# Iraq would be better off with saddam in power



## Yurt (Apr 23, 2009)

well....probably end up with heated talks so i thought i would save the mods time by posting here


----------



## Kalam (Apr 23, 2009)

Probably not. None of our business, though.


----------



## Xenophon (Apr 23, 2009)

I honestly don't give a fuck how they would be, as long as we left them alone and they left us alone.


----------



## Yurt (Apr 23, 2009)

jillian...why do you say that?  saddam TORTURED his own people....


----------



## Yurt (Apr 23, 2009)

interesting, jillian wants to prosecute americans, bush as well, for alleged torture, but she wants saddam in power knowing full well the massive torture committed by him....

typical libs, ignore the evil of other countries and believe other countries over this country....but holy lord if a republican is thought to have done something, off with their heads!


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 23, 2009)

It's speculation.  Iraqis have undergone a tremendous social upheaval.  Scores of thousands have died and many more injured.  The social fabric, weak to begin with, has been ripped apart.  Religious tensions are higher.  On the other hand, they don't have a dictator.  For now.  

You could make a stronger argument that the US would be better off had it not invaded Iraq.


----------



## Yurt (Apr 23, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> It's speculation.  Iraqis have undergone a tremendous social upheaval.  Scores of thousands have died and many more injured.  The social fabric, weak to begin with, has been ripped apart.  Religious tensions are higher.  On the other hand, they don't have a dictator.  For now.
> 
> You could make a stronger argument that the US would be better off had it not invaded Iraq.



my point was that i knew at least one liberal that would post that iraq would be better off with saddam, i've heard numerous libs make that argument and i think it is laughable given how they wanted to oust bush/cheney over torture but want saddam in power despite his countless, horrific tortures.

seems liberals support saddam, but not an american president


----------



## Gunny (Apr 24, 2009)

I don't know about Iraq, but the Middle East from a strategic standpoint was better off with Saddam in power.  He sat in between the Shia from the East and the Sunni from the West and nobody trusted him.  

He kept the Middle East un-unified and off-balance.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 24, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > It's speculation.  Iraqis have undergone a tremendous social upheaval.  Scores of thousands have died and many more injured.  The social fabric, weak to begin with, has been ripped apart.  Religious tensions are higher.  On the other hand, they don't have a dictator.  For now.
> ...


The difference is that Saddam was not our leader. The American people can hold the President and Congress accountable but they have no way to hold a foreign leader accountable. That was the Iraqis problem to solve, not ours. 

I think Iraq was better off...and I also so think we were also better off with Saddam in power, as much of a prick that he was.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 24, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



Incorrect.  Iraq was our problem to solve because of defense agreements our governments made with other nations.  Since we were footing the bill to babysit him for 12+ years, and we were the ones doing the babysitting, it was OUR problem.


----------



## WorldAHope (Apr 24, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...


Cheaper and easier to 'babysit' Saddam, keep him confined and work under the table to depose him,  
then it was to invade, defeat his military, take over responsibility for running Iraq. 

Iraq had power and lights and water and sewers and more living citizens who had a fairly stable economy. He provided far better security, there was less violence, NO AL QUAIDA presence in Iraq  when Saddam was in power. 
He was a brutal ruthless murderous dictator, but WE were better off with Saddam there, under close watch, than we are now. His troops were patrolling the streets, not ours. 

Now we have little control over what happens and what will happen to Iraq. There is great concern that it will be a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy inside 10 years. 
And we will have taken far too many casulties and spent far too much money to gain such a lousy outcome. 

IF Bush/Rummy had devoted the necessary resources - 400,000+ troops - to secure the country, maybe we could have avoided the casulties and the chaos caused by the insurgency -
the insurgency that Bush/Rummy were advised was 100% GOING to happen after we deposed Saddam and were running Iraq with insufficient strength to police. 

It has been a Stupid war, fought for stupid reasons. We, the USA, were lied to get into it, our country  got NOTHING positive out of it. We ended up strengthening the hand of Iran, our real adversary in the region while simultaneously weakening our own influence. 
And the tremendous fiscal costs and the market demand the war in Iraq put on oil and building materials and other commodities compounded our deficits and contributed to the 2008-2009 economic collapse.

This entire affair was poorly planned, badly mismanaged , and was stupid from day one. Unnecessary. Bad results. High costs. Stupid Stupid Stupid. 
But Bush felt compelled to invade Iraq and to get rid of Saddam, from long before he was President.
Once he was President, he was going to invade Iraq, with or without a 9/11 event. 
It was at the top of his "To Do" list.   
We sure wish he had done it a lot smarter, not so clumsily and so stupidly. 
What we saw from teh Bush administration's response to Katrina was not a fluke. That was exactly the same way his administration managed our military adventure into Iraq. Badly. 
Badly run by Cronies and incompetents, full of corruption and stupidity and lies.
Our military deserved better.  

