Quote1. The UN came out this week saying that a building, known to hold dual-purpose nuclear refining equipment has disappeared. Not the equipment, the entire building!!
Originally posted by: motti_soL
its funny how bush supporters forget the past so quickly. bush sr. with reagan and all the other cronies from the 80's places osama bin ladin in power, they are the ones that places saddam hussein in power and just smiled when this "axis of evil" was operating at its worst.
bush speaks of WMD? where are they? not a single shred of evidence that supports that theory has been presented.
saddam hussein has no links to al-qaeda or afghanistan, this has been proved.
if it is saddam hussein that you wanted to get rid of then get rid of him, dont violate the entire country. you (as in the americans) have put people on the moon, surely you would be able to get one man?
why so sceptical about iran and north korea getting nuclear power? oh youre afraid that they will develop WMD as in nuclear bombs? true, it would be unfortunate if they were to use them. but what does that make the USA, being the only country in over 50 years to ever have used the bomb on a population... twice...
Note: Nuclear refining equipment. But he didn't have weapons. No, he had all the knowledge and equipment to build them as soon as the UN sanctions were gone, and as evidence from the Duelfer Report, we know that he was strongly working on removing those.
2. Saddam Hussein HAD links to al-qaeda. Saddam had no links to 9/11. The headline writers at the New York Times and all those other newspapers that said that after the 9/11 Commision report came out are morons.
3. Oh, assassinate Saddam, that's a smart idea. Who takes power when he's gone?? Uday or Qusay?? Those 2 are (well, were) more blood-thirsty and maniacal that Saddam was.
Saddam was like the single head of a hydra. Cut it off, and more will popup in his place.
I've said this several times, in the boards various political discussions.
During the years past, the United States has held a The enemy of my enemy is my friend attitude.
In WW2, Churchill and Roosevelt knew that Stalin was as evil a man as Hitler, but they also knew they had no hopes of winning the war without the USSR. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
During the Iraq-Iran War, Iran was considered the far greater threat to the Middle East, so the US backed Saddam (I believe Iran was also backed by the USSR, and the US took every opportunity to stop the spread of communism). The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, we knew that they must be stopped. Communism was the ultimate evil, so we armed and trained a "rebel" named Osama bin Laden. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
This administration has not taken up that same montra. Enemies are enemies and friends are friends. This administration has learned from the mistakes of the past. Unlike others, which decided to continue dealing with terrorists in a police fashion, or that pull out at the first death of an American soldier (Somalia, Lebanon), we stand firm.
I'm not touching Israel. I do not feel I have enough knowledge about the situation to participate in an educated discussion. I will say, however, that I've never heard of Israelis strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up buses. I do not consider them terrorists.
As for your interesting attempt at an insult:
neo-con: Believe it or not, I don't even know what this refers to.
right-wing: Darn proud of it.
christian: Actually, Roman Catholic, but I try not to talk religion on the boards.
reich: I take it this is a reference to nazism. I find that interesting.
I was under the impression that nazism was short for 'National Socialism". Socialism is strongly equated with communism, and communism is on the far left of the political spectrum. So, for someone to be a "right-wing nazi" would be an oxymoron.
However, its been many years since I had my Government and Politics class in high school, so I could be wrong about the above paragraph.