[-V-]

Saddham might be in power but contained through continuing UN inspections and pressure, and tens of thousands of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians would still be alive and unwounded, the world wouldn't hate us, and we would have saved several hundred billion dollars which could be used far more productively than re-building the foreign cities and lives that we destroyed.

[yojimbo]

What threat did Saddam pose to the US? What threat did he pose to his neighbors? You didn't even hear Kuwait asking us to come in and protect them this time and we supposedly saved their butts in the first conflict. This whole issue is a joke. Reagan/Bush (I) created Hussein in the early 80's to keep the Iran/Iraq feud going. We gave him the nerve gas that he used to quell the the Kurds and no one said anything about it then. When the Kuwaitis started slant drilling to steal oil from Iraq, Iraq sent a memo to the US saying that something had to be done about it and our response was that we didn't have a policy relating to the middle east, so they could do whatever they wanted to remove the problem. We baited them into attacking Kuwait so that we could have an excuse to move in and save the day and get their oil. Saddam was installed into Iraq by the CIA because they knew that he would play ball with the US. Then when he got a little uppity, we had to prove that we could take him out as easily as we put him in. It wasn't as easy as they thought and they started a little too early to get the big poll push they needed to get Bush I re-elected, so they backed off. Even after the first "war", Saddam never really fought back. He kept thinking that we would eventually come around and make-up and start business back as usual when we needed to sell arms to a third world country again.

The sanctions were working and Saddam was still living his lavish life style while thousands (if not 10's or 100's of thousands) of Iraqi's were dying of starvation and disease because he didn't really care about power that much as long as he was comfortable and could play the martyr. Now Bush II comes along and sees Iraq as the big blemish in his daddy's accomplishments and decides he's going to do something that his dad couldn't. So he kills about a 1000 American soldiers and somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 Iraqis (we don't know for sure because he's flagrantly violating the Geneva conventions and not counting the civilian losses).

My point here is that this is a giant mess that goes back through four administrations and all aspects were created by the US government. Our only real option should be to remove all our troops and start with a giant apology and acknowledgement of full responsibility. Then we go to the UN and say we would like to pay for the cleanup, but that we only want to be involved if the locals want us there. Otherwise we will fund any neighborhood cleanup for the area. The problem is that Iraq has made so many enemies that they would probably prefer us to most of them; Saudi Arabia?, Iran?, Jordan?, Syria?, Israel?, Egypt? It's just going to be chaos until either the Sunnis or the Shi'is wipe out the other side because they hate each other so much. What can you do? I guess we'll just keep killing and keep dying.

[Badandy]

""Saddham might be in power but contained through continuing UN inspections and pressure,""

You are kidding right? UN pressure? 12 years of "UN pressure" was not enough to make Saddam do anything. The simple fact is, is that the United States actually enforced the UN's own resolutions. Why don't you read them then come back.

""and tens of thousands of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians would still be alive and unwounded,""

Iraqi civilians who were being tortured, killed, and raped by Saddam. Sure some have been killed, which is a tragedy, but the way I look at it, if Saddam was in power for more years, there would be many more dead. And with his sons, who were crazier and more brutal than him, the country would have become worse than it is now.

As Bill O'Reilly would say.

Wise up, sir.

[treehugginliberal]

