Iraq would be better off with saddam in power

[elvis]

at this point, i do not have a solid opinion on iraq. i don't think anyone could have pointed to japan or germany at this point and said, hey, what a success. do i think there were mistakes....yes. i am not sure i am willing to say that iraq will not yield beneficial resutls for the US, the ME or the rest of the world at this time.

i also agree with gunny on the shift of power. that issue is one i do have a problem with, though it is hard for me to know with certainty the result of leaving saddam in power. the guy absolutely violated the rules of the cease fire over and over. liberals said he had WMDs, saddam said he had them. what were we going to do, keep the no fly zones forever? saddam was getting more and more brazen in his attacks against the US in the fly zones.

my goal was to show that liberals would support a non republican president knowing full well that president committed mass torture...

the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

No offense, but your premise is stupid. If I lived in Iraq I certainly wouldn't support Saddam torturing people. Ditto that I don't support ANY American president legalizing torture.

Waterboarding and what Saddam did are not equivalent.

 

[Yurt]

at this point, i do not have a solid opinion on iraq. i don't think anyone could have pointed to japan or germany at this point and said, hey, what a success. do i think there were mistakes....yes. i am not sure i am willing to say that iraq will not yield beneficial resutls for the US, the ME or the rest of the world at this time.

i also agree with gunny on the shift of power. that issue is one i do have a problem with, though it is hard for me to know with certainty the result of leaving saddam in power. the guy absolutely violated the rules of the cease fire over and over. liberals said he had WMDs, saddam said he had them. what were we going to do, keep the no fly zones forever? saddam was getting more and more brazen in his attacks against the US in the fly zones.

my goal was to show that liberals would support a non republican president knowing full well that president committed mass torture...

the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

No offense, but your premise is stupid. If I lived in Iraq I certainly wouldn't support Saddam torturing people. Ditto that I don't support ANY American president legalizing torture.

so you do support saddam torturing people because theyre not americans....

great, just great ravi....

no offense, but you actually just bolstered my point, thank you.

 

[Ravi]

at this point, i do not have a solid opinion on iraq. i don't think anyone could have pointed to japan or germany at this point and said, hey, what a success. do i think there were mistakes....yes. i am not sure i am willing to say that iraq will not yield beneficial resutls for the US, the ME or the rest of the world at this time.

i also agree with gunny on the shift of power. that issue is one i do have a problem with, though it is hard for me to know with certainty the result of leaving saddam in power. the guy absolutely violated the rules of the cease fire over and over. liberals said he had WMDs, saddam said he had them. what were we going to do, keep the no fly zones forever? saddam was getting more and more brazen in his attacks against the US in the fly zones.

my goal was to show that liberals would support a non republican president knowing full well that president committed mass torture...

the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

No offense, but your premise is stupid. If I lived in Iraq I certainly wouldn't support Saddam torturing people. Ditto that I don't support ANY American president legalizing torture.

so you do support saddam torturing people because theyre not americans....

great, just great ravi....

no offense, but you actually just bolstered my point, thank you.

uh...no I don't.

 

[Iriemon]

at this point, i do not have a solid opinion on iraq. i don't think anyone could have pointed to japan or germany at this point and said, hey, what a success. do i think there were mistakes....yes. i am not sure i am willing to say that iraq will not yield beneficial resutls for the US, the ME or the rest of the world at this time.

i also agree with gunny on the shift of power. that issue is one i do have a problem with, though it is hard for me to know with certainty the result of leaving saddam in power. the guy absolutely violated the rules of the cease fire over and over. liberals said he had WMDs, saddam said he had them.

Not in Mar 2003 when the Bush admin pulled the trigger. Hussein acknowledge Iraq had had them 10 years earlier and steadfastly maintained they had been destroyed.

my goal was to show that liberals would support a non republican president knowing full well that president committed mass torture...

the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

It is? I've seen people say the US would be better off if the US had not invaded Iraq, and arguments about whether the Iraqi people might be better off.

But I have yet to see one liberal supporting Hussein. Who did that with overwhelming hypocrisy?

 

[Iriemon]

at this point, i do not have a solid opinion on iraq. i don't think anyone could have pointed to japan or germany at this point and said, hey, what a success. do i think there were mistakes....yes. i am not sure i am willing to say that iraq will not yield beneficial resutls for the US, the ME or the rest of the world at this time.

i also agree with gunny on the shift of power. that issue is one i do have a problem with, though it is hard for me to know with certainty the result of leaving saddam in power. the guy absolutely violated the rules of the cease fire over and over. liberals said he had WMDs, saddam said he had them. what were we going to do, keep the no fly zones forever? saddam was getting more and more brazen in his attacks against the US in the fly zones.

my goal was to show that liberals would support a non republican president knowing full well that president committed mass torture...

the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

No offense, but your premise is stupid. If I lived in Iraq I certainly wouldn't support Saddam torturing people. Ditto that I don't support ANY American president legalizing torture.

so you do support saddam torturing people because theyre not americans....

great, just great ravi....

no offense, but you actually just bolstered my point, thank you.

I'm just scratching my head at how you could reach that conclusion from Ravi's post.

 

[elvis]

People support the idea of Saddam being in power because he provided STABILITY to the area. at a huge cost to the Iraqi people, but he did provide stability and a balance of power.

 

[007]

People support the idea of Saddam being in power because he provided STABILITY to the area. at a huge cost to the Iraqi people, but he did provide stability and a balance of power.

Invading Iraq was bush juniors present to daddy who didn't finish the job the first time. It was a huge mistake, and it's directly accountable, in part, for our economy being in the toilet.

We have to stop playing world police. It is NOT our job. It is NOT in our constitution. We can NOT afford it, either financially or by human cost. Fuck these little third world, dictator, turds. If they're not messing with us, leave them the hell alone.

