If Saddam was the leader..

[Freewill]

I find it hard to believe how racist are some people. People who are outright saying that ME people can't live under freedom as if too backwards to want to live at least with the freedom to vote. Seems a bit racist to me that some people have absolutely no problem dropping bombs on brown skinned people at the whim of the CIA nor that they think enough of them that they don't want to live free.

And I find it hard to believe that you are not in Iraq.

You know how we have missionaries spreading the gospel without the government being involved?

That's what you and your kind need to do. Form a "missionary" to spread the word and benefits of "freedom". Without the government of the USA being involved.

Can or will you "freedom lovers for Muslims" do that?

Actually just like you I am an internet hack that just voices opinion and doesn't really do anything about that opinion. Of course I don't really know your situation, you may be one of those guys sitting in a bunker in Nevada controlling hellfire drones.

But what in what I posted suggested that I think some sort of religious conversion is required in Iraq? I am of the opinion that freedom and Islam are not compatible but maybe Iraq will prove me wrong, we need wait and see.

As for serving, I served years ago and had I been younger after 9/11 I THINK I would have served again. But then again maybe I am a coward, I served all during the Vietnam war and never set foot in the country.

I don't think we need to send many ground troops to Iraq, just like Obama should be commended, so far, for doing. What we don't need do is cheer for the radical Muslims that are bring more pain and suffering to a people who have seen way too much.

 

[Mac1958]

It would also be unlikely that Iran would be flexing its muscles as it is.

We ignored the unintended consequences of our military actions, again, and it has cost us dearly.

.

If we were to keep on crippling Saddam what would Iran be worried about? I think you assume too much. Iran is growing in power not because Iraq seemingly has become weak. The real problem is that it is impossible to make nice with a theoaracy such as is in Iran. You would think they would be very thankful to the USA for removing a threat to their border and a sworn enemy but I really don't think we can deal with religious driven governments very well. What we really could have done is enlist the support of those countries that feared Saddam and were more then happy to have the USA carry the water.

Iran is the mouse the roared for now. Whatever they say their power is limited to regional just like it was with Saddam. They fought a costly war with Saddam and there is no saying that would not have happen again. No one knows.

Saddam provided a significant military (and, essentially, secular) counter-balance to Iran, one that is now not only gone, but Iran has a chance of getting a significant foothold in Iraq itself. So the one power in the region that Iran really had to worry about was conveniently removed for them. And Saddam was dealing with that psycho government just fine for us.

And you may not consider Iran's move towards nuclear capability a threat to us, but I think your view would be the minority view, especially within the GOP.

And all of this at what cost? Thousands of lost American lives, limbs, and minds? Over a trillion dollars? A vastly reduced ability to do convince our allies to do anything else over there now that we have over-reached? An American public that is beyond war weariness?

No, this was a massive mistake.

.

 

[BlindBoo]

How long were we occupying Japan before we left them to administer themselves, how long did we occupy Germany before we left them to administer themselves, we are still occupying S. Korea to maintain their existence....WE should have occupied Iraq, after Gulf War I, let the Kurds have their territory, and took Iraq's oil CONTINUALLY for payment of our services, our continued protection of their people, and payment to the multiple thousands of families that lost loved ones fighting for that people freedom. All other details could have been worked out, and with our presence on ALL ME borders, and our sophisticated spy system, in place, OBL would have been a footnote in history, as well as Al Qaeda!

Sadly everyone obeyed the UN instead of doing the "right thing".

You mean the leader of the Free World?

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq,

 

[Vigilante]

How long were we occupying Japan before we left them to administer themselves, how long did we occupy Germany before we left them to administer themselves, we are still occupying S. Korea to maintain their existence....WE should have occupied Iraq, after Gulf War I, let the Kurds have their territory, and took Iraq's oil CONTINUALLY for payment of our services, our continued protection of their people, and payment to the multiple thousands of families that lost loved ones fighting for that people freedom. All other details could have been worked out, and with our presence on ALL ME borders, and our sophisticated spy system, in place, OBL would have been a footnote in history, as well as Al Qaeda!

Sadly everyone obeyed the UN instead of doing the "right thing".

You mean the leader of the Free World?

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq,

Yes, because we never occupied Japan, Germany, Italy, and we are still in Korea. We should have taken Iraq oil, as Rummy suggested, to pay for everything, staying there would have SAVED over 4000 American lives in Gulf War II, and even prevented 9/11. We would have been able to make Iran a truly 2rd rate power in the ME, would have brought the price of oil worldwide down with SMART intervention, made Russia think twice, perhaps 3 times about it's expansion and adventure into becoming another superpower, and so much more that simple mined people can't see even after the fact!

 

[Flopper]

If Saddam was the leader in Iraq today, it's very unlikely terrorist would be marching toward Baghdad and the US would be faced with the choice between another major military commitment or another Islamic terrorist state.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who ruled the country with an iron fist. Through force he was able to control if not unite the dissent elements. His Secret Service infiltrated every political group and movement in the nation.


Today the central government is a weak coalition of political forces more interested in human rights, appeasing various politic factions and rebuilding the nation than defense. The Secret Service whose primary objective was to prevent and insurgence is essentially gone. The military is ill equipped to deal with the attack and the central government doesn't have the power to united the nation.

Elimination of Saddam may have been morally the right thing but a disaster in all other ways. What is happening today is exactly what so many opponents of the war predicted.

Yep.

It would also be unlikely that Iran would be flexing its muscles as it is.

We ignored the unintended consequences of our military actions, again, and it has cost us dearly.

.

I think Iran's motives go far deeper than just supporting the Iraqi government. They're not there to preserve the the weak parliamentary democracy in Iraq. The thousands of Iranian Royal Guard troops are probably there to stay.

 

[Flopper]

You can make the argument that if Saddam was still ruling Iraq we wouldn't have the situation we have today you can also make the argument if we had worked out a deal to extend the status of forces agreement we wouldn't have it either.

Of course if nothing was done things would be different but no one knows if different would have been better. Better to live in fear under a vicious dictator or live in fear under freedom? The Kurds seem to choose the latter.

Sadaam was the only thing that held the country together. Removing a dictator destroys the mechanisms that had been holding the state together. After Saddam, the US military kept the pot from boiling over. Maliki lacks support and the parliament is a joke. The country is under attack and the parliament can't meet because they can't get a quorum.

Over the long term the only thing that will save Iraq is another strong arm dictator.

 

[Kosh]

No matter how the far left wants to spin this the US would be in Iraq no matter who was president or whether Saddam was still in charge or not.

 

[Flopper]

No matter how the far left wants to spin this the US would be in Iraq no matter who was president or whether Saddam was still in charge or not.

I doubt that

 

[pvsi]

Elimination of Saddam may have been morally the right thing

Yes, very morally right thing to destroy a man who had 99% approval of his own people, who fought for their nation for nearly 10 years against the most well funded military in the world, invaded by regime that needed to build a billion dollar fortified green zone just so they can make unannounced visits to Baghdad years after their so called liberation. keep listening to your MSNBC/FOX NEWS propaganda.