rktktpaul said:
Uuhhh, I believe he invaded Kuwait ten years ago - you know, Operation Desert Storm, Persian Gulf War - remember? Oh, and the indescremantly (sp.) killing of his own people - that was 10 years ago too, right after we pulled the plug on Schwartzkopf before he reached Bagdad.
I want someone to explain clearly what was Hussein doing a year ago that was so imperative for us to pretty much stop chasing Al-Quaida, and send a lot of manpower to find him in an f-ing hole in the ground!!!
And from what I'm getting here, do you mean to tell me that Hussein is/was more threatening than Bin Laden and his merry band of followers?! Are you saying that its more important to commit 135,000 troops to a place that couldn't even fire an f-ing rocket at our borders, while we have 12,000 troops looking for a group that destroyed two of the world's tallest buildings in one day, and is threatening to do more!?
If that's truly your logic, then I'm completely stunned!!
Well, according to the person I quoted, we can blame everything on WWI...
However, Saddam was a threat ten years ago before the Gulf War, and was still a threat less than a year ago when he still had all the stuff that has been hidden away in Jordan, among other places. Every administration has stated that rather bluntly since the Gulf War. But, that is easily forgettable, so is the fact that Clinton made it a Presidential rule basically to get Saddam out of power.
You seem fairly quick to forget that Afghanistan was pretty much taken care of. You do not need a huge number of troops to track one man. If you thin it is necessary, I wonder about how plan things logistically.
You do need a large number of troops to remove an army like what was in Iraq. But I guess that is not really important to you.
Saddam was a threat before he invaded Kuwait (killed people in his country). He was a threat after that as well, more so than Bin Laden while the planning stages for Iraq were being set over a year ago. Yes, the palnning for Iraq began after Afghanistan. Yes, Iraq was set to start after Afghanistan was basically taken care of.
You are kidding yourself if you think Saddam had no way of reaching out and touching us in the US. His money supported a number of terrorist organizations, some of which had links to Al Quaeda. But I guess we will ingore that fact as well.
Hey while we are it, and basically saying that Saddam was not ever really a threat to anyone, then lets ignore the fact that the money he received from France and the UN under the illegal oil for food scandal was going towards terrorist operations and the illegal purchase of weapons and equipment that the UN unanimously agreed he shouldn't have back in the Gulf War times...
I'll drop the sarcasm and make my point as clear as I can, Saddam was a threat before the Gulf War. The UN did not want us to take Iraq over at that time, and so he went back after the people who opposed him. He had a number of chemical, biological and radioligcal weapons in his use durign the Gulf War.
The UN voted that Saddam should not have those weapons. They sent in worthless inspectors. Those inspectors got the run around and booted out. The UN didn't care becuase they were getting oil under tha table with France. Meanwhile, Saddam used that money to fund a number of terrorist operations inside and outside of his own country and purchased more illegal weapons and equipment.
When Bush stood up the UN and France and said that the UN needed to hold up its end of the deal for the stuff they signed ten years ago, it backed down and Bush decided to do something about it.
Because of the bickering between the US and the UN, Saddam had more than enough time to move all of the illegal weapons out of the country. As a matter of fact, sicne the UN is helping us find the stuff, I wouldn't doubt the UN help to hide it in the first place.
So, to say Saddam was not a threat would be incorrect. If he wasn't a threat, then why didn't you go there for a vacation after the Gulf War? Was he more of a threat than Bin Laden. At the time we invaded he sure was. Bin Ladens hands were basically tied. Saddam's weren't.
Because of all the good things that have happened from the invasion of Iraq, the world will be a better place then if we had simply let Saddam do the stuff he was doing.
But by all means, go ahead and believe what you want...The liberal media is not accurate in everything they print or broadcast. And they would sooner rail Bush for invading Iraq than rail Clinton for sitting on his ass four times after terrorists did some serious damage to US citizens and property.
