Comments on: Saddam is a bad man

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Humans are not evil. Bush is not evil either. He just has too much power for his own good. Humans get carried away once they get alot of power. If Sadam was really evil, he would’ve bombed USA b4 they bombed him. He was clearly capable of at least one bombing in his life..

By: Josh Squash

Josh Squash — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I think on this particular subject I have so many ideas I don’t know where to start. First, I believe as a world in general we don’t go after people unless they leave their borders ie. the world didn’t get ruffeled with Hitler still he started taken over other countries, but we never pressed Stalin for the million he killed to maintain his power, or even Saddam himself killing a few hundred thousand kurds in northern Iraq or taking all death row inmates and subjecting them to experimentation to perfect nerve and biological agents. So the world is, I think, not ruffeled with Saddam because he hasn’t broken the don’t mess with other peoples stuff rule. however, I do believe the governments of Germany and France are MORE ruffeled by the fact that the US is now the only super power (not that we can keep that forever) and keeping the US at bay and under control is a higher priority than ousting Saddam. Second, on the home front, I am possitive that going to war with Iraq is a neccessary thing but not for the normal reason of teaching Saddam a lesson. I think we need to go up against Saddam because we as a nation have been painted into a corner. With the UN resolution in place we have told Saddam put up or shut up and obviously he still wishes to test the resolve of not only the UN but also the US. If we were not to “stand our ground” against Saddam we would not only be telling him our threats and resolve are meaningless but we would encourage and embolden every other anti-US organization and country to attack and take us on because we are a bully that will turn tail and run when it gets down to it. Now is Iraq and immanent threat? No. An inderect threat? most definately. If Saddam were gone then the financial backing and training of Iraq would no longer be given to islamic freakers that attack and suicide bomb Isreal. Without support the region would be more able to stablize and then talk of a palistine state could move foward making islamic states hate Isreal less and hate the US less because we support Isreal. ultimately war ais a bummer and living in a air force base town it affects so many families here and not to mention those that have to live and rebuild the battle field. Hopefully our nation will hold up to its promise of rebuilding Iraq and then actually earn the respect and right to be called a super power.

By: Luke

Luke — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Aj,
I have to say that is one of the best responses I have heard. I totally agree with you on almost all your points. I think Americans in general would agree with you. As Americans, we will never be popular, and I agree that living at number ten and going for eleven is what we have been taught since childhood, and you are correct, something needs to change. The only statement in Bush’s SotU address that I really really agreed with was the fact that he wanted to help Africa out of the Aid’s epidemic, I think if we were to take that stand and that iniative on problems and crises facing the world, we would be doing more than just investing in national interests. I think we need to take more of a human interest than a U.S. interest. Anyway, I just wanted to say I think we are both on the same page…I understand a little more where you are coming from now…talk to you later

Luke