To the people that think we shouldn't have gone in.

[Admin]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/06/saddam.hussein.trial/index.html

The witnesses -- three men and two women sitting behind a curtain with voices disguised by a modulator -- described beatings, electrocutions and deaths in 1982. Hussein and the Baath Party were firmly in power then, and the country was at war with Iran, a crucial period in the nation's history.

Is it me or is there something wrong with that? I would love to hear a liberal pipe up and say we should have just left Iraq alone.

 

[JonJ]

Derek, you know as well as I that someone (more likely a Dem) will say that they were lying. You know, the same fools that said were were using torture in the Abu Ghraib prison because prisoners were forced to wear panties on their heads.

Did you catch the poll?
Is the chief judge being strict enough controlling proceedings in the Saddam trial?
Yes
No

 

[C-pher]

I know, I've been saying that for a long time. I would equate him to Hitler on how he treated people.

Saddam even would use his own people to test Chemicals and the like in camps and bath houses just like Hitler would do... Why people say that it shouldn't be our business is beyond me..

And this isn't similar to the ALCU, this is saving a nation from a tyrant, not talking about a prisoner that has been moved around....

 

[Weerd Beard]

also the world has forgotten how we sat on our hands while Hitler was causing havoc in Europe, and rounding up the Jews, the Gypese, the Mentally ill/retarded, and the gays.

We would have done NOTHING if it wasn't for Pearl Harbor.

and there wasn't ANYBODY who didn't use 20/20 hind-sight to point out how wrong we were.

Now we do the right thing, and nobody wants to admit it.

The truth to American Politics...it's not if you do right or wrong...it's who's side your're on.

-Weer'd Beard

 

[MrsWildweasel]

Hearing some of the accounts of what Saddam did,I think he evenwas somewhat worse than Hitler. Saddam did alot of the same things, as Hitler,but Saddam has also done alot of things a whole lot worse. Just reading a a meat grinder he used with human flesh, as one.
The Dems, can say they were lying all they want,but aweful things happened to too many people and their families there. They can put their blinders on,but in reality what Saddam has done will slap them in the face.

 

[JonJ]

Their blinders have been on since before the beginning. All this "Illegal war", "Pull out now", "Why are we there", "Let them fend for themselves", etc rhetoric proves that they don't care.

 

[MrsWildweasel]

The one thing we can't do is let them fend for themselves. I think people have forgotten their history,and after WW2 how we helped rebuild Germany,etc after Hitler. I equate Iraq to the same thing.

 

[Lynne]

I've heard some reporters saying that the judge in Saddam's case was not controlling the court enough and letting that A-hat get away with all sorts of crap. It occured to me, due to Saddam's rantings, it might well be the Judge is letting him prove he's not sorry for anything that happened so that it'll just add to his sentence. But, that's just my take on it. I saw a clip of the trial and when Saddam stood up to speak, the look the judge had on his face seemed to say, "Go for it, you dip stick."

 

[Nickle]

Well, for those who don't believe Saddam ever had WMD, guess what "Yellow Rain" is. (Soviet Nerve Agent, used on the Kurds by Saddam).

Also, ever wonder why Iraq was mentioned during the Anthrax incidents, but NEVER accused? (They had the same strain of Anthrax that was used, we know, because WE GAVE IT TO HIM.)

But, I know I'm wrong, because the 2,000 TONS of Nerve Agents found in 2003 by the military apparently is NOT WMD.

And, I'm only mentioning the stuff I CAN tell you about.

My question for the doubters: Just what does Iraq have to have to had to amount to "WMD"?

 

[Nickle]

so that it'll just add to his sentence.

Knowing a little about how that part of the world operates, DON'T BET ON THAT. They can only execute him once, and believe me, they WILL execute him. That's a good thing.

 

[dwarven1]

*deep breath*

OK, Derek, for the sake of a good discussion, I'll take your challenge.

I will freely grant that Hussein is a monster in human form. Stipulated.

I will stipulate, also, that atrocities were performed at his behest.

Now let me ask you a question. Why is it our job to go in? We didn't go into Cuba to help out the Cubans (well, not lately, anyway). We didn't go into Rwanda. We didn't invade China after Tianamen Square. We haven't gone into Iran, something I think we will have to do someday, as I feel that they're a greater threat to the US than Iraq ever was.

So what makes Iraq the winner of the "who should Uncle Sam open up a can of whoop-ass on" contest?

I cannot argue that we are doing good things now that we are there. I'm just still not sure about the REASON we went in in the first place. Certainly it was not the only place in the world where injustice (injustice, hell! Atrocities!) occurred.

(And before I really get reamed, I still say that since we ARE there, we CANNOT pull out until there is a free & sovereign Iraq standing on it's own.)

I'm questioning the reason we went in. The point of your post seems to indicate that we went in because of Saddam's genocidal tendencies. But I thought we went in because of a link to 9/11 and his possession of WMD's. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Putting on my Nomex Hanes,

Ross

 

[Admin]

Now let me ask you a question. Why is it our job to go in?

