Can Somebody Tell Me Why The Media Hasn't Said...

[AYoKoNA]

The Russa situation is still terrorism, so it is not "unrelated." They may have had different motives, but it is terrorism nonetheless.

I said "slightly" unrelated. When I say slightly unrelated, Chechniyan separatists, as of now, are not seeking to terrorize U.S. interests. While they are still a threat and are terrorists, and should be dealt with by force, you cannot compare them to an organization such as Al Quada, or Al-Zarqawi's group currently who are affecting our own interests abroad.

And you actually asked three questions. Of course the world is safer without the Taliban in power, they were a terrorist organization. But Saddam? That's pushing it, he posed no real threat to us. So we can agree that the world is safer without the Taliban or Al Quada, but those arn't the only terrorists around.

Saddam is pushing it? Have you read Doulfer's report? Or how about his predecessors, David Kay?

 

In a 1,500-page report, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, will find Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons.

Or how about:

As Duelfer puts the finishing touches on his report, he concludes Saddam had intentions of restarting weapons programs at some point, after suspicion and inspections from the international community waned.

http://kyw.com/iraq/iraq_story_260214439.html

 

And David Kay's findings:

What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?

 

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

 

 

[BloodySunday]

Idk about you guys I saw a ton of stuff on the Afghan elections.

 

But the President talks about Iraq more then he talks about Afghanistan.

 

And to say they are unfairly covering it look at our involvement in south america from WWII on. You can find tid bits of info but never the a real story. You know why because it shows us supporting dictatorships. Wheres all the coverage of Rumsfeld's relations with Saddam Hussein during the Reagan adminstration.

Edited October 14, 2004 by BloodySunday

[Kamikaze_Badger]

I may be beating a dead horse, but...

 

 

 

 

Saying that Saddam is entirely unrelated to terrorism is like saying that members are unrelated to the development of the OCC.

 

 

 

Saddam terrorised Iraqis, and committed several war crimes which include genocide. Right now, I'll bet anything that the World Court will sentence him to life in prison(they can't give people the death penalty). Now, if the entire government turned into a terrorist organization, and we had no ways of defending ourselves, you would probably want other countries to come help us out . This was the situation for Iraq. They had little if ANY way of defending themselves against Saddam.

 

 

 

 

Just because they live in a developing country dosn't mean they're less important than anyone here in America. Attitudes like that are probably the biggest reason for anti-Americanism today.

[Special_K]

This was the situation for Iraq.

Yes it was. They were oppressed, they were killed, they had problems.

 

But the fact is they wern't a threat to us. They posed no real threat. We were duped, misled, and misinformed. Point the finger at whoever you want (the current administration, our intelligence, Clinton, whomever) but we didn't have to go to war, much less cover most of the costs (in both lives and cash). Not to mention the colateral damage (another big reason why they hate us).

 

If they were a terrorist organization then it would be a different question. However, they would have never gone that far. Terrorism itself is to further a groups beliefs on politics, or actions, administration, etc.. Saddam was already in power. I'm glad he won't get the death sentance though, because that would make him a maytr to his followers.

[Kamikaze_Badger]

So lets say that the entire American government goes corrupt, terrorizes its people, all after making sure that all their defenses are gone. Of course, if they're not posing a threat to other countries, they shouldn't have to come in and save us.

 

 

 

 

There are some things that require involvement. By taking down Saddam, Bush saved the lives of millions of more people. It also greatly helped out the situation in Iraq when it comes to poverty and such. They now have a police force there, and they don't have to worry for their lives every night because they know that Saddam won't be their to rape the women and gas all the children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I'll tell you right now, I hate Bush. But I still agree with him for going to war in Iraq. Besides, who's to say that Saddam wouldn't of used his biological WMDs against other nations in the world? And also, your argument can be used against you. Osama no longer poses a threat to us because he's being hunted, and is wanted dead or alive for 1998 bombings at Dar Es Salaam, and is a suspect in several other terrorist bombings( http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/laden.htm ). He is the second, if not the, most wanted fugitive by the FBI. Sadam was formerly the most wanted man by them ( http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm ).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There, I feel better.

 

 

 

EDIT: If he's not the most wanted terrorist, he's the second most wanted terrorist. This guy is the most wanted.

Edited October 26, 2004 by Kamikaze_Badger

[Special_K]

Badger, I guess I should have been clearer. Why do we go into Iraq when there are plenty of other countries that terrorize their own people? How many little countries in Africa have armies that will terrorize the people, rape the women, kill the kids? Plenty. We may have needed to go in, we may have needed to help. But they are far from the only country with those problems, and we shouldn't have gone in without much of a plan.

 

Besides, who's to say that Saddam wouldn't of used his biological WMDs against other nations in the world?

 

Well, if you missed the Duelfer report, it was determined that Saddam never had WMD's, nor the capabilities of making them. And because of the UN Sanctions, he was losing power. That kinda kills your reasoning... And if it was conclusively proved that he did have weapons, don't you think that every European country would join in? Since they're closer than us, and easier to hit?

 

And about Osama, yes he has less power, but there's no chance in heck that we're ever going to stop going after him until we catch him. It doesn't matter if he's a threat to us because he's already attacked us. He will never be able to stay anywhere, or ever lead (what he may call) a "normal life." He's a wanted man.

[andrusk]

Well, if you missed the Duelfer report, it was determined that Saddam never had WMD's, nor the capabilities of making them. And because of the UN Sanctions, he was losing power. That kinda kills your reasoning... And if it was conclusively proved that he did have weapons, don't you think that every European country would join in? Since they're closer than us, and easier to hit?

And if you had ever really read the duelfer report you would KNOW that iraq paid off france and russia with the oil for food program in trade that they would not vote agaisnt him in the UN. France and Russia are paid and bought for by saddam. They will NEVER join us, and NEVER would have. Also, in the report it is also clear that saddam planned on rebuilding his WMDs as soon as the sanctions were lifted. On top of that, he fooled his own generals into thinking he had wmds. He duped the WHOLE world into thinking he had wmds. Its just like when you point a plastic model gun at a cop. They are going to shoot you, and kill you. But just because you were holding a fake gun, that doesnt make what the cops did wrong.

Edited October 26, 2004 by andrusk

[Special_K]

Also, in the report it is also clear that saddam planned on rebuilding his WMDs as soon as the sanctions were lifted.

 

Well the sanctions wern't lifted, nor were they planning on being lifted any time soon.

 

He did dupe the whole world into thinking he had WMD's, but better intel. from our side (or any other) would have shown the reality. I like your example with the cop though...

[AYoKoNA]

Right now, I'll bet anything that the World Court will sentence him to life in prison(they can't give people the death penalty).

Screw the world court... Socialists along with the U.N. if you ask me...

2/3's of the UN is run by dictatorships and theocracies....

 

As far as the World Court sentencing him, Iraq is now a democracy. Iraq will be trying Saddam Hussein, not any "World Body"

Well, if you missed the Duelfer report, it was determined that Saddam never had WMD's, nor the capabilities of making them.

The Duelfer report states that Saddam never had WMD's, but it DOES NOT state that he lacked the capabilities of making them. It is a fact Saddam had the programs "in place", and "ready to start up again" as soon as the sanctions were lifted. And believe me the sanctions would have been lifted real soon, especially if Good old George W wasn't in office.

 

Saddam wasn't a threat? What "BUBBLE" are you living in my friend...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled