how can ANYONE believe that we are safer with Saddam gone?

[Beaker]

He was contained, and there was at least some sense of stability in the region.

How many Americans were killed/injured as a result of Saddam Hussein being in power?

How many Americans have been killed/injured taking Saddaam out of power, and since then as a result of doing so?


But...if the Lil'Dictator sez so, then it must be true, right??

[el_gato]

1. iraq was no threat to the u.s. to begin with

so the question is bogus

no slam meant to you that was just my reaction when I first saw this question posed right after the "capture"

[BigDaddyLove]

2. The only way that I can say that we would be safer.........

with Saddam out of power is that there could have been (repeat) could have been, a chance that he could have in some way aided and abetted some terroristic venture directed toward us, and now he can't.

[Beaker]

8. but now the terrorists have more power to run free in Iraq-

and many weapons/munitions that Saddaam once controlled are now in the hands of people who have no compunction about using them- they have nothing to lose. Saddaam was not totally stupid- he knew that he could never really "take on" the U.S., and there's absolutely no reason to think that he would have used any weapons against us, even if he were to have aquired them.

[BigDaddyLove]

14. You're right about the first part..........

but I'm not sure how you can judge what Saddam would or would not have done in the future with regard to helping some group or another with an attack on American soil.

I think that given the opportunity he may well have lended a hand, perhaps just financially.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. I Think One Can, BDL

Saddam not only wouldn't have given weapons to them to use against the U.S. because of the potential for being eliminated in retaliation.

He also ruled the country by force and terror. He was hardly going
to give some radical element dangerous weapons that could be turned against him in a civil war or sorts.

So, he was motivated, by self-interest, in two different ways.

Let's say he gives weapons to Hammas. They say they're going to use them against Israel. But, then they turn over (sell) some to a radical Islamist group that has designs on turning Iraq into an Islamic state. He would be providing his potential enemies with the serious weaponry to make such a move. Far too dangerous a risk for a guy who stayed in power by keeping other people down.

There is just no logic at all in him giving such weapons to others.
The Professor

[BigDaddyLove]

20. Then what explains Saddams motivation for giving.........

money to the families of suicide bombers?

I'm not entirely sure you can approach this situation expecting to find logicical answers to something Saddam would or wouldn't do. I don't think it's a stretch to believe that Saddam was angry enough at the U.S. to get involved on some level with a terrorist group with the aims to attack this country, if given the opportunity.

I'm not saying that this was reason enough to 'take him out' like we did or that he was an imminent threat, only that I can see how that argument can be defended.

[ProfessorGAC]

24. Nonsequitur

Giving that money was a way to make himself look like a good Muslim to the unhappy, fundamentalist Muslims in his country. Remember those folks would have been looking for an excuse to hate him.

However, the money he gave to those families wouldn't come back to haunt him, because HE was the one who had the nasty weapons. (Assuming he actually did and he wasn't just bluffing to look more deadly.) So, that money wouldn't facilitate any move against him.

It was good PR in the Muslim world, wasn't really direct support of terrorists (remember you said "families"), and he wasn't giving anybody anything that they could turn around and use on him and his boys.

Your very question is disconnected from my premise. My premise is that he wouldn't make it easier for people to fight him for control of Iraq. Exactly how would a few sheckles for those bombers' families do that?
The Professor

[BigDaddyLove]

25. No more a nonsequitur than saying..........

He only gave money to those suicide bomber families because he wanted to look in the Muslim community means that he wouldn't give money to some terrorist group or another if they planned on attacking America or American interests.

I'm not saying that he would or wouldn't, but I am saying that I don't think we can sit and guess what he would or wouldn't do. Maybe he would have or maybe he wouldn't have........now he can't.

[salin]

35. but at what cost?

As I detail in another cost, the hypothetical situation you describe had the cost of divert intelligence, military and monetary resources that were briefly dedicated to disrupting Al Qeada (the actual terrorists)... and the real effect (so far, that we know) is that while briefly al qeada networks were disrupted and in disarray ... as early as the summer or 2002 (months after Bushjr et al pulled major intell out of Afghanistan) there were many reports of Al qeada regrouping in areas within Afghanistan. And throughout this past summer through today (2003+) there have been reports of the Taliban reemerging as a force in Afghanistan and as regaining control of some regions.

So for a hypothetical reason we increased the risk in the face of a proven threat.

[BigDaddyLove]

38. The proven threat was only proven AFTER they did...........

something; up until then they were a 'possible' threat. Just like Saddam.

[salin]

39. we pulled resources from the fight after 9-11 and the threat was proven

in order to go after a "possible" thread in Saddam.

[BigDaddyLove]

47. So then it automatically follows that.........

because we pulled intelligence resources, Saddam posed no threat?

[salin]

51. no it automatically follows

that saddam was not an immediate threat. That is and was known.

But that we have allowed a proven immediate threat to grow stronger and have weakened our ability to prevent that threat because of our timing of going after Saddam.

There was a choice - stop al qeada - or go after saddam. The choice was forced because the 'cost' to go after saddam was so high that it would prevent being able to continue to go after al qeada. The admin chose Saddam. But al qeada was the one that has time and time again attacked US interests and the US. Even the admin now says that they (al qeada) will strike again. But they went after saddam... a 'maybe threat'.

[BigDaddyLove]

54. I've never once said that Saddam was an immediate.......

threat; just that I believed that he could have helped terrorists if he wanted to....and there was no reason not to if he could have gotten away with it.

[salin]

56. do you recognize

that there was a cost of going after Saddam at this point in time?

And that this cost - meant we greatly reduced our ability to capture and disrupt the terrorist group(s) that ARE an immediate threat?

And that there are many reports in the international news that al qeada has regrouped IN AFGHANISTAN and stepped up its efforts?

Try this equation:
a) to go after saddam = greatly reducing the ability to go after al qeada
+
b) al qeada has proven its ability to strike the US (911)
+
c) al qeada is known to have increased in strength during the time that we steped up our efforts against saddam

= the costs, of going after Saddam at this time, against a non immenent threat, include an increased threat to US national security by those who do pose an immediate threat.

Thus in the current costs category - immediate us national security is compromised.

[BigDaddyLove]

60. You seem to think that I'm defending Bush and Friends........

or somehow arguing that going after Saddam the way we did was the right thing to do.

I have been against invading Iraq from day one, but that still doesn't mean that I believe that Saddam posed NO threat to this country; his threat was certainly not imminent, and certainly should not have been on the front burner, but I feel that there was a threat there nonetheless.

[salin]

63. I appreciate

your framing the WHOLE picture. I am very frustrated with how many people view issues through a one-dimensional lens. This is all I have been pushing for. That in a discussion of whether or not we are safer - and in talking about whether or not Saddam was a threat (and I am still not convinced that the data suggests that he was the level of a threat that required direct military intervention ... ) - that the full costs in terms of "threats" (since that is the topic) must be included into the conversation. It brings back the dimensional policy realities.

[BigDaddyLove]

67. And I appreciate this conversation........

as it has made me look at more than a few facets of the issue.

[ProfessorGAC]

37. What Don't You Get?

Giving weapons to someone who could turn them against you is completely and abjectly different than sending money to the surviving family members of some disturbed person who blew themselves up as an act of war.

There is NO comparison between the two situations. That's why it's a nonsequitur. I could not, by definition, have provided a nonsequitur, because both of my posts were positing scenarios that were consistent with the original discussion.

Your's are going off the rails.
The Professor

[BigDaddyLove]

40. Hardly........

You were saying that because Saddam gave money in one instance somehow means that he wouldn't do anything else if given the opportunity.

I never once mentioned giving weapons to anyone, so I'm not even sure where you got that from....all I ever said was that I feel that if Saddam had the chance to help out he would, and more than likely financially.

[salin]

33. That policy, I believe, only began

after bushjr ramped up his hostile rhetoric in the Spring of 2002. Saddam was trying to get other Arab nations to side with him against the US, and used this policy as a publicity stunt.

If we are concerned on this front, then why are we silent about the Saudis? Didn't they even hold a huge telethon to raise big bucks for the same reason, and do I recall that members of the Saudi Royal Family participated?

[BigDaddyLove]

42. Obviously (to the first segment or your response)...........

if he was willing to give money to 'get other Arab nations to side with him against the US', then what would have stopped him from giving money to terrorist organizations who had designs on more attacks against us?

