Regardless of what had or had not been done about Saddam, he was a potential threat more than anything else. The way you deal with a potential threat is to launch a preemptive strike, which is what we have done. Preemptive strikes should not be US policy. I personally think thay our government is doing it with Iraq because they're an easy target. North Korea is a much larger threat (what with their nuclear program and all...) but we're not invading them because we'd take much higher losses.
Exactly, and it's the same thing with the French. Their economy is actually much less dependent on oil than ours anyway.

 

North Korea is just trying to get itself known. It's got a plumiting economy and they are just playing the "hey look at me!!!!!" card. They are no threat. It's been hashed and rehashed, they are too scared. They have nothing that would compare to us.

 

Iraq has been directly linked to the 9/11 WTC attacks. I'd say they seem to have taken the first step here, not us.

 

Direct link between Iraq and 9/11? No.

A rhetorical association between the two has been used effectively by the administration to get an emotional response from people, but there is no real association as far as I'm concerned.

Saddam Hussein is only barely better than the United States to a person like Osama bin Laden. The only thing they have in common is that they both claim to be muslim and they both don't like the USA.

 

Iraq has been the lead supplier of weapons and training for Al Queda. They have proof of it. If you or others don't believe it, fine.

I, for one, believe them when they say they have proof that Saddam has been the main man with the creation and training of Al Queda and appointing Osama Bin Laden as the leader of said orginaization. oh well.

 

Saddam is not the main supplier of weapons to Al Qaeda, nor has our government claimed that he is. He doesn't have enough weapons of his own to supply a whole other organization.

 

War is a dirty word. Yet War is necessary sometimes. Look at the Revolutionary war it was necessary. Look at the Civil War it too was necessary. Look at World War 2. It too was necessary. Were we going to allow Japan to destroy the Pacific fleet and allow them to take over the USA? Were we going to allow the Nazi and the Axis power to take over Europe and annihilate all Jews in Europe even though Germany didn't do anything directly against the USA?

Let say England and USA went after Hitler back in 1938 before the start of WW2. Would it of been wrong to do a preempitive strike and remove the Third Riech and the Nazi from power? I bet most people would of said yes it is wrong. Yet look at what happened when nobody had the courage to step up against what is unpopular (war) and do what is morally and ethically right. 7+ million innocent lives later; have we learned the lesson that we should remove a possible and potential threat before it becomes a real threat?

Whether or not Iraq is directly linked to the attacks of 9/11 it is linked to terrorist against American interest and that is sufficient threat to prevent something from occuring then wait for the inevitable to occur.

Just because Saddam didn't fund or give arms to Al Qaeda terrorist doesn't mean he is innocent. As long as he allows Al Qaeda to live, train, and prepare attacks in Iraq then Saddam is just as guilty for being an accomplice to the crime itself.

For example, If I lived in Canada and Al Qaeda terrorist wanted to rent my house. And I knew that they were terrorist plotting to attack USA. Would I be innocent since I wasn't directly related to the terrorist activities or knew that they were planning an attack? And the same group drove a truck with a bomb into the garage of the WTC. I didn't give them money, supply them with food, nor did supply them with arms. Would I be innocent since all I did was be like Saddam and harbor and allowed terrorist a safe haven to organize, plan and attack?

The track record and history of Saddam is tainted with lies and deception. It isn't like he is clean and just got a parking ticket yesterday. He is guilty in numerous crimes. Crimes that should of and could of been punishable by death long ago. Yet he lives.

 

i'm a pacifist and while i don't condone using violence i'm forced to recognize there is not alternative, so i'm in support of our troops, but on the war i'm torn

 

WWII was the Axis powers essentially trying to take over the world, which is a definite threat to the USA. Besides, we didn't enter the war until after our allies were losing and the Japanese launched a direct attack on us. Iraq has not attacked our allies or us.
A preemptive strike is a preemptive strike. It's not like we knew what Hitler's plans were ahead of time. Hindsight is 20/20.
What one person sees as inevitable, other people see as a potential threat. The administration itself has not said anything beyond the fact that Saddam is a potential threat, only their supporters have said otherwise.
Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan. Once again I will point out that the administration has not tried to make a direct link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, the only people who have done that are the people who are convinced the administration is doing the right thing for one reason or another.
Yet more hypothetical speculation that doesn't prove anything.
If his track record is so bad, we shouldn't have supported him in the 80's. He's always been a dictator, and he hasn't gotten any worse. He's always been bad. The reason we're attacking him is because the administration has convinced itself that he is a potential threat and that we should get rid of him because we can.

 

Kuwait is our ally. Iraq invaded Kuwait. Therefore Iraq has invaded our ally. I can't explain it any simpler then that.

Was your dad Franklin D Roosevelt? Then you don't know if the USA knew what Hitler was up to. Just more of your speculation.

Saddam and his entire regime is a potential threat. If you have watch the news lately they killed Chemical Ali. He fired chemical weapons against the Kurds. If he did that to his own people what do you think he wouldn't do that to the Americans?

Terrorist has no headquarters. Its not like they have a building that says Al Qaeda Terrorist and you can call their customer service and file a complaint or a refund for their attacks of 9/11.

Don't get hypothetical speculation and an example mixed up. If you knew English and can read. For example and hypothetical speculation is two different words with different meanings.

Like you said Saddam is bad. We supported him in the 80's cause the USA didn't know Saddams future plan. Just like you said we didn't know Hitlers plan. What could we of done? He turns around against the USA. That goes to show there is relationship between the USA and Saddam. It isn't like the USA is a bully just looking to pick a fight with whoever is nearby. Just because England and the USA was at war with each other in 1776 doesn't mean we can't be friends now. Just because we were allys with Saddam in 1980 doesn't mean we can't be enemies now.