[graf008]

In my last post I kinda argued to myself why we went after Saddam more so than we went after bin Laden (based on milkitary and economic resources). This doesn't mean we didn't go after bin Laden - just less so.

Saddam was a much easier target. And it was easy to think that once we toppled him, we could build a stable country in Iraq since there was no (or little) 'cult of Saddam'.

We kill bin Laden - he is becomes a martyr. Attacks will be done in his name. What we need to do is destroy the whole network. This is not a simple task - and certainly much harder than overthrowing a two-bit dictator. And therefore, we went after Saddam first as an easier target and now could devout resources to wiping out al Quada.

[swheats]

You made me laugh, I needed that today.

And it was easy to think that once we toppled him, we could build a stable country in Iraq since there was no (or little) 'cult of Saddam'.

Despite what you may believe, their is a cult following. It's not Saddam's people or his Republican Guard, but countries and regimes and people outside of Iraq-270 to be exact [from the last known information] that were propping Saddam up and in turn propping up Al Queada and other terrorists. You do see the bigger picture don't you?

From what I've seen from the beginning of the televised war, Iraq is an ammo dump of all kinds of weapons.

Whether we've killed bin Laden or not Americans are still targets and whether they're killed in his name or Allah's they're still dead. I don't think terrorists really need an excuse. And if they did and that was the reason for Berg's death-prisoner abuses-then we must be dealing with a weaker crop of terrorists. (last statement said purely in jest).

The bottom line is, from my point of view, it's all a war on terrorism. Doesn't matter the next celebrity terrorist to rise. Let's hope Saydr or Al zawari is next.