World Safer without Saddam Hussein in power!

[EDoG2K]

We've all heard the Dub say it so many times, i'm quite sure he's convinced HIMSELF that this is indeed a true statement, but is the world REALLY a safer place now that Saddam is behind bars?

First of all lets get this out of the way for the bazillionth time: Al-Qada attacked the WTC on 9/11.
Lets go through our justification for taking down the big S. H. in Iraq:

1) They started the war on us on 9/11! Well wait...Iraq had no known ties to Al-Qada.
Saddam was a secular dictator and had no reason to be cooperating with an extremist muslim group such as Al-Qada.

2) Weapons of Mass Destruction and the capabilities to produce and share the knowledge with terrorists
Oh wait.. no weapons, no capabilities... oops..

3) Liberate and free the people of Iraq. Why are we trying to force our way of life on the world? Not everyone thinks like Americans and what makes us think our 250 year old system is the best ever?

4) State sponsored terrorism. Saddam was a bad man who killed his own people. THERE ARE MASS GRAVES TO PROVE IT.

Here's my main beef. With numbers 3+4. Iraq was actually fairly peacefully chugging along under the strong thumb of Saddam H. Yeah he killed some of his own people, but look at the chaos that has been unleashed in that country right now. He had somehow maintained order in that country, a feat we are having quite a bit of trouble with. How many people did Saddam kill to maintain order in his nation? I'll bet it was less than 20k.... ..

so far our (mis)adventure in iraq has cost the US 120-200 billion dollars, 1100+ American lives, and thousands more who have been maimed.

what concerns me more is that no one is talking about what it has cost the Iraqi people. They are looking at 20,000+ casualties, a large portion of that undoubtedly civilian.

Now whose the bad man? where are the mass graves for these 20k+ (and still growing) iraqis?

AThe world would be a safer place without GWB in power. Now say that 500x so you believe it!

 

[arsbanned]

Yep. Note also that the U.S. put Saddam in power. His first sin apparently was attacking a country, with U.S. blessing, that has supplied many terrorists in the wahhabi bid to kill Americans. It was OK when he was gassing Iranians, but don't fvck with our oil supply.... Or someting, since he was given the nod to attack Kuwait in the first place. After pushing Saddam out of the Mercedes lined streets of Kuwait, we cripple Iraq for years with crushing sanctions during which 1,000s of women and children die. Bin Laden and crew carry out 9/11, without any support from Saddam, and we attack Iraq again.
If more Americans could only read history. It would save us a lot of trouble. :disgust:

 

[maluckey]

EDoG2K

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to the hundred or so posts on this forum that show that Sadddams top advisors met with Al-Queda leaders on various ocassions. Sure, Saddam likely had no involvement in 9/11, but to say he had no ties to Al-Queda is just not true.

Perhaps you also failed to notice that there were at last count by the U.N. and other agencies well over 250,000 bodies in various mass graves, to include mudered children and women. The U.S. intervention has likely saved this many lives, as Saddam showed no sign of mellowing wwith age up until the time of his removal, and would likely have killed a like amount in the same timeframe if he remained in office. The United States DID bring him to power and must share the blame, but upon Saddams removal, has at least tried to make things right, which is more than Saddam likely would have done on his own.

To listen to the press, Iraq is in pure chaos. It's true, but nothing compared to the chaos that was happening before the U.S. invasion. He regularly cut off certain dissident villages from electricity, medicine, water, and food as a means to quell unrest. He ordered death squads to kill families of those who spoke against him etc. To say that Iraq was better off before the U.S. intervention is naive at best.

The thousands dying under the sanctions (ALl U.N. backed by the way) are mostly the fault of the French, Germans, Russians, and Iraqis, not in order, who allowed the money from the Oil for Food Program go into their pockets instead of for food for the people to which it was intended. Perhaps some should read their history and save everyone a lot of trouble.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: maluckey
EDoG2K

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to the hundred or so posts on this forum that show that Sadddams top advisors met with Al-Queda leaders on various ocassions. Sure, Saddam likely had no involvement in 9/11, but to say he had no ties to Al-Queda is just not true.

And those meetings resulted in what, exactly?

Oh, I know!

Absolutely NOTHING!

Perhaps you also failed to notice that there were at last count by the U.N. and other agencies well over 250,000 bodies in various mass graves, to include mudered children and women. The U.S. intervention has likely saved this many lives, as Saddam showed no sign of mellowing wwith age up until the time of his removal, and would likely have killed a like amount in the same timeframe if he remained in office. The United States DID bring him to power and must share the blame, but upon Saddams removal, has at least tried to make things right, which is more than Saddam likely would have done on his own.

