Osama vs. Saddam?

[neo_68710]

Osama killed almost 3,000 American civilians in one day. Saddam killed millions of people in 30 years, but I don't think any were American civilians. Both very evil men that deserve justice but I believe that Osama not Saddam should be on the priority list.
Our troops are far superior to the Iraqi fighters in training and equipment most would agree yet almost 900 American soldiers have died since mission accomplished. Which tells me that the Iraqis could take care of themselves if they really wanted to be free of Saddam. I don't think they would of had a problem blowing him up themselves.
I remember when Bush said he would bring Osama to justice. I guess there is what Bush says and there is what Bush does.

This a simple view on my point, I am open to all criticism, and welcome all views of your own.

 

[CSM]

Osama killed almost 3,000 American civilians in one day. Saddam killed millions of people in 30 years, but I don't think any were American civilians. Both very evil men that deserve justice but I believe that Osama not Saddam should be on the priority list.
Our troops are far superior to the Iraqi fighters in training and equipment most would agree yet almost 900 American soldiers have died since mission accomplished. Which tells me that the Iraqis could take care of themselves if they really wanted to be free of Saddam. I don't think they would of had a problem blowing him up themselves.
I remember when Bush said he would bring Osama to justice. I guess there is what Bush says and there is what Bush does.

This a simple view on my point, I am open to all criticism, and welcome all views of your own.

First of all, what makes you think that OBL has fallen off the priority list? In my opinion, this country can (and does) have more than one priority at a time; each with equal weight. Almost anyone can do well when focused on a single task. It is far more difficult when trying to juggle multiple tasks with equal priority.

Second, there is a big difference in the way the US military is fighting in Iraq and the way that Saddam would have (and has) handled insurgents. Historical precedence indicates that a city like Najaf would be promptly gassed to remove all the opposition in one fell swoop. While the US could employ similar methods, it does not.

Third, US efforts at finding OBL have not ceased. It would be impractical and unwise to use the entire military resources of the US to hunt for that particular individual, especially given the terrain and other factors that impact that particular mission.

 

[Comrade]

Osama killed almost 3,000 American civilians in one day. Saddam killed millions of people in 30 years, but I don't think any were American civilians. Both very evil men that deserve justice but I believe that Osama not Saddam should be on the priority list.

It's not an either/or decision, in my mind. No matter how many troops we put into Afganistan, he's long gone, and hiding out, and no one really knows exactly where.

Our troops are far superior to the Iraqi fighters in training and equipment most would agree yet almost 900 American soldiers have died since mission accomplished. Which tells me that the Iraqis could take care of themselves if they really wanted to be free of Saddam. I don't think they would of had a problem blowing him up themselves.

If we had pulled out immediately after entering Baghdad, Saddam's forces would have easily reasserted control. If we had pulled out after capturing him, we would have left the country in a state of civil war, pitting Shi'ites against Sunni's. There is simply no way to easily establish a stable regime without committing our own forces to provide security in the chaos of multiple forces seeking domination. This is especially a problem when Iran has committed significant effort to push their own agenda for a Shi'ite dominated, fundamentalist regime (in their own image).

I remember when Bush said he would bring Osama to justice. I guess there is what Bush says and there is what Bush does.

Hey, the man can't work miracles. Maybe Osama is dead, or pasted on a wall in some cave. However you look at it, what's important is that America has been kept safe from any further attacks since 9-11, the Taliban has been kicked out of power, Al-Qauda is no longer given sanctuary by any Middle East government, and those terrorists who trained with them are either dead or on the run. It's not about vengeance, although that would be nice. It's about ensuring they no longer present a threat to America.

This a simple view on my point, I am open to all criticism, and welcome all views of your own.

Not too bad, keep it up. Welcome to the board!

 

[CSM]

Good points, Comrade.

 

[neo_68710]

Second, there is a big difference in the way the US military is fighting in Iraq and the way that Saddam would have (and has) handled insurgents. Historical precedence indicates that a city like Najaf would be promptly gassed to remove all the opposition in one fell swoop. While the US could employ similar methods, it does not.

