Originally posted by JaTo:
Pray tell how we were to otherwise remove a dictator of his like and make SURE that the elimination of the threat of chem/biochem weapons. More UN sanctions? I'm sure just another day or two Saddam would have surely broken under the IMMENSE strain of them... In all seriousness, how else were we to remove him and make sure that all chemical and biochemical weapons were destroyed?


Dear friend, we had established in my previous post that "I suggested" that we should have left Hussein in power. So argueing how to remove him is a waste of both of our time.

Originally posted by JaTo:
By this rather questionable line of reasoning I'm guessing the Taliban of Afghanistan (whom protected and worked with Bin Laden) only served as a threat to Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China, solely due to their geographic closeness...


Correct, the Taliban of Afghanistan only served as a threat to countries that they were able to attack; Uzbekistan for example. It would not be advantageous nor possible for them to create conflict with China, therefore they would not be a threat to China.

Originally posted by JaTo:
...or did the orchestrated events of 9/11 not constitute an attack on the US by a foreign entity protected by a governing body of the nation of Afghanistan?


As you can see above, the Taliban of Afghanistan did not, nor ever, serve as a threat to the United States. Therefore a pre-emptive strike on the Taliban of Afghanistan would not have been justifiable under the terms that the Taliban of Afghanistan posed a threat to the United States.

Originally posted by JaTo:
Of course they didn't serve as a military threat. We destroyed most of it in '91 and established "no-fly" zones that kept their planes on the ground, not to mention sanctions that prevented the importation (for the most part) of military equipment and supplies. Kuwait had much of the same opinion of Iraq that you have stated before late 1990; Iran did as well before Saddam tore up the peace treaty and declared war on Iran in 1980...


If Iraq did not serve as a military threat than why did we attack their military? Why was the basis that Iraq served as a threat used? Were they an economic threat?

Originally posted by JaTo:
Hundreds of tons of missing nerve agent and other weaponized material, one dictator that's sworn hatred and revenge against the US and no alarm bells going off AT ALL!? Saddam has a motive (his hatred for the US); all he would have needed for an opportunity is TIME.


Time for what? Time to not militarily threaten us?

I realize that your main point is that Iraq and there WMD posed a threat to the US.
1. Iraq had no means of attacking the United States with WMD. They simply had nothing able to deliver them militarily.
2. Iraq is going to go through all this trouble to acquire a WMD and then just give it away to some fundamentalist who does not even support Iraq? I can see where the Taliban of Afghanistan, with their strict Muslim code, could be seen as an ideal government to the Islamic fundamentalists, but none of them could support the dictatorship that Saddam had going. Saddam would know this.
3. Islamic fundamentalists are going to go through all this trouble to acquire a WMD from a country so closely monitored? I have a hard time believing they can acquire so many weapons from the old USSR and Russia, but not WMD. And that they are unable to acquire WMD from any of the many other countries and organizations in the world.
4. Iraq would not attack the United States for the same reason Iran does not. For the same reason China does not. Because it would bring about their own destruction. The means of attacking would not matter, if Iraq gave a fundamentalist (which we have established they would not) a WMD, it would be no different than Saddam launching one at the United States (which he could not)...the same end would await Iraq.
5. The only situation where Iraq would use WMD was if there own destruction was imminent regardless of whether or not they used them. This was the case in the war, and still they did not use them. WMD simply do not pose a threat if they are not, nor ever will be, used.

A key point of mine is that in this world, the term "threat" is all relative. Any nation with a bullet that is not the United States of America can be considered a threat to the United States. I believe Saddam would rather have dozens of palaces, control of an entire country, and millions of dollars; then to bring about his own demise (if he even could).

-Giovanni One turbocharger. Two intercoolers. All love.