[quote]TRC wrote:
Goal=Colossus wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrot
It is not foolish at all. Saddam Hussain has executed far fewer people in his entire regime than have died as a result of the war.
There is no way you can execute over 150 thousand people in fewer than four years without losing the loyalties of your army.
You kill enough families and you end up killing quite a few of your soldiers families.
.
Are you kidding me here? Why do you think he had loyalty of armies? They feared him, they feared for their lives, for their family?s lives. Recall the first Gulf war when they surrendered by the thousands? They were happy to see the Americans because their current situation sucked.
One thing you cannot deny about Iraq, is that the people hated him, hated him with a passion, and are glad he is gone. What’s going on now is the big time power struggle of the many different groups who want power. They are doing whatever it takes to get it., and discredit what is already there. They will kill each other; kill the coalition forces so as to undermine what they are doing.
Another point? you are absolutely in sane if you think that Sadam wasn?t a threat to the area, and the world. In sane to think that he didn?t have chemical weapons, etc. He used them many times! Do you think that nice guy Sadam woke up one day and decided to just destroy his weapons for the better of man kind? You should really be asking yourself, where did they go, and who has them?
(In the fairness of full disclosure, I am in Iraq right now.)
[/quote]
Firsly, i stand by my opinion that more Iraqis have been killed in the present war than in Saddam Hussain’s 30 year regime as a result of execution.
Point to evidence otherwise and i will surely rething my opinion.
As far as thier situation sucking then, it sucks worse now.
People will continue to be killed in mass in Iraq with or without Saddam, only now whatever infrastructure you had before is gone and will take decades to rebuild by you and other Americans, through Reserves troops and tax money.
You said Saddam was a threat to the rest of the world.
The only real threat Saddam possed to the U.S. on the other side of the world is through oil production.
If he or anyone wanted to expose the U.S. to a wide spread biological weapon it would be relatively simply given an adequate budget.
The same goes with a chemical weapon except the production would have to be outside the U.S.
I mean if you can transport thousands of tons of Heroin every year, what would it take to make the junmp to transporting 6-8 tons of nerve agent gradually.
I’d be very surprised if this wasn’t allready happening.
So no ICBMs=no physical threat to the U.S.
Can you can honestly tell me that the majority of Iraqis would trade their lives for Democratic freedoms without insserting your own feelings about these freedoms?
If the answer is yes, then why was it necessary for the U.S. to initiate Saddams toppling, why not let the people initiate a wide spread war and then assist? Where were the daily attacks on saddams palaces?
If there was such a hatred, why not fund this hatred, why not organize this great mass of ready and willing people through the methods we used on many occasions to inderectly provide force like we did against th Soviet Union in Afghanistan?
Diplomacy not working, the next step is indirect support for opposition.
The point is their was no real opposition group.
There was only angry individuals, without the will to put Shiaa or Sunni or Kurd asside and be that opposition?
Possing an oppossition to someone as horrendous as Husain is much easier than forming any stable Democracy, and it didn’t happen.
Which is why there will always be mass bloodshed in Iraq, without or without the babysitting of the U.S. forces.