 

[foggedinn]

Wrong Question.

Would the United States be better off with Saddam still in power? Absolutely yes.

The torture and no fly zone stuff are just red herring justifications for an idiotic policy.

 

[xotoxi]

I don't know if Iraq would be better with Saddam.

But I think that we would be better off if Iraq had Saddam.

 

[xotoxi]

my goal was to show that liberals would support a non republican president knowing full well that president committed mass torture...

the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

But your question did not ask if one would "support" Saddam.

True he committed mass torture. But there is mass torture everywhere thoroughout the world. We can't do anything about it unless we want to stretch ourselves so thin that we are transparent.

It just shouldn't be happening in the USA.

 

[Iriemon]

my goal was to show that liberals would support a non republican president knowing full well that president committed mass torture...

the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

But your question did not ask if one would "support" Saddam.

True he committed mass torture. But there is mass torture everywhere thoroughout the world. We can't do anything about it unless we want to stretch ourselves so thin that we are transparent.

It just shouldn't be happening in the USA.

USA ... America, America, God shed His light on thee, and crown thy good, in the land of the free, and the home of the torturers.

Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

 

[Red Dawn]

my goal was to show that liberals would support a non republican president knowing full well that president committed mass torture...

the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

Wow dude, you're a genius! Libs fell into your clever trap, and admitted they supported Saddam torturing people.


Hey man, are you retarded or something? This was just incredibly stupid, and childlike.

 

[Yurt]

and your post is the epitome of insightful analysis....

did you write that all by yourself, or did you get help?

 

[Gunny]

at this point, i do not have a solid opinion on iraq. i don't think anyone could have pointed to japan or germany at this point and said, hey, what a success. do i think there were mistakes....yes. i am not sure i am willing to say that iraq will not yield beneficial resutls for the US, the ME or the rest of the world at this time.

i also agree with gunny on the shift of power. that issue is one i do have a problem with, though it is hard for me to know with certainty the result of leaving saddam in power. the guy absolutely violated the rules of the cease fire over and over. liberals said he had WMDs, saddam said he had them.

Not in Mar 2003 when the Bush admin pulled the trigger. Hussein acknowledge Iraq had had them 10 years earlier and steadfastly maintained they had been destroyed.

my goal was to show that liberals would support a non republican president knowing full well that president committed mass torture...

the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

It is? I've seen people say the US would be better off if the US had not invaded Iraq, and arguments about whether the Iraqi people might be better off.

But I have yet to see one liberal supporting Hussein. Who did that with overwhelming hypocrisy?

Nobody.

 

[Gunny]

People support the idea of Saddam being in power because he provided STABILITY to the area. at a huge cost to the Iraqi people, but he did provide stability and a balance of power.

Exactly. I'm certainly not saying Saddam was a good guy. He was a shitstain on the world. His ONLY redeeming value was as a wildcard that sat between the Shia and the Sunni.

 

[Gunny]

my goal was to show that liberals would support a non republican president knowing full well that president committed mass torture...

the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

But your question did not ask if one would "support" Saddam.

True he committed mass torture. But there is mass torture everywhere thoroughout the world. We can't do anything about it unless we want to stretch ourselves so thin that we are transparent.

It just shouldn't be happening in the USA.

USA ... America, America, God shed His light on thee, and crown thy good, in the land of the free, and the home of the torturers.

Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

How long you going to beat that dead horse and present it as something it clearly is not?

Land of the mindless partisan hacks is more like it.

 

[Gunny]

I don't know about Iraq, but the Middle East from a strategic standpoint was better off with Saddam in power. He sat in between the Shia from the East and the Sunni from the West and nobody trusted him.

He kept the Middle East un-unified and off-balance.

That's true. Now the balance of power has shifted to Iran.

And Iran will be extremely influential in most of Iraq not long after we have pulled out.
The net result will be, after all is said and done, that WE did all the hard and dirty and expensive work for Iran,
and turned Iraq over TO Iran.
Brilliant strategery.

Yeah. Good thing it's yours; otherwise, I'd have to wonder how someone with an actual brain came up with it.

People who don't know WTF the fuck they're talking about and have an uncontrollable urge to open mouth and emit sound should invest in duct tape and use it.

Of did that tiny little country Saudi Arabia just fall out of your brain while you let this drool trickle down your chin?

 

[Yurt]

my goal was to show that liberals would support a non republican president knowing full well that president committed mass torture...

the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

But your question did not ask if one would "support" Saddam.

True he committed mass torture. But there is mass torture everywhere thoroughout the world. We can't do anything about it unless we want to stretch ourselves so thin that we are transparent.

It just shouldn't be happening in the USA.

if we did not remove saddam, saddam would be in power, so they are supporting saddam still being in power and torturing citizens.

last i checked the ALLEGED torture did not occur in the usa. the alleged torture ordered by bush was nothing, not a scintilla of what saddam did as you already know.

but i guess what you're saying is, it doesn't matter if saddam tortured, not our business...might have a point there, then again we did not remove him for torture.

 

[Iriemon]

The reason the US would be better off if Bush had not invaded has nothing to do with support for Hussein's policies, but is explained in posts earlier in this thread.

 

[Gunny]

The reason the US would be better off if Bush had not invaded has nothing to do with support for Hussein's policies, but is explained in posts earlier in this thread.

There are two sides to this argument. Two legitimate sides. There are plenty of legitimate, legal reasons to remove Saddam from power. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to have not removed him from power.

It then boils down to a judgment call. I did not and do not agree with Bush's decision. Removing Saddam from power upset the applecart in the Middle East.

That does not negate any of the reasons to remove Saddam from power. It's choosing the lesser of two evils. It's no more complicated than that.