Does everyone agree that Sadam Hussein funneled money illegally to himself through the oil for food program, essentially taking the money from his citizens who needed it the most and denying them food and other necessities?

I never really liked Saddam, but after seeing Rock, Paper, Saddam, I think he's a pretty cool guy.

Anyways, I suppose the answer to your question is "yes".

I do, and I believe he was funding terrorist as well (not necessarily al Quida)

Last chance to object, then I will establish this as true and move onto stage 2. If you believe Saddam wasn't illegally funneling money to himself and depriving his people speak now with facts to back it up. Articles...sources...something besides your word.

I believe that.

What's the point of this? Just because you can get people to agree on a few, almost axiomatic points, that doesn't mean you're going to solve all world problems. Disagreement is inevitable. We might as well learn to live with it, enjoy it, and be mature about it.

This thread is almost like:

genocide is bad, discuss. Ok, we're all in agreement. So let's discuss: do you agree it was right to free Jews from concentration camps?

Stop trolling.

2nd fact (well, asking if it is):

If Saddam hiked oil prices or attacked a neighboring country it would have affects on more than the direct country. A price hike in oil or an attack on a neighboring country in the name of power could have lasting effects. Hiking oil prices can hurt the world market horribly, and it all can and probably would end up harming other third world countries as well in the amount of aid they receive (this I am least sure about, how the effect on the world market travels down past those countries who are major users of oil). An attack on a neighboring country in the middle east could distabilize the balance of power with the amount of oil and the money to be made with it. Significant influence in the worlds market as well as the region could be gained by taking another countries share of oil threatening many more states.

I'm more breaking down all that I question or think I know so that I can figure out where everyone stands and what might or not be true. Politics get so wraveled up I just want to find something solid.

Saddam had no say in how much the oil from Iraq cost

What's the point of #2? Are we supposed to say if we agree with your statement or are we supposed to point out that you described a consequence of Iraq invading Kuwait?

Say what I have confused, explain how. Help me clear it up. Yea, I think Kuwait related to Saddam's potential threat and wishes. I also think he would go as far as to attack someone again if he knew he could get away with it the first time because they refused to take him out.

I'd say the First Gulf War was pretty much justified; Saddam belligerently attacked another country. There was UN support.

But I don't think "he might do it again!!!" is enough reason for a full-on invasions when they didn't even bother full-on invading in the first war, when he DID invade another country.

What kind of evil overlord he would have been if he hadn't done that? Come on, every one of us, had he been in Saddam's shoes, would have done it... Unless he would have cracked. I know there must be some among us who couldn't have pulled it off, but would have crawled into the corner whimpering all the way (just like Saddam himself did in the end)...

Saddam has no influence over oil prices, only OPEC does.

he has WMDs in my back yard.