Who can possibly think that the world would be better off with Saddam Huss

"Who can possibly think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power is ready for prime time talk show use in 04."

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-bush-australia.html

Bush Heckled in Australia as He Defends Iraq War
By REUTERS

Published: October 23, 2003


Filed at 7:31 a.m. ET
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Heckled inside and outside Australia's parliament, President Bush on Thursday defended the invasion of Iraq during a symbolic visit to thank Australia for its staunch support in the war on terror.

"America, Australia and other nations acted in Iraq to remove a grave and gathering danger, instead of wishing and waiting while tragedy drew closer," Bush said."Who can possibly think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power?"

Looks like the 04 campaign slogan - ."Who can possibly think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power?" is ready.

Nobody is for keeping Hussein. Its a question of US conduct.

Bush seems blissfully oblivious to the suffering endured by the recipients of the "liberation.".:puke:

Who can possibly think that the world would be better off with George W Bush still in power?

-"Who can possibly think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power?"

...If not the slogan for W.'s election campaign in '04, its tacit implication--those who were against the Iraq War are de facto supporters of Saddam--has obviously long been on the lips the of the Fox News/talk radio gasbags.

still in power?????????????????

I'd say that a growing number of Iraqis, outside of Kurdistan, are thinking their world would be better off with Saddam in power.

ever since it was obvious that we weren't going to find WMD. I was sitting at lunch one day and me and 3 or 4 others were talking about how Bush lied, etc., and one guy just sat there for 15 minutes saying nothing, then finally stood up and said, "I sure bet the women in Iraq are glad Hussein isn't in power anymore!" and stormed off. I nearly fell out of my chair laughing!

when Hussein was in power and ruled in a secularist (tho certainly flawed) gov't, women had the right to seek an education, to healthcare from trained professionals, to work outside of the home, to dress as they pleased, etc. Yes, I'm sure they're sooo very happy to have those choices taken away from them. After all, we women don't like to have to make decisions ourselves. :eyes:


(directed at the Moran, not you dwckabal)

There is no shortage of bullies. How many innocents will die in the crossfire?

Okay, I know this is incredibly obvious to all DUers...

Yes, in and of itself, the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. Of course. If we could have just snapped our fingers and made him dissappear, the world would be better off. In the hypothetical, black-and-white fantasy world Bush seems to live in, we would be better off without Saddam Hussein.

But NEWS FLASH, Mr. Bush! The world IS NOT black and white! In going to war, you have to weigh the costs against the benefits. Progressives had already done so, at length, even before the war (which is why they opposed it). Much of what they concluded before the war has borne out to be true. Bush, on the other hand, just can't seem to get past looking at the one (and perhaps only) benefit: Saddam bad, Saddam gone.

But in the REAL world, many other things have occurred in the process of ridding the world (or at least the Iraqi government) of Saddam Hussein. To start with, we killed thousands of Iraqis (and counting) to accomplish this goal. We also sacrificed hundreds of our own young men and women (and counting), and are greatly accelerating our country's drive towards bankruptcy. We have severely damaged decades-old diplomatic ties with most western democracies, and trashed the credibility of America on the world stage. Perhaps most importantly, we have inflamed Islamic fundamentalist movements around the world to consider the United States an even bigger enemy, and likely are directly responsible for a swelling of terrorist ranks which may subject the U.S. and the world to so much misery and death in the coming years that it may make what Saddam did to Iraq in all his years look like child's play.

Sometimes I think Bush uses arguments like this not to be disingenuous, but simply bacause he is not a deep thinker (nor are many of these neo-cons). Sure, they are "intelligent", book-smart, in a way. Well read on certain topics (well, not Bush). But they simply cannot think past level 2 or 3. They can see Saddam bad... Saddam gone, and the direct benefits of that. But ask them to consider all the complexities that might arise from that action (and what it takes to accomplish it), and they simply get lost.

Shoot first, ask questions later.

Al-Qaeda active in Iraq?

And, as a result of the disorder following the war, that is what we have.

Actions have consequences. Grownups consider the consequences of their actions.

:hi: