To me Saddam is not such a significant factor in the "war on terrorism" as he is made out to be. We have Yasser Arafat,
And who was one of Arafat's largest financial supporters, sending money to martyrs, as well as training Palestinian terrorists at Salman Pak??
I'm sorry that you don't believe Saddam fostered terrorism throughout the region. I guess you'll just have to go on thinking that he's just someone who was "misunderstood" and
If Saddam was a threat they why was he on the US payroll when Reagan and the senior Bush were Presidents.
That's just horsecrap! Every global leader who conducts trade with the US, or receive any foreign or military aid is on the US "payroll", using your definition..
My god.. if he was on the "payroll", why didn't we just let him keep Kuwait back in 1991?
Even the CIA has no "credible proof" that Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeida.
And you have no proof that he did not. Given the secrecy and terror under which Saddam's government controlled his people, we effectively have little to no confirmable intelligence about Iraq.
What about going after the big ones. Osama, Abu Sayyaf etc. And also Yasser Arafat.
Abu Sayyaf is located in the Phillipines, continuing on the muslim rebellion that has existed there for decades. We have provided support, advice, and training to their people there.
Arafat? We're undercutting him right now.. financially through taking out Saddam's government, as well as politically by excluding him from the peace talks.
Osama? If he has fled to Kashmir, as many predict, we can (at this point) only choose to support the Pakistani government of Musharraf in its attempts to deal with him. But Pakistan is effectively a divided country, a few small steps from civil war between secularists and militants.
Is the pursuit of Osama worth risking igniting that? Not at this point.
Besides, Saudi Arabia is the heart of Muslim militancy and this Wahhabist flavor of Islam that has created and spread this militancy. Iraq is much closer to that eventual target.
Hawk
Hawk |
