quote Originally posted by I'm Back: Sure, but with our advanced intelligence I would think they would know where to find at least a bit of them if they exist.

I don't care how much intelligence, satellites and spys you have. I submit it wouldn't be as tough as you think to hide stuff in buildings, commercial trucks or holes in the desert. If you lose them once, how do you expect to keep tabs on them, especially if they are on the move.

quote So what does that make us? So is it that we object to the use of chemical warfare on humans, or just that we object to them being used on our definition of the good guys? Aren't we an accessory to all people that might have died as a result of the chemicals?

Flawed and human, in a world with dictators, turncoats and dangerous people. In a world like that, the United States is, at the worst, the best of evils. I wouldn't place us that low, I think our intentions are usually good, but we do make mistakes.

quote But then we call him a cheater for not using conventional warfare and using the chemicals we provided? I think the excuse of no hindsight is a bit of a cop-out. We knew of the dangers of agent orange, so we also knoew of the dangers of the chemicals we provided over there.

When did we call him a cheater for not using them? Why did we give them the weapons? Defense? I don't know. I wouldn't have supported it. I'm just saying that the argument that he didn't have them is simply wrong.

Excuse of no hindsight? What are you talking about?

quote We're being played for the fools that we're acting. They change sides and milk us for money and weapons. Is it halftime yet?

Fools? Who is using hindsight?

Yes, it's halftime. Turn on CNN for the halftime show, starring Wolf Blitzer. The score is US 28, Iraq 3.

quote No way. Do you think Saddam didn't establish an infrastructure? Besides, the bulk of the new terrorists are reportedly from Saudi. Ever watch the movie, "Seven?" Maybe it really gets ugly now that Saddam is caught. Hopefully it's over so no more allied lives are lost. This is a great day, but at the same time, possibly meaningless as with the capture of Noriega.

No, I haven't seen Seven, so the reference is lost on me.

I, too, am not positive it will stop the insurgency, only hopeful. Let's hope for the best.

quote Originally posted by trailboss: I am sure that the happiest people are the... relatives; of the people that were fed into plastic shredders, " " that had their testicles crushed by Saddams henchmen " " the grooms that had their brides stolen from the altar and brutally raped and tortured. " " of the kurds that were gassed. and the thousands upon thousands murdered by this maniacal dictatorship. The saddest people are Ed and Jeff, another military victory for the Bush administration. Just another reason why liberals cannot be trusted with national security.

Nope, I'm happy, but really unimpressed. The Al-Quida is still intact and terrorism is still running strong, so this is no major voctory. Just like the war on drugs was/is a failure, the war on terrorism is also a failure and will be until other things change.

BTW, objectively I'm not a liberal, although I do lean that way.

quote Originally posted by trailboss: Just another reason why liberals cannot be trusted with national security.

I am starting to believe that liberals and national security equals an oxymoron.

Clinton had a similar war on terrorism, minus 9/11. He did vitually nothing. Bush toppled Saddamn's government and captured the bastard. When it comes to foreign affairs, the Republicans have my vote.

quote Originally posted by I'm Back:The Al-Quida is still intact and terrorism is still running strong, so this is no major voctory.

Al Queda might still have some rats loose but their day to day operations are nothing like it was pre-9/11.
The fact that we have interrupted a lot of their plans, interrogated many of their leaders, intercepted a lot of their assets, and have not suffered a major attack since 9/11 says a lot.

But you will not admit to that I am sure, to do so would be to admit that we have made some substantial gains in our war on terrorism.

Comparison of the war on drugs/terrorism is apples and oranges.

quote Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:

“Are you suggesting that if they find WOMD between now and 11 months, it's suspect and they were planted? That's just conspiracy talk. No, it's in fact complete and utter BS.
“I'm always so utterly amazed (as a European) about some americans that always use the upcoming elections as an excuse that something isn't what it appears to be.”

Oh, like the movie, “Wag the Dog.” Face it, political conspiracies are BS sometimes, and factual sometimes. What if there was conspiracy theory talk immediately before Watergate in the early 1970’s? Would that be dismissed as BS, or credited as brilliant as it came to fruition? What if the Clinton scandal had never come to fruition, as the dress and tape were never existent or destroyed but the sex acts had occurred? Would that be dismissed as BS even though it had occurred? There’s the adage, “Where there’s smoke there’s fire,” so maybe there is at least a little truth to many conspiracies.

Welcome to US politics. I don’t know European politics, so I don’t know how sleazy things get. I wish I knew more about foreign politics, especially the Parliamentary system. Yes, we Americans do some sly crap when it comes to elections. Most politicians are elected out, rather than elected in. American PFF members have asked why you don’t move to America and naturalize (maybe you currently have dual citizenship), the more I learn about your neck of the woods, the less I wonder why. The fact that you’re amazed at the sleazy politics is a credit to your country’s poitics.

So what are you suggesting? A new law that prevents a president from doing anything the last year of his term

Naw, let he crap fly, but we have the right to assume what we want. Look, when it comes to American partisanship, our candidate could screw Mother Theresa and we would care. By looking at the history of American politicians, you can see that not much emphasis is placed upon the candidate himself/herself, but there is much placed upon the party. As I recently wrote in another post, religion generally establishes party lines and I see that attribute exacerbating.

Damn it really happend! Clinton had the option to bag Saddam and never did. Bushes father never got the scumbag, but he tried at least. GW seemed to have taken care of it though ....

I remember weird death songs about Saddam flating around on the elementary play ground.... This many years ago for me!
Its weird that he is really gone now!

From Rushes site:
Prominent National Democrats on Suicide Watch
hahaha

------------------
In Toronto crusin' it up in the V6...

quote Originally posted by fierobear:

"The war on drugs is failing because too many people *want* to use drugs."

And the terrorists want to terrorize. In order to change actions, you must change attitudes, that is a basic concept of the correctional system.

"That is our governments fault?"

Drugs, well, it's a societal/generational thing, so I can't blame it on the gov.

"What do you suggest that would be more effective, mind control?"

They've tried that, it doesn't work and they know it.

"Losing the war on terrorism? What would constitute winning?"

THE END. Not the end of the world, but the product of the means is the end. Winning would be established by there being no more terrorism.

"Staying out of the middle east, not taking the battle to terrorists home turf?"

THE MEANS. That would be a good start. Quit picking fights, let people have their own culture without being ethnocentric and demanding they adopt Christianity. If they want to hate Europeans, Americans, Christianity, let em. As long as they hate those things by words and not actions. Yes, live and let live, as long and until another country takes action that was not provoked by us.

"Yeah, we tried that with Clinton."

Man, if Clinton isn't the scapegoat for everything since the inception of man, I don't who is. This battle has been hot since 1948, so I wouldn't blame 1 person.

"Was he winning? Didn't think so. OK, what's your solution?"

Get out of that region, declare peace, if anyone violates and it can be directly attributed, level em.

quote Originally posted by I'm Back: Daddy Bushy had a war on terrorism and he accomplished nothing as well. Oh, but he lost 150ish lives and aggitated the Iraqis.

Daddy Bush was criticized for fighting Gulf War I, and the naysayers complained we'd lose American soldiers. He was criticized for not continuing into Iraq on the ground, and grabbing Saddam.

Sonny Bush was criticized for going into Iraq in Gulf War II. He is criticized for not finding Saddam and WMD. He is criticized for putting US lives at risk, losing the peace. Both Bushes were criticized for not getting the job done.

So, which do you want? The job done or not? Pick one, please, you're making me dizzy.

quote Originally posted by ManiMack: [QUOTE]Originally posted by I'm Back: Daddy Bushy had a war on terrorism and he accomplished nothing as well. Oh, but he lost 150ish lives and aggitated the Iraqis.

lol I wasnt replying to your post above....
I really dont understand you though. You seem like a very unhappy person![/QUOTE]

LOL. Naw, I'm happy. After understanding the American legal system and political process, I'm really critical of America. I see you're from Canada, so it's quite different there socially. Speaking of that, I adore socialism as opposed to capitalism. Try explaining the flaws with the American capitalist system and you get met with anger and guarded distrust. I'm not trying to change anyone, as previously stated by someone, but if people understood the workings of the American political/judicial system they would likely be quite disgusted.

The usual BS from the usual suspects... The same tired arguments that Hitler was more of a threat than small time Hussein... Hitler had to start somewhere too.. Thank goodness we got him before it went that far...

And as someone stated above, there has been plenty of proof of violations of UN sanctions as well as materials which they were not supposed to have. If there had been nothing to hide, or if Hussein had allowed inspectors to do their job instead of jerking the world around for years, none of this would be happening... Not the fault of George Bush as so many of you like to spin.. Thank God he did his job...

Too bad all you partisan haters can't stop for a while and see that this is a good thing (We can be assured that you would be screaming credit for Clinton if there was any way you could!)... As I have said so many times, it is a good thing that so many people can see through those individuals who post nothing but baseless partisan hate. The red bars prove that...

bear... They always SAY they are happy yet they spew hate constantly. My grandmother always told me that actions speak louder than words. I tend to think she was right. Best to just ignore them.

[This message has been edited by Songman (edited 12-14-2003).]

quote Originally posted by Songman: bear... They always SAY they are happy yet they spew hate constantly. My grandmother always told me that actions speak louder than words. I tend to think she was right. Best to just ignore them.

I know what you are saying, Songman. I just can't resist a good debate. As long as it remains a good debate, and doesn't degenerate into a personal flameware. I've been in both, and hopefully, I've learned my lesson. So far, most of this thread is debate.

Seeing as we are reaching back into history, lets go a little farther and take a look at this picture:

Donald Rumsfeld and his ally in the Middle East, Saddam Hussein. Maybe I'm off my rocker here, but perhaps the whole situation would have come out different if the US didn't get involved in the 80's. Maybe the situation wouldn't be as bad if the concept of non-interference was something people were concerned about. Maybe the situation would be different if the same people that put him in power weren't the same people entrusted with taking him back out.

That picture says a lot about why some people in the world just don't like you. Maybe the Iranian's will understand that 20 years ago, you gave him weapons to kill them, but now you want to be their friend. Maybe the Iranians are feeling a little cautious of having you parked next door because of that picture.

Never forget your history. That picture is a priceless reminder of why.

quote Originally posted by I'm Back: I see you're from Canada, so it's quite different there socially. Speaking of that, I adore socialism as opposed to capitalism. Try explaining the flaws with the American capitalist system and you get met with anger and guarded distrust. I'm not trying to change anyone, as previously stated by someone, but if people understood the workings of the American political/judicial system they would likely be quite disgusted.

Have you ever been outside of the US?

That picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussain speaks volumes.I heard somewhere that the Millions that Osama Ben Laden uses to finance His onslaught against the Western World also came from the USA.Is that true or not?
And talking about "Politically arranged" events, it struck me that it could be quite possible to have kept this arresting of Saddam Hussain until it was a useful time to announce it.By the look of the Man, He has been totally isolated and ineffective for a long time, long ago abandoned by the Higher Power that has been using him as a puppet as well.He had no protection as far as can be seen.So, maybe the powers that be knew exactly where he was a long time ago, and left him there until it was advantageous to pick him up in a blaze of glory.I don't trust either Tony Blair or Bush, and worry a lot that they are in a position to manipulate many things to their favour.I am sorry to say that I think this is a long way from being over, if it ever will be.I am not at all politically motivated:I feel that Politics and Religion are two of the most provocative influences in the World, and are totally hypocritical powers which create far more harm than good.Unfortunately, nobody has come up with a viable alternative to either ,and so the destruction of our Beautiful World continues apace.
fierofetish

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 12-14-2003).]

Saddam is a whimp when you thing about his sons. His sons died fighting while their dad cowered in a burro like a trapped rat and gave up without a fight.
Saddam was the equalivelant of a "candy assed" hitler, ruthless in his persuit to enslave and upturn as much as he could. He was not a great strategest but he was an iconic leader.
His sons on the other hand, I shudder to think about what they would have been capable of if allowed to take control. They would surly have eaten thier father if the oppertunity presented itself.

The millions he has is family money from his family in Saudi Arabia. What you are probably thinking of is that many of the weapons being used in Afghanistan by the Taliban and Al Qaeda now are of US origin and that is true to a certain degree. We did support many of them back when the former Soviet Union was invading Afghanistan to help them drive the USSR out. Times change, policies change.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: That picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussain speaks volumes.I heard somewhere that the Millions that Osama Ben Laden uses to finance His onslaught against the Western World also came from the USA.Is that true or not?

all we've been hearing for months from democrats
is "the war is wrong"
now every last one of them including howard dean
are jumping to the screen to say "saddams capute is good"
but the war is still wrong

i just wish they would make up their minds
either bush is doing a good job or america is
guilty of war crimes against iraq and its leader
"which is it"

democrats are not making much sense on this matter
for one bush supporters dont like the war either
but we still see a very real reason for it
while you democrats seem to be saying theres no
reason for war but capturing saddam is a good thing
"wow now thats definately an effort to say good job
without giving bush any credit" "HYPOCRITS!"

some of you happily cashed and spend you tax refund check
and take advantage of the tax cut and child credit and still
have no shame in calling bush wrong "HYPOCRITS!"

if you think your not paying enough in taxes
change your w-4 where it allows you to ellect to have MORE
MONEY taken from your own pay checks and leave the rest
of ours alone , if you wont do that before expecting
everyone else to pay more taxes , that make you a "HYPOCRIT!"

[This message has been edited by ceo (edited 12-14-2003).]

pushup

I'm not saying that no one made mistakes John, but to have the same, exact people there 20 years later trying to clean it up is not in the best interests of everyone involved. Rumsfeld's hands are already bloody. I'm a skeptic. Always have been, and always will be. The fact that the picture exists makes me feel that there will always be an alterior motive.

quote Originally posted by ManiMack: Have you ever been outside of the US?

Paleeeese!!! I entered the Air Force when I was 17, spent 2 years stateside, then went to Guam fro 15 months. While there, I went to Australia and through Hawaii (still US but not contiguous). I earned my pilot's license while at Guam and flew my cross-country's to Saipan, Tinian, and Rota. I went to Hawaii on a job later on for a while. I've been to Mexico several times as an adult, and been to Canada several times as a kid and once early on in the Air Force. I've been to many US states, and lived in several.

So to wonder as to my worldliness is humorous to me. I don't have any time in Europe and would love to go. I have a degree in Justice from ASU, so I have read about other cultures in many other countries. I have been around quite a bit - much more than most other people.

Now you have me curious. Since you appear to believe that it was the US's mistake, are you saying that someone else should go in and clean it up? If so, who? How long to wait? The comments others made about China and North Korea being more of a threat may or may not be correct, but the fact is that WE (the US) didn't put them in power and didn't support them while they're in power, but THOSE are the ones that now we (the US) should be most concerned with.

You may be a skeptic, but I'm flat-out confused.

We're supposed to capitulate to the will of the "world" (read that the UN), but their favorite position is to do nothing and it will go away. It WON'T go away unless action is taken. When a truly European problem like Kosovo is at hand, the Europeans scream for US to do something. When there is genocide anywhere else in the world, particularly Africa, the world (read that the UN) cries "Why didn't you (the US) DO SOMETHING SOONER???"

For some reason, when a Liberal Democrat is the President, launching cruise missiles at aspirin factories is an OK response. When a Republican is in the office NOTHING is right according to the rest of the world, particularly Europe.

I'm sorry, but the hypocrisy of the situation often overwhelms me. And before you ask, I SUPPORTED Clinton taking action against Iraq, in fact I wish he'd have quit pussy-footing around and done more, but I supported what he did do. I don't think he did it to take the focus of his sexual escapades, although the timing benefitted him.

One final thought. Have you heard former President Clinton saying that the US should not have gone into Iraq? I haven't. He and his administration was thoroughly convinced, as was the UN and the Congress, that Saddam had WOMD and would use them if given an opportunity. The UN differed on whether or not actual invasion was necessary, but never whether the weapons existed.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Gridlock: I'm not saying that no one made mistakes John, but to have the same, exact people there 20 years later trying to clean it up is not in the best interests of everyone involved. Rumsfeld's hands are already bloody. I'm a skeptic. Always have been, and always will be. The fact that the picture exists makes me feel that there will always be an alterior motive.

I'm not a supporter of Clinton. I think he was a better president at domestic policies than you know who. The fact that he boffed everything that walked didn't put him down as the top ten president he could have been.

You are right, its a very large grey area. I don't like George Bush. I can't help it. The guy comes across as a used car salesman that happened to have a connected family. Its just the way I feel. Everything he does makes me think that he's trying to avoid telling me the Toyota I'm about to buy is rebuilt. Thats why I'm a skeptic. Others probably lie more, ie Clinton, but Bush will always give me the "heebie-jeebies" for lack of a better term

Would the UN take care of the situation? I don't know. They certainly did move slowly on these matters. I would have felt a whole lot better about the entire situation if it was a UN action instead of a Bush action.

And since no one has mentioned it yet.

Let's put that picture into context.
Iran was holding how many US citizens hostage?
Who was Iran's enemy at the time?

Did our support come back to bite us.. Yes! But like has been said before, who was going to go in there and clean it up?

As for more support in this war.. Like who? Looks like the opposition broke down to China/France/Germany and Canada kinda.
Meanwhile, the Chezh's, Pol's, Aussies, Japanese, Indians and everyone else is basically on board with us..
Think the opposition had to more to do with who was going to lose money on illegal contracts, than any moral outrage over us taking out a psycho.

quote Originally posted by Uaana: As for more support in this war.. Like who? Looks like the opposition broke down to China/France/Germany and Canada kinda. Meanwhile, the Chezh's, Pol's, Aussies, Japanese, Indians and everyone else is basically on board with us.. Think the opposition had to more to do with who was going to lose money on illegal contracts, than any moral outrage over us taking out a psycho.

ditto!

as far as countries go those are the only reasons for the opposition
and the number of countries opposing the war can be counted on 1 hand
"so much for the alienating the world BS"

and the only reason for DOMESTIC opposition here in the US
is regarding the 2004 presidential election
"democrats have a lot to loose in 2004"
especially when you consider the litte they have lol

the democrat party will loose more seats and never had a chance
of gaining the presidency anyway "so give it up"
gwb did the right thing , our troops catching saddam
is the result of doing the right thing and anyone
who would try to devorce bush from the millitary
victory
"hates how this further compounds how bad the 2000
election sucked for democrats"

hahahahah
the bad news just keeps coming for the domocrat opposition

for you dem's who think that bush deserves credit along with the troops
i applaud you for being a fair minded and reasonable person
therefor this reply is not ment for you personally
just those who are so far to the left
"their right arm could get ripped off they wouldnt notice it"

NOW: Let us put blue helmets in there and begin to exit.

Propped him up only to take him out when he didnt sing our tune.
So lets quit all this overcharging, profiteering, and killing- and get American soldiers back here. We need Congress to focus on the American economy-Holiday season only lasts so long.
OUT>

As if France, Germany, Russia, and all the rest are so much more trustworthy and honest than US companies. Get real. Who was still selling Saddam weapons in violation of the UN ban right up to nearly the day the hostilities began? Were those US missiles that were found there? Nope, French. US Night Vision? Nope, Russian.

