AHHAHAAH DOWNLOAD THIS IRAQ INTERVIEW ROFL

[etech]

jahawkin

That doesn't appear to be any kind of evidence supporting the assertion that Saddam is trying to build a nuke. We know he wants to, but we can keep him from doing so

The weapons inspectors were in Iraq for four years before they had a clue as to the size of Saddam's nuclear weapons program. They only found out then by a defector giving them that information. You show much more faith in the inspection process than its history warrents.

Overview of IAEA Nuclear Inspections in Iraq

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: oLLie

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: oLLie

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: oLLie

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin
But what evidence do you have to indicate that Saddam would most likely have nukes in ten years?
We have an option that includes inspections. Coerced inspections is an idea that has not been given much thought.
Saddam's power is much less now than it was in '91, and will continue to decline.

I am all for coerced inspections, but we got Blix instead. I would not mind putting 50k US/UN troops in Iraq to aid the inspectors. There is no way Saddam would agree to this however.

You are naive to beleive that Saddam is not trying to develope nuclear weapons right now. They have been trying to do for the past 20 years.

Do you have any evidence to support that Saddam is trying to build nukes?? Any evidence that hasn't been discredited yet, that is...

How about the former head of the Iraqi nuclear weapon program who defected and gave an interview on 20/20 or dateline or whatever it was?

I love how some of the protestors seem to know better than the former head of his own weapon program.

I love how some pro-war folk can be so blind to the propaganda their government is spoon-feeding them.

Awesome! Please show me your source that states the man is now a member of our federal government (or a source which states 20/20 is a program run by our government). If you are unable to do that... shouldn't you be complaining about 20/20 spoon-feeding us? Or the media in general. Where are your arguments, I searched through your short post which I'm sure you thought was rather witty but didn't find any substantive arguments.

There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Iraq is close to having a nuclear weapon. None. We use false documents, assumptions about aluminum tubes to make the case that Saddam is trying to build nukes. None of these are credible.
If you don't think that there is a propaganda effort by our government, you should open your eyes. I'm not saying that 20/20 is on the payroll, but how do you suppose that most people in the world are against this war?? In every continent, every nation around the world, a majority of the population is against the war. Except for the US. Here the population is split. But why do we have all these pro-war folks?? What is different here that around the rest of the world?? What accounts for this gap in opinion??
When 45% of the American public believes that Saddam is responsible for 9/11, there is a serious problem. Either the American public is incredibly uninformed, or there is an disinformation effort by the government.

How do I account for the fact that many people around the world oppose the war? How about your very own argument, they are misinformed. Honestly, that didn't occur to you? It makes perfectly logical sense to you that 100% of people in support of the war are 100% misinformed while those that oppose the war are 100% informed with hard factual data of which you have no source. How about the fact that most of the world doesn't care about the protection of the general welfare, freedom, and safety of an American citizen while the U.S. government is sworn to do just that?

Well Turkey borders Iraq, you would think that their populus would inform themselves about this issue. 90% of Turks oppose this war.
The world cares about the protection of themselves. They also think that invading and occupying Iraq doesn't increase their security.

Also, I noticed that you failed to provide a link that says Saddam was not personally involved in 9/11. I myself don't think he was personally involved, but then again I wouldn't rule it out or say that it's impossible he had some hand in it.

You really think there's a chance that Saddam had any connection to 9/11?? The US intelligence community has been working its butt off trying to connect Saddam with 9/11 or al Queda for that matter, and they haven't come up with anything yet......You know why? Because Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11!!!

 

[oLLie]

Well Turkey borders Iraq, you would think that their populus would inform themselves about this issue. 90% of Turks oppose this war.
The world cares about the protection of themselves. They also think that invading and occupying Iraq doesn't increase their security.

You really think there's a chance that Saddam had any connection to 9/11?? The US intelligence community has been working its butt off trying to connect Saddam with 9/11 or al Queda for that matter, and they haven't come up with anything yet......You know why? Because Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11!!!