Sorry, but since Saddam had no weapons such as gas that would have been and incorrect assumption of the outcome if insurgents had fought Saddam.

If we had pulled out immediately after entering Baghdad, Saddam's forces would have easily reasserted control. If we had pulled out after capturing him, we would have left the country in a state of civil war, pitting Shi'ites against Sunni's. There is simply no way to easily establish a stable regime without committing our own forces to provide security in the chaos of multiple forces seeking domination. This is especially a problem when Iran has committed significant effort to push their own agenda for a Shi'ite dominated, fundamentalist regime (in their own image).

You misunderstand my point. I don't believe we should have pulled out right after getting out Saddam, I believe we shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place. Instead we should have used those resources in the search for a man that actually attacked the United States. I think if Iraqis really wanted Saddam out they could have attacked with the force they have unleashed on our troops. If we went to war with every country that had a leader that killed his own people then we would have to attack China, North Korea, and Cuba just to name a few at least 2 of those have weapons of mass destruction. To believe Osama is gone in hiding and no longer a threat is folish to believe or even think.

Not too bad, keep it up. Welcome to the board!

Thanks and I like the way you think.

 

[CSM]

Sorry, but since Saddam had no weapons such as gas that would have been and incorrect assumption of the outcome if insurgents had fought Saddam.....

Oh, I guess the gassing of Kurdish villages never happened? and draining the swamps never happened? and all those folks in the mass graves died of old age?

The point is that Saddam and his cronies used brutal, ruthless methods to suppress opposition. Also, your premise that the Iraqis could have handled Saddam themselves implies that the US would not have invaded (maybe you meant something else?) and that Saddam would have been allowed to carry on as he had prior to the first Gulf War.

 

[CSM]

BTW Neo, welcome to the board. I like a good debate that doesn't degenerate into childish name calling.

 

[neo_68710]

Oh, I guess the gassing of Kurdish villages never happened? and draining the swamps never happened? and all those folks in the mass graves died of old age?

No I never said that it didn't happen I said it wouldn't have happened now, if the U.S. hadn't attacked and insurgents tried to get there own freedom. Since Saddam had no weapons such as gas (which is a proven fact) he wouldn't have used it on them because he had none to use like he did in the past.

BTW Neo, welcome to the board. I like a good debate that doesn't degenerate into childish name calling.

Thanks I like your views keep them up, it won't change my view I just love hearing what others have to say on the matter. My goal is not to change peoples mind just to have a good debate like you said.

 

[Merlin1047]

Osama killed almost 3,000 American civilians in one day. Saddam killed millions of people in 30 years, but I don't think any were American civilians. Both very evil men that deserve justice but I believe that Osama not Saddam should be on the priority list.
Our troops are far superior to the Iraqi fighters in training and equipment most would agree yet almost 900 American soldiers have died since mission accomplished. Which tells me that the Iraqis could take care of themselves if they really wanted to be free of Saddam. I don't think they would of had a problem blowing him up themselves.
I remember when Bush said he would bring Osama to justice. I guess there is what Bush says and there is what Bush does.

This a simple view on my point, I am open to all criticism, and welcome all views of your own.

We can quibble all day long about priorities. If you want to get to the root of the problem, let's go back to Jimmy Carter. The damn Iranians took fifty of our people hostage. If that isn't an act of war, I don't know what is. We should have attacked Iran then and there - and I'm not talking about a half-assed action like the one Carter finally approved - an action which was doomed to fail before it ever got out of the planning stage. We should have gone in and rescued our people. If those holding our hostages harmed any of them, then no Iranian in the embassy compound should have been left alive.

Here's the thing that is important as I see it - moslems respect strength and hold weakness in contempt. That is why the Iranians held the hostages until that gutless wonder Carter was out of office. That is why it is important for this nation to strike back somewhere. Even if there may be other targets which it could be argued should be higher on the priority list, an attack on ANY nation in the middle east will produce the results we need. Note how quiet the Lebanese have been. Libya has been falling all over itself to cooperate and the Saudis are taking out television ads to convince us they're really our buddies. Egypt can even be called an ally.

