Howard Dean and saddam...

[nick1985]

i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

Hi,

Good point (not sure about the humourous aspects though) - but the point to make is that of security. Iraq wasn't invaded for the Iraqi's, nor were coalition troops committed to die so that some Iraqi's could be liberated. It's a security thing. These people are dying so that civilians at home can sleep safer. Surely that's the whole point. If it wasn't then things would be bad - even though I'm glad Iraqi's are free, there's plenty more people dying out there who could do with liberating. I'm not sure I'd want UK troops dying for them though. I'm only voting for these things if security is the issue (and what's more I believe it would help and not hinder such efforts). The jury's still out for me on Iraq, though I'm guessing it was the right thing to do security wise - despite what's happening in the short term and the absence of WMD.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[nick1985]

i also found it funny in deans speech earlier today he said "the capture of saddam does not make America safer" i was like "how the EFF doesnt it?" it cetainetley cant hurt american securty.. anywho, i think the liberation of iraq does make america more secure. with that crazy idiot removed there is no longer a threat of WMD in iraq, or even worse, iraq selling WMD's to terrorists.

question--

loss of life is greater in the long run if....

a) we never invaded iraq

b) we do what we did and invade iraq



a few hundred soldiers and some civilians is a SMALL sacrifice for the savior of countless hundreds of thousands in the long run IMO.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: nick1985
i also found it funny in deans speech earlier today he said "the capture of saddam does not make America safer" i was like "how the EFF doesnt it?" it cetainetley cant hurt american securty.. anywho, i think the liberation of iraq does make america more secure. with that crazy idiot removed there is no longer a threat of WMD in iraq, or even worse, iraq selling WMD's to terrorists.

It is a balance though. US, UK, civilians died and we *probably* made the world more secure. I like more certainty. That's what the discovery of WMD holds for me.

question--

loss of life is greater in the long run if....

a) we never invaded iraq

b) we do what we did and invade iraq

The big question that everything rides on.

a few hundred soldiers and some civilians is a SMALL sacrifice for the savior of countless hundreds of thousands in the long run IMO.

Well, I agree on your numbers but not *purely* on the concept. If the Iraqi's rose up on their own - then yes it's a pure and logical concept IMHO. If we have to die liberating them then we have to be very sure that we know that's the reason we're dying - the number one reason. As I said, if you take that straight view then there's plenty more people we all have to die for.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[kylebisme]

considering we wound up murdering thosands if Iraqi civilians in this war that we started and the place is a total mess still, it seems to me that capureing Saddam is the first notably good thing to have come of the whole charade. i can't see how Dean or any other American could be anything but pleased to see this happen.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

"I would be surprised if he didn't have chemicals and biological weapons." - Howie Dean Jan 2003.

So what was/is it Dean?

But yes - I thought Lieberman's comments were entirely fitting and true.

CkG

Edit - TheSnowman - Iraq is not a "total mess". You just haven't looked. Yes there are still daily attacks, but everything is not worse than it was before the war - infact alot of things are better.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
considering we wound up murdering thosands if Iraqi civilians in this war that we started and the place is a total mess still, it seems to me that capureing Saddam is the first notably good thing to have come of the whole charade. i can't see how Dean or any other American could be anything but pleased to see this happen.

you make it sound like we ran around shooting women and children...no civilians are ever intentionally killed. its a war and SH!T happens. but dont you think we indrectly saved at least 10* the number of civilians that were killed in this conflict by removing saddam?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

Then again Osama Bin Laden might have been captured and Al Qaeda along with the Taliban could have been utterly destroyed.


BTW, after seeing them dance in the streets Celebrating the 9/11 terror attacks the welfare of the Iraqi's became the least of my concern. In fact until none of the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq materialized, the welfare of the Iraqi's was hardly a concern for Bush and his fanbase either. Now it's become their main reason to support the invasion and occupation.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

Then again Osama Bin Laden might have been captured and Al Qaeda along with the Taliban could have been utterly destroyed.

we are still looking for that asshole. he cant hide forever, i think that was proven with his butt buddy saddam.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"I would be surprised if he didn't have chemicals and biological weapons." - Howie Dean Jan 2003.

