need good response for "aren't you glad that saddam is no longer in power"

[diamond14]

or some variation of that statement....seems like everyone is saying it...anytime somebody objects to the WAR, the reTHUGlican answer is a short, "so then, you must want saddam back in power"...and it cuts off the conversation, implies that anyone objecting is un-American and wants saddam (the torturer demon) back in power....


the reality is that the 'saddam is no longer is power' represents a total shrub failure...because I thought saddam would be 'brought to justice by now' with 140,000 American soldiers after saddam, there should be little left of him now, not just 'saddam out of power', but pulverized...

and what about 'osama -dead or alive?'

anyhow, this thread is to start brainstorming good democratic responses to this nonsense about 'well, you must want saddam back in power'....with something like 'no, I want saddam brought to justice -dead or alive' where is saddam and osama???

it has to be short and to-the-point responses....any ideas???

[Maple]

1. He IS

still in power.

[SahaleArm]

90. Bingo.

And they still don't have Bin Laden.

[theivoryqueen]

2. what about

asking any argumentative types exactly who IS in power in Iraq?

[mreilly]

3. 3 tips

1) remind them the objective wasn't getting Saddam out of power; it was finding and eliminating the weapons of mass destruction - including nukes - that haven't been found. Hint they're just clinging to the "Saddam is gone" theme because they have no other themes to boast about.

2) ask them if getting Saddam out of power was worth undercutting Homeland Security, police, and fire protection or stiffing military veterans on their benefits.

3) ask them why Bush and his father not only didn't want to get rid of Saddam when he was "gassing his own people" but why they supplied him with the weapons to do so. Then ask where the right winger you're talking to was back then and why he/she wasn't screeching for Saddam's removal.

[diamond14]

14. can you take each concept into a 'short-and-sweet' simple

answer...something all Americans (even Joe six-pack) can keep in their minds...simple and short and to-the-point....

Your tips are great, but on talk show call-ins and letter to the editors, there is no room for so many words...it has to be hard hitting and repeat repeat repeat...and simple...

so, would you try to take each of your three great tips, simplify and shorten ?

[sangh0]

28. My summary

1) remind them the objective wasn't getting Saddam out of power; it was finding and eliminating the weapons of mass destruction - including nukes - that haven't been found. Hint they're just clinging to the "Saddam is gone" theme because they have no other themes to boast about.

No, I'm not happy because those nukes are now floating around where the terrorists can steal them.

2) ask them if getting Saddam out of power was worth undercutting Homeland Security, police, and fire protection or stiffing military veterans on their benefits.

No, I'm not happy because we're protecting Iraq with money that should be used to protect America

3) ask them why Bush and his father not only didn't want to get rid of Saddam when he was "gassing his own people" but why they supplied him with the weapons to do so. Then ask where the right winger you're talking to was back then and why he/she wasn't screeching for Saddam's removal.

I wouldn't bring this one up. Most people don't know the history and what happened when. It requires documentary support and that's not a practical option on a call-in show or a LTTE

[Tyler Durden]

4. "The Republic is DYING...

...THEREFORE I don't give TWO SHITS who is running some other country."

Short and Sweet. I say it all the time.

[indigo11153]

8. Right

I don't give a shit. Let Iraq deal with their own problems.
Not worth one American life.

[sendero]

5. For every benefit...

... there is a cost. One tries to expend their energy such that the most benefit comes from the least cost.

Saddam is not even dead. We expended herculean energies and suffered immense losses just to get him out of power. Do I want him out of power? Sure. Would I be willing to kill 15K civilians, 1000 US troops and spend 200-300 billion to do so? No, only a moron would do that.

There were any number of better accomplishments we could have enjoyed given the expenditure of that many lives, that much money and that much good goodwill.

[Demobrat]

6. I just say

Why should I care? Saddam is no threat to me and never was.

[sangh0]

11. I say "No...."

"Why should I?"

Then I sit back and laugh while they stammer about Iraqi freedom. Then I say "Why should I care about that?" and watch them stammer some more. They can't answer that 2nd question

[LoZoccolo]

7. Wull yeah...

...but a human-rights case wasn't made for attacking Iraq. But if we had, we would probably have to put him on trial for human-rights violations and we wouldn't have "control" of Iraq, their oil industry, and a reconstruction effort after he was put out of power (I say "control" because we really don't seem to have it anyways). All that responsibility probably would have been shouldered internationally. Instead we lied about weapons of mass destruction, which "justified" a full-scale invasion.

[LoZoccolo]

25. That was kind of rambling.

To clarify, I probably would have supported a human-rights case against Saddam, perhaps carried out through the UN. I'm actually pretty hawkish about those sorts of things; I do believe we have a responsibility to stop human rights atrocities. This is a liberal idea - in the past, before there were "neoconservatives", conservatives were more prone to be isolationist (an example of this is the viewpoint of Pat Buchanan).

But they didn't take that route. They lied to our citizens (very dangerous for a government to do) and lied to the world (probably even more dangerous - we need good relations with other countries if we want them to cooperate with us by sharing intelligence to fight terrorism) in making this case about weapons of mass destruction.

I believe this was done because we wouldn't have had as much control over Iraq if we had made a human rights case, and they wanted that control.

[Woodstock]

65. & if it was human rights, why didn't they get our soldiers the protection

they needed (body/humvee armor) before setting them up in a shooting gallery?

aren't the soldiers human? don't they have rights?

[Frances]

9. I say

I support the U.S. troops and I don't think it's right they are dying to get rid of someone the Iraqis should have dealt with. There were no WMDs and Saddam was harming the Iraqis, not the U.S. Now the terrorists have more power than they did before the war. Now the U.S. has fewer allies than it did before the war. Now the U.S. has huge deficits while Halliburton has huge profits. Enough?

[Snellius]

10. Of course, we should overthrow every despot we don't like

North Korea. Syria. How about China?

[info being]

12. "This is the first time he's been in a position to harm us"

And he's doing it everyday. No, I'm not glad.

[spotbird]

38. That is the perfect answer.

He has caused far more harm to the US since the war started then he ever had as leader of Iraq.

I liked having a National Guard to protect the homeland, put out fires, be on standby in case of the worse. Now we have very limited homeland protection and worse yet there is no observable benefit to our country.

Why would I be happy?

[phillybri]

45. That is awesome....

Incredible response....

:kick:

[Woodstock]

66. great answer!!!

[Wilber_Stool]

13. I'd trade........

300 GIs and God knows how many Iraqis to have him back.

[Tempest]

15. Here is your best response

Britain and the US claim a moral mandate - and back a dictator who boils victims to death

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1072313,00.html

The British and US governments gave three reasons for going to war with Iraq. The first was to extend the war on terrorism. The second was to destroy its weapons of mass destruction before they could be deployed. The third was to remove a brutal regime, which had tortured and murdered its people.

<snip>

There is just one test of this sincerity, and that is the consistency with which his concern for human rights guides his foreign policy. If he cares so much about the welfare of foreigners that he is prepared to go to war on their behalf, we should expect to see this concern reflected in all his relations with the governments of other countries. We should expect him, for example, to do all he can to help the people of Uzbekistan.

There are over 6,000 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan. Every year, some of them are tortured to death. Sometimes the policemen or intelligence agents simply break their fingers, their ribs and then their skulls with hammers, or stab them with screwdrivers, or rip off bits of skin and flesh with pliers, or drive needles under their fingernails, or leave them standing for a fortnight, up to their knees in freezing water. Sometimes they are a little more inventive. The body of one prisoner was delivered to his relatives last year, with a curious red tidemark around the middle of his torso. He had been boiled to death.

<snip>

But Uzbekistan is seen by the US government as a key western asset, as Saddam Hussein's Iraq once was. Since 1999, US special forces have been training Karimov's soldiers. In October 2001, he gave the United States permission to use Uzbekistan as an airbase for its war against the Taliban. The Taliban have now been overthrown, but the US has no
intention of moving out. Uzbekistan is in the middle of central Asia's massive gas and oil fields. It is a nation for whose favours both Russia and China have been vying. Like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it is a secular state fending off the forces of Islam.

<snip>

So, far from seeking to isolate his regime, the US government has tripled its aid to Karimov. Last year, he received $500m (£300m), of which $79m went to the police and intelligence services, who are responsible for most of the torture.

[Kool Kitty]

92. Boiled to death?

Jesus, what is this, the fifteenth century? And this guy gets aid from us? Who's the next recipient-Vlad the Impaler?

[mobiggsly]

16. I really like Demobrats response

But I always say something about cost/benifit. Bush says how can anyone think we would be better off with saddam still in power. Heres an analogy, tell me if I'm way off - What if I sold my house for $50. I'd have $50. Who could think I would be better off without $50? You can't refute that statement when taken by itself. You just have to realize what you are giving up(hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of american lives and thousands of debilitating injuies, we don't even know how many Iraqi lives, the respect of the world, taking focus away from our own domestic situation, so on and so forth)

[cosmicdot]

35. who is Demobrats?

:shrug:

I don't these folks think on the level of 'cost/benefit'

They repeat the mantra given to them: perception is reality, e.g. If the spin changed today, so would what they're saying.

[Patriot_Spear]

17. Why did it take 7000 dead Iraqi civilians to do it?

This is the kind of stuff I normally come back with-

Why is 'removing Saddam' still costing us the lives of US Soldiers everyday? You're telling me there wasn't a better way? Wouldn't it have been easier for us if Ronald Reagan and Geroge Bush hadn't armed Saddam in the first place?

finally I just say... 'I'd rather have our 350 Soliders alive and our 1800 soldiers not mainmed for life.'

[chiburb]

18. "Not at a cost of over $300,000,000,000

and 400 dead G.I.s"

Short? To the point?

(And I certainly am NOT forgetting perhaps 15,000 dead Iraqis, just answering the original post. We all know that THEY don't give a rat's ass about "them".)

While we're on the subject, read today's Morford:

snip:

And you know why they don't matter, according to the GOP? Because we got rid of a pesky evil pip-squeak tyrant, that's why. One who was zero threat to the U.S., and not much of a threat to neighboring countries, and had no 9/11 connection, but who we know killed lots of his own people 20 years ago, with America's full and complicit assistance, including the biotoxins we sold to him.

And how he's gone. Yay! Mission accomplished! Except, of course, he's not. Still alive, apparently. But he's hiding somewhere! And he's probably really furious that he had to shave his mustache, too! Ha! That oughta show him! That's $300 billion and hundreds of dead U.S. soldiers well spent, baby! God bless America.

OK, I'll spell it out: George W. Bush and his entire senior administration lied, and continue to lie, flagrantly, openly, knowingly, with full intent, about the need to drive this nation into a brutal and unwinnable and fiscally debilitating war, one that protects no one and inhibits no terrorism and defends nothing but BushCo's own petrochemical cronies and political stratagems.

This much is obvious. This much is painfully, crushingly sad. And this much we must purge like so much clotted gunk from the collective social artery one year from now. Otherwise, we should just turn in our stained and bloody Superpower badge, and resign ourselves to our fate.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2003/10/31/notes103103.DTL&type=printable

If you make people think they are thinking, they will love you. If you really make them think, they will hate you. Blase Pascal

[Woodstock]

63. Excellent!

"Not at a cost of over $300,000,000,000 and 400 dead G.I.s"

[Cat Atomic]

19. How about an analogy?

Suppose I break into your house to steal everything you own. While I'm doing this, I notice your curling iron is plugged in, and I unplug it. I steal it, too.

Are you happy that I saved your home from a potential fire hazard?

[xxqqqzme]

20. George the first

didn't care in '91(and that was AFTER 'he gassed his own people). Why should I care now?

[Javneh]

21. my response

granted I'm not a political expert, my responses tend to be in 'stupidese' as Bart might say, but my response would be "Who gives a shit if he's in power or not. He didn't attack the US, has never attacked the US. Bush himself admitted there's no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. The whole point of going to war was supposedly to protect us from WMD which we supposedly knew the exact location of. And now that we're there, we get the bait and switch."

Maybe I just needed to rant. I work with freepers and I usually keep it all inside so as not to go off on people I have to depend on daily

[sangh0]

26. IMO, you should dumb it down even more

to a simple "NO, why should I be happy about THAT?" instead of:

"Who gives a shit if he's in power or not. He didn't attack the US, has never attacked the US. Bush himself admitted there's no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. The whole point of going to war was supposedly to protect us from WMD which we supposedly knew the exact location of. And now that we're there, we get the bait and switch."

