Saddam Hussein called Osama bin Laden a

Saddam Hussein called Osama bin Laden a

www.dail ymail.co.uk

Saddam Hussein called Osama bin Laden a 'zealot', the FBI has revealed.
The former Iraqi leader also bluffed about his possession of weapons of mass destruction because he believed Iran was a significant threat, declassified FBI interviews have shown.
The reports show he asserted he was more worried about Iran discovering Iraq's vulnerabilities than he was about the repercussions from America of blocking UN weapons inspectors.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This once again proves that the war was very unfouded and against the wrong peson. There was obviously another purpose for the war as the only thing the war has achieved is further distabilisation of the region, a haven for terrorists, an increasing hatred for the West and the oil is going to other countries such as China, so on the outside there is no real benefit of going to war with Iraq. What an earth is this world coming too?

www.dail ymail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by fapython


The second line of the snippet of the article you posted is the reason we went to war.

He led on that he had WMDs so as not to look weak in Irans eyes. We called his bluff and now he has been hung.

His fear of looking weak led to his downfall.

reply to post by fapython


wow, i find that very interesting. almost a little unbelievable.

what do you think would have happened to Iran if they tried any hanky panky over there?

would america and the world come to the aid of iraq? it would have been better for him to lay his cards on the table and ask for a safety net from the UN, and then try new relations with nations in his vacinity to repell any kind of threat by Iran.

just seems rather dumb to lie about something of that nature when reprocussion were laid out so far in advance.

actually, didnt he claim iraq possessed no "WMDs"?

He was an enemy to Osama and Iran...

Why did we take him out of power again?

Oh yeah, he started selling his oil for Euros, first country to ever try it...

reply to post by jd140


No, countries are very certain about alot of facts before they go to war with a nation, especially concerning WMD's, if that is the sole reason they went to war they would have had to have been pretty sure. And if the WMD case is correct, then why is NK allowed to poses them ? the fact of the matter is America knows that NK's WMD's are real and pose a threat which is why they don't risk war with NK.

What would have happened if Gore had been elected in 2000, rather than Bush? Is it possible that Saddam would be our closest friend in the region now?

Having established that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11, Gore might have dropped the sanctions against Iraq, and even moved our military into Iraq peaceably, and used Iraq as a staging ground for pursuing Al-Qaeda.

That scenario was purely impossible with George Bush in office, so it seems to me. We might as well speculate that 9/11 might not have occurred at all if Gore was in office.

The White House has admitted that documents placed on Bush's desk on September 9, 2001 detailed a plan for attacking Afghanistan by mid-October. Significant deployments to the region of United States and British forces were already underway. All that was missing for an invasion was the casus belli - the cause for hostilities. That arrived two days later, in New York, in the form of the 9/11 attacks

www.justicefor911.org...

Impossible to say, I know.

However, it has always seemed to me the starkest of coincidence that both times we were at war with Iraq, a Bush was commander in chief of the USA military.



[edit on 3-7-2009 by Axial Leader]

reply to post by fapython


1. Saddam by his own admission acted like he had them so as not to look weak.

2. He has been known to use them on his own people. A fact that is proven over and over again by witnesses, pictures, tapes and mass buriel sites.

3. He repeatedly turned away inspectors who were sent there partly to ensure he did not possess them.

4. Intelligance from around the world all pointed that he had WMDs.


Short of him using a nuke or a biological weapon on us, all roads pointed that he had WMDs.

I am in agreement with a few posters in that if he had came clean, he would most likely still be in power and his army would be hunting down Bin Laden.

But his ego got in the way and he was worried about looking weak.


As for North Korea. That is President Obamas mess. He will eventually do something about it or not.

reply to post by open_eyeballs


He did claim he didn't have them.

Unfortuanetly his words didn't match his actions.

Originally posted by Axial Leader
What would have happened if Gore had been elected in 2000, rather than Bush?

You can change the puppets but the show rolls on...

The real question is: who is directing the show?

Originally posted by jd140
He did claim he didn't have them.

Unfortunately his words didn't match his actions.

