Saddam's Idiot Son Reveals Smoking Gun

by Perry 15 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Perry

  Uday Hussein Admits Smoking Gun

  January 24, 2003

  Saddam Husseins son Uday is now threatening a poison gas retaliation if we attack, is that not the smoking gun weve been looking for? By making this threat, he's essentially admitting they have the weapons they say they dont have. The head of the U.N. nuclear agency just gave Iraq good grades on nuclear handling, yet Uday is out there calling the September 11th attacks a "picnic" compared to what they're now capable of. It's just literally amazing, yet its this kind of simple logic that often eludes our friends on the left and the elitists that populate our institutions in Washington and the northeastern axis. Still looking for a smoking gun? ...The idiot of Baghdad has spoken.

  Edited by - Perry on 25 January 2003 11:10:21
• 

  bigboi

  Well like it really mattered anyway.

  The President has already mobilized close to 150,000 troops and reservists are being activated weekly. All i can say is that I hope the idiot is just trying to bluff and they don't have a really big surprise waiting for us when we attack.
• 

  Siddhashunyata

  Perry, where did the report come from?
• 

  back2dafront

  Perry,

  Yeah, I read about this somewhere too - do you have a link? The article I read didn't say anything about a "gas attack" (to my knowledge), however since I'm operating on 2.5 hours of sleep right now I could be mistaken. But yeah, I thought the same thing...he's totally giving themselves away by making such a statement. I think pretty much most people think that they have some of these weapons somewhere and are hiding them. Personally, I just wish there was a better way to deal with him and get rid of the weapons.

  Is blowing up Baghdad really the only way?? If I were president I would sit down and devise a plan that would have the least effect possible on the Iraqi people - they've suffered enough by the hands of Sadaam. We should view them just as if Sadaam had thousands of our troops captured over there. If we are really aiming to protect the world and his own people from him, we should take every measure possible to ensure their safety, yet I doubt seriously that will happen. People for war will say "this is the sad realization of war" but I think that is a cop-out. I think they just want to see stuff blow up and people die. Plus it's easier to fire 300 missiles from a boat than spend a few days thinking of a plan that would protect the civilians. Why don't they blow up his mosques one by one? Target his palaces? I just don't see how 300 missiles, guided or not, launched into one city will spare civilian life. There can't be that many military targets. 300?? C'mon.
• 

  Princess

  I heard it on the news last night.
• 

  plmkrzy

  Now we wait to see who kills who first. Saddam or Uday. They both probably have contracts out on each other.
• 

  freedom96

  back2dafront-

  The United States certainly does not wish for their to be very many civilian casulties. However, Saddam is famous for putting them around the weapons. He hides these weapons practically in the doorsteps of his people. That way, he can announce to the world how horrible the US is because they sent a missle in that killed a bunch of innocent people. What he won't mention is that the target was hiding among them.

  No one wants that civilian loss of life, but if that weapon of mass destruction is hidden among the townsfolk, what is one supposed to do? Not destroy it? One thing to remember too, is that Saddam sometimes works his people into a frenzy, and they will follow him no matter what. Many of these civilians know exactly what they are hiding, and the risk they are taking.

  It is not a free world out there, and they only know what they are told. So they believe the US to be the big bad evil enemy, and will join Saddam in doing whatever it takes to destroy us. They don't have the benefit of knowing all sides to the story.
• 

  Perry

  Sidd, the info is from Rush Limbaugh's site. I will find the original quote.

  Here's a little something else I found though.

  In September 2002, there's even a stronger case that there is no inconsistency in WMD policy with regards Iraq. The reason is already clear, without recourse to a "framework of law": Iraq's WMD are despicable because Saddam Hussein has used them in the past against his opponents: Kurds and Iranians. And his deputy prime minister, the smiling and amiable Tariq Aziz, has said that the "biological weapons are for the Jews and for the Kurds" [to Richard Butler himself].

