Bush got Saddam Hussein

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ginscpy, Oct 31, 2012.

  1. ginscpy
    Offline

    ginscpy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Messages:
    7,950
    Thanks Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +216
    Obama got bin Laden

    Saddam was a head of state

    which is bigger?
     
  2. DutchBoy
    Offline

    DutchBoy Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    Yes he got Sadam with a war that is still going on. If you compare the costs of getting Sadam and Bin Laden than Obama is working very cost efficient.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Cammmpbell
    Offline

    Cammmpbell Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    5,095
    Thanks Received:
    517
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +517
    Are you nuts or ignorant?

    Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11. The only reason Bush jumped him was because he tried to assassinate his daddy in 1993. Not to worry.....it only cost us 4400 young American lives, 35,000 seriously wounded and a trillion dollars. It was simply another case of us meddling in the business of an oil country. A country where we didn't evennneed to be.

    Read this letter which was sent to Bill Clinton and then examine closely those who signed it:

    January 26, 1998



    The Honorable William J. Clinton
    President of the United States
    Washington, DC


    Dear Mr. President:

    We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

    The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


    Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


    Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

    We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

    We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

    Sincerely,

    Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

    Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

    Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

    William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

    Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

    Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2012
  4. Liberal
    Offline

    Liberal Libruhl! Libruhl!

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,250
    Thanks Received:
    181
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +182
    Top 5 dumbest threads I have EVER seen.

    I am saving this one. :lol:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    lmao!
     
  6. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY I Post Because I Care Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33,727
    Thanks Received:
    3,805
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +6,285
    The cost in American lives and treasure.
     
  7. bodecea
    Online

    bodecea Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    89,134
    Thanks Received:
    10,375
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    #HasNoClothes
    Ratings:
    +23,666
    Yes, Bush got Saddam...and broke an entire country to do it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    What did Sadam do to us?
     
  9. DutchBoy
    Offline

    DutchBoy Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    He made an oil deal with France
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2012
  10. Toronado3800
    Offline

    Toronado3800 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    3,572
    Thanks Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +355
    The man was a monster just not a super effective one.
     

Share This Page