Do you think this cartoon is correct?

[Ramo]

Why would he possibly do that? Saddam would be risking his ass by the possibility of the revelation of the source of the attack, as well as mobilizing American opinion for his removal even if evidence isn't found (see how the WTC attack changed American attitudes on Iraq, even though he wasn't even remotely involved), for no concievable gain.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Saddam didn't use Chemical or Biological weapons during the Gulf War because both John Major and Bush the elder said they would Nuke every square inch of Iraq if he did. In that case it would have been very easy to determine if the Iraqis used WoMD but with a suit case Nuclear bomb or even a dirty car bomb we couldn't tell if it was Iraq that was responsible or not. Thus there would be little to no deterent against Saddam using them as a terrorist weapon.

I remember a whole bunch of people talking **** about the Iraqis using terrorism against the US during Gulf 1. I also remember it not happening.

[Asher]

The US should save its breath and forget Iraq and focus on Canada. It's much closer and easier.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Thus there would be little to no deterent against Saddam using them as a terrorist weapon.

Just a side note here: why is lobbing the weapon via ICBM non-terrorist while using it covertly is?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher
The US should save its breath and forget Iraq and focus on Canada. It's much closer and easier.

If the US invaded Canada I'd fly out to Calgary and lynch you.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
If the US invaded Canada I'd fly out to Calgary and lynch you.

I look forward to it.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Frogger
And our women and children also won't die when we start bombing, now will they?

Huh? You don't think that this is how decisions get made?

Realpolitik. That's all it seems to be coming down to. In this case, U.S. realpolitik appears to be at odds with what much of the rest of the world views as realpolitik, at least in terms of Iraq.

We don't remove all risks because some just aren't worth it. If I could snap my fingers and kick Saddam out on the streets, then replace him with a democratic, rights-oriented government, I'd do it today.

But since that's not possible, it's better to just leave the man alone? Hell. If we don't pop him, I bet Israel will. They won't let him get nuclear weapons.

Hmm. Maybe that's an idea. Let's just leave Iraq alone — eventually Israel will take him out. That way the world can blame Israel for f*cking up the strategic status quo in the Middle East, huh? Then America can sit on the sidelines with the rest of the planet and pooh-pooh Israel for being such an aggressive little country.

Gatekeeper

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Asher
The US should save its breath and forget Iraq and focus on Canada. It's much closer and easier.

We're going for the Civ3 style cultural assimilation on that front.

[Dinner]

Every day Saddam has his anti-aircraft guns shot at allied planes and he has declared "total war" against the U.S. until the northern and sourthern no fly zones as well as the sanctions are lifted. One could be forgiven for thinking that Saddam's idea of total war would include terrorist attacks. Especially since he has already tried to assinate ex-President Bush on two different occations and allows internationally known terrorists safe haven in his country plus he gives money to Palestinian suicide bombers who murder women and children.

[KrazyHorse]

Saddam is full of hot air.

[metalhead]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why would he possibly do that? Saddam would be risking his ass by the possibility of the revelation of the source of the attack, as well as mobilizing American opinion for his removal even if evidence isn't found (see how the WTC attack changed American attitudes on Iraq, even though he wasn't even remotely involved), for no concievable gain.

Not remotely involved? F'n Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials scant months before 9/11!! Smart Americans have always realized the threat Saddam poses. We just finally have an excuse to clean up George H.W.'s mess. See, we Americans aren't barbarians - we, too, need a real, valid pretext for a war. And, we have it now. If you really think Saddam won't use nukes, you are kidding yourselves. We are dealing with an irrational megalomaniac. He has spit in the face of every attempt the international community has made to monitor his arms program. I don't know about anyone else, but this raises a HUGE red flag to me - why is he denying access if he has nothing to hide? He obviously is trying like hell to acquire these weapons to use them - why else has he hidden his arms program from the rest of the world? You all need to realize that it won't just be NYC - if Saddam gets nukes, it could be NYC, Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, and Madrid that get hit. Now, likely he'll align with you socialist Euros over there and just strike America, but who knows what he's really trying to do?

Hey gatekeeper, great posts

[Ramo]

Not remotely involved? F'n Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials scant months before 9/11!!

Federal law agents said they found no evidence for this back in April. It was a rumor.

We are dealing with an irrational megalomaniac.

Then why didn't he use chemical weapons in the Gulf War?

He has spit in the face of every attempt the international community has made to monitor his arms program.

Huh? Saddam has been making overtures to the US for arms inspections recently.

[Ramo]

I might add that the idea Saddam participated with al Qaeda in 9/11 is particularly ludicrous since they hate his guts (being relatively secular after all).

[Drake Tungsten]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend...

[Skanky Burns]

An enemy of an enemy is probably crazy enough to start attacking me too.