...is scheduled for "imminently." There will be some cheering among the less-informed Bushy-ites, who will be glad that we finally got the bastard who caused 9/11.

Morons.

Anybody know where Osama is? Anybody know WHO Osama is?

I was wondering when this topic would show up.

In my opinion, we did this the wrong way. As a teacher, I can not go up to a student two years later and go: "Hey, you remember when you were chewing gum in my class? Well, here is your detention." You must give the punishment when the offense occurs. (Now, I am in no way saying that killing people is equal to chewing gum... it is just an example.) We should have handled Saddam back when, not wait 20 years until he was old and we had taken away all his weapons. (No weapons of mass destruction found, another Bush OOPS!) He was defenseless.

Now, Osama should have been delt with. If we could find Saddam hiding in a hole, we could find Osama. But, of course, Osamas family has ties high up in our country. So, I figure "we" focused on Saddam to divert attention away from Osama. Now with Saddam dead, I would like to see Osamas head on a platter.

My friends in other countries hate Bush. The "white cowboy hat" thing does not go over well. We push our ideas on others like bullies, and have become the bullies of the world, not the heroes. When other countries get away with killing one another and we look away, calling it a "civil war", we don't get involved, but if they had oil (like green pointed out)... well... stand back 'cause we will blow you up. Bush does what serves Bush best. He does what will bring himself and his family/friends the most money. Screw the rest of the world, including those in the good 'ol U.S.A.

I know the horror that Saddam created in his lifetime, and he surely deserved to die, but it should have been done a long time ago. Bush SR, should have handled that, Bush JR, should have left us out of Iraq and fighting daddy's war, and went after Osama.

Well said Green and Poodles.

I'd rather have my friends back. However, since that's not an option, I'll take Saddam's death.

Can't we just accept that Iraq has handled it's situation, and it's for the best?

There's a WHOLE ENTIRE THREAD devoted to hating President Bush.

When the people at the execution taunted Saddam Hussein with Religious barbs they proved to much of the world and to much of Iraq that the execution was an act of political and religious revenge.

Regrettably, Saddam Hussein showed the most restraint as the judge asked the others at the execution to stop the taunting to no avail. Many had hoped that Saddam Hussein would have whimpered and begged for mercy, but it was Saddam Hussein who acted like the human being and his executioners who acted as the monsters. It does not bode well for the future of Iraq that the Shiite majority looked so grotesque to the Sunni minority who they claim that they want to reconcile with.

While Iraq may be 65% Shiite and 20% Sunni, according to most sources, including the US Library of Congress, approximately 85% of the world's Muslims are Sunni and only 15% are Shiites. The unsavory execution of Saddam Hussein may wind up being an invitation to the world's Sunni population to come to the aid of their Sunni brethren in Iraq.

That would not be good for either the USA or the government now in power in Iraq.

...

There's a WHOLE ENTIRE THREAD devoted to hating President Bush.

Surely you don't think that's enough, do you?

Can't we just accept that Iraq has handled it's situation, and it's for the best?

There's a WHOLE ENTIRE THREAD devoted to hating President Bush.

Mouse, some of us like discussing contentious topics. :biggrin1: This keeps us away from the fridge.:party: By the way, I would like to congratulate you on your ticker! You have lost a lot of weight. Bravo, girl!:clap2:

And Happy New Year to everyone!!!!

Thanks, green!

I like discussing contentious topics, too. Some people even consider "contentious" my middle name! LOL! Thankfully, discussion usually involves more than one point of view, so I throw mine in occasionally, just to invite a broader outlook.

You know everytime I poke my head in on one of these threads, I am usually in the minority opinion, so I try to make my point, then get out of the way. Still, I believe that a good discussion needs all the sides represented, so I am willing to do my best to see that this is done.

Happy New Year to all of you, too!

I remember back in 2002 while attending Purdue University; we had to do a debate. This was before the war in Iraq had even started. We formed a group that was for the war and a group that was against. Purdue centrally located in the Red state that Indiana is had about 18 students for the war and about 4 against. I was against as was 2 others; the other person was put there against her will because we had hardly enough to form a group. When we debated, us four little people won because we had to debate based on FACTS and the facts were that nobody had ever proved a link of Sadam Hussein to 9/11. We had a foreign student in our group who had informed us that Osama Bin Laden and Sadam Hussein don't even like each other and operate on totally different values and mindsets. Sadam is about money and power. Osama is about terrorism and hates the rich and powerful. I learned a lot from that student. He knew things about different parts of the world that our media doesn't really cover here in the U.S.

Osama is about terrorism and hates the rich and powerful. I learned a lot from that student. He knew things about different parts of the world that our media doesn't really cover here in the U.S.

I was under the impression that he was the rich and powerful....~Mandy

I agree with mousecrazy and thought she needed a little support against all the Bush haters. One of the main arguments here seems to be that we are picking on poor Saddam and Iraq over other dictators and killers in other countries. At the time we went to war with Iraq EVERYONE though he had weapons of mass destruction. If you remember correctly there were 16 UN resolutions against him because he wouldn't allow inspection of what were thought to be nuclear sites. Now, granted there were no weapons of mass destruction, but we and Tony Blair and the Germans and everyone else thought there were. That was the main reason behind the invasion of IRaq. No one thinks the African nations have any of those. Plus Saddam did have ties to terrorism. I know all you Bush haters out there think there was some vast conspiracy involving oil or something, but that puts you in the same category as people who believe that Bush actually orchestrated 9/11 for some nefarious purpose of his own. Yes, mistakes were made, and maybe after all the facts were known we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place, but you work with the knowledge you have at the time.

