China Hack

Difference between invasion, which requires occupation, and launching attacks or strikes. Arab countries all hate each other but they hate Israel the most. I'm simply saying what Saddam was probably thinking, not what your conjecture brings up.
You are the one using all the conjecture. I decided not to take this conversation seriously after you said that Iran is using nuclear facilities for non-nuclear purposes, that Iraq was threatened by an Israeli invasion, and blaming the US for China's cyberattacks.

Anyways, you specifically had the words Israel and Invade right next to each other. Don't try to change your own words around.

admin: Oh, so if nobody else has a military but you, then you're alright with that? No need to ever go to war then, right?
Well us and our allies, then yeah. The ultimate goal of a nation's foreign policy should be to eliminate all possible threats to its sovereignty. As long as Iran, China, and Russia are our frenemies, they present some kind of threat to us, which must be eliminated through espionage or diplomacy in the hopes of adverting war.

Sure. And they also clashed in the Kuwait war and basically every other major war before then
In support of a larger coalition...
Really, just drop the claim that an Israeli invasion was a threat to Iraq. It makes everything else you are arguing in this thread seem retarded.

And even if it was merely Chinese civilians or Chinese crime syndicates and not the Chinese Government, the fact that China would do nothing about its own people hacking foreign governments would still speak volumes.

Blackflag: And I believe Saddam might have been legitimately afraid of that. Israel and her allies have done some pretty bullshit invasions before.

Dassault Papillon: Do nothing? They have more prosecutions there than in the US!

Dassault Papillon: Absolutely agree with both of your posts. If you don't see this for what it is then you are blaming the victim.

Blackflag: Why do you think that?

In my view, the goal of foreign policy is to stop hatred and bring peace to the world. Classifying any actor by a simple label such as a threat is problematic for this view.

Blackflag: Perhaps it does deserve its own thread. It's a historical question anyway while this issue is very present.

And I believe Saddam might have been legitimately afraid of that. Israel and her allies have done some pretty bullshit invasions before.
Bad guess, but A for effort. Are you educated on the real reason Saddam declared he had nuclear weapons. I'll give you a hint, it had NOTHING to do with Israel.

Blackflag: Lol. I had no idea you were the ultimate arbiter of "reality".

Why do you think that?

In my view, the goal of foreign policy is to stop hatred and bring peace to the world. Classifying any actor by a simple label such as a threat is problematic for this view.
Wow, we are in agreement. To stop hatred we should put a preventive end to hostile military forces. If your nation projects its military in a way that poses a serious harm to the world, I will support any act of sabotage on that nations military industries.

Lol. I had no idea you were the ultimate arbiter of "reality".
With that response, I take it you don't know the real reason why Saddam declared he had nuclear weapons. Look it up and come back with a plausible answer. Please don't make it as ridiculous as Israel invading Iraq.

Dassault Papillon: I second this. China is the criminal and the US is the victim. All your hate for Israel and the United States wont change that simple fact. Stop blaming the victim and take a look at the real bad guys.

Blackflag: I'm not hating on Israel or the U.S. (except when I hear anti-theist crap from the Media).

Blackflag: To stop hatred you should attack. WHAT?

Lay down your arms and then one of only two things can happen:
1> Peace
2> You win the moral high ground

The nation that MOST projects its military in a way that poses a serious harm to the world is the USA. Almost every nation dislikes the US military.
The second most universally hated would be Israel.
Both have a proven history of posing serious harm to the world.
No such nation should have the right to claim the right to put an end to hostile forces through any act of aggression, unless they can prove a commitment to peace in return. And you can't. The US is showing no signs of disarming. The military-industrial complex is stronger than ever.

Blackflag: Well with that response I presume you're acting as a snob who believes he knows the truth about everything and isn't prepared to hear any alternative.

"Go away and come back and talk to me when you've found the answer I'm thinking of!"

Blackflag: An assumption. You don't know who the real bad guys are, or that there are bad guys at all. You're making stuff up on the pure basis of limited evidence which would never get a conviction given due process.

I want to share this article, BTW. It's extremely well written and talks about the real harms of cyber warfare, how the US instigated a war without being noticed:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-rewards-and-risks-of-cyber-war

Well with that response I presume you're acting as a snob who believes he knows the truth about everything and isn't prepared to hear any alternative.

"Go away and come back and talk to me when you've found the answer I'm thinking of!"
Not the case. There is a specific reason why Saddam declared he had nuclear weapons which most people will agree on