[salin]

45. again... you are arguing a hypothetical

eg "a possibility"

I am arguing actual cause and effect events. I would rather address real and proven threats first, rather than let them grow worse while taking care of a "maybe" threat.

[BigDaddyLove]

48. What is a threat to our National Security.........

if not a 'possibility'? Should we only pay attention to those who mail us a time and place for the next attack?

[salin]

52. so

according to your logic - going after Saddam was worth disabling our ability to go after al qeada. That the threat from Sadam was a more serious challenge to national security. Tell that to the survivors of 911.

[BigDaddyLove]

55. You should just argue with yourself, as you are doing a........

grand job of keeping both sides going. When have I said that the threat from Saddam was the 'most serious challenge to national securtiy'? I've only ever maintained that he was 'a' threat, and only an indirect one at that.

[salin]

58. you are justifying that we are safer

due to the possible threat.

But are not recognizing the direct cost to US security of pursing that possible threat at this time.

The Administration has done a great job convincing Americans that there are never any hard choices to be made and that we can always have our cake and eat it. The reality is that every policy has a cost. In this case the cost of going after a possible threat was increasing a real threat.

Thus - the net difference = higher immediate threat + lower "possible" future threat.

It is not honest to look at one side of the equation (alleged benefit) without considering the cost side of the ledger.

[salin]

65. Note to BDL

I just caught your post above - where you do discuss the issue with a bit more dimension (eg the costs of doing now) - please note that I was resisting the discussion due to the focus only on the "possible" threat and thus equating that to increasing safety without discussing the immediate costs to safety that were incurred through the effort.

We can probably call it a day as we will disagree as to the likelihood of the threat... yet recognize that we agree that there was, in the short term, a cost to neutralizing the "threat" (be it real, possible, or gamed) that may have made us less safe in the short term.

[BigDaddyLove]

66. I do not disagree with this at all...........

Any threat that Saddam did pose wasn't enough to justify what we did, and because we did what we did we may have made ourselves less safe; but again it's still hypothetical, for all we know (and we don't), Saddam was planning on getting involved with something...I know that if I were in his position last January I would have been.

[salin]

69. If you recall

he was apparantly scrambling to try to cooperate with the inspectors, while also trying to appear to 'challenge them'. According to UN Weapons inspectors while the Iraqis were not willingly complying - they were cooperating (very subtle difference, but is akin to putting up a bit of a struggle for appearance sake... this was probably important internally - in case the US didn't attack, or did so symbolically and then left Saddam in control.) Back in November there were numerous reports that Saddam was trying to negotiate through third-parties the conditions to let weapons inspectors back in - a had been the request by Bush.

This is not to say that he would not have planned anything else, but his movements/actions leading up to the war seemed to mark desperate attempts to avert an invasion. This says that there was some truth to the arguments for the IWR - which stated that to force Saddam to comply with weapons inspections (a misnomer, as it sounds like the operations are just to identify weapons - when the real mission is to identify and destroy) there needed to be a threat of military action. Saddam did indeed comply.

The point where the whole bush thing, and indeed arguments about whether or not Saddam was a 'threat' fall apart - is in the supposition that ONLY a war could avert the threat.... which is circular because the weapons in his hands were the supposed threat... but we prematurely ended the operations to identify and destroy those weapons (which would have ended the 'threat' of wmds).

As to the monetary threat (that you give as an example re: rewards to families of Palistinian suicide bombers) - had companies such as Haliburton not gone around US sactions (using a euro-based subsidiary) to do huge business with Iraq to help rebuild the means for iraq to get back into the oil business (and thus get the $ to do such things) - the ability to do this would be greatly diminished.

Given the then active avenue for defanging any possible threat (eg the UN Weapons Inspectors), and the many reports that Saddam was wildly trying to find ways to avoid a war through international negotiations... I am not so sure that he was preparing to take action against the US (re: giving weaposn to terrorists). If he had been, wouldn't he have used those weapons against the invading US troops?

[BigDaddyLove]

73. Which is why I've maintained that any 'threat'..........

Saddam posed would have been of the 'behind the scenes' variety. He did not have WMD as Bush suggested, and even if he did I don't think he would have used them because he knew the consequences of such action would mean the certain and rapid destruction of his regime.

If....if, there was a threat from Saddam (which I think there was), it would more than likely have materialized in the form of either harboring groups like the Taliban did, or providing them with the means to carry out their plans.

None of this is to say that we did the right thing in invading his country, nor that the world is safer because of our actions, only that if there was a threat from Saddam specifically, it is now no longer there.

[Bandit]

46. How about compassion

You know that thing the right-wingers claim they are filled with. He felt compassion for a family that had lost a loved one in what most over there consider a just cause.

[BigDaddyLove]

50. Oh man.........

is that the argument? That Saddam felt compassion, so what he did was right?

[truthspeaker]

59. and had their homes destroyed by Israel

Shit, I'd give money to people whose homes were destroyed by Israel.

[BigDaddyLove]

62. After they went and blew some Israelis up?

.

[Beaker]

74. how would it help him to do so? and why would he?

rather than the next stalin, he may have fancied himself the next Castro- continuing to thumb his nose at the U.S. for decades to come.
and unlike Fidel, he had lots of oil to fall back on.

what would be his motivation for striking or financing a blow against the U.S., when he had to know that the result would have been exactly what he got anyway.

one thing he could, and did do that was a Major motivation for The War, but that the Illegal Bush Regime & Military Junta won't ever mention or cop to- was that Sadaam starting selling oil for euro's instead of U.S. Dollars...a practice that, if it spreads to other OPEC nations(it's going to) is going to fuck us over a lot worse than any 'dirty nuke' Sadaam might have been able to cobble together would have.

[salin]

32. Unfortunately, it is because of this effort

that those vary terrorists are more likely to be able to take action against us.

In order to go after Iraq, team bush PULLED intel resources off the Al Qeada trail as early as Feb/March 2002 - in part because there wasn't enough evidence to justify going to war in Iraq. The US, with international cooperation had done a decent job of scuttling the terrorist networks.

Furthermore by Summer of 2002 military troops had been pulled out of Afghanistan to be remobilized around Iraq. Meanwhile Al Qeada and the Taliban were able to regroup and restart operations in Afghanistan.

Haven't even begun to mention the diversion of monetary resources.

So the scenario you give that coulda, woulda maybe logic - on the reverse side had factual consequences. We know we pulled intel, monetary and military resources away from the efforts in "the War on Terror", and we know that some of those groups that were in disarray by winter of 2002 have regrouped - and many are back in Afghanistan.

So sadly not only is it only hypothetical that the war on Iraq maybe, coulda, woulda made us safer - it is factual that our efforts against those who organized and struck against the US in 2001 were greatly scaled back.

I would say that is a case of major negligence in the area of National Security.

Further more, the most clear demonstration of the problems with the bush policy and their approach in Iraq related to national security and weapons of mass destruction, is that to try to give themselves political cover on the forged intelligence, someone in the White House blew-up (re: RUINED) a major intelligence operation that focused on following (and ending) the international flow of weapons of mass destruction to prevent them from falling into terrorist hands. Get it? IF there is a real threat of weapons of mass destruction falling into terrorist hands (which I think there well might be) - THEN the actions of this White House has abetted those efforts by A) Pulling resources away from disrupting the terrorist groups, and B) Ending the effectiveness of a major intelligence effort which had the purpose of preventing WMDs from getting to terrorists.

Sorry - I don't think a hypothetical... "we COULD be safer" compares to the way this administration's policies have willfully compromised national security.

[BigDaddyLove]

36. O.K. then.........

Yes, the world is safer without Saddam.

Now these our intelligence agencies and resources can be put to good use going after other threats to our national securtiy. Get it?

[salin]

41. again - what is there not to get.

we allowed the flow of WMDs to terrorists to be harder to follow and prevent... BECAUSE we went after Saddam (re: the Plame outing - done to give political cover to bush - blew up a major intel network on WMDs that studied the international flow of WMDs and worked to prevent WMDs going to terrorists.)

Diverting resources from fighting the terrorists allowed them to regroup and more quickly plan and carryout additional attacks (Bali, Turkey and others).

Going after Saddam - at this time - has compromised the US safety.

