Who is worse?

[uhoh]

Originally posted by freshgurl60
personal I think Sadaam is b/c he has no problem with using war heads or any type of bombs Plus he has the money and the people to support him in attcking the US

Uh, just so you know, Saddam Hussein got most everything he has from EU and US. We made our money, Saddam isn't playing by our rules now so he needs to be put down like the ill tempered dog he is. Forget the owner who made him that way. No one made Saddam a nasty piece of work as a human being, but damn, the man's on another continent! Unfortunately our oil is on his land. Bummer, huh?

Leave a hornet's nest alone, it usually leaves you alone. Reason the nest got stirred is 'cause it could have grown beyond US dominance and control.

Check whitehouse.org, CIA and FBI sites for bombing stats to see how often we've bombed Iraq over these last years trying to keep Saddam Hussein under control. Also do a teensy bit of research as to why US is being taken to world court for supplying Iraq with the means to destroy another country.

That stuff doesn't grow on trees, WE GAVE IT TO THE MAN and most of the rest of the world knows this *rolls eyes*

[uhoh]

Originally posted by poopy
i honestly don't think this war would be bush's fault. you could blame it on saddam but how about clinton? bush sr. forced saddam to concede in dessert storm. bush sr. should have kept going until saddam was out of power. he didn't and i am not sure why. maybe it was the end of his term. then came clinton. he had an oppertunity to end it when he got into office. he had the embassy bombing by osama and what did he do he fired a couple of cruise missiles into afganistan, after they had already packed up and hid in the caves. the result=nothing. if clinton had done his part we wouldn't be in half the predicament we are in now. and i have to believe that if gore had gotten into office he would have done the same thing. this isn't bushes fault. this duty of policing, the correct way, was placed in his lap by his predisessors.

The current dilemma has been in the works for 4+ consecutive administrations and then again before that. This is NOT the first time anyone has been interested in Iraq's oil.

My biggest gripe with current administration is that handling of the SEC and removal of rights for PRE-EMPTIVE war which is completely unnecessary considering Saddam MIGHT be a threat in 5 years according to Bush himself. Now, fix problems at home and then take care of Saddam in order of priorities? Or shoot for a Nobel Peace Prize by controlling Saddam before the end of the year is up and possibly win 2004 election, and only because North Korea despite being the more serious threat is just not doable this year? Decisions, decisions.

Meanwhile, how many people do ya'll know who will get one way tickets to Baghad and vicinity courtesy of the chickenhawks who won't walk their talk? How are you younger people gonna feel if the draft is reinstituted as it used to be, i.e., no one in charge of the war is in it? Just a few thoughts.

[uhoh]

Originally posted by MystikA
leaving him alone will not solve any problems.

Ok, I'll assume you're not trying to troll and give you the benefit of the doubt here. I didn't say nothing should be done, and to leave him alone. Not surprising you missed the point since you didn't respond in context.

But, let's just bomb the crap out of everything in sight until we control it all. In the process, let's hope Saddam was thinking of us and doesn't destroy his oil fields to keep us from using his resources. MAYBE, just friggin' MAYBE he might not be so inclined to kill his own people and be the lousy dictator he is if we didn't keep making things worse.

Just maybe, US should try negotiating a bit more before spending y'alls futures and your kids futures on paying off this war which Bush and his buddies of course will be living high on. War is a sign of failure to negotiate. With all the education in the whitehouse and it's administration, I sure did expect better.

[dognews45]

saddam is probably the biggest threat to the safety of the world

[Lockjaw]

Originally posted by dognews45
saddam is probably the biggest threat to the safety of the world

I'd say Bush is probably the biggest threat to the safety of the world. Saddam hasn't gone and destroyed a country; Bush has.

[dognews45]

saddam is probably the biggest threat to world peace. osama is a lot weaker now than he was 15-20 months ago.

[lycnt]

bUSH scares me

he wants mor money more fame MORE POWER!!!

i THINK THAT WE SHOULD MAKE BILL COSBY PRESIDENT!!!!

[lycnt]

Really we have too little knowledge to point fingers there is a lot of stuff that we have to consider about evreryone in order to saw weather one is worse that the other

bush is porbably the biggest hipocryte
Sadam is the crappiest punk ass dictator
Ossama is the most hate oriented

[varukers]

they are all assholes abusing the power they have

[makilwen]

Some people haave valid reasons, but i'm sick of people who say they hate Bush because they're whiners or think that it's so cool to just blame the government
" Look at me! I blame Bush and rebel!!"

[eviloutsider]

Bush is doing a great job. It's all you liberal pansies that sit back and bitch no matter what...but that's all you'll ever do is bitch and never contribute.

[Tight as a Virgin]

If Bush had a brain he'd be dangerous.

