What do you say to people who say Saddam needed to be taken out?

We've all heard the freepers spew the usual mantra "He had WMD, he gassed his own people, he killed the Kurds, he had rape rooms...." He was a very bad man, but he did not have WMD when we went over there. There are plenty of nations that have weapons etc. What do you tell people in your arguments against the Iraqi war? I've used the Bill Maher "Martha Stewart" example a couple times.

That always seems to shut them up.

bush should be next!!

No war of aggression is ever justified if there is no imminent threat or attack by the offending nation.

That makes the war illegal, regardless of how bad Saddam Hussein was.

two reasons...no oil and they're a hell of a lot tougher than the Iraqie Army....

That's what I say. If anything, people in DPRK (North Korea) have it worse that those in Iraq. And Kim Jong-Il has pretty much done everything possible to merit an attack, including boasting of his nuclear capabilities and having missiles that could hit Seattle.

However DPRK doesn't have the second largest sea of oil under it, so Bush isn't interested in liberating it. I mean "them".

We tickled his fancy, and he tickled ours. We knew he was no good for us. But, damn, that oil was sweet!!! We gave him candy and jewels (WMD's and 'acceptance'). He showed up pregnant!!!! Gulf War 1 ensues as a war of wills. We deny that we ever knew him - much less the crea$$$ture inside him. He decides to give a name to his offspring 'EURO'. We decide to abort because it would destroy our financial base. But, instead of a true 'abortion' we decide to do a Peterson.

Just a thought.

and we decided to abort him before he cost us any $$$$$$$$$$$$

bugger off feeb and annoy someone else.

End of discussion.

He was gassing and killing and raping back in the 80s when he was Reagan and Poppy Bush's best buddy in the middle east. Many mass graves are those of Kurds who rose up against him at the end of the first gulf war (after Poppy assured them that the US would support their uprising) but were squashed and killed.

He was always the same bad Saddam, we never should have supported & armed him in the first place. We could have prevented all those murders and rapes long ago, if not for their idol Ronnie.

That is a very good point.

Thanks,

S>

.

.

During the Clinton years, did Saddam move an inch without getting something bombed?

I'll answer my own question: Nope!

Our diplomats created a vast network of info channels then. When Saddam sneezed, the jets took off.

when he was our ally.

Gulf War II was the settling of a personal feud on behalf of Poppy Bush. We puny citizens were a sideshow to be manipulated on behalf of the Bush dynastic imperative.

Forutnately, the rest of the world notices our feeble-mindedness and our hypocrisy, even if the mighty freepers don't.

I say there are lots of bad men and torturers in the world, especially in China, but it's more important to take care of those who have attacked Americans, especially on American soil, otherwise we give the appearance of being stupid as well as weak.

Saddam Hussein was like Martha Stewart. Yeah they did bad but they're the easy guys to go after. There are still much bigger fish out there to catch such as Osama Bin Ladin and Kenny Boy.

All stating that Saddam was contained and not even a threat to his neighbors, let alone the United States.

Martha Stewart is in the front of the store, shoplifting a pair of pantyhose. Meanwhile, the Halliburton gang is in the back of the store, carrying out big screen TVs and loading them in the back of the truck. But the police are all in front, jumping all over Martha Stewart. A brilliant comparison.

And less than $100,000 in US taxpayer money was needed.

There are other less costly ways to stage a coup.

That's my answer.

Its simply not worth 100s of billions of dollars and 100s of US lives and 1,000s of Iraqi lives to "take out" a country that is not a threat to us.

We jsut had to go and choose the absolutely wrong way to do it though. The one way to make him a martyr among people who hated him, and the one way to ensure that for Americans the world was less safe not more.

containment was the lesser of two evils.

Tell them to read King George I's book on why he didn't "go to Baghdad". The reasons he says he didn't are playing out right before our very eyes.

Well, there are several things I say, depending on the situation.

