I always have to educate liberals about the truth that after 9/11 President Bush said: If you harbor a terrorist, sponsor a terrorist, you're a terrorist. Everyone applauded that statement. Saddam is a terrorist because he paid them to go into Israel to kill civilians. This is a fact. Saddam also had wmd's (look it up), used wmd's, violated the u.n. resolutions, was shooting at our planes, was not "contained" like liberals think, had bought the u.n. officials, France, Russia, Germany, and China to rearm while they looked the other way. This is known as the Food for Oil Scandal. So, going into iraq was needed. Saddam also terrorized his neighbors (Kuwait, Iran, and Israel). Saddam terrorized the Kurds by gasing them. Saddam is just as bad as Milosovich and the libs were behind Clinton all the way. Saddam is as bad as Hitler who he admired. To compare Saddam to other leaders won't do because Saddam IS THE ONLY leader to use wmd's. But libs want to pacify him.
2006-09-30 17:53:17 · 24 answers · asked by Search4truth 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
don't worry my friend, with the release of Bill Oreilly new book, the spot light is on all the lies of these anti-American progressive liberals. their time is at an end. you liberals and democrats are such liars and hypocrites. Clinton, Kerry, and most every one else on cap. hill knows he had wmd. but your time is short and for that I am at peace.
2006-09-30 17:59:55 · answer #1 · answered by Work In Progress 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
You sound like Rush Limbaugh on a bad day. And no. It's not meant as a compliment.
If Saddam harbored terrorists attacking Israel then why wasn't he Israels problem? Israel had no trouble taking matters into their own hands when they bombed Iraq's nuclear facility 20 years ago.
As far as the gassing of the Kurds, we looked the other way when it happened. Why are we all of a sudden outraged?
2006-09-30 21:00:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
http://360.yahoo.com/imagine_if_u_tried
Ignorant republicans
First off moron. This country was the one that harbored and trained the terrorist that attacked the Trade Center...or did you forget that part. They were trained in flight schools in Florida. So I suppose the State of Florida where coincidently Jebb Bush is head of is a terrorist. Sounds about right to me.
2nd The only so called WMD's found in Iraq were over 20 years old and the most they can do is cause as much damage as a bad sunburn. Or did you not read about it. Oh that's right only watch the TV propaganda.
3rd...Milosovich??? What are you delusional??? The Clinton administration sent troops to Bosnia to end the genecide that was going on there. Milosovich from what I recall was bought up on war crimes and stood trial just like George Bush is going to have to do some day.
Get your facts straight before blabbing.
2006-09-30 18:07:09 · answer #3 · answered by Gettin_by 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Put the kool aide down, my friend. Saddam was not an immediate threat to us and there is video footage of Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice saying so in Summer of 2001. The real threat to us at the time (the people who attacked us) were not in Iraq. Saddam was a secular dictator with his own agenda. He had no interest in the Jihadding Islamic extremists and would not help them. They are the people we should be going after, not wasting our time with a minor problem. When you have something important to do, like write a research paper or do a project for work, do you spend that whole day cleaning your house because it's driving you nuts? I hope not, because what you should be doing is concentrating on the business at hand. That's what we have failed to do and I don't feel any safer now than I did after 9/11 and it's attitudes like yours that have allowed that to happen.
2006-09-30 18:00:35 · answer #4 · answered by Reject187 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
....sadaam is the only chief shown to apply wmd ... saddam didnt take any sh*t from his inhabitants so what? There are numerous regimes and countries left interior the international that refuse to grant into the "new international order" way of thinking often because of the fact of religeous ideals .... those countries would be systematically taken out ... and wager what? The shape of america is yet another great hurdle for the globalist to conquer ... fantastically the superb to undergo hands ... so which you will wager your fruit-of-the-looms that the U. S. inhabitants is on the hot international orders hit record additionally ... we would desire to end annoying approximately what saddam did, and approximately fictional "terrorist" figures and tapes, and commence annoying concerning to the persons who're systematically taking our rights away and installation a gadget of administration good decrease than our noses in this united states of america which would be used against us interior the very close to destiny.
2016-10-15 09:42:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The devil that you know is better than the devil that you don't know. Is Saddam a seriously bad dude, deserving of whatever a cold-hearted dictator should get? Absolutely. My problem is that as bad as he is, one thing he wasn't was a supporter of the Muslim extremists. He felt they were as much of a threat to him as anything. He kept the Muslim factions in his country in line. Granted it was through horrible means, but the fact remains that he kept a lid on the extremists. By getting rid of him it just further destabilizes the region. To say that because he supported terror against Israel he is a terrorist is apples and oranges when it comes to the USA's interests. We have to concentrate on those who would attack us, Al Quida. Attacks on Israel is Israel's problem. Instead of picking up where his dear old daddy failed with the first Gulf War, W should have been concentrating on Osama and his followers.
2006-09-30 18:12:18 · answer #6 · answered by 101pupil 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Liberals " get it " just fine. Any idiot with an Internet connection who can type can find about a thousand quotes from Democrats talking about Saddam's " weapons of mass destruction".Most of them from before George Bush was president. Only when it got hard did the libs start pretending they were " fooled". They knew that the idiot Democrat voters don't pay enough attention too see them for the lying frauds they are. If the whole weapons of mass destruction thing is a George Bush lie then why did Bill Clinton talk about them in a speech in 1998?
2006-09-30 18:05:31 · answer #7 · answered by Michael 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Why are you the only person in the world who actually thinks Saddam had WMD's? If you mean those "chemicals" found in Iraq...that's left over junk chemicals from over 15 years ago. It was from when the American govt was supplying Saddam. But that was a while back.
2006-09-30 17:57:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Ummmm.....Truman used WMD's the first time they were ever used.
Why Saddam and not the hundred other terrorist dictators around the globe?
No one has ever said it better than an Iraq veteran who is a friend of mine:
Operation
Iraqui
Liberation
What does THAT spell?
2006-09-30 18:03:46 · answer #9 · answered by A Box of Signs 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Liberals are so corrupt they do not care who has to die in order to gain power. They are like vultures. That is just their nature. Look atTammany Hall and all the organize crime murders that occurred. It is the Conservatives that stand up against Tyranny. I just wish they send the Army to Chicago and get rid of that Tyrant Daily.
Heck Clinton used gas on those Branch Davidians for Christ sakes and killed many children. He has something in common with Saddam doesn't he.
2006-09-30 18:05:44 · answer #10 · answered by Kountry 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Your 100% right! On top of that , the god of the liberals, Clinton and his wife, stated severeal times while in office that Saddam had weapons and needed to be disarmed. Bush is far from perfect but he is diligent and on the mark. Peace.
2006-09-30 18:01:09 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