If Saddam Had Stayed

[I Ratant]

4400+ Americans would still be alive.

.
And maybe a million Iraqis and Afghanis... Saddam would have killed other Iraqis, but not the vast number the invasion has, through its removing any strictures on sectarian murder, which Saddam held in check, being an equal-opportunity oppressor watching the bucks, and not who prays in which mosque or celebrates which holy day.

 

[I Ratant]

One of the questions I would ask is, "Will Iraq be on friendly terms with us in ten years, and would it be different if Saddam were in power?" Because I see Iraq dissolving into secular warfare and blaming the US for upsetting the balance. I could be wrong, but I don't think there are too many people in Iraq who love the US. Another strongman will emerge. He will make big points by stirring up hatred against the west. We'll be where we were seven years ago.

.
That procedure goes back much further than that.
The strong man will show up.
Always has.

 

[I Ratant]

I do. It's the sole reason I voted for him in the primaries over Hillary.

I could be wrong of course ... however, I certainly don't recall candidate Obama talking about pursuing Bush's Iraq War strategy ...

.
Check old Hannity tapes.
He has Obie taking credit for Bush's increased taxes.
Why not follow the .... strategy? Bush had no "strategy", just stupidity.. of the Shrub.

 

[I Ratant]

Yes the dislike of Saddam by Bin Laden is well reported. At best Saddam was agnostic possibly even an athiest. At one point when his popularity was dipping he began indulging in many Islamic observance...

.
He was pawing those beads and moving the mouth quite fervently at the hanging.
Lapsed atheist.

 

[I Ratant]

If nothing else, you have to admire his tenacity.

.
No you don't.
Slap him on the nose with a folded newspaper, and say "Bad BAC! Bad, bad!"
Those text walls are just as irritating as piddling on the rug... and actually not a bit different.

 

[FireGarden]

Sorry, FG, but I'm still curious what you meant by the sentence "Some of them actually want to keep America safe"?

I mean they aren't going to ignore threats or pretend they don't exist.

Your posts are contradictory. On the one hand, Saddam was dangerous so had to be taken out. On the other -- it turns out he wasn't all that dangerous. You've even described that as a stroke of luck, such as:

You realize that unlike Iraq in 2003 (fortunately), Syria does have WMD and the means to deliver it over long distances.

And now you say that it turns out he didn't even really have much capability in 1991.

And a CIA report in 1991 indicated that while Iraq might have chemical warheads for missiles, it had not mastered the fuse technology needed to properly detonate them. And as things turned out, all in all, Iraq fired only about 90 Scud missiles during the war, all of which turned out to be conventionally armed. After the war, there was no clear evidence that any chemical or biologically armed missile had even been available at the time.

Which disagrees with all the rhetoric which justified the 2003 war.

We haven't even got to asking why Saddam would send WMDs to Syria when he had no friendly relations with Syria and certainly couldn't rely upon them to come to his aid. Why not keep the weapons close to hand and try to use them?

And Syria has continued to expand it's arsenal since, with not only locally developed missile technology, but missiles from North Korea, Russia and now Iran. In fact, western intelligence agencies have assessed that Syria has now deployed 1000 Scud C and D missiles in the Bekaa Valley alone. And you think there is no difference between that threat and the one we faced back in 1991? Really?

So, basically, your argument is that America does not wage war upon those that can do America harm.

Perhaps he didn't want to have to pay out more compensation because of another mistake? Repeat Clinton's mistake … both at the aspirin factory and in Afghanistan in a single bombing?

Yeah, Bush is real careful with money. He always checks his target, and makes sure that when he claims there is WMD, then there really is WMD. That was sarcasm, btw.

Perhaps he hoped to catch them by surprise? If we didn't, perhaps that's because of the long delay in getting the war underway and the failure of Turkey to allow a front early in the conflict?

He wanted to catch Zarqawi by surprise? And that is why he didn't send Hans Blix to check out a chemical weapon factory. That is so dumb.

 

[willhaven]

.
And maybe a million Iraqis and Afghanis... Saddam would have killed other Iraqis, but not the vast number the invasion has, through its removing any strictures on sectarian murder, which Saddam held in check, being an equal-opportunity oppressor watching the bucks, and not who prays in which mosque or celebrates which holy day.

I don't usually bother citing civilian casualties. Those in favor of the war only worry about civilian casualties when viewed through the lens of using this war of choice to valiantly protect them. When you point out that the cure may be worse than the disease, then civilian casualties caused by Saddam are their rationale. When you point out that our actions have directly or indirectly caused Iraqi civilian casualties, the hand waving begins.

One can argue civilians killed by Saddam VS civilians killed by US or by insurgents unleashed by a power vacuum, but one can't really argue that thousands of US soldiers would likely be alive if we hadn't invaded in the first place.

 

[JihadJane]

.

One can argue civilians killed by Saddam VS civilians killed by US or by insurgents unleashed by a power vacuum, but one can't really argue that thousands of US soldiers would likely be alive if we hadn't invaded in the first place.

Maybe, or maybe the US would have invaded somewhere else. It appears to need to be permanently at war with someone or other.

 

[I Ratant]

I don't usually bother citing civilian casualties. Those in favor of the war only worry about civilian casualties when viewed through the lens of using this war of choice to valiantly protect them. When you point out that the cure may be worse than the disease, then civilian casualties caused by Saddam are their rationale. When you point out that our actions have directly or indirectly caused Iraqi civilian casualties, the hand waving begins.

One can argue civilians killed by Saddam VS civilians killed by US or by insurgents unleashed by a power vacuum, but one can't really argue that thousands of US soldiers would likely be alive if we hadn't invaded in the first place.

.
Yes our dead troops would be alive, our traumatized troops would be sane...
We've lost so much for so little in return.
That other Iraqis would now be dead at the hands of their neighbors, well, that's death in the Stone Age countries. That's what they do and will continue to do once we leave.

 

[Virus]

We killed tens of thousands of Islamofascist terrorists. They have taken devastating losses. We are at war with Islamofascists and they flocked to Iraq to die in droves for no return. This is not only a great strategic victory but a moral victory. Kicking Al-Qaeda's ass on their own turf, in front of fellow Muslims.

Almost all the fatalities were caused by terrorists. They bear responsibility. Saddam killed on average 138* people a day. That means 400,000 people would have died at the hands of the regime if it were still in power. That assumes he kept his murder at the same rate. There were signs of major psychotic meltdowns with 200 women publicly beheaded in 2000. Then his deranged sons would be filling them up after Saddam died. Iraq was a rouge state and headed towards a failed one. Thanks to intervention, Iraqis have elections, they have their oil back they have the possibility of a future they would never have under Saddam.

* http://216.69.151.141/blog/?p=170.

 

[leftysergeant]

We killed tens of thousands of Islamofascist terrorists. They have taken devastating losses. We are at war with Islamofascists and they flocked to Iraq to die in droves for no return. This is not only a great strategic victory but a moral victory. Kicking Al-Qaeda's ass on their own turf, in front of fellow Muslims.

"Islamofascists?" Do you get your talking points from the Rushblob?

How do you figure that we have a right to throw garbage in someone else's yard and then claim credit for controlling vermin because we shoot the rats it attracts? We would have had all the terrorists we could ever hope to shoot flocking to Afghanistan to put their fingers in the meat grinder if we had had a Commander in Chief and a Secretary of Defense who had a freaking clue.

Almost all the fatalities were caused by terrorists. They bear responsibility. Saddam killed on average 138* people a day.

The quality of intelligence that we have at our disposal makes this entirely questionable. I think it fair to say that some portion of the people he did kill would have been terrorists as well. He was bent on making Iraq a modern state and thus had no use for Wahbis and fanatical Shiites whose main goal in life was to oppress one another.

Thanks to intervention, Iraqis have elections, they have their oil back they have the possibility of a future they would never have under Saddam.

Are you sure about that part about their having their oil back? Some of the contracts they have announced do not look that favorable to Iraq.

Basicly, what we did was to achieve the goal that Iran had in 1980 of promoting self-determination of the Shiite population of Iraq.

 

[Virus]

"Islamofascists?" Do you get your talking points from the Rushblob?

It's what they are. It's what I call 'em.

How do you figure that we have a right to throw garbage in someone else's yard and then claim credit for controlling vermin because we shoot the rats it attracts?

We didn't throw garbage into Iraq. But we got rid of a lot. Saddam Hussein. His idiot sons. The brain-****ed idiots that followed him.

We would have had all the terrorists we could ever hope to shoot flocking to Afghanistan to put their fingers in the meat grinder if we had had a Commander in Chief and a Secretary of Defense who had a freaking clue.

Region needed more transformation that just getting rid of the Taliban. It was as good a time as any to transition Iraq into a democratic republic, which was US policy at the time.

The quality of intelligence that we have at our disposal makes this entirely questionable.

OK how many did Saddam kill?

I think it fair to say that some portion of the people he did kill would have been terrorists as well.

Why's that "fair to say"?

He was bent on making Iraq a modern state

Didn't look too modern. Looked more like a totalitarian ****-hole to me. He was the #2 mass-murderer alive at the time with multiple counts of genocide. We're still finding more and more mass graves. So much for your half-baked "modern state" claim.

and thus had no use for Wahbis and fanatical Shiites whose main goal in life was to oppress one another.

He had no "use" to set fire to the Kuwaiti oil rigs but he did it anyway. He had no "use" to let all the rapists and murderers out of jail on his birthday. He had no "use" for any of the **** he did but he did it to because he was a little Kurd-gassing, head-chopping, rape-room running cuckoo clock.

Are you sure about that part about their having their oil back? Some of the contracts they have announced do not look that favorable to Iraq.

I'm sure. They have been brokering very favorable contracts.

Basicly, what we did was to achieve the goal that Iran had in 1980 of promoting self-determination of the Shiite population of Iraq.

You mean exporting Khomeini's clerical fascist revolution?

 

[leftysergeant]

It's what they are. It's what I call 'em.

It 9is an emotionally-charged word invented by emotionally-crippled nutbars in the rightwing media. I think I first heard it from the pigman himself.

We didn't throw garbage into Iraq. But we got rid of a lot. Saddam Hussein. His idiot sons. The brain-****ed idiots that followed him.

It was meant as a simile. We did, after all, try to install Chalabi and hisd fraudulent Iraqi National Congress as our Quisling.

Region needed more transformation that just getting rid of the Taliban. It was as good a time as any to transition Iraq into a democratic republic, which was US policy at the time.

Too bad. We didn't have the money, or the authority, or leaders fit to take on the task. And what Oil Boy and his merry morons tried to install there was just the bastard child of democracy as seen throught the eyes of Freidman-worshipping dirtbags from PNAC.

OK how many did Saddam kill?

We will never know, because the intel was not reliable.

Why's that "fair to say"?

Are you really that ignorant of the history of Iraq?

Didn't look too modern. Looked more like a totalitarian ****-hole to me.

You could say the same about the Soviet Union, but if you say it would have been better to let the Third Reich win WWII, I have a really nasty name for you.

He had no "use" to set fire to the Kuwaiti oil rigs but he did it anyway.

It achieved his primary purpose in invading. Kuwait was stealing his oil.

He had no "use" to let all the rapists and murderers out of jail on his birthday.

I'm nmot familiar enough with the circumstances there to comment. Where can I get better background. Kind of hard to google that and not find mostly garbafe rightwinger sites.

He had no "use" for any of the **** he did but he did it to because he was a little Kurd-gassing, head-chopping, rape-room running cuckoo clock.

And the merry morons who planned the invasion let the private contractors re-open the rape rooms under new management. Freaking brilliant.

I'm sure. They have been brokering very favorable contracts.

Why do they even have to contract it out? They could very well nationalize it. Didn't they operate it as a national resouyrce before the invasion?

You mean exporting Khomeini's clerical fascist revolution?

You're abusing the word "fascist" again. The Khomeini revolution was only a success because the people were aware of being oppressed. It turned anti-US because the peoplel realized that we had installed and were maintaining their oppressor.
If what we installed in Iraq goes sour, people will blame us because we stuck them with it.

The election of Ahmedinjad proves that our invasion of Iraq in no way weakened the grip of the religious whackjobs on Iranian society.

Do learn how these things work.

 

[BenBurch]

OK, BAC, riddle me this; Where are the WMDs that Bush administration officials SWORE were there? Other than a very few ancient, rusting, unusable gas shells from the Iran/Iraq war, were any unconventional munitions found AT ALL?

 

[BenBurch]

We killed tens of thousands of Islamofascist terrorists. They have taken devastating losses. We are at war with Islamofascists and they flocked to Iraq to die in droves for no return. This is not only a great strategic victory but a moral victory. Kicking Al-Qaeda's ass on their own turf, in front of fellow Muslims.

Almost all the fatalities were caused by terrorists. They bear responsibility. Saddam killed on average 138* people a day. That means 400,000 people would have died at the hands of the regime if it were still in power. That assumes he kept his murder at the same rate. There were signs of major psychotic meltdowns with 200 women publicly beheaded in 2000. Then his deranged sons would be filling them up after Saddam died. Iraq was a rouge state and headed towards a failed one. Thanks to intervention, Iraqis have elections, they have their oil back they have the possibility of a future they would never have under Saddam.

* http://216.69.151.141/blog/?p=170.

Were any of those people radicalized terrorists before we made war on them?

Can you prove that?

 

[BeAChooser]

OK, BAC, riddle me this; Where are the WMDs that Bush administration officials SWORE were there? Other than a very few ancient, rusting, unusable gas shells from the Iran/Iraq war, were any unconventional munitions found AT ALL?

Apparently you haven't bothered to read this thread. You just figure you can jump into the middle of it and make us repeat everything posted so far. Well I'm not going to do that. I'll just point out that I already addressed the issue of where Iraq's WMD may have gone using NUMEROUS sources, and also noted the discover of a still-viable binary sarin shell that was anything but ancient, rusting and unusable. In fact, as the ISG stated, it contained 4 to 5 liters of 40% sarin which according to experts (again, sourced) would be enough to kill thousands of people if properly dispersed. The ISG said it's discover opened up the question of whether Iraq had more and in the end the ISG admitted they couldn't rule out that WMD went to Syria. Read the thread.

 

[BeAChooser]

Were any of those people radicalized terrorists before we made war on them?

Didn't you read the news at the time?

We invaded Afghanistan in part because al-Qaeda ran camps there where perhaps tens of thousands (according to some sources like http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,449990,00.html and http://articles.latimes.com/2002/sep/15/nation/na-terror15 ) of would be terrorists learned and honed their murderous skills. A lot of those came to Iraq after the invasion. Iraq was fly paper.

Iraq had multiple terrorist training camps in operation before we made war on them. Long before. In fact,

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp

04/03/2006,

... snip ...

"There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went there," said Murtha. "None. There was no connection with al Qaeda, there was no connection with, with terrorism in Iraq itself." This is now the conventional wisdom on Iraq and terrorism. It is wrong.

A new study from the