Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Big C
in north korea, they are starving their ppl, most do not have electricity...the average height for a person is nearly a foot less than in south korea because of the malnutrition. all of the food goes to the army. the dictator there is arguable more insane than sadaam was. Also, people dont seem to get that sadaam and osama bin ladin are total opposites. sadaam is secular, and osama is a radical muslim. that is huge, because everything osama did was for his religion, and in defense of his god. one could argue that WE, america harbor terrorists, albeit unintentionally (by living in our towns, staying in our hospitals, etc.). Just because they are within borders, does not mean that we are supporting them...
|
And your point about N. Korea is ...? They are a threat to world stability b/c of their horrible economic conditions? That we should invade even though the country is incapable of supporting any sort of sustained offensive?
Yes.. Saddam, originally and through the Baathists, was a secular ruler. In his final years, however, SH played heavily on his Sunni origins and invoked Allah as a political prop. Certainly, whether driven there by UN sanctions or through political opportunism, SH was beginning to develop contacts with Al Queada in the lead up to the US invasion.
Finally, it is absurd to equate the presence of terrorists in america as "harboring them". While SH may not have been an active supporter of Al Queada, he most assuredly did play the "hear no evil, see no evil" routine with terrorists living in his borders. Unlike most allied countries, SH did expel terrorists within his own borders or to prosecute them.
As a word of advice, I suggest that, if you do know the location of any al-queada operatives, you turn them over to your local authorities.