Ok, so hypothetically, you are SH, you have nukes, a terrorisr come to you and says he needs WMD to kill AMericans, what do you do? Give it to him! Come on, SH is not a sane man, he'll do anything to kill Americans.

CP

I'm not saying it's not possible and sure, anything can happen. Without proof and without a credible threat they're just accusations.

Then why hasn't he? If he's sitting on this huge stockpile of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, why hasn't he used a single one of them once against the US? Why hasn't he been freely distributing them to every anti-American terrorist within arm's reach for the past decade or so? Why is this alleged stockpile wielded by a purported madman only a sudden threat when George W Bush and you decide that it is???

Actually I believe Saddam is quite sane. I do think he might allow terrorists access to his WMD's if he believed it could not be traced back to him.. Even a small probability of the use of weapons that could kill 10's of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, cannot be ignored. I also believe our president is not a raving oil driven lunatic. After 9/11 America realized it cannot be on the defensive continuously, we cannot allow terrorists to act unimpeded. Saddam is a threat, a lesser threat today then he was before the inspectors arrived. The only way to get Saddam to cooperate, without war, is to make damn sure he knows war is a possibility.

I agree entirely.


There are over four hundred active terrorist organizations in the world - many of which we know are in possession of deadly weapons. The sovereign state of Iraq is not one of them. Iraq has not perpetrated any acts of terror against anyone nor even engaged in warfare or the putting down of internal insurrections in about a decade - and has never engaged in an act of aggression against the US. Why are we focussing on Saddam Hussein when there are other organizations which are actively practicing terror on an almost daily basis - some of them against us? Apart from anything else, this administration's failure to actually address terrorism and its causes, is criminally irresponsible - never mind actively engaging in the promotion of terror by inciting as much anti-American animosity in as many arenas as is humanly possible (weakening our traditional alliances and destroying our credibility in the process).


I again agree with you. I believe he is a raving world domination driven lunatic.

If that were the case, we would have taken other countries over by now

Give him time. Aquiring Iraq is strategically a good place to start real domination in the M.E. Once that's done it's on to Iran and afterwards probably Saudi Arabia. At least that's what the Arab world suspects is going to happen.

Shrub IS terror .

When other countries were attacked by terrorists they did their utmost to bring the perpetrators to justice (Lockerby UK for one) without terrorising the World.

Shrub has introduced a global terror in which there are only two factions.
Those that support their greivances using illegal terrorism.
Those that support 'shrubs' greivances using legalised terrorism.

So there we have it, there's the choice.
Do we support terrorism or terrorism?.

Oh...I forgot
There are a bunch of misfit countries who want neither.....wimps

No other country has experienced an incident of terror like 9/11. None.

The utmost that other countries did to apprehend (or not) is in no way going to be sufficient in this case.
What exactly is wrong with saying either you are willing to help us catch the terrorist cells that inhabit MANY nations, or you turn a blind eye, and you are subject to the wrath of a nation scorned.

Some people may think that the World Court, Interpol, and nice civilized, diplomatic pandering are the way to appease fanatics. But I think they are acting like ostriches.
I guess it will take 3,000 dead in a single day in one of thief cities to make them see the light of day.

I try not to be reactionary and spout off like flag waving lunatic, but 9/11 was a drastic event that calls for drastic actions. Sometimes my blood just boils.

Funny other anti-war activists tell me Bush is attempting to get back at Saddam for attempting to assasinate Dad. Saddam has also aided terrorists in attacking American targets overseas.

Source or links?

We have done that....by shooting them, blowing them up or putting them in 3x3 cells in Gitmo

I thought this thread was supposed to be about the Bush Administration's impact on any potential relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida.

Oh yeah, it was.

CLOSED.

Mike