"So what if Bush lied about WMD, would you prefer Saddam back in power?"

[Liberal_Andy]

I keep hearing the "ends justify the means" argument.

Bullshit!

Imagine Al Franken and James Carville were able to convince the Marines (by lying) to storm the White House and depose Chimpy & Little Dick. Maybe they're dead, maybe they're just on the run. Who cares? They're gone and no longer in power.

100% of Democrats polled agreed that America and the world would be a much better place if the BFEE was no more. Do you think for a minute they would support the above scenario?

Am I right or is it the Benadril talking?

[Booberdawg]

1. It's the Benadryl

If I'm following you here - the fact that bush DID lie about WMD is not a reason to now want saddam back in power.

A military coup would never happen.

Are you sure it's just benadryl?:D

[searchingforlight]

2. My answer to them is to ask the people in the pictures at this website

This was posted yesterday.

http://mindprod.com/iraq.html

I am sure that none of them would think it was worth it and you can bet that that "The end justifies the means" gal or guy would be screaming for blood if this was their child/parent/relative. This is a relatively clean war for us.

[Maple]

3. Yes

Because it's an Iraqi decision to make, no one elses.

[displacedtexan]

4. bob novak-ula uses that old crap almost daily

you're right. why is it that neocons only need to dpose tyrants from oil-rich countries?

[arcane1]

5. "so what if Bush lied about WMD" a few replies

"how many more dead Americans would you trade for taking out Saddam?"

"are we better off with 300 less soldiers?"

"if Bush will lie about a NUCLEAR THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES, what ELSE would he lie about?"

"I don't give a rat's ass about Saddam, he never did anything to me. I'd rather have my father/brother/son alive"

"is getting rid of Saddam worth the inevitable terrorist blowback?"

etc


:shrug:

[alcuno]

6. Yes, I'd prefer that, but what else can THEY say?

I listen to crazy right-wingers on C-SPAN all the time saying that they support the president 100%. You could never get a Democrat to say that. Trust Bill Clinton 100%? 90% on a really good day and never with your daughter.

Loyalty to a politician is way more important to these people than loyalty to their fellow citizens. So the choice is between 10,000 civilians and US service personnel killed with my president known throughout the world as a big, fat liar OR a dictator in power. Let's let the families of the dead vote.

Yes. I would prefer to have Saddam in power than to have all those dead and wounded and the US known as a government full of liars.

[Demobrat]

7. Why should I care if he's in power or not?

Saddam is no threat to me and never was.

[Ladyhawk]

11. Could I add that Bush is a threat to me

and always was.

[jobycom]

8. I would prefer the international rule of law back in power

It was overthrown when Bush invaded Iraq on a lie. Hussein is a little dictator no worse than many Bush likes. The part of America Bush overthrew to remove this little non-entity can never be replaced, any more than a victim can be unraped or unmurdered. That's what I want back, and if i can't have it, I at least want recompense and some assurance that the bastard didn't get away with it. No patriot could want less.

[proud patriot]

9. My answer to any who dare say that to me

This is directed to those who Use "the ends jusitifies the means"
argument in my presense :hi:

"That's the most un-American statement I've ever heard ,
do you even care what words are in the Constitution , and
you call yourself a patriot jeesh ?"

I will usually ask them if they have ever read the Constitution .
I also ask them " Does it matter to you if bush violated the
U.S. Constitution ?"

"face it you love and trust bush more than the Constitution
that my ancesters have fought and defended for six generations!"

"You sir are a radical and I'm the coservative Now"

[WilliamPitt]

10. Counter-argument

Question: What, you want Saddam back in power?

Answer: If I can have those 300 dead American soldiers back, and can un-wound the thousands of American troops who have lost arms and legs and eyes and testicles and faces, and if I can have the 5000-10,000 dead civilians back, you bet your sweet ass I want Hussein back. There are other ways to skin a cat.

[Karenina]

13. So einfach is das.

You bet your sweet bippy I would.

[Individualist]

23. Perfect answer, Will

No one has asked me that question (yet), but I bookmarked this page so that if anyone does, I'll answer with your reply.

[symbolman]

12. Nope

Don't want Saddam back in power.. but how about we make BUSH the president of Iraq and hold a new and free election here in the USA?

That way BUSH can fix the mess up he made of that country and he can live in Saddams palaces and make sure he doesn't come back..

works for me - bet he'd last abouy 15 minutes over there before he'd be sobbing while hiding behind the toilet, just like his did on 911..

[samsingh]

14. no - but i would want all our

soldiers and the Iraqi civilians to be well.

[library_max]

15. The propaganda of fake choices

Liberal_Andy is exactly right about the end not justifying the means. It's Ethics 101. And you don't even need such a farfecthed example. Any of us could probably think of a few people the U.S. would be better off without (Ahem!). Would that ever in a million years justify picking up a gun and resolving the issue by force of arms?

"If you're not for Bush, you're for Saddam" is a fake choice, one of the staples of propaganda. And by now Saddam himself is just a demonized propaganda bogeyman. There are about 45 dictatorships, hereditary monarchies, and one-party states in the world today, the biggest being China. Saddam wasn't even one of the worst, either in terms of personal evilness or in terms of threats to the rest of the world.

As events unfold in Iraq (and Afghanistan! don't forget Afghanistan!) it becomes increasingly clear that the Iraqi people are going to end up with a melancholy choice between a religious government like the Ayatollah Khomeini's, a faction of warlords like the Taliban, or an American-imposed dictator like the old Shah of Iran. So even if we had the right to "fix" Iraq by killing thousands of people, there's no reason to believe that we have created any long-term improvement.

[newyawker99]

26. Hi library_max!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[shirlden]

30. You hit it Library_Max

"there's no reason to believe that we have created any long-term improvement". That is the answer to anyone who wants to argue that the end justified the means in Iraq. Just because Saddam is out and we are in does not mean that there has been any improvement in Iraq or anywhere else in the world. He is just gone.....nothing more. Historians always like to reserve their analysis of events for about 20 years and I am an historian. So ask me in 20 years, but certainly not now.

:hi:

[Egnever]

43. Welcome to DU!

I hope to read more posts from you if this is an example of what you will produce!

[Brian Sweat]

49. Thank you for so eloquently putting what I have been thinking since March.

Do you mind if I print this out and use it next time someone tries to red bait me?

[linazelle]

16. I'd say:

So you're admitting he lied? Well, that's a starting point. Now what have we done in the past when presidents were caught lying?

[karlschneider]

33. Excellent point. Another one I need to keep in mind.

;-)

[Brian Sweat]

50. Is the the first of the 12 steps of Bush Supporters Anonymous?

[Pathwalker]

17. THE IRAQIS WOULD!

I guess their opinion doesn't count, though. Every time you see one on TV, they say that life under Hussein was much better. But maybe they're just pissed that we bombed their electric plants, their sewage systems, and their water facilities, and now they're living in rubble and filth, with no hope for a better future any time soon.

[Liberal_Andy]

18. 15 hits in a half hour! WOW!

and only one didn't get it.

[papau]

19. It's bullshit - not the only choice - intrusive inspections were the way

to go

and in time intrusive inspections would have removed Saddam from power.

But do you think the US Media can express that thought rather than running a Bush/Rove PR stunt with "Dems want Saddam back".

I wish it was confined to Fox - but most media pundits have the brain of a ant.

[OldEuropean]

20. Wrong question

The real question is - why did Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld and all the others back then brought Sadddam into power when they knew what bloody butcher he is?

Think of all the live that would have been saved.


Same goes for OBL - why did the USA supported him at all?

[Birthmark]

21. It is a red herring.

When broken down it simply asks if Bush's lies are worse than Saddam's actions. The answer of course is that they are both wrong.

Saddam could have been deposed any number of ways. Bush could have even rallied Americans using honest arguments to remove Saddam. Bush took the easy (and cynical) way out -- as usual.

[Uzybone]

22. by that logic

we should have dropped a nuke over Baghdad on that first night, instead of that over hyped "decapitation strike" that only hit an empty market. That way millions of Iraqis would be dead, the ancient city would be blown to bits but most importantly, Saddam would be gone from power. If the ends justify the means we would openly torture criminals to give up the big fish. Anyone who thinks that way is either not thinking or is callous to the core.

[Old and In the Way]

24. Time will tell.

Personally, I think Iraq will be worse off long term. Saddam was ruthless, but I think the State of Iraq was arbitrarily constituted of 4 very dissimilar cultures. Maybe only a tough guy could keep civil control. In some areas, Hussein was quite progressive ...medicine, education, women's rights.

