No one in the World can debate that Saddam was a killer and dictator lacking moral judgment and values. A perfect example that absolute power corrupts absolutely as he massacred the Kurds for which he did not like very much. He of course was supported by us in the 1980s and conveniently deposed by us in the 1990s and vehemently and revengefully so in 2002.

In the 1990’s Saddam who had built up one of the largest armies in the world got upset that the Kuwait's were drilling side ways into what he perceived was his exclusive oil fields and mineral rights. Unfortunately he screwed up attacking Kuwait, but he was already falling out of favor and no longer needed. Indeed that is a long story. He was no saint. Most in this country were fine with removing him, they only wish it had not cost us so much in dollars. That money might have been better spent elsewhere in the world as many have pointed out; especially those wanting to fix the problems of the African Continent.

Those who study history will complain about such things as; “Wasn’t Kuwait partitioned by Britain? Didn’t it really used to be Southern Iraq? Wasn’t Kuwait created in a land grab and puppets place there for another oil outpost?” Those who argue against the war based on history will further state such things as; “His society was secular and open to trade with his tyranny no different than the fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia that we support because of their oil supply.”

And indeed we rarely talk of such things and for good reason, especially with the more common knowledge that in fact all but two of the 9-11 Hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. To add insult to injury our debate from the studiers of history

What I find interesting with this line of reason is it allows for one to think that Saddam Hussein is not to be responsible for his actions in killing the Kurds or for threatening the United States. He is not to be made responsible for dodging United Nation’s Inspections of his Weapons of Mass Defense exploitations and on-going attempts to make more. Instead such arguments are pointed inward at our current leadership and their decision to lay down the law and enforce the United Nations resolutions, when the UN would not call for enforcing their own pre-agreed upon rules for Saddam’s regime. In the 1990’s sure we could have allowed Saddam to take out one nation in appeasement, but the world learned from Hitler that once a nation does this and celebrates the spoils of war that they are inclined to continue, who is to say that a nation with one of the largest armies in the world would not fill their oats, develop a 1000-year plan and attempt to conquer the entire region. Because left unchecked this is what happens as history has shown.

Those who oppose the war in Iraq are simply using selective use of history to presume their conclusions and have failed to convince those who really see the whole picture that we should not have intervened at this point to stop this dictators future plans. Think on this.

"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/

• Your Right Not to be Offended


• If You Do not Respect Money, You Will Never Have Any


• Haves and Have Nots Debate on Capitalism


• Gas Lines Stink


• Too Many Lobbyists in DC


• Rand Corp Was Right to Advise Use of Nuclear Weapons in Middle East


• A Better World is Possible


• The Blessing of Society


• Censorship, Our Enemy


• Social Give Away Policies Make People Weak


• Concepts of Socialism


• Elliot Spitzer is Bad for America


• Crime: An Analysis


• Dialogue on Affirmative Action


• Politicians and Public Official Ethics