. So why didn't he do anything "monsterous" before exiting stage left?
Dr. Ron TM "Do it 'till you're sick of it. Do it 'till you can't do it no more." Jesse Winchester
TM "Do it 'till you're sick of it. Do it 'till you can't do it no more." Jesse Winchester
Ron wrote:I'm afraid your post doesn't really address my question. Saddam was threatened with extinction. He's been characterized as a monster. So why didn't he do anything "monsterous" before exiting stage left?
It's a great question. Unfortunately, I wouldn't expect an answer anytime soon. Just wave a few flags, raise the terrorist mood ring level when people ask questions, get your buddies at ClearChannel to organize a few pro-war rallies, and everyone will forget anyway. Short term memory, ya know.
As I stated before, Saddam may have decided NOT to do anything because he knew that if he did do something like send missles to Israel or blow up oil wells, it would give validity to Dubya's claims.
Maybe the Iraqi military rebelled and refused to obey Saddam's orders.
We just don't know the answers.
Maybe the Iraqi military rebelled and refused to obey Saddam's orders.
We just don't know the answers.
Grant wrote:As I stated before, Saddam may have decided NOT to do anything because he knew that if he did do something like send missles to Israel or blow up oil wells, it would give validity to Dubya's claims.
I think what I'm getting at is why in the world would Saddam give a hoot whether or not Bush's claims were valid or not? He's never appeared to be the kind of guy to care one way or another what "other" world leaders have to say about him. He has also appeared to care less about whatever history also might say. He seems to have merely walked away. And that seems a little out of character IMO.
Oh, BTW, it's being reported now that Bush "exaggerated" claims that Saddam posed a threat to the United States. According to an administration official, the *real* purpose of the war was to "make a statement." Why, you ask? Because it could be done. Whadda revelation! This news comes as a real shock! [sarcastic]
Ron wrote:I think what I'm getting at is why in the world would Saddam give a hoot whether or not Bush's claims were valid or not? He's never appeared to be the kind of guy to care one way or another what "other" world leaders have to say about him. He has also appeared to care less about whatever history also might say. He seems to have merely walked away. And that seems a little out of character IMO.
Right. If he had WMD, and his back was up against the wall, and he knew Junior ("he tried to kill Dad!") was coming with a bloodlust, it seems he wouldn't be sitting back and thinking, "But what will the world think of me?" If I was in his position, I would have picked up a stick and fought if that was all I had.
If he wouldn't fight dirty under those circumstances, then why in the world was he a threat when he was over there and we were over here? I don't get it. Particularly the 'imminent' part.
Oh, BTW, it's being reported now that Bush "exaggerated" claims that Saddam posed a threat to the United States. According to an administration official, the *real* purpose of the war was to "make a statement." Why, you ask? Because it could be done. Whadda revelation! This news comes as a real shock! [sarcastic]
Where did you see this? Was it from Ari the Magnificent?
What Bush did was no better than what Saddam did in 1990, make a statement. Our men and women had to die, and we have to pay for his little show of force.
Sure, I still think our efforts helped a lot of Iraqis, but this will all come to bite us in the ass. We will NOT get the government and influence we want down there.
OTOH, Al-Qaieda also made a statement when they flew planes into the WT towers. Do two wrongs make a right?
Saddam did not have any direct involvement in the WT attack. Sure, he is/was an asshole to his people, and his neighbors, but really, what did he do to us?
Sure, I still think our efforts helped a lot of Iraqis, but this will all come to bite us in the ass. We will NOT get the government and influence we want down there.
OTOH, Al-Qaieda also made a statement when they flew planes into the WT towers. Do two wrongs make a right?
Saddam did not have any direct involvement in the WT attack. Sure, he is/was an asshole to his people, and his neighbors, but really, what did he do to us?