1. The most popular "Where's Osama?"
2. The second most popular "Where were the WMD?"
3. Or, when they persist, I simply ask "Why was Saddam a threat to US national security?"

The following is nothing but shameless begging for help at the Washington Dispatch forums.

*khhht*This is Blue One. We're taking heavy fire at www.washingtondispatch.com! Let's get some people with brains down here! GAAAHHH!!! I've been hit!*khhht*

Or maybe you heard something about our trouncing by his forces that I haven't? But speaking of taking him out;

Why not after "he gassed his own people with chemicals from raygun"?

Why not during/after Gulf War I? bush* I was within miles of him back then, why didn't he finish the job?

bush* I did do the job of minimizing his force/control in the area and beyond, and the sanctions and No Fly Zone bombing during Clinton years clearly neutered him. He had "control" of only 1/3 of his country, you must be a bigger wuss than dubya* to be afraid of him.

Is what I would say. That and "How long were you there then?"

First, it is not our right to decide who stays and who goes in other nations.

If we were so appalled by Saddam's brutal treatment of his people, why didn't we speak up for the past 30 years, the worst of which took place under Reagan/Bush?

If we had humane reasons for taking him out, i.e., helping the Iraqis, we have proven that we have the ability to do this without nuking an entire country and killing thousands of people.

Do you think we would even care about the "hearts of minds" of the Iraqi people if there were turnips growing under their soil?

Saddam WAS contained; the inspections were working; the information from Chalabi and the INC was fraudulent to serve their purposes; the information from the CIA was cherry-picked to bolster the "evidence" from the INC and help push the agenda of Cheney and the neo-cons.

told them? After Gulf War One, he encouraged them to rise up and overthrow Saddam, saying the US would be right behind them. So they did. And he didn't do squat about it. So they got overrun by Saddam's forces, and the rebellion was put down and they were all gassed. With gas from Ronnie-boy, and George the First, and their lovely and talented emissary, Donald Rumsfeld.

If people want to have a rational conversation about US foreign policy and intervening in countries who violate fundamental human rights, I say bring it on. I'd love to have that debate.

However, American citizens have an obigation to hold their government accountable for what they SAY and what they DO. To think that there are people in this country who say to themselves, "Well maybe they exaggerated about going to war but it was the right thing to do." Excuse me? This is not a paternalistic relationship we have with our presidents where they pat us on our heads and say they know what's best. They need to listen to the people and when they don't, like Aznar in Spain, they should fully expect to be held accountable.

The American people never wanted to go to war, just look at polls before the invasion. Americans always wanted a multi-lateral approach. And what did our government say? We know what's best and we're doing it anyways. Now they have every right to do so but they should also expect close scrutiny and blame for any failures.

because as loathsome as Saddam was, he was keeping the mullahs out of power. Now that he's gone, they will take over, if given a democratic vote. Is that a real victory? I think Bush F*d up and Shrub should have listened to his dad instead of just trying to show him whose dick was bigger.

We had 10 years of sanctions against Saddam, UN Inspectors poking in all corners of Iraq, U-2 and Stealth Spy planes flying over the country, the country was divided into no-fly zones, we were constantly bombing Iraq, -- what was the hurry???

OIL and B's need to get Saddam! He was no threat to the US and there were ways to get rid of him without killing and maiming thousands of Iraqis and Americans.

"He had WMD

We KNOW this was a LIE

" he gassed his own people"

1)it was NOT "his own people". It was Kurds, they are NOT Arabs. Bush Sr enticed them to rebel at the end of the Gulf War. When they did what BUSH asked (and promised support for) BUSH walked away and left them to be killed by Saddam. BUSH is to blame.

2) it was gas the US/ Bush Sr/ HALIBURTON supplied to him, thru Rummy

"he killed the Kurds"

See above.

"he had rape rooms...."

1)Tailhook "Air Force Secretary: 54 Cases Of Rape, Assault, At AFA" http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/2023603/detail.html

Guess we need to start a regime change to replace the HEAD of the US military as THEY had rape rooms also? Seems BUSH is the "HEAD of the US military" and thus as culpable as Saddam for the rape rooms in HIS military?

