Saddam had nothing to do with the terror attacks?

Question

According to Bush. Why do conservatives continue to call Saddam a terrorist? Yes, he was a bad man, but he was basically neutered and contained, still we have wasted all those lives and all this money to invade Iraq.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html

So in essence, people, we have to invade 80% of all the African countries, Columbia, Chili, Venezuela, North Korea...because they are all led by really bad men.

Answer 1

Saddam was not behind 9/11, he was not a terrorist!
The biggest exporter of terrorism in the world is and has been the US government, followed second only by the IRA.
Bin laden was in Afghanistan because, the US overthrow the democratic government of Afghanistan when Nixon was in office (CIA chief GHW Bush led this)
Saddam did gas the Kurds (with US weapons given to him by D Rumsfeld for that purpose)
When will American people pay attention to the truth, and not a political spin doctor like K Rove?

Answer 2

Hussein messed up when he invaded Kuwait. Had he not done that, we might have never payed attention to him. But he did it and we went over there to push him out. It was then that the horror stories started coming out of Iraq. The gassing of the Kurds and so on... How would the world react? sanctions were placed on Iraq by the UN. No fly zones were established. Hussein ignored all of the resolutions and fired at aircraft enforcing the no fly zones. Hussein repeatedly refused UN weapons inspectors into the country, which enforced the belief that he had WMDs. the US went to the UN with its concerns and the UN authorized a coalition of forces to enter Iraq. Permission was granted by the Congress of the US to send troops into Iraq to remove Hussein from power. We toppled his government, removed him from power. We decided to stay and help the people of Iraq establish a new government. Rather than the US just pick somebody, we helped them hold democratic elections to bring a leader into power. We could have just left them to clean up their own mess, but that would not have been a noble thing to do. Hussein was a terrorist, and dictator and overall, not a nice person. He was not a good sheperd, in the fact that he did not take care of his entire flock, and hated some of them enough to try eliminating them from existance. We are making headway in Iraq, despite what people tell you in the mainstream press. THe Iraqi casue is a noble one, and should continue until all Iraqi's, ALL Iraqi's feel safe to leave their homes, and do not have to live in fear. I feel that not one cent has been wasted in Iraq, any more than I feel that not one cent was wasted in Europe in ww2, or that was wasted developing the Nuclear bomb to drop on Japan. That money was and is an investment in freedom and liberty for mankind.

Answer 3

Bush said Saddam flew the airplanes into the WTC. What more proof do you need that Iraq caused all those SUV roll-overs.

Go big Red Go

Answer 4

I know you Liberals think Saddam was a nice guy and all, but in definition he was a terrorist. He tortured his own people for decades. Had them all in fear for their lives each and every day. That's terrorism if you'll take the time to look it up in the dictionary. Yeah, he slaughtered the Iraqis by the 100's of 1000's, and dumped them in mass graves. Saddam wasn't contained. He violated 17 resolutions, committed mass murder, kept kicking the inspectors out... He was a loaded cannon, and the world is a better place without him.

Answer 5

Alright this craps really pissing me off with conservatives... Yes, ok, Saddam Hussein was NOT the cause of the 9/11 attacks. But, 9/11 played a significance in the capture of Hussein and attacks on the regime that ruled Iraq. Did anyone else read te captions as wwe all flew our american flags in support????? Was it only in my head or did those captions on all news channels say "U.S. WAGES WAR ON TERROR?????"

And oh my God, how much more humanitarian can we get then Saddam Hussein??? I cannot believe that there are still monkey wrenchers out there who believe he should be running the Red Cross

Ok, Mr. Question Asker, I hate to answer with another question, but now that we have finally revealed a FIVE YEAR OLD FACT about the WAR ON TERROR, I can only ask this... what is your personal definition of terror?? 2 million dead people over the course of decades not enough????? Oh crap, wait... maybe if he wouldv'e killed 2 million and four innocent Men, Women, and Children... Maybe then Saddam would've filled your quota on defining TERRORISM!!!!!

Answer 6

We were after Saddam because he killed many, Innocent people. He was interconnected to Osama Bin Lauden and Al Queda. We went into Iraq because many terrorists were fleeing there from Afghan when we invaded them so we went after the terrorists, yeah there is a rumor going around that we only went in there for oil but I don't believe it. I agree we shouldn't have went in there but now that we are there we shouldn't leave now because that shows a weakness, now don't get me wrong I hate bush just as much as you all do but still we was in the right when he took us into Afghan!!!!

Answer 7

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. But by definition he was a surporter of terror because he gave money to the families of Suicide bombers in Israel and the occupied lands surrounding the zionist state.

Saddam's fatal crime was sitting on too much oil and not being able to resist the might of the US political and military machine. I now think that the main reason the US is in Iraq has a lot to do with the legislation passed by the Iraqi governemnt recently. The Iraqi government is now considering opening up its oil to private interests. This is the big pay off we have been waiting for. Our US oil firms are now poised to sieze control of the Iraqi oil fields with the help of the Iraqi puppet governemnt installed by the USA.

Oh and remember those WMD's we sold Iraq when Donald Rumsfeld was our special envoy to Iraq under Reagan? Well turns out 98% of them were accounted for and destroyed by the UN and our weapon inspectors. So at best Saddam had 2% of his WMD stock, and most of it had a shelf life less then 10 years...there was NOTHING to justify our invasion of Iraq other then our imperial greed, and the ignorance of the bulk of the american public thats too busy watching Paris Hilton, Football and what ever other distraction the PR machinery can toss at you to keep you dumb and ignorant of the world beyond your TV set.

Answer 8

Why don't you plead Saddam's case to all his victims. He was a terrorist. He terrorized his own people, and brutalized them for 30 years. Contained by whom? He violated 17 resolutions, used WMD on his own people, and the Kurds... No life has been waisted in Iraq, Libby. The people are free from Saddam, they're now voting, have their own government in which they voted for. I dare you to look a soldier in the face and tell him/her that Iraq is a waist. Where do you Liberal nuts come from?


In response to the additional info the asker posted... One evil dictator at a time! If they violate resolution after resolution those evil dictators better be real worried, Lib.

Answer 9

It is readily acknowledged that he gave $25,000 to each Palestinian suicide bombers family (a small fortune to the Palestinians). If this was the only act he ever committed he would have to be labeled a terrorist. For brevity's sake that will be the on example I will give.

The war that we are currently engaged in is a war on terrorism not a war on 911 or Al Quaida.

In order to win this war we must attack and resist all terrorists. It is made much more difficult by the liberals whose rhetoric has damaged our ability to respond. I am sure you will be giddy if we lose this war but let me remind you that yours will be the first throat they cut.

Answer 10

If you mean 9/11 then you are right. Saddam had nothing to do with that.
I think Saddam was better than the current prime minister of Israel.