Iraq will go down as THE greatest blunder in American foreign policy history.  

When Iraq is merged with the rapidily expanding Torture scandal, into "Iraq-Torture", it will be the worst scandal in American history. Watergate and Iran-Contra and MonicaGate will be tiny little 'oopsys', not so bad 'boo-boos' compared to what will be revealed about "Iraq-Torture". 

Iraq War and Torture are linked top to bottom, like two sides of a giant trillion dollar zipper, with the White House as the zipper pull. 

A year from now, if Holder and Obama have not got a Special Prosecutor investigating with independent authority to indict and bring to trial anyone involved in "Iraq-Torture", 
there will be millions of people marching demanding that action be taken, immediatly. 
Obama's presidency, his political capital, and the Democrats in Congress will be in danger of losing  Democrats and Liberals and Independents support. 
They'd have to rely on Republican/Conservative support to get re-elected. 

"Iraq-Torture"  could be the magic wand that changes top level members of the Bush administration into detainees.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 24, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > It's speculation.  Iraqis have undergone a tremendous social upheaval.  Scores of thousands have died and many more injured.  The social fabric, weak to begin with, has been ripped apart.  Religious tensions are higher.  On the other hand, they don't have a dictator.  For now.
> ...



If you've read many threads on this forum lately, you'll see it is the conservatives seem not to support the American president.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 24, 2009)

Gunny said:


> I don't know about Iraq, but the Middle East from a strategic standpoint was better off with Saddam in power.  He sat in between the Shia from the East and the Sunni from the West and nobody trusted him.
> 
> He kept the Middle East un-unified and off-balance.



That is exactly right IMO.  

In addition, Hussein was not a Islamists; his Baathist party was secular.  Hussein's first minister was a Christian.  Iraq's 1 million Christians enjoyed relative stability in Hussein's Iraq -- not always the situation after he was deposed.

Thus, not only did Hussein stand against Iranian and Shia influence, but he also was a hedge against Islamist extremist movements like Al Queada.  AQ did not want guys like Hussein in power and Hussein did not want religious radicals like AQ in Iraq.  

Hussein also kept Iraq somewhat stable.

Attacking Iraq removed the hedge against Iran and the extremist, and pissed off a bunch of otherwise more moderate Muslim who saw the invation as a blatantly unjustified attack on their holy lands by infidels.  Anti-American hatred feeds radical movements -- and we saw an entire branch of extremists (including AQ Iraq) spring up in Iraq that weren't there before.

Iraq was no real threat to the US.  The decision to invade Iraq was IMO strategically faulty if our goal was to reduce the threat of terrorism.  

Aside from Iran, which benefitted by the removal of its sworn enemy, the nation that really benefitted from the US invasion of Iraq was Israel.  It is no coincidence IMO that the neocon movement, which is strongly influenced by more hard-line pro-Israel interests, pushed so hard for the invasion of Iraq.


----------



## Red Dawn (Apr 24, 2009)

Yurt said:


> well....probably end up with heated talks so i thought i would save the mods time by posting here





Obvously, you still think the Iraq war was a great idea, you still love George Dumbya Bush, and the agenda of your poll is to seek ways to justify your trillion dollar war since the wmd went missing, and since saddam was not aiding al qaeda. 


You're not iraqi, I'm not iraqi.  Only they can judge what's better for them.  I personally would hate to live under saddam hussein. 

As far as our involvment, I don't think there's ever been a bigger waste of one trillion tax dollars and thousands of lives, than your stupid war.


----------



## elvis (Apr 24, 2009)

Gunny said:


> I don't know about Iraq, but the Middle East from a strategic standpoint was better off with Saddam in power.  He sat in between the Shia from the East and the Sunni from the West and nobody trusted him.
> 
> He kept the Middle East un-unified and off-balance.



That's true.  Now the balance of power has shifted to Iran.


----------



## elvis (Apr 24, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > well....probably end up with heated talks so i thought i would save the mods time by posting here
> ...



What if the war had gone better?  If we'd sealed off the border, etc.


----------



## WorldAHope (Apr 24, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know about Iraq, but the Middle East from a strategic standpoint was better off with Saddam in power.  He sat in between the Shia from the East and the Sunni from the West and nobody trusted him.
> ...


And Iran will be extremely influential in most of Iraq not long after we have pulled out.   
The net result will be, after all is said and done, that WE did all the hard and dirty and expensive work for Iran, 
and turned Iraq over TO Iran.
Brilliant strategery.


