Yes I would rather have Saddam in power IF....

Yes I would rather have Saddam in power IF
it meant saving 500 American lives.




Yes I would rather have Saddam in power IF
it meant spending that 150 billion on healthcare and our underfunded public school systems.




Yes I would rather have Saddam in power IF
it meant keeping America as a well respected leader of the world.




Yes I would rather have Saddam in power IF
it meant keeping our allies on our side and finding Osama



Yes I would rather have Saddam in power IF
it meant spending the 150 billion on creating jobs and helping the unemployed.



Yes I would rather have Saddam in power IF
it meant 150 billion would be spent on finding alternative sources of energy and independence from fossil fuel.



YES I would rather have Saddam in power IF
it meant we wouldn't have Orange alerts on Christmas or other holidays.



Yes I would rather have Saddam in power IF
it meant Basra and other Iraqi cities didn't have the highest rates of cancer because of our nuclear weapons.


Yes I would rather have Saddam in power IF
it meant any of these things. Am I alone or do you guys have some you want to add?

Well done. The other things is...we don't really have the right to choose who's in power in other countries.

US soldiers are dieing everyday.

It is a tragedy that many American soldiers have lost their lives, it is unfortunate that we've lost the respect of other nations (although I think we lost much of that respect before the war). But I think it is still a $150 billion well spent, given how Saddam treated his country and in particular the Kurds, how his sons raped and pillaged, how his government brutally suppressed the Iraqi people. And the War in Iraq is hardly responsible for Orange alerts on holidays.

I don't agree with how Bush sold the war, how the war was carried out, or how the reconstuction is being handled. But I don't think we're doing so badly over there that anyone can say that Iraq is worse off now.

Diverting our attention to Iraq and underfunding homeland security makes Orange Alerts on Christmas possible.

No one thinks Iraq is worse off, but the price we paid for fixing a country that is far down the list of brutal regimes is certainly NOT worth it.

Getting rid of Saddam was nice, getting rid of hunger, poverty, illness, and fear would have been nicer.

I think Iraq is much better off without that butcher and his demon sons. I still don't agree with how we went in, but I'm glad that Hussein is gone for good. It would have been better off it they would have tossed a grenade in that rat hole with him instead of bringing him out alive.

Please allow me to suggest to you and Leyton that you're SO FOCUSED on a tree and are NOT seeing the forest. What the F*** does Saddam have to do with it? I'd be willing to bet neither of you are aware of Iraq's REAL history. Please ask yourselves HONESTLY if you were so worried about the fate of the Iraqi people 5 years ago, or 12, or if you are out pounding the streets in defense of the Americans POISONED and maimed for NOTHING in GWI. NOT. Why now? Because you've been fed SOYLENT GREEN???

Saddam became a "threat" when he converted to EUROS. Start THERE.
Forget your "buzzwords." Those *corp interests who have seized your government and PR blitzed you deaf and dumb are the REAL TERRORISTS.
Saddam couldn't in his wildest dreams hold a candle to their Klieg lights.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

to YOU or your family or your community or your county or your state or your region or a physical threat to your country. He converted HIS oil rich country to Euros in 2002. THAT was a threat to the *corporate facists who have taken over YOUR government. Think about it. Google it.

Are you trying to say that because we didn't stop when he was a "baby tyrant" we shouldn't stop him now?

Well, we rather encouraged him when he was a "baby tyrant," but that aside... what do you see as the proper role for the U.S. when we become aware of the fact that a brutal dictator is terrorizing his own people and some of his neighbor nations?

Do we act in concert with the United Nations to bring pressure, sanctions, and world opinion to work? Do we avoid war and bloodshed at all costs? Do we offer refuge to those who manage to escape? Do we offer humanitarian assistance insofar as we possibly can? Or do we go in like gangbusters all by ourselves and take care of business?

And why this "we?" Do you mean "we" the U.S. or "we" the world community? Since when do "we" the U.S. have sole responsibility in these kinds of matters?

I'd be interested in your answers, Intelbytes.

so, what tyrant stage was Saddam in in the Spring of 2003? what stage was he in when Rumsfeld paid him a visit in the 80s or when Poppy Bush encouraged the Kuwaiti thing?

"Are you trying to say that because we didn't stop when he was a "baby tyrant" we shouldn't stop him now?"

you got that from that post?

What good will it be if removed Saddam only to destabilize the entire region and have ethnic clashes a year or two from now?

One needs to look at the American track record of imposing democracy on countries we have implemented regime change in.

