If I had my way, Saddam would still be in power

by lastcall 50 Replies latest social current

• 

  lastcall

  Hello everyone,

  Are we beginning to see that the argument of wether or not we should have gone to war is starting to get a little circular.

  There are points to be made on both sides.

  In my mind it comes down to wether or not you think that the US should be the policeman for the rest of the world.

  I personally still don't think we needed to go to war, EVEN THOUGH WE DID CAPTURE SADDAM, I know, I know, hard to believe.

  Just think, If I had my way, Saddam would still be in power!!!! What was I thinking ? I mean he actually is a WMD incarnate. He is a walking, talking, mustachioed, WMD.

  My feeling is that there is a difference between a dictator that is an imminent threat, and one that is a potential threat to US security and world peace.

  We went after Iraq, my friends, purely because we could.

  Tell me this: Who was a bigger potential danger to us, N. Korea or Iraq? If your answer is .."well, N.Korea is next", than at least your honest.

  North Korea is a little bit tougher though aren't they....not so easy.

  And if your going to argue that we are to be the instrument of justice for the world, then fine make your argument from that platform but accept that the only logical next step for us is to oust every government we deem to be cruel and a "potential threat".

  Maybe that is the way to go huh, to prevent the sort of tragedy that occured 9/11...err ..wait a second, that was a bunch of Saudis......lets go after them now.......oh wait, they are an ally.....oh shit.

  I'm glad we have Saddam NOW.

  I mean we better have gotten him after the price that has been paid in dollars and more importantly our young peoples lives.

  But I think I could still handle him ruling his little part of the world with our soldiers home and alive and with about 200 billion less in US debt and with more of our resources focused on OSAMA! Remember him?

  Yes Saddam would still be rattling his sword along with a dozen other retarded despots.

  So if you think our place in this world is to dispense American Justice and humanitarianism (according to our liking), then we are on the right track. But we must be consistant (except in Africa......or anyone that has nukes...or anyone that is our "ally" {Saudi Arabia} ......).

  Who do we destroy next? Do you personally feel safer now that Saddam is in custody? Really?

  LC
• 

  heathen

  I think G.W is just as much a threat to world peace as saddaam was . I was never for the war in Iraq and am not dancing in the streets because 1 lunatic is behind bars awaiting a sentence that will probly be too lenient . The US considers china an ally and they are just as guilty as Sadaam for human rights violations . This war was about control of the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world .
• 

  freedom96

  It ceases to amaze me at all the posts from people who just "know that they are right" and that they have all the answers.

  Unless we were in the oval office, unless we are the President, unless we were in on all the discussions, how can we honestly say we "know for a certainty" what the war was about.

  Oh, the war was about oil, or this, or that. Come on, this is an opinion, and that is all it is. It carries no more weight than my opinion, or anyone elses.

  So, let us express our viewpoints, sure, but let us remember that we all really don't know for sure, for certainty, now, do we?

  The fact is that the world is a better place without Saddam out of power. Was he the only threat? No. Where we going to get nuked within the month or next year from him? Not likely. Could he ever bomb us, one day? Sure. Is he crazy enough to do it if he had the chance? Without a doubt.

  So, yes, I do believe the world is a better place without Saddam, and it is in fact a bit safer, even if the threat was a distant one. This does not make the earth completely peaceful now, of course, but it is a step in the right direction, and maybe, just maybe, it will make the next dictator think twice.
• 

  Cassiline

  If I had my way, Saddam would still be in power

  I'm quite sure there millions of Kurds, Iraqis, Iranians and god knows who else who are very happy you did not get 'your way'.

  Cassi
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Lastcall,

  Freedom96 - As the leader of a democracy, the President has the obligation to make a strong case for war. There is absolutely no legal precedent allowing the President to arbitrarily wage war on the promise that "We have good reasons - I'll tell them to you later." If he can't make a strong case for war - if indeed he can't convince his own people through a logical discussion - then there is patently no valid reason for the war.

  If we live in a land where it facts don't matter and the President can do whatever he wants, then we certainly don't live in a democracy anymore.

