Saddam Hussein 'lied about WMDs to protect Iraq from Iran'

**Oscar** · 10 Jul 09,, 11:36

Originally Posted by Shey Tapani

secular, prosperous dictatorship

A what?

prosperuos dictatorship?

Not all democracies are prosperous and not all dictatorships are poor.

**Shek** · 10 Jul 09,, 12:11

Originally Posted by Oscar

Yes, but had we let Saddam a chance after 1991 maybe we could have done something out of this country. A secular, prosperous dictatorship checking the Iranians...Maybe not, but who knows? Double containment was such a failed US strategy.

Oscar,
Secularism was on the wane after 1991. Saddam had to appeal to religion to boost his popularity and he allowed Salafists to take root in Anbar province and elsewhere, laying the groundwork (American actions helped) for AQI to spring up in Anbar.

**Dreadnought** · 10 Jul 09,, 13:33

Originally Posted by Oscar

Yeah don't lie, be honest.

For Saddam being honest with his capabilities would have made him look weak. The US was just out to get him, I'm not sure he would have saved his own ass no matter what he would have done.

He could have stepped down. He was offered sanctuary prior to the invasion and became more ignorrant as the clock ticked. The US had plenty of reasons for his removal Quwait being one of them lessons he could not comprehend.

**The Black Ghost** · 12 Jul 09,, 06:54

Originally Posted by JAD_333

The Telegraph article said "The transcripts, released under a freedom of information request, both undermined the Bush case for war, which was based on the threat of WMD and alleged Iraqi links to al-Qaeda..."

Does anyone believe the transcripts "undermined" Bush's case for war?

Bush argued for war before Saddam's deception became clear.

Its difficult to undermine a war once it has already started. WMDs or not, Iraq has had a long and ugly history of acting against the world, brutalizing its people, and the fact that they helped build their own case against them for years only hurt them in the end.

Plans for the invasion of Iraq have been in place since the First Gulf War, and it was seriously considered in the Clinton years. 9/11 and increased hostility from Saddam finally tipped the scales though, he just chose a bad time to act tough. Now Mr. Kim on the other hand, he knows what he's doing--wait until the liberal is in office and then run your mouth with threats.

**The Black Ghost** · 12 Jul 09,, 06:57

Originally Posted by Oscar

Not all democracies are prosperous and not all dictatorships are poor.

A valid point.

A dictatorship has the potential to be a great society--if the leader is not corrupt, if he does things the way you want them, isnt too harsh. We havent seen that yet though...maybe in Roman times to a certain limited extent.

**Shey Tapani** · 12 Jul 09,, 09:03

The Black ghost posted:

A dictatorship has the potential to be a great society--if the leader is not corrupt, if he does things the way you want them, isnt too harsh

I think it is a safe bet that whoewer is the dictator has some serious mentall problems. Why would he want so moch power?