portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

imperialism & war

Saddam is not a significant threat

Saddam Hussein, a calculating dictator with a third-rate military, is not a significant threat to attack any other country. President Bush, with a powerful military capable of reaching all corners of the globe, is talking like he is a significant threat to the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
Saddam Hussein is not a religious fanatic; he is not an advocate of jihad or religious war, and he does not seek to impose a fundamentalist religious system on others.
Saddam is not a political ideologue or revolutionary who supports or foments revolutions in other countries. In this way, he is not like Stalin.
Saddam is not a Hitler-style or Hitler-like demagogue who gives dramatically-staged speeches in front of thousands of frenzied people. Unlike Hitler, Saddam does not believe he is the leader of a superior master race that is entitled to dominate all others. Unlike Hitler, Saddam does not command a powerful, highly disciplined war machine that is overrunning neighboring countries and fighting on several fronts simultaneously.
Saddam is not a suicidal madman.

Saddam Hussein is a calculating dictator with a third-rate military who for 25 years has consistently acted to maintain his control on power in Iraq. Saddam is a power man who speaks and acts based on what he calculates he must do to retain his power; and to retain power, he must stay alive. It is precisely because he is calculating and wants to live that he is not a significant threat to other countries; he knows full well that were he to attack any country with any weapons--conventional or otherwise--he would suffer massive retaliation, and die. Because Saddam has no reasonable calculation of success in winning a war against another country, he has no motive to attack or invade anyone. Furthermore, Saddam has good reason to actually prevent terrorists from obtaining so-called WMD, because he knows that if they did he would be blamed and attacked, even without clear evidence of his involvement.

Saddam last used chemical weapons in the 1980s--against rebellious Kurds and Iranians--when the United States was supplying him with weapons and intelligence and knew of his actions. He calculated, correctly, that he had nothing to fear from the U.S., because he was more or less our friend. Significantly, by contrast, Saddam did not use chemical weapons when Iraq invaded Kuwait, he did not use chemical weapons against Israel, and he did not use chemical weapons against American or other troops in the Gulf War. He calculated, correctly, that America would have retaliated massively were he to have done so.

Saddam miscalculated when he tried to increase his share of Middle East oil by invading Kuwait. Prior to that invasion, Saddam was an acceptable dictator to the U.S. Following the invasion, he bacame an unacceptable dictator; he had crossed the all-important oil line. When Saddam showed he had designs on more oil reserves, he instantly became our enemy, because oil is clearly, undeniably the lifeblood of the American economy. Americans are addicted to oil to a degree unmatched by the citizens of any other country. Our gasoline prices are far and away the cheapest of any major nation. Like any addict, whether the addiction is to alcohol, gambling, other drugs, etc., when anyone threatens our supply of, or access to, the object of our addiction, in this case, oil, we panic. We become desperate, we become hysterical and enraged, as President Bush and his advisors have demonstrated in their obsessive and paranoid focus on one man.

President Bush pays lip service to the well being of all those Iraqis--23 million in Iraq, 4.8 million in Baghdad--who are not Saddam Hussein. For those who, like President Bush, favor attacking Iraq, how many dead and injured Iraqi civilians--real human beings, women, children--are an acceptable price to pay to get Saddam and maintain an assured supply of cheap oil--3,000? 12,000? 45,000? 160,000? This question, and any possible answer to it, is steadfastly ignored by President Bush and his supporters in Congress. This is typical of the addict who refuses to face or reflect on his own conduct.
Your a Moron 09.Oct.2002 12:50


I am sure you know Suddam personally, your also an expert on religous fanatics. I think that you are a MORON. Tell the people who lived in Kuwait in the early 90's that Iraq was not a significant threat.

I am sure that those people who lost loved ones would agree with you. You are so smart. We should have removed Suddam from power (the face of the earth) 10 years ago.

correctomundo 09.Oct.2002 13:22

johnny on the spotz

yup, and now that we have the CI-friggin-A saying that saddam is NOT a threat -UNLESS ATTACKED then MAYBE just MAYBE people will start think twice about taking a sip on that toasty mug of wake-the-fuck-up.

Morons-R-US 09.Oct.2002 20:26


Original poster said Iraq *IS* not a signifcant threat.
"!" claims that because Sadaam *WAS* a threat to his neighbors, that somehow proves that his military (1/3 its previous size, running out of parts, most chem/bio weapons confiscated or decayed to useless goo, constant air patrols by US/UK aircraft, etc. ad nauseam) *IS NOW* a threat. How would an act of aggression help Sadaam save his but, the only thing he cares about? "!" lacks a basic grasp of logic. WHO's the idiot again?