So what was/is it Dean?

But yes - I thought Lieberman's comments were entirely fitting and true.

CkG

Edit - TheSnowman - Iraq is not a "total mess". You just haven't looked. Yes there are still daily attacks, but everything is not worse than it was before the war - infact alot of things are better.

lol CAD, admitting that the man could have had chemical and biological weapons is not the same thing as admitting that the man was a threat to our country. at least not unless you have been pre-programmed to overlook such inconstancies. maybe you have been targeted by government mind control and need to get one of those tin-foil hats you always joke about.

 

[nick1985]

i posed you a question snowman, please answer it. thanks.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

Then again Osama Bin Laden might have been captured and Al Qaeda along with the Taliban could have been utterly destroyed.

we are still looking for that asshole. he cant hide forever, i think that was proven with his butt buddy saddam.

Yeah but if we hadn't of been distracted by the Dub's "Excellent Adventure" in Iraq we probably would have already captured him.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

Then again Osama Bin Laden might have been captured and Al Qaeda along with the Taliban could have been utterly destroyed.

we are still looking for that asshole. he cant hide forever, i think that was proven with his butt buddy saddam.

Yeah but if we hadn't of been distracted by the Dub's "Excellent Adventure" in Iraq we probably would have already captured him.

oh gimme a break. so america can only handle 1 thing at a time?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

Then again Osama Bin Laden might have been captured and Al Qaeda along with the Taliban could have been utterly destroyed.

we are still looking for that asshole. he cant hide forever, i think that was proven with his butt buddy saddam.

Yeah but if we hadn't of been distracted by the Dub's "Excellent Adventure" in Iraq we probably would have already captured him.

oh gimme a break. so america can only handle 1 thing at a time?

Well who'd of thought that defeating Iraq and Capturing Hussien would have been easier than wiping out Al Qaeda and the Taliban and capturing Bin Laden. Who poised a bigger threat to the US and who actually attacked us? I would think finishing them off would be more important. The problem was that it was not on the top of the list for Bushes Neocon Handlers!

 

[nick1985]

sure, walking and eating a pretzel...i just think america is capable of searching for 2 men at the same time.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: nick1985
sure, walking and eating a pretzel...i just think america is capable of searching for 2 men at the same time.

You'd think, you'd also think that we would have totally annihilated the Taliban instead of letting them regroup and become relevant in Afghanistan again

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Yeah but if we hadn't of been distracted by the Dub's "Excellent Adventure" in Iraq we probably would have already captured him.

Is this what Dean and the NYT are telling their constituency nowadays? Let's extend your logic a bit further and assert that had Clinton of not sent us to Bosnia for YEARS, we would have captured Bin Laden before 9/11...or at least destroyed all of Afghanistan?s Aspirin factories (in the name of national security?can?t fight with a headache) by now. Silly argument, isn't it?

 

[kylebisme]

nick, we didn't act in defense but in aggression; so every last one of those women and children were intentionally killed as far as i am conserned. i also think it is important to count all those young men who joined in the ranks of the Iraqi milltary simply to defend the sovernty of their homeland. as for how many would have died if we didn't go to war, i think it is a little late to worry about that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"I would be surprised if he didn't have chemicals and biological weapons." - Howie Dean Jan 2003.

So what was/is it Dean?

But yes - I thought Lieberman's comments were entirely fitting and true.

CkG

Edit - TheSnowman - Iraq is not a "total mess". You just haven't looked. Yes there are still daily attacks, but everything is not worse than it was before the war - infact alot of things are better.

lol CAD, admitting that the man could have had chemical and biological weapons is not the same thing as admitting that the man was a threat to our country. at least not unless you have been pre-programmed to overlook such inconstancies. maybe you have been targeted by government mind control and need to get one of those tin-foil hats you always joke about.