----------



## elvis (Apr 24, 2009)

WorldAHope said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



You're partly right.  We are NEVER leaving Iraq.  I don't care who the President is.


----------



## Yurt (Apr 24, 2009)

at this point, i do not have a solid opinion on iraq.  i don't think anyone could have pointed to japan or germany at this point and said, hey, what a success.  do i think there were mistakes....yes.  i am not sure i am willing to say that iraq will not yield beneficial resutls for the US, the ME or the rest of the world *at this time.*

i also agree with gunny on the shift of power.  that issue is one i do have a problem with, though it is hard for me to know with certainty the result of leaving saddam in power.  the guy absolutely violated the rules of the cease fire over and over.  liberals said he had WMDs, saddam said he had them.  what were we going to do, keep the no fly zones forever?  saddam was getting more and more brazen in his attacks against the US in the fly zones. 

my goal was to show that liberals would support a non republican president knowing full well that president committed mass torture...

the hypocrisy is overwhelming.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 24, 2009)

Yurt said:


> at this point, i do not have a solid opinion on iraq.  i don't think anyone could have pointed to japan or germany at this point and said, hey, what a success.  do i think there were mistakes....yes.  i am not sure i am willing to say that iraq will not yield beneficial resutls for the US, the ME or the rest of the world *at this time.*
> 
> i also agree with gunny on the shift of power.  that issue is one i do have a problem with, though it is hard for me to know with certainty the result of leaving saddam in power.  the guy absolutely violated the rules of the cease fire over and over.  liberals said he had WMDs, saddam said he had them.  what were we going to do, keep the no fly zones forever?  saddam was getting more and more brazen in his attacks against the US in the fly zones.
> 
> ...


No offense, but your premise is stupid. If I lived in Iraq I certainly wouldn't support Saddam torturing people. Ditto that I don't support ANY American president legalizing torture.


----------



## elvis (Apr 24, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > at this point, i do not have a solid opinion on iraq.  i don't think anyone could have pointed to japan or germany at this point and said, hey, what a success.  do i think there were mistakes....yes.  i am not sure i am willing to say that iraq will not yield beneficial resutls for the US, the ME or the rest of the world *at this time.*
> ...



Waterboarding and what Saddam did are not equivalent.


----------



## Yurt (Apr 24, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > at this point, i do not have a solid opinion on iraq.  i don't think anyone could have pointed to japan or germany at this point and said, hey, what a success.  do i think there were mistakes....yes.  i am not sure i am willing to say that iraq will not yield beneficial resutls for the US, the ME or the rest of the world *at this time.*
> ...



so you do support saddam torturing people because theyre not americans....

great, just great ravi....

no offense, but you actually just bolstered my point, thank you.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 24, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...


uh...no I don't.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 24, 2009)

Yurt said:


> at this point, i do not have a solid opinion on iraq.  i don't think anyone could have pointed to japan or germany at this point and said, hey, what a success.  do i think there were mistakes....yes.  i am not sure i am willing to say that iraq will not yield beneficial resutls for the US, the ME or the rest of the world *at this time.*
> 
> i also agree with gunny on the shift of power.  that issue is one i do have a problem with, though it is hard for me to know with certainty the result of leaving saddam in power.  the guy absolutely violated the rules of the cease fire over and over.  liberals said he had WMDs, saddam said he had them.



Not in Mar 2003 when the Bush admin pulled the trigger.  Hussein acknowledge Iraq had had them 10 years earlier and steadfastly maintained they had been destroyed.



> my goal was to show that liberals would support a non republican president knowing full well that president committed mass torture...
> 
> the hypocrisy is overwhelming.



It is?  I've seen people say the US would be better off if the US had not invaded Iraq, and arguments about whether the Iraqi people might be better off.

But I have yet to see one liberal supporting Hussein.  Who did that with overwhelming hypocrisy?


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 24, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



I'm just scratching my head at how you could reach that conclusion from Ravi's post.


----------



## elvis (Apr 24, 2009)

People support the idea of Saddam being in power because he provided STABILITY to the area.  at a huge cost to the Iraqi people, but he did provide stability and a balance of power.


----------



## 007 (Apr 25, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> People support the idea of Saddam being in power because he provided STABILITY to the area.  at a huge cost to the Iraqi people, but he did provide stability and a balance of power.



Invading Iraq was bush juniors present to daddy who didn't finish the job the first time. It was a huge mistake, and it's directly accountable, in part, for our economy being in the toilet.

We have to stop playing world police. It is NOT our job. It is NOT in our constitution. We can NOT afford it, either financially or by human cost. Fuck these little third world, dictator, turds. If they're not messing with us, leave them the hell alone.