90% of Turks oppose this war? Show me a credible link and I will believe it (not being sarcastic). What is your source on this?

Yes, I think there's a possibilty that Saddam may have contributed in some way to the attack (financially or otherwise). Also please show me a link that has a respectable figure of the US intelligence community state that Saddam has nothing to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda.

The boldness of your statements does not go well with your lack of sources.

link Please explain to me why you are a better authority on Iraq than the man in the link.

jahawkin, you seem to fire off some bold claims without backing them up, and when confronted, you go off on a tangent and make the next bold claim. Take care that your emotion does not override your reason.

 

[etech]

jahawkin

Has Saddam supported any terrorist actions or groups in the past ten years?

Would you support his removal if he had?

 

[Gaard]

oLLie - <<Yes, I think there's a possibilty that Saddam may have contributed in some way to the attack (financially or otherwise). Also please show me a link that has a respectable figure of the US intelligence community state that Saddam has nothing to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda.>>

I don't know if this is what you want, but I present it for your reading pleasure. link

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: oLLie

Well Turkey borders Iraq, you would think that their populus would inform themselves about this issue. 90% of Turks oppose this war.
The world cares about the protection of themselves. They also think that invading and occupying Iraq doesn't increase their security.

You really think there's a chance that Saddam had any connection to 9/11?? The US intelligence community has been working its butt off trying to connect Saddam with 9/11 or al Queda for that matter, and they haven't come up with anything yet......You know why? Because Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11!!!

90% of Turks oppose this war? Show me a credible link and I will believe it (not being sarcastic). What is your source on this?

Yes, I think there's a possibilty that Saddam may have contributed in some way to the attack (financially or otherwise). Also please show me a link that has a respectable figure of the US intelligence community state that Saddam has nothing to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda.

The boldness of your statements does not go well with your lack of sources.

link Please explain to me why you are a better authority on Iraq than the man in the link.

jahawkin, you seem to fire off some bold claims without backing them up, and when confronted, you go off on a tangent and make the next bold claim. Take care that your emotion does not override your reason.

90% of Turks oppose war
Link
"His (CIA director George Tenet) letter stated that the C.I.A. believed that Iraq had, for the time being, probably decided not to conduct terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or biological weapons against the United States, but the letter added that Mr. Hussein might resort to terrorism if he believed that an American-led attack was about to begin."
Khidhir Hamza's credibility is questionable, to say the least. He hasn't been in Iraq since 1994.

 

[bsobel]

Since this is not a morally justified war, the burdon of proof is on the pro-war side.

I love debates where one person posts their belief as fact, and then attacks others for doing the same. Your quote should read "Since I BELIEVE this is not a morally justified war, I BELIEVE the burdon of proof is on the pro-war side."

Bill

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Since this is not a morally justified war, the burdon of proof is on the pro-war side.

I love debates where one person posts their belief as fact, and then attacks others for doing the same. Your quote should read "Since I BELIEVE this is not a morally justified war, I BELIEVE the burdon of proof is on the pro-war side."

Bill

I'm using the moral war criteria as set forth by St. Augustine. This has been the criteria for hundreds of years. Why dump it now?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: etech
jahawkin

Has Saddam supported any terrorist actions or groups in the past ten years?

Would you support his removal if he had?

I do not believe Saddam has given any kind of significant or direct support to terrorist orgs in the past 10 years. If he had a link to terrorism like Afghanistan had to al-qeada, I would support removal.

 

[bsobel]

I do not believe Saddam has given any kind of significant or direct support to terrorist orgs in the past 10 years. If he had a link to terrorism like Afghanistan had to al-qeada, I would support removal.

Link

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech
jahawkin

Has Saddam supported any terrorist actions or groups in the past ten years?

Would you support his removal if he had?

I do not believe Saddam has given any kind of significant or direct support to terrorist orgs in the past 10 years. If he had a link to terrorism like Afghanistan had to al-qeada, I would support removal.

Palestinians get Saddam funds

Relatives of at least one suicide attacker as well as other militants and civilians gathered in a hall in Gaza City to receive cheques
...
A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the others - relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations - all received $10,000 each.

Another banner in the hall described the cheques as the "blessings of Saddam Hussein" and PALF speakers extolled the Iraqi leader in fiery speeches.

"Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom attacks as people who have won the highest degree of martyrdom," said one.

The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.

..."

Paying more to the families of the suicide bombers can only do one thing. Encourage and support more terrorism by suicide bombers in Israel.


Can we say bye-bye Saddam now?


Where are the people talking about how sanctions have hurt the Iraqi children, yet Saddam can pay 35 million dollars for people to blow themselves up in Israel.

 

[bsobel]

I'm using the moral war criteria as set forth by St. Augustine. This has been the criteria for hundreds of years. Why dump it now?

Jahawkin, I'm not going to attack your position (yet), I was trying to point out is that your stating your beliefs as fact. You then responded with the above, esentially doing the same thing again. Those who believe the war is just believe it passes the criteria as set forth by St. Augustine, those who don't support the war don't.

"Let us look first at the criteria of St. Augustine, later elaborated by St. Thomas. He lays down three conditions for a just war. First, it must be carried by a due authority, that is, those who have responsibility for the common good, and not merely private individuals: "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority" (Contra Faust. XXII §75). Second, it must be for a just cause, of which St. Augustine gives examples: "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly" (QQ. in Hept., qu. 10, super Jos.). Finally, it must be carried out with right intention, so that the force used is proportionate to the ends of justice. As St. Augustine explains, "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpeaceful and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war" (Contra Faust. XXII §74)."

1) I can argue the US is a due authority as well as you can argue that only the UN should be
2) I can argue the war is for a just cause, just as well as you can argue it isn't
3) I can aruge it's being carried out with the right intentions as well as you can argue it's not.

I'll I'm asking is you stop making statements of your personal beliefs as facts.

Bill

 

[Gaard]

I think you'll find that the vast majority of members either forget or don't see the need to include the IMOs or IMHOs. If you go back and reread this thread alone, you'll see a lot of opinions being passed as fact.

 

[oLLie]

Khidhir Hamza's credibility is questionable, to say the least. He hasn't been in Iraq since 1994.

First, thanks for the link to the Turkey statistics. I'm surprised that the number is so high. As for the statement above, however, I don't see how you successfully discredited him. The man basically stated that Iraq was on the path to nuclear weapons at the time he defected, what reason do you have to believe that since then (1994-5) they would have abandoned the program? The only reason he appears to lose credibility is because his opinion doesn't coincide with your own.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech
jahawkin

Has Saddam supported any terrorist actions or groups in the past ten years?

Would you support his removal if he had?

I do not believe Saddam has given any kind of significant or direct support to terrorist orgs in the past 10 years. If he had a link to terrorism like Afghanistan had to al-qeada, I would support removal.

Palestinians get Saddam funds

Relatives of at least one suicide attacker as well as other militants and civilians gathered in a hall in Gaza City to receive cheques
...
A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the others - relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations - all received $10,000 each.

Another banner in the hall described the cheques as the "blessings of Saddam Hussein" and PALF speakers extolled the Iraqi leader in fiery speeches.

"Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom attacks as people who have won the highest degree of martyrdom," said one.

The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.

..."

Paying more to the families of the suicide bombers can only do one thing. Encourage and support more terrorism by suicide bombers in Israel.


Can we say bye-bye Saddam now?


Where are the people talking about how sanctions have hurt the Iraqi children, yet Saddam can pay 35 million dollars for people to blow themselves up in Israel.

There is a big, big difference between what Saddam is doing and what the Taliban did. If this is the justification for war with Iraq, then we better invade Saudi Arabia, because they have much closer connections to terrorism than giving sucide bombers' families some cash.