Hussein had a relationship with the CIA dating back 40 years or so and was apparently peripherally involved in the assassination of President Qassim and all subsequent Ba'athist coups (helped along of course by the CIA). The Reagan administration encouraged his very destructive war with Iran, (where do you suppose he acquired chemical weapons in the first place?). Both Iraq and Iran have admitted to using chemical weapons during this 8 year conflict that in the end, bankrupted Iraq.
Now did he REALLY gas his own people? According to Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights, he did. However, there is a very interesting research article written by a Robin Miller which makes a very persuasive (and well documented) argument that no evidence has turned up that any such gassings took place. Here is a link to the article for those interested: http://www.robincmiller.com/iraq3-fr.htm (http://http://www.robincmiller.com/iraq3-fr.htm). The article also has a link to the Human Rights Watch version of events as well as Miller's documentation.
As the United States government has a long history of supporting repressive regimes that serve US interests and helping to do away with progressive (or as the nightly news tells us, "Communist-backed" or Socialist) regimes, it is very simple for most to believe that such gassing would take place without US intervention.
Anyway, I digress, Hussein's country is bankrupt following the war with Iran, then someone (I have read variously it was Saudi Arabia or Kuwait) flooded the world's oil market, dropping the price of oil (cutting it in half) and making it vitually impossible for Iraq to recover from the war with Iran.
So now Hussein decides to undertake another war, this time with his neighbor (and erstwhile US ally) Kuwait. Why? Who knows, border dispute, Kuwait flooding the world's oil market, slant drilling by the Kuwaitis, take your pick. He informs the US of his intentions and through Ambassador Glaspie the US tells him in essence, okay. So begins another US intervention (wonder why we did not intervene in the Iraq-Iran conflict?) which in the end leads to Hussein still in power, promising to dismantle the chemical weapons the US essentially gave to him, economic sanctions which probably killed as many Iraqis as we are currently killing with bombs and bullets and in all likelihood, helped to defeat George H W Bush in his bid for re-election.
So now here we are, some 10 or so years later and what happens? Someone hijacks 4 commercial airliners and crashes them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the ground in Pennsylvania. Although Hussein had been linked to terrorists in the past (Abu Nidal), the attempts by the current administration to link him to Al-qaeda are, well frankly, ludicrous. As for weapons of mass destruction, the administration's big claim (besides the aforementioned chemical weapons) was Iraq's "nuculer" program. Now keep in mind that in the history of nuclear weapons, the United States has never, ever invaded a country that had nuclear capabilities. That in itself tells me all I need to know about Iraq's nuclear capabilities.
So why did the US invade a war ravaged, bankrupt, starving country like Iraq?
To rid them of Hussein and bring them "democracy"? HA! Get real.
This is just my humble opinion and nothing more. I feel the real reasons are twofold. 1) US troops will be in Iraq for many years to come (just like the Phillipines). An "elected", very business oriented and right-wing government (not to mention US friendly) will be put in power, will recognize the Zionist state of Israel, and will allow the US to maintain a long-term (ie permanent) presence in the country that will along with new Iraq ally Israel, "promote stability in the region" which will then allow the US to: 2) control what is thought to be the largest oil reserve in the world. Oh sure the US could get oil from any of their allies in the Middle-East, but this will allow the US to actually control OPEC and "stabilize" oil prices. In other words, dear consumer, no more having one country flood the market and dropping oil prices drastically, which is good for the consumer, but bad for oil bidnessmen, like the one's currently in power in this country. Why do you think this administration hates Hugo Chavez so much? The only affect switching to a Democratic Administration will be 4 years of the Republican noise machine going full bore. As far as I can tell (and I admit, I am simply a high school graduate) controlling all this oil will do very little to reduce the massive deficeit this administration has produced (Oh wait, I'm sorry, that must also be Bill Clinton's fault :) Go to war and cut taxes, sounds like a sound economic policy to me).
Just one man's opinion (ie ramblings)
Hussein was not a threat, he was simply in the way and no longer had a useful purpose to the US or their goals for the region.

[Badandy]

Saddham might be in power but contained through continuing UN inspections and pressure,

11 years of UN sanctions and "pressure" wasn't effecting Saddam Hussein in the slightest.

the world wouldn't hate us,


I could care less if the Arafat loving French government liked us or hate us.

[-V-]

wasn't effecting Saddam Hussein in the slightest

The lead inspector said they were making excellent progress and asked for more time. Inspections, sanctions, and pressure worked well enough so that Saddham had no weapons of mass destruction, not even chemical weapons to defend against the U.S. invasion.

I could care less if the Arafat loving French government liked us or hate us.

I don't think anyone cares whether you could care less about the French. Again, the majority of the world hates us.

[Jane of Arc]

[QUOTE]You are kidding right? UN pressure? 12 years of "UN pressure" was not enough to make Saddam do anything. The simple fact is, is that the United States actually enforced the UN's own resolutions. Why don't you read them then come back.

