You need to get a grip on yourself. I used plain concise english as you requested. You are reading things in. I do believe that Saddam is as evil and unbalanced as Hitler. What I was trying to point out to you is that we knew less about Hitler in '39 than we know about Saddam now and most rational people agree that removing Hitler then would have been a positive good.
Saddam has killed hundreds of thousands inside and outside his own borders. Saddam has fired missles at most of his neighbors. Saddam has personally committed murder (Hitler never did that we know of). Saddam funds terrorism, harbors terrorists, and encourages them. He has used chemical weapons against his own people and Iran. In all likely hood he will have nuclear capability in the near future if left alone. What he has already done should have prompted the U.N. to take him out. That he has not yet murdered six million jews (which I am sure he would gladly do if given a chance and a nuke), does not make him less dangerous than Hitler was. Circumstances have so far prevented him from topping Hitler or Stalin - but given time, who knows.
Are you trying to say that Sadaam is worse than the current US backed Algerian regime?
Yes. And they are not trying to obtain WMDs for terrorist uses. That is not to say the Algerians don't have much to answer for. But they're not an immediate threat to the United States. And they're not sending bounty money to palistinians that blow up Jews.
That it is worse than Sudan which has killed at a modest estimate half a million black Christians and still practices slavery!
Yes. And I think the Sudan should be on the eventual target list. Again, though, they are not the immediate threat, and we have to deal with one target at a time. As for the slavery part, tell it to Jesse and Al - they would rather hit us up for reparations than get involved in trying to end slavery in Africa.
What about Turkey which the latest "authorities" say has killed 40,000 kurds in 8 years?
Yes. He is far worse and far more dangerous than the Turks. He's killed far more kurds than they have and in far more gruesome manners.
Oh don't answer=
Oh, I think I will.
we look the other way only when we want to justify an oil war (or foggy bottom policy elite war) on the backs of 9/11 dead against a nation that had less to do with it than a man from a nation who ranched with Bush in Texas two weeks ago. It's not about looking the other way. If we went into each of those countries that you mentioned you'd be having the same fit for the same reasons, and getting your tinfoil panties in just the same bunch.
You seem to forget we fought a war against Saddam. He signed a treaty which he has ignored. Oil or no oil, by international law (which the U.N. seems to be trying hard to ignore), we have the right to go in and make him comply by force. Otherwise, what good is a treaty? He signed it because he wanted to stay in power. He broke the treaty and proved he is still a threat - directly and indirectly. He has to go.
As for oil, that is a non-starter. Because of his destabilizing influence on the region, and his backing of terrorism, he is a threat to our economic security as well. That affects the my future and the future of my children. That threat is no less real than another terrorist strike. It, too, needs to be removed.
And speaking of children, my oldest daughter will be following in her fathers footsteps by leaving for basic training in a few weeks. I just as soon deal with this problem now rather than have it drag on until he has the weapons he needs to make getting rid of him more costly. People like are more likley to get her killed than Bush is.
As for the Saudis and all the rest... If we make an example of Saddam, and make it clear to the world how we will respond to terrorist attacks on the U.S. They may decide to find other ways to amuse themselves. If not, they can suffer the same fate as Saddam.
Your moral equivalency, and keen grasp of reality notwithstanding.