Osama vs. Saddam?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by neo_68710, Aug 25, 2004.

  1. neo_68710
    Online

    neo_68710 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Osama killed almost 3,000 American civilians in one day. Saddam killed millions of people in 30 years, but I don't think any were American civilians. Both very evil men that deserve justice but I believe that Osama not Saddam should be on the priority list.
    Our troops are far superior to the Iraqi fighters in training and equipment most would agree yet almost 900 American soldiers have died since mission accomplished. Which tells me that the Iraqis could take care of themselves if they really wanted to be free of Saddam. I don't think they would of had a problem blowing him up themselves.
    I remember when Bush said he would bring Osama to justice. I guess there is what Bush says and there is what Bush does.

    This a simple view on my point, I am open to all criticism, and welcome all views of your own.
     
  2. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    First of all, what makes you think that OBL has fallen off the priority list? In my opinion, this country can (and does) have more than one priority at a time; each with equal weight. Almost anyone can do well when focused on a single task. It is far more difficult when trying to juggle multiple tasks with equal priority.

    Second, there is a big difference in the way the US military is fighting in Iraq and the way that Saddam would have (and has) handled insurgents. Historical precedence indicates that a city like Najaf would be promptly gassed to remove all the opposition in one fell swoop. While the US could employ similar methods, it does not.

    Third, US efforts at finding OBL have not ceased. It would be impractical and unwise to use the entire military resources of the US to hunt for that particular individual, especially given the terrain and other factors that impact that particular mission.
     
  3. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    It's not an either/or decision, in my mind. No matter how many troops we put into Afganistan, he's long gone, and hiding out, and no one really knows exactly where.

    If we had pulled out immediately after entering Baghdad, Saddam's forces would have easily reasserted control. If we had pulled out after capturing him, we would have left the country in a state of civil war, pitting Shi'ites against Sunni's. There is simply no way to easily establish a stable regime without committing our own forces to provide security in the chaos of multiple forces seeking domination. This is especially a problem when Iran has committed significant effort to push their own agenda for a Shi'ite dominated, fundamentalist regime (in their own image).

    Hey, the man can't work miracles. Maybe Osama is dead, or pasted on a wall in some cave. However you look at it, what's important is that America has been kept safe from any further attacks since 9-11, the Taliban has been kicked out of power, Al-Qauda is no longer given sanctuary by any Middle East government, and those terrorists who trained with them are either dead or on the run. It's not about vengeance, although that would be nice. It's about ensuring they no longer present a threat to America.

    Not too bad, keep it up. Welcome to the board!
     
  4. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    Good points, Comrade.
     
  5. neo_68710
    Online

    neo_68710 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Sorry, but since Saddam had no weapons such as gas that would have been and incorrect assumption of the outcome if insurgents had fought Saddam.

    You misunderstand my point. I don't believe we should have pulled out right after getting out Saddam, I believe we shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place. Instead we should have used those resources in the search for a man that actually attacked the United States. I think if Iraqis really wanted Saddam out they could have attacked with the force they have unleashed on our troops. If we went to war with every country that had a leader that killed his own people then we would have to attack China, North Korea, and Cuba just to name a few at least 2 of those have weapons of mass destruction. To believe Osama is gone in hiding and no longer a threat is folish to believe or even think.

    Thanks and I like the way you think.
     
  6. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    Oh, I guess the gassing of Kurdish villages never happened? and draining the swamps never happened? and all those folks in the mass graves died of old age?

    The point is that Saddam and his cronies used brutal, ruthless methods to suppress opposition. Also, your premise that the Iraqis could have handled Saddam themselves implies that the US would not have invaded (maybe you meant something else?) and that Saddam would have been allowed to carry on as he had prior to the first Gulf War.
     
  7. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    BTW Neo, welcome to the board. I like a good debate that doesn't degenerate into childish name calling.
     
  8. neo_68710
    Online

    neo_68710 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    No I never said that it didn't happen I said it wouldn't have happened now, if the U.S. hadn't attacked and insurgents tried to get there own freedom. Since Saddam had no weapons such as gas (which is a proven fact) he wouldn't have used it on them because he had none to use like he did in the past.

    Thanks I like your views keep them up, it won't change my view I just love hearing what others have to say on the matter. My goal is not to change peoples mind just to have a good debate like you said.
     
  9. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    We can quibble all day long about priorities. If you want to get to the root of the problem, let's go back to Jimmy Carter. The damn Iranians took fifty of our people hostage. If that isn't an act of war, I don't know what is. We should have attacked Iran then and there - and I'm not talking about a half-assed action like the one Carter finally approved - an action which was doomed to fail before it ever got out of the planning stage. We should have gone in and rescued our people. If those holding our hostages harmed any of them, then no Iranian in the embassy compound should have been left alive.

    Here's the thing that is important as I see it - moslems respect strength and hold weakness in contempt. That is why the Iranians held the hostages until that gutless wonder Carter was out of office. That is why it is important for this nation to strike back somewhere. Even if there may be other targets which it could be argued should be higher on the priority list, an attack on ANY nation in the middle east will produce the results we need. Note how quiet the Lebanese have been. Libya has been falling all over itself to cooperate and the Saudis are taking out television ads to convince us they're really our buddies. Egypt can even be called an ally.

    The Iranians are still bluffing and blustering. Perhaps their experience with us during Carter's deplorable administration emboldens them. I would imagine that a swift kick in the teeth or the hint that we will start supporting Iranian dissidents might change their attitude.

    So, no matter if you agree with GW's target priority or not, there are three inescapable conclusions. One, our attack on Afghanistan and Iraq has benefitted millions of people in those countries and diminished the threat from terror organizations operating there. Second, the attack on Iraq has dampened the enthusiasm of other middle east nations for supporting terrorists. And finally, no matter how you slice it, GW's policies have been far more effective than those a Democratic administration would have pursued. Because if you liked Jimmy Carter, you would have loved Al Gore.
     
  10. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    The fact is, Saddam DID indeed have chemical weapons prior to the first Persian Gulf war. He was supposedly made to dispose of them, thus the need for weapons inspectors. It is unclear to me that he destroyed his chemical arsenal even after the inspections, etc.
     

Share This Page