----------



## foggedinn (Apr 30, 2009)

Wrong Question. 

Would the United States be better off with Saddam still in power?  Absolutely yes.

The torture and no fly zone stuff are just red herring justifications for an idiotic policy.


----------



## xotoxi (Apr 30, 2009)

I don't know if Iraq would be better with Saddam.

But I think that *we* would be better off if Iraq had Saddam.


----------



## xotoxi (Apr 30, 2009)

Yurt said:


> my goal was to show that liberals would support a non republican president knowing full well that president committed mass torture...
> 
> the hypocrisy is overwhelming.


 
But your question did not ask if one would "support" Saddam.

True he committed mass torture.  But there is mass torture everywhere thoroughout the world.  We can't do anything about it unless we want to stretch ourselves so thin that we are transparent.

It just shouldn't be happening in the USA.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 30, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > my goal was to show that liberals would support a non republican president knowing full well that president committed mass torture...
> ...



USA ... America, America, God shed His light on thee, and crown thy good, in the land of the free, and the home of the torturers. 

Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?


----------



## Red Dawn (May 3, 2009)

Yurt said:


> my goal was to show that liberals would support a non republican president knowing full well that president committed mass torture...
> 
> the hypocrisy is overwhelming.




Wow dude, you're a genius!  Libs fell into your clever trap, and admitted they supported Saddam torturing people.   


Hey man, are you retarded or something?   This was just incredibly stupid, and childlike.


----------



## Yurt (May 3, 2009)

and your post is the epitome of insightful analysis....

did you write that all by yourself, or did you get help?


----------



## Gunny (May 3, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > at this point, i do not have a solid opinion on iraq.  i don't think anyone could have pointed to japan or germany at this point and said, hey, what a success.  do i think there were mistakes....yes.  i am not sure i am willing to say that iraq will not yield beneficial resutls for the US, the ME or the rest of the world *at this time.*
> ...



Nobody.


----------



## Gunny (May 3, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> People support the idea of Saddam being in power because he provided STABILITY to the area.  at a huge cost to the Iraqi people, but he did provide stability and a balance of power.



Exactly.  I'm certainly not saying Saddam was a good guy.  He was a shitstain on the world.  His ONLY redeeming value was as a wildcard that sat between the Shia and the Sunni.


----------



## Gunny (May 3, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



How long you going to beat that dead horse and present it as something it clearly is not?  

Land of the mindless partisan hacks is more like it.


----------



## Gunny (May 3, 2009)

WorldAHope said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



Yeah.  Good thing it's yours; otherwise, I'd have to wonder how someone with an actual brain came up with it.  

People who don't know WTF the fuck they're talking about and have an uncontrollable urge to open mouth and emit sound should invest in duct tape and use it.

Of did that tiny little country Saudi Arabia just fall out of your brain while you let this drool trickle down your chin?


----------



## Yurt (May 3, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > my goal was to show that liberals would support a non republican president knowing full well that president committed mass torture...
> ...



if we did not remove saddam, saddam would be in power, so they are supporting saddam still being in power and torturing citizens.    

last i checked the ALLEGED torture did not occur in the usa.  the alleged torture ordered by bush was nothing, not a scintilla of what saddam did as you already know.  

but i guess what you're saying is, it doesn't matter if saddam tortured, not our business...might have a point there, then again we did not remove him for torture.


----------



## Iriemon (May 3, 2009)

The reason the US would be better off if Bush had not invaded has nothing to do with support for Hussein's policies, but is explained in posts earlier in this thread.


----------



## Gunny (May 3, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> The reason the US would be better off if Bush had not invaded has nothing to do with support for Hussein's policies, but is explained in posts earlier in this thread.



There are two sides to this argument.  Two legitimate sides.  There are plenty of legitimate, legal reasons to remove Saddam from power.  There are plenty of legitimate reasons to have not removed him from power.

It then boils down to a judgment call.  I did not and do not agree with Bush's decision.  Removing Saddam from power upset the applecart in the Middle East. 

That does not negate any of the reasons to remove Saddam from power.  It's choosing the lesser of two evils.  It's no more complicated than that.


----------



## Iriemon (May 3, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > The reason the US would be better off if Bush had not invaded has nothing to do with support for Hussein's policies, but is explained in posts earlier in this thread.
> ...



Fair enough.  Some seem to be mixing up the argument that the US would have been better off not invading Iraq with support for Hussein's policies.  They are not the same and my post was directed to that.


----------



## Harvey (May 12, 2009)

Yurt said:


> well....probably end up with heated talks so i thought i would save the mods time by posting here



DUH!!! I think its obvious they were way the hell better off before
we shoved that democracy up thier ass sideways!!


----------

