Was Iraq a threat to the USA? (1 Viewer)

[::Major_Baker::]

Was it a threat to the United States? Not the region, not the world, but the USA?

 

[massive_attack]

Let's see...

Iran Iraq war leaves Iraq needing resources. Iraq tries to "reclaim" Kuwait. US and Co kicks some ***, imposes a decade of sanctions which devistates the country, their economy, their people, their ability to make war.

Was Iraq a threat to America ?

There's this little place called "North Korea".

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Iraq was several sorts of a threat to the US.
However, there was no indication that Hussein was going to attack the US directly or by proxy, conventionally or w/ WMD in the foreseeable future.

 

[Iriemon]

Iraq was several sorts of a threat to the US.
However, there was no indication that Hussein was going to attack the US directly or by proxy, conventionally or w/ WMD in the foreseeable future.

Depending upon how you define "threat" many countries represent a threat to the US, many much more than Iraq in 2003. Russia (and probably China) has the capacity to launch hundreds or thousands of intercontinental nukes at the US; far more of a threat that Iraq.

 

[americanwoman]

I have yet to see anything that would have made Iraq a direct threat to the USA.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Simon W. Moon,

Iraq was several sorts of a threat to the US.
However, there was no indication that Hussein was going to attack the US directly or by proxy, conventionally or w/ WMD in the foreseeable future.

Agreed.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Iraq was a threat like the big cockroach on the floor is to me. He's ugly and dirty but will he hurt me? no. Actually better yet. Iraq is a threat like I have the chance of walking into a cob web

 

[Tashah]

Whether a threat or not the essential reality is... we're there. Since the past is irrevocable, the only option is to deal with the present with an eye towards the future.

 

[BodiSatva]

Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
Iraq was several sorts of a threat to the US.
However, there was no indication that Hussein was going to attack the US directly or by proxy, conventionally or w/ WMD in the foreseeable future.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Iriemon
Depending upon how you define "threat" many countries represent a threat to the US, many much more than Iraq in 2003. Russia (and probably China) has the capacity to launch hundreds or thousands of intercontinental nukes at the US; far more of a threat that Iraq.

I agree.
"Threat" is the operative word.
"Threat" to the United States is the issue.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Iraq was several sorts of a threat to the US.
However, there was no indication that Hussein was going to attack the US directly or by proxy, conventionally or w/ WMD in the foreseeable future.

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/

 

[Iriemon]

Whether a threat or not the essential reality is... we're there. Since the past is irrevocable, the only option is to deal with the present with an eye towards the future.

1. Looking to the future of Iraq, our strategy must reflect the fact that the invasion and occupation is reasonably perceived as being illegitimate, and our expectations and strategy must take that into account if we hope to succeed.

2. If you don't learn from your past mistakes, you are bound to repeat them in the future.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Whether a threat or not the essential reality is... we're there. Since the past is irrevocable, the only option is to deal with the present with an eye towards the future.

There may be some valuable lessons in the past. If they're learned, perhaps we can make new and different mistakes in the future.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

1. Looking to the future of Iraq, our strategy must reflect the fact that the invasion and occupation is reasonably perceived as being illegitimate, and our expectations and strategy must take that into account if we hope to succeed.

2. If you don't learn from your past mistakes, you are bound to repeat them in the future.

We should have learned that in vietnam, where we also got a taste of a nationalistic insurgency. Don't expect us to act any differently, especially when piles of experts tried to disuade Bush form invading without REALLY thinking things through.

 

[Tashah]

Whether a threat or not the essential reality is... we're there. Since the past is irrevocable, the only option is to deal with the present with an eye towards the future.

There may be some valuable lessons in the past. If they're learned, perhaps we can make new and different mistakes in the future.

I didn't say the past lacks value, I said that it is irrevocable. Hopefully, we have all learned something from the decisions that birthed the Iraq War. At this time however, to ruminate on causal circumstance and issue morality does not extricate us from our Iraqi present nor does it address the Iraqi future.

In addition, entrée circumstances do not ascertain the historical value of this event in the longview. It is up to history and future historians to determine whether the Iraq saga in-toto was a horrific mistake or a positive turning point in the collective history of the Middle East.

 

[zymurgy]

I voted no.

Everybody could be a threat but after 12 years of economic and military sanctions, that was a pretty wimpy country.

Tornado season will kill more of us then Sadaam could of even dreamed of accomplishing.

 

[BigDog]

Was it a threat to the United States? Not the region, not the world, but the USA?

Of course not. And not really to the other two either.

 

[ProudAmerican]

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

looks like the dems thought he was a threat before Bush did. Looks like Hillary was just following bills lead.

My guess is, we simply got it wrong. mistakes were made. but NO ONE on EITHER SIDE of the isle intentionally lied to anyone.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

My guess is, we simply got it wrong. mistakes were made. but NO ONE on EITHER SIDE of the isle intentionally lied to anyone.

You come down on the side of incompetence rather than malevolence then I take it.

 

[Iriemon]

looks like the dems thought he was a threat before Bush did. Looks like Hillary was just following bills lead.

My guess is, we simply got it wrong. mistakes were made. but NO ONE on EITHER SIDE of the isle intentionally lied to anyone.

Hillary was wrong to the extent she asserted that Iraq had WMDs, though she did say that that was what intellegence reported. More importantly, these statements were made in Oct 2002, and subsequently UN inspectors were allowed back into Iraq. Time and again they followed our intellegence leads only to find no trace of the existence of WMDs where our sources intellegence indicated they were supposed to be. That raised or should have raised red flags as to the accuracy of our intellegence about Iraq's WMDs, which should have counselled for caution instead of rushing to war in March 2003.

Hillary in that speach also counselled against unilateral military invasion:

"If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us."

Bill Clinton in 1998 was not talking about Iraq having WMDs, but about a concern that he was setting up programs to develop WMDs. He was talking about a long term threat posed by the development of these weapons.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/312529-post85.html.

Contrast between the Administration, which was stating far more conclusively that Iraq had WMDs and was an urgent and direct threat to the US, requiring immediate invasion in Mar 2003.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Saddam was supporting and aiding terrorist and terrorism. Exactly how is that not a threat to us, the region and the world.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Saddam was supporting and aiding terrorist and terrorism. Exactly how is that not a threat to us, the region and the world.

you mean by paying families of suicide bombers?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

you mean by paying families of suicide bombers?

Thats a start, were there not training facilities in northern Iraq? No. Saddam was not going to march onto US Soil, but that doesn't not make him a threat. And no, he is not the only one out there

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Thats a start, were there not training facilities in northern Iraq? No. Saddam was not going to march onto US Soil, but that doesn't not make him a threat. And no, he is not the only one out there

The secretary of defense said that me was planning to strike us, but who believes what he says anymore anyways....
Training facilities, perhaps. Where were they? Got a link on those?

 

[Iriemon]

Thats a start, were there not training facilities in northern Iraq? No. Saddam was not going to march onto US Soil, but that doesn't not make him a threat. And no, he is not the only one out there

Hussein did not control No. Iraq. Those training camps were in the region under the control of our now good friends, the Kurds.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

The secretary of defense said that me was planning to strike us, but who believes what he says anymore anyways....
Training facilities, perhaps. Where were they? Got a link on those?

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=338854

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm