Is it OK now to say that Iraq would be better off today with Saddam in charge?

[hedgehog]

100 Iraqi civilians a day being killed according to the UN. Saddam never approached that number. We're seeing a 21st century version of "better dead than red".

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. ok in my book.

course, I said that 6 months ago.

some people didn't like it when I did.

Got yer flamesuit handy?

[volstork]

2. I'm beginning to think

the US would be better off, too (with Saddam in charge)

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. That was just another of bush's nonsense excuses for why

we are stuck there. Like everything else that bush has ever said, it hasn't stood the test of time.

[Rex]

4. We will never know.

They did a pretty good job in snuffing out Saddam and his male kin. Now they better pray someone far WORSE than Saddam doesn't eventually take over. Iraq will be used to describe America's failure in global management for decades to come.

[leftchick]

5. close to a million Iraqis dead, 1 1/2 Million have fled?

it is hell on earth for those still there? I have to agree with you.

[roamer65]

6. 20 bucks says that if Saddam were alive and still President of Iraq...

...we'd have lifted the sanctions already and rearmed him for another proxy war against Iran. But now we get to see the "nightmare scenario" play out that kept Bush 41 from toppling Saddam.

[stonecoldsober]

7. It's a fact

As the situation stands NOW, nobody can honestly say they are better off.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[damntexdem]

9. Why? Do you think that it's not OK to tell the truth?

Since the U.S. started screwing up right after the invasion (i.e., the looting and burning of museums and libraries, the looting of government ministries other than the Oil Ministry, and so on), it has been clear that Iraq was better off under Saddam. That is, however, a rather low bar.

Actually, what we're seeing is a red (as in red states) that will make us dead.

[hedgehog]

11. Up to now, Bush has shut up his critics by challenging them to answer

the question of whether they would be better off today if Saddam was still in charge. I'm waiting for the first politician or interviewer who answers Yes.

[stonecoldsober]

13. Howard Dean did so during the 2004 campaign

[hedgehog]

14. I'm sorry that I didn't hear about that.

It was probably drowned out by repeats of the Scream!

[stonecoldsober]

15. I couldn't find the quote of Dean, but I found this!

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D-CT): (From videotape.) If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison, and the world would be a much more dangerous place. The American people would have a lot more to fear.

[partylessinOhio]

10. Of course, but * snuffed Saddam and his sons so he is on his own now.

Iraq is paying a terrible price since the invasion and takeover of that nation.

Our Congress should be on this like white on rice but they are fiddling around with less important issues.

[enid602]

12. Saddam

Saddam wasn't in charge of Iraq when we invaded in'03; at least, not in the way he had once been. Our initial invasion of Iraq was a cakewalk. Had we not invaded, I think Iraq would have had its civil war anyway. Of course, foreign interests (and money and arms) wouldn't have been brought in. It would probably be a good deal less bloody.

[Toucano]

16. I love you, hedgehog!

That was always such an infuriating thing when Republicans would say, "Saddam would still be in charge!"

To which I could only respond, "Maybe, probably...what the fuck to I care?"

Like I should just ignore the Bush lying about leading us to a poorly planned and executed war just because ONE MAN lost his job!

As far as I'm concerned, we can proudly say that Yes, Iraq would be better off with Saddam in charge. So would the entire world.