2)The Rape Victim Koss and Harvey, 1991 - "In their national sample of 7,000 college students, Koss and colleagues found that 15% of women respondents had had an experience which met the Ohio legal definition of rape" http://www.gmu.edu/facstaff/sexual/sexual_stats.html#national

And we need to start "Shock and Awe" bombing of US campuses?

The world is FULL of horrible leaders of countries committing massive attrocities. Our country is a prime example RIGHT NOW!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But you'd be wrong on all counts.

...If they use the gassed his own people one, simply say, yeah, when bush sr., was president. Hell HE sold him the gas! Poppy was so upset with that back then that he almost delayed his golf game. Then sit down, take a big pull off your beer, and show them this picture....



then tell them to take a big sniff of reality and go away and annoy someone else...

And all of the arguments posted here in this thread fall into one of two categories. 1. Totally irellevant, and 2. Actually strengthen my feelings about it.

But hey, it's just my opinion.

Heyo

Most people watching believe Iraq will end up with a fundamentalist Islamic ayatollah running things.

I haven't spoken to anyone who seriously believes that they will go with our handpicked successor government.

Will an ayatollah be better for the U.S. and Iraq than Saddam? That's where I have a problem.

Although I'm sure some of the imams will try...

I think the Iraqis are fed up with being ruled with an iron fist, I have a good friend who just came back from over there who really helped me to understand the situation over there a little better...

It's only what one person saw, but it sure as hell beats the news media reports (which apparently are total BS, but I pretty much assumed that anyway)

A person walking the streets talking to the people goes a long way to helping understand...

The Iraqi people do not want to be subjugated by dictators or Islamic sharia law.... and if there is a vote, they will have their way.

Heyo

it was worth throwing away 564 Americans, 20,000 Iraqi lives, 70 years of American credibility around the world, and bankrupting our economy.

The problem with Repubicans is they have no perspective. They think Clinton's lie is worse than Bush's.

and put your ass on the line?

I'm assuming you would have offered yourself up as one of the nearly 600 dead?

You must think your life would have been worth it, no?

Unfortunately you didn't go, and unfortunately you weren't a casualty and now we have to listen to your criminal treasonous drivel.

And I think the Iraqi people are better off now and will be even more so in a few years.

However, I wouldn't have wanted to die for their liberation.

Who would you like to invade tomorrow? Pick someone.

We'll take up a collection and fly you over there so you can lead the invasion yourself.

And if this sort of thing makes you sleep better at night, well, you've found your calling:

I had more reservations about the war before than after.

The reason for the change? Talking to the Iraqis who were brutalized under Saddam. Something I'm sure very few DUers have done.

but I suppose you're okay with that.

You have any kids?

That depict smiling children who won't know the horrors of Saddam's terroristic regime because of the sacifices of American servicemen and women.

Smiling children, democracy MY ASS.

Here are the reasons we invaded and killed thousands of people. It has nothing to do with terrorism, and it has nothing to do with smiling children.

I'm glad you're happy about being lied to and having your country do something completely illegal and kill thousands of people and possibly bankrupt itself.

You must be a very positive person.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php

(snip)

A: We knew. We knew from many years of both high-level surveillance and other types of shared intelligence, not to mention the information from the U.N., we knew, we knew what was left and the viability of any of that. Bush said he didnt know.

The truth is, we know didnt have these things. Almost a billion dollars has been spent a billion dollars! by David Kays group to search for these WMD, a total whitewash effort. They didnt find anything, they didnt expect to find anything.

Q: So if, as you argue, they knew there werent any of these WMD, then what exactly drove the neoconservatives to war?

A: The neoconservatives pride themselves on having a global vision, a long-term strategic perspective. And there were three reasons why they felt the U.S. needed to topple Saddam, put in a friendly government and occupy Iraq.

One of those reasons is that sanctions and containment were working and everybody pretty much knew it. Many companies around the world were preparing to do business with Iraq in anticipation of a lifting of sanctions. But the U.S. and the U.K. had been bombing northern and southern Iraq since 1991. So it was very unlikely that we would be in any kind of position to gain significant contracts in any post-sanctions Iraq. And those sanctions were going to be lifted soon, Saddam would still be in place, and we would get no financial benefit.

The second reason has to do with our military-basing posture in the region. We had been very dissatisfied with our relations with Saudi Arabia, particularly the restrictions on our basing. And also there was dissatisfaction from the people of Saudi Arabia. So we were looking for alternate strategic locations beyond Kuwait, beyond Qatar, to secure something we had been searching for since the days of Carter to secure the energy lines of communication in the region. Bases in Iraq, then, were very important that is, if you hold that is Americas role in the world. Saddam Hussein was not about to invite us in.

The last reason is the conversion, the switch Saddam Hussein made in the Food for Oil program, from the dollar to the euro. He did this, by the way, long before 9/11, in November 2000 selling his oil for euros. The oil sales permitted in that program arent very much. But when the sanctions would be lifted, the sales from the country with the second largest oil reserves on the planet would have been moving to the euro.

The U.S. dollar is in a sensitive period because we are a debtor nation now. Our currency is still popular, but its not backed up like it used to be. If oil, a very solid commodity, is traded on the euro, that could cause massive, almost glacial, shifts in confidence in trading on the dollar. So one of the first executive orders that Bush signed in May <2003> switched trading on Iraqs oil back to the dollar.

I'm a very positive person. I'm optimistic for the future of Iraqi citizens to have a peaceful and prosperous existence.

what's best for my country.

And spending a trillion dollars to destroy and rebuild countries on the other side of the planet that were never a threat to us ain't exactly a fucking PRIORITY!

But that doesn't mean I have to drop my compassion for the people of Iraq. It's easy for you to say when you don't know any of them. I have friends over there and I'm not going to wish any more despair on them. They've been through enough as it is.

them.

We killed thousands of people in Iraq.

Glad you're happy about it.

Who said I was happy about it?

Tell us please.

nt?

In the rear with the gear? Granted that is far more brave than Cheney and the chicken hawks but hardly putting your ass on the line. Not that it has any barring on your opinion which you are of course entitled to. I would personally have issues if I had participated in the illegal invasion. I would probably have a hard time doing my duty and feeling good about it.

I am sure the troops over there would prefer to believe they are fighting for a just cause. It would certainly be harder to have an objective opinion.

In the rear with the gear... I wish I was...

I had serious doubts about the war, but after speaking with many Iraqis, those doubts faded. I still have problems with many aspects of it, but I am more realistic about the good that the war has given to the Iraqis now.

On edit: BTW, you probably have Civil Affairs confused with Public Affairs. They are on complete opposite sides of the spectrum. Do a google for more.

I also see that what "good" has come is most likely fleeting as the situation only gets worse and we keep digging the hole deeper.

The media reports on very little of what happens over there. Only negative stories get any press.

Also, a lot of people only see what they want to see. They want to see it fail and will only believe things that back up their preconceived worldview.

The media does not even report casualties accurately. They ignore the fact we have over 10,000 maimed who will not be fighting anymore. They will not show returning KIA’s or WIA’s.

While I am sure you have your own first hand experience I too have several friends who have been there since the war. They too report that not everything is bad but they do not have any sense of optimism that it is getting better before it gets a whole lot worse.


The media gives plenty of time to the RNC spin masters who tell us things like "they attack because we are succeeding".

The people dieing everyday are not a fabrication. Even if you could say that everything else was fine and there was not a civil war coming it would be a far cry from an optimistic picture.

I can understand your personal feeling based on your time there but to say the media is intentionally making the situation look worse than it is simply false.

You can believe what you want. I don't anticipate changing too many minds around here anyway. Just throwing my two cents in the vault.

I still disagree with you somewhat about the media though. They do selectively report only certain things, but they are almost invariably negative. The only thing we hear about our attacks and casualties. Never anything about schools being renovated, power being more evenly distributed, or wages going up. They may not be intentionally misrepresenting the situation over there, but it's just the nature of media to report bad news. Bad news gets more viewers, good news gets the channel changed.

I have friends who visited Iraq as well. Some people are happy Saddam is gone but most are fearful of what is to come as they should be. I don't think we are going to get anything positive out of Iraq in the long run, things can only get worse as long as we insist upon having it as colony. We certainly have not in the short run.

Are you trying to say the US media paints a fatalistic version of what is happening in Iraq? Why would they do that. In fact they won't even refer to the total number of wounded coming home( over 10,000)

Maybe that was not what you were saying but it would be hard to take you seriously if it were.

Which arguement do you feel strengthens your feelings that the war was right? Most war people are very short on details you know.

(Not counting Iraqis etc.)

On what basis was he attacked? Because we wanted to? If he had weapons and proved to be a monster, who gave them to him in the first place and encouraged him to use them? What about the saudis? The hijackers were saudis and the saudis bankroll terrorists. Was it worth correcting a personal slight (he wants to kill my daddy) and alienating the entire world? Was it worth the loss of credibility by saying the UN is irrelevant then come back crawling to them asking for help? The list goes on and on....

quote Will Pitt and ask them if you can have your constitutional rights back? Can you have the nearly 600 dead American soldiers back? Can you have the thousands of dead Iraqui civilians back? And can we have our money, the BILLIONS they've spent on this war, back too?

I knew Saddum was evil in the mid-80's when Ronald Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld to meet with him personally and sell him weapons.

I knew Saddum was evil in '89-90 when Bush Sr gave Saddum billions of dollars in US taxpayer funded loans.

I knew Saddum was evil in the 90's when Dick Cheney and Halliburton were doing millions of dollars in business with Saddum.


.. Strange as it may seem, they don’t really have anything to say after reminding them of those little facts.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong but, to my knowledge, the US did not sell Saddam WMD. We sold him the core components of those WMD , ie...the main chemical that is used to make anthrax, etc. The freepers response to this is that Saddam could have "used those for vaccines." I still laugh when I think of that one.

Did you mean to respond to someone else?

I didn’t say anything about WMD's

those are excellent responses

whats the big rush? Niether of his sons seemed likely to be an effective replacement...

They wanted us to believe that Saddam was some sort of super-human force of nature...and not just an old man...

They went hunting Saddam during Osama season. Illegally and against the protestations of the world.

The BFEE has staged two successful coups against the U.S. govt. (1979 October surprise with GHWB probably negotiating with the Iranians), and 2002 (using the Supreme Court.) Not to mention the many overseas coups they've undoubtedly had their hands in, the latest being Aristide's replacement in Haiti. If they'd _really_ wanted Saddam out of power they surely could have managed one in Iraq.

No, the DimSon was hell-bent to have a war he could "win."

you might want an ice cream cone, in fact an ice cream cone might make you very very happy on a hot august day in Texas, but would it be worth two thousand dollars?

Of course not.

That's the argument. We're gonna spend a trillion dollars and a thousand lives, not to mention all the arms and legs and eyes lost, to get rid of Saddam, when Colin Powell himself said that "containment was working".

We're a rich country but we're not that rich.

Including Bush. Why not Saudi Arabia? Cheap oil, oh yeah.

I don't.

had we lifted sanctions, the Iraqi people would have gotten rid of Saddam themselves, probably in the space of a few years. However, the government that would have then come to power would not have been to the West's liking - which is why the West invaded.

As proof/and example, I would offer Iran, where the revolution overthrew a far more peopular leader, who by all accounts had a bettter grip on the country than Saddam did in 2003.

V

He crushed any attempt even to begin to speak out...

Anyone who rose against him was tortured and murdered.. I doubt he would have been removed from power in ANY way whatsoever other than what happened...

Let's be realistic here.

Heyo

plenty of dictatorships crumble from within - Iran is just the most pertinant example for comparisons with Iraq. The communist party survived during the entirety of Saddam's rule for example - and his grip was very weak indeed by the end according to testimony from David Kay amongst others. The main reason that he stayed in power was precisely because the sanctions made the people dependant on him for their very survival.

V

Then let them take care of him. But noooo, that would have put the oil in their hands not Exxon's and Halliburton's.

Just not allow the exception of attack choppers in the so-called "no fly zone." The spectre of our oil interests winding up in a triparted Sunni/Shiite/Kurdish Iraq from popular uprisings that Poppy fomented was apparently too much to bear. Oooops. Another bloody fiasco from another simpleminded Bush.

BUT...

should OUR tax dollars that WE need for ourselves, be used to remove ALL bad leaders . if our leaders thinks they need taking out?? THAT is the question..

The rest of the world had pretty much decided that sanctions should have ended on Iraq, and most were trading with Iraq..(even Halliburton did it).. Once sanctions were lifted, there could be no war..

Personally I think

Sharon needs to go
Arafat needs to be GONE
North Korea needs their guy gone
Myanmar needs a new one..

MOST middle eastern countries need new ones..

IS IT OUR JOB TO REMOVE THEM, JUST BECAUSE WE ARE AFRAID OF WHAT THEY MIGHT DO??

Nope..


It's up to US to use diplomacy, covert operations and technology to monitor them, and to use generosity to sway their people .. Their people need to MOVE THEM OUT..

for his own dinner - i'm a bit short on cash right now...

and the Reagan Adminstration propped him up with money and weapons.


:evilfrown:

:-)

:eyes:

Bush claims that it is the "mission" of the United Staes to use the military "to bring freedom to every single person" on Earth. Is it? Bush is mentally unstable with a wild Saddam hair up his ass and a messiah complex. He also is the most incessant and compulsive liar ever to set foot in Washington, DC. If a democratic president had invaded Iraq he would have been impeached, convicted, removed, indicted, and prosecuted.

That is what I usually say.

What did he ever do to you?

I had no personal beef with him.

er....ah....i have a family....uh...thinking of going back to school...my penis doesnt fell well ...heard all that during vietnam and 1991 gulf war.

Saddam is a bad guy. The administration exhibited, however, horrible leadership skills in conducting the war. They did not follow due process and let the inspectors and the UN confirm flimsy intelligence that indicated Saddam had WMD's. Moreover, the Bush people exaggerated this flimsy intelligence and in the process deceived the American people and the world about the reason for war. Finally, there was no clear exit strategy. Bush wants to call himself a clear and resolute leader. If this is clarity and resolve then then thank God that Kerry is an irresolute leader ( which of course we all know is what the Bush people are falsely trying to accuse him of).

pity US law did not permit it the first time round there.

but junior didn't listen.

Pops said why it was illegal for him.

It was no longer so for Sonny Boy.

he explained why he thought it was a BAD IDEA.

What law permits it now?

basically it said that it was not OK to kill the leader of a country, not considered good form.

The military could not guarantee that they could capture Hussein only kill him but George the 1st was bound by the law (it may have been an executive order, its been a while).

Shortly thereafter, they axed that idea.

...not worth the loss of a single American, British, or Iraqi life.

As governor of Texas, Bushie murdered 152 people, mostly minorities, and needs to be taken out.

