[primitive]

Krsqk
Your arguments is good, but:
While Saddam could have had a deal with Bin Laden, he could never have trusted the Al Queda. Bin Laden kept Iraq on the list of enemies (he had to out of religious reasons), and Saddam could never have been sure that some local or splinter group would not take matters in their own hand. That said, there are many safe ways Saddam could have supported Bin Laden, SAM missiles for one (not beeing able to fly much himself).

But I think the main reason we haven't seen any proof of a Saddam - Bin Laden connection is that there wasn't any. There just wasn't any need for one. Saddam could find all the agents/terrorist he needed safer and cheaper elsewhere, and Bin Laden had no problem getting the money and weapons he needed to achieve his goals.

Geo
I dunno, Your Posts is by far the worst, but I feel there is a "we were threatened and we have the right to do whatever we want" attitude that implies moral superiority, that reduces everybody who disagree to low level scum. You have a great and special standing in the community, and your words carries much more weight than the average guys words would do.

Maybe the fault is all mine, I get a short fuse around this war thread. Anyway, I do/did not mean to offend you.

Fyron
You really crack me up sometimes.

Thermo
Agreed