THE BORE
General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: brawndolicious on September 30, 2007, 08:05:27 PM
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=484162&in_page_id=1811
am I crazy or would this have been a better idea than going into full-scale war? plus, him offering this pretty much guarantees that he didn't have any WMD's.
some wtf parts of this are that he says he wanted to take any info he had on WMD's but is that stuff you could just find on google? also this is the dailymail and I think they have a bad reputation in reliability but they said their source is from a spanish newspaper quoting the ex-spanish prime minister.
-
Personally, I'm glad America didn't accomodate a cut and runner.
-
Yea, give $1 billion to Saddam. That would've worked well :meatspin
-
We should have not just done anything with Iraq and focus on the War on Terror.
But that's just me.
-
*A few days before the war*
"So youre saying we dont have to fight you? We just need to give you 1 billion dollars?"
"Yes."
"Well that sounds like a deal, here you go!"
"HA!"
"Aww :("
*War starts anyway*
-
We should have not just done anything with Iraq and focus on the War on Terror.
But that's just me.
Well the administration argued that Iraq was part of the War on Terror.
-
*A few days before the war*
"So youre saying we dont have to fight you? We just need to give you 1 billion dollars?"
"Yes."
"Well that sounds like a deal, here you go!"
"HA!"
"Aww :("
*War starts anyway*
:lol
Pretty much. Whoever actually believes Saddam would have stopped whatever it was that he was doing against AMURICA is dumb! He probably would have put the money towards the destruction of Israel or something really obvious.
-
*A few days before the war*
"So youre saying we dont have to fight you? We just need to give you 1 billion dollars?"
"Yes."
"Well that sounds like a deal, here you go!"
"HA!"
"Aww :("
*War starts anyway*
:lol
Pretty much. Whoever actually believes Saddam would have stopped whatever it was that he was doing against AMURICA is dumb! He probably would have put the money towards the destruction of Israel or something really obvious.
But what was he doing against America in the first place? other than being a tyrant and supposedly having WMD's?
Without a country he wouldn't have much reason to try to attack any country, so say 100 million (as 1 billion was probably just probably to start high in negotiations) might have worked.
-
Yea, give $1 billion to Saddam. That would've worked well :meatspin
well the arab nations wanted to settle it in a way like this also in the days right before the war but nobody really paid attention to that because of how hyper the media was about a war starting. if there were negotiations, it would have probably been a lot lower and he wouldn't be allowed to take "information on WMD's" whatever that is.
-
We should have not just done anything with Iraq and focus on the War on Terror.
But that's just me.
Correct answer. Saddam was boxed in and irrelevant. We should have invaded Iran and bombed North Korea simultaneously
-
We should have not just done anything with Iraq and focus on the War on Terror.
But that's just me.
Correct answer. Saddam was boxed in and irrelevant. We should have invaded Iran and bombed North Korea simultaneously
Without Iraq we probably could have squashed the Taliban much easier and much quicker and focus all of our attention with putting pressure on Pakistan to turn over Bin Laden. It all seems too easy almost.
Saddam was a messed up dictator but after getting his ass kicked in the first gulf war I highly doubt attempting to start shit with America was ever on his agenda.
Iraq's neighbors such as Iran fucking HAAAAATED Saddam, they would have kept him in check if he ever got a bit too cocky.
-
If we didn't stop Iraq they would have attacked the US. We had to fight them over there so they didn't fight us over here; would you rather the front lines be Baghdad or the local kindergarden in your state? Can you imagine what would happen if Uday became president of Iraq? We would have been hit again
-
You know how to recite those talking points waaaay too well.
-
It's not about talking points, it's about protecting America. If the liberals had their way the entire country would be worse off than San Fransisco, which is an example of what biological weapons can do.
Protect the Homeland, Protect Marriage
-
why the fuck would you skip iraq and attack iran? you know how long it would take to fabricate WMD's again?
-
why the fuck would you skip iraq and attack iran? you know how long it would take to fabricate WMD's again?
Iran would not be much of an issue if we didn't go into Iraq.
Iran would be focused on keeping Saddam bottled up since they are enemies and we wouldn't give a flying fuck if they vote in a dictator since he'd oddly be doing "our work".
-
you're saying iran should have attacked iraq?
-
you're saying iran should have attacked iraq?
No, but they would have kept Saddam bottled up in Iraq.
-
wtf?
-
you're saying iran should have attacked iraq?
No, but they would have kept Saddam bottled up in Iraq.
I get your point, balancing out the middeleastren powers, in a coldwaresk type scenario, but I doubt it would have worked that way.
-
wtf?
Iran hated Saddam
-
Iran hated Saddam
and each country lost a generation in the iran-iraq war. during that war (which saddam started), iraq was given chemical weapons by the west when iran was invading iraq and eventually a treaty was signed after each side lost a huge number of soldiers. iran probably wouldn't care to protect anybody else from saddam and they definitely would be careful if they did have to take preventative measures. it's not a "cold" war. each country basically ran out of 20 year olds.
-
Having Saddam in exile wouldn't have solved the problems the US said were necessitating a war. Further, he'd just be a distraction as we tried to restructure the government, only this time without a strong military presence trying to maintain order. The same fundamental divisions within the country would be present, and (all other decisions being equal) the country would fall into the chaos it's in now--only IMO quicker.
While I don't buy the argument that Saddam was being effectively contained, I do agree that at the very least he didn't like sanctions on his country and was trying to get them lessened; while at some point this--in addition to his long-term goals of being a nuclear/etc power--would need to be addressed, there was no impetus necessitating immediate action, while we were still in Afghanistan, while we were still trying to focus on global counterterrorist actions after 9/11.
-
what I'm saying is more that diplomacy should have been at least attempted.
-
More diplomacy should have been attempted in the Security Council between states, and better judgment should have been attempted on the part of the Bush Administration, that's for sure.
-
so...we agree?
-
NO U