Dub-yah took his eye off the prize. Plain and simple. Had he remained focused on the War on Terror in Afghanistan instead of tinkering around in Iraq w/WMDs that just weren't there our troops in Afghanistan would be far more successful today.
Really, how many men does it take to find a needle in a haystack? Moreover, Obama has sent more troops… and the result is ostensibly the bloodiest month, in terms of casualties for, us in Afghanistan [hmm, one wonders why the press is not covering the loss of so many casualties now that Obama is in office?]
The man created problems where none existed beforehand.
Wow, you make it seem as if poor Saddam was complying completely with the UN and big, bad America attacked out of the blue for no reason whatsoever. Unfortunately, for you, this is not the way things were. Saddam was not complying and that represent a threat.
But nobody on the other side of politics wants to admit that. All they can talk about is "if" this or "if" that, but to date NOBODY HAS FOUND WMDs in Iraq - NOBODY!
That is because that is irrelevant– what you know AFTERWARDS does not in any way affect what you knew BEFORE.
As I pointed out in the analogy with the criminal with the empty gun – the officer did not know that the gun was empty and the criminal was not complying. Thus, the police officer did not know BEFORE that the criminal did not have any bullets and was thus not a real threat – but, you, and those like you, keep arguing that the gun was empty. In the end, the criminal could have complied with the officer, just like Saddam had numerous opportunities to comply with the UN, but the criminal, like Saddam, chose not to comply.
And Liala's right! If I remember the head-count correctly, 8 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Not one was from Iraq!
Lol, even she admitted that she was wrong… LMAO and you consider yourself a moderate – LOL!!
Again, she argued that Bush was responsible for starting two wars and I pointed out that the impetus for the Afghanistan war was 9/11 while Iraq’s causes had more to do with Saddam’s failure to comply with the UN coupled with the threat he posed. Lol, moderate… objective voice, lol.
Saddam was no more a threat to this country or its national security than Kim Jung Ill (or whoever is N. Korea's president).
Actually, in a way [that you did not intend] you are right, they are both threats, but since Clinton dropped the ball – it is too late to deal with Kim Jong Ill in a safe manner, since he is now nuclear. However, America had to act before Saddam went nuclear… believe it or not, sometimes it is better to stop a cancer BEFORE it goes critical – not after.
But he didn't threaten the U.S. in any way that required going to war. And even if the U.N. believed military force was necessary which many including myself contend they did not, it was still a U.N. issue, not a U.S.A. issue.
I disagree on both counts. By not complying with the UN and making it seem as if he had/was developing WMDs he was making himself a threat to the US. He could have easily given WMD to terrorists for example, if he had them or was allowed to develop them.
In regards to the UN, I would never put my family’s life or the lives of my countrymen in the hands of the UN for in the end; the UN does not have my family’s, nor the lives of my countrymen, best interest.
Ultimately, the UN is ineffective because every country will only act in THEIR own best interests, but not always the best interest of everyone or even the common good. Despite the fact that the many countries in the UN recognized the threat Saddam posed, they could not act, because it only takes one vote to stop any tangible action… and Saddam had at least two votes in his pocket [Russian and France.] Make no mistake, the UN did not act, not because they believed Saddam was no threat, but rather because they could not act – and that is a big difference.
On this issue of potentially raising taxes on the middle class...key word here "potential"...it hasn't happened yet. So, until it does I really don't think there's anything to get all up in arms about.
Actually, it was already has… but, in a more insidious way – for example, Obama raised taxes on tobacco which affects millions of working class families far more than the wealthy. The wealthy, can afford to buy cigarettes abroad, but the poor cannot and thus they are stuck paying for the cost.
I do think that if the ecomony doesn't shake loose from it's slumber soon - and all signs indicated that things are starting to slowly turn around - then taxes would have to be raised. It would be a shame, but as an American I'd be willing to pay my fair share, and so should everyone else.
Lol, how nice of you, but many Americans rightly believe that the government is wasting money at an unprecedented rate and I, as an American, do not want to have my hard earned tax money wastefully spent finding ACORN for example.