Replies

This entire debate is sterile. The events of 9/11/01 form sufficient cause to nuke every terrorist nation into dust; indeed that is what we should have done on 9/12/01.

If there is a crime, it is dereliction of duty to protect the citizens of the United States by eliminating the clear and present danger posed by those nations.

--Boris

At the end of the day, all of the rationalizations and theories about the real reason for taking Saddam out fall into the "supposition" category. History will ultimately ascertain if Bush did the right thing. I truly believe he did and thank God Bush was in the White House and not Gore.

So what is the REAL REASON the USA took this monster out? I 100% agree with the Clark Gable response - I don't give a damn.

IMHO, the end justifies the means. Saddam is gone. Pick any reason; they are fine with me. Terrorist training camps at Salmon Pak, pursuit (and acquisiton) of certain WMD's, 16 violations of U.N. sanctions, etc.

But the real reason is 9-11. Let's get that part right.

Let's be honest. When terrorists did their thing "overseas" prior to 9-11, we felt bad but still felt safe. Hey, it'll NEVER happen here....right? Everything changed when the WTC collapsed that awful morning.

I don't need too much evidence to convince me Saddam had a hand in that attack, either directly or indirectly. That empty 16 acre lot in south Manhattan suffices. I'm sort of in OP's corner in this argument.

The difference between OP and myself is I also look at the other overseas "evidence" and tie it in with 9-11, and the totality of the evidence is OVERWHELMING. One can only make the logical conclusion - Saddam needed to be forcibly eliminated from power.

He was and the USA is safer for it.