Osama has rich relatives, but he uses what money he has to fund terrorism and is more into ridding the world of Jews and Christians while Sadam was all about himself and using his money to indulge on himself. While both men are evil; they are very different

I agree with mousecrazy and thought she needed a little support against all the Bush haters. One of the main arguments here seems to be that we are picking on poor Saddam and Iraq over other dictators and killers in other countries. At the time we went to war with Iraq EVERYONE though he had weapons of mass destruction. If you remember correctly there were 16 UN resolutions against him because he wouldn't allow inspection of what were thought to be nuclear sites. Now, granted there were no weapons of mass destruction, but we and Tony Blair and the Germans and everyone else thought there were. That was the main reason behind the invasion of IRaq. No one thinks the African nations have any of those. Plus Saddam did have ties to terrorism. I know all you Bush haters out there think there was some vast conspiracy involving oil or something, but that puts you in the same category as people who believe that Bush actually orchestrated 9/11 for some nefarious purpose of his own. Yes, mistakes were made, and maybe after all the facts were known we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place, but you work with the knowledge you have at the time.

I was against the war in Iraq a year before it started and I stated so on the forums where I spent my time back then and I also stated that Saddam did not have WMD nor did he have anything to do with 911. I was called vile names and treated with a lot less respect than I have seen any of the members here at LBT get for being pro-BuSh.

I was proven right and George W. BuSh and Tony Blair were proven wrong. It remains to be seen whether BuSh and Blair were wrong or lying. Anyone reading reports available to the public could have, would and should have known that BuSh and Blair were wrong or lying about their reasons for invading Iraq. It was the willingness of the USA public to blindly follow their leader, the cowardice of most Democrats to avoid being seen as weak on security or terrorism, and the failure of the US media to investigate to any debt, that caused the invasion of Iraq as much as it was BuSh and Blair.

The British public (by a poll of over 80%) believed that BuSh and Blair were wrong or lying before the invasion of Iraq. The average US citizen was willing to sell his soul to be protected from the bogeyman. BuSh's advisors told BuSh that Hussein had nothing to do with 911 and had no WMD, but he told them to go back and look again. It doesn't take a genius to know what your boss needs to hear in order for you to keep your job. George Tenent was no genius and finally told BuSh what he wanted to hear (although the CIA reports said different). Richard Clark and Paul O'Neil, men of more integrity left the BuSh Cabinet (along with others) rather than tell BuSh what he wanted to hear.

Reading about what went on it the White House does not mean that you are a conspiracy nut. It was all there, including former ambassador Joseph Wilson's report that Nigeria was not selling Uranium to Iraq. I am not a conspiracy nut. I just keep myself informed and have learned to read between the (official government) lines.

I was under the impression that he was the rich and powerful....~Mandy

He is, Mandy, but Osama doesn't live like a rich and powerful man. He is content to live in a cave in Afghanistan. Do you know how inhospitable Afghanistan is? No self-respecting playboy would spend 10 mintes in that God-forsaken place. But Osama bin Laden is not motivated by wealth, or women, or comfort. He doesn't care about clothes, expensive cars, mansions, or fine food. He is, by all accounts, a shy man - very polite and unassuming. And very religious. He is a religious fanatic, in fact. He wants the Infidels (us) to leave Saudi Arabia and never set foot on its sacred soil again. In addition...

Muslims blame the USA for poverty and oppression in the Middle East.

- The USA provides military support to several oppressive governments in the Middle East. The majority of people in those countries, Muslims, live in abject poverty, with no hope for the future.

- The people in those Middle Eastern countries are not allowed to protest against their own governments and cannot overthrow their governments, partly because of American military support for those governments. (However, the people are allowed to demonstrate publicly against the USA to vent their anger and frustration.)

- The USA abandoned the Muslim people of Iraq and Afghanistan after the USA achieved its military goals. After the USA left Iraq, oppressed people in Iraq who opposed Saddham Hussein were massacred. After the USA left Afghanistan, the people of that country were left in abject poverty, had no effective leaders, and had no hope for the future.

- The USA provides military support to Israel, one of the world's strongest military powers, and the Israelis use that American military power against the Palestinian Muslims, who are forbidden to build an army or have a military force. (Israel was created by the United Nations to make a homeland for Jews. The land, however, was already inhabited by Palestinian Muslims. Many Muslims, therefore, regard Palestinian territory as being occupied by oppressors, the Israelis.)

Muslims blame the USA for a loss of traditional values in the Middle East.

- For Fundamentalist Muslims, the USA is a symbol of moral decay. They see the USA as responsible for a decline in traditional values and lifestyles.

Fundamentalist Muslims see the American lifestyle as a dangerous competitor for the hearts and minds of Muslims.

- Fundamentalist Muslims view the technologically advanced and secular lifestyle in the United States as a dangerous temptation for Muslims and that it will lead them away from Fundamentalist Muslim values.

Fundamentalist Muslims believe that they are dominated by the West, especially the United States.

"Of all these offenses the one that is most widely, frequently, and vehemently denounced is undoubtedly imperialism ...." "What is truly evil and unacceptable [to the Fundamentalist Muslim] is the domination of infidels over true believers."

Christian Fundamentists blame the USA's Liberals for a loss of traditional values in the USA.

- For Fundamentalist Christians, the USA's Liberal lifestyle is a symbol of moral decay. They see the USA's Liberal lifestyle as responsible for a decline in traditional values and lifestyles.

Fundamentalist Christians see the American Liberal lifestyle as a dangerous competitor for the hearts and minds of Christians.

- Fundamentalist Christians view the technologically advanced and secular lifestyle in the United States as a dangerous temptation for Christians and that it will lead them away from Fundamentalist Christian values.

Fundamentalist Christians believe that they are dominated by the West coast and East coast of the United States.

- What is truly evil and unacceptable [to the Fundamentalist Christian] is the domination of secular Liberals over true believers.