Who is overlooking inconsistencies? There is alot more of the Dean stuff to be posted...shall I begin a topic for them all? Shall we start with his signature support for Biden-Lugar? Hmmm....

CkG

 

[kandarp]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
considering we wound up murdering thosands if Iraqi civilians in this war that we started and the place is a total mess still, it seems to me that capureing Saddam is the first notably good thing to have come of the whole charade. i can't see how Dean or any other American could be anything but pleased to see this happen.

you make it sound like we ran around shooting women and children...no civilians are ever intentionally killed. its a war and SH!T happens. but dont you think we indrectly saved at least 10* the number of civilians that were killed in this conflict by removing saddam?

The jury is still out on that question, but I believe that Iraq is and will always be better off without SH. However the humanitarian argument was the last and least frequently used argument ever proposed by the Administration, instead senior officials (Condi Rice) went on Sunday Morning Talks shows and propounded that the cost of waiting would be a mushroom cloud in lower Manhattan, they also (Cheney) went on these Sunday Morning Talk shows shortly after 9/11 proposing that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi Intelligence Agent in Prague. Cheney also repeated this same statement in 9/02, a year later when the FBI had already linked Atta (via rental records) to Florida at the time the alleged meeting took place. THe only argument expounded with any clarity from the Administration was that of "He has or is actively producing WMD and if he had such weapons he would without haste hand them over to non state actors who would do the US harm with them" and adding the footnote at the bottom citing SH gruesome human rights record. Infact, if i can offer an opinion, the humanitarian argument was the only sound argument that could be offered to remove SH, however I doubt that it was seen as an argument that would prove politically feasible at home to the American public and COngress. So, returning to your point, yes in the long run several times more people have been saved as a result of removing SH, however whether those people would have been the same who would have perised in the "mushroom cloud" scenario set forth by Dr. Rice is a stretch of the imagination. Infact, it is very likely that these people who are saved in the long run are Iraqis who would have died in the torture chambers of the SH's Secret Police, which in my opinion is commendable, however it was never delivered that way to the US public yet it has become the front and center argument that Administration Officials have come to use during the past 6 months.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


Who is overlooking inconsistencies? There is alot more of the Dean stuff to be posted...shall I begin a topic for them all? Shall we start with his signature support for Biden-Lugar? Hmmm....

CkG

i'm sorry, what inconsistencies are you reffering to and what does Biden-Lugar have to do with Dean's commentary on Saddam?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

And? You going somewhere with this? Bush didn't sell this as a humanitarian war and nationbuilding adventure. I remember it was about WMD, but you seem to have forgotten about that. I guess now that we didn't find WMD it's about the Iraqi civilians.

Clearly if we didn't get Saddam, this war would be a complete failure. But even if it is a complete success, there is still the question of whether it is worth the lives, money, strained alliances, open ended nationbuilding commitment, etc, given that no WMD's were found and no proof presented that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Yeah but if we hadn't of been distracted by the Dub's "Excellent Adventure" in Iraq we probably would have already captured him.

Is this what Dean and the NYT are telling their constituency nowadays?

Beats me

Let's extend your logic a bit further and assert that had Clinton of not sent us to Bosnia for YEARS, we would have captured Bin Laden before 9/11...or at least destroyed all of Afghanistan?s Aspirin factories (in the name of national security?can?t fight with a headache) by now. Silly argument, isn't it?

It's your argument so if you declare it silly who am I to argue?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

And? You going somewhere with this? Bush didn't sell this as a humanitarian war and nationbuilding adventure.

He sure didn't because if he had he wouldn't have gotten the support of the American Public to go ahead with it!

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

And? You going somewhere with this? Bush didn't sell this as a humanitarian war and nationbuilding adventure.

He sure didn't because if he had he wouldn't have gotten the support of the American Public to go ahead with it!

Last I heard it was about American civilians, and the WMD's Saddam was going to launch at us in 45 minutes. Now it's about Iraqi Civilians.

I think if it was free or a few billions, I would rather have Saddam dead, but to commit the most resources to the least threat is a waste of taxpayer money and soldiers' lives.