Blair has Bush's hand up his arse (puppet-fashion)

Osama is deranged and doing nowt for the public opinion of Islam (would like2point out on behalf of all Muslims, he stands for Islamism - ideology based loosely on Islam - and not Islam the religion, which is against violence)

Saddam is more intelligent than Bush and Blair give him credit for, hence is very dangerous, potentially.

[captainarrogance]

Personally im going to say that blair is, because he hasn't got the power right now in our weakend country. But my go he wants to be a president of our more democratic constitution and sticking his dick up blairs ass is a nice way to control him and get what he wants.

[makilwen]

Osama, he's freaking crazy and has religion and rabid followers to back him. When there's an organization doing stuff like paying children's families if the kid straps on explosives and suicide bombs,that sort of hate and corruption>? it's worse than the common politic-y dirtiness of world leaders and that sort of hate it infects eaiser than bio-weapons.

[fiercetabbycat2]

Umm...there never will be peace if you ask me...because there is just to much bad stuff in the world

[compugeeknerd2k4]

alright, looking at the diffrence of them all, i'd say that blair is almost harmless. Sadam is gone right now... and osama is hiding is some rock. I think that bush is the scaryist threat we have... now the US is planning on going down to the congo to force them to make them conform for us and eastern rules. the mentality i guess it that they dont like the fact that kids are being reqruited to their army... i'm 100% sure that bush's new project will be to send troups to the congo to "help" them out... the US government is fking everything up!

Originally Said by eviloutsider

Bush is doing a great job. It's all you liberal pansies that sit back and bitch no matter what...but that's all you'll ever do is bitch and never contribute.

i'm not libral, i'm a devote republican, but i compleatly dissaggree with bush and what ihe is doing. I really dont support anything that goverments do, i think there should be a better solution to corrupt governments... i'm going to come up with something eventually.... hehe :D

[JT11]

So you think G.W. Bush is a war monger for getting rid of saddam, but then you also think that Papa Bush should have done it in the first place? Either way it was completed right?

The U.N. couldn't fight it's way out a birthday pinata.

Originally Said by INCUBUS

Lemme guess your not a republican are ya poopy? I personally think that governmental bodies should be systematically over thrown. I personally tired of others deciding for me what I am allowed to do or not do. I think our own government is slowly whittling away our constitutional rights. I think Bush is a war monger. That's the way republican presidents fix their fucked up economy's by attacking a small middle-eastern country. Now don't get me wrong Saddam is a mad man. Papa Bush should have snuffed that whacko in the first place. I don't agree with using our military as the world's police officer. That was what the U.N. was established for.

[SpudNuts]

Originally Said by dognews45

osama is a lot weaker now than he was 15-20 months ago.

How'd you work that out then?

Because he hasn't managed another 9-11? He's in hiding, the 9-11 attacks took YEARS of planning, things like that aren't going to happen all the time now. Bin Laden is just as strong, if not stronger, than he was a year or so ago BECAUSE of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Incredible amounts of support have come from people who have rallied to his "cause", until Bin Laden is captured/killed, then he will remain strong and get stronger.

And because nobody can find him, there isn;t much anybody can do about it either.

[JT11]

No he is weaker, the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed certainly has hurt him. Mohammed Atef was killed by U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan in November 2001. Abu Zubaydah was captured in Pakistan in March 2002. Also he is having trouble getting financed. He may have people that want to help him, but most of the ones he can truely trust and are smart, have been captured or killed.

Originally Said by SpudNuts

How'd you work that out then?

Because he hasn't managed another 9-11? He's in hiding, the 9-11 attacks took YEARS of planning, things like that aren't going to happen all the time now. Bin Laden is just as strong, if not stronger, than he was a year or so ago BECAUSE of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Incredible amounts of support have come from people who have rallied to his "cause", until Bin Laden is captured/killed, then he will remain strong and get stronger.

And because nobody can find him, there isn;t much anybody can do about it either.

[SpudNuts]

But are we any closer to ending this "War on Terrorism"? In my opinion, No. THose youhave mentioned CAN be replaced by Bin Laden, obviously not Immediately, but they can be replaced. Presumably by the next lot down in the ladder being promoted. Fair enough he may not be getting as much funding now (through known and traditional methods at least), but Bin Laden is an extremely wealthy guy on his own. Who knows how much money they have already stashed away somewhere?

The only way Al-Quieda are going to be defeated is to kill the Head(Bin Laden) and one of two things will happen: a) The splinter cells are strangled of support, communications, money and equipment and slowly run out of support as a result of their inability to cause as much damage as they would like OR b) 10 more rise up to take his place making them stronger than ever, (unfortunately, this is what I feel would happen but there isn't really a choice).

Not to mention the fact that AL-quieda is only one of god knows how many terrorist networks which can only get stronger as a result of the demise of Bin Laden.