magooch. I agree that the world is much better off without Saddam, but bottom line, Saddam was no real threat to America, and it has not been proved that he had any part in the 9-11 incident. The truth of the matter is, there was more direct support out of Saudi Arabia than Iraq. To use the theory that eliminating those who, in our view, are not good for the world is ridiculous, if this is a valid political position when are we going to invade North Korea, Iran, Syria, or any of the dozen or so other countries where terrorist activity is initiated and supported. You say, "I don't care what anyone says, he was supporting terrorist." Can YOU prove that, or, are you so attached to Bush's shirt tail that you believe anything he says?
To get into the roots of the terrorist activity around the world I suggest you take a look at Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz. Who is he? Well, he is a very wealthy and influential Saudi. Big deal, you say, but even by the standards of very wealthy and influential Saudis, this guy is plugged in. He was personal banker for the Saudi Royal family and head of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, until he sold it to the Saudi government. It is a proven fact that his bank is responsible for funding the majority of the terrorist activity around the world through many operations described as a "Charity." He is a "stand back and let someone else do the work kinda guy," but rest assured, it was his funding that provided the training for the 9-11 crews, and continued terrorist activity around the world. His influence is deeply embedded in American and World politics, and there is a tight bond between him and the most respected pillars of the American establishment.
To put thing's in the proper prospective, Saddam eliminated over 300,000 Iraqis, during his rein, it the short period Bush has been in charge, he is responsible for the elimination of well over 600,000. Now I ask, is one any worst than the other?
