America is a better place WITH Saddam Hussein

[whosewar2000]

Forward a thread from anothe forum, like it.



America is a better place WITH Saddam Hussein

Isn't everyone tired of the phrase “The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein." Im sick and tired of that. You know what? Iraq down the road might be a better place without Saddam Hussein. But the world, and especially America, would be better withSaddam Hussein. That’s right, with him.

During the Cold War, by not toppling so many dictators— and by supporting so many dictators, we never had to make that argument. We never said, “The world would be a better place without Marcos in the Philippines” or Mobutu in Zaire, or any number of dictators we supported. We just said, “You know what, the world is a tough place, and we have to sometimes support bad people to be a bulwark against even worse people.”

And that’s what we would have if Saddam was still in Iraq: We would have $200 billion more in our bank, in our coffers for America. We would not have the world hating us. We would not have the entire Arab world out for jihad because we have invaded the heart of the Muslim world. And we would have a guy in Iraq, by the way, who would never, ever have allowed a terrorist bastion in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein didn’t care about jihad and Allah and all that stuff. He cared about power and keeping his power. He would have made sure Iraq was his and not the province of these guys who are cutting off people’s heads. He was the head-cutter in that country.

 

[Rotty261]

Whosewar. This will be my first, last, and only reply to this.

If you also believe this statement that you borrowed from another forum, then maybe you would also believe that the world would have been a better place had the warlords in Somalia not been toppled, or maybe if Hitler was left in power to try and take all of Europe as his own. At least the US would not have built a deficit by commiting themselves to the war right?

In my mind this is all wrong, the US helped topple Hitler and probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives. In Somalia the US was working under a UN force, and we just happened to take on the blunt of the action. Why; because we had the majority of the troops on the ground as well as the most highly trained group of soldiers to accomplish the task. Now on to Iraq, if you go look at the thread I just started, then go out and find the things that make you feel the way you do about the war you will probably come to the conclusion that you are not well informed, or maybe you just get all of your information from a biased source. Saddam was a war lord, I would probably agree that if he was still in power there would not be the kidnappings and beheadings of people foreign to Iraq. Mainly because the foreigners would not be there. There would however, still be the threat of Saddam making and using WMD on his own people. I am in Iraq and I can tell you that while he was in power there were two classes of people in Iraq, the very well to do and the extremly poor and poverty stricken. There were not schools that all children could go to, there was not medical care for many of the citizens. There was not electricity, running water, or a steady supply of work. So next time you turn on a light in your home, take a shower, or go see a doctor about a cold think about the people over here that used to not have lights, running water and the common cold over here often times resulted in severe sickness and even death.

 

[whosewar2000]

Whosewar. This will be my first, last, and only reply to this.

this does NOT help you make your case. I could say the same thing. useless words

If you also believe this statement that you borrowed from another forum, then maybe you would also believe that the world would have been a better place had the warlords in Somalia not been toppled, or maybe if Hitler was left in power to try and take all of Europe as his own. At least the US would not have built a deficit by commiting themselves to the war right?

donot deduce my words. I never said anything about Hitler. I have noticed right wing people like to amplifier other people's words

....Saddam was a war lord, I would probably agree that if he was still in power there would not be the kidnappings and beheadings of people foreign to Iraq. Mainly because the foreigners would not be there. There would however, still be the threat of Saddam making and using WMD on his own people. I am in Iraq and I can tell you that while he was in power there were two classes of people in Iraq, the very well to do and the extremly poor and poverty stricken. There were not schools that all children could go to, there was not medical care for many of the citizens. ......

okay, very simple logic here:
If go for Sadam is because US want to remove a bad dictator, tell me why choose Sadam? As I said in another post, There are genocide everyday in Africa, why left Somali? Why never touch Sudan? Why not go for North Korea?

If go for Sadam is because terrorist, there are more real terrorist now in Iraq, how do you explain that?

I agree Sadam is bad guy, I disagree to handle him at this time and with such manner

:evil: I am warning other people here (kidding,

DONOT CONFUSE YOUSELF BY MIXING "REMOVING SADAM" AND "REMOVE SADAM AT THIS TIME ALONE"

 

[Airborne Eagle]

I'll humor him.

Why Saddam?

History of belligerance against the US.
Near daily missile and AAA firings on our patrol aircraft over the No Fly Zones.
Mass murder.
History of harboring (Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Zarqawi) and assisting (suicide bombers) terrorism.
Known multiple and high level contacts with al Qaeda (from the 9/11 report).
History of attacking neighboring states (within a fiur year span he ended his war with Iran and attacked/brutalized Kuwait) and destabilizing the entire region.
Billions in assets annually at his disposal to fund his campaign against the West, specifically the US.
Thousands of loyal supporters willing to kill for him.
An assassination plot against a former president.
History showing the capability and willingness to use chemical weapons against civilians.
At a minimum, the sophistication and equipment to produce mass quantities of chemical, biological weapons.
And over a decade long pseudo war with the US and our allies.

Saddam was the head of a brutal, win at all costs regime with a serious axe to grind against the US and the capability (equipment, troops, funds) and willingness to target the US (firing on our troops in the No Fly Zones on a near daily basis, attempts to assasinate US citizens).

If I noted there was a psychopath with billions at his disposal, access to chemical and/or biological weaponry, loyal followers numbering in the tens of thousands, a recent and prolonged history of war with the US, the cold blooded nature to murder civilians by the thousands, etc...