You give them stuff to argue about. Simply asking them to justify their "happiness" makes them stutter. Throw it back in their faces. Put the burden on them. ANd when they act all sanctimonious and ask "You mean, you don't care that the Iraqis now have their freedom", the response is the same: "No, why should I be happy about THAT?"

[leesa]

22. How would Saddam being in power POSSIBLY affect us?

He was completely defanged long ago. Even his abuse towards his countrymen appeared to be considerably lessened. The rampant problem with "terrorist" (I call them people defending their homeland from invasion) as they call them, did not exist under Saddam.

He simply was not at all a threat to anyone outside his borders. And finally, we are killing MORE of his countrymen than he did!

On edit, I forgot the ONLY way he was affecting us. He was planning to switch to the Euro as the currency for oil trading, as was Iran. Korea was also going to switch currency, hence the Axis of Evil.

[West Coast Democrat]

23. I Would Say, Why Was Saddam The Top Priority

in the War on Terrorism? Why was he the top priority for any foreign concerns?

[glarius]

24. How about "seeing as it is most effecting the people of Iraq, how do you

think the many thousands of parents of dead, innocent Iraqi children would answer that question?"...or "would Americans want leaders of other countries deciding they needed to have their government overthrown?"....

[rocktivity]

27. There's your response, amen

"I'd be happier if he were in custody."


rocknation

[diamond14]

39. or, 'I'd be happy if saddam was in custody, like bush* promised"

thanks rocknation for focussing my thoughts...

didn't bush* promise to KILL saddam, and put out $$$ for saddam's assassination?....I wish I could find some EXACT shrub quotes with dates and times....because I really think that bush* promised more than just custody, but actual KILLING..

now the 'dead or alive" osama quote, that was one I remember....

but, what exactly did shrub PROMISE to do to saddam???

[grannylib]

29. Saddam still holds power

Over those who support him...and the Shrub administration's claim that the "Taliban is gone..." is equally false.
Just lies, lies and more lies.

[HFishbine]

30. Sure, I'm glad

but...

I'm not glad that it was done at a cost of 336 American lives, so far.

I'm not glad that it was done at a cost of 3,000, perhaps more, Iraqi civlian lives.

I'm not glad that it was done at a cost of turning world-wide sympathy into world-wide disdain for the United States.

I'm not glad that it was done at the expense of alienating some of our staunchest allies at a time when we could really use their help.

I'm not glad that it was done at a cost of $100 billion dollars so far.

I'm not glad that rather than have the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes to cover this misadventure, Bush has chosen to put the cost on the backs of future generations.

I'm not glad that the administration resorted to lies and politicized the memory of those killed on 9/11 in order to fool the American people into thinking we were going to war for our own protection.

I'm not glad the the U.S. has now set a precident for pre-emptive war by one country against another.

I'm not glad Bush continues to put our soldiers in more danger than necessary because he insists on keeping civilian administration under U.S. control in order to continue to dole out rebuilding contracts to his campaign contributors.

I'm not glad that Bush has chosen to make the education, health care, and infrastructure modernization in Iraq a priority, while Americans go wanting for the same.

Bush rushed us to war not because the atrocities of Saddam Hussien had reacehed such monumental proportions that his actions stood alone above all the other injustices in the world.

Bush rushed us to war not because we were in danger from Iraq.

Bush rushed us to war not because we had exhausted all other possible remedies for ending Saddam's tyranny.

Bush rushed us to war because that's what he wanted. It was a vengefull, arrogant, dumb, dangerous, and unnecessarily costly course of action that was not in the best interest of the American people and indeed, required that we compromise our values as a nation that prefers peaceful solutions to the world's problems over war mongering.

Bush rushed us to war because that's what he wanted to do and he knew that more time would have only served to reveal the magnitude of his folly and the wisdom of other options.