Uh, you've failed to notice that most of those killed by Saddam were from rebellions spurred on by the US and then summarily unsupported by the US, leaving the rebellions to be squashed.

To listen to the press, Iraq is in pure chaos. It's true, but nothing compared to the chaos that was happening before the U.S. invasion. He regularly cut off certain dissident villages from electricity, medicine, water, and food as a means to quell unrest. He ordered death squads to kill families of those who spoke against him etc. To say that Iraq was better off before the U.S. intervention is naive at best.

Ah, so, not having electricity for a few hours is worse than....oh....car bombs? NO electricity? Sewage in the streets? Worsening unemployment? Children being kept home from school as it's not safe to walk the streets?

The thousands dying under the sanctions (ALl U.N. backed by the way) are mostly the fault of the French, Germans, Russians, and Iraqis, not in order, who allowed the money from the Oil for Food Program go into their pockets instead of for food for the people to which it was intended. Perhaps some should read their history and save everyone a lot of trouble.

Forgetting the US companies involved in that, too? Colin Powell wanted the sanctions modified to focus on restricting military trade with Iraq while allowing more humanitarian aid in.

 

[maluckey]

conjur,

I clearly stated that Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11. What's your point again? Could it be trolling?

So you are saying that the United States (and Colin Powell) WANTED TO SELL MORE FOOD AND LESS WEAPONS TO IRAQ? Thats the point that I was making..... thank you sir, may I have another. More trolling? Saddam and company, siphoned off huge sums of funds intended to buy food, for their personal gain. It's in the news, you should read it.

The power and water wasn't cut for hours, rather weeks. Starvation was commonplace, and medicine was for the wealthy. Sewage was already in the streets. Unemployment was the same before the invasion. It's an agrarian soceity so numbers for unemployment would be virtually meaningless, and you should know that. What's your point? Trolling?

You agreed with me on most all points, but want an argument for what reason? Did someone piss in your oatmeal this morning? It's unusual (even for you) to be in this form...


Later

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: maluckey
EDoG2K

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to the hundred or so posts on this forum that show that Sadddams top advisors met with Al-Queda leaders on various ocassions. Sure, Saddam likely had no involvement in 9/11, but to say he had no ties to Al-Queda is just not true.

I believe Cheney and Bush met with various Saudi leaders (including the Bin Ladens) on several occasions.. what does that prove...?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: maluckey
conjur,

I clearly stated that Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11. What's your point again? Could it be trolling?

No, just pointing out *your* trolling. Otherwise, why did you post this?

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to the hundred or so posts on this forum that show that Sadddams top advisors met with Al-Queda leaders on various ocassions.

Those meetings went NOWHERE and NO COLLABORATIVE relationship was formed. End of story.

So you are saying that the United States (and Colin Powell) WANTED TO SELL MORE FOOD AND LESS WEAPONS TO IRAQ? Thats the point that I was making..... thank you sir, may I have another. More trolling? Saddam and company, siphoned off huge sums of funds intended to buy food, for their personal gain. It's in the news, you should read it.

The power and water wasn't cut for hours, rather weeks. Starvation was commonplace, and medicine was for the wealthy. Sewage was already in the streets. Unemployment was the same before the invasion. It's an agrarian soceity so numbers for unemployment would be virtually meaningless, and you should know that. What's your point? Trolling?

You agreed with me on most all points, but want an argument for what reason? Did someone piss in your oatmeal this morning? It's unusual (even for you) to be in this form...


Later

No, I did NOT agree with you on most points. You reeled off a distortion about 250k killed but left off the US' involvement in that. Hmm...wonder why? Trying to distort the truth to make things look like your opinion is correct? Sounds like a perfectly Rovian attempt to me.

 

[Pliablemoose]

.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DeeKnow

Originally posted by: maluckey
EDoG2K

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to the hundred or so posts on this forum that show that Sadddams top advisors met with Al-Queda leaders on various ocassions. Sure, Saddam likely had no involvement in 9/11, but to say he had no ties to Al-Queda is just not true.

I believe Cheney and Bush met with various Saudi leaders (including the Bin Ladens) on several occasions.. what does that prove...?

Rumsfeld met with Saddam, too. I could even post the picture of their meeting. I guess Rumsfeld should be jailed, too, since he's apparently tied to Saddam.