Would you think I was talking about Saddam or Osama? Is there much of a difference after 9/11? You no longer need 50 divisions and three carrier groups to threaten the West (specifically the US). You need enough money and organization to do it. If you also demonstrate the willingness and histiry, you create an unacceptable situation for US national security.

Take North Korea, for example. Where is their recent history of belligerance against the US? Where is the Sudan's? There is no pressing national security threat. There is significant threat potential in North Korea and Iran (although Iran's belligerance is far more current and frequent) to warrant our attention and energy. There is just no cause to initiate military action. The Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Haiti, etc. are significant humanitarian issues and require a different approach and response.

Get it?

 

[whosewar2000]

I'll humor him.

Why Saddam?

History of belligerance against the US.
Near daily missile and AAA firings on our patrol aircraft over the No Fly Zones.
Mass murder.
History of harboring (Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Zarqawi) and assisting (suicide bombers) terrorism.
Known multiple and high level contacts with al Qaeda (from the 9/11 report).
History of attacking neighboring states (within a fiur year span he ended his war with Iran and attacked/brutalized Kuwait) and destabilizing the entire region.
Billions in assets annually at his disposal to fund his campaign against the West, specifically the US.
Thousands of loyal supporters willing to kill for him.
An assassination plot against a former president.
History showing the capability and willingness to use chemical weapons against civilians.
At a minimum, the sophistication and equipment to produce mass quantities of chemical, biological weapons.
And over a decade long pseudo war with the US and our allies.

Saddam was the head of a brutal, win at all costs regime with a serious axe to grind against the US and the capability (equipment, troops, funds) and willingness to target the US (firing on our troops in the No Fly Zones on a near daily basis, attempts to assasinate US citizens).

Get it?

THANK YOU, THANK YOU AND THANK YOU!! Even youdidnot do a complete comparision between Iraq with other "dictator" countries---Many examples you showed can also be found for other "dictator" countries.

But

You still slappled those people's face for me----those who insist sayinng US invade Iraq is because US want to bring peace and democracy there.

And you have not answerd me the other question: "Why choose the year of 2003?" ---waiting for you answers :roll:

 

[SHERMAN]

Whosewar.....You are not following your own calculations:

You know what, the world is a tough place, and we have to sometimes support bad people to be a bulwark against even worse people.”

Exactly. The world is still a tough place. The USA had a good chance of knocking this deranged lunatic out of power and it did. I say, get rid of the ones you can. Saddam was a major distabelizer to the Middle East, and EVERYONE has it better without him.

Saddam Hussein didn’t care about jihad and Allah and all that stuff. He cared about power and keeping his power. He would have made sure Iraq was his and not the province of these guys who are cutting off people’s heads. He was the head-cutter in that country.

Saddam had a master plan of punching through Jordan and into Israel....He was a threat to world peace.

You still slappled those people's face for me----those who insist sayinng US invade Iraq is because US want to bring peace and democracy there

LOL. It dosent matter. The USA did it because Saddam threatend its intrests. So what? It still did good.

 

[Airborne Eagle]

THANK YOU, THANK YOU AND THANK YOU!! Even youdidnot do a complete comparision between Iraq with other "dictator" countries---Many examples you showed can also be found for other "dictator" countries.

You didn't comprehend what I wrote.

I made it a point to note there is a difference in approach to each trouble spot.

It's what any reasonable person would do.

You do not treat all your friends equally. Some, you allow a more intimate relationship. Others, you keep at more of a distance.

You cannot reasonably expect a universal approach when circumstances are so different.

But

You still slappled those people's face for me----those who insist sayinng US invade Iraq is because US want to bring peace and democracy there.

Actually, I didn't. What I did was note the national security threat Iraq posed. There's a difference.

And you have not answerd me the other question: "Why choose the year of 2003?" ---waiting for you answers :roll:

Save the roll nonsense.

You have an answer. Post it. I know where you're going, but I want you to post it.

 

[whosewar2000]

Airborne Eagle, check the previous sherman's post.

*Poof*

I just really donot want to make clearer cause I think finally you will understand by youself.

1) the war is for a certain group people's interest, so shut up the mouth when anybody want to say "American want to save the world" or "save Iraq people from the hell"
2) The war is for "US" Interest? hhah...if you can answer me the question about the "TIMING", you then can understand it is only for "a very small tiny group Americans"

I will ban you if you continue with the personnal insults(and I have 139)

 

[Airborne Eagle]

You can dispense with the IQ nonsense, also. Book this, sparky. You can't touch me.

What this troll wants to get into is a Jewish conspiracy to rule America.

You can spot it early on. I've seen his type throughout the Internet.

 

[Redneck]

whosewar has received a temporary ban for inappropriate behavior and attempting to start a flame war.

If you cannot make your posts without using personal attacks, find another place to spend your time.

 

[CMA2]

Forward a thread from anothe forum, like it.



America is a better place WITH Saddam Hussein

Isn't everyone tired of the phrase “The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein." Im sick and tired of that. You know what? Iraq down the road might be a better place without Saddam Hussein. But the world, and especially America, would be better withSaddam Hussein. That’s right, with him.


And that’s what we would have if Saddam was still in Iraq: We would have $200 billion more in our bank, in our coffers for America. We would not have the world hating us.

WTF?

200 billion for what to rebuild America due to fighting terroists here rather than there????

Get Real FNG

 

[Trevor]

I'm sorry, but the title is just so stupid, it doesnn't even make me want to read this crap.