[MrPrax]

31. How 'bout "Next time you Osama ask him, asshole!" n/t

[Flaming Meaux]

32. My Top Ten

10. Why should I care? I don't live in Iraq.
9. In power over what?
8. So who is in charge in Iraq nowadays?
7. So have we caught him yet?
6. Hey! How about those lower gas prices!
5. So, I heard only two of our boys got killed over there yesterday.
4. Sure is nice to be building all those schools in Iraq. Wish we could do something about ours.
3. We were doing just fine containing the SOB up until last March. He was no tribble at all, and it didn't cost us $87B a year.
2. When is the Dennis Miller USO show?

and the numero uno response to the dittohead quip, "so then, you must want saddam back in power," is...

1. How long you figger before Iraq become the 51st state?

[cosmicdot]

33. out of sight doesn't = out of power

what about Saudi Arabia?

did we kill any innocent people, like * accuses them of doing, in Iraq or permanently disabled them?

where's Osama?


where's the anthrax killer?

where are the Cheney energy documents?

where is Ken Lay - is he out of power, out of sight or both?

why did Bush fly the bin Laden family out when all planes were to stand down? oh, there are so many unanswered questions ...

WWJD?

[librechik]

34. Bush BUNGLED that by allowing Saddam to escape

For all we know he has all the WMD with him! And he is laughing at the CPA while controlling gangs of Baathist terrorists who are attacking us with greater and greater effect. Where is Saddam? In hiding with his buddy Osama?

use their own lies against them--these morans can't think one move ahead!

[pansypoo53219]

36. how about this

GEORGE got rid of the ONLY secular leader of an arab state and women were far safer and far more free BEFORE he was injudiciously removed. AND he had nothing to do with 9/11 or much to do with any formentation of terrorism, oh, and by the way, where is Osama? is Karzai safe to walk the streets of Afganistan? maybe we shoulda finished THAT job 1st.

[library_max]

37. There are 45 other countries that are dictatorships or single-party states

Are we going to trash international law and bust our budget to attack them too? Hint - the biggest one is China.

[Blue-Jay]

40. Saddam was/is a bad dude. There's no getting around that.

However, there's dozens of bad dudes in power all over the world. Why was he singled out? He was effectively contained and politically castrated in the eyes of the world. If they try to mention the number of Iraqis that he butchered, point out the estimated amount of Iraqi casualties that resulted from our invasion. No, we didn't sic dogs on them or drop them off high buildings or gas them, but DEAD IS DEAD.

Mass graves? That's mostly a result of Bush I telling the Kurds that he would give support to an uprising against Saddam. We all know what happened there.

Terrorism? No links to Al Queda. Bush II finally admitted it. In fact, the threat of terrorism from Iraq has INCREASED since we invaded. Watch the news much?

WMDs? AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

Nuk-u-ler capabilities? AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

Imminent threat? C'mon. I'm already hoarse from laughing.

[qwertyMike]

41. "Yes I think we propped him up long enough"

[diamond14]

43. good, short and to the point

thanks

[The White Rose]

42. Answer: "Absolutely, isn't Clinton's military wonderful?

Then, once you've slapped them upside the head with that one, you can cordially remind them of Bush's lies about unprepared divisions and poor morale. Then you might want to note that Saddam was only IN power because of Reagan and Bush I's support during the '80s (if you have the notorious Rummy-Saddam handshake photo it might be fun to give them a copy). Finally, politely ask the following question: "Can you please explain to me how turning a contained (according to Colin Powell) tin-pot dictator like Saddam into an apparently deadly terrorist leader has improved the situation for the United States?"

[candy331]

53. I love

that "Isn't Clinton's military wonderful? I can see the foaming at the mouth from repugs, will definitely use this one.

[GinaMaria]

44. I'm more relieved that

he never had an WMD

[BigBigBigBear]

46. Saddam

'Don't you think the Iraqis should have removed him?'

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[mobiggsly]

49. maybe this makes me a jerk

but I really don't care that much about other countries. They can take care of themselves. I care about this country. I only care about other countries if they relate to this country. He said during the campaign he was against nation building and meddling in other county's business(ala Bosnia, which I was also against) and all the conservatives agreed with that. Now hes all for nation building in Iraq and all the caonservatives agree with that. WHo's blinded by their political allegence now?

