That's probably it.
Pedophile.
Wow dude, sorry to pry, but I was just trying to find out if your spelling of Bin Laden was due to a regional difference. I guess that's not the case it seems.
That's probably it.
Pedophile.
That's exactly the problem. The possibility of internal power struggles, as others have mentioned.Is his death really a major turning point? I'm sure there are many others willing to take Osama's place.
Wow dude, sorry to pry, but I was just trying to find out if your spelling of Bin Laden was due to a regional difference. I guess that's not the case it seems.
I was just joking around, I live in Ontario, Canada. Nothing wrong with giving out the province.
no one will expect a terror attack from a ghost.
Intel from the compound would have been useful whether or not bin Laden had been killed. It's a consequence of the operation, not of bin Laden's death.
No, Bush panned and carried out a war in Iraq that any fool could predict would kill thousands of innocent people, just to remove one dictator from power, a dictator who had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and no means of threatening the US.
If bin Laden is to be held responsible for all deaths caused by Al Qaeda terrorists, then Bush has to be held responsible for all deaths caused by US forces during his presidency. The latter figure is rather higher.
(I know, of course, that there is the difference of intent. But manslaughter is still a crime, even if it's seen as less serious than murder.)
@Cinderdust: Um, he more ordered and directed killings than committed them.
He wasn't a threat to the US. There are countless other genocides that we have done nothing about.And saying that Saddam was innocent and not a threat? After what he did to the Kurds? After invading Kuwait and Iran just to get oil? I disagree. Any ruler who commits an ethnic cleansing and starts two wars purely for oil deserves to be overthrown and executed.
No. Tens of thousands <<< millions.He's on the same level as Hitler and Stalin when it comes to murdering innocent people.
I did not say that Saddam Hussein was innocent. Only that he posed no direct threat to the USA.And saying that Saddam was innocent and not a threat?
It's Sara Palin.I have a question. Hitler is the devil and his "brother" was Osama. Now that these 2 people are down, what about his other brother/sister? Everyone knows it'll happen in the future.
I did not say that Saddam Hussein was innocent. Only that he posed no direct threat to the USA.
In an ideal world, removing Saddam from power would have been a good thing. But in the real world, I'm deeply sceptical that the invasion of Iraq has benefited either the Iraqi people or global security.
Then we should invade every country because they all have the potential to gain WMDs.Lets say we did leave him in power, and Iran begins to heighten its nuclear program, do you honestly think that Saddam or his sons would have allowed that to go on with out starting their own nuclear program? Or that they would not have eventually decided al Qaeda provided a secret delivery system for their weapons?
He wasn't a threat to the US. There are countless other genocides that we have done nothing about.
No. Tens of thousands <<< millions.
I did not say that Saddam Hussein was innocent. Only that he posed no direct threat to the USA.
In an ideal world, removing Saddam from power would have been a good thing. But in the real world, I'm deeply sceptical that the invasion of Iraq has benefited either the Iraqi people or global security.
I have a question. Hitler is the devil and his "brother" was Osama. Now that these 2 people are down, what about his other brother/sister? Everyone knows it'll happen in the future.
Ture. Now to step up security AGAIN...FINALLY that threat is gone, now we got to worry about retaliating terrorists...
That another evil person (that could be considered the devil) will rise again.**** are you talking about?