 

[SilverThief]

smack-down city!

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech
jahawkin

Has Saddam supported any terrorist actions or groups in the past ten years?

Would you support his removal if he had?

I do not believe Saddam has given any kind of significant or direct support to terrorist orgs in the past 10 years. If he had a link to terrorism like Afghanistan had to al-qeada, I would support removal.

Palestinians get Saddam funds

Relatives of at least one suicide attacker as well as other militants and civilians gathered in a hall in Gaza City to receive cheques
...
A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the others - relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations - all received $10,000 each.

Another banner in the hall described the cheques as the "blessings of Saddam Hussein" and PALF speakers extolled the Iraqi leader in fiery speeches.

"Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom attacks as people who have won the highest degree of martyrdom," said one.

The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.

..."

Paying more to the families of the suicide bombers can only do one thing. Encourage and support more terrorism by suicide bombers in Israel.


Can we say bye-bye Saddam now?


Where are the people talking about how sanctions have hurt the Iraqi children, yet Saddam can pay 35 million dollars for people to blow themselves up in Israel.

There is a big, big difference between what Saddam is doing and what the Taliban did. If this is the justification for war with Iraq, then we better invade Saudi Arabia, because they have much closer connections to terrorism than giving sucide bombers' families some cash.

It is a direct link to supporting terrorism with money. If you choose to ignore it and try to deflect the issue by bringing up other countries than you may of course do so.

Answer me this then. Would leaving Saddam in power and letting him have a "moral" victory over over the US at this point in time encourage or discorage terrorism? Just your opinion of course.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: bsobel

I'm using the moral war criteria as set forth by St. Augustine. This has been the criteria for hundreds of years. Why dump it now?

Jahawkin, I'm not going to attack your position (yet), I was trying to point out is that your stating your beliefs as fact. You then responded with the above, esentially doing the same thing again. Those who believe the war is just believe it passes the criteria as set forth by St. Augustine, those who don't support the war don't.

"Let us look first at the criteria of St. Augustine, later elaborated by St. Thomas. He lays down three conditions for a just war. First, it must be carried by a due authority, that is, those who have responsibility for the common good, and not merely private individuals: "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority" (Contra Faust. XXII §75). Second, it must be for a just cause, of which St. Augustine gives examples: "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly" (QQ. in Hept., qu. 10, super Jos.). Finally, it must be carried out with right intention, so that the force used is proportionate to the ends of justice. As St. Augustine explains, "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpeaceful and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war" (Contra Faust. XXII §74)."

1) I can argue the US is a due authority as well as you can argue that only the UN should be
2) I can argue the war is for a just cause, just as well as you can argue it isn't
3) I can aruge it's being carried out with the right intentions as well as you can argue it's not.

I'll I'm asking is you stop making statements of your personal beliefs as facts.

Bill

OK, I'll try to stop stating beliefs as facts. Thanks for pointing it out in a constructive manner.
I understand that one can argue upon the six elements of a moral war. Its possible to make an argument the WWII was an unjust war (though I'm not going there) and it possible to make the argument that the Spanish-American war was a just war (again, I'm not going there). People and leaders thought the Vietnam was a just war at the time, but would you conclude that today??
In thirty years, looking back at this coming war, would you conclude its a just war??

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: etech

It is a direct link to supporting terrorism with money. If you choose to ignore it and try to deflect the issue by bringing up other countries than you may of course do so.

Answer me this then. Would leaving Saddam in power and letting him have a "moral" victory over over the US at this point in time encourage or discorage terrorism? Just your opinion of course.