[diamond14]

50. we are not pro-bush on this board, with only 6 posts, that's a lot

of arrogance...and yes, we are proud of our anti-bush* movement and do not consider bush's failed effort at 'removing saddam from power' to be a 'good thing'...

trying to remove one despot (saddam), from power at a cost of 350 American soldiers lives, and $157 billion from American taxpayers is NOT a good thing...it is incredibly stupid...

saddam is NOT removed from power, he is still there fueling daily attacks against American troops.

saddam should be in custody, as bush* promised.

[Bridget Burke]

52. Where's Saddam? Where's Osama?

Are Iraq & Afghanistan better off now than if we'd not invaded them?

Is our own country better off? Deficit growing, many out of work, less money for things like health care & education.

How's the war on terror going? We've got the same crew in charge who presided over 9/11 & they've refused to cooperate with the investigation. Do you feel safer today?

What about the hundreds of American soldiers who have died? And the dying has not stopped.

Oh, and we don't much care for Bush here. How bright of you to notice.

[HFishbine]

55. Black and White

It's the reight-wing trap. There is no mental capacity for subtlety. How about this:

Removing Saddam from power was a good thing and what Bush did was wrong.

[Demobrat]

74. Any rational caring person

would prefer not to lose a loved one for the sake of a lie.

[July]

48. two good ones I read here

1. It's a "five hundred dollar ice cream cone" -- from poster named gulliver, I think. The cost isn't worth the benefit.

2. It may be good for Iraqis, but it's bad for America. Sorry, I don't remember who brought this up first.

[jokerman93]

51. Am I glad????

No I'm not glad about Saddam eluding justice.

I'm not glad about the cost.

I'm not glad about the utter lack of planning and preparation that has characterized this tragically avoidable war.

I'm not glad about the world-wide loss of credibility my country has suffered.

Then ask the same questions all "Real God-Fearing Amerikalanders" who've internalized the program would ask:

What's in it for me?

What's in it for my political party?

What's in it for my family?

What's in it for the freedom and prosperity of white people in Amerikaland?

(order and sarcasm may vary)

[Warren Stuart]

54. Sure I'd say

But now that he is gone I've noticed that those evil Saudi's are just as horrible. Can we get them next?

[maggrwaggr]

56. Yes, the $500 ice cream cone.

You can buy a $500 ice cream cone and then say "well I'm enjoying my life better now that I have this ice cream cone".

But it cost $500

[maggrwaggr]

57. Our military is now useless, tied down in Iraq

I posted on this a while back. I said "it's time we started saying we wished Saddam was back in power".

We need to go on the offense with this, not the defense.

Reasons I wish Saddam was back in power:

Our military is now tied down in Iraq and cannot be used anywhere else. Invading Iraq has proven to be detrimental to our national security. If we're attacked now, we're screwed.

400 soldiers lost (obviously)

15000 Iraqi civilians killed.

We've created more sympathy for Al Queda, we're an AlQueda recruiter's dream.

None of our allies are gonna help us out now with anything as long as we're in Iraq. Again, this is detrimental to our national security.

It was bad for our national security to invade Iraq. That's a fact, and that's the bottom line.

Containment works. Tell them with their logic, we should have started WWIII with the Soviet Union, since they obviously had WMD's pointed at us and were obviously a threat.

Would they have wanted to start WWIII with the Soviet Union?

[diamond14]

72. great ideas...we must go on the offense to counter reTHUGs spin

thanks...lots of good ideas...we must get this down to a repeatable common, able to understand by 'joe six-pack' mememememe response, and repeat it, repeat it, repeat it everywhere.....

[Mike_from_NoVa]

58. I shrug

"It's ok but, it isn't worth hundreds of billions of dollars. With Bush's tax cuts starving the treasury we just can't afford this kind of adventure. It's unpatriotic to weaken America any further by irresponsibly spending money we don't have. The cost/benefit ratio is all out of whack."

This, or some variant, is what I actually say. Of course, I'm a rabid deficit hawk...

[Dr Fate]

59. great- but where is the "Coalition of the Willing" Bush said existed...

...it sure would be nice if THEY paid the 87 BILLION dollar bill, or supplied some troops- instead of taxpayers are paying for ALL of it- and our boys are shedding all the blood...

