The world is safer with out Saddam Hussein,

[NewInNewJ.]

but would be much, much, safer without Osma Bin laden. Don't you think?

[Ioo]

1. I do not have the numbers at hand, but somewhere terror attacks WAY UP!

[babylonsister]

2. The world would be infinitely safer w/o the blivet and his cohorts. nt

[Richard D]

3. And it would be way way safer without *

[CJCRANE]

4. Um, how so?

Iraq has turned into a huge live-fire terrorist training ground.

[NewInNewJ.]

10. Just repeating what the Repug. line is, and I think the Dem

response should be, That we would be much safer without BinLaden

[CJCRANE]

11. Good point...

as Wesley Clark has said - the foreign policy priorities should've been in this order:

Al-Qaeda, North Korea, Iran, Iraq.

[panader0]

5. Iraq was a much more stable country when Saddam was in power

bushco has destablized the entire Middle East. Sure Saddam was a bad dictator, but bush has killed alot more people than Saddam ever did both Iraqis and Us citizens. The senate report says again what we all know here at DU, that Saddam had no connection to 9/11. The worlrd is not better off after bush's adventure in Iraq, but infinately more dagerous. And OBL? Polls now show that the majority of US citizens believe that 9/11 was either an inside job, or that the government actually was involved in bringing the towers down.

[Turbineguy]

15. Saddam Hussein,

in way like Tito did with Yugoslavia, held the country together (by force). When Saddam had died, the country would probably have collapsed into the sectarian strife we see now. But there would have been one major difference. It would have been the Iraqis themselves who were responsible. By invading and taking Saddam out, Bush shifted that responsibility to the US.

[5X]

6. Would the world be safer with Cheney behind bars? Absolutely. n/t

[Danascot]

7. Saddam was evil and I hope he burns in hell

but all the stable counties in the Middle East are autocracies, which is essentially what Iraq was under Saddam. It was a mistake for the US to think it could impose democracy on Iraq when it is a "foreign" notion in the MidEast. It's hard to argue that Iraq is better off now than it was under Saddam.

As for the world, other than insulting us, Saddam's influence outside of Irag was minimal.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. It would be a helluva lot safer without the birdbrain in the WH.

Saddam was a nasty fuck but, compared to Boobya, he was very small potatos as a threat to the world.

[abluelady]

9. And George Bush. n/t

[gulliver]

12. Plus a ready, rested U.S. military and $300 B unwasted. n/t

[NNN0LHI]

13. I need to know on exactly what date did the CIA stop funding and...

...arming bin Laden and the other Afghan Mujahideen before I can answer your question.

Thats what I think?

Don

[porphyrian]

14. Now with 20% more!

What does "safer" mean? Safer than what? For who? It's all bullshit ad-speak.

[leesa]

16. OBL is dead. The US are the biggest terrorists on the planet. The number

of civilians we killed in the Vietnam war alone dwarfs any totality of civilians killed by "terrorists" since the start of our nation. We killed over a million people who weren't doing anything but going about their business and being in the wrong place at the wrong time...just like a suicide bomber's victims.

[lonestarnot]

17. Oh sure destabalization of the entire Middle East has made the

world much safer. :rofl: