BF2S Forums Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq

Braddock wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Yeah Saddam was a real danger, he had the capability to attack the US within 45 minutes notice supposedly! For some strange reason he didn't decide to do that when his nation was invaded though.

The US are lucky they addressed the dangerous Saddam issue instead of wasting their time on time wasters like Kim Jong Il for example.

I stand corrected, Hollywood Peacenics and Braddock.

Who turned out to be more of a danger Saddam or Kim Jong Il?

Neither...  We always need enemies to justify our meddling.  Kim Jong Il is just a deluded dictator who once used his nukes as a bargaining chip to get food to his people (since his version of running an economy was pathetic).  Now that he's disarming, he's even less worth worrying about.  Saddam was a pawn of our government until he snapped and decided to invade Kuwait, but after we kicked his ass, he was a contained minor threat not worth worrying much about either.

But hey, we were apparently so incompetent at intelligence gathering that we were fooled by Saddam's own minions.  So, if anything, maybe the world should be worried about us, since we apparently can't figure out when we're being lied to despite all the money and effort we put into intelligence and military operations.

As for this yellowcake thing, there's a big difference between having a viable nuclear arsenal and having crude nuclear materials.

M.O.A.B wrote:

Crude can be just as devastating

If used in a dirty bomb, yeah, but...  invasion seemed a bit much considering we had Saddam cornered.

TrollmeaT wrote:

I think it showed our commitment to the Iraqi's that we would not let them live in those conditions any longer.
On a side note congrats on your 666th day Turquoise!

Thanks...  lol...  I would disagree with your assessment though.  Our soldiers might be committed to the Iraqi people, but our politicians are committed to war profiteering.

Turquoise wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

I stand corrected, Hollywood Peacenics and Braddock.

Who turned out to be more of a danger Saddam or Kim Jong Il?

Neither...  We always need enemies to justify our meddling.  Kim Jong Il is just a deluded dictator who once used his nukes as a bargaining chip to get food to his people (since his version of running an economy was pathetic).  Now that he's disarming, he's even less worth worrying about.  Saddam was a pawn of our government until he snapped and decided to invade Kuwait, but after we kicked his ass, he was a contained minor threat not worth worrying much about either.

But hey, we were apparently so incompetent at intelligence gathering that we were fooled by Saddam's own minions.  So, if anything, maybe the world should be worried about us, since we apparently can't figure out when we're being lied to despite all the money and effort we put into intelligence and military operations.

As for this yellowcake thing, there's a big difference between having a viable nuclear arsenal and having crude nuclear materials.

I agree with you that neither were or, in Kim Jong Il's case, are a threat. The supposed 'axis of evill' poses very little threat to the civilised world in my opinion, the only serious threat to world peace would be if extremists or terror groups managed to seize power in a country with nuclear capabilities like Pakistan for example.