...Too bad Bush lied so much that most of the world refused to trust Bush...So he lied again and said we had a "Coalition of the Willing" that would "support" us...

Sure, it's great to get rid of Saddam- but Bush should have insisted that we share the burden, and used diplomacy to gain allies- instead he failed, and decided to lie about a non-existant Coalition of the Willing...

[JackDragna]

60. I merely say "No."

I'd rather Hussein were in power. Hussein was a check to the power of radical Islam in the Middle East. There were many fundamentalists in his country whose political and military influence was stopped up by the Baathist party. Now that the Baathists no longer have control, one of the Middle East's wealthiest and largest countries is in the hands of those same fundamentalists. We have created a terrorism hazard far greater than anything Hussein could ever have accomplished.

[dolstein]

61. Here's a good answer: Yes.

It used to be that Democrats didn't much care for oppressive dictators, be they communist, fascist or otherwise. People can certainly object to the way in which Hussein was removed, and the the administration's lack of preparedness for dealing with the aftermath.

But those people who actually think it's a bad thing that Hussein is no longer ruling Iraq simply don't belong to the same Democratic Party as I do.

[Ellen Forradalom]

87. It may not be a bad thing, but we don't know yet if it's a good thing

The consequences of removing a strongman who at least kept the lid on the cauldron in his country have yet to be played out. They could be horrible. Major powers prop up dictators all the time and all over the world because they keep order and deliver the goods to their overlords. To pontificate about Saddam and ignore all the others who have been our useful idiots is hypocrisy of the highest order.

[seaglass]

62. I think it is good that SH is "out of power" but I believe it

was a job for the Iraqis to do, not for the Americans to do.

[spanone]

64. No, but I'll be thrilled when Dubya is out of power.

[Beer Snob-50]

67. I like

I approve of Saddam being out of power, but don't like the way Shrub went about doing it.

[fob]

68. "He's out of power?"

"When did they capture him?"

"You will be asking for him back after we've been there running the place for 50 years"

"What are you gonna say when an even MORE radical takes control?"

"Back in power? No. But I would like to see him captured and brought to justice, along with the anthrax killer, OBL, all the execs at Enron...


fob

[diamond14]

73. touche !!!...the first one is a real jewel....

all are short and sweet...but I like the first one the best...

[returnable]

69. "Yep. In fact, I'm beginning to wish we had never put him in there!"

n/t

[Sushi_lover]

70. "It wasn't worth it. I see Osama has nukes now."

[karlschneider]

71. No, I am not glad. He wasn't killing American soldiers before we invaded.

[AP]

75. An arrest and trial would have been cheaper.

I presume we took him out because he broke the law, right?

[alcuno]

76. 160 billion to get 1 guy out of government and he isn't even 1 of ours.

[grasswire]

78. suggestions

++ Americans weren't dying when Saddam was in power.

++ Ask Mrs. xxxx. She lost her son in Baghdad. (Find the name of a local mother.)

++ I'm a conservative. I'm for limited use of the military as peacekeepers and I don't believe in nation building.

++ Or just "No. I'm a conservative."

[maine_raptor]

77. How About

"Yea, and I'll be overjoyed when Bush leaves too."

[neuvocat]

79. Al Queda is stronger now without Hussein.

Hussein was strongly anti-Al Queda.

[Silverhair]

80. Yes, it is a good thing. Now when do we do something...

about ___________? (Insert name of very evil dictator of unimportant fourth world country here.)Somethings really needs to be done about him. He has (Ad long but truthful laundry list of evil dictator's crimes against humanity here.) Don't you agree? (Don't hold breath waiting for answer.)

[Zhade]

81. Well, it's not very clever or witty...

...but I always point out that I myself would have been happy to put two in Hussein's head for the good of the Iraqi people.

I would not, however, have been happy to put two into the heads of thousands of civilians to do so.

[eridani]

82. Bush is even now supporting other Saddams

Dictators every bit as brutal, but willing to cooperate with the military base thing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1072313,00.html


There is just one test of this sincerity, and that is the consistency with which his concern for human rights guides his foreign policy. If he cares so much about the welfare of foreigners that he is prepared to go to war on their behalf, we should expect to see this concern reflected in all his relations with the governments of other countries. We should expect him, for example, to do all he can to help the people of Uzbekistan.

