So what has this War on Terror accomplished?

You are thinking about him as he is potrayed by the popularist press, as some sort of US Hating Madman.

he's not mad.
and I believe you'll find he has been our ally before, in fact Rumsfield considered him an ally and a friend as recently as the early 80's when he was considered a usefull ally in the growing threat of Iran.

That of course is back when we were selling him WMD's as opposed to trying to find them.

Saddam is not mad, nor is he the devil, nor is he an idiot.

He's just another tin pot dictator and if we plyed him with enough bribes he'd happily bend over and have his party shafted out of control of Iraq.

Unfortunately we can't do that because The Ameican people would never accept it, and the US government would have to admit that they've been making him into a much more dangerous threat than he actually is....

Jesus...that just made me remember how recently he was considered a perfectly respectable guy even though we knew he was killing Kurds...
The hypocracy of global politics astounds and sickens me some times.

So your saying a person who kills people if they don't do what he tells them to do is not mad? In that case Jeffery Dalmer must have been a saint to you! As for the WMD, anyone who gathers them and then hides them is not a good person to put your trust in. His loyalty to us when we sold him these weapons shows that he is only loyal to those who serve his purpose. If we would ally with him again and eventually outlive our usefulness to him, don't you think that he would go right back to doing what he is now?

"So your saying a person who kills people if they don't do what he tells them to do is not mad? "

No, he's not mad. Politicians kill people in the name of their political ideologys, He's done it, Bush has done it, Hitler did it, Thatcher Did it, and a thousand other governments, many of whom are currently our allies, are all doing it right now, as we speak.


"As for the WMD, anyone who gathers them and then hides them is not a good person to put your trust in. "

Until we find them, we cannot accuse him of hiding them. More to the point, who's worse, the thug with the catepult, or the shop keeper who sold the thug the catepult knowing he was going to shoot kids with it.

"His loyalty to us when we sold him these weapons shows that he is only loyal to those who serve his purpose. If we would ally with him again and eventually outlive our usefulness to him, don't you think that he would go right back to doing what he is now? "

I don't see him doing anything now.
I still don't know why on earth he has suddenly become the biggest threat to world peace since Hitler when just recently he was, as far as Bush and Blair were concerned, completely contained.

Sorry but your arguments don't hold water, I can accept them as your political beliefs, but there is a world of difference between belief and the reality of a situation.

I've posted an article about Saddam above this one.

Have a read, it might change your mind about the true monsters in all this.

Hey, buddy, that article on Saddam only supported the idea that he is a psychopath and a threat to the world. Yes, we did help him at one point, but now we are righting a wrong that we committed. Yes, governments do kill for their political beliefs but at least ours doesn't support terrorism. The question you have to ask yourself is would you want someone telling you to do something for him or you will die? Because that is exactly what he did to his countrymen. The bottom line is he is a possible threat to innocent people and that can't be allowed to persist.

"Hey, buddy, that article on Saddam only supported the idea that he is a psychopath and a threat to the world."

It also potrays him for what he is, not an unstoppable mad man but a politician. Politicians can be reasoned with, more importantly politicians like Saddam can be bought.


"Yes, we did help him at one point, but now we are righting a wrong that we committed. Yes, governments do kill for their political beliefs but at least ours doesn't support terrorism. "

1: there is still no proven link between Al Quaida and saddam, this is a myth perpitrated by the media so often that people accept it as fact, currently however there is no proof.
2: Saddam was killing Kurds with weapons we sold him for years before we did anything. We support terror far more than he ever did.

"The bottom line is he is a possible threat to innocent people and that can't be allowed to persist. "

No, the bottom line is, what do we intend to do about the growing instability in the middle east.

If you think that we will walk in, kill saddam and that will be it and the people will be free, you may wish to re-evaluate your current reading on the subject.

Acctually, I think going in and killing him would create widespread riots. It would result in countless deaths. But isn't that what is going to happen whether we want it too or not. There will be a war and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

A million people marched on London last friday, The Government ignored them.

Far from helping their cause this simply means that at the next march there will be 2 million, 1 million who are against the war and another million who can't believe that their government would simply ignore the people.

So long as we keep questioning, protesting, and talking to those with opposing views in the hope that we can change their view that this is a war that must happen, then there is allways hope that it won't happen.

Ofg course it probably will anyway, but at least when the bombs start dropping we will be able to say we tried.

Just my belief.

and yes, I agree, bombing Iraq will probably cause riots both here and abroad.

Originally posted by Lupe_101
Sorry but your arguments don't hold water, I can accept them as your political beliefs, but there is a world of difference between belief and the reality of a situation.

lol, you're opinion. Seems to me you're the one whose arguments don't hold water. Afterall, there is a world of difference between belief and the reality of a situation.

Originally posted by Lupe_101
A million people marched on London last friday, The Government ignored them.

Thank goodness. Many times in the past popular opinion was against something, but the US and Britain leadership were proven right, and didn't base what they were doing on the public or polls. If they had then the cold war might still be going on.

"lol, you're opinion. Seems to me you're the one whose arguments don't hold water. Afterall, there is a world of difference between belief and the reality of a situation. "


Your entitled to that opinion but can you please demonstrate where you find fault with my argument and subscribe to the other, otherwise its just you and I sitting here saying "your wrong" "no your wrong" and thats going to get tedious very fast.

Exactly..but I don't think anything would make us change our minds.

The only thing this war on terrorist has done is make new enemies for the U.S. and U.K. And what the hell is Bush thinking ...war with Iraq (and who ever gots' there back) and war with North Korea at the same time. If they sent every soldier out to Iraq and N. Korea , whos' going protect homeland. I guess thats' when the " be more vigilante " part comes in , huh ?

Originally posted by Fantastic_Damage
This is not about WW2, and America is not risking invasion, so shut the # up with your WW2 #. I lost family in that war and I am sure you did too, so do not insult their memory with your moaning

The situation was completely different then and you know it.

Pardon the late response, I haven't read as much as I should lately.

I disagree. This situation has alot of similarities with WWII, and as time goes by, more may come about. If people didn't learn lessons from WWII it is certain that there will be more similarities.

the War on Terror doesn't seem to have accomplished much, especially the prime objective of getting OBL and Al'Queda...some good has come of it. Increased security of some our most vulnerable targets helps ensure that 911 tragedies are less likely to recurr... Also, terrorists are having more and more difficulty finding safe havens, funding, and are finding it more and more difficult to operate effectively. Have we cut off terrorisms head? No, but we're eating at it's edges, but it will take time to erode it to almost nil. As for the NK situation, we can't take the blame completely for that...it's the psycho who's spouting the "we will destroy you all" rhetoric...(true, Bush stupidly started that with the whole Axis of Evil speech, but he's a moron anyways).