Thread: Hussein hanged

> Our troops were still getting readings on these agents.

Source? The only WMDs I've ever heard as being found were long since inert canisters of sarin and mustard gas. That's hardly justification.

> Sadam had these 10 years ago.

Saddam had these 30 years ago too, when he was allied to USA and Europe. In fact he used them against the Kurds when he was allied to them. And kept being a good ally. Other then the public outcry against his two attacks with chemical weapons on the Kurd population, I don't recall any discussion on him using weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq was not attacked because of mustard gas. He was attacked because both the British and the American intelligence had strong hints he was building a nuclear weapon. This intelligence was collected from many areas, but one of the key elements was espionage activities against Pakistani gentleman, his name Abdul Khan, the same scientist who brought the bomb to Pakistan and who was secretly selling nuclear technology to Lybia, North Korea and Iran. He also traveled repeatedly to other countries in the middle east. One of them Iraq. But he never finalized any dealings with Saddam's government.

Don't bring chemical weapons to the discussion. They weren't found anywhere either.

Didn't Saddam house al-Zarqawi as a guest during his reign?

Where are you getting your information from?

Iraq sits in the very center of several extreme fundamentalist Islamic nations. You have to believe there was a lot of terrorist traffic flowing through their borders at all time. That includes weapons, plans, and what have you. If they didn't participate in it, then they turned the other cheek for far too long. I'm also not convinced they weren't hiding anything at the time they were jerking the UN inspectors around.

I can't argue against you too much...I mean, our administration invaded the damn country on this same type of BS conjecture.

An added note: Hussein and Bin Laden hated each other. Why? Because Hussein invaded Kuwait. What is Kuwait next to? Saudi Arabia. What is Saudia Arabia? Well, it houses Mecca, the holiest place of Islam. Bin laden wanted to fight Hussein's armies, and actually offered to do just that, but the US went to war with Hussein instead.

Saddam was certainly known to support the Hamas and the terrorist acts in Palestine. Something he didn't hide from anyone. Iraq was one big contributor money-wise to the Palestine cause. That is the extent of what is known on his support on terrorism.

I find it sadistically funny that all of these middle eastern countries express 'support' for Hamas and the Palestinian cause, yet very few offer to like, you know, take them into their own countreis (the Palestinians were kicked out of Jordan, for example).

Iran, the Shias fundamentalist factions, and any other country or religious group who sees fit, now uses the UN unsanctioned war against Iraq as an excuse for spreading their anti-western creed.

Yep

Truth is not absolute. Everybody have their own version of what is called 'the truth'. Maybe Saddam just believe his own version of 'truth'. Can't blame him for he believe he's done the right thing (according to him). Maybe Bush just believe his own version of 'truth'. Can't blame him for he believe he's done the right thing (according to him). Maybe the Palestinian Bombers just believe their own version of 'truth'. Can't blame them for they believe they've done the right thing (according to them). Maybe the Israeli Aggressors just believe their own version of 'truth'. Can't blame them for they believe they've done the right thing (according to them). All in all, we can't judge someone based on what they believe. After all nobody is perfect.

Hmm....well maybe!!!!

That kind of thinking is dangerous. The only logical result of it is total anarchy.

You're gay...but wait, maybe, I'm gay? Hmm...well maybe.

You sure typed a lot to say absolutely nothing at all.

I thought a lot like the way he did when I was 13. I think I still think that way, but reality has kicked me in the face a bit since then.

What do you think a "wepon of mass distruction" is? GB, VX, HD, GA, etc, etc, etc are all WMD. Sadam had these 10 years ago. Our troops were still getting readings on these agents. You cannot have readings on agents without the agents being there.

Exactly, 10 freaking years ago. You know, the rebuttle to every argument you've made has been gracefully included in your argument.

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

Where are you getting your information from?

Mm... I'm having trouble citing a source, right now, but I'm pretty sure I was hearing about it all the time about a year or two ago. I'm not saying they were the best of friends or anything... but I don't think there was much denial of communication between the two when it was being discussed towards the beginning of the war. They may have disagreed on the future, but I do believe they shared at least one common goal.

