I found this kind of funny in a sad and tragic way. Isn’t this what we started with to begin with? Granted we didn’t like the son-of-a bitch, but hell it was stable and he provided services and the coutry essentially functioned. Now we will end up with the same thing in the end. The puppet we put in there won’t last long, so we’ll be back to the same ol’. Hell, if they didn’t kill of Saddam, we could just put him back. Bush is a complete momo…
That’s what I always said. Why depose the only guy who ran a secular state with an iron fist when there’s much more dangerous types out there.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
That’s what I always said. Why depose the only guy who ran a secular state with an iron fist when there’s much more dangerous types out there.[/quote]
This is the only legitimate argument against the invasion of Iraq.
Of course there were valid reasons we have discussed too many times and I do not feel like hashing it out again.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
That’s what I always said. Why depose the only guy who ran a secular state with an iron fist when there’s much more dangerous types out there.
This is the only legitimate argument against the invasion of Iraq.
Of course there were valid reasons we have discussed too many times and I do not feel like hashing it out again.[/quote]
The only legitamate argument in your eyes. But you are right, I don’t feel like doing it again either.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
That’s what I always said. Why depose the only guy who ran a secular state with an iron fist when there’s much more dangerous types out there.[/quote]
Answer: al zarqawi and saddam doing p.r. work for bin laden.
Sooner or later, bad things would have happened with saddam’s blessing.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
That’s what I always said. Why depose the only guy who ran a secular state with an iron fist when there’s much more dangerous types out there.
Answer: al zarqawi and saddam doing p.r. work for bin laden.
Sooner or later, bad things would have happened with saddam’s blessing.
JeffR
[/quote]
bullshit. But I am not going there again. This argument is long over.
I guess the US should only oppose the dictators who are currently our allies because the ones who were and are our enemies seem to be nice, peaceful people.
Yeah- right.
That’s it. I’m writing the Pentagon in an attempt to persuade them to give Saddam inspired pacification programs a try. This forum has convinced me that muslim civilians must be deliberately killed in mass murder campaigns. Pacification by large scale mass murder will save lives in the long run, after all. Clearly, Saddam’s tactics are preferable to sectarian violence and, therefore, must be adopted.
Any neighborhood with a non-commissioned militia will be leveled without warning. This will continue to happen until morale improves.
What? Well, it is the logical conclusion made by such an argument. That the most merciful route is to go ahead and deliberately target a couple 100,000 civilians as an example to what happens to neighborhoods playing host to militias.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What? Well, it is the logical conclusion made by such an argument. That the most merciful route is to go ahead and deliberately target a couple 100,000 civilians as an example to what happens to neighborhoods playing host to militias.[/quote]
Wow, Saddam would be proud.
Wish you were here.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
That’s what I always said. Why depose the only guy who ran a secular state with an iron fist when there’s much more dangerous types out there.
This is the only legitimate argument against the invasion of Iraq.
Of course there were valid reasons we have discussed too many times and I do not feel like hashing it out again.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s the only legitimate argument, but it is one. I think Saddam was controlable, really. We may have had to go there, but when we did certainly wasn’t the right time. Right now I just want to stablize the place and get the fuck out.
These lofty expectations that these people actually want “democracy” is the biggest bunch of bullshit. You give them freedom, they just go and start killing each other. At this point we should probably split it into three countries, Kurdistan, Sheitisbad, and Sunni Arabia. At least then, they’d have to cross a border to kill each other.
Hey, we can each give them a capitol city named “Jeruselem” and they’d all think they are in the promised land.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I guess the US should only oppose the dictators who are currently our allies because the ones who were and are our enemies seem to be nice, peaceful people.
Yeah- right.[/quote]
It’s more like that there’s probably a hundred dictators just as bad as him, but we had to take him out because all of a sudden there an imaginary threat.
I agree with what Pat said in his last post, almost to the word.
I couldn’t agree more with you.
You should have started out with this piece of shit, pictured below.
Starving his own people. Ruling over a country so poor and miserable that Saddam’s Iraq in comparison already looked like a shining jewel of prosperity. Legions of underfed Gulag slaves working for a small elite class of top-level functionaries and their tyrant.
