Say you ain't glad that Saddam was defeated!

PRAGUE (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein ordered his secret agents to attack the Prague headquarters of U.S. run Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to end broadcasting to Iraq, a Czech intelligence service spokesman said Sunday.

The attack was ordered by the then Iraqi leader in 2000 and Iraqi intelligence agents planned to use weapons including rocket propelled grenades, Kalashnikov rifles and submachine guns, spokesman Jan Subert told Czech TV Nova.

Saddam ordered Radio Free Europe attack in Prague | International | Reuters

Czech: Iraq planned attack on Radio Free Europe - Yahoo! News

Should not we thank president Bush for making Europe a safer place?

I can say it's a good thing that Saddam is far from this world now.

Still doesn't justify an illegal invasion. Bush, his administration and the ones of the 4 other countries that perpetrated it should be prosecuted for war crimes.

Basing some moral discourse and justifying these actions on an hypothetical attack is very deceitful. That's called sophistic rhetoric. Remember the "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?

Actually, Saddam had targetted FOX news for destruction.

The Bush administartion caught wind of that plot and new that without the propagand.....er...I mean......insightful news reporting of the FOX conglomerate, their days would be numbered.

I'm not sorry that Saddam is in hell but I am sorry about all of the American and allied lives lost in the process, not to mention Iraqi non combatants. From a value standpoint I think the world would have been better off if we hadn't taken the focus off of the original mission to get the perpetrators of 9-11 and secure Afghanistan from becoming a terrorist haven.

I think we need a great big yawning emoticon.

http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/37.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

I think we need a great big yawning emoticon.

---

If the acid test for "bad guy" is going to be sending intelligence agents to do illegal things in foreign countries, we're gonna have a hard time finding any "good guys". ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by northpaw

If the acid test for "bad guy" is going to be sending intelligence agents to do illegal things in foreign countries, we're gonna have a hard time finding any "good guys". ;)

---

I was just about to say the same thing :)

I really don't see how the death of Sadam helped the security in Europe !?

If anything else, the war & subsequent occupation in Iraq may have helped fuel resentment against the West in the Middle East. Don't be mistaken, these people are no fools and also know what this war was all about (hint: it's a three letter word starting with o and ending on l).

PS: I do agree he was a cruel dictator and deserved the death sentence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by decraew

I really don't see how the death of Sadam helped the security in Europe !?

If anything else, the war & subsequent occupation in Iraq may have helped fuel resentment against the West in the Middle East. Don't be mistaken, these people are no fools and also know what this war was all about (hint: it's a three letter word starting with o and ending on l).

PS: I do agree he was a cruel dictator and deserved the death sentence

---

So after all Bush was after Saddam's owl collection? :D

Defeating Saddam was Bush's stupidest mistake that is still costing many lives today and hasn't made the Middle East a safer place.

The real weapons of mass destruction are built in Iran at this very moment. Because of Iran's large population no one is going to defeat its president.

I don't think any one in this forum is more happy than me. But I also do not think that anyone of you (with all respect), whether if you are happy or sad about it, can really appreciate what it means to be rid of Saddam if you have not really suffered from his regime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rawaz

I don't think any one in this forum is more happy than me. But I also do not think that anyone of you (with all respect), whether if you are happy or sad about it, can really appreciate what it means to be rid of Saddam if you have not really suffered from his regime.

---

Be that as it may (and it may, I agree), others can have perfectly valid perspectives about what it means to assume the "ridder" role whilst otherwise living relatively peacefully in the land of good 'n plenty on the other side of the planet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by northpaw

Be that as it may (and it may, I agree), others can have perfectly valid perspectives about what it means to assume the "ridder" role whilst otherwise living relatively peacefully in the land of good 'n plenty on the other side of the planet.

---

Certainly this is true and I do not doubt it at all, what I meant was however just that unless you experienced it you cannot really apprecieate it on a cetain level, perhaps on an emotional level. But yes of course others can have their perspectives, but they can also perhaps only imagine it I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rawaz

Certainly this is true and I do not doubt it at all, what I meant was however just that unless you experienced it you cannot really apprecieate it on a cetain level, perhaps on an emotional level. But yes of course others can have their perspectives, but they can also perhaps only imagine it I think.

---

I know, and I think we're talking about two different things. While I completely agree that Americans have no basis to make claims about what life under Saddam was like, we do have every reason to argue the pros and cons of invading a remote country based on the bull**** reasons our government offers at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by northpaw

If the acid test for "bad guy" is going to be sending intelligence agents to do illegal things in foreign countries, we're gonna have a hard time finding any "good guys". ;)

---

You seem to be OK with state sponsored terrorism. You are one tough boy, allright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparq

You seem to be OK with state sponsored terrorism. You are one tough boy, allright.

---

And you seem to be somewhat limited as to your criteria of what state-sponsored terrorism is, or possibly in your knowledge of exactly who has been doing what for the past half-century or so. As for me, I don't feel particularly expert or self-righteous enough to endorse or condemn any of it; I just don't like when we forget who we are.

*Edit*

That sounds overly harsh, so let me add a few things. I love my country, but to me, that means acknowledging its warts, too, some of which are pretty damn huge. Should anyone flat-out deny that the US has often been neck-deep in "state-sponsored terrorism" (under pretty much any definition), I'd suggest they have some reading to do. Again, that doesn't mean that I love my country any less, but I'm not willing to hold other countries to a higher standard than I'd hold my own, particularly in that regard (we've been the big dog on the block for a while, after all). Apologies if the way I express myself makes me sound like an ass - I truly don't mean any disrespect to you or anyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparq

You seem to be OK with state sponsored terrorism. You are one tough boy, allright.

---

Having lost friends and relatives to US-sponsored terrorism in the not-so-distant past, I find that quote entertaining.

Don't forget that the pre-existing requirement to claim the moral high ground is to occupy the place first.

Glad Sadam's gone? I would have preferred to have Bin Laden gone. Remember him? He's the guy who attacked us. (We went looking for the other guy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leadduck

Glad Sadam's gone? I would have preferred to have Bin Laden gone. Remember him? He's the guy who attacked us. (We went looking for the other guy).

---

True. But bin Laden wasn't sitting on a humongous oil reserve for which he wanted euros instead of dollar.

If and when Bin Laden is gone, we won't hear about it. The last thing anyone wants is to make him a martyr and have his death serve as a rallying cry.


Nothing to see here, move along.