Saddam is dead...

I disagree. American's have been saturated for a decade about the thuggishness of saddam. I don't know how old you are, but we heard the stories of his brutality all the way back to the first gulf war. And the bush republicans have sold him as "the next hitler" for the last 5 years. Even my 15 year old step son was glad he was hung. He knows the deal on saddam.

Prior to the first gulf war, only liberal groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were bothering to regularly publicize saddam's brutality. Saddam was our ally, and Reagan and Poppy Bush ran cover for him.


I don't know what your point is about the french.
 
Runyon said:
Yes, I think few actually understand what he did and when. They hear, 'the us supplied wmd', but not what the Euros did, nor Saddam's choices when available. Then again, that would be presenting a complete pic, not something you would be likely to go with. France, Germany and Russia were much more responsible for the final outcome than US, where has the media been in that?
Click to expand...

so what? the bottom line is: he was not a threat to America...sanctions had worked.... Bush's own Secretary of State said exactly that months before 9/11. I know Saddam was a bad guy...so was the Shah of Iran...so was Pinochet... America has NEVER been in the business of taking out bad guys just because they were bad, but only when bad guys were a clear and present threat to OUR national interest. Saddam was an asshole, but he did three things in that area of the world that we wish we could do as well and that we would be MUCH better off if we had let him continue to perform those functions rather than US: 1. keeping Islamic extremists from using Iraq as home base....2. keeping the sunnis and the shiites in Iraq from slaughtering one another .... and 3. keeping Iran from becoming a regional superpower and role model for all the Islamic world.
 
maineman said:
so what? the bottom line is: he was not a threat to America...sanctions had worked.... Bush's own Secretary of State said exactly that months before 9/11. I know Saddam was a bad guy...so was the Shah of Iran...so was Pinochet... America has NEVER been in the business of taking out bad guys just because they were bad, but only when bad guys were a clear and present threat to OUR national interest. Saddam was an asshole, but he did three things in that area of the world that we wish we could do as well and that we would be MUCH better off if we had let him continue to perform those functions rather than US: 1. keeping Islamic extremists from using Iraq as home base....2. keeping the sunnis and the shiites in Iraq from slaughtering one another .... and 3. keeping Iran from becoming a regional superpower and role model for all the Islamic world.
Click to expand...
I won't disagree with what you said. I would also add:

1. Iraq is to the west of Iran. 2. Iran is to the north of SA and Kuwait. 3. Turkey is to the Northeast of Iraq. 3. Controlling Iraq is the linchpin of control of the ME and protection of Israel.
 
Runyon said:
I won't disagree with what you said. I would also add:

1. Iraq is to the west of Iran. 2. Iran is to the north of SA and Kuwait. 3. Turkey is to the Northeast of Iraq. 3. Controlling Iraq is the linchpin of control of the ME and protection of Israel.
Click to expand...


"Control of the middle east and protection of Israel".


1) We don't spend one trillion dollars and sacrifice 26,000 dead and wounded american soldiers to "protect" israel. They are capable of protecting themselves" they have a nuclear deterent and the most powerful military in the middle east.

2) What does us "controlling" iraq mean? Is this war about empire? Is it about WMD? Or, is it about letting iraqis decide for themselves what kind of government to have - which will likely be theocratic-leaning, and not pro-american.
 
Cypress said:
"Control of the middle east and protection of Israel".


1) We don't spend one trillion dollars and sacrifice 26,000 dead and wounded american soldiers to "protect" israel. They are capable of protecting themselves" they have a nuclear deterent and the most powerful military in the middle east.

2) What does us "controlling" iraq mean? Is this war about empire? Is it about WMD? Or, is it about letting iraqis decide for themselves what kind of government to have - which will likely be theocratic-leaning, and not pro-american.
Click to expand...
Nope, it's about a democracy of a sort, outside of Israel, that is wholly Iraqi. It would be much better if the Christians and Jews that have lived there forever were also included, but that seems not to be.
 
Runyon said:
Nope, it's about a democracy of a sort, outside of Israel, that is wholly Iraqi. It would be much better if the Christians and Jews that have lived there forever were also included, but that seems not to be.
Click to expand...

Well, I gotta tell ya: now that the WMD went missing, if your true goal is to get out of the way and let iraqis determine their own government, its most likely going to be semi-theocratic and not at all pro-american.

I hope that's worth 1 trillion dollars, and tens of thousands of american dead and wounded. Personally, I don't think it is.
 
Runyon said:
I won't disagree with what you said. I would also add:

1. Iraq is to the west of Iran. 2. Iran is to the north of SA and Kuwait. 3. Turkey is to the Northeast of Iraq. 3. Controlling Iraq is the linchpin of control of the ME and protection of Israel.
Click to expand...

and Saddam did an infinitely better job of contolling Iraq than we will EVER do.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Well, I gotta tell ya: now that the WMD went missing, if your true goal is to get out of the way and let iraqis determine their own government, its most likely going to be semi-theocratic and not at all pro-american.

I hope that's worth 1 trillion dollars, and tens of thousands of american dead and wounded. Personally, I don't think it is.
Click to expand...

Time will tell. Personally I think the whole situation would have been different, if OUR country were not as divided as the Sunni and Shites, but it is.
 
Runyon said:
Time will tell. Personally I think the whole situation would have been different, if OUR country were not as divided as the Sunni and Shites, but it is.
Click to expand...

Runyon, please stop trying to blame the french, the germans, or the democrats, for the incometent and miserable way your president has executed this war.

Its his puppy. The congress and the democrats gave him every penny and every dollar he requested for his war. He's the commader in chief and has made all the military and strategic decisions. The fact that virtually all his decisions have been wrong, merits dissent in this country. This is a democracy.
 
Im not saying I was really against them killing him... but I do think it is a sad day when it gets to the point, wther you agree with Cap punishment or not, where the state feels a need to kill someone. It is not a day of celebration, even if it was the right thing to do!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top