Saddam was one major asshole and his son Udai an insane animal, but show me one poor country without a serious established democratic base that has natural riches like Iraq and isn’t in the hands of some dictator.
“Kind Leaders” (his official address) like the North Korean scumbag surpass Saddam by far.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I couldn’t agree more with you.
You should have started out with this piece of shit, pictured below.
Starving his own people. Ruling over a country so poor and miserable that Saddam’s Iraq in comparison already looked like a shining jewel of prosperity. Legions of underfed Gulag slaves working for a small elite class of top-level functionaries and their tyrant.
Saddam was one major asshole and his son Udai an insane animal, but show me one poor country without a serious established democratic base that has natural riches like Iraq and isn’t in the hands of some dictator.
“Kind Leaders” (his official address) like the North Korean scumbag surpass Saddam by far.[/quote]
He is pretty fucking bad but unlike Saddam he has directed his horrors internally. Saddam shared his with all.
Democracy is the whore of the Western world.
In it’s name, millions of inocents die.
Misused and abused by Bush, Harper and Blair.
War isn’t about liberation, it’s about greed.
Peace slows down the ecomomy, war stimulates it.
War on terror, don’t believe the hype.
Only time will tell what really happen on September 11, 2001.
God bless the victims and their families.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I couldn’t agree more with you.
You should have started out with this piece of shit, pictured below.
Starving his own people. Ruling over a country so poor and miserable that Saddam’s Iraq in comparison already looked like a shining jewel of prosperity. Legions of underfed Gulag slaves working for a small elite class of top-level functionaries and their tyrant.
Saddam was one major asshole and his son Udai an insane animal, but show me one poor country without a serious established democratic base that has natural riches like Iraq and isn’t in the hands of some dictator.
“Kind Leaders” (his official address) like the North Korean scumbag surpass Saddam by far.
He is pretty fucking bad but unlike Saddam he has directed his horrors internally. Saddam shared his with all.[/quote]
True enough. But he was also contained, something many top soldiers and Marines (Zinni, for one) said.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
He is pretty fucking bad but unlike Saddam he has directed his horrors internally. Saddam shared his with all.[/quote]
Oh Saddam was bad, no doubt. My point is this, if we are just conceding to leave the country in very much the same position as we found it, what the fuck was the point of going there? So we put a west freindly dictator for a while? Big deal, seems a lot of effort with little return. We could have made Saddam a U.S. freindly dictator with a box of Cubans, a few hookers, and lifting a couple of sanctions. Mean while in exchange he lets us open a few military bases on his property. We are well positioned to keep an eye on him and he can go on happily murdering anybody who gets in his way…
Sound like a long shot? Well what we did was a long shot and hell we’re falling short in the end.
I really hate it but the Bush administration fucked this up in a profound and amazing way.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Oh Saddam was bad, no doubt. My point is this, if we are just conceding to leave the country in very much the same position as we found it, what the fuck was the point of going there? [/quote]
Good post.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
He is pretty fucking bad but unlike Saddam he has directed his horrors internally. Saddam shared his with all.
Oh Saddam was bad, no doubt. My point is this, if we are just conceding to leave the country in very much the same position as we found it, what the fuck was the point of going there? So we put a west freindly dictator for a while? Big deal, seems a lot of effort with little return.
We could have made Saddam a U.S. freindly dictator with a box of Cubans, a few hookers, and lifting a couple of sanctions. Mean while in exchange he lets us open a few military bases on his property. We are well positioned to keep an eye on him and he can go on happily murdering anybody who gets in his way…
Sound like a long shot? Well what we did was a long shot and hell we’re falling short in the end.
I really hate it but the Bush administration fucked this up in a profound and amazing way.[/quote]
Exactly.
And, Zap, you know that the US had no problems with Saddam’s ambitions in the Gulf War. And he knew that, too.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Exactly.
And, Zap, you know that the US had no problems with Saddam’s ambitions in the Gulf War. And he knew that, too.
[/quote]
Question: are you talking about the Saddam’s war with Iran or his war with Kuwait? The war with Kuwait is generally known as the Gulf War and that’s the one where we kicked his ass.