  SNG
• 

  heathen

  freedom -- You are entitled to your opinion and noone said you aren't . I think there are enough facts to back the US going to war with Iraq because of the oil and not as they were saying about weapons of mass destruction of which there is no evidence for weapons of mass destruction . That country is just too unstable to even think attempting to build a stable country out of it. The US has often made grievous errors when attempting to produce a democracy in the region , I think Israel is one good example of that . Beiruit is another . These dellusions of graduer often lead to nothing but more human suffering and debt for the US .
• 

  Simon

  I still believe that Iraq was targetted because it was the easiest. Saddam was a spent force and no threat to the US or the rest of the world.

  What has gone on with Saddam now is the price being payed for the previous 20 - 30 years of meddling and interfering with the affairs of others for our own benefit at the expense of the local populations.

  If we go interfering elsewhere then in 20 - 30 years time we will start paying the price for that too.

  I think we should stop propping up unwanted regimes in places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt and let the people choose who they want. As in previous countries like Chile, this may be someone that we don't like and, shock horror, a left wing ruler. But if it's what the people want then they won't hate us for it.

  Remember when 9-11 happened? The people in Iran (our "enemy") were out in the streets crying and expressing sympathy for the USA whereas the people in our "allies" of Saudi and Egypt were the ones celebrating. They blame us for their oppression and quite rightly.

  The countries don't have to be our best friends but in 20 - 30 years as people move on and the country ends up ruled by people who weren't brought up hating us then we will reap the benefits of real security, the sort that force alone can't buy you.
• 

  Guest 77

  Lastcall, you've brought up some interesting points. My question for starters, was it the purpose or intent of the founding fathers (as they call them) when framing and adopting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to be the policemen of the world?

  Guest 77
• 

  lastcall

  I'm quite sure there millions of Kurds, Iraqis, Iranians and god knows who else who are very happy you did not get 'your way'.

  Cassi

  Cassi, did you read my entire post? Of course I'm glad Saddam is not in power any longer. I also wish I could snap my fingers and remove Kim Jong Il , my point was I still don't think we needed or should have gone to war.

  I'm quite sure there millions of Kurds, Iraqis, Iranians and god knows who else who are very happy

  Is that our role in this world to make the Iranians and Kurds "happy"? I know about the atrocities. There are many being perpetrated right now by other SOBs in the world. Again I ask , Is our role in this world to be the long arm of american law?

  If your answer is yes then fine, when is the US going to 'democrafy' Syria, China, Cuba, Rawanda......Iran....oh wait we have to make them happy.

  BTW,

  Freedom, I don't claim to 'know I am right', I am just raising questions....how about trying to answer some.

  LC
• 

  Satans little helper

  The last several months have amazed me, first we were under a 'clear and present threat' of imminent danger from the mustachioed one, then he was the devil incarnate, and most cunningly the pantagon and the whitehouse managed to bullshit the American people into believing that Saddam had something to do with the twin towers attacks.

  There are many incidental facts that can be used to form your opinion of why Bush went to war, but at the end of the day that's all they are - opinions. Personally I believe that he went to war for a number of reasons - economic (oil and arms and rebuilding contracts), to make an object lesson of a weak power so that Korea would step into line, political - to make him look like a strong war leader to win votes in the next election and ward off the criticisms of his lack of domestic policies and also to send a powerful message through the middle east. The last point is rather scary, looking at some of the New World Order stuff that people around Bush have published they make it clear that they believe that forcing democracy on the middle east is a positive thing whether they like it or not. I see more wars and alot more bloodshed.

  As for the world being a safer place now that Saddam is out of power - wake up and smell the coffee. Saddam was obviously a bit of a turd but he kept the extremists in his country in check, what we have done now is allow hardline muslims to step into the power vacuum and Iraq has become a magnet for terrorists and anyone with an AK47. We've taken an oppressed but stable country and turned it into a haven for terrorists, and the ongoing war in Afghanistan is still rumbling on. If being a totalitarian dictator wh kills your people were reason enough for us to invade then why isn't anything being done in Zimbabwe? Is it because they don't have oil?