Ok, Ok, one at a time, so here goes ....
Karl, do you honestly believe that Saddam exhibited the same traits initially when he was taken under our wing and trained as he eventually showed to the rest of the world with his tyrannical actions some 50 years later ?

Though lots of folks claim to posess powers of clairvoyance, none of them have ever seemed to have proved them out when held up against serious scrutiny. With that in mind, is it hard to understand how his eventual agenda could have been something he developed over that same period of time ?

Let's put this in a simpler scenario for the sake of a simpler analogy.

Say you're good at your job and are asked to train someone in how to do that job, so you do. Ok, so then 50 years down the road that same person takes the training you imbued them with and used it to pit every employee against one another, make pointed attacks on a particular branch of the company and then commands of his devoted underlings (who now have come to fear him like the plague) that they attack and take over by force a smaller company with valuable assets.

Now then, since you had trained this guy 50 years ago, do you feel any justification in someone holding you accountable for his maniacal actions ? Or do you feel like you had given him the best training possible which he simply abused and in turn used to achieve a hidden agenda and you are not responsible for his actions ?
It's just my feelings on the matter but here goes: If anyone is EVER held responsible for the actions of another, it's bull shit. Only the one carrying out an act is responsible for that act, plain and simple, no matter what ! One of the serious problems in the world today is that everyone wants to blame anyone they can for their own actions and attempt to place blame anywhere except where it belongs, which is with the one who has actually done a wrong thing. It really isn't any more complicated than that ; >

Now on to aDCBeast: 'bout time fuck face, been callin you out for days with out even a peep outta you. I'd begun to feel you actually didn have a pair, but ....

If the Iraqis undertake a civil war because their tyrannical leader is held up in court over the attrocities he initiated against his own "beloved" people he's so fond of quoting about in his maniacal court tirades (whatta farce that trial has turned into, but quite another story, so), how the fuck is that our responsibility?
These people have been fighting and killing each other long before Saddam began his own campaigns to do so (or did you forget about the attrocities he levied on his own people he was"controlling", a bit MORE than holding in check).
The unrest was there long before ANY American set foot in Iraq, and if anything, our presence there only cemented a few more of them together as they now perceived a new enemy they could band together TO fight, which is the US Military BTW, just in case you missed the inference.

I admit the Muslims are a malcontent bunch of stupid sheep whose numbers are impressive and their abilities at terrorism are quite well known. However, the blame for whatever actions they undertake in the future will still rest in THEIR hands and no one elses. If that seems hard to swallow, read the above comments to Karl again, dunno that it will realistically get through your obviously thick skull, but hey, stranger things have happened, so there's always hope, even for you ;>

BTW, one thing the US hasn't done since WWII, but still lies in the field of options should we suffer another attack of the magnitude of 9-11 is something the Muslim sheep ought to keep in mind. We could make a nice big glass exhibit somewhere if we ever wanted to.

Yakno, the one thing the terrorists never expected, or they surely wouldn't have carried out the attacks on 9-11 was that they awoke a dangerous sleeping giant and managed to do something that nothing had seemed to do since we began as a country.
They united all the diverse folks here in the US as they had NEVER been united before. The outcry for blood was on the lips of people who would NEVER have uttered such an idea before. IF another terrorist attack were to occur, the response afterward might not be so measured the next time.

Comments? Calls for clarification? I'd be happy to help !