Howierd Dean Newz
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
I don't often agree with politicians verbatim... but in this case I think I do.
Capturing Saddam was a fantastic boost to the effort in Iraq, and may make things (marginally) safer for our troops, but has it had ANY effect on our safety here in the US?
Capturing Saddam was a fantastic boost to the effort in Iraq, and may make things (marginally) safer for our troops, but has it had ANY effect on our safety here in the US?
What did fighting the war in Iraq have to do with making the US, UK, Canada, Australia etc safer anyway? The two are un-connected, despite what Bush and his cronies want us to believe and what John Q Idiot believes.
could saddam have been planning and financing some terrorist attack anywhere in the US? Perhaps.
Does he have the capability? ABSOLUTELY. Does he have the mental capacity? FVCK yeah.
Id say anytime you take out a high level operative of the enemy, you've made yourself in someway safer.
The continues attacks on US troops have proven that he was no longer a high-level operative.
We're talking about just his capture. If you're talking about removing him from power then yes, maybe. But then you've also got to balance in the huge boost to the jihad movement that resulted from our invasion. I'd say that's a zero sum at best, in terms of domestic security, especially considering most terrorist funding has come from Saudi Arabia.
The fact is, Ohio, that you dont really know the extent of Saddam's wealth or connections. You're making some big assumptions with no real facts.
uhh...hate to be a bother, but we just kicked the most ass of any 3 day stint since major ops have ended. check your choice of news reporting about insurgents killed or captured. i think it's in the triple digits, but would have to verify that. suffice it to say that we've definitely rounded a corner.
yes, we are certainly accomodating far more hopeful martyrs now that we're an occupying force.
Straight from the CIA, as reported by US News and World Report among others, the majority of terrorist funding is coming out of Saudi Arabia.
I didn't say we weren't doing a good job over there. We are. I think that's fantastic. What I said was, the number of attacks against our troops per day did not significantly change after the capture of Saddam was made public. You're sort of proving MY point, the number killed and captured must be related to the number coming into direct contact/battle with our troops... so it actually went UP after the capture according to your facts.
It may go down as we continue to secure more of the country...
Nothing like wavering...
So how exactly does that tell you the extent of Saddam's wealth, intentions or connections?
Dude, take any multi-billionaire who hates the US out of power, and out of the game completely, and you're going to be safer. Its common sense. The man had nearly a million with him in his little hole. You dont know what that cash was there to fund. You dont know where the rest of his cash is or was. You dont know if he could control it or not.
Theres absolutely no proof that capturing Sadam has made the US any safer. We can argue about what he might have been able to do over the last 8 months living in caves, but thats speculation. The administration has been hard pressed to link Saddam with attacks in the US when he was in power let alone over the last year.
Im glad hes captured and hopefully it will make a difference to the troops on the ground and the people in Iraq, but increasing US safety is stretching it.
Bin Ladin would be a different can of worms as his network was focused on overseas attacks.
Im glad hes captured and hopefully it will make a difference to the troops on the ground and the people in Iraq, but increasing US safety is stretching it.
Bin Ladin would be a different can of worms as his network was focused on overseas attacks.
So if Saddam had multiple billions of dollars, they only found him with 750 large. Then the rest of his $$ is still out there. I doubt he has it stored at his local S&L, that money is still in the hands of people who think like Saddam.
The best thing that came out of Saddams capture could be the information they may have gotten out of him. Hopefully this will get our asses out of Iraq and out of Arab ire ASAP.
We really should have done a little "wag the dog" and told the world that some Iraqi Police captured him. Having US forces capture him just continues to embarrass the Arab world, creates more animosity and potential new terrorists.
if you mean Americans in a duck blind saturday mornings in fly-over country, we agree. I'm puzzled by your happines that he's been captured. Who cares if it has no difference in our safety here? But it does, as he was an accessory after the fact for Palestinian terrorists (at least). And yes, we have seen no compelling evidence of a link to 9/11, but there's a trail for al-qaeda operatives meeting w/ various hussien administrators. Close, but no cigar.
Agree that UBL is more dangerous, as his network is decentralized and has a loyal following akin to the Saddam Fedayeen.
but if he did, he better not hope it was managed by the bush family
yeah, like anyone would believe that. I don't even think bush would be foolish enough to do that. And when i say bush, i mean cheney. And when i say cheney, i mean rummy. And when i say rummy, i mean karl rove.
a) hes a murderous thug who ran his country into ruin Id like to see him held accountable
b) his capture will arguably make things quieter on the ground for Iraqis and our troops
Just because I dont agree with the shrubs foreign policy doesnt mean I support Saddam or want to see U.S. troops fail. (with us or against us is a Shrub sound-bite, not political fact)
1. Again, you're arguing against a different point. Dean spoke (as did I) of Saddam's CAPTURE, not his removal from power.
2. If you want to argue about the effect of the Ba'athist's fall... then yes, I'm sure it had some immediate impact on terrorist networks and funds. We don't know the full extent of his wealth or how much was pumped into terrorist channels. However, if the limiting factor in the spread of terrorism is money, that's not readily apparent. Terrorist attacks take relatively little funding; the majority of dollars coming out of Saudi Arabia (we know less about Saddam's dollars but can conjecture they were used similarly) went to recruitment and propaganda. The war in Iraq made it that much easier (and cheaper) to recruit. You follow?
3. Our best argument for safety is the weapons of mass destruction one, not the terrorism one... and the WOMD argument has shown itself to be pretty flimsy; even Bush has abandoned it.
I didnt just say "out of power" i also said, "out of the game completely" which you have no way of knowing whether he was or was not. It doesnt take alot of imagination to piece together how he could be a threat, and not still running the country. Remember, he's a BILLIONAIRE with a huge following. How can you even argue this
I think it was when YOU said
Which was not the case. Are you drunk tonighte or something
THAT'S RIGHT FRIEND!
I promise - You Get Your Palaces Back - I get the WHITE HOUSE!
That's some funny sh*te! Not as funny as history though...