Since the past century, it (the United States) has deployed its military to impose democratic rule in foreign lands on 18 occasions. Yet this impressive record of international activism has left an uninspiring legacy. Of all the regimes the US has replaced with force, democratic rule has been sustained in only five places - Germany, Japan, Italy, Panama, and Grenada. This suggests a success rate of less than 30 percent. Outside the developed world and Latin America, there hasn't been a single success.

If you like, I can dig up a list of leaders who commit human rights violations on a large scale, and you can check off the ones you think it would be okay to bomb.

Which has an appalling human rights record.

Oh, the HORROR!

Karenina - I must admit I wasn't following international events or politics five years ago.

Again, I repeat that I don't think the war was carried out well in the pre-war or post-war stages; the planning was pathetic and I'm not happy with the situation surrounding no-bid contracts, etc. Iraq may very well be in civil war in a year, but I doubt it. It is blind partisanship to say that any corporate interest in the United States can compare to what the Hussein regime did in Iraq. Saddam brutally squashes dissent; he allows his sons to rape whomever they please; he shoots anyone who could possible be a threat to his power. No, George Bush doesn't do this, and neither does Karl Rove. I don't like what goes on in US Republican politics any more than you do, but it takes only a little sense to see that there's no comparison here.

Honestly, I have tons of respect for those who protested the war and if you have legitimate reasons why it would be better to have Saddam Hussein in power (like the first poster), then more power to you (although I still disagree). But I'd like to think that we're above posting hogwash like "Saddam can't hold a candle to the corporate interests" (paraphrase).


"Do we act in concert with the United Nations to bring pressure, sanctions, and world opinion to work?"

How effective was the UN being? The inspectors were kicked out of Iraq, so there was no ability to monitor Iraq's weapons programs for some time. If pressure and sanctions were working, then why was Saddam Hussein still ignoring basic human rights?

and I respectfully request you to review what we've both written here if indeed you are interested in knowing the truth. You are obviously not aware of Iraq's LONG history, how its borders were drawn or the CIA involvement in Hussein's rise to power. I would suggest that you look at Tito to get a perspective on how "secular dictators" maintain "order" and what happens when they are gone.

"Iraq may very well be in civil war in a year, but I doubt it."

Civil war does not even BEGIN to describe the chaos that is in Iraq NOW, TODAY, even as I type these words. Of course, the American media hasn't labelled it YET, so it is useless for me to point out what is obvious to us much closer to the situation, as you likely will not accept the assessment.


"It is blind partisanship to say that any corporate interest in the United States can compare to what the Hussein regime did in Iraq."

*corporate entities operating in Iraq are destroying BOTH Iraq and the U.S.A., morally and economically. Amemricans whose butts are on the firing line are being ill-used, abused, lied to, as also YOU are. The troops are waking up. How long will YOU continue to sleep?

"Saddam brutally squashes dissent; he allows his sons to rape whomever they please; he shoots anyone who could possible be a threat to his power."

You refer to the "evil Saddam" in the present tense. This indicates a thought process that has not caught up with what is happening NOW:

"No, George Bush doesn't do this, and neither does Karl Rove. I don't like what goes on in US Republican politics any more than you do, but it takes only a little sense to see that there's no comparison here."

Obviously, if you haven't yet felt the effects of the current *misadministration, the suppository has been effective. I hear one of its side effects is a shut-down of the brain.

"The inspectors were kicked out of Iraq, so there was no ability to monitor Iraq's weapons programs for some time."

You have been severely MISINFORMED.

Saddam was put in power by the Bush empire and was no doubt a bloodthirsty tyrant who killed many of his own people. Still it wasn't time to go after him because of the timing for one thing.

Hussein shouldn't have been our target at this moment. I guess I can't commit to an answer right now.

Of those things at the same time, had Bush not been in such a hurry to go in over those nuclear weapons that don't exist.

Go look that word up in the dictionary, and see what it means. We have used no "nuclear" weapons since Nagasaki. We do, however, use depleted uranium weapons because of the density of the material. As to the increase in Iraqi cancer because of them, lets see some proof, and not just an opinion please.

Is the world better off without Saddam in power? I guess history will be the judge of that. If you go by the reasoning given by the first Bush administration for not taking out Saddam we could very well rue the day we set foot in Iraq. There will be a power struggle in Iraq and the fallout from that struggle could be far more severe than anything Saddam ever did. Unless we kee[p a military dictatorship there forever the Iraqi people will chose their own leaders. Then I suppose they will chose again after much campaigning Iraqi style. Which means blood. I think Saddam was very well contained and weakened to the point of irrelevance. He was no threat to any nation and probably not even his own people. It always amazes me how easily Americans are fooled. I guess it is because we are very ignorant and refuse to educate ourselves to facts and history.

"It always amazes me how easily Americans are fooled. I guess it is because we are very ignorant and refuse to educate ourselves to facts and history."

