I know, just putting that in there because people are now saying that. I'm not saying that YOU said that.

Here's my problem. I believe that Bin Laden was the greater threat and not Saddam. If I was on this board in 01, then you'd heard me (being a Muslim) say that it was time for the US to go and serve Bin Laden with a plate of BOMBS with some Marines to wash it down. I'm sure most people were down with that.

My issue was that the Bin Laden problem wasn't solved before we walked into Iraq. WMDs was the MAIN (not the only) reason given that we should go there. Bush dropped the ball by naming a so-called Axis of evil of countries that had nothign to do with the WORSE attack on AMerican Soil in almost 60 years. I know a war on Terrorism would be fought on many fronts but to stretch us out all over the place was crazy as well as dangerous.


KTSNAKE, I would agree that it takes along time before History shows us who was right or wrong. I also agree that Saddam would ahve to be dealt with sooner or later. But it's the manner we dealt with him.

Are you saying we're not going after Bin Ladin?

Tell that to the thousands of Marines in Afghanistan. Tell that to one of the members of my chapter's advisor panel that just got back from a tour of duty in Afghanistan.

Catching Bin Ladin is not all that important anyhow. He's just a leader of a movement that will survive without him. What we're doing now in Afghanistan is far more important. We're trying to bring about some sort of civilized way of life for those people. One where the suicide bomber mentality does not fester.

I don't think militarily we can just go and 'blow up' Al Quaeda.

I do think we can beat them in a war of ideas and ideals though.

That's what I'm saying though. That's the Bush doctrine. If you agree that we were going to have to go in anyway because of WMD's, your issue is not with the lack of WMD's, it's with his preemptive approach to threats against the United States.

You are admitting here that you do agree that Iraq would have certainly eventually have become a threat to the US that we would have had to deal with.

Now, which would you have rather fought? An Iraq with weaponized WMD's? Or one that was only stockpiling resources to be able to have weaponized WMD?

For me, and I think most Americans, the choice is clear.

Hey I look at the 9/11 commision as actually decrediting many of the arguements, especially the constant attacks against the UN inspectors and sanctions... well to me it looks like that the inspectors and sanctions were efffectinve in conrolling or limiting Saddam's access to WMD capability... ie. no imminent threat as was touted at the UN.

My arguement was that Iraq was much further down on the list of horrifying or frightening regimes... at least compared to say North Korea... a country ruled by a leader that makes Saddam look like a boy-scout by comparsion, and with a much greater capacity to supply other "rogue" nations or groups with WMD capabilities.

... and while this may be true, there is really no logical way to attack North Korea for the timebeing. Similarly, the US cannot just waltz into Saudi Arabia, which is probably the worst nation on the earth as far as harboring and promoting terrorism, without serious issues. Iran? Same.

But maybe, just maybe, regime change in Iraq will create the sort of change that will allow us to challenge and undermine these nations in the future (obviously not referring to NK with this statement).

North Korea is currently a CF - but that's neither a new nor a straightforward problem, this regime has been an issue for quite some time. There's just not a way to attack it right now, to my mind. What would you suggest, RAC?

My issue with this statement is that bin Laden himself is much less of a threat than the movement he has helped spawn. The reality is that al Qaeda and other radical terrorist organizations would still exist without bin Laden, far more so than bin Laden would survive without his organizational strongholds.

So, I feel that attacking these strongholds is a must - let's remove the environment that fosters, supports, and hides these organizations. I believe the hope is that by changing the environment that has allowed these organizations to rise, you'll bring about their fall.

I do agree, however, that Afghanistan is an extremely important front, and I support that military action in the fullest.

Well know things are much more complicated, and while they were before it's pretty apparent that the so-called "Bush Doctrine" has complicated the issue more. I had hoped that negoations (read bribes) involving both western and eastern countries would have kept North Korea in check (WMD speaking) until the "Dear Leader" (or whatever he's called) passed on - then maybe there would be room for change... but even I doubt that. Basically North Korea is one of those problems that I'd personally prefer to see contained, watched, and gently pushed hoping for constructive change.

