I have been writing to numerous people ever since September 11, 2001. That event changed me. Before September 11, 2001 I assumed our government knew what it was doing in the world and I never questioned anything it did, but after September 11, 2001 i started to think ,why would anybody hate us so much as to try to kill as many Americans as possible. My quest for the truth lead me to one very sobering conclusion.........our policies, even before our independence in 1776, has gradually created a world in which we do not realize what people around the world are really feeling about us and we have not tried to solve problems in the budding stages before they become huge problems which lead to war.

So when i asked the question about Saddam, my intention was to get a response that lead to genuine solutions to future problems we are going to face. My intention is to try to get people to think about life, about saving life and i am sure you agree that peace is a lot better than war. When i look into the eyes of an Iraqi child, i see that our sanctions has caused more harm to that child than it caused harm to Saddam and thats the reason for my quest for solutions that lead to peace.

So my question was, why did Saddam not use his weapons of mass destruction on the US or Israel or hand them over to the terrorists like Al-Qaeda or the terrorists in the West Bank these past 25 years even though we and Israel did things to him that humiliated him and angered him ?

The reason i started asking this question is because of the perception of Saddam that we have received through our politicians and the media and that Saddam is a mad man, he is trigger happy and he would not hesitate to use his weapons of mass destruction against the US or Israel or hand them over to terrorists in the west bank or even to al-qaeda to be used against the US or Israel.

So as i looked at Saddam's history , i could not find any evidence that he was mad, or trigger happy or eager to use his WMD against the US or Israel at a moment's notice and in fact, there is plenty of evidence that he was wanting to be our ally in the middle east and i would like to present some of these facts to you. ACCORDING TO CHARLES DEULFER (PRESENT SPECIAL ADVISER TO THE CIA) SADDAM WANTED WMD FOR PROTECTION AGAINST IRAN.

In the 70s, when Arab states had an oil embargo and did not want to sell oil to the west, Saddam broke the embargo and sold oil to the US .........ANOTHER INDICATION THAT SADDAM WANTED TO BE AN ALLY OF THE US

You stated :

Yes, Israel had destroyed the reactors, but Saddam was trying to get
new ones from France, Germany, or Russia

My comment:

Here was an opportunity for Saddam to take revenge by slipping some WMD into the hands of the terrorists in the west bank in the early 80s but he did not

In fact, in the early 80s when President Reagan told Saddam not to support the Palestinian groups in Palestine, Saddam did as President Reagan said and thats when President Reagan removed Iraq from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

So not only did Saddam not do anything about Israel destroying his nuclear reactors, he listened to President Reagan and stopped supporting the Palestinian groups in Palestine........AN INDICATION THAT SADDAM WANTED TO BE AN ALLY OF THE US


You stated :

Yes, arms were sold to Iran in the 80's in a misguided effort to get
our hostages back

My comment:

When Saddam found out that we were sending arms to Iran, he clearly was angry but because of his friendship towards President Reagan he did not do anything about it...........ANOTHER INDICATION THAT SADDAM WANTED TO BE AN ALLY OF THE US

You stated :
Yes, we [as a coalition] removed Saddam from Kuwait

My comment:

The reason Saddam did not vacate Kuwait when asked to is because Saddam made the mistake of thinking the UN was going to stop the US from kicking him out of Kuwait and also he did not want to lose face with his people or his allies

Saddam could have used his weapons of mass destruction against the US and/or Israel but he did not use WMD because he was clearly deterred from using them because he knew his country would be destroyed.......HERE SADDAM IS THINKING LIKE A RATIONAL PERSON.....HE WANTED TO PRESERVE HIS POWER AND THE WMD WAS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST IRAN

IN FACT, before the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam had a long conversation with the US ambassador to Iraq about the "treachery" of Kuwait and that the US should be on his side...............ANOTHER INDICATION THAT SADDAM WANTED TO BE OUR ALLY

You stated :

Yes, we openly tried to get the Kurds & Shias to rebel, BUT Saddam
DID use both chemical & biological weapons against them in order to put
down the uprising

My comment:
Since President Reagan told Saddam in the late eighties to stop using chemical weapons, Saddam obeyed President Reagan and in the nineties, during the Kurdish and Shias uprising Saddam DID NOT USE WMD against the Kurds or the Shias..........ANOTHER INDICATION THAT SADDAM KEPT HIS PROMISE TO PRESIDENT REAGAN AND WANTED TO BE OUR ALLY

You stated :

We did not destroy these, under the term of the cease-fire they were
left alone, and he built even more

My comment:

here is an excerpt from an article from CNN:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq," President Bill Clinton explained on December 16, 1998. "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. ... Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States and, indeed, the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."

But, according to Ritter, Desert Fox was more than a punitive raid. He believes that intelligence gathered under the auspices of UNSCOM was diverted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to serve the American military. The Pentagon had no comment.

"They were able to isolate that that night, the time of the strike, Saddam Hussein would be with his mistress at one of two locations," Ritter says. "So the first cruise missiles that hit Iraq impacted where Saddam was going to be. ... These were villas, these were residential complexes and the only reason they were struck is because there was a high degree of probability that Saddam Hussein was there." (end of excerpt)

So not only did we try to assassinate Saddam Hussein, we also destroyed some of his palaces.

This would have also angered Saddam Hussein and given him reason to give WMD to Al-Qaeda which in turn would ship WMD to the US (since we only inspect 6% of the millions of containers we get every year) and then use WMD in the attacks on New York on September 11, 2001...........SO WHY DID SADDAM NOT HAND OVER WMD TO AL-QAEDA.......SAME REASON AS WHY SADDAM DID NOT USE WMD DURING THE GULF WAR.........HE DID NOT WANT TO LOSE HIS COUNTRY OR HIS POWER...........ANOTHER INDICATION THAT HE WAS NOT A MAD MAN BUT ACTING RATIONALLY AND WANTED WMD AS PROTECTION AGAINST IRAN.

IN FACT, during the late nineties, even after our assassination attempts on Saddam Hussein and our destruction of some of his palaces, our supplying arms to Iran, our ousting him from Kuwait, our sanctions on him, our restricting him from flying in the no fly zone, our destroying his entire air defense systems, our periodic bombings, he told Charles Duelfer (special adviser to the CIA) that he wanted to start a dialogue with the US and he wanted to be America's best friend in the middle east...........ANOTHER INDICATION HE WANTED TO BE OUR ALLY DESPITE ALL THE HUMILIATION WE PUT HIM THROUGH

You stated :

Yes, there were no fly zones in place. This was done under the cease
fire aggerment to protect the citizens from more bio/chem. attacks

My comment:

Since the attacks on halabja in the late eighties, Saddam stopped using his WMD because of his promise to President Reagan..........the no fly zone restriction did anger Saddam and yet he did not hand over WMD to Al-Qaeda to be used in the September 11, 2001 attacks because SADDAM BEING RATIONAL DID NOT WANT TO LOSE HIS POWER OR HIS COUNTRY AND WANTED WMD AS PROTECTION AGAINST IRAN

You stated :

The UN not just the US had the sanctions against Iraq, but as we are
finding out it was extreamly flawed, the kickbacks, and outright payoffs
were staggering.

My comment:

Saddam was clearly angry about the sanctions and he still did not hand over WMD to the Al-Qaeda terrorists.........indicating he was a rational person who did not want to lose his power or his country and the WMD was for protection against Iran

You stated :
Yes we did, but this also done under the terms of the cease fire
aggerment, NO attack radar was to be turned on ever. If it was it was
going to be destroyed.

My comment:

Saddam was clearly angry about us destroying his air defense systems and he still did not hand over WMD to the Al-Qaeda terrorists.........indicating he was a rational person who did not want to lose his power or his country and the WMD was for the purpose of protection against Iran.

IN FACT, When Saddam talked to Dan Rather at length before the Iraq invasion, in between all the arrogance he was indicating he rather debate with President Bush than be in a war with the US............ANOTHER INDICATION SADDAM WANTED TO BE OUR ALLY ...........the reason Saddam sometimes acts like he is arrogant, he does not want to lose face with his people or his allies..........WE SHOULD JUDGE A PERSON BY WHAT THEY DO RATHER THAN WHAT THEY SAY............AND ALL OF SADDAM'S ACTIONS REGARDING WMD in relations to the US or Israel WERE ACTIONS THAT DO NOT INDICATE HE IS A MAD MAN OR SOMEBODY WANTING TO USE WMD AT A MOMENT'S NOTICE OR EVEN FOR REVENGE BUT AS A MEANS OF PROTECTION AGAINST IRAN


You stated :

There are those [ I am one of them] who believe that Saddam had
those weapons, and sent them out of the country to protect his secrets.