Why in the world would we be there at the cost of American lives and leave before the job is finished now? To do so would be to dishonor those that have died in this war so far.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by G-Nasty: NOW: Let us put blue helmets in there and begin to exit. Propped him up only to take him out when he didnt sing our tune. So lets quit all this overcharging, profiteering, and killing- and get American soldiers back here. We need Congress to focus on the American economy-Holiday season only lasts so long. OUT>

quote Originally posted by I'm Back: and been to Canada several times as a kid and once early on in the Air Force.

So in other words, the only firsthand experience you have on which to base your opinion of the Canadian political and social systems are a few childhood trips? I think that's what ManiMack was getting at, you just don't appear to know what you're talking about.

[This message has been edited by BN Boomer (edited 12-15-2003).]

quote Originally posted by Songman: The usual BS from the usual suspects... The same tired arguments that Hitler was more of a threat than small time Hussein... Hitler had to start somewhere too.. Thank goodness we got him before it went that far... And as someone stated above, there has been plenty of proof of violations of UN sanctions as well as materials which they were not supposed to have. If there had been nothing to hide, or if Hussein had allowed inspectors to do their job instead of jerking the world around for years, none of this would be happening... Not the fault of George Bush as so many of you like to spin.. Thank God he did his job... Too bad all you partisan haters can't stop for a while and see that this is a good thing (We can be assured that you would be screaming credit for Clinton if there was any way you could!)... As I have said so many times, it is a good thing that so many people can see through those individuals who post nothing but baseless partisan hate. The red bars prove that... bear... They always SAY they are happy yet they spew hate constantly. My grandmother always told me that actions speak louder than words. I tend to think she was right. Best to just ignore them.

the red bars just prove you are not of the majority..

quote Originally posted by JohnnyK: the red bars just prove you are not of the majority..

And with that the pot called the kettle black.

Off to the trash can with this one...Opinions are like a$$ holes, we all got um and they all stink! (I know we all know that saying!)

I think we could almost all agree on one thing....bring our solders home soon!

------------------

I don't think this is trash can material, not yet. The debate is still somewhat civilized. Let's all do our best to keep it that way.

I think that it is very unfair to say that liberals are "desperate" or trying to find ways to bring the republicans down.

I am an EXTREME liberal and am very happy that he was captured. I'm not going to take anything away from the Republicans for his capture, but I don't think they should be taking the credit for it. It was the soldiers who risk their lives in Iraq that captured him.

It's also not fair to say that liberals would not do anything to protect national security. We were never attacked under Bill Clinton and to say that he set us up for 9/11 is unfair because there is no proof to back that statement up.

If you don't believe Democrats will go to war. During WW1 and WW2, we had democatic presidents.

Republicans are so quick to say that Democrats will not do anything if we get attacked or need to go to war. There are no facts that back that up. You cannot say "because Clinton didn't act against terrorists". I hate to break this fact to you, but neither did Bush before 9/11, so the point is moot.

Anyway, this is a great day for America in general, not a great day for one political party over another.

[This message has been edited by Spektrum-87GT (edited 12-15-2003).]

quote Originally posted by Spektrum-87GT: I am an EXTREME liberal and am very happy that he was captured. I'm not going to take anything away from the Republicans for his capture, but I don't think they should be taking the credit for it. It was the soldiers who risk their lives in Iraq that captured him.

APPLAUSE TO : Spektrum-87GT
for both honesty and proving my point
basic translations to english

- saddam gone "good"
- troops "good job"
- republicans "I don't think they should be taking,(or given) the credit for it"

democrate and liberals in general are happy for saddams capture
and for the success of the troops

but let me remind you of the words of 9 democrate nominees
"THIS IS BUSH'S WAR" yall loved that statment when it could
add up the bad credits for the bush admin. but now you democrats
cant run fast enough in the opposit direction when
"THIS IS BUSH'S WAR" will give him good credit
have i used the word "HYPOCRITS" before hmmm!

thanks for resting my case

[This message has been edited by ceo (edited 12-15-2003).]