I'm glad to hear that you Canadians support the North Korean quest for world destruction.

-Rudey

I think this pretty much IS the Bush Doctrine, at least as far as the f-ups of his predecessor(s) will allow it.

I'll answer both of your post with this one.


That's not what I'm saying. I know we're going after him. I just think that giving him our FULL attention would have given him to us a long time ago. As most people have been saying that Saddam is far down teh list of people who are threats to our country.


We'll agree to disagree about if he had them or not. Personally I don't think he had the ability to grab them w/o us knowing and since we've been bombing him for the past few years, he was bottled up. Now, us going to match up with him again was going to come later on because I believe he was going to get the gonads to actually CHALLENGE us down the road, but he was just a small mini-midget dictator who can only bully his people. His army didn't even belong on the same field as most urban gangs.

Saddam wasn't a HUGE threat to us.

Ahh... except for the removal of inspectors and the cessation of multi-national negotations with North Korea.

The 9/11 commission said that he was definitely stockpiling the resources to build WMD. He had every intention of doing so. Combine that with your assertion that he was eventually going to grow the gonads to challenge us down the road and we have justification to the Bush doctrine.

With WMD and this guy, you could count on invasions of Kuwait and Iran eventually. Possibly Jordan and Syria.

His army (for the region) was probably the strongest.

Wait a second. You posted, "there is no REAL proof that Saddam committed genocide as recently as 2001" and now you're agreeing with me? Is your name Sybil?

Excuse me clown were not Iran & Iraq @ war went those Iranians were killed.

You are still the fool, all those articles are doing is rehashing things Saddam did after the 1st gulf war. These people along w/the Kurds were hoodwinked by the U.S into trying to overthrow Saddam. When the U.S turned its back on these misguided souls, Saddam came down hard on them in the early 90s. This is more propaganda by America's only true ally (England) in this farce of a war w/Iraq.

Unless you can disprove that Iraq engaged in genocide in 2001, you stand as GC's newest moron who is intellectually incapable of dealing with facts. Congratulations!

For the record it was I who said that not Shortfuse....get a grip man.

Whatever. You still made a stupid statement (not surprising,) was proven to be wrong, and the best that you can do is call me a fool. What kamunitee colidge did u get yur edumacashun at?

Chump you haven't proved that Saddam engaged in genocide in 2001.

Just showing how easily it is to prove you wrong, speaking of education if you could read you would have seen it was I and not Shortfuse who made that post.

Good lord you're stupid. You said that genocide did not happen in Iraq in 2001. I provided highly credible citations, but you can't do the one simple thing to defend yourself. All that you have to do is provide one credible citation that refutes the genocide inflicted upon the March Arabs. That's all that you have to do. So simple.

You can't do it, because you're (once again) wrong. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that you're posting here because I can use the laugh.

The sad thing is that you are a Baathist apologist. Today's equivalant of the Nazi sympathizers of long ago. "Oh, Sadaam wasn't so bad. Sure he killed over a million people, but that was long ago. He must have changed because I haven't personally seen him kill anyone lately, so it isn't true. In fact, before his regime was overthrown, Iraq was a wonderful nation. The Disneyland of the Middle East."

1. Speak English, you poor excuse for a bad education.

2. You said "Saddam and his forces couldn't even defeat Iran in eighties w/ the help of America. Saddam was just a loud mouth bully w/ no bite". You have no understanding whatsoever of the region because you are some stupid ignorant ape. He butchered one million Iranians; he had no bite?!? And then you act as if Iraq was just helped by America but then that doesn't acknowledge the aid that Iran received.

Man just shutup. It's great that Omega Psi Phi was cool with you being a preacher and yipping and yapping in their forum, but this ain't it. You are embarassing yourself.

-Rudey