My comments:

Here are some plausible scenarios:

If Saddam did ship WMD out of the country, seems like he is acting rationally again.......maybe he thinks he will return to power some day and use the WMD as protection against Iran ? and if he did ship it out of the country, what power does he have to get them back ? and why did the US not destroy the WMD convoy that was going out of the country ? did not our surveillance planes detect them ? and Israel has had attacks from terrorists since the WMD was shipped to Syria and yet the terrorists are still not using WMD against Israel ? and why would Saddam lose control over his WMD and have the world blame him for their use ? Saddam is not irrational or mad as evidenced by his past 25 year record of not using WMD against the US or Israel or handing them over to terrorists in the west bank or Al-Qaeda, so i cant see why he would start now ?

So if Saddam did ship WMD out to Syria, does that indicate that he is a mad man or trigger happy or wanting to use his WMD for revenge purposes against the US or Israel ? HE HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY OR REASON FROM THE 80s TO USE THEM AGAINST US OR ISRAEL OR HAND THEM OVER TO THE TERRORISTS IN THE WEST BANK OR TO THE AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS TO USE THEM IN THE 9/11/01 ATTACKS, BUT HE DID NOT BECAUSE WMD WAS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST IRAN

if Saddam Hussein slipped WMD out of the country, the fact still remains he has not used them against the US or Israel since the early 80s and we can only judge a person by what he has done in the past...........IF WE DON'T GO BY THE PAST, THAN WE WILL BE INVADING COUNTRIES LIKE IRAN AND NORTH KOREA AND CHINA AND WHERE WILL WE STOP.........WE CAN ONLY JUDGE A COUNTRY BY THEIR PAST RECORD.........WE CANNOT BE INVADING ALL COUNTRIES WITH WMD.......CAN WE ?


You stated :

He may not had a lot to do very much damage but he had the tech. to make
more.

My comment:

Yes, but i think i have established the fact that he was never going to use them unless his position in power is threatened and even then he would only use it on enemies who are much less powerful than him, like the Kurds and possibly Iran.........THAT WAS THE FINDING OF CHARLES DUELFER.........HE STATED, IRAQ WANTED WMD TO PROTECT ITSELF FROM IRAN

You stated :

The French,Germans,& Russians were suppling him with more & more
equipment to make more weapons to kill more people.

My comment:

There is evidence of Saddam's use of chemical weapons in the 80s and once President Reagan told Saddam not to use WMD, Saddam stopped and the evidence of that can be seen in Saddam not using his WMD against the Kurdish and Shia uprisings of the nineties.

You stated :

do the terrorist
have these weapons, GOD I (p)ray that they do not, but the world being the
way it is, they may have. And are just waiting for the right chance to
use them.

My comment:

Even when Saddam had nuclear material before he was kicked out of power in Iraq, there is no evidence he handed any to the terrorists. Since the early 80s, when Saddam had every reason or excuse to hand over WMD to the terrorists, there has not been one incident in the west bank or anywhere else in the world that WMD had been used these past 25 years against the US or Israel..........SO SADDAM BEING RATIONAL WANTED ALL THE WMD TO HIMSELF AND PROBABLY WANTED WMD TO USE AGAINST IRAN, IF ATTACKED BY IRAN, ACCORDING TO CHARLES DEULFER

WMD IS SOMETHING DICTATORS USE ONLY IF THREATENED BY A LESSER FOE... IRAN, IRAQ, NORTH KOREA AND CHINA WOULD NEVER USE WMD AGAINST THE US OR ISRAEL BECAUSE OF THE TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCES IF THEY DID but using WMD against a lesser foe like in state rebellions is a possibility or against a neighboring foe that is not as powerful or equal in power.

The real reason, which cannot be spoken publicly, for removing Saddam was "pour encourage' les autres"! This man had defied us over decades. If you took a poll, 36 hours after the Taliban folded, of Third World leaders, and asked them who was Amercia's greatest enemy, they would have said Saddam.

The real "war on terror" is faught by local governments, both with their own resources, and by coopertating with our request to use ours. (Remember the Predator strike in Yemen?)

So if the carrot is not working for some leader of a small country, and we make not-so-subtly veiled references to the stick, then it has to be credible. The more credible, the less likely we'll have to hit anyone.

Let us assume, arguendo, that there were no WMD. We did not know for certain, because Saddam lied to us and played games, even about their destruction. We told him to get out of Kuwait (after April Gillspie's little faux pas), and he did not. He messed with inspectors for years. He wanted to play, well now he has lost, for all to see.

If we let him stand, all the Middle East would remember is Beiruit, Desert 1, and Somalia. They would know that the US will not come, and if they do, it will only be with the UN's blessing, after months and months of begging bargaining and negociating. More importantly, each would think we were going to come for Saddam before we would ever come for one of them.

