If I had my way, Saddam would still be in power (page 5)

IronGland

What are they going to sell them on any way , listen if you do what the US tells you , you can open sweat shops and sell suff to them ??

Yes. Beats eating bark and watching your leader get a prostate exam.

lastcall

Wow .where to begin?

Folks, listen I don't claim to have all of the answers and I really do try to really listen and contemplate views of people that are different from my own.

Some very interesting and valid points on all sides.

Obviously I've got some peoples juices flowin' here with the subject line I chose to use (I borrowed it from consevative pundits on the Fox News Channel).

Xena

Your really bustin my chops!...... I'll try to respond..

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.

If we have the resources and the manpower, why not?

In short, because we don't and never will. And because we don't have leagal authority to police the world.....I could go on and on, but not now.

I imagine if you were living on that side of the world you might consider him a walking, talking mustachioed WMD...easy to roll the eyes from your comfy home isn't it?

I did not intend to belittle the Iraqis who have suffered while I sit in my"comfy" home. I think you missed my point there. WMD's were the cheif reason we were given as Americans for going to war. So where are they?

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.

True, but did you want to wait till it became imminent to YOU?

No not really, not from my "comfy living room". But that is my point If we have that view that we will remove all potential threats before they might maybe become real credible or imminent then we become the unilateral police of the world.

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

DUH

Okay maybe not the best choice of words..we went after them because it was expeditious in reletive terms. They were weak militarily....which goes back to the veiw I have that they were not a real and credible threat to the US..at least not one that we couldn't contain.

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.

No idea..but I will take your word on this one.
Okay that response puts things in perspective for me. (Duh, one has nukes that can reach our troops...one doesn't) -

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

Let me ask Yeru, being in the military he probably has a better grasp on that one than I do.

lastcall

continued...

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

Let me ask Yeru, being in the military he probably has a better grasp on that one than I do.

agreed. You should check with Yeru

I'm glad we have Saddam NOW.

And we are all happy that you are happy.

Ouch

More innocent victims, but hey they aren't American so who really cares, right?

I care please don't insinuate that I don't....more than you know

Why must we be consistant?

It's about credibillity and honesty and justice. Someone else brought up pragmatism...pragmatism in the US is is when it benefits the US. And thats fine, but please dont crow about bringing freedom and security to the Iraqi people because that is just naive ...it's about what this administration views as their interest. My opinion.

Time will tell my friends.... I hope Iraq ends up with a world class democracy and I hope the troops our home soon we will see.

Oh ..to whom it may concern I drive a compact car and I never even pay attention to the price of gas let alone bitch about it..

LC

heathen

IronGlad --- I really don't think the US needs more cheap products from over seas . I heard the problem that the US has with china is a huge trade debt and GW was negotiating to move american products to china . Your reasoning seems a little bit naive but I can agree that if people are busy doing something industrious that they tend to be a little less war hungry or threatening . The chineese have been building a nuclear program with all the new found wealth tho , which isn't a good thing either. I think all nuclear weapons should be outlawed , they are mostly designed to hit civilian targets anyway and are a huge threat to the ecology.

lastcall--- I think that the whole concept of destroying an entire country in order to get to a hand ful of people is insane . None of this will truly benefit the USA exept for cheap oil .

frenchbabyface

All of that is quiet sad anyway ... I'm glad some people are awake ...

Abaddon

He's was killing his own people, so why aren't we using that as an excuse to invade Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast or Liberia? Is it because they are black or because they are poor?

Did I say we shouldn't? Did I say economics plays no part?

Nope, I think I said exactly the opposite. However, I don't think that economics should play a part, and I think the 'we' should be a broad group of nations (i.e. European, American, African and Asian, not just mostly Europeans and Americans) acting in concert.

The colour green does have more to do with it than black or white. Kuwait BANG! reaction, Rwanda too little too late, former Yugoslavia ditto. Where's the oil? Errrr... let me guess... Rwanda?

I'm sorry but that's absolute arrogance. You think democracy is great so it must be the ONLY way people should be governed and live? The US government has used the patriot act to remove many of the democratic freedoms it so loudly praises, do you think we in Europe should invade and show you how it should be done?

Okay Einstein, where did I say democracy in the paragraph you responded to? For a start, freedom and democracy are NOT the same thing.

Secondly, I don't give a rat's wazoo if people want to live in a theocracy, a feudal society, a democratic one, a meriotocrartic oligarchy or a dictatorship provided they have their human rights respected.

As, historicaly, only democracies have really got near delivering human rights to all the members of the society they represent, I'm a little sceptical of other forms of government, even if democracies are an awfully inefficient and compromised form of government in their current stage of development.

So, my 'arrogant' attitude towards democratic government seems a little better thought out than your position, which seems to give more importance to the rights of the governing rather than the rights of the governed.

Eyebrow2

Saddam needed to be ousted no matter what...of course there was more fluff than actual fact to go to war with the country..but he really is a monster. And of course you know that GW had to avenge his father for the plot Saddam could not carry out to kill his dad.

I say this for all the Kurds and others in Iraq that that bastard mass murdered.

Saddam was tied to much in other way to the terrorists by attitude alone...he was quite pleased when the planes hit the towers, the pentagon and went down in the field in PA. That alone is not justification for warring with his country, but I think that there are so many little things that piled up make it seem right, even if it is not.

I must admit I did feel a little better when his two sons were killed, and later when the captured him. Now, they just need to be careful not to make him too much of a martyr.

Xena

Hey LC I finally got to reply....and they say prayer doesn't work

I appreciate your taking the time to respond to me. To be honest I was a little flippant with my replies and for that I apologize.

To me it's a moot point, he is out of power and we need to move forward. After seeing the acts he committed on his own people I would never wish him back in power.

As for potential thread vs imminant threat. If someone posed a threat to my family I would take whatever action I deemed necessary to defuse the situation before it did become imminant. You hear people commenting that they (the government) knew 9/11 was going to happen and did nothing...now they are blamed for taking action BEFORE something happened. Seems to be a lose/lose situation.

There is a lot of information out there that support both sides of the argument...and I would venture to say 99.9% of what you read is biased toward what the writer of that information wants you to believe. My point? Take what you need from the information, never trust anything or anyone 100% and make your OWN judgements ....lol if the dubs taught me nothing, they taught me that! BTW LC this paragraph is not directed toward you

lastcall

There is a lot of information out there that support both sides of the argument...and I would venture to say 99.9% of what you read is biased toward what the writer of that information wants you to believe. My point? Take what you need from the information, never trust anything or anyone 100% and make your OWN judgements ....lol if the dubs taught me nothing, they taught me that! BTW LC this paragraph is not directed toward you

Xena,

I basicly agree.

An an example.....Remember Yougoslavia....Bosnia..Milosevic? People on the "right", perhaps rightfully so, complain that virtually no one on the "left" complained about the US bombing the hell out of that country. Why? The "right" complains that it was because Clinton was president and now they are against the action in Iraq, because Bush is president.

But back then, there were people on the far "right" who complained about us being over there. Why? Because Clinton was president.

These situations are not exactly the same but they are comparable on many levels. My point: alot comes down to politics and ideologies ..and that is a shame.

I guess we have alot of bullshit to sift through.

BTW I took no offense to anything you said. I get a kick out of it actually.

LC

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

IronGland

Badger

lastcall

lastcall

heathen

frenchbabyface

Abaddon

Eyebrow2

Xena

lastcall

Share this