Its a direct link between supporting the families of terrorists with money. They are not giving money to Hamas or al-Qaeda. They're not harboring training camps (except in the area not under Saddam's control) and providing bases for terrorist orgs.
Leaving Saddam alone would discourage terrorism. Actually I see it as leaving Saddam in power would have no effect one way or another regarding terrorism, but taking him out would encourage an entire generation towards terrorism. First, once the invasion begins you've lost half the Arab population. They will see any effort made by the US as evil. The fractionalization of the Iraqi society from war and subsequent overthrow of the government would lead to conditions ripe for fanaticism and pro-terrorist viewpoints.
Of course that's just my opinion....

 

[Conky]

That interview was great!

I heard Rush Limbaugh have a similar conversation with a 19-yr old chick last week who sounded as clueless as that girl.

Repeating "give peace a chance" over and over is no solution to anything.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

It is a direct link to supporting terrorism with money. If you choose to ignore it and try to deflect the issue by bringing up other countries than you may of course do so.

Answer me this then. Would leaving Saddam in power and letting him have a "moral" victory over over the US at this point in time encourage or discorage terrorism? Just your opinion of course.

Its a direct link between supporting the families of terrorists with money. They are not giving money to Hamas or al-Qaeda. They're not harboring training camps (except in the area not under Saddam's control) and providing bases for terrorist orgs.
Leaving Saddam alone would discourage terrorism. Actually I see it as leaving Saddam in power would have no effect one way or another regarding terrorism, but taking him out would encourage an entire generation towards terrorism. First, once the invasion begins you've lost half the Arab population. They will see any effort made by the US as evil. The fractionalization of the Iraqi society from war and subsequent overthrow of the government would lead to conditions ripe for fanaticism and pro-terrorist viewpoints.
Of course that's just my opinion....

Yes, and a suicide bomber wondering how his family will survive if he goes and blows himself up now knows that his family will receive what is probably a small fortune in that region if he does. That is directly supporting terrorism and contributing to the unrest in the Middle East.

Leaving Saddam alone and as the apparent winner would IMHO increase the risk of terrorism. He would be seen as the strong leader that stood up to and defied the US. If I understand anything about the culture there that would inflame the masses more than his removal.

I agree there would be a short time of instability in Iraq but once a stable government was formed and the people were doing better than under Saddam it would settle down.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

It is a direct link to supporting terrorism with money. If you choose to ignore it and try to deflect the issue by bringing up other countries than you may of course do so.

Answer me this then. Would leaving Saddam in power and letting him have a "moral" victory over over the US at this point in time encourage or discorage terrorism? Just your opinion of course.

Its a direct link between supporting the families of terrorists with money. They are not giving money to Hamas or al-Qaeda. They're not harboring training camps (except in the area not under Saddam's control) and providing bases for terrorist orgs.
Leaving Saddam alone would discourage terrorism. Actually I see it as leaving Saddam in power would have no effect one way or another regarding terrorism, but taking him out would encourage an entire generation towards terrorism. First, once the invasion begins you've lost half the Arab population. They will see any effort made by the US as evil. The fractionalization of the Iraqi society from war and subsequent overthrow of the government would lead to conditions ripe for fanaticism and pro-terrorist viewpoints.
Of course that's just my opinion....

Yes, and a suicide bomber wondering how his family will survive if he goes and blows himself up now knows that his family will receive what is probably a small fortune in that region if he does. That is directly supporting terrorism and contributing to the unrest in the Middle East.

Leaving Saddam alone and as the apparent winner would IMHO increase the risk of terrorism. He would be seen as the strong leader that stood up to and defied the US. If I understand anything about the culture there that would inflame the masses more than his removal.

I agree there would be a short time of instability in Iraq but once a stable government was formed and the people were doing better than under Saddam it would settle down.

etech owns this argument. Leaving that Saddam in power would show the entire world that the US has no spine.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech
jahawkin

Has Saddam supported any terrorist actions or groups in the past ten years?

Would you support his removal if he had?

I do not believe Saddam has given any kind of significant or direct support to terrorist orgs in the past 10 years. If he had a link to terrorism like Afghanistan had to al-qeada, I would support removal.