There are over 6,000 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan. Every year, some of them are tortured to death. Sometimes the policemen or intelligence agents simply break their fingers, their ribs and then their skulls with hammers, or stab them with screwdrivers, or rip off bits of skin and flesh with pliers, or drive needles under their fingernails, or leave them standing for a fortnight, up to their knees in freezing water. Sometimes they are a little more inventive. The body of one prisoner was delivered to his relatives last year, with a curious red tidemark around the middle of his torso. He had been boiled to death.

But Uzbekistan is seen by the US government as a key western asset, as Saddam Hussein's Iraq once was. Since 1999, US special forces have been training Karimov's soldiers. In October 2001, he gave the United States permission to use Uzbekistan as an airbase for its war against the Taliban. The Taliban have now been overthrown, but the US has no intention of moving out. Uzbekistan is in the middle of central Asia's massive gas and oil fields. It is a nation for whose favours both Russia and China have been vying. Like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it is a secular state fending off the forces of Islam.

So, far from seeking to isolate his regime, the US government has tripled its aid to Karimov. Last year, he received $500m (£300m), of which $79m went to the police and intelligence services, who are responsible for most of the torture. While the US claims that its engagement with Karimov will encourage him to respect human rights, like Saddam Hussein he recognises that the protection of the world's most powerful government permits him to do whatever he wants. Indeed, the US state department now plays a major role in excusing his crimes.


http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=3&ItemID=3177


Without intense pressure from the international community, the silent tragedy that has befallen ordinary Algerians will continue with even more blood, deaths and torture. There is a strong democratic opposition inside the country that needs outside support. The American and British governments who seem so moved by the plight of the Iraqis at the hands of Saddam Hussein have failed to show the slightest degree of empathy for Algerians who are enduring the same dreadful plight at the hands of their dictators and terrorists. Even worse, both governments have lifted the ban on arms sales imposed on Algeria at the beginning of the 1990s, despite their knowledge of the reality that is well documented by such highly respected organizations as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or Reporters Sans Frontieres. However, if tomorrow, the Algerian Generals dare to step out of what is deemed by Washington and London to be the right path for Third World dictators, Colin Powell and Tony Blair will not hesitate one second to produce voluminous dossiers about the “Beasts of Algiers” who torture, disappear, kill and massacre “their own people”.

[wildwww2]

83. Iraq has gone from one Saddam who kept a lid on chaos. To thousands

of little unidentifiable Saddams who thrive on chaos. And they want our troops out of there dead or alive. It does not matter to them. Just as it does not matter to the majority of the American people. Otherwise we would be out in the streets by the millions. Demanding and end to Bu$h Inc.`s greedy oil and power lust. Until that happens our troops are just cannon fodder for these Repuke "too good to count their fellow American`s votes" pieces of feces.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[Kazak]

84. It really is amazing, isn 't it?

...that Saddam has mangaged to slither out from underneath both of the Bushes... How's that for miserable failure?

[Ellen Forradalom]

85. Well, nobody's in charge now.

Is that an improvement?

[janekat]

86. That the US was better off with him there because the Islamists will takeo

once we're gone (the ultra-religious Islamists ala Osama bin Laden). We're much better off with the non-Islamist Sadaam Baathists in charge than them. To my surprise - even wingnuts go along with that rationale.

If we were REALLY to think of our OWN country first - we would be better off him with Saddam there. He was running the country with an iron fist - it was in total order at least. NOW it's in a lawless chaos and actually MUCH more danger to it's neighbors and to us. No police force - no-one's in charge - certainly not us.

He's never done a thing to the US - was no threat to us and hasn't done a thing to another country since he attacked Kuwait. He was also a long way away from having any weapons that were a threat.

[janekat]

88. It wasn't worth it......

n/t

[carpetbagger]

89. Yes, &I'm glad we went it alone, so we could be out by summer

I hear it would have been pretty rough for our soldiers to be there as the world's policemen during the summer, so I'm glad we didn't get any help.

[Enter the Sandman]

91. Yeah

It was a nice gift for pappy and the oil folks, what did you get?