1 We didn't kill him because we want a trial to free us and the UK of our guilt. Who do you think provided the tools, equipment, or biological and chemical weapons to Saddam?

2 OMG. More Surrender Monkey talking points. Dude completely ignores that we used Saddam to fight against the very country that took OUR people hostage, and was calling us the Great Satan.

These people really live in their own little world.

The SMs typically ignore the hard fact that nearly every gov't and intell agency in the world said Saddam had WMD, and all he had to do was say "sure, inspect away!" But no, he played games.

I cannot believe we are still having this conversation. No wonder Libs keep losing elections: they live strictly in the past, and that past isn't even factual.

3 I still think the lawsuit is stupid and is completely unfounded. I just don't understand how several powerful countries gave Saddam his tools for destruction and then somehow later say he is a tyrant and is a cruel man. He would have been significantly weaker and might have even been controllable.

I just wish the US would look to the future instead of the present in its military and economic decisions.

4 You mean like how Clinton looked to the future of Al Queda, and figured it was strictly a law enforcement problem, maybe lob a few missiles into Afghanistan on the eve of his Impeachement? How he looked to the future and figured it was better to let Osama go 3 times, despite the WTC 93, Kobar towers, bombings in Saudi Arabia and in Africa? How he figured that the future would be better if Intelligence and Law enforcement could not share information?

Funny how when Reagan looked to the future, one without the Soviet Union, the Left pitched a royal hissy fit. Now, Bush is looking to the future, one which has a democratic Iraq, one without a brutal dictator and doesn't support ME and international terrorism, and says "stop that, president Bush." They simply look to the past, and ignore that countries have interests, not friends (mostly.)

Iraq was an interest against Iran. Please learn the facts.

5 And don't forget -- the enemy of my enemy is my friend. At the time that the US gave him weapons, he was the lesser evil. If he had not been given aid, Iran would have likely taken over the entire middle east. So, if the choices are taking Saddam's miserable army by walking in or a nuclear battle with Iran controlling from the Med to India, I choose wiping the floor with Saddam's army.

6 You are correct that he was the lesser of two evils but they left him unchecked and let his power grow until he was just as big a threat. No, Clinton did not look to the future. I am not saying the Republicans or Democrates did anything right, Ogre can tell you I believe that the US will come to a point soon where it will crumble or the people will have to revolt in order to force change from both sides.

Clinton was also stopped by Congress and blocked by the CIA because they had useful resources in Afghanistan. You are basing your opinion on the fact that the president actually has power or control over government resources which he doesn't.

Also don't forget about Somalia, the bipartisan screw-up where Bush Sr. went in against his cabinets recommendation and Clintion walked in and wouldn't allow Allied forces back in and completely withdrew. Now this is a huge area for terrorism.

I mean looking to the future like Nixon did by creating an Alliance with China and Russia or like when Carter brokered the Egypt/Israel piece.

7 Nixon's alliance with Russia came to nothing until Reagan did something about it. The relationship with China has only made them have more nuclear weapons pointed at CA. And how's that peace in the middle east from Carter going?

No, I don't think any of those actions were good for the US. When Reagan broke communist Russia, now that was a good foreign policy act. When Bush removed a brutal dictator from Iraq, that was a good action.

If they didn't leave Saddam alone, the US would have still be accused of imperialism -- so in other words, no matter what the US did, "the world" and the left would hate us. We ARE the world's police force, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. When there is trouble from a dictator, we have to go fix it, whether we want to or not -- and no matter how good the solution is, it will not eliminate evil in the world.

8 Yes Reagan reopened the alliance, but if the talks had not existed before then it might not have happened. Reagan had little to do with the collapse of Soviet Russia compared to Gorbachev's reforms and the military coup.

The Middle East has never been at peace. Carter created peace between Egypt and Israel, this later caused Saudia Arabia to become our "friend" giving us a base of operations in the area.

I am sorry if my point on guilt was misunderstood, what I meant was that Saddam used his chemical and biological weapons on his own people. These weapons have direct connections with western powers. His trial is two fold in that it is designed show a tyrant brought to justice and that America and our cohorts did it. In away this shows that we caused the problem and then fixed it. I still do not know why we allowed Iran to remain since we gave them their weapons after WWII and until the 60's.

Also I want everyone to know I support the war in Iraq, but I did not like the sloppy handling. This goes to show you what I meant by looking to the future. We went in to Iraq to depose Saddam but didn't plan the occupation out. In the first Gulf War, nobody planned on what Saddam would do after we pushed him out. I still believe we should have deposed him then but that would make Bush Sr. look bad since he was one of the CIA personal that said to support him and helped put him into power. Maybe he was hoping for the first Gulf War to start when he was president.

9 Reagan's grain embargos are what really brought down the Soviet Union -- he forced Gorbachev into reforms he never wanted.

And the Middle East will NEVER be at peace. Ever. Watch it now -- with Hamas in charge, it will get MUCH worse, very quickly.

I see your point on Saddam. The reason we left Iran is because we didn't have the guts to send troops into the middle east. I'm still shocked we actually deposed Saddam -- amazed, actually.

As for the handling and planning? Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20...

10 Um, no. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Reagan was the primary cause. In essence, he forced the USSR to try and spend money to keep up with the US, putting them into what would be considered bankruptcy. Star Wars was what really killed them.

11 I like the way Reagan got them to spend tons of cash on weapons, then when they wanted to bargain for food, he told them to get lost -- they were forced to choose between weapons and food. Of course, when they chose weapons, the food ran out rather quickly.

12 I understand what you are saying about the embargos but the seeds were already sown before Reagan became president. Gorbachev was already apart of a growing reform party. To say that one person lead to the end of Communism is like saying The US single handedly won WWII.

13 Well...about WWII...

14 The USSR had their problems. What Reagan did was to push them over the brink. Otherwise, they might have held on for many more decades.

15 Ogre said ( 3:03 PM Thursday, Jan 26):

And don't forget -- the enemy of my enemy is my friend. At the time that the US gave him weapons, he was the lesser evil.

That's the problem. The lesser of 2 evils is still evil. It was a sound tactical decision, but in hindsight, I really don't think it was the right decision.

16 It might not have been. But maybe back then people didn't realize how evil Saddam really was.

17 If they did some homework and recall that his Uncle raised him and beat him. His Uncle was apposed to America and raised him to not trust anyone. I am sure the CIA knew this but didn't care.

18 Then again, 99% of the Middle East is opposed to America and doesn't trust us.

19 Well when you support one country then change to the enemy and then change sides again. Some people begin not to trust you or even hate you.

20 They hate us primarily because we're not Muslim and then because we're successful.