Palestinians get Saddam funds

Relatives of at least one suicide attacker as well as other militants and civilians gathered in a hall in Gaza City to receive cheques
...
A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the others - relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations - all received $10,000 each.

Another banner in the hall described the cheques as the "blessings of Saddam Hussein" and PALF speakers extolled the Iraqi leader in fiery speeches.

"Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom attacks as people who have won the highest degree of martyrdom," said one.

The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.

..."

Paying more to the families of the suicide bombers can only do one thing. Encourage and support more terrorism by suicide bombers in Israel.


Can we say bye-bye Saddam now?


Where are the people talking about how sanctions have hurt the Iraqi children, yet Saddam can pay 35 million dollars for people to blow themselves up in Israel.

There is a big, big difference between what Saddam is doing and what the Taliban did. If this is the justification for war with Iraq, then we better invade Saudi Arabia, because they have much closer connections to terrorism than giving sucide bombers' families some cash.

It is a direct link to supporting terrorism with money. If you choose to ignore it and try to deflect the issue by bringing up other countries than you may of course do so.

Answer me this then. Would leaving Saddam in power and letting him have a "moral" victory over over the US at this point in time encourage or discorage terrorism? Just your opinion of course.

And once again, even though he DOES know better, from before, he forgets to mention that Irak supports ALL families of killed palestinians, no matter whether they die from suicide bombings or from bullets from the Israelis...

Naturally, it is easy to forget that, because if you do not, you loose the link to terrorism... oh, BTW, your cuddly buddy Pakistan does the same... isn't THAT a bitch? kinda hurts the cause huh? and Saudi Arabia? well, you know the drill by now...

GET THE TERRORISTS, INVADE ehhh... hrm... well, would that be the imaginary terrorists from Canada or, heh, the links that US intelligence don't have (but US officials are happy to state that there are links, even though CIA say there is no link), or would that be the REAL links that are known between terrorists and Iran/Pakistan/Saudi? errr... no... i guess not, but you know what, let's bomb Irak... because... err... well, just BECAUSE...

THE US don't need a reason dammit!

Of course, you like to state and proclaim bullshit and forget half of the truth, that is you e-tech... in a nutshell...

 

[Tab]

Jahawkin, how will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

It is a direct link to supporting terrorism with money. If you choose to ignore it and try to deflect the issue by bringing up other countries than you may of course do so.

Answer me this then. Would leaving Saddam in power and letting him have a "moral" victory over over the US at this point in time encourage or discorage terrorism? Just your opinion of course.

Its a direct link between supporting the families of terrorists with money. They are not giving money to Hamas or al-Qaeda. They're not harboring training camps (except in the area not under Saddam's control) and providing bases for terrorist orgs.
Leaving Saddam alone would discourage terrorism. Actually I see it as leaving Saddam in power would have no effect one way or another regarding terrorism, but taking him out would encourage an entire generation towards terrorism. First, once the invasion begins you've lost half the Arab population. They will see any effort made by the US as evil. The fractionalization of the Iraqi society from war and subsequent overthrow of the government would lead to conditions ripe for fanaticism and pro-terrorist viewpoints.
Of course that's just my opinion....

Yes, and a suicide bomber wondering how his family will survive if he goes and blows himself up now knows that his family will receive what is probably a small fortune in that region if he does. That is directly supporting terrorism and contributing to the unrest in the Middle East.

Leaving Saddam alone and as the apparent winner would IMHO increase the risk of terrorism. He would be seen as the strong leader that stood up to and defied the US. If I understand anything about the culture there that would inflame the masses more than his removal.

I agree there would be a short time of instability in Iraq but once a stable government was formed and the people were doing better than under Saddam it would settle down.

etech owns this argument. Leaving that Saddam in power would show the entire world that the US has no spine.

e-tech owns nada... he has been spouting the same old stuff for months now...

The US backing off now would show some respect for the will of the world, that and that GW isn't insane...