"Saddam was bad but Bu$h is worse". From an Iraqi storekeeper.

[maveric]

I had a conversation with the gentleman that owns the corner store. he's Iraqi, a Chaldean <sp>, a catholic sect in Iraq that was kicked out of that country during the late 70's. This guy is a peach. He routinely gives people credit or discounts, when they dint have enough to pay for groceries. Really great guy.

When I was I his store today, CNN was on showing violence in Iraq. I just happened to ask him what he thinks of the invasion/occupation and Bu$h. He stated to me "Saddam was bad but Bu$h is worse. Taking Saddam out of power was a good thing but the way Bu$h went about it was wrong. 120,000 people have died in my country just because they happen to live there. My Uncle is one of those who is dead. Iraq did not ever threaten the US and I cant figure out why Bu$h bombed and killed so many just to take one man out of power. Saddam killed 3000 but Bu$h killed many more. Plus they are stealing the oil that Iraq needs to survive. Killing to end violence and opression is stupid"

Then he said something somewhat profound. "You put Saddam back in power and this violence stops. This killing of Iraqi citizens is not the way to do it. I cant believe that this is still going on. Iraq is much WORSE now than it ever was. Just have the UN keep an eye on him and have people watching him and this violence will end"

Would putting Saddam back in power help end the violence in Iraq? This man seems to thins so with reservations.

[MadMaddie]

1. This is the kind of information the public needs to hear...

The * cabal wants people to put smiley faces on the daily tradgedy!!!

Impeach Bush!! Send him to the Hague!!

[fooj]

2. Bill Maher has been saying the same.

Little Lord Pissypants has been playing army for too long now. He has killed too many innocent people He must be stopped.

Peace.

[sabra]

5. hey we both thought of the same thing

great minds think alike? :-)

[fooj]

7. You betcha.

:toast:

[sabra]

3. Bill Maher was saying the same thing - at first half jokingly

and now it total seriousness..

[Mythsaje]

4. I've noticed that a lot of these folks

ARE really good people. Not all, perhaps, but I've found that I like patronizing the small stores run by "swarthy foreigners." ;)

I feel for him and his family. They didn't deserve this, even if Saddam did deserve to be ousted.

[Sammy Pepys]

6. Why did he think it was a good thing...

...if having Saddam back in power would stop all the violence?

[maveric]

9. His "Strongman" image and the fear Iraqis have toward him.

Unfortunately this may be a better solution to the problem than what the US military is doing.
He feels that under UN scrutiny Saddam would play nice/r and scare off the insurgents.
Do you think that Iraq/Iraqis is/are better off now than before?

[Sammy Pepys]

10. I don't think they're better off now, but....

...I don't think they'd be any better off with him still in power, either. The guy was a brutal thug dictator.

[maveric]

12. Its a case of the lesser of two evils. There would be less resistence with

Saddam back at the helm, IMHO.
Just keep a UN monitoring force in place to keep an eye on him.
Whats happening now is NOT working for the Iraqi populace.

[Sammy Pepys]

16. Yeah, but that's because they'd be more afraid of him, right?

What happened to Iraqi dissidents when Saddam was in power?

[maveric]

18. I know. There is no good solution. Its the lesser of two evils.

Which is sad but may be the best solution to this mess. I feel that less people, both US soldiers and Iraqi citizens would die with a Saddam rule, under UN scrutiny, with a UN peacekeeping force in place.

How would you handle it? The rate its going now the US military will be in Iraq for years to come. Plus with the possibility of civil war, it will be even more of a bloodbath than it is right now.

[Sammy Pepys]

19. Look, I've got no love for Bush....

...but trying to find positive things about Saddam is just a little bit too hinky for me. It's also real easy for us to say they'd be better off with Saddam in power because we wouldn't have to live under his rule in Iraq.

[JuniperLea]

22. That's not the point

Living Iraqis are better than dead Iraqis... and there would be a heck of a lot more living now if Bush hadn't invaded.


The correct way to go about ousting Hussein was drawn up by Clinton in the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, in short, planned for talks between all the Iraqi factions, getting an agreement in place and then helping the Iraqi people oust Saddam... and there would already be an Iraqi official to take over. Bush went about it ass backwards, as usual.

Saddam whould not have killed over 100,000 people during the same time period that we've been there. The UN was all up in his business and he was minding his p's and q's. To think that the Iraqi people would not be better off with an infrastructure in place and all of their family intact is more than "a little bit too hinky for me", it's sick, imho.

[atreides1]

13. Saddam was a open book compared to Bush

At least with Saddam you knew what you were getting, unlike Bush.

[Sammy Pepys]

17. Yeah, so that makes it OK....n/t

......

[JuniperLea]

23. Yes. Yes, it does.

We knew every move Saddam was making, unlike the bovine excrement now residing in the White House.

Saddam was adhering to all sanctions. There was plenty of time to go about this the right way. Bush ignored all of that.

Yes, Iraq would have been better off with Saddam Hussein in charge... there was no imminent threat. There was plenty of time to do this right.

[The_Casual_Observer]

14. Guess what? Many countries in this world are operated by "brutal thug"

dictators, or worse. Are you all set to go and get'em too?

[Bridget Burke]

24. Many Brutal Thug Dictators are not sitting on a pool of oil...

So they can continue doing what they do...

Especially if they can supply cheap sweatshop labor.

[JuniperLea]

15. He hadn't done anything like that in years

And he was under compliance placed on him by the UN. He was not a threat to himself or his people at the point the US attacked him.

There were far better ways of getting rid of him. This war is not one of them.

Clinton had the right idea... look up The Iraqi Liberation Act of 199... hmm... 1997 or 1998. Anyway, it was brilliant... and it was ignored by the current administration.



I disagree... they would be far better off if Saddam was still in power and under UN surveilance. Being alive is better off. Having proper water and sewage is better off. Being able to walk down the street and not fear for your life is better off.


I'd much rather have seen Saddam still in power than the supreme idiot Bush. It's a no brainer, imho.

[bluerum]

8. He may be right - but that will never happen. He will not even

consider letting innocent prisioners out of Guantanomo.

[JuniperLea]

11. It makes sense

Most of the so-called "insurgents" are actually Saddam's army. They are carrying on and trying to protect their country. Regardless of how you feel about Saddam or all the things he has done, he was in compliance, was not a threat to the US, there was no clear and present danger and this war is illegal.

No matter how many excuses BushCo makes, there was no justification for this war.

And there is no justification for a president and his men not being able to tell the difference between good intelligence and bad.

[npincus]

20. would Saddam even want it anymore?

[maveric]

21. Sure he would. If given the option of that and jail...

He's a power hungry authoritarian by nature. Its what he does.