mahoney:
Quote:
how would YOU have handled it if you were President ?
Doing nothing is not a solution. Saadam was a threat if you don't know that you are ignorant to the facts. Who is a bigger threat to us ?
|
Hell... first, I is not my job to "handle it" - I am not the president.
Who ever suggested that anyone should "do nothing"? That sounds like the usual banal shit that comes from the current Admin, who seem to assume they are the only people on the planet that "do something". News... wrong :-)
Saddam was a threat? To whom?? I assume you are saying he was a threat to the United States? If so, think again.
The question about "who is the bigger threat to us"? I assume "us" is the United States? If so, I would have thought a terrorist organisation headed by Osama which has already attacked the US is more a threat to the US.
There is this common belief, especially in the US (wonder why?) that Hussein is some enemy on the US's war on terrorism. He is a thug dictator - of that there is no doubt - and "slightly" mental with it.
This was the same Saddam Hussein with the same "personality makeup" that the US engaged to be "partners" with in the assassination of a minister in a democratically elected government (Iran at that time). Saddam's qualifications as a thug were what got him this job.
It was the same Saddam Hussein that the US supplied both military and bio weapons to instigate and conduct a war with Iran.
It was the same Saddam Hussein that Rumsfield and others visited and shared some hospitality with - that was, when Saddam was a "friend" of the US.
Some need to quit trying to assassinate members of the government of other countries and also choose more stable "friends" to go to bed with.
On the bit about "what would I have done"... Hell ain't just me, but the whole world is wondering why the fuck the US felt this desire to invade Iraq. It was not based on any rational of "evidence" or balanced judgement. It was based on lies and a "hate" propaganda machine where there is only the need for anyone to have a retention span of five seconds.
It was never the "duty" of the US to engage in any "war" as some police officer - far less in a war in a country not even remotely near the US. The international community never asked for this "war" - clearly they are not going to "clean it up" either, least until the US is out of the place.
The damage this had done to the US is enormous - both in the "popularity figures" of US soldiers who died, but also in the more massive number of (not published) deaths in Iraq as a result on this action.
The damage within the international community is something that will last long after Bush has left the Whitehouse and "repercussions" will/are taking place on many areas - from economics to "cooperation".
Simply... I have no doubts the "judgement" of the current admin is warped. A war in Iraq has little to do with this chosen "war on terrorism". Osama has not been caught and his organization looks to be flourishing well and with far more members than were ever there in the first instance.
If that is "progress" and "good management" of a war against terrorism - there is much to learn.
The "target" should have been Mr bin Laden and his organization, but that never really happened, and there is little hope of "killing off" this organization until the "feeding grounds" for his recruitment are mininized. There are now more "feeding grounds" than ever existed before, thanks in large part, to the US admin.