Yeah, I think Saddam oughta still be in power.

[dbt]

Reckon I'll just lean over the plate and take one, but it ain't gonna be for "the team." I'll take this hit--and all the flames and hand-wringing about what "the world will think of DU if they see posts like this"--in the name of Common Sense. To wit:

There would be 3,000 American service personnel and most probably 600,000 Iraqis still alive IF Saddam had remained in power. Please try to bear in mind that the population of Iraq was about 50 PER CENT UNDER 18 before "we" decided to liberate them--and THEN ask yourself what "we" do to Child Killers in this country.

There would be no civil war in Iraq if Saddam were still in power. There would also be electricity and fresh water. Iraqis could, in all probablity, go to the corner store for food and supplies (something "we" take for granted in Amerika) with a reasonable expectation of returning home alive.

I will readily concede that Saddam was an "evil tyrant who murdered his own people" IF you'll concede the very same about a supposed President of the United States of America who either COULD NOT or WOULD NOT lift a finger--except for the middle one--to stop the terrorist attacks that he and his Handlers DAMN WELL KNEW was coming on the 11th of September, 2001.

The United States knowingly, willfully, and GLEEFULLY violated just about the oldest principle of warfare that there IS: War is only undertaken as a last resort. The US decided--in the face of the active opposition of 2/3 of the world's population--to invade a country that posed absolutely no military or economic threat to us, for political expediency and profits. Iraq had 2/3 of its territory under aerial control and surveillance by foreign powers, not to mention crippling economic sanctions in place AND overflights by satellites that can read license plates from 22,000 miles straight up. Yet we were supposed to believe that Saddam somehow had been able to develop Nucular Weapons and was ready to drop them on the East Coast via drone aircraft within 45 minutes?!?!?! Fuck that. bu$hler lied to us all on TV (thank you, Merle Haggard!). He was lying, and he KNEW he was lying. Just the same as Saddam did to HIS people.

Now, we're fixin' to hang a man who has been such a convenient ally and such a convenient foe of Republican Presidents? In spite of the BEAM in the eye of this Christian Nation??? Something smells like Catfish Charlie in Amerika.

:freak:
dbt
Remember New Orleans

[L0oniX]

1. I totally agree

[JeffR]

2. Agree 100%

Damn right.
:kick:

[seemslikeadream]

3. Yes something does smell, doesn't it dbt?

:hi:

[dbt]

HI, SEEMS!!!!!

Long time, no hear, Dear Sister. How lovely to run up on you in such an extreme age!

:bounce:
dbt
Remember New Orleans

[pooja]

4. Seeing how the US installed him in the first place, I think we are

only to blame for any violence that people suffered under his rule.. and no, there is not a dictator in ME that has clean hands... OUR own pretzledunce has blood on his hands and should be tried for crimes against humanity.

[aquart]

5. I agree.

All we had to do is wait until the old bastard died, and civil war broke out when his sons tried to take control. THEN we could have come in as saviors.......us and the UN and all the other interested oil users. We would have been restoring order.....as we all divied up the oil.

And we would have LOOKED like honest brokers, not war criminals.

[OwnedByFerrets]

6. Wont get an argument from me nt

[dbt]

7. Thank you to everyone who has responded.

Submitted for your consideration: What if Bill Clinton had pulled some shit like this?

:evilgrin:
dbt
Remember New Orleans

[NanceGreggs]

8. No argument here ...

... none.

:kick:

[dbt]

11. I am SO not worthy!

Thank you, MA'AM!!! (as we say in Arkansas). I am a big fan of your work!

:blush:
dbt
Remember New Orleans

[ourbluenation]

9. My husband has the exact same view as you...

said the guy had a thumb on a powder keg (Iraq)...take the thumb off and voila! look what you get. It's hard to recognize that and realize his true evilness, but not impossible.

[Snivi Yllom]

10. Howard Dean: "Justice for the Iraqi people was finally served today"

Justice for the Iraqi people was finally served today with the conviction of Saddam Hussein. This dictator ruled by fear, torturing and murdering his own people to satisfy his malicious interests. It’s commendable and important that he was brought to justice in the country where he committed these atrocities against humanity.

Iraq is in the middle of a civil war and growing sectarian violence will be an even greater concern following this verdict. Our troops should be commended for providing the security needed to conduct this trial in Iraq and for their ongoing efforts to put an end to the violence and protect the Iraqi people.

[Sensitivity]

12. Welll, the NeoCons now seem to agree with you.

[krispos42]

14. Only with the means, not the objective

Invading Iraq was (and still is) fine with them, but they are pissed at the way it was handled and at how it turned out. The idea of violating national soveignty and illegal invasion on manufactured evidence is not something they seem to have a problem with.

[krispos42]

13. Removing Saddam was the right thing to do ONLY IF

we replaced him and his government with something better.

We didn't.

We replaced it with sectarian violence and low-grade civil war getting hotter and hotter by the day. We have replaced it with public-utility shortages and terror attacks. We have replaced it with a theological government and two religions factions each looking to create a theocracy.

Our political leaders refused to back up their committment to remove Saddam with a committment of troops, resources, post-invasion planning, and competent post-invasion administrators. They did this because they did not feel it was politically feasible to accomplish. A half-million troops for ten years? Two or three trillion dollars? No, that was not politically doable. So we were lied to. 150,000 troops, a couple of years, a paltry few billion dollars, Iraqi oil will pay for it. They did not tell the truth on the spending nor on the troop levels. They went in with enough force to win the war, but not the occupation.

