If Saddam were still in power he MAY have given terrorist arms.

[Bandit]

He may have. We will never know but he hadn't given any of them anything up until the time we invaded. Now Bush* is in control and the Terrorists have the arms. Is the world truly better off with Saddam out of power? Who was it that allowed the insurgents to have the armament? Was it Saddam or was it Bush*? :shrug:

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. Saddam was contained. The fear was that if they dropped

sanctions in favor of cheap oil, they would lose the ability to contain him. Removal from power was the easiest way to fix the problem.

[sisenor]

2. When Bush and Rove use those hypothetical statements

it really pisses me the fuck off.

They base their whole foreign policy on a type of "minority report" scenario, in which for some magical reason they know the future and all possible outcomes. In fact, they have no way of asserting that the world is safer. Safer as opposed to what? A parallel world with Saddam in power? When they use that type of statement, they are intimating that they have knowledge from a "higher power."

[AIJ Alom]

3. No he wouldn't ! Saddam would not have given the terrorist arms !

The man was paranoid. The Bush administration knew this. Saddam did not trust his own sons.

Saddam is the guy who used to have his generals wake up any new general from their sleep and say that they were conducting a coup and ask, do you want to join. If the general stayed loyal to Saddam, he was brought into the club, if he said otherwise, he was shot on the spot. (I believe Donald Rumsfield told this story)

[UL_Approved]

5. Truth

Saddam Hussein NEVER had tolerance for terrorists. He was better at getting rid of terrorists than almost any nation on Earth. This guy would fight al-Queda, Hamas, the Taliban, and any other Muslim organization to the death. After all, he ran a SECULAR regime just like mother Russia, and his commitment to silencing all religion put him at fundamental odds with even his own populace. Anybody with 5 minutes of Iraqi history and a room temperature IQ would be able to figure this out (unless FOX or CNN meddled with it).

[Julien Sorel]

4. Saddam wasn't going to give the terrorists jack.

Think of the terrorists as hardcore Greens, and Saddam as a Democrat. They have some mutual enemies, but that doesn't mean they work together.

Many of the "atrocities" Saddam committed were against the radical Islamists we see as terrorists. Why? Because they were a threat to his regime. One of the beefs Arabs have against the U.S., in fact, is that we prop up regimes that exist for seemingly no other purpose than to repress Islamic fundamentalism, and Saddam was certainly one of those for several years.

[LynnTheDem]

6. No he wouldn't have.

Even George "I love bush" Tenet has always said Hussein wouldn't. Every intell/mid-east expert around ahs always said no Hussein wouldn't.

And here's the kicker...HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY TO GIVE ANYONE ANYWAYS.

[fob]

7. He would have had to get permission from Poppy bush* anyway,

wasn't he saddam's cia handler?

[annabanana]

8. he HATED the fundies.......They considered him apostate...

they were ENEMIES............God, why does this have to be repeated.

[Ducks In A Row]

9. Of course not. The weapon inspectors and the UN were all over...

his ass. He couldn't do jack-shit. The terrorists only have the explosives BECAUSE OF BUSH.