The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Just wondering.
Why would Saddam Hussain attack the USA or Britain? What would he get out of it?
That's it.
Why would Saddam Hussain attack the USA or Britain? What would he get out of it?
That's it.
Miserableman wrote:
> That link doesn't make a blind bit of difference. There are terrorists
> moving through the US and the UK as we speak. Why should it be any
> different for Iraq?
Because, as the story points out, and common sense tells, a country knows who is entering it's borders, especially one with as tight controls as Iraq has. Whilst terrorists are in the UK and USA they are actively tracked and sought after, as the arrests in London and Manchester earlier in the month prove.
If Iraq can be tied to Al Queda, then it is a major thing, if.
~~Belldandy~~
> That link doesn't make a blind bit of difference. There are terrorists
> moving through the US and the UK as we speak. Why should it be any
> different for Iraq?
Because, as the story points out, and common sense tells, a country knows who is entering it's borders, especially one with as tight controls as Iraq has. Whilst terrorists are in the UK and USA they are actively tracked and sought after, as the arrests in London and Manchester earlier in the month prove.
If Iraq can be tied to Al Queda, then it is a major thing, if.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> The missing link ?
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/ meast/01/23/iraq.alqaeda/index.html
>
> Sure, it's CNN, but the information seems relatively reliable. Not
> that it will make a blind bit of difference though....
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
That link doesn't make a blind bit of difference. There are terrorists moving through the US and the UK as we speak. Why should it be any different for Iraq?
> The missing link ?
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/ meast/01/23/iraq.alqaeda/index.html
>
> Sure, it's CNN, but the information seems relatively reliable. Not
> that it will make a blind bit of difference though....
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
That link doesn't make a blind bit of difference. There are terrorists moving through the US and the UK as we speak. Why should it be any different for Iraq?
The missing link ?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/ meast/01/23/iraq.alqaeda/index.html
Sure, it's CNN, but the information seems relatively reliable. Not that it will make a blind bit of difference though....
~~Belldandy~~
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/ meast/01/23/iraq.alqaeda/index.html
Sure, it's CNN, but the information seems relatively reliable. Not that it will make a blind bit of difference though....
~~Belldandy~~
Firstly, Saddam will not directly attack either country, and no one has claimed he will. The UN uncovered research on new long range missiles that would, if developed further, be able to just about hit mainland Europe.
Secondly, Iraq has proven it cannot safely control the weapons it does have, it has lost large stocks of various agents like Anthrax, Ebola, botulism and other lovely stuff. Iraq admits it has lost it, but has no clue, officially, where.
Thirdly, the danger is that Iraq would give WMD support to a terrorist group that would attack the USA or UK, this would be an indirect attack and has the advantage of being not easy to trace or prove. Critics of this viewpoint say that no such links have been proven, but Iraq makes no attempt to hide it's official support for terrorist groups - it supplies funds to Palestinian suicide bomber's families, it was the only nation not to condemn 9/11, and there is evidence of weapons testing in the North of the country though with no ties to Saddam himself. By supporting an indirect attack Saddam gets the one thing he really wants - rememberance, a place in history, to go down in flames defying the West. That is why he is making no real attempt to defuse the current situation in my opinion; his health is failing, the country is going down the pan thanks to sanctions and restriction, if we're not careful this is going to turn into the Berlin 1945 rerun....
Fourthly, the danger is he may attack Kuwait or Israel in some circumstances. If he attacks Israel then we all know the response that'll entail. Put it this way, Iraq will be a no go area for the next two centuries...
He cannot materially gain from any attack, but he himself can gain from it. As it is, following 9/11, the emphasis is now on preventing him from being involved in any kind of attack whatsoever, whether it be on Kuwait, Israel, allied troops, anything. He's dangerous, unpredicatble, and has demonstrated an ability to use WMDs on his own people, command and control of the weapons is weak and exploitable, they are not accountable, in short he needs taking down, peacefully or by other means.
Sorry it's a long answer,
~~Belldandy~~
Secondly, Iraq has proven it cannot safely control the weapons it does have, it has lost large stocks of various agents like Anthrax, Ebola, botulism and other lovely stuff. Iraq admits it has lost it, but has no clue, officially, where.
Thirdly, the danger is that Iraq would give WMD support to a terrorist group that would attack the USA or UK, this would be an indirect attack and has the advantage of being not easy to trace or prove. Critics of this viewpoint say that no such links have been proven, but Iraq makes no attempt to hide it's official support for terrorist groups - it supplies funds to Palestinian suicide bomber's families, it was the only nation not to condemn 9/11, and there is evidence of weapons testing in the North of the country though with no ties to Saddam himself. By supporting an indirect attack Saddam gets the one thing he really wants - rememberance, a place in history, to go down in flames defying the West. That is why he is making no real attempt to defuse the current situation in my opinion; his health is failing, the country is going down the pan thanks to sanctions and restriction, if we're not careful this is going to turn into the Berlin 1945 rerun....
Fourthly, the danger is he may attack Kuwait or Israel in some circumstances. If he attacks Israel then we all know the response that'll entail. Put it this way, Iraq will be a no go area for the next two centuries...
He cannot materially gain from any attack, but he himself can gain from it. As it is, following 9/11, the emphasis is now on preventing him from being involved in any kind of attack whatsoever, whether it be on Kuwait, Israel, allied troops, anything. He's dangerous, unpredicatble, and has demonstrated an ability to use WMDs on his own people, command and control of the weapons is weak and exploitable, they are not accountable, in short he needs taking down, peacefully or by other means.
Sorry it's a long answer,
~~Belldandy~~
Drunk Cow wrote:
> He's jelous of our amazing good looks and big "cough"s
For a moment there i thought you were implying that we have very deep manly coughs, but then i clicked
> He's jelous of our amazing good looks and big "cough"s
For a moment there i thought you were implying that we have very deep manly coughs, but then i clicked
Drunk Cow wrote:
> He's jelous of our amazing good looks and big "cough"s
Talking of us Brits right?
> He's jelous of our amazing good looks and big "cough"s
Talking of us Brits right?
Airmiles?
He's jelous of our amazing good looks and big "cough"s
He wants his face on the 100 dollar bill. He's evil.
Just wondering.
Why would Saddam Hussain attack the USA or Britain? What would he get out of it?
That's it.
Why would Saddam Hussain attack the USA or Britain? What would he get out of it?
That's it.