The Iranians are still bluffing and blustering. Perhaps their experience with us during Carter's deplorable administration emboldens them. I would imagine that a swift kick in the teeth or the hint that we will start supporting Iranian dissidents might change their attitude.

So, no matter if you agree with GW's target priority or not, there are three inescapable conclusions. One, our attack on Afghanistan and Iraq has benefitted millions of people in those countries and diminished the threat from terror organizations operating there. Second, the attack on Iraq has dampened the enthusiasm of other middle east nations for supporting terrorists. And finally, no matter how you slice it, GW's policies have been far more effective than those a Democratic administration would have pursued. Because if you liked Jimmy Carter, you would have loved Al Gore.

 

[CSM]

The fact is, Saddam DID indeed have chemical weapons prior to the first Persian Gulf war. He was supposedly made to dispose of them, thus the need for weapons inspectors. It is unclear to me that he destroyed his chemical arsenal even after the inspections, etc.

 

[Comrade]

You misunderstand my point. I don't believe we should have pulled out right after getting out Saddam, I believe we shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place. Instead we should have used those resources in the search for a man that actually attacked the United States.

If we had used our 100,000+ troops to scour Pakistan or Iran or everywhere else we might believe he could be, we'd be in a state of war with each and every country we entered. And that's crazy, especially when we have no idea where this one single person would be. Osama is devoid of refuge and even real power as it is. He's been effectively replaced, and then his replacement has been replaced. Like I said, vengeance against one man, who never really was a key mastermind in any of the operations against us, doesn't merit going to war with 100 Million people, one of them armed with nuclear weapons. Better he dies sick and in pain than become a martyr for the entire Islamic world.

I think if Iraqis really wanted Saddam out they could have attacked with the force they have unleashed on our troops.

Indeed some tried, and died, by the thousands. Along with their families and fellow villagers.

If we went to war with every country that had a leader that killed his own people then we would have to attack China, North Korea, and Cuba just to name a few at least 2 of those have weapons of mass destruction.

And so we start somewhere, how about the middle east then?

And look at Iraq, it's a perfect place to begin.

A ruthless tyrant, harbouring terrorists, a history of using WMD's, who has attacked his neighbors and put the worlds economic oil pipeline at risk, who forced us to defend against his domination of the world's reliance on oil, at great cost to us, under sanctions which cause his people to suffer. I'll go on, too... This is positioned strategically among the most dangerous states in the world, who's people are traditionally secular, who are the most likely of all states to adopt real democracy, who's example would serve to defeat fundamentalist Islam, which terrorizes the world.

I could still go on, but you get the idea.

To believe Osama is gone in hiding and no longer a threat is folish to believe or even think.

Osama doesn't run the show anymore. In fact, he a sick old man with little to offer but martyrdom to his devout followers. Killing him doesn't even begin to solve the problem of the Wahabbi Fundamentalism spreading among Islam. Better we create a Democracy right smack in the middle of that region, inspire Iranian student to overthrow their regime, put pressure on the Saudis to crack down on their sponsorship of terror, and so on and so forth.

 

[neo_68710]

Osama is a sick old man with no power fine who wants to target him, he only killed 3,000 Americans, forget that, it is all in the past. We need a better target AH Iraq perfect we will show the world how powerful we can be. We go in we kick butt we make an example of Saddam MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. But wait why won't they stop killing us almost 900 hundred soldiers dead since Baghdad fell what is going on Muslims respect power and we showed that I don't understand. Our Allies hate us, who needs United Nations anyway we have all those tiny countries with no armies to back us up when we need them. We all know them Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia look out Iraq. You are right I think I will also blame Jimmy Carter no wait in fact I blame George Washington. Since George Washington would have been a terrorist in Great Britains eyes I guess we will all have to see who ends up a terrorist and who becomes the father of a nation. Osama President of the United Muslim Nation?

 

[CSM]

Osama is a sick old man with now power fine who wants to target him he only killed 3,000 Americans forget that it is all in the past. We need a better target ah Iraq perfect we will show the world how powerful we can be. We go in we kick butt we make an example of Saddam MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. But wait why won't they stop killing us almost 900 hundred soldiers dead since Baghdad fell what is going on Muslims respect power and we showed that I don't understand. Our Allies hate us who needs United Nations anyway we have all those tiny countries with no armies to back us up when we need them. You are right I think I will also blame Jimmy Carter no wait in fact I blame George Washington. Since George Washington would have been a terrorist in Great Britains eyes I guess we will all have to see who ends up a terroist and who becomes the father of a nation. Osama President of the United Muslim Nation?

I dont think George Washington was a terrorist. We are headed towards that debate about what constitutes a terrorist and what constitutes a freedom fighter.

Also, what Allies hate us? I would suggest that if they hate us, they aren't allies. If by allies, you mean the countries aligned with the US after WWII, then I do believe that definition of "allies" no longer applies. As for the United Nations, they have no military power of their own; they are dependent on forces provided by member states. Which tiny nation has no Army, by the way?

 

[neo_68710]

Of coarse you don't consider George Washington a terrorist the history books you grew up with say he was a great freedom fighter but somehow I doubt Great Britain thought of him that way back then. I guess our Allies don't hate us, Germany and France just disagree with us in every way and want nothing to do with us but they are still Allies I guess. If Eritrea has an army I apologize I'm sure it is a kick ass army that could have taken care of Iraq by itself. Is Osama a Terrorist in the eyes of the Muslim nation or a Freedom Fighter?

Edit: I just looked it up and Eritrea does have an army boy is my face red.

 

[CSM]

Of coarse you don't consider George Washington a terrorist the history books you grew up with say he was a great freedom fighter but somehow I doubt Great Britain thought of him that way back then. I guess our Allies don't hate us, Germany and France just disagree with us in every way and want nothing to do with us but they are still Allies I guess. If Eritrea has an army I apologize I'm sure it is a kick ass army that could have taken care of Iraq by itself. Is Osama a Terrorist in the eyes of the Muslim nation or a Freedom Fighter?

Edit: I just looked it up and Eritrea does have an army boy is my face red.

It's ok, most folks dont realize that all nations have a military of some sort.

From the CIA World Fact Book:

Military branches:
Army, Navy, Air Force
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$77.9 million (2003)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
11.8% (2003)

Again, if we define a freedom or guerilla fighter as one who takes armed action against military targets and terrorists as one who uses armed tactics against a civilian force, then George Washington is certainly not a terrorist. The argument that OBL is a freedom fighter is awful hard to swallow considering that his organization DELIBERATELY targets civilians. In my opinion, freedom fighters do not DELIBERATELY target civilians.

Also, there are many articles in the news (reuters/yahoo for example) about Germany's consternation at the US troop withdrawal so I wouldn't say that they want nothing to do with us.

 

[5stringJeff]

Of coarse you don't consider George Washington a terrorist the history books you grew up with say he was a great freedom fighter but somehow I doubt Great Britain thought of him that way back then. I guess our Allies don't hate us, Germany and France just disagree with us in every way and want nothing to do with us but they are still Allies I guess. If Eritrea has an army I apologize I'm sure it is a kick ass army that could have taken care of Iraq by itself. Is Osama a Terrorist in the eyes of the Muslim nation or a Freedom Fighter?

Edit: I just looked it up and Eritrea does have an army boy is my face red.

George Washington was a rebel, and the Brits hated him for that, but Washington never participated in any acts that terroized civilians. In fact, while the British were making great pains for the civilians that lived in British-occupied New York, Washington refused to put the strain of supporting his army on the civilian population in Pennsylvania. Thus, Washington wintered at Valley Forge, where his soldiers literally built up a camp for themselves in the dead of winter; he refused to imprison Tories or take their belongings - instead, he sent Tories to live in New York under the rule of the British.
Calling George Washington a terrorist really shows a lack of understanding of what occured during the Revolution. That said, neo, welcome to the board. You seem like an intelligent person who can debate without name-calling, and that is a rare trait indeed!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Which tiny nation has no Army, by the way?

That would be Iceland, right?

 

[CSM]

To add to the debate and substantiate what I said about Germany:

Washington Times
August 25, 2004
Pg. 11

U.S. Troop Plans Alarm Germans

Withdrawal may hit 80,000 jobs

By Andrew Borowiec, The Washington Times

GENEVA — The planned worldwide redeployment of U.S. troops has created an acute problem for Germany, which has benefited for decades from the largest concentration of American bases in Europe.

At stake are about 80,000 jobs in a country unable to halt the tide of unemployment, now at 10 percent of the labor force, and the loss of considerable revenue to regional administrations.

Mayors of towns near U.S. bases have appealed to Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to persuade Washington to change its mind.

The German Ministry of Foreign Affairs told the protesting mayors and regional chiefs that it was in contact with Washington and that "no definitive action has been taken," according to German sources.

Diplomats point out that the German demands have nothing to do with defense and everything to do with local economic considerations.

The Pentagon has announced a major reduction in U.S. military presence abroad, affecting an estimated 60,000 to 70,000 troops stationed mainly in Europe and Asia. The gradual withdrawal is to begin in 2006 and will last four years as part of the changing strategy in the post-cold War era.

The collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent disintegration of the Soviet bloc has already resulted in the reduction of U.S. military strength in Germany from 250,000 to 73,000 personnel. The new cuts are expected to reduce that number by half.

"The American withdrawal would be a catastrophe for us," said Franz Bohjm, mayor of Kitzingen in Bavaria, southern Germany. He claimed that his small town would lose $3 million annually, or 7 percent of its budget, if the adjacent U.S. base of 3,500 troops is closed.

This and other such protests have added to the problems besetting Mr. Schroeder as Germany struggles to emerge from recession.

For the past few weeks, hundreds of thousands have demonstrated in about 150 towns across the former communist east German region in protest against the government's latest reform plans.

The demonstrations were mainly triggered by the law that cuts jobless benefits to those who decline job offers, even if the offers don't correspond to the applicant's qualifications and his previous salary.

Unemployment in former East Germany has reached 20 percent in some areas.

So far, Mr. Schroeder has refused to change his mind. "I see no other alternative for Germany," he said, despite a considerable loss of popularity by his ruling Social Democratic Party.

Against such a background, politicians have been assuring their constituents that the beginning of the U.S. withdrawal is still distant and other factors may intervene.

Karsten Voigt, coordinator for U.S.-German cooperation, claims that Germany will remain the main area of U.S. military deployment in Europe. According to some reports, the United States has put out feelers about moving several bases eastward, to Poland, Hungary and Romania.

Bavaria's governor, Edmund Stoiber, said he would spare no effort to make sure that a maximum of U.S. troops remain in Germany.

Some conservative politicians have accused Mr. Schroeder of causing the withdrawals by his opposition to the U.S.- led war in Iraq. But according to the authoritative German daily Suddeutsche Zeitung, the plan to further reduce U.S. forces in Germany existed long before the invasion of Iraq.

 

[CSM]

That would be Iceland, right?

Yep

Again from the CIA World Fact Book:

Military branches:
no regular armed forces; Police, Coast Guard
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 75,568 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 66,503 (2004 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
0
Military - note:
defense is provided by the US-manned Icelandic Defense Force (IDF) headquartered at Keflavik

Please note who does provide security for this "defenseless" country (and at NO cost to them!)

 

[neo_68710]

CSM I enjoyed our debate and thanks to everyone who joined in. I don't believe George Washington was a terrorist I just like to get people thinking but that theory was shot down almost as fast as I thought it would. I look forward to debating with all of you again but I most go now. Never forget that your opinions matter even if others don't agree thats what makes the United States so great, HAVE A GREAT DAY.