Iraq would be better off with saddam in power

[Yurt]

well....probably end up with heated talks so i thought i would save the mods time by posting here

 

[Kalam]

Probably not. None of our business, though.

 

[Xenophon]

I honestly don't give a fuck how they would be, as long as we left them alone and they left us alone.

 

[Yurt]

jillian...why do you say that? saddam TORTURED his own people....

 

[Yurt]

interesting, jillian wants to prosecute americans, bush as well, for alleged torture, but she wants saddam in power knowing full well the massive torture committed by him....

typical libs, ignore the evil of other countries and believe other countries over this country....but holy lord if a republican is thought to have done something, off with their heads!

 

[Iriemon]

It's speculation. Iraqis have undergone a tremendous social upheaval. Scores of thousands have died and many more injured. The social fabric, weak to begin with, has been ripped apart. Religious tensions are higher. On the other hand, they don't have a dictator. For now.

You could make a stronger argument that the US would be better off had it not invaded Iraq.

 

[Yurt]

It's speculation. Iraqis have undergone a tremendous social upheaval. Scores of thousands have died and many more injured. The social fabric, weak to begin with, has been ripped apart. Religious tensions are higher. On the other hand, they don't have a dictator. For now.

You could make a stronger argument that the US would be better off had it not invaded Iraq.

my point was that i knew at least one liberal that would post that iraq would be better off with saddam, i've heard numerous libs make that argument and i think it is laughable given how they wanted to oust bush/cheney over torture but want saddam in power despite his countless, horrific tortures.

seems liberals support saddam, but not an american president

 

[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.

 

[Ravi]

It's speculation. Iraqis have undergone a tremendous social upheaval. Scores of thousands have died and many more injured. The social fabric, weak to begin with, has been ripped apart. Religious tensions are higher. On the other hand, they don't have a dictator. For now.

You could make a stronger argument that the US would be better off had it not invaded Iraq.

my point was that i knew at least one liberal that would post that iraq would be better off with saddam, i've heard numerous libs make that argument and i think it is laughable given how they wanted to oust bush/cheney over torture but want saddam in power despite his countless, horrific tortures.

seems liberals support saddam, but not an american president

The difference is that Saddam was not our leader. The American people can hold the President and Congress accountable but they have no way to hold a foreign leader accountable. That was the Iraqis problem to solve, not ours.

I think Iraq was better off...and I also so think we were also better off with Saddam in power, as much of a prick that he was.

 

[Gunny]

It's speculation. Iraqis have undergone a tremendous social upheaval. Scores of thousands have died and many more injured. The social fabric, weak to begin with, has been ripped apart. Religious tensions are higher. On the other hand, they don't have a dictator. For now.

You could make a stronger argument that the US would be better off had it not invaded Iraq.

my point was that i knew at least one liberal that would post that iraq would be better off with saddam, i've heard numerous libs make that argument and i think it is laughable given how they wanted to oust bush/cheney over torture but want saddam in power despite his countless, horrific tortures.

seems liberals support saddam, but not an american president

The difference is that Saddam was not our leader. The American people can hold the President and Congress accountable but they have no way to hold a foreign leader accountable. That was the Iraqis problem to solve, not ours.

I think Iraq was better off...and I also so think we were also better off with Saddam in power, as much of a prick that he was.

Incorrect. Iraq was our problem to solve because of defense agreements our governments made with other nations. Since we were footing the bill to babysit him for 12+ years, and we were the ones doing the babysitting, it was OUR problem.

 

[WorldAHope]

my point was that i knew at least one liberal that would post that iraq would be better off with saddam, i've heard numerous libs make that argument and i think it is laughable given how they wanted to oust bush/cheney over torture but want saddam in power despite his countless, horrific tortures.

seems liberals support saddam, but not an american president

The difference is that Saddam was not our leader. The American people can hold the President and Congress accountable but they have no way to hold a foreign leader accountable. That was the Iraqis problem to solve, not ours.

I think Iraq was better off...and I also so think we were also better off with Saddam in power, as much of a prick that he was.

Incorrect. Iraq was our problem to solve because of defense agreements our governments made with other nations. Since we were footing the bill to babysit him for 12+ years, and we were the ones doing the babysitting, it was OUR problem.

Cheaper and easier to 'babysit' Saddam, keep him confined and work under the table to depose him,
then it was to invade, defeat his military, take over responsibility for running Iraq.

Iraq had power and lights and water and sewers and more living citizens who had a fairly stable economy. He provided far better security, there was less violence, NO AL QUAIDA presence in Iraq when Saddam was in power.
He was a brutal ruthless murderous dictator, but WE were better off with Saddam there, under close watch, than we are now. His troops were patrolling the streets, not ours.

Now we have little control over what happens and what will happen to Iraq. There is great concern that it will be a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy inside 10 years.
And we will have taken far too many casulties and spent far too much money to gain such a lousy outcome.

IF Bush/Rummy had devoted the necessary resources - 400,000+ troops - to secure the country, maybe we could have avoided the casulties and the chaos caused by the insurgency -
the insurgency that Bush/Rummy were advised was 100% GOING to happen after we deposed Saddam and were running Iraq with insufficient strength to police.

