For the past 25 years when Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, why did Saddam Hussein not use those weapons of mass destruction against the US or Israel, or hand them over to the Al-Qaeda terrorists or the terrorists in the west bank, even though during the past 25 years, on and off, the following were done which angered and humiliated Saddam Hussein

(1) Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactors in the 80s

(2) Through the Iran-Contra scandal, the US supplied arms to Iran in the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s

(3) In the 90s, the US ousted Saddam Hussein from Kuwait

(4) In the 90s, The US openly encouraged the Iraqi Kurds and Shittes to rebel against Saddam Hussein and overthrow him from power and in this case, he did not even use his weapons of mass destruction against the rebellious kurds and shiites

(5) In the 90s, Saddam Hussein's palaces were destroyed by the US

(6) In the 90s, the CIA made several assassination attempts on Saddam Hussein

(7) In the 90s, the US prevented Saddam Hussein's planes from flying in the no-fly zone

(8) In the 90s, the US had crippling economic sanctions on Iraq

(9) Throughout the 90s, the US periodically bombed Iraq which resulted in massive property damage and the deaths of thousands of Iraqis including relatives of Saddam Hussein

(10) Throughout the 90s, the US systematically decimated almost the entire air defense systems of Saddam Hussein

(11) In 2003, a decapitating attack on Saddam by the US tried to kill Saddam Hussein and his sons

(12) In 2003, Saddam Hussein was ousted from power in Iraq

(13) In 2003, Saddam Hussein's sons and his 14 year old grandson were brutally killed by the US

So even though the US and Israel for the past 25 years have angered and humiliated Saddam Hussein, why did Saddam Hussein not use his weapons of mass destruction against Israel or the US or hand them over to the Al-Qaeda terrorists or the terrorists in the west bank, these past 25 years ?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Big Brother,

One reason why he did not use them is because, with regard to the nuclear weapons, Israel destroyed the only reactor in the 80s. In addition, if he would have, the retaliation would have been swift and decisive if a WMD had been used. The world would have mostly stood by us or Israel because of the humanitarian disaster of the WMD, so Saddam would have faced off against most of the world and would have stood no chance of winning. With regard to terrorists, who's to say that he didn't give them weapons before his downfall. I applaud the question raised and that you also believe that Saddam possesed WMDs. The basic answer is that Saddam was too weak to do it as he would have been utterly destroyed. It is somewhat like the doctrine of MAD during the Cold War, which prevented Russia from using nukes. Russia also factors in as Saddam drew some support from them and they would have done everything to prevent him from using such weapons as it would have most likely meant the destruction of them through MAD. I hope this helps.

I think it's a mistake to portray Saddam and his sons as victims (though since I know nothing about his grandson, I can't comment on that fact), as these men were cold-hearted murderers, who had no qualms about killing their own people if they dissented or simply for their own pleasure.

Should we have gone in? The humanitarian in me says yes. But then why don't we intervene in all of the other little dictatorships that crop up and slaughter people? I’m not sure of the answer.

I agree with your first part that Saddam and his sons were brutal men. To answer your question about why we don't involve ourselves in certain areas, it is based on that nation's strategic value to ours. Iraq is vital to having overall security in the Middle East, as it can both serve as a model for the other nations and be a buffer against Iran. In addition, we sometimes must work with some dictators who are friendly to us if the enemy is worse. For instance, look at how many dictators we supported becuase they were opposing communist insurgencies in their nations, kind of a lesser of two evils thing. In addition, we can't go in and handle every humanitarian crisis as we don't have the resources. Our military is not meant for such things, and humanitarian missions should be handled by the UN, as they are totally inept at waging war and peacekeeping, but alright in the area of food distribution, medicine, etc. Hope this helps.

quote:

---

Originally posted by W. H. H.:
But then why don't we intervene in all of the other little dictatorships that crop up and slaughter people? I’m not sure of the answer.

---

The question you pose arises often and I'm surprised it still carries weight. I've been asked it before. I'm convinced that the question depends on accepting a flawed assumption and under closer scrutiny breaks down.

Logistically, it's not possible to intervene every time a dictatorship arises. Are not governments and individuals ability to act reduced by their limited resources. How can we demand either an individual or a government to perform a task for which they are incapable of performing? Should I not help my neighbor in his distress because I can't help all my neighbors? Certainly not. I can't accept this absolute principle or my neighbor would suffer unnecessarily.

I don't agree that merely because our finite resources limit our ability to intervene in all situations, in this case removing a dictator from power, that this reality should prohibit us from intervening in situations in which we can and should for various reasons.

For example, simply because I can't eat at every restaurant in my city every evening, doesn't mean that I should refrain from selecting one and then deciding to eat there, does it?

If it's true that we should refrain from using military force to remove a dictator(s) from power, because we can't remove all dictators from power, then you have to agree that you shouldn't eat out at a local restaurant, because you're incapable of eating out at all restaurants.

When I say that the US acted justly by removing Hussein from power, my assertion is not weakened by the criticism that the US should not have acted, on the point that the question raises.