Bottom line, the guy is crazy, and his sons are much worse. That area of the world is very volatile. We have to prioritize our assets the best we can. If for whatever reason he or in the future, one of his sons, start a war in which Israel, Iran and whoever else joins it, it could very well lead to a nuclear war. Is it our job then to clean up the dust of a nuclear winter?

Did you already forget that Iraq invaded Kuwait and killed them like it was nothing? Iran and N. Korea are probably now bigger threats than Iraq. And guess what? If they invade a neighboring country, we will be going there too. And once we rid them of that country and they fail to comply with what ever U.N. treaty they signed, we will go back. It doesn't get any more simple than that.

 

[Admin]

I'm questioning the reason we went in. The point of your post seems to indicate that we went in because of Saddam's genocidal tendencies. But I thought we went in because of a link to 9/11 and his possession of WMD's. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Why can't it be both? Because of the coward liberal lawmakers that would never vote to go in because of genocide. That's why it had to be WMD.

 

[MrsWildweasel]

Oh we won't flame you too badly Ross. Saddam had the WMD,but all the time that he had in not letting the UN inspectors in,you can bet your ass he was moving them out,etc. There have been accounts of our guys uncovering some,just not the smoking gun the media, or politicians want. Just saw what Derek added and he's right.

 

[MrsWildweasel]

Also with Politicians, and the military you have to play their game in order to get what you want.

 

[Lynne]

Not to intrude between D and Ross, however, *might* I point out that WMD's WERE found??? I can't remember where I saw the grocery list (if anyone else has it or knows where it is, feel free to post it), but it was there and tons of it, all kinds of stuff, including the ingredients to make nukes.

 

[MrsWildweasel]

I had read it on one of the blogs quite awhile ago. Don't know which one though. [roll]

 

[dwarven1]

Bottom line, the guy is crazy, and his sons are much worse. That area of the world is very volatile. We have to prioritize our assets the best we can. If for whatever reason he or in the future, one of his sons, start a war in which Israel, Iran and whoever else joins it, it could very well lead to a nuclear war. Is it our job then to clean up the dust of a nuclear winter?

Derek, that's like Mitt Romney saying that he's going to disarm you because you MIGHT go crazy with your AR-15.

Are we to be the world's policeman? Even if we should (and I have to agree that many of the world's dictators have the morals of a 5 year old playground bully), CAN we? Or are we going to bite off more than we can chew?

Did you already forget that Iraq invaded Kuwait and killed them like it was nothing?

Nope, and we spanked him for it already.

Iran and N. Korea are probably now bigger threats than Iraq. And guess what? If they invade a neighboring country, we will be going there too. And once we rid them of that country and they fail to comply with what ever U.N. treaty they signed, we will go back. It doesn't get any more simple than that.

That's a very bleak picture you're painting, Derek. Continual war to try and enforce the Pax Americana.

I guess I'm still not convinced that freeing the Iraqis from Saddam's yoke, noble cause though it is, is worth the first aggressive war in our history. I keep wondering what the next one is going to be...

 

[Admin]

Ross,

Don't be so naive and forget that a whole bunch of other countries have lost the lives of brave men in Iraq also. We are not alone and we won't be alone. We share a lot of the burden because we are the biggest and richest.

If Saddam was in MA he wouldn't be allowed to own an AR15, let alone an entire Military and a whole arsenal of weapons. And he would be in jail for genocide. [roll]

 

[Admin]

If all else fails Ross, when you go to bed tonight think about my sig line. It's there because it's true.

 

[MrsWildweasel]

I think Saddam would have an airplane/skydiving accident on the way over. [twisted]

 

[Jarhead]

I'm with you here Ross. Like you (being Jewish), I also know of genocide against your own people. I am of Armenian descent and the Turks took out 1.5 million of us back around 1914. Some were relatives of mine.

Why didn't we go into Rowanda? A massacre far exceeding anything Sadam ever did. Perhaps they have nothing we want or need there. So let it happen and someday soon everyone will forget it ever happened. Sort of like Armenia.

Why didn't we go to Red China after Tienamin Square? "Cause they would have kicked our asses. I could never imaging a war with China. God forbid it's a scary thought.

So when all you armchair generals figure this world at peace thing out let me in on your secret.

I will now remove myself from my soapbox and resume to being a Jarhead.

 

[Admin]

So when all you armchair generals figure this world at peace thing out let me in on your secret.

I will now remove myself from my soapbox and resume to being a Jarhead.

Bitch about something being broken. Then when it gets fixed, bitch about the way it was fixed. If you want to debate the issue fine, BUT HOW BOUT BRINING SOMETHING TO THE TABLE OTHER THAN BITCHES???

 

[dwarven1]

Don't be so naive and forget that a whole bunch of other countries have lost the lives of brave men in Iraq also. We are not alone and we won't be alone. We share a lot of the burden because we are the biggest and richest.

My point is not the cost in lives - American or other - that we're paying right now. My point is that we seem to have embarked on a new course - Uncle Sam as the guardians of peace - and I still cannot see why Iraq was different than any other tin-plated dictator that desperately needed to be taken down a peg.

Do we only interfere when there are strategic resources that affect this country? I can understand self-interest. If that's why, then let's say so. Or is it that it was the first opportunity that came along with a president who feels that the USA should be the guardians of peace? Had, say, Rwanda happened on GWB's watch, should we have, and would we have gone in to stop the bloodshed?

 

[Lynne]

Bottom line, the guy is crazy, and his sons are much worse. That area of the world is very volatile. We have to prioritize our assets the best we can. If for whatever reason he or in the future, one of his sons, start a war in which Israel, Iran and whoever else joins it, it could very well lead to a nuclear war. Is it our job then to clean up the dust of a nuclear winter?

Derek, that's like Mitt Romney saying that he's going to disarm you because you MIGHT go crazy with your AR-15.

No, it's not Ross. Saddam and his sons proved that they were (in the case of his sons) and are (Saddam's still alive) crazy and will do nasty things. The proof is the dead Kurds in the north and all the missing Iraqi's who's bones were finally found. They took action, not only with their own people, but with the Kuwaiti's as well. That's not "MIGHT go crazy" - that's certifiable. You're gonna have to find another analogy sweetie, cuz that one just doesn't work.

I might also add that we found two terrorist training camps on the way in to Bhagdad when we first went in to the country. I could go on about how they still shot at us every chance they got in the "no fly zone", as well as thumbing their nose at the UN and ignoring the "world's" orders (via the UN), but that's already been hashed enough. And, there's still chemicals that the UN said he had that's still missing.

 

[Jarhead]

Derek,

I'm not bitching. Really! I wish there was a way to fix this mess and fix it fast. I DON'T have the answer. I truly Wish I did. Just today there were 2 suicide bommers that killed 45 more. Two days ago 10 of our brothers lost their lives. Please don't take my remarks as being condesending. I really hope Sadam gets hung in a public square. But that won't bring stabillity to the region. That brings us back to the question of how this gets done. I'm looking for the answer. And if I find the answer, who will listen?

 

[Lynne]

I'm looking for the answer. And if I find the answer, who will listen?

Well hun, not that it would do much good, but we will. And, you can always write to the President and the rest of his cabinet. Will that do any good? Who knows. But, I *DO* know that letters sent to the White House ARE read. (I have a friend who works there)

 

[dwarven1]

Derek, that's like Mitt Romney saying that he's going to disarm you because you MIGHT go crazy with your AR-15.

No, it's not Ross. Saddam and his sons proved that they were (in the case of his sons) and are (Saddam's still alive) crazy and will do nasty things. The proof is the dead Kurds in the north and all the missing Iraqi's who's bones were finally found. They took action, not only with their own people, but with the Kuwaiti's as well. That's not "MIGHT go crazy" - that's certifiable. You're gonna have to find another analogy sweetie, cuz that one just doesn't work.

You're right, Lynne. That's like saying that SCHWARZENEGGER is going to disarm Derek... the killing that that lunatic (I'm not arguing that Saddam is a pyschopath here) did was committed in HIS OWN COUNTRY. What gives us the right to go into Iraq for internal matters? If we do have the right, why didn't we in the other cases that have been mentioned already on this thread?

Now, personally, I'd love to see the US kick some serious ass around the world; there are a lot of heads of state who are wastes of oxygen (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chavez for starters). But why was Saddam picked for a target and why not these others?

I might also add that we found two terrorist training camps on the way in to Bhagdad when we first went in to the country. I could go on about how they still shot at us every chance they got in the "no fly zone", as well as thumbing their nose at the UN and ignoring the "world's" orders (via the UN), but that's already been hashed enough. And, there's still chemicals that the UN said he had that's still missing.

All true... but did we know about the training camps beforehand? and if so, why not go after the camps in Syria and Iran? As for the UN orders, why didn't we go after him sooner? Why now, and why Iraq? It just seems like there was a criteria applied that didn't get applied to others, or there were reasons that are not being articulated.

And just to reiterate, I'm not saying that Saddam didn't need to be removed. I just do not understand the reasoning behind the process that led us to do it. And I firmly stand by what our guys are doing and that we cannot pull out until it's done or the US will have no credibility at ALL left in the world, even with our friends. I feel that what we are doing is a huge gamble with a potentially enormous payoff - an Iraq that is a friend to the US where we truly need more friends - but I still am trying to understand HOW and WHY we started in this direction.

 

[Jarhead]

Thanks for the vote of confidence Lynne. I'm giving this great thought and if by some miracale I come up with a solution you can bet I'll send a letter to every honcho in Washington.

 

[MrsWildweasel]

One of the reasons we did not go into Rwanda,I'm sure everyone remembers Somalia, and how that turned out.