It has been a Stupid war, fought for stupid reasons. We, the USA, were lied to get into it, our country got NOTHING positive out of it. We ended up strengthening the hand of Iran, our real adversary in the region while simultaneously weakening our own influence.
And the tremendous fiscal costs and the market demand the war in Iraq put on oil and building materials and other commodities compounded our deficits and contributed to the 2008-2009 economic collapse.

This entire affair was poorly planned, badly mismanaged , and was stupid from day one. Unnecessary. Bad results. High costs. Stupid Stupid Stupid.
But Bush felt compelled to invade Iraq and to get rid of Saddam, from long before he was President.
Once he was President, he was going to invade Iraq, with or without a 9/11 event.
It was at the top of his "To Do" list.
We sure wish he had done it a lot smarter, not so clumsily and so stupidly.
What we saw from teh Bush administration's response to Katrina was not a fluke. That was exactly the same way his administration managed our military adventure into Iraq. Badly.
Badly run by Cronies and incompetents, full of corruption and stupidity and lies.
Our military deserved better.

Iraq will go down as THE greatest blunder in American foreign policy history.

When Iraq is merged with the rapidily expanding Torture scandal, into "Iraq-Torture", it will be the worst scandal in American history. Watergate and Iran-Contra and MonicaGate will be tiny little 'oopsys', not so bad 'boo-boos' compared to what will be revealed about "Iraq-Torture".

Iraq War and Torture are linked top to bottom, like two sides of a giant trillion dollar zipper, with the White House as the zipper pull.

A year from now, if Holder and Obama have not got a Special Prosecutor investigating with independent authority to indict and bring to trial anyone involved in "Iraq-Torture",
there will be millions of people marching demanding that action be taken, immediatly.
Obama's presidency, his political capital, and the Democrats in Congress will be in danger of losing Democrats and Liberals and Independents support.
They'd have to rely on Republican/Conservative support to get re-elected.

"Iraq-Torture" could be the magic wand that changes top level members of the Bush administration into detainees.

 

[Iriemon]

It's speculation. Iraqis have undergone a tremendous social upheaval. Scores of thousands have died and many more injured. The social fabric, weak to begin with, has been ripped apart. Religious tensions are higher. On the other hand, they don't have a dictator. For now.

You could make a stronger argument that the US would be better off had it not invaded Iraq.

my point was that i knew at least one liberal that would post that iraq would be better off with saddam, i've heard numerous libs make that argument and i think it is laughable given how they wanted to oust bush/cheney over torture but want saddam in power despite his countless, horrific tortures.

seems liberals support saddam, but not an american president

If you've read many threads on this forum lately, you'll see it is the conservatives seem not to support the American president.

 

[Iriemon]

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 is exactly right IMO.

In addition, Hussein was not a Islamists; his Baathist party was secular. Hussein's first minister was a Christian. Iraq's 1 million Christians enjoyed relative stability in Hussein's Iraq -- not always the situation after he was deposed.

Thus, not only did Hussein stand against Iranian and Shia influence, but he also was a hedge against Islamist extremist movements like Al Queada. AQ did not want guys like Hussein in power and Hussein did not want religious radicals like AQ in Iraq.

Hussein also kept Iraq somewhat stable.

Attacking Iraq removed the hedge against Iran and the extremist, and pissed off a bunch of otherwise more moderate Muslim who saw the invation as a blatantly unjustified attack on their holy lands by infidels. Anti-American hatred feeds radical movements -- and we saw an entire branch of extremists (including AQ Iraq) spring up in Iraq that weren't there before.

Iraq was no real threat to the US. The decision to invade Iraq was IMO strategically faulty if our goal was to reduce the threat of terrorism.

Aside from Iran, which benefitted by the removal of its sworn enemy, the nation that really benefitted from the US invasion of Iraq was Israel. It is no coincidence IMO that the neocon movement, which is strongly influenced by more hard-line pro-Israel interests, pushed so hard for the invasion of Iraq.

 

[Red Dawn]

well....probably end up with heated talks so i thought i would save the mods time by posting here

Obvously, you still think the Iraq war was a great idea, you still love George Dumbya Bush, and the agenda of your poll is to seek ways to justify your trillion dollar war since the wmd went missing, and since saddam was not aiding al qaeda.


You're not iraqi, I'm not iraqi. Only they can judge what's better for them. I personally would hate to live under saddam hussein.

As far as our involvment, I don't think there's ever been a bigger waste of one trillion tax dollars and thousands of lives, than your stupid war.

 

[elvis]

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.

 

[elvis]

well....probably end up with heated talks so i thought i would save the mods time by posting here

Obvously, you still think the Iraq war was a great idea, you still love George Dumbya Bush, and the agenda of your poll is to seek ways to justify your trillion dollar war since the wmd went missing, and since saddam was not aiding al qaeda.


You're not iraqi, I'm not iraqi. Only they can judge what's better for them. I personally would hate to live under saddam hussein.

As far as our involvment, I don't think there's ever been a bigger waste of one trillion tax dollars and thousands of lives, than your stupid war.

What if the war had gone better? If we'd sealed off the border, etc.

 

[WorldAHope]

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.

 

[elvis]

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.

You're partly right. We are NEVER leaving Iraq. I don't care who the President is.

 

[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.

 

[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.