Question: how do you win a war? By entering the enemy nation with armed troops, defeating military opposition, and taking physical control of the land, cities, people, government, and resources of the country you are invading.

How do you win an occupation? When the same country you invaded, under arms, as an enemy you leave, peacefully, as a friend. When you have restored independent civilian government, public works projects are moving ahead, and the war damage is being repaired and rebuilt.

That is how you win an occupation, and I don't see us doing it.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Instead of an argument or flames, from me you get a K&R and full .......

.... agreement.

[dbt]

16. Damn!

Thank you, SIR!

dbt

[Rhiannon12866]

17. I agree with your views, and know many others who do. K&R.

Saddam was an ally of the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, and we gave him aid and weapons in his war with Iran. Any WMDs that have been found there have come from us. And you're absolutely right about the horrific death toll. As many Americans have now died there as died on 9/11, and that's not counting the Iraqi deaths, the "collateral damage" and the result of "insurgent" violence, in the hundreds of thousands, so many of them children, since the Iraqi population is very young, as you say.;(

Most people believe that we invaded Iraq as retribution for 9/11, which makes no sense, since Saddam was a secular leader and wouldn't have put up with terrorists in his country. Osama bin Laden called him "an infidel" because he didn't support his cause. Saddam may have been a tyrant and a bully, but he was once on our side and executing him will only foment more violence and more deaths in this already beleaguered region, violence begun when the U.S. launched an illegal wear against a third-world nation. *sigh*

Edited to include animation. This tells the story, as does this pic...

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/whoops.html

[Dangerman]

18. I hate to be the devil's advocate...

But leaving Saddam in power could have save thousand of lives and not brought the country in chaotic civil war. That would be a small price to pay.

F*ck you Bush for turning Iraq into the depths of hell, and America is next.

[majorjohn]

19. Saddam was a sick man

He ruled Iraq with a vision that it belonged to him and his family, everything in Iraq belonged to him, and his people were treated like his slaves. What's happening in Iraq today isn't the result of "Saddam not in power" but rather the result of "no power". The new government is not yet independent and it will never be while American troops are still in control.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

22. "He ruled X with a vision that it belonged to him and his family, everything in Iraq belonged to him

sounds like somebody else we know.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

23. Oooh, beat me to it!

:hi: MKJ

[rman]

24. There are far worse dictators than Saddam Husein,

but they, as Saddam once did, enjoy US support in exchange for putting US (corporate) interests before the interests of their own people.
Saddam's mistake was to try and defy the US by spending money on education and healthcare for Iraqis and planning on switching to the Euro for its international trade.

[cascadiance]

20. I think most people expected the verdict, etc. and won't affect their vote!

What I was worried about was a real "curveball" (and not Chalabi's minions by the way), where they'd also go drag out a live Bin Laden (or a dead one) and claim that they got him by Saddam giving out his whereabouts (you know that he wouldn't but if they announced that this close to the election, they would be figuring that we'd have a hard time disproving it this close to the election).

That might have stirred up the "stupidity" vote for them!

Sounds like they aren't going that route, so they'll have to rely on Diebold to try and keep congress now!

[Nikia]

21. While I agree that the invasion was unjust, I don't know if I agree

About the fact that it is good to keep harmful dictators in power.
Dictators do often stabilize areas of unrest. On the otherhand, a lot of negative feeling build during his reign amongst those who do not benefit, creating a higher potential of violence when he eventually is ousted or dies a naturual death. There is bound to be fighting one way or another.
I think that it would be good to get the UN involved to try to build a more stable government based on Iraquis best interests, not American best interests.

[The Count]

25. I think it was up to Iraqis to decide - and act - not to us

And yeah, the amount of dead and destruction on both US and Iraqi sides hardly makes his removal worth it.

[tomp]

26. the invasion was wrong. his trial was wrong. nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

27. Wellllll....

I don't think any dictator should be in power, but I do not believe it was our responsibility to remove this particular one with an illegal invasion. I bet that's what you meant. :)

[LWolf]

28. I'll take that hit with you.

You are not alone.

The entire Iraq debacle was a weapon of mass distraction; how many lives spent to distract U.S. citizens from the gutting of civil liberties?

[Laurab]

29. Bill Maher said the same thing recently

to some wingnut on his show, when the guy asked if he thought it would be better if Saddam was in power. And Maher listed his reasons, many of them the same reasons you listed.

While in a perfect world, there would be no evil dictators running countries, there are many in this world - some far worse than Saddam.

I can't argue with you. The truth is the Iraqi people WERE better off with him in power. WE were better off with him in power. Nothing has been gained for anyone except for the war profiteers, in this massacre of innocent human lives - both American and Iraqi.

As evil as Saddam may be, he's got nothing on this administration, IMO.

[OneBlueSky]

30. and . . . the country wouldn't be filthy with depleted uranium . . .

contamination and residual cluster bombs . . .

yeah, I agree with you . . . Saddam was under control and not much of a threat to anyone outside his own country . . . and whatever damage he was doing internally pales in comparison to what our "liberation" has wrought . . .

[passy]

31. Does 600,000 dead qualify for genocide status?

Starting a pre-emptive war is a war crime BTW.

[bulletsandspikes]

32. Couldn't have said it better myself