Will Iraqis be happier living under foreign occupation and, most likely, a return of religious fundies to power? Time will tell. The immediate results are not very encouraging.

[karlschneider]

35. It sure seems that Saddam had his own version of the "Patriot Act" and was

willing to utilize its provisions to the logical conclusion. We (?) have yet to reach that point, as far as we -know-, but there's a glaring paucity of news about what has gone down at Gitmo.
:grr:

[nomatrix]

25. "So what if Bush lied about WMD, would you prefer Saddam back in power?"

I would reply, "How do YOU know Saddam is not in power now?" (rather than getting angry or answering, always dump a question in their laps)

For the so what if Bush lied about WMD's?

What would be the one lie you wouldn't stand for?
I suspect your going to get an answer related to sex.

Knowing that Bush was assembling a war cabinet, I said to my best friend (who hated Clinton)
"Bush is going to start a war somewhere that is going to send your grandchildren to fight"
and
"If you knew you were going to sacrifice your loved ones to fight for oil who would you rather have in office?"

She said "not Clinton because of the (blowjob) sex lies"

It's not about lies, patriotism, war, 9/11 etc.

It's about the "bad taste they get in their mouths" when they think liberal.

P.S. we are no longer friends.

[ComerPerro]

27. That is irrelevant

If it was such a damn important humanitarian mission, then why the hell did Bush even need to lie about WMD and NUCLEAR FUCKING WEAPONS!!!!!!!

[Brian Sweat]

52. That's a good point.

If you have to go shopping for a reason to have a war, the war is probably not justified.

[librechik]

28. "it's not about the WMD or Saddam, it's about THE LYING!!!"

damn hypocritical bastards....

Are they too stupid to "get it" if you throw this back in their faces?

My guess is yes.

[sandnsea]

29. Saddam lied about WMD...

that's why you wanted to take him out of power!!

Right?

[IndianaGreen]

31. And who elected you to make choices for the people of Iraq?

Where were you when America's tinpot dictators were butchering their own people?

The stench of jingoism is overpowering!

America's Favourite Tyrants -

Saddam Hussein of Iraq (1979 - 1990 when they had a "tiff")
General Augusto Pinochet of Chile (1973 - 1990)
Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran (1953 - 1979)
General Suharto of Indonesia (1965 - 1998)

http://www.geocities.com/USBackedTyrants/

LISTED ALPHABETICALLY by COUNTRY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Jorge Rafael Videla, President of ARGENTINA
Colonel Hugo Banzer, President of BOLIVIA
General Humberto Branco, President of BRAZIL
Sir Hassanal Bolkiah, the Sultan of BRUNEI
General Augusto Pinochet, President of CHILE
Fulgencio Batista, President of CUBA
Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, President of the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez, General of EL SALVADOR
Alfredo Cristiani, President of EL SALVADOR
Halie Selassie, Emperor of ETHIOPIA
General Sitiveni Rabuka, Commander, Armed Forces of FIJI
Adolf Hitler, Chancellor of GERMANY
George Papadopoulos, Prime Minister of GREECE
General Efrain Rios Mont, President of GUATEMALA
Vinicio Cerezo, President of GUATEMALA
François & Jean Claude Duvalier, Presidents-for-Life of HAITI
Roberto Suazo Cordova, President of HONDURAS
General Suharto, President of INDONESIA
Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, Shah of IRAN, King of Kings
General Samuel Doe, President of LIBERIA
Hussan II, King of MOROCCO
Anastasio Somoza, Sr. And Jr., Presidents of NICARAGUA
Mohammed Zia Ul-Haq, President of PAKISTAN
General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Defense forces, PANAMA
Alfredo Stroessner, President-for-Life of PARAGUAY
Ferdinand Marcos, President of the PHILIPPINES
Antonio De Oliveira Salazar, Prime Minister of PORTUGAL
Ian Smith, Prime Minister of RHODESIA
P. W. Botha, President of SOUTH AFRICA
Park Chung Hee, President of SOUTH KOREA
Ngo Dinh Diem, President of SOUTH VIET NAM
General Francisco Franco, President of SPAIN
Chiang Kai-Shek, President of TAIWAN
Turgut Ozal, Prime Minister of TURKEY
Mobutu Sese Seko, President of ZAIRE

http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/AlphaC.html

[Capt_Nemo]

32. Thanks for the links IG

DUers have here a nice abstract on the matter about why am ever
so thankfull to the US administrations from Truman to Nixon/Ford:

"Salazar worshiped Hitler and Mussolini, but after they lost, he joined the Allies and became a card carrying member of NATO(...) His secret police, the PIDE, were much like the Gestapo; concentration camps were set up for "enemies of the state"; (...)
In 1970, 30% of the population was illiterate, and the infant mortality rate was the second worst in Europe."

more at:
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/EurMEast.html#Card%2034

[Minstrel Boy]

34. "So what if Poland didn't really attack Germany first.

The Fuhrer got rid of an anti-German regime menacing our borders, reincorporated Danzig and the Corridor into the Reich, has restored national pride, and brought us to a position of power unrivalled in the world. Of course, to maintain our security, this war may not end in our lifetimes."

[in_cog_ni_to]

36. No Dems would

support that statement, but that is precisely the repuke argument I always hear. What a crock!

[John_H]

37. Rethugs don't GET to say "so what" and "lied" in the same sentence.

They gave up that right in 1998-99. Whack 'em on that.

[mandyky]

38. Actually, Saddam no matter how ruthless he was about it

held the elements that now are loose, in check. Iraqis have not and will not greet America as an occupying force with flowers.

As much as we dislike Bush here, if Saddam or some other power invaded our country, and made it clear they would "invent" a gov't of their choosing for us, everyone of us, (I hope) would be in the streets fighting tooth and nail, not for Bush, but for America as we know it.

[whathappened]

39. last look i see

over there , is that all the nations in this area , are ruled by someone like sadam , and we buy oil from all of them , so what is the deal , i know someone who went over to up date the phone systems in saudia , and he wasnt let out of the palace for no reason , it was like he was in prison , he was sure glad to get the hell out of there after his work was done , so what we got here is , the kings live in the big houses and the poor live around thyem so they can go out and kick there asses once in awhile , don't ya think jr. would get a kick out of doing this to us if he just could be king george

[Liberal_Andy]

40. Meanwhile, US shifts focus from Afganistan to Iraq

Gotta get Saddam!

Ain't got him yet, or Osama, but 59% approve!!:argh:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/08/18/us_shifting_focus_agents_from_kabul_to_baghdad

[Kamika]

41. Well it is a good argument

I would agree to it too if it wasnt fo the fact we had no idea what to do after we deposed him

[rman]

44. it's not a good argument;

It's not a matter of either/or.

If a majority of people would have been convinced that a full out war on Iraq was warranted in order to get rid of Saddam,
then why the heck didn't Bush present that as the reason to go to war?

Wouldn't anyone prefer a president that doesn't lie about such drastic issues as war?

[Liberal_Andy]

45. that's right, rman!

If our evidence wan't good enough to convince the UN that Saddam was an imminent threat to the world, then maybe we needed to gather some more evidence. And if he wasn't an imminent threat, then why are we there?

PNAC,...

PNAC,...

PNAC,...

The four letters the Rovian press won't touch.

www.newamericancentury.org

[Tennessee Gal]

42. Lies are okay from a President?

Tell that to Bill Clinton.

I am so tired of Republican hypocrisy!


Bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeccccckkkkkk! :puke:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. It's A Great Talking Point But A False Dichotomy

Al Sharpton nailed it.


It's like a guy telling his office mate there's a fire in the building and then when they get outside and see there's no fire the guy tell his office mate he really said there was a fire so he'd get some fresh air.

If this was a humanitarian venture Bush should have sold it as that.


But I'll give my props. It's a great talkin point.

[Brian Sweat]

47. Am I the only one who sees flashing lights after taking Benadryl?

And no, I'm not talking about police cars.


P.S. The original argument is a false dilemma. There are other options. This is what used to be known as red baiting.

[Kbowe]

48. Ask the Iraqi people that question.

I think the answer would be yes.

[leesa]

51. The Iraqis would probably prefer Saddam was back in power

[diamondsoul]

53. No.

I'd prefer he was never ousted by American brute force in the first place. It's NOT OUR JOB to overthrow regimes in other nations. That's my standard answer to that question. Poppy Bush should have assisted the Iraqis the first time out as he promised to do instead of leaving the entire freakin' country at the mercy of Jr.