Did we kill the right person (Sadam H.) for 9-11? What do you think Bin Laden is planning for the next act of terror against the US?

Comments

• BTW his execution was carried out by his own Countrymen, not the US.

  • Report
  

  by Rollie on November 13th, 2009

• America doesn't practice terrorism. Sorry.

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on November 13th, 2009

• There are 100's of Osama Bin Ladens. The true one was just the poster boy.

  • Report
  

  by Theby on November 21st, 2009

• yeah and rest of the 100s if they kill innoccent people will meet the same fate.

  • Report
  

  by anonymous on November 23rd, 2009

Comments

• Hahahaha, love it 'attention whore' :)

  • Report
  

  by TheJoker on September 8th, 2009

Comments

• That's a joke. Saddam is killed by America.

  • Report
  

  by itinary on November 13th, 2009

• Indirectly for sure, but the trial was, on the surface at least, an entirely Iraqi affair!

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on November 13th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• You do realize he used chemical weapons against his citizens, yes?

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on November 13th, 2009

• Idi Amin killed thousands. Khadaffi isn't nice, too. But we didn't do a thing.

  • Report
  

  by Gene H on November 13th, 2009

• Right. But neither of those people violated a ceasefire. And Khadaffi quit HIS efforts to get WMDs as a direct result of what we did in Iraq.
  .
  Of the many criticisms of the war with Iraq, one of the least convincing is that other nations are worse and we should have gone after them first.
  .
  By that kind of thinking police should never arrest robbers, rapists and drug dealers until they've arrested all the murderers.
  .
  We couldn't right all the world's wrongs with all the will in the world. That doesn't mean we shouldn't right any at all. And if we choose sometimes to right wrongs in places that affect our national interest over places that don't...so what? Maybe our motives aren't 100% pure. Meanwhile Hussein isn't torturing, murdering and ethnically cleansing Iraqis anymore. That's a win.

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on November 14th, 2009

• Idi Amin was a robber. And a killer. We pick and choose. How? By the whims of Boss Limbaugh? What? On 9/12 even Afghanistan and Pakistan were on our side. 3 months later we had Britain. Just Britain. We should, by your logic, have done war with Stalin and many others. Is violating a ceasefire the worst of what these monsters did? By your argument, yes. All I'm saying is that we never had a reason given to us to go into Iraq. W saying so doesn't make it so.

  • Report
  

  by Gene H on November 14th, 2009

• No, the President and/or Congress decides who we go to war with as per law.
  .
  We had numerous reasons to go to war:
  * To prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  * For regime change.
  * Iraq’s violation of UN resolutions.
  * Saddam’s evil dictatorship and actions.
  * Liberate Iraq.
  * Iraq’s links to al Qaeda.
  * Iraq an imminent threat.
  * Hussein was a threat to the region.
  * For the safety of the world.
  * Preserve peace around the world.
  * Iraq is a unique threat.
  * Hussein hates the U.S.
  * History calls the U.S. to action
  .
  Turns out that he had no WMDs. But it is a fact that he used to and it is a fact that he played games with the people he was supposed to let inspect for weapons.
  .
  Whether we should have gone to war with Stalin is academic but some 20 million or more Russians would not have been murdered by their own ruler if we had gone to war and had prevailed. Lotta people 20 million.

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on November 14th, 2009

• He didn't have WMDs
  Regime change, evil dictatorship, liberate Iraq are all the same item.
  Iraq had no links to Al Qaeda before the war.
  Iraq as a threat, Hussein as a threat, safety of the world, preserve peace, and Hussein hates the US are all the same item.
  Iraq is a unique threat is identical to item 7.
  That leaves violation of UN resolutions. Which was a fiction.
  If any of that justifies war, we would be OBLIGATED to go to war with quite a few other nations. Colin Powell would probably love to explain how we, and he, were duped by smoke and mirrors.

  • Report
  

  by Gene H on November 15th, 2009

• You mean he didn't violate any UN sanctions?
  .
  And you can say that Hussein being dangerous in numerous directions is all the same thing if you wish. But you DO admit he was dangerous, no?
  .
  We are NEVER obligated to go to war. We are a sovereign nation and where and when we go is up to us absent specific treaties to the contrary.
  .
  Again with the argument that we should attack nations in order of danger rank as opposed to offense rank. Nonsense.
  .
  If indeed we were duped by smoke and mirrors they were Hussein's smoke and mirrors. If he went out of his way to defy the terms of his surrender and convince people that he had WMDs then I have no more pity than I do for people who try to hold up banks with empty guns and happen to die in the process.
  .
  As for the arguments being mostly the same...sure many are quite similar. The salient feature of them is that they were all advanced in the lead-up to the war. WMDs was only one of the reasons given.

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on November 15th, 2009

• They were W's smoke and mirrors, not Saddam's. If Colin Powell were to say "Hey, we did the right thing" (now, not a quote from back when even HE was duped) I MIGHT consider the argument.

  • Report
  

  by Gene H on November 15th, 2009

• What we did was to make the best decision with the information we had at the time. Vilifying then-President Bush does nothing to change the fact that a) he absolutely once possessed WMDs, b) intelligence agencies believed he still possessed WMDs, c) Hussein gave us reason to believe he still possessed WMDs and d) our government - not just Bush - agreed it was best to go to war.

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on November 16th, 2009

• I disagree. We possessed information that Saddam had no connection to Al Qaeda. We possessed knowledge, too, that he had no WMDs. Our government, the congressional branch, was convinced by the administrative branch, who used misleading and false information to do the convincing. Don't take my word for it. Colin Powell and a number of other officials say this. I didn't make it up. Bush did that.

  • Report
  

  by Gene H on November 16th, 2009

• We possessed knowledge that he had NO weapons of mass destruction? At all? Of any kind? You wanna maybe show me how that is possible when three serious intelligence agencies believed that he did?

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on November 17th, 2009

• Reported on Frontline. Confirmed by Richard Clarke. Boss Limbaugh probably denies it but you can't get more inside than Richard Clarke.

  • Report
  

  by Gene H on November 17th, 2009

• Richard Clarke? Puh-lease.

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on November 17th, 2009

• Okay, but he said, and Frontline agreed in their story, that the facts were purposely suppressed so that the war could go forward. Sorry. You're backing the bad guys. That's why they're out of office.

  • Report
  

  by Gene H on November 17th, 2009

• Your alleged 'bad guys' didn't run for office. Bush served both of the terms allowed.
  .
  As for Frontline...OK, they reported it. But is it true?

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on November 17th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments