lol yeah, starting wars and being responsible for more deaths then saddam ever was is ALWAYS better.
and then we also have the financial COST of said war, how many hundreds of billions are they up on now?
and Seel, saddam was never a terrorist, a dictator yes, a terrorist no
but then again, USA (and many other countries) use the word terrorist on anyone that isn't agreeing with them.
If Saddam ever intended to get wmds/attack the west in some way then he would have done it while in power.
What can you do with 1 billion? Other than live a very very good life somewhere.
My point is. If he had gone to exile he would have been harmless. Yes 1 billion is alot of money but if you start a war with that against the most powerful nation in the world you will just get yourself killed.
Im not saying that this would have been a magical cure for everything. Ofcourse there would still be problems, but things would be ALOT better than what they are now. And i dont think anyone can say that they wouldnt be.
Lamp...... you're just not that funny
OK he could have taken information on how to build a dirty bomb then bribed a russian millitary officer to sell him nuke material for $100mil then made that dirty bomb and blown up London Washington Paris anywhere really.
Or he could have take that $1bil and given it and the Information to Bin Laden then they could have got nukes chemical weapons what ever and caused damage.
You can do a hell of a lot more than have a good life with a billon dollars. And i believe it would be easier for him to slip under the radar and acomplish this with that money and not being the ruler or a very watched country.
Has there ever actually been a proven connection between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?
And if all you needed for that was money then the things you listed would have happened already.
Also, would he even have a motive for a random act of terror against the west? Other than revenge. Doubt that he would be willing to give up a well funded retirement for that ;>
This is a argument i can't and you can't win he did make threats to the West like bin laden and he did develop and use chemical weapons. I would not have trusted him for a second with a billion dollars.
If you would you think alot more of a man who tested chemical weapons on his own people than i do. Like Blaire dropping MX gas on Manchester then asking for a billion dollars to retire with.
The point is, you cant do shit with just money. If you could, then someone would have already. Im sure Al Qaida could raise that much money.
Also, i dont see why he would have done a terrorist attack. (not that it matters because he would have been as harmless as anyone else with a billion dollars ;O)
. Like Blaire dropping MX gas on Manchester
Also, i dont see why he would have done a terrorist attack. (not that it matters because he would have been as harmless as anyone else with a billion dollars ;O)
Would depend on which way the wind was blowingNo real loss there!
He dropped Chemical weapons on his own people the guy has previous how can you rule out his doing something stupid with the money?
Would depend on which way the wind was blowing
Because hes not stupid, hes not a religious fanatic. He is after his own good. And attacking the US with some random terrorist attack is not in his best interest.
AND IT DOESNT MATTER. Having 1 billion dollars does not make you a real threat to the west and you know it.
Thadius: What the hell would he do with mercenaries? ;o invade US?
The point is, you cant do shit with just money. If you could, then someone would have already. Im sure Al Qaida could raise that much money.
One flaw in that reasoning, Al Qaeda have done a thing or two..
Middle East countries and democracy?
Irrelevant really, in theory a political party can be in power indefinitely if people keep voting for them in the UK let alone abroadEgypt is a democracy? they have the same president for 20+ years
Palestinian territories are a UN recognised state as far as i know, i may be wrong, so from your list I see only Yemen, Lebanon and Palestine which is not even an official state yet afaik.
Doesnt deviate from the fact that it is a democracy, there is more than 1 party who runs for power. Just because you dont agree with the winner doesnt deviate from the fact that by definition it is a democracy (i.e. a country that holds multi-party elections)And Lebanon's democracy is very unstable, basically its a state controlled by the Hezbollah and Syria.
no-one in this thread claimed that as far as i can see, they said it would have been a much cleaner and lower death toll event if sadaam had abdicated.No offense meant, I just cant see how a country without any democratic tradition, which is torn apart by domestic conflicts can become a peaceful democracy all of a sudden.
yes we all saw how communism succeeded, a thing that defies the human nature and against the laws of evolution
indeed, china is one of the strongest economic powers in the world