Interesting article about Saddam

[SpeedRacer 1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4837276.stm

According to the article, Saddam was divided between presenting the case to the UN that he had no WMD on the one hand, and maintaining an image of power in the middle east that MAYBE he did still have them. That along with many delusions & misjudgements on his part contributed to his downfall.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4837276.stm

According to the article, Saddam was divided between presenting the case to the UN that he had no WMD on the one hand, and maintaining an image of power in the middle east that MAYBE he did still have them. That along with many delusions & misjudgements on his part contributed to his downfall.

Reminds me of a guy who was shot because he kept threatening the police and saying he had a gun in his pocket. Turns out he didn't have a gun, but the police decided not to take the chance of believing him. Justified shooting.

-

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Reminds me of a guy who was shot because he kept threatening the police and saying he had a gun in his pocket. Turns out he didn't have a gun, but the police decided not to take the chance of believing him. Justified shooting.

That's horrible. How fair is it that the racist cops can riddle an unarmed man with pounds of lead? That's not a fair fight at all. They should have just him in the hand if he reached for his pocket. Or even tased him from behind.

Then the man could have gotten the counseling he needed.

Instead he's dead.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4837276.stm

According to the article, Saddam was divided between presenting the case to the UN that he had no WMD on the one hand, and maintaining an image of power in the middle east that MAYBE he did still have them. That along with many delusions & misjudgements on his part contributed to his downfall.

Reminds me of a guy who was shot because he kept threatening the police and saying he had a gun in his pocket. Turns out he didn't have a gun, but the police decided not to take the chance of believing him. Justified shooting.

-

Then there's this example:

"In February 1999, four New York City policemen searching for a rape suspect knocked on Amadou Diallo's door to question him. When he came to the door he reached inside his jacket, at which point the officers shot at him 41 times, hitting him with 19 bullets. The object Diallo was reaching for turned out to be his wallet."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4837276.stm

According to the article, Saddam was divided between presenting the case to the UN that he had no WMD on the one hand, and maintaining an image of power in the middle east that MAYBE he did still have them. That along with many delusions & misjudgements on his part contributed to his downfall.

Reminds me of a guy who was shot because he kept threatening the police and saying he had a gun in his pocket. Turns out he didn't have a gun, but the police decided not to take the chance of believing him. Justified shooting.

-

Then there's this example:

"In February 1999, four New York City policemen searching for a rape suspect knocked on Amadou Diallo's door to question him. When he came to the door he reached inside his jacket, at which point the officers shot at him 41 times, hitting him with 19 bullets. The object Diallo was reaching for turned out to be his wallet."

The difference is Diallo wasn't threatening the officers and claiming he had a gun.

-

[SpeedRacer 1]

Butt-munches can start their own threads.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Butt-munches can start their own threads.

Certainly you realize this discussion has become obtuse, but is definitely on topic.
-

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4837276.stm

According to the article, Saddam was divided between presenting the case to the UN that he had no WMD on the one hand, and maintaining an image of power in the middle east that MAYBE he did still have them. That along with many delusions & misjudgements on his part contributed to his downfall.

Reminds me of a guy who was shot because he kept threatening the police and saying he had a gun in his pocket. Turns out he didn't have a gun, but the police decided not to take the chance of believing him. Justified shooting.

-

Then there's this example:

"In February 1999, four New York City policemen searching for a rape suspect knocked on Amadou Diallo's door to question him. When he came to the door he reached inside his jacket, at which point the officers shot at him 41 times, hitting him with 19 bullets. The object Diallo was reaching for turned out to be his wallet."

The difference is Diallo wasn't threatening the officers and claiming he had a gun.

-

I don't recall any threats from SH against the USA, and he didn't have any WMDs. In fact by January 2003 he had plainly and openly stated that he did NOT have any and had let the UN inspectors back in to prove it. And he was right. Bush was wrong. So were all the neo-cons on this forum.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4837276.stm

According to the article, Saddam was divided between presenting the case to the UN that he had no WMD on the one hand, and maintaining an image of power in the middle east that MAYBE he did still have them. That along with many delusions & misjudgements on his part contributed to his downfall.

Reminds me of a guy who was shot because he kept threatening the police and saying he had a gun in his pocket. Turns out he didn't have a gun, but the police decided not to take the chance of believing him. Justified shooting.

-

Then there's this example:

"In February 1999, four New York City policemen searching for a rape suspect knocked on Amadou Diallo's door to question him. When he came to the door he reached inside his jacket, at which point the officers shot at him 41 times, hitting him with 19 bullets. The object Diallo was reaching for turned out to be his wallet."

The difference is Diallo wasn't threatening the officers and claiming he had a gun.

-

I don't recall any threats from SH against the USA, and he didn't have any WMDs. In fact by January 2003 he had plainly and openly stated that he did NOT have any and had let the UN inspectors back in to prove it. And he was right. Bush was wrong. So were all the neo-cons on this forum.

Just curious, have you even bothered to read anything in this thread?

From the article:

Quote

In particular, an assessment by US military analysts has shown Saddam Hussein's confusion as he was caught between trying to assure the UN that he had no weapons of mass destruction while wanting to leave the impression to others that he had.

What part of that paragraph are you confused about?

and this:

Quote

And there is a reference, so far unexplained, to plans being drawn up at the time of the invasion for a "Blessed July" series of suicide attacks in the West.

Please expalin how this doesn't threaten the West. There is also much more in the article (that's what we are discussing, remember) that contradicts what you just said that I won't paste more. Why don't you go back and actually read it before commenting.


-

[kallend 2,175]

Which explicit threats to the USA were made by SH? When, and do you have a reliable source? The stuff you quote is less reliable than the CIA's "bad intel".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Which explicit threats to the USA were made by SH? When, and do you have a reliable source? The stuff you quote is less reliable than the CIA's "bad intel".

I didn't realize you thought so little of the BBC. I guess it's just because they go against your mindset with this article, which btw is based on actual documents, not what you "Think".

-