[quote="Patrick M"][quote="Ron"]
Right. If he had WMD, and his back was up against the wall, and he knew Junior ("he tried to kill Dad!") was coming with a bloodlust, it seems he wouldn't be sitting back and thinking, "But what will the world think of me?" If I was in his position, I would have picked up a stick and fought if that was all I had.
quote]
Because he is egotistical, but he also wants to SURVIVE! He is a little weasal. All he cares about is himself. He cares what people think of him. It's an ego boost for him. Why else would he put up posters and statues of his mug allover the place? He would look worse in the world opinion if he had the nuclear or chemical weapons and used them.
Right. If he had WMD, and his back was up against the wall, and he knew Junior ("he tried to kill Dad!") was coming with a bloodlust, it seems he wouldn't be sitting back and thinking, "But what will the world think of me?" If I was in his position, I would have picked up a stick and fought if that was all I had.
quote]
Because he is egotistical, but he also wants to SURVIVE! He is a little weasal. All he cares about is himself. He cares what people think of him. It's an ego boost for him. Why else would he put up posters and statues of his mug allover the place? He would look worse in the world opinion if he had the nuclear or chemical weapons and used them.
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Maybe I'm just a nut, but I smell a secret deal being cut at some point. The fact that the whole freakin' Iraqi power structure just up and vanished literally overnight suggests that Saddam and/or his crew were given the opportunity to high-tail it out of town in exchange for not torching the oil fields or dumping VX on the Kurds or whatever.
However, the old adage about bring careful what you wish for comes to mind. Now that we've ousted Saddam, we may discover (like the British in the 20s) that setting up a compliant government in the artificial construct called "Iraq" is harder than we think.
Ryan
However, the old adage about bring careful what you wish for comes to mind. Now that we've ousted Saddam, we may discover (like the British in the 20s) that setting up a compliant government in the artificial construct called "Iraq" is harder than we think.
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
Patrick M wrote: Where did you see this [Real Reason for War]? Was it from Ari the Magnificent?
I read it in the April 30 issue of the International Herald Tribune--which means the New York Times--in an editorial by Times staffer Paul Krugman entitled, "Bush's weapons of mass deceit." The thrust of the piece is that Americans were "misled into war" from the very beginning. He concludes: "Now, it's true that the war removed an evil tyrant. But a democracy's decisions, right or wrong, are supposed to take place with the informed consent of its citizens. That didn't happen this time. And we are a democracy--aren't we?"
I'm sure you'll be able to find it posted on the NYTimes' site or elsewhere on the Net.
Rspaight wrote:Maybe I'm just a nut, but I smell a secret deal being cut at some point. The fact that the whole freakin' Iraqi power structure just up and vanished literally overnight suggests that Saddam and/or his crew were given the opportunity to high-tail it out of town in exchange for not torching the oil fields or dumping VX on the Kurds or whatever.
I'm inclined to agree with you, especially in light of another [front page] story in yesterday's paper about the mysterious circumstances under which a raid on a house containing either Saddam or high-ups/family was scrubbed. With zero explanation someone high up the chain called off the raid at the very last minute. The tip re: Saddam and/or family members' whereabouts was one of the most credible so far. So if you're right, this may have been a straggler who hadn't made it out of the country yet.
Rspaight wrote:However, the old adage about bring careful what you wish for comes to mind. Now that we've ousted Saddam, we may discover (like the British in the 20s) that setting up a compliant government in the artificial construct called "Iraq" is harder than we think.
Oh yeah. It's going to be a nightmare. But even that may serve American corporate interests as a not-so-easily-subdued Iraq will require a strong American military presence--which is what they've wanted all along. How else can America maintain a degree of control in the area and guarantee a secure source of oil?
Rspaight wrote:However, the old adage about bring careful what you wish for comes to mind. Now that we've ousted Saddam, we may discover (like the British in the 20s) that setting up a compliant government in the artificial construct called "Iraq" is harder than we think.
On a related note, what the heck is going on in Afghanistan? It seems after we blow a place to kingdom come, we don't hear about it again. Will Iraq be the same way?
"I've never been a long-term planner about anything. I have lived my life with more a short-term focus."
-W (Texas Monthly, 5/94)