[BigDaddyLove]

44. I never said it didn't.............

the only thing I've been saying is that I believe that there was the possiblility of Saddam's involvement on some level with repect to aiding a terrorist group out to do us harm.

I certainly can't prove there was, but neither can you prove there wasn't.....it was a possibility, therefore with him out of business any possibility of that coming to fruition has evaporated.

[salin]

49. one more time

so... to deal with a "cant prove cant not prove threat"... we compromise severly the ability to deal with a proven threat. And call it justified and making us safer.

In the short and long run - going after the "possible threat" - at a cost of harming our ability to deal with the proven threat - does NOT make us safter. The bushpolicy of going after Iraq (which also has caused a world of trouble in terms of the ability to work with allies on the "war against terror") ... at this time... has compromised the ability to stop another 911 while at the same time has made it easier for the planners of 911 to again work to plan additional terrorist strikes.

Notice that the admin now uses language that says "another strike on US soil is inevitable..." They didn't say that before. Even they know that their foolish policy has severely hampered our ability to prevent such a thing.

[BigDaddyLove]

53. Again...........

There is more than one viable threat to America. There is no quesition that Bush having re-routed resources to go after Saddam made the another terrorist attack easier; I am not defending Bush or his actions, but just because he took the path that he did with regard to intelligence doesn't mean Saddam didn't have the capability to aid terrorists who wished harm on this country.

[salin]

61. *sigh*

right there are never any policy costs. Carry on.

A "possible, maybe, future, kinda" threat is worth not monitoring carefully, but is worth full scale war - and it is not a problem that going after the "Possible Maybe Future Kinda" threat cost the us interms of security against the real threat.

So since we got rid of a maybe kinda possible future sorta threat... we are "safer" ... EVEN though doing so has compromised our ability to fend off a real threat. :crazy:

[Old and In the Way]

76. Russia or China might be a threat sometime in the future.

Should we take them on now?

How about North Korea? We know they have nukes and a real nutcase for a leader. They've fired missles over Japan recently...why not take them on?

Because the policy downside outweighs the benefit. China and South Korea might not be too keen on us starting a war with their nutty neighbor...

This administration knew we could beat up defenseless Iraq and they thought they'd have free access to all that oil (well, that's not really working out to the script).

[Old and In the Way]

75. No, it's not.

First you 1st have to prove that Saddam was a threat to the world. Bush saying so doesn't count.

Saddam was a blood thirsty tyrant, no doubt. But he was our tyrant, created by Republicans in the early 80's. He was defanged in DS1 and relatively impotent since.

Of course, we knew that there were no WMD before we invaded....do you think the neocon cowards who hatched this plan would have invaded if they thought Iraq would retaliate with these weapons on the battlefield? Certainly, we knew that he didn't possess nuclear weapons.

So, as Salin has astutely argued, this administration has made us less secure and the world less safer today than were on 9/10/01. Here's why.

* 180,000 US occupying troops that weaken our homeland defense.
* Hundreds of billions in money spent on the Iraq invasion/occupation while the war on terror stalls from lack of funding.
* Our actions in the ME have helped the radical fundies recruit many more soldiers in the cause. We've undermined the secular moderates case and helped the radicals.

You cite Saddam paying $25,000 to the bombers. Saudi Arabia also did that, Saudi also wanted Iraq to build them a N-bomb. 15/19 hijackers came from SA, the home of Wahhibism. Al Qaeda is financed by SA oil money. So how have we held SA accountable?

> We've exited the airbases there and now have Iraq airfields. I'll bet that made OBL happy and enhanced his esteem in the eyes of his followers.
> We've put Iraq in play...there goes modern secularism in the ME. A relatively progressive society will now join Afghanistan in their march back in time.
> Defended them from a multi-billion dollar lawsuit brought by the 9/11 victim's families

Instead of using 9/11 to build a world coalition to deal with terrorism, Bush has distracted us and enraged the world with a cynical grab for oil in a country that was defenseless to stop us.

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda reconsolidates in Pakistan (the country mass producing nuclear warheads for sale to places like North Korea) and Bush is giving them US aid. Musharrif has barely escaped assassination twice in the last month. When he falls, who knows what will happen?

We really should have investigated the root cause of 9/11.....

[DevilsAdvocate2]

3. Maybe not the U.S., but the Middle East is

Granted, Saddam was not a direct threat to the U.S. (unless you count the planned assasination of the first George Bush), but he did reward the families of Palestinian suicide bombers with large cash payments, engaged in large-scale, gov't sanctioned kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder, and invaded two countries (Iran & Kuwait) in a 10 year period.

[Beaker]

4. not really.

since the end of the Gulf War, he's been pretty much impotent in the region, and there had been more stability overall.
Lots of Iraqis are saying that life under Saddaam was better than the lwawlessness that they now face. How many suicide bombings were there in Iraq under Saddaam? and BTW- the Saudi's reward the families of Palestinian bombers too- should we take down the house of Saud?
I'm not saying that Saddaam was a good guy, but I also \ think that it's ludicrous to say that the U.S., the middle east, or even the world is a "much safer" place with Saddaam out of power.

[DevilsAdvocate2]

16. "Lots of Iraqis" said this?

Were these quotes from the family members digging through the remains in mass graves, hoping to find their loved ones? Or maybe it was the political prisoners who dared question anything about the regime and then disappeared, never to be heard from again?

[el_gato]

28. Poppy bush supported Hussein when he was killing those people

It wasn't until Saddam went "rogue" a la Noriega that the
bushites turned on him. Prior to that he was a major CIA asset.

Read more about it here if your interested:
http://fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920224g.htm

[DevilsAdvocate2]

30. And that makes it okay?

At the time (early 80's), Iran was viewed as more of a threat than Iraq. It turned into one of those "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" scenarios.

[jmowreader]

6. The planned assassination of GHWB was after 1/93

Bush 41 was in Saudi Arabia as a private citizen when the attempt was made on his life. He wasn't president then; killing Bush at that time would have damaged America about as severely as killing someone on this board--not at all.

[BigDaddyLove]

12. The Assassination of an ex-President would do no harm?

Would you say the same if Clinton were in the cross-hairs?

[DevilsAdvocate2]

13. That would set a dangerous precedent

Do you think Saddam would plot to kill anyone on this board? Of course not, because none of us has a hand in setting U.S. foreign policy. Do you think former presidents should not be given secret service details for protection? After all, they're no longer president, and as such are not that important to America.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

7. Containment worked-not regime change

and this was also true of the former Yugoslavia, for example. Tito was a dictator who ruled with an iron hand, but when he died Yugslavia fell apart.

Saddam was a bastard, no doubt. But now we have destabilized the region and provided a new generation of anti-American terrorists.

[radwriter0555]

5. I guess saddam was gonna THROW those muddy, rusted empty bomb shells

at us and hope for the best?

LOL

[KG]

9. oh yes, SO much safer, as evidenced by the orange threat level AFTER

saddam was captured. :eyes:

[BigDaddyLove]

18. The coded 'threat level' is related to terroristic threats.........

like the kind we dealt with on 9/11, and since Osama and friends have yet to be apprehended, why wouldn't there still be the possibility of an attack......I don't see how this is related to Saddam one way or the other.

[radwriter0555]

21. Um terrorists don't MAKE threats. KILLERS don't make threats. BOMBERS

don't make warnings.

Have you EVER seen a bomb go off in a building -- much less even having been FOUND in a building -- following a bomb "threat"?

Nope.

People who want to kill people and cause mass murders and destruction don't WARN anyone.

The men who dive bombed the WTC and the pentagon didn't WARN anyone.

There are no terrorist threats being made against the USA. This is all BULLSHIT and fear mongering to justify the false positions of the bush regime.

Read up on Reichstag and the politcs of engendering fear and how it manipulates a populace. Rove is the specialist...

[BigDaddyLove]

22. Understandable, but only with regard to semantics........

I don't think intelligence agencies refer to threats as a solid something that a 'terrorist' calls in just prior to an attack. I would think that they look at it as something more ethereal...as in, these people wish to do us harm, therefore they pose a threat to us.

Keep the reading suggestions to yourself, not everyone buys the line that Bush and Rove were behind 9/11 and are the root of all evil.

[tom_paine]

10. How could anyone believe that Jews were subhuman rats that had to be exter

minated?

How could anyone believe that Comrade Stalin cared about the individual Soviet citizen?

How could anyone believe Ferdinand Marcos was a man of "honor and integrity"?

Easy. Propoaganda and denial. Obfuscation and apathy.

Human beings are very easy to deceive. It always has been that way and it always will. The denial mechanism insures that once people are fooled, they remain fooled because it's too painful to acknowledge it.

[leftchick]

11. are you sure you are not confusing Iraq with ...

the Saudis?

[NewJeffCT]

15. Both Colin Powell & Condi Rice said in 2001

Both Colin Powell and Condileeza Rice said in mid 2001 that Iraq was contained and not a threat to anybody, even it's neighbors. Why does nobody bring that up?

[BigDaddyLove]

17. I guess it relates to what you consider a threat.......

my guess is that the Israelis thought that Saddam's cash payment to the families of suicide bombers posed some sort of threat.

[leftchick]

34. The Saudis have been known for that also, yet

poppy and the rest of the BFEE continue to do business with them.

[Touchdown]

23. Gay Americans certainly aren't.

Did you hear the SOTU last night? Bush declared war on gays.

[LeahMira]

27. Sorry.

Did you hear the SOTU last night? Bush declared war on gays.

Bush does not speak for me.

He declared war on a lot of other people also. Maybe he wasn't as obvious about it, but he did. If you are gay, you aren't alone.

[baldguy]

26. I think the world is better off.

But . . . we would be a whole lot SAFER if we had the backing of the UN and the rest of the Muslim world going in.

Bush has turned Iraq into a training ground for terrorists. In a few years, when a suicide bomber takes out a few hundred people at the Super Bowl - we'll have GWB to thank for this legacy.

[el_gato]

29. Saddam would have never been in power if not for the CIA

never forget that

[Solomon]

31. I will be the first to answer the question without mealymouthing:

NO. The world is not safer without Saddam.

[LeahMira]

43. Safer? I don't think so.

how can ANYONE believe that we are safer with Saddam gone?

Safer from exactly what?

I suppose any number of Iraqis are safer, and that's good. But what are we in the U.S. safer from? And why Iraq when there are so many other dictatorships around the world?

OK, so Libya agreed to account for its weapons of mass destruction. Fine. Were the Libyans going to send those weapons to terrorists or send them over here at the U.S.? Or, is Libya planning to be any nicer to its citizens?

And why exactly is Bush intent on disarming the rest of the world? So the U.S. will be the only nation that does have weapons of mass destruction?

[Bridget Burke]

57. If they are Bush apologists....

They can certainly SAY they believe that the current situation in Iraq makes us safer.

Do they actually believe so in their heart of hearts? I don't feel up to examining such creatures.

[annagull]

64. Women in Iraq are alot less safer now

As of now, Iraqi women can't walk down a street without a male escort, rapes are way up (so much for the "rape rooms" Shrubya talked about), kidnappings. And once Sharia law is passed, there will no longer be career women, only men will be able to get a divorce, men will be given custody of children, all the repressive laws that fundies dream of will be visited upon the women of Iraq.

[Columbia]

70. Do you have a link for those assertions?

[Bridget Burke]

71. Here's one....

"Whose democracy? Women, academics, the media worry about their rights in a new Iraq." (from that noted Marxist rag, the Christian Science Monitor)

www.csmonitor.com/2004/0121/dailyUpdate.html?s=entt

There's more out there--learn to Google. Also, check the archives here....

[kentuck]

68. If you live in Iraq, you might be safer...otherwise

You are probably not safer? What facts could anyone show that we are safer in NY, London, Paris, Berlin, or any state here in America? Just how are we safer? Give us details....

[Beaker]

72. we could never really be "safer" from Sadaam-

because we were never in danger from him in the first place.

and most Iraqi's seem to feel a LOT less safe in post-saddaam iraq. after all, one thing about brutal dictatorships- there's not a lot of violent street crime.

but then again, seeing as we were at least partly responsible for making the monster, we do share in the responsibility to see that he's brought to justice...it just seems that we could have found a better way.

and as long as we're in the Bringing Down Brutal Dictatorship business, when are we going to open Whoop-Ass franchises in Myanmar and the Sudan...for starters?

[Hippo_Tron]

77. It's concievable... But concievable isn't good enough for war n/t