" Is the United States not safer..."

[SHRED]

Is the United States not safer with Saddam's murderous dictator regime out of power?

This is what a rightie asks on another board and I am trying to come up with some bullet point rebuttals. Any help?

[kentuck]

1. Short response.

NO.

[arwalden]

13. That Would Be A Double-Negative...

"Is the United States not safer with Saddam's murderous dictator regime out of power?"

My answer would be "Yes".

Yes, the United States is NOT safer with Saddam's murderous dictator regime out of power."

-- Allen

Edit: I think. Maybe I got it wrong.

[WLKjr]

19. no your right

Moran asked a double negative and probably didn't even realize it. probably still doesn't realize it. knuckledragger.

[Zynx]

2. In what way was he a threat?

[DebJ]

3. Not when our attack on Iraq recruits terrorists so that they

multiply like cockroaches.

[One_Life_To_Give]

4. US of Isreal Yes, US of A ? n/t

[leesa]

10. Saddam wasn't even a threat to Israel. He had nothing He was an old man

[One_Life_To_Give]

12. Old man who funded suicide bombers in Isreal n/t

[Guy_Montag]

17. He gave money to the famlies of suicide bombers

bit like NORAID.

Does that mean we can invade you?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

5. Ask him: "So, where are Saddam's WMDs and the missiles to....

...launch them?"

[Justice]

6. Try This

No, we are not safer because of the way in which the Bush administration drove Saddam out of power. We have lost ground in Iraq even from where we were a year ago. There are whole regions that we don't have any control over. Foreign terrorists are pouring into Iraq -- terrorists who hate us and our people there.

We are $200 billion dollars less safe. We don't put cops on the street in the US but we pay to but cops on the street in Iraq.

There was absolutely no doubt that if we went to Iraq we could take Saddam out - our military overpowered Saddam's military. But the planning beforehand, the planning for the peace - totally stupid decions, poor judgments.

We lied about why we were going into Iraq. There were no WMDs. We didn't let the inspectors finish their work to try to find WMDs. We knew it nothing was there, yet went in anyway.

We didn't get real coalition partners to help us with cost and troops. We pay more than 90% of the cost in money, troops on the ground and lives lost.

We tortured Iraqi prisoners - which is ironic cuz that is what we said Saddam did.

We had no plan to win the peace. We had insiders at the Pentagon all juiced up to give no-bid contracts to their industry buddies. So Haliberton does everything -- they provide food, fuel trucks, provide Internet access - everything. They overcharge us and pay their people more money than the soldiers working next to them protecting them.

We rejected the UN's offers of help, we closed out contracts from countries that didn't go to war with us. We acted like a spoiled bully.

We are negotiating now with Iraqis in Najaf and Fallujah and other places -- we fight them, they shoot our guys and gals, we don't take them out, instead we retreat and they them regain strength to fight another day.

More of our troops died in August than any other month of fighting. How are things getting better?

How are we safer? Exactly how are we safer? Saddam had nothing on us -- nothing. How are we safer? How has capturing Saddam stopped Al Queda, or slowed them down? How has capturing Saddam brought us closer to catching OBL?

[SHRED]

8. OMG!

Very nice!!!

Can I copy and paste?

:toast:

[mr blur]

24. Perfect

A shame so many in the US don't get it.

[against all enemies]

7. Real threat is Islamic Fundalmentalists that use terror as weapon.

Has the war in Iraq reduced the power of these Fundamentalists?

Absolutely not, their power grows greater by the day, and we have given them the reasons for their growth. A Christian Army invading a Muslim land.


We couldn't have played into their hands better if we tried.

[July]

9. Some Iraqis are, we aren't.

Iraqis who might have pissed off Saddam don't have to worry about him any more (that could include anyone, of course). They do have to worry about his henchmen (still there, some employed by us), us, factions springing up all over, religious nuts who did not have power under Saddam, and foreign jihadists who weren't there during Saddam's regime but are now pouring into Iraq.

Since Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks here, how does taking Saddam out help US? If doing that made our ports, chemical plants, nuclear plants, and borders safer or hired and equipped more first responders here, maybe we'd be safer. Of course, Bush has underfunded or opposed measures to do those things. Again, not safer.

We can surmise that murderous Saddam would have gladly killed Bush or his father, so Bush is definitely safer. I don't know about the rest of us, though.

[kayell]

18. Between 12800 and 14843* Iraqi civilians aren't safer. They're dead

and you can bet their relatives, friends and neighbors (those that survived) are pissed.

* http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

[July]

22. Completely agree with you.

That's why I said "some" Iraqis. Those safe from Saddam are not, as you point out, safe from us, though.

[JHB]

11. Before Bush attacked, his dictatorship had been reduced...

...so that he was little more than a glorified Mayor of Bagdahd. Every claim advanced to support the idea that he was a danger to us was either an outright fabrication or wildly exaggerated.

Then, having decided to attack, Bush and his team decided to treat it like a half-assed joyride rather than a serious military operation, so they sent in a fraction of the troops needed (just enough for the "spearpoint", not enough to keep control in the aftermath), all the while insulting and alienating our allies around the world (sneer at the French all you want, I'd rather have the Foreign Legion along for the fight than the entire army of some "willing" Pacific sandbar).

[democratreformed]

14. While we focused on removing Sadaam from power

(and he was NOT an imminent threat), many other dangerous situations have sprung up that we are unable to deal with. Both Iran and North Korea are rearing their ugly heads. Control of Afghanistan is a joke. No one really knows what's going on in other places - China, Japan, etc.

No, I don't feel that we are safer with Sadaam out of power.

[napi21]

15. How can the US be safer when Shrub did exactly what Osama warned

his people the US would do...occupy the soil of Islam! We confirmed his warnings and have made the terrorists even more agressive in their hate of the western world.

[BurtWorm]

16. I would ask him if he's confident the US will not be attacked under Bush.

Does he feel safer under the conditions of 2004 than he did under the conditions of 2000? I don't. I won't feel safer until Bush's fingers are off the reins of power and back in his nose where they belong.

[HFishbine]

20. How many Americans were being beheaded in Iraq

prior to the war?

[Protagoras]

21. No.

Blowback.

[skygazer]

23. Turn it right back at him

How are we safer? Give examples of what made us unsafe prior to our attack on Iraq.

I get sick of defending myself when asked questions that are this stupid. Make them provide the facts instead of us having to dig for info.

[fob]

25. Can the person provide evidence that we ARE safer?

[baldguy]

26. For every Iraqi we kill, we create 10 terrorists & 1000 sympathizers

Thats not the way to END terrorism

[oldcoot]

27. Use the administration as evidence

If we are safer, then why is the administration worried about a possible terrorist attack around the time of the elections?