It's not on the same scale as Saddam, but "let he who is without sin . . ." and all that.

shoot them a look that could kill and walk away.
I do this when I hear "Thank God B* was in office when 9/11 hit".
:wtf:

Daddy payback. He, like Noriega before him had the goods on the BFEE and had to be neutralized. Staging ground for continued destable-ization of ME regimes, maintenace of the dollar vs. the Euro (Note this may be thr TRUE REASON for the war as they would insist that Iraqi oil be dollar traded, even thogh many countries want to switch to the much stronger Euro). Stupidity incorporated. He never got one thing right in his life. What made us think he would make a great president??_

grows stronger off of us (See: U.S. trade deficit) during their period of relative peace. They are biding their time.

population of China:
1,286,975,468 (July 2003 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html

population of the United States of America:
290,342,554 (July 2003 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

him to the same jail he's in....and allow the Iraqi people to prosecute them as well. Those people would be Donald Rumsfeld, Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, George Shcultz, George Baldridge, George Bush Senior, James Baker etc. etc. etc.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0208/S00158.htm
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

RC

or should we have just picked him up when we went to the store for milk?

and then Poppy intervened directly on Saddam's side. Remove sanctions in trade for permanent weapons inspection, and I'd bet good money that they'd have tried again eventually.

Clip and save the links--we'll need them for when the US base deals are all off and we have to conquer the Butcher of Tashkent, for the greater good of the poor suffering people of Uzbekistan, of course. Remember, you read it here first.

The pictures to match the famous Saddam/Rummy shot.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/rumsfeld-in-uzbekistan.htm

The explanatory text--

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L24331694.htm

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned Uzbekistan on Tuesday that it needed more than shared military interests for good relations with Washington, which welcomed a rare concession on human rights by Tashkent.

After meeting Uzbek President Islam Karimov, Rumsfeld told a news conference that U.S. defence relations with Uzbekistan -- a strong supporter of the U.S. "war on terrorism" -- were strong "and growing stronger every month".

But asked if the Central Asian state's controversial record on human rights would weigh heavily in the future, he replied: "Relationships between sovereign nations tend not to be on a single pillar. They tend to involve economic, political -- in this case human rights -- as well as security issues."

There are a lot of things we could have done with the resources we used and continue to use. What did we get for our $200-300 billion and all those lost lives? We know we didn't rid ourselves of a WMD threat. The Middle East seems, if anything, far less peaceful than before. Now Spain just got attacked.

Bush shot our wad on nothing. Now his people are playing it up like it's a big deal. But it was the worst trade-off of treasure and lives that America has ever made.

with someone from one of my classes. Somewhat conservative, and not that informed. He was spouting off RW talking points regarding Saddam being a bad guy.

I mentioned Afghanistan and how our work was never really done there. He then asked an amazing question -- "Isn't that place like a democracy now?".

LOL...

Well, actually last year $0 were allocated for the budget for Afghanistan and Taliban/ extremist groups are mking a comeback.

I would explain how we should go after terrorists that are a threat to us. Saddam was an ass hole, etc etc, but there has been no evidence to tie him to 9/11.

I would also let them know that the nations that had more to do with 9/11 -- Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been treated with kiddie gloves -- and that these two countries were still sponsoring terrorism.

And remind them that Bush could have just stuck to the truth, like they just did. Instead he lied about WMDs and Saddam's connection to 9-11.

Ask him why Bush could not have just been honest about the whole thing...

I don't have to listen to their ignorance and stupid questions. I just tell them to shut up just like more of us should do. You can't argue with a sick mind.

Does anyone have the link to the GHW Bush quote regarding the negative aspects of occupying Iraq. Thanks in advance

That's where people generally get the quote from. Sorry I don't have a link.

Tell me in your words why he needed to be taken out.
If your reasons are so compelling, Why didn't gutless George use them instead of lying to the world about WMD?
His lie cost us over 500 dead Americans.
Explain your position really good to justify their deaths.

The US super power mystique is gone.

We could have put him on trial for human rights violations (and I would have supported that), but that probably wouldn't have allowed us to take control of the country and its oil and that's what was planned by this administration.

The human rights violations argument is the second lie because we re-established diplomatic ties with Equatorial Guinea after that, which has human rights problems of its own.

This has got to be the most expensive botched assassination attempt in history

If you want to argue that the world is a not a brighter place with that evil f*ck out of the picture you'll not be getting much support. Best way to frame this is how we proceed now.