Maybe we could afford that on September 10th, but we cannot now. Now, funny thing, Iraq's a mess, and we're bleeding. But we're not going home. The Mogadishu/Beruit formula is not working. We may not go home for years! Anyone want this in your neighborhood?

We cannot deter terrorists. Indeed, the only way to satisfy this bunch would be to dismantle our entire society. The only universal sanction against any political leader is to be taken out of power. Not with the permission of the UN. Not after years of sanctions. On our timetable.

The way to avoid wars is to have a credible threat of overwhelming force. It is not credible if you appear hesitant to use it.

It only takes one to make war, and we did not start this one. We have no choice but to win it. And we will.

You stated :
The real reason, which cannot be spoken publicly, for removing Saddam was "pour encourage' les autres"! This man had defied us over decades.

My comment:
The evidence does not point to Saddam defying us. Saddam was very diplomatic towards President Reagan.........in fact President Reagan removed Saddam from the terrorist list in the early eighties.

You stated:
If you took a poll, 36 hours after the Taliban folded, of Third World leaders, and asked them who was Amercia's greatest enemy, they would have said Saddam.

My comment:
Yeah, Saddam was our enemy but also he was our friend throughout the eighties

You stated :
The real "war on terror" is faught by local governments, both with their own resources, and by coopertating with our request to use ours. (Remember the Predator strike in Yemen?)
So if the carrot is not working for some leader of a small country, and we make not-so-subtly veiled references to the stick, then it has to be credible. The more credible, the less likely we'll have to hit anyone.

My comment:
Our stick with Saddam did work......he allowed us more access to his country than Kim Jong Il or the Iranians ever will

You stated :
Let us assume, arguendo, that there were no WMD.

My comment:
According to Charles Duelfer and according to Saddam's history of use of WMD, it is clear the WMD were for protection against Iran and the Iranian backed Kurds

You stated:
We did not know for certain, because Saddam lied to us and played games, even about their destruction.

My comment:
All dictators lie, is that surprising. Kim Jong Il and the Iranians are not telling us the truth about their WMD too

You stated :
We told him to get out of Kuwait (after April Gillspie's little faux pas), and he did not.

My comment:
There was no reason to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. Its not like Saddam did not want to sell cheap oil to the West which Saddam did in the seventies, breaking the oil embargo imposed by Arab states

You stated :
He messed with inspectors for years. He wanted to play, well now he has lost, for all to see.

My comment:
Just because a dictator plays with inspectors, is no reason to go to war , is it ? how many of our soldiers have been lost, how many of our soldiers have been maimed, how many Iraqis have been killed and maimed, including untold number of children......was it worth it ?

You stated :
If we let him stand, all the Middle East would remember is Beiruit, Desert 1, and Somalia.

My comment:
The world survived after Beirut etc. Do you think our prestige is more important than the lives our soldiers ?

You stated :
They would know that the US will not come, and if they do, it will only be with the UN's blessing, after months and months of begging bargaining and negociating. More importantly, each would think we were going to come for Saddam before we would ever come for one of them.

My comment:
war is still not the answer. Saddam was easily neutralized by President Reagan with pragmatic diplomacy.

You stated :
Maybe we could afford that on September 10th, but we cannot now.

My comment:
We were militarily involved in the middle east before 9/11/01 and the terrorist attacks were because of our heavy military involvement in the middle east especially our troops on "holy" Saudi soil and yearly billions of dollars of supplies of weapons to Israel that killed through collateral damage Palestinian men, women and children and our sanctions which resulted in untold numbers of Iraqi children under the age of 5 dying

You stated :
Now, funny thing, Iraq's a mess, and we're bleeding.

My comment:
the lives of our soldiers are being destroyed in so many ways. this is cruel

You stated :
But we're not going home.

My comment:
Bring them home after we make peace with our enemies

You stated : The Mogadishu/Beruit formula is not working.

My comment:
The Mogadishu/Beirut formula worked and it can work again.

You stated :
We may not go home for years! Anyone want this in your neighborhood?

My comment:
Ask the Iraqis, you cannot find many Iraqis saying that the security situation under Saddam was worse than what it is now. How about their neighborhoods ? we live in peace but the Iraqis arent

You stated :
We cannot deter terrorists.

My comment:
We deterred terrorists before 1962 when we were not militarily involved in the middle east and even then, it took about twenty years from 1962 to the early eighties before terrorists targeted us and even then they only targeted our US soldiers in Beirut.

You stated :
Indeed, the only way to satisfy this bunch would be to dismantle our entire society.

My comment:
Like Osama said, he did not attack Sweden, even though their society is just like ours or even more liberal than ours. So its not how we live but what our foreign policies are doing in the middle east

You stated :
The only universal sanction against any political leader is to be taken out of power. Not with the permission of the UN. Not after years of sanctions. On our timetable.

My comment:
No reason to have taken out Saddam.....there is plenty of evidence he was willing to work with us, even after we kicked him out of Kuwait

You stated :
The way to avoid wars is to have a credible threat of overwhelming force. It is not credible if you appear hesitant to use it.

My comment:
Saddam gave us more access to his country than Kim Jong Il and the Iranians ever will........so no force should have been used against Saddam and we would have eventually been satisfied with his cooperation

You stated :
It only takes one to make war, and we did not start this one.

My comment:
We did not start this war ? how did Saddam start this war ? I did not see Saddam in the past 25 years ever using his WMD against us or Israel or handing them to the terrorists in the west bank or Al-Qaeda ........than why did we go to war and sacrifice the lives of thousands of our soldiers and Iraqi children etc

You stated :
We have no choice but to win it. And we will.

My comment:
President Reagan did not win in Beirut and President Johnson did not win in Vietnam and yet we survived and thrived after those incidents.......WE DO NOT HAVE TO WIN IN ORDER TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT......WE CAN LOSE AND STILL THRIVE IN THIS WORLD....ASK PRESIDENT REAGAN AND JOHNSON.......THE BEST THING ABOUT LOSING IS, WE GET TO SAVE THE LIVES OF OUR SOLDIERS AND THEIR FAMILIES AND BY MAKING PEACE WITH THE ENEMIES IN IRAQ, WE GET TO SAVE THE LIVES OF IRAQI CHILDREN TOO

To brian464,

Where to begin? You seem to try to paint Saddam as a wannabe ally during the Reagan administration, here are a couple of things to think about. First, look at the man Reagan was. He would not take crap from anyone. So Saddam was wise to not cross Reagan, remember Qaddafi in 1986. In addition, ever hear of the phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Saddam was waging a war against their enemy Iran, who was also our great enemy.
Your remarks on the sanctions, I believe, are misguided as we were not responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people, SADDAM WAS. He used it to make the US and the UN look bad to the Arab world.
Your analysis of the Gulf War is inaccurate as you must remember that Saddam fired missiles into Israel, and, while not laced with WMD, they could very well have been as he was attempting to draw Israel into the war to fracture the coalition. In addition, you state how Saddam knew that his country would be destroyed. Really, then why did he predict that the coalition would experience a bloodbath in the desert against his army? With regard to the Kurds, HE DID USE CHEMICALS AGAINST THEM THE FOOTAGE HAS BEE SHOWN ON SEVERAL MEDIA OUTLETS.
Using the excerpt from Bill Clinton is dubious as he used the strikes for political purposes, and, did nothing against the real threat of terrorism, which resulted in 9/11. The comments on assassination are dubious as well as it is illegal for our gov't to assassinate a foreign leader. While it is possible that such actions may be going on, it is not very likely. Your utilization of Dan Rather in light of recent troubles with him is not very helpful to your argument. I don't have the time to go over most of your points as space is limited as well as time, but your painting of Saddam as rational is quite an interesting and, dare I say, laughable argument. Saddam was a madman, who DID use WMD against the Kurds, fired missiles against Israel in a vain attempt to break up the coalition. He tried to be on our good side in the eighties to avoid the wrath of Ronald Reagan, and, to gain our help in fighting Iran. If you attempt to use our comments to prove your arguments, make sure that your responses are a better counter.

You stated :

Where to begin? You seem to try to paint Saddam as a wannabe ally during the Reagan administration, here are a couple of things to think about. First, look at the man Reagan was. He would not take crap from anyone.

My comment:

Well President Reagan knew when to compromise. When our soldiers were killed in Beirut, President Reagan pulled them out....a very wise decision

You stated :

So Saddam was wise to not cross Reagan,

My comment:
It also proves that Saddam was rational.........he did the wise thing and at the same time proved to the US that he wanted to be an ally

You stated :
remember Qaddafi in 1986.

My comment:
Yes, but did it not enrage Qaddafi. In December 1988, a Pan American airliner blew up over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. Two hundred and eighty people were killed in the explosion, most of them passengers aboard the plane, some residents of Lockerbie, whose homes were struck by falling debris. This was a direct result of President Reagan's move to bomb Libya.............so violence does beget violence.