Regarding similarities between Adolf & Saddam, one very important and usually overlooked point is that America supported not only Saddam (crazy ass mutha f#cker hate monger) in the beginning but also Adolf Hitler (crazy ass mutha f#cker hate monger); so you can begin climbing off that big ole morel high horse of yours, and whilst your at it why don’t you slip and fall as clearly some sense needs knocking into you guys. History has proved you are useless at playing in the big world, are you guys oblivious to the fact that mistakes are best learnt from?

On a cheery note – Congratulama****ingations – I am very happy at the capture of Saddam, one tyrannical dictator down, so so many more to go; you guys must be proud, you usually take out democratically elected leaders and install tyrannical dictators I suppose I have to give you at least an inkling of credit for getting it partly right this time. (however there is still plenty of time for Bush (crazy ass mutha f#cker hate monger) to **** things up)

3 cheers to the Kurds!!!

[This message has been edited by Carlc (edited 12-15-2003).]

Europe and Great Britain certainly found a use for the US in WWI, and again in WWII. Governments and societies are made up of humans and because of that full of flaws, nobody here believes otherwise. If we all had your perfect 20/20 hindsight, we'd have picked the guy we wanted to support to head Irag better, but you know what, with Saddams grip on the Baathist party, it probably wouldn't have mattered, he'd have probably STILL become the dictator of Iraq. Nothing would have been different.

Talk about getting off a moral High Horse, maybe you should look in a mirror. You seem so eager to lump all Americans in one bunch I think it's only fair that we do the same for the Brits. You dare call the US Imperialistic? We have a long way to go to match GB. You had a whole continent that was a penal colony at one time. Oh, you say that was a long time ago? So?? Many of the things you continually throw up to us was a long time ago. You say you didn't support that? So?? You're a citizen of the UK, aren't you?? That makes YOU responsible for it.

Many of the issues you bring up about supporting Saddam in the past happened before most of the forum members could either vote or, in many cases, were born, but it's still our fault, isn't it. You say that the US is a failure in the "Big World", I just wish you'd grow up and mature enough to get out of YOUR political diapers before you pass judgement on someone else.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Carlc: History has proved you are useless at playing in the big world, are you guys oblivious to the fact that mistakes are best learnt from?

quote Originally posted by Gridlock: Seeing as we are reaching back into history, lets go a little farther and take a look at this picture: Donald Rumsfeld and his ally in the Middle East, Saddam Hussein. Maybe I'm off my rocker here, but perhaps the whole situation would have come out different if the US didn't get involved in the 80's. Maybe the situation wouldn't be as bad if the concept of non-interference was something people were concerned about. Maybe the situation would be different if the same people that put him in power weren't the same people entrusted with taking him back out. That picture says a lot about why some people in the world just don't like you. Maybe the Iranian's will understand that 20 years ago, you gave him weapons to kill them, but now you want to be their friend. Maybe the Iranians are feeling a little cautious of having you parked next door because of that picture. Never forget your history. That picture is a priceless reminder of why.

I can show pictures of Roosevelt hanging with Stalin and produce quotes of him calling Stalin "Uncle Joe".
Stalin was much more of a tyrant, thug and murderer than Saddam.

One thing that liberals conveniently forget to mention when they post the picture of Rummy with Saddam.

Islamic fundamentalism reared it's ugly head when Carter stuck a knife in the back of the Shah of Iran, which in turn set in motion the establishment of the marxist/Islamic Ayatollah Khomeini. The Shah was a progressive modern ruler, Carter and the leftists along with the Russian apparatichiks colluded in the dethroning of the Shah.

Once he was gone, most of us remember what the Ayatollah did to our diplomats. After Carter was sent back to growing peanuts the region needed a counterbalance to the wild eyed lunatics in Tehran and at the time Saddam seemed to be the right man at the right time.
It's easy to be an armchair quarterback on middle east issues, and try to assault Rumsfelds character, but I remember the seriousness of the situation at that time.

Carter set the events in motion that have caused a large part of the mess that presidents have had to deal with since his departure from office, so to blame it on the "Bushies" or Rumsfeld is not only revisionism at it's smelliest, it is totally dishonest.

http://66.34.243.131/iran/html/article774.html