Vitas, you should calm down. I think you're getting a bit beside yourself. And please note I don't expect rightwingers like yourself to find my opinions cozy ones. I write in the hope that others will think in a way they might not otherwise consider. It's your option to reject this and become downright rude and unkind about it. All I can say when you do that is: There's only a mirror for you!
Now, as to your questing my assertion that Saddam's dream was to become the so-called strongman of the Mid East region, here's some CIA analysis that backs up my assertion.
>>>This is also the CIA's analysis. Moreover, Post agrees with his former employers at the agency in saying that, in the absence of an existential threat, it is not in Saddam's nature to loan out his toys to terrorists. "That would mean a loss of total control," he says.
His take on Saddam seems to raise worrying questions about the Bush strategy, if confronting Saddam head-on would produce the one set of circumstances in which he would pose a direct threat to American lives.
Not necessarily so, Post says. If Saddam was allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, he might not court martyrdom by using it, but its presence would back up his threats and fire his grandiose ambitions of dominating his region and following in Saladin's path towards Jerusalem.<<<
guardian.co.uk
Now please take some good advice from me: Stop being one-track, open up your mind and think a bit and stop hurling wild assertions. |
