2006-09-02 18:45:21 · 18 answers · asked by Searcher 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Osama was more important. Even though Saddam was working on tyring to produce nuclear weapons, he wasn't that far along to get the job done. Osama, has some money left, and he is getting money from other sources, He actively worked to set up th e9/11 attacks. He should have been the first one to capture, but capturing Saddam did send a message to him and the world. 1: Don't think that the U.S. is going to take terrorism sitting down, and 2: Don't be trying to put out no assassination plots out on my daddy!!
2006-09-02 18:56:08 · answer #1 · answered by savvyd 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Osama. He's linked to 9/11. The #1 terrorist in the world. He's more dangerous than Saddam ever was.
2006-09-03 04:15:45 · answer #2 · answered by tyrone b 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Osama has been ineffective since he was chased from Afghanistan. Saddam murdered many more people and he was much more important. Bush was very correct in displacing the Husseins from power. If anything happened to Saddam his sons would have taken control of billions of dollars. They were a secondary target, but the confidence in their removal needed to be seriously certain. The Hussein sons were very evil. Saddam and his sons were very important. We still need to finish the job. I don't know why Bush is playing around with this.
2006-09-03 01:52:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Osama
2006-09-03 05:40:06 · answer #4 · answered by Mark it Zero Smokey 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Osama
2006-09-03 01:51:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Politically it wont make a differance either way,
From a security point of view, any vaccum created will be filled by another freak with a penchant for power through violence,
The only real way to stop the violence, and oppression is to completely annialate the all of the thugs .
2006-09-03 01:52:04 · answer #6 · answered by scary g 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Saddam was killing 6,000 civilians a month, was openly shooting at our military, was pursuing nuclear weapons...
Really, the question is pointless. They were both important to capture. If one was 'more', that does not negate the need to capture the other.
2006-09-03 01:49:05 · answer #7 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Warren Jeffs
2006-09-03 01:51:36 · answer #8 · answered by notfan_football 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They were both equally important to capture. And we would have had both of them if it wasnt for idiot Clinton. Sudan asked him 3 times to take Bin Laden and he declined. The media wont tell you that though.
2006-09-03 01:51:43 · answer #9 · answered by here17now36 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Neither!!
it was more important to capture the attention of the American public so they could be easily lied to.
2006-09-03 01:47:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