You stated :

In addition, ever hear of the phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Saddam was waging a war against their enemy Iran, who was also our great enemy.

My comment:
Yes, which also goes to show he was acting rationally and wanted to be our ally.

You stated :
Your remarks on the sanctions, I believe, are misguided as we were not responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people, SADDAM WAS.

My comment:
Sanctions never hurt the dictator, it only hurts the people. Before sanctions, the Iraqi people were not as bad off as they were after sanctions..........remember the oil for food program........it was in direct response to the fact that the Iraqi people were suffering under our sanctions

You stated :

He used it to make the US and the UN look bad to the Arab world.

My comment:
Yes, and another indication he was acting rationally

You stated :

Your analysis of the Gulf War is inaccurate as you must remember that Saddam fired missiles into Israel, and, while not laced with WMD, they could very well have been as he was attempting to draw Israel into the war to fracture the coalition.

My comment:

So why did he not lace the scuds with WMD material ? Because he was acting rationally. He did not want to lose his power or country.

You stated :

In addition, you state how Saddam knew that his country would be destroyed. Really, then why did he predict that the coalition would experience a bloodbath in the desert against his army?

My comment:
Any scared dictator who knows he is going to lose, will employ all psychological tools to level the playing field. Have you heard of propaganda ? Its a psychological tool used by those in authority to convince people that the government is all powerful, all benevolent, all good.
Did you really expect Saddam to say he is a loser ? A dictator has to save face by talking big

You stated :

With regard to the Kurds, HE DID USE CHEMICALS AGAINST THEM THE FOOTAGE HAS BEE SHOWN ON SEVERAL MEDIA OUTLETS.

My comment:

Yes he did use chemical weapons against the Kurds but after President Reagan scolded him, he promised not to use chemical weapons again and that is why during the Kurdish and Shia rebellions in the early 90s, Saddam did not use chemical weapons against them. ..........another indication he listened to President Reagan and wanted to be our ally.

You stated :
Using the excerpt from Bill Clinton is dubious as he used the strikes for political purposes, and, did nothing against the real threat of terrorism, which resulted in 9/11.

My comment:
I agree but the fact of the matter is we did enrage Saddam when we tried to assassinate him and destroyed some of his palaces and yet he did not hand over WMD to Al-Qaeda or the terrorists in the West Bank even in the face of assassination attempts and the destruction of his palaces.........a clear indication he was acting rationally

You stated :
The comments on assassination are dubious as well as it is illegal for our gov't to assassinate a foreign leader.

My comment:

We again tried to assassinate Saddam at the start of the Iraq war in 2003 by bombing one of his meeting places.

You stated :
While it is possible that such actions may be going on, it is not very likely.

My comment:
So your saying it may be going on ?

You stated :
Your utilization of Dan Rather in light of recent troubles with him is not very helpful to your argument.

My comment:
Its not what Dan Rather is, its what Saddam said to him that showed that Saddam wanted to debate President Bush rather than go to war. An indication that Saddam was being rational and that Saddam still wanted to be our ally.........A ruthless dictator always wants to kill the enemy and not debate the enemy but in Saddam's case it was clear that he wanted to be friends with the US and thats why he said he rather debate President Bush.

You stated :

I don't have the time to go over most of your points as space is limited as well as time, but your painting of Saddam as rational is quite an interesting and, dare I say, laughable argument.

My comment:

Please continue critiquing my points. It helps me to analyze my points and try to improve them and if you laugh at my points, be my guest.......laughter is good medicine for the heart, don't you think ?

You stated :

Saddam was a madman, who DID use WMD against the Kurds, fired missiles against Israel in a vain attempt to break up the coalition.

My comment:
When President Truman ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki........was that a mad act or a rational act ? A madman cannot rule a country, let alone gain power

You stated :
He tried to be on our good side in the eighties to avoid the wrath of Ronald Reagan

My comment:
Would a mad man be deterred by President Reagan, off course not, because a mad man cannot think rationally, but Saddam was wanting to be on President Reagan's good side, because Saddam Hussein was rational

You stated :
and, to gain our help in fighting Iran. If you attempt to use our comments to prove your arguments, make sure that your responses are a better counter

My comment:
Yes, Saddam was rationally thinking that the US would help him fight Iran if he was nice to the US.........this is not a sign of madness, is it ? Yes, I try my best to make my responses as logical as possible and I thank you for your response too.