You renew my faith! :hi: :loveya: :hi:

Would you like depleted uranium dumped in your yard or spread into your water? Here's a little video that tells about the cancer rates and deformities associated with depleted uranium weapons. Hope you aren't eating dinner. http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

Keep thinking this way and hand the whitehouse over to bushlite for another 4 years. I can't think of a better pie in the sky, hope for the best while hiding our heads in the sand talk.

Most of what you say ends in putting American lives over Iraqi or how much extra money or benefits we could have if we let sadam keep killing his own. Iraqi's lives are just as valuable as American, sadam was a killing machine.

about Saddam "killing his own?" Are you referring to "he gassed his own people?" Are you aware that the Kurds are NOT "his own people" and that the gas came from IRAN and NOT Iraq? Never mind the "good old US of A" supplied the toxins... If Iraqi lives are as valuable as Americans, HOW COME THEIR CASUALTIES are NOT being counted at the "request" of GUESS WHO??? The AMERICAN MILITARY is the most efficient killing machine on this globe. Saddam is but a disheveled distraction.

Please don't preserve the Union. Some folks might die, including my massa.

Please don't go to war as my kinfolk that have been inducted into fighting against you will be killed, and I will hate you for that.

Please don't free us from enslavement as I'm sure that money could be better spent in improving your own lifestyle.

Please don't go to war as we are not worthy of freedom as you know it.

PLEASE, just don't do it!

Nope I'm talking about mass graves found, estimates are 300,000 to 500,000 found...

I've been against sadam and all burtal dictators since the beginning, although it begs the question how long have you covered up for brutal dictators?

They are called "cemeteries"...

This is all part of our US PsyOps

Destroying all Iraqi cemeteries will help erase this cultures connection to the past...

First there are the tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers we bulldozed under after we killed them in Gulf War 1. Then, after the war, the US encouraged the Iraqis living in the south and the Kurds in the north to rise up against Saddam. We promised them air support to bomb any soldiers that Saddam sent against them. Of course, when they did rise up in 1991-1992, the US refused to follow up on their word, and Saddam's forces BUTCHERED the very people we encouraged to overthrow him. It was very much like the Bay of Pigs fiasco, where we also lied about giving air support. Also, how do you tell which graves are from the Iran-Iraq war in which both sides lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers? That is quite different from mass graves full of civilians, wouldn't you say?

So, since you are against brutal dictators, when are we invading China, N. Korea, Iran, a whole host of central African nations, or most of Central and South America? If we were truly concerned about saving lives from horrific dictators, we would have invaded somewhere in Asia or Africa first, as these are the areas where more people have died in the last decade than have died in the past 30 yrs in Iraq. Some estimate that over 1 million civilians have died under the N. Korean regime in just the past 5 yrs! That puts Saddam's record to shame. Compared to many of these dictators, Saddam is small potatoes.

That facts stand for themselves. And before you trot out that 'we gave him the means' argument, let me state that it doesn't make it any more right, or any less deserving of action to correct our previous mistake.

Thousands of them. And the killing keeps going on, and on. Tell Bush to stop killing the Iraqis, okay?

If it benefits me, yes.

If I am better off, yes.

If 500 of mine instead of a 100,000 of them, yes.

If my life didn't have orange alerts, yes.

If we spent that money to make me more prosperous, yes.

If MY heathcare were better , yes.

Me, Me, Me!!!!


The whole premise goes against the liberal philosophy.

So I say NO! Emphatically.

Shame on you!

Although, I would not want to die for the Iraqi people, I do believe that their freedom is a good cause. Whether the sacrifices we made as a country was worth it or not is quite debatable, but the Iraqi people are better off (despite what you may read here or in the news) for it. Helping others who are in need is indeed supposed to be a liberal cause.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You can argue your point without resorting to such low-level tactics.

Knew this thread would draw them

We would help remove tyrants around the world, working WITH the UN and WITH the help of other industrialized nations, and exhausting every diplomatic mean before resorting to war. However, this is the real world. We don't have the money to devote to removing dictators around the world while our own people here in the US are poor and jobless, do we? We don't have the ability to finish this war on terrorism by ourselves, which is apparent from seeing how thinly-stretched our troops are right now, and how the Taliban is making a resurgence in Afghanistan.

Another thing I wonder is, if you simply hand someone their freedom, do they appreciate it as greatly as if they'd won it themselves? If the US had never fought for our freedom in the 1770's, but instead relied on say, France, to do the fighting for us and then handed us our freedom, would we be as great a nation as we are today? I don't think we would be.

Why waste our resources on others when there is much to be done here? Anyone have stats on exactly how much the WOT/Iraq is costing each individual taxpayer?