3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyNorth Korea had nukes. Too dangerous. Anyway, we'd already gone to war with Iraq before. There was history there. I'm not aware of any history of warfare between the US and Sudan.
So why was he more of a threat than say, the dictator of North Korea or of the Sudan?
Plus, the Kurds were slaughtered in 1991 because they expected US support and didn't get it.
And then there's Bush alleging that Hussein tried to assassinate his father, a former President.
There's also the strategic position of Iraq, next to Iran and central in the Middle East. From Iraq Israel can be protected.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungTrue. It is too dangerous going after countries with WMD's. LOL.
North Korea had nukes. Too dangerous. Anyway, we'd already gone to war with Iraq before. There was history there. I'm not aware of any history of warfare between the US and Sudan.
Plus, the Kurds were slaughtered in 1991 because they expected US support and didn't get it
Anyhew, the Sudan has been notorious for their genocide in that country much like Saddam has been caught doing. Are they not similar in that regard? After all, was the US and Iraq at war before we went in the first time?
Originally posted by whodeyI added some more reasons to my post. In any case, I bet Bush would have been fine with going into the Sudan, but Iraq was a better target.
True. It is too dangerous going after countries with WMD's. LOL.
Anyhew, the Sudan has been notorious for their genocide in that country much like Saddam has been caught doing. Are they not similar in that regard? After all, was the US and Iraq at war before we went in the first time?
Another reason - Hussein was a conventional leader with a conventional army that could be conventionally destroyed. The militias in the Sudan are more capable of asymmetric warfare than Hussein ever was, and Bush never expected to see militias resisting the US in Iraq.
Originally posted by whodeyThere are WMDs and there are WMDs. We assumed Iraq had WMDs. However anthrax and mustard gas are nothing compared to nuclear weapons. The only weapon I can imagine being close to equivalent to nukes would be nasty, highly contagious diseases (like Captain Trips in The Stand).
True. It is too dangerous going after countries with WMD's. LOL.
Anyhew, the Sudan has been notorious for their genocide in that country much like Saddam has been caught doing. Are they not similar in that regard? After all, was the US and Iraq at war before we went in the first time?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungor Tribbles.
There are WMDs and there are WMDs. We assumed Iraq had WMDs. However anthrax and mustard gas are nothing compared to nuclear weapons. The only weapon I can imagine being close to equivalent to nukes would be nasty, highly contagious diseases (like Captain Trips in The Stand).
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAnd those reasons justify how things have turned out?
North Korea had nukes. Too dangerous. Anyway, we'd already gone to war with Iraq before. There was history there. I'm not aware of any history of warfare between the US and Sudan.
Plus, the Kurds were slaughtered in 1991 because they expected US support and didn't get it.
And then there's Bush alleging that Hussein tried to assassinate his f ...[text shortened]... n of Iraq, next to Iran and central in the Middle East. From Iraq Israel can be protected.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungCan't Israel be defended from US bases in Israel?
North Korea had nukes. Too dangerous. Anyway, we'd already gone to war with Iraq before. There was history there. I'm not aware of any history of warfare between the US and Sudan.
Plus, the Kurds were slaughtered in 1991 because they expected US support and didn't get it.
And then there's Bush alleging that Hussein tried to assassinate his f ...[text shortened]... n of Iraq, next to Iran and central in the Middle East. From Iraq Israel can be protected.
The Kurds were also slaughtered with weapons that the US gave to Saddam Hussein. This is an example of "blowback", i.e. the unintended consequences of interfering in places like the Middle-East.
What made it so pressing to invade Iraq that it was worth over 4,000 US soldiers and countless more Iraqis dying, and spending countless hundreds of billion of dollars on the Iraq war when that money could instead have been spent on healthcare and other infrastructure projects back home?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe fact that Bush didn't expect militias to be fighting back in Iraq was a very careless oversight on his part -- particularly when his own Vice President had made public statements in the 1990s indicating his awareness of the issue.
I added some more reasons to my post. In any case, I bet Bush would have been fine with going into the Sudan, but Iraq was a better target.
Another reason - Hussein was a conventional leader with a conventional army that could be conventionally destroyed. The militias in the Sudan are more capable of asymmetric warfare than Hussein ever was, and Bush never expected to see militias resisting the US in Iraq.
https://pol.moveon.org/donate/cheneyvideo.html
Sudan would've been a better target given that (a) they're far more extensively involved with terrorism, and have connections with Al-Qaeda, which Iraq didn't until Bush, Cheney and McCain decided it would be a good idea to invade it; and (b) the genocide in Sudan is killing people at a much faster rate than Saddam's intermittent killing of people who spoke out against his Baath party's rule. If Bush had pushed for military action to stop the genocide in Sudan instead of going to war with Iraq, he likely would've had broad international support, too.