Why do liberals feel that Saddam was not a threat?

Question

Check out the link According to liberals saddam did nothing wrong

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Blim if you could read it says "was not a threat" pinhead

Answer 1

And then they claim he did nothing wrong, as if the mass execution of thousands of Kurds using chemical weapons, interogations before trails where 50 children died, hangings on pregant women, and torture chambers where fingernails are pulled off, drills sent through shin bones and the like, they claim he did nothing wrong as if these things are permissable, and then they get upset when Cheney says it'd do em good, a dunk in the water. What is their real stance on torture, or do they just ignore the facts

Answer 2

Saddam was not a threat to anyone outside his own country. He had no WMDs, Fact. None were ever found, He had no links to Osama, Fact. They hated each other. Iraq is full of so called terrorists now because the States and Britain invaded. Osama was the man behind 9/11 not Saddam. Why is he constantly being linked to this the man had nothing to do with it?

Answer 3

He wasn't a threat to the United States. Nobody ever said he wasn't a very bad person or didn't do anything wrong. Bush and Co. claimed he was an imminent threat to US and implied he was building nukes. Total BS.

There were and are plenty of other very bad people that Bush and Company seem to have no problem with...the Sudanis being the prime example.

Answer 4

I am past caring what the liberals think of Saddam. It is enough for me that Saddam will never be a threat to the Kurds or the Shites in Iraq ever again.

Answer 5

He wasn't a direct threat.

Why do Republicans ignore the fact that Osama attacked us on 9/11, not Saddam Hussein?

Answer 6

Saddam was a horrible man and a threat to many prople in Iraq. However he never has been a threat to Our country and that has to be our only reason to invade another country unless asked by that government.
We have a law that forbids us to send undercover agents into a country to kill their leader, so instead we send in thousands to kill their leader, I see no difference.
We look bad because you can't be wrong and strong.

Answer 7

Well, let's see.....

1. Sadaam had NO wmd's
2. Sadaam had NO intension on attacking USA
3. Sadaam was NOT part of 9/11
4. Sadaam had NO ties with Iran and Hezbollah

With that said and done, Sadaam may have been a dictator but that gives us NO right to invade his country. If we're going to do that we might as well invade Cuba, Iran, China, N.K and all other nations like that.

Iraq is a fore-center of terrorist activity because Bush and Co made it so. Iraq is NOT-WINNABLE! Had Bush and Co did any homework on the history of Iraq they'd realize that too.

Answer 8

Liberals do believe Saddam was a threat, but not such a monumental one that warranted the full-scale invasion of a country, leading to numerous losses on both sides. Threats of Saddam’s severity can be dealt with in other ways, than all out violation of a nation’s sovereignty.

Answer 9

You do know that during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1970s, Saddam was our ally? If he had WMDs, why didn't he use them during the 1st Gulf War? I never considered SCUD missiles as WMDs.

Answer 10

It doesn't matter what anybody thinks anymore he gonna be killed well acually hung.People have different opions and most people say he did nothing wrong compared to what binlodin did.