What legal authority does the United States have to enforce UN resolutions?



Iraqi civilians who were being tortured, killed, and raped by Saddam. Sure some have been killed, which is a tragedy, but the way I look at it, if Saddam was in power for more years, there would be many more dead. And with his sons, who were crazier and more brutal than him, the country would have become worse than it is now.

About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts. (John Hopkins University)

As Bill O'Reilly would say.

Wise up, sir.[/

Anyone who proudly quotes Bill O'Reilly needs to turn off their TV and use the time to read.

[snowdog]

actually didn't the UN ask the US to lead the charge to get Saddamn outta
Kuwait?

is there any reason why no one talks about the non-military people in Iraq
being killed every week? or Beheaded? those savage bastards don't care,
say what you want about the US....but at the same time talk about the
shousands of innocents blown up by the insurgents. remember..........
Fair and Balanced........:)

[sdboreel]

I just don't get you all on the left. I thought you were all about protecting the lives of citizens. But the people of Iraq or afghanistan are not good enough to protect? You are okay with rape and torture? Yes, mistakes have been made, yes innocent civilians are dying, but I believe that saving 50 million people would be the greater good and a sacrifice that the USA, the greatest country and savior to the world had to make.

By the way, how come Air America never comes out against the terrorists and insurgents for blending into the communities, hiding behind women and children, and storing weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals. No, they blame the US for what, trying to bring peace to the region. Snowdog, I agree, how many troops have been killed lately, not many, thank God, but I know it is bad for CNN. The insurgents can not defeat the US Military so they have to kill civilians and the left supports them every step of the way. But I am sure that if John "I can cure Christopher Reeves" were President, every man women and child in the US would be DEAD becasue of his flip flopping policies and ignorance.

Not to digress, but "what exactly is the Democrats plan?" Can anyone on the left give me an answer?

And Jane, let me say something to you. What has the UN ever done to protect the rights of people? And you want to let the UN come in and secure Iraq? It's no wonder the Democrats can't win an election. The UN is impotent when it comes to security, however they seem to be good at fraud as the "Oil for Food" scandal showed. And by the way, Bill O'Reilly has 10 times the audience of any left winger. That should say something about who the country believes shouldn't it?

More to come......

[-V-]

But the people of Iraq or afghanistan are not good enough to protect?

That's not why we went there and you and Bush know it. But I'm glad you're a human rights crusader. So am I. All the people of every country are good enough to protect, including the civilians in Iran, North Korea, China, etc., etc. Should we send you or your children to each of these countries or do you think the U.N. could be the key in the future?

You are okay with rape and torture?

Our's or their's. I'm not OK with either one. Are you?

The UN is impotent
The U.S. is a key reason the U.N. is impotent. Did you catch Bush's most recent Veto relating to the Middle East conflict?

Bill O'Reilly has 10 times the audience of any left winger. That should say something about who the country believes shouldn't it?

Jerry springer kills in his time slot too. But I don't think it says that this country endorses adultery, incest, adults with a diaper fetish, etc..

[Palpatine77]

Going to in part the original question of this topic, "What if Gore were President wouldn't Saddam be in power?". Short answer to that is..... yes. If Gore had been elected President, he probably would have focused more on the actual terrorist group that attacked us on 9/11, that being Al-Qaida, and he most certainly would not have felt it necessary to invade Iraq, a country that according to President Bush had nothing to do with 9/11, according to the bi-partisian 9/11 Commission had no connections to Al-Qaida, and according to the 1,500 member team hand-picked by Bush to search for WMD's in Iraq, had no WMD's since the early 90's.

So yeah, Saddam would still be in power now, but America would not be involved in a quagmire in Iraq, the Civil War would not have begun, and America would be safer because it would have focused more on Al-Qaida. You know, the people responsible for 9/11.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

There is highly credible evidence that Al Quida's Atta was funded through a ranking officer in Pakistani Intelligence, ISI; that said officer was in NY City prior to 9/11, meeting with undercover FBI informants for the purpose of purchasing weapons at which meeting the officer said "on tape" the twin towers were coming down and that the very same ISI officer met with officials of the Bush administation for several days just before, during and after 9/11. The link below is free video containing that information and more:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...id feed&hl=en

A friend and I are distributing DVDs of the second edition of "Loose Change" about 9/11.' It's available to see free on YouTube:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...id feed&hl=en

"In Plane Site" shows video that puts into question whether or not commercial airliners or U.S. military aircraft, possibly drones, flew into the World Trade Center towers and more:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ocidfeed&hl=en

At the following website, there are 18 9/11 documentary videos, 63 9/11 video commentaries and 25 translated 9/11 videos:

http://freepressinternational.com/ca...documentaries/

[JJBoxer1]

It doesn't make a different if Saddam was still in power, he was not a threat to the United State, he was more of a threat to the Bush family, Iran, and Israel, than to America, remember this Saddam once was America allied in the 80's, until he decided to flip the script to euro's with his cash, and put the hit on daddy Bush.

[Jane of Arc]

Welcome to POL JJBoxer1! From your post ... I think you've found a home. We look forward to hearing more from you.

You must be 1 of 23 Democrats in Nebraska? Or is it becoming more liberal?

[Thelonious]

For example we would have the money and the manpower to effectively fight the Taliban and rebuild Afganistan as we promised to do, but are currently not doing because all our resources have been sucked into the bottomless pit of civil conflict of our own making.

[Thelonious]

There are a lot of brutal dictators in the world who are still in power even with the "Strong and decisive" Republicrat administration in the White House. (one more in Iraq would not make a large difference in the world)

Although not having a huge civil war... a looming regional war and general instability in the middle of the world's most important oil supply region would be nice... in fact was nice until the Republicrat administration got hold of our foreign policy.

[Jane of Arc]

Welcome to POL Thelonius!

It's good to have you here. I like your word "Republicrat". I pretty much feel we have a one party system, as well. Yes, there are some really good members of Congress struggling and working very hard for "The People", but they are few and far between.

[Thelonious]

Hi Jane,
Ever notice that Republicrat (quite often southern) politicians frequently refuse to use the adjective Democratic in phrases like "Democratic Party" or "Democratic Proposal" and instead say the "Democrat Party" defying the rules of grammar in order to make their oponents name sound less like our treasured Democratic System and more like the hated "Bureaucrat" (with a southern accent they can stress the RAT sound as well)
It is only natural to start using the term Republicrat for these right-wing wackos who so often pretend to be conservative.

[Wafflepudding]

First post!
Not that I waste any love on republicans but, "democrat" and "democratic" are hardly the same thing, and loaded terms are always a negative sign in my book. "Democratic" sounds like "pro-life", a weasel term, implying that the opponents are "anti-democratic" or "anti-life". I'm all for the term "Republicrat" though. As much as I disagree with the way the Iraq war was handled, and how it was justified (on lies and forged evidence) I do agree Saddam had to go, and the containment strategy implied sacrificing the people inside Iraq in the name of peace, that's as unacceptable as sacrificing people now in the name of freedom. Saddam was America's (Reagan's if you prefer) boy, it is only right that America solves the problem it created in the 80's.

[-V-]

welcome wafflepudding, we can use more input from libertarians.

When you say, "Saddham had to go" I'd like to point out that most of the world believes Bush has to go, but there is a distinct line between sentiment and an invasion by a foreign country taking it upon themselves to kill and destroy to enact regime change. As a libertarian I'm sure you can appreciate that.

[Wafflepudding]

Correct, most of the world believes that, would you say they are wrong?
Of course, invading another country to change its regime is wrong, so is propping up a dictator and arming him to promote your country's interests. As a libertarian I also believe the government has no business manipulating the government of other countries, Saddam should never have been backed in the first place. But making that huge mess and then trying to "contain it" is just irresponsible, and sanctions, blockades and condemnations won't bring down a totalitarian regime, ask Kim Jong-Il or Fidel Castro, they only served (as someone else on this board confirmed) to stir up hatred against the west and kill thousands of civilians from starvation and lack of medical suppkies, power, etc. The difference is, we didn't prop up Kim or Fidel, that's not our mess to clean up.