I also don't believe that the Iraq War has really brought any terrorists out of the wood works... sure maybe they're more open about their opinions, now, but they were still terrorists before the war (at least in their mindset). It's tough for me even to call too many people terrorists anymore. I honestly believe there are terrorists leaders and a whole bunch of people that don't quite understand what they're getting into. I believe not all the hijackers in 9/11 knew what the plan was and I believe there are other situations like that.

Anyway, Hussein was not a friend of the US... and while whether or not we should even be at this point is debatable, I can't say that I feel any regret seeing him out of the picture. That goes for Zarqawi as well as many other terrorist leaders we've either captured or killed over the years. Terrorists are a dime a dozen and they always will be, but the smart terrorists with those leadership qualities are a rarity, and I think if we can lower that number then we will see a significant drop in terrorism overall and much more development in less developed nations.

I remember O'Reilly making such a claim (that Hussein had 'housed' Zarqawi, in some fashion). I think that seeing as how neither of us truly seem to know the details it'd be pretty hard to make any sort of argument from this bit of information.

Anyway, Hussein was not a friend of the US... and while whether or not we should even be at this point is debatable, I can't say that I feel any regret seeing him out of the picture. That goes for Zarqawi as well as many other terrorist leaders we've either captured or killed over the years. Terrorists are a dime a dozen and they always will be, but the smart terrorists with those leadership qualities are a rarity, and I think if we can lower that number then we will see a significant drop in terrorism overall and much more development in less developed nations.

I agree with the whole terrorists being a dime a dozen thing, I really do. I think that if we had spent all of the money and resources on homeland security spending, within the US, instead of Iraq, we'd be a whole hell of a lot safer. Keep in mind I was a Bush supported when all of this crap started, but I've done a 180 in my thinking (meaning, I've admitted I was wrong for supporting the war). I dont' particularly like the new US Democrat Hippy congress, but I embrace it over the Bush administration.

It wouldn't be O'Reilly, I don't listen to him. It wouldn't be Sean Hannity, either.

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

I dont' particularly like the new US Democrat Hippy congress, but I embrace it over the Bush administration.

I'm not a fan of Bush, either... but I can't say I don't support the war effort. I just don't support every move he's made. As heartless as it sounds, I don't have regrets sending our soldiers in to fight every terrorist to the end of the world if they have to. So long as it stay voluntary and they have the right to leave when they've finished serving. I'm a big fan of this whole democratic republic thing, personally... It's consistently worked out pretty good and while it has a lot of kinks to be worked out, I think it's better than anything else out there. I don't think we should force it upon *everyone*, but if people are not given the right to what I consider a better life, I don't regret giving them that opportunity even if it means they'll face the same wars and hardships that many nations have faced through gaining independence. Hell, I embrace a revolution against the US from Iraq... I think the desire for independence is what fuels the democratic ideals.

Maybe I'm just nuts, but that's how I think.

"Terrorist" is one of the new buzzwords. Well, not exactly new anymore, as it's been in service since 9/11, but people still cling to the fear of the word that the US government and corrupt media have created.

The military definition of terrorist is "An individual who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result."...hrm...sounds vaguely like our president! Not to mention the dozens of US soldiers who've been busted for dispicable acts dealing with these "terrorists"...

Is it really only possible to fight violence with violence? Fighting fire with fire? I think Gandhi said it best when he stated "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".

Originally Posted by Nodtveidt

I think Gandhi said it best when he stated "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".

I think in the end... someone's gotta have at least one eye.

Terrorist is hardly a new buzzword, it's been around much longer than 9/11, but I agree the definition of it is quite vague. I'm sure we seem like terrorists to much of the world.

Your mind is programmed by the media!

Hehe... kidding. I agree, let's just drop the conversation here.

Fine by me. I think it would an appropriate solution given the nature of the site. Close away mods!

All righty.