  But most importantly - and this possibly explains the present urgency of the Americans - three weeks ago, Saddam threatened to use weapons of mass destruction again by explicitly threatening to "totally annihilate" a sovereign nation: Qatar.
• 

  back2dafront

  Freedom,

  You make good points.

  *sigh*

  Too bad there's no way of educating the people. If we could get the people on our side it could help. I doubt they'd be receptive listeners though.

  hey, I found this article on BBC...I think it presents a very balanced outlook on the position of the USA in this war.

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2690447.stm

  What does the US really want out of a war with Iraq?

  Oil. The Middle East has 65% of the world's oil reserves. The US consumes 30% of the world's oil.

  The US wants to see the Middle East more democratised

  People see George Bush, the one time owner of a (rather unsuccessful) oil company and his oil friends like Dick Cheney and Don Evans and assume that they personally want to take control of the Middle East's supplies of oil by force.

  If you want to understand what motivates these men, you must look beyond these phrases.

  For better or worse, oil is the lifeblood of the American economy and the US certainly believes it must keep the flow of oil going.

  But it is not intending to do it by military occupation. Long-term military domination (apart from being unrealistic) is a very inefficient and extremely costly method of getting your way.

  Changing priorities

  In the last Gulf War, stability was the top priority for George Bush senior.

  He set a limited military objective of pushing Saddam out of Kuwait and at the urging of the other Arab regimes, he agreed not to rock the boat by driving on to Baghdad and overthrowing him.

  All that changed on 11 September. This George Bush is no longer willing to let weapons of mass destruction remain in the middle of such a volatile region.

  And he is no longer willing to let a man who has used those weapons against his own people and others remain in power.

  This is a fundamental difference between Bush and his father.

  Bush Jnr (left), unlike his father, will not allow the Iraqi leader to retain power

  It does not matter to this White House that they haven't uncovered a conclusive link between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

  It does not matter to them whether or not the inspectors find a "smoking gun".

  This administration believes that, in this new world, it can not risk letting a man like Saddam remain in power, in that part of the world, with these kind of weapons.

  But their agenda extends beyond Saddam. What America wants is a more democratised Middle East as a bulwark against the spread of fundamentalism.

  It believes that inserting a democratic, western-leaning government in Iraq will encourage others in the region to democratise.

  'March of democracy'

  The not-so-subtle subtext to an invasion of Iraq is to send a serious shiver down the spine of every Arab ruler:

  The US wants to deny Islamic militants access to oil reserves

  "We are watching you. We want you to get your house in order. To start widening your power base. To reduce the political pressure cooker that is building on the streets, before you are hit with an Iranian-style revolution. And just in case you are in any doubt, we are not going to stand by and let Islamic fundamentalism take over the region."

  White House officials like to point out that not a single member of the Arab League is a true democracy.

  Condoleezza Rice believes that the fall of Saddam Hussein will inspire a "march of democracy" across the Middle East.

  So, people are right when they say there is an ulterior motive to an attack on Iraq. But it is not military occupation.

  It is about denying radical Islamic groups access to weapons of mass destruction, oil reserves and control of the Middle East.

  In the end, it does come down to oil. Naturally, Bush's friends in the oil business will benefit from a "Pax Americana" in Iraq.

  But - so they believe - millions of ordinary Arabs will enjoy greater freedom and more access to power in their own countries.

  Fanciful? Maybe. But this administration is determined to try.

  It is prepared to withstand the temporary outrage of the international community along the way. And if necessary, it is prepared to do it alone.
• 

  outoftheorg

  Thanks Back 2.

  This pretty much backs up what I have thought all along. There has to be a starting place to face off against the radical islamic factions and Iraq is as good a place, if not the best, to start the face off.

  It will also reverse the conduct of the US in the last decade, of shrugging off the conduct of Sadam.

  The US actually taught Sadam that he can get away with the deciept and delaying tactics and the US and the rest of the world will do nothing, by using retoric and doing nothing. As always there is the issue of economics and profit. This is a motivator not only to the US, but to all the many nations involved and those not too involved. This is the way the world works and has always worked. It just is.

  Outoftheorg