He didn't have any WMD

The US/UK governments provided a whole theatre of evidence that he did.

The evidence was even rolled out in person by Bush, Rice, Powell, Blair and the rest of the criminal overworld using intel reports, maps, video and audio...

...a lot of good that evidence turned out to be.

If there is one thing we know for definite it is that the Iraq war was about anything but WMD.

And do not forget that WMDs were the sole lie that our governments sold us in order to reduce a country to rubble while murdering thousands of men, women and children in the process.

And to address your points:

1. Every country lies about it's military might - the US knew this as it regularly kick out BS about what it does /does not have. If it didn't it wouldn't be too smart IMO.

2. He did use them on his own people. However, there was no need for the US to murder even more of the men, women and children of Iraq. Collateral damage eh?!

3. So what if he turned away inspectors. Any country doing this can expect sanctions et al. What is not appropriate in this situation is for a country to be turned to rubble. Although the invaders are doing a nice job of garnering contracts to build it back up again! And I am pretty sure that the US government is No.1 when it comes to murdering large populations using WMDS (nuclear weapons).

4. The intelligence? So where are the WMDs? Not there are they? So what have we learned from this whole debacle? Hopefully it is that our goverment will lie to us, it will 'create' intelligence, bend words and hide the truth in order to progress the war machine.

Saddam was a dictator. He was a murderer. The Iraq war was not the answer to this problem.

[edit on 3/7/2009 by skibtz]

reply to post by skibtz


Bottom line is that he shouldn't have puffed out his chest and acted 10 feet tall and bullet proof.

As far as your post, I don't care to engage in that discussion. So you can tell it to someone who cares.

Originally posted by jd140
Bottom line is that he shouldn't have puffed out his chest and acted 10 feet tall and bullet proof.

That is a damn fine reason to destroy a country, murder it's people and send thousands of military personnel to their deaths.

Great consolation to the above mentioned families right?

As far as your post, I don't care to engage in that discussion. So you can tell it to someone who cares.

My post was in response to a discussion that you started

The fact that you don't care is evident...

[edit on 3/7/2009 by skibtz]

reply to post by skibtz


Agreed. At least Saddam kept the peace - look at the Shiite death squads rounding up Sunni men, kidnapping, raping and then murdering them. Apparently a million Iraqis have died since the occupation, which is far more than Saddam would have even considered killing.

But keep going, Americans, you did the right thing I'm sure. Just like the destruction of Carthage and Corinth in 146BC - a brutal display of power.

reply to post by skibtz



I was referring to you mentioning murder, calling us invaders and the all all around accusations you had made.

Believe what you want. I won't waste my time with it.

Originally posted by jd140
I was referring to you mentioning murder

The statement of murder was balanced with the acknolwedgement that Saddam was indeed a murderer.

calling us invaders and the all all around accusations you had made.

Unless you are part of the US government I didn't refer to you at all.

I am not naive enough to blame a society for it's government's actions. You are cool there my friend

My accusations are founded in reality, unlike the claims for WMDs of course...

Believe what you want. I won't waste my time with it.

Thank you.

reply to post by jd140


You know that the US actually did invade a soverign nation on the, at best, misguided assumption that there were WMDs, don't you? And thats if we assume it wasn't because Iraq began trading oil in euros and not dollars.

Defend it all you like, but Iraq appears to be a much worse place now than then, IMO.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by open_eyeballs

 

He did claim he didn't have them.

Unfortuanetly his words didn't match his actions.

That is the most contraditory statement I have saw here...

He claimed he did not have them ... ok

Now , for the actions , he blowed someone up right? hummm .... no
Because he DID NOT have WMDs.



Now if you are talking about his actions , brought to you by CNN! And your leaders , Saddam probably has done some actions that he was not even aware about!


It is obvious that it was a lie , you just accept what you are told from the MSM too much IMO.

Actually , seeing you start an argument , and then running away from it is at least amusing

Originally posted by breakingdradles
He was an enemy to Osama and Iran...

Why did we take him out of power again?

Oh yeah, he started selling his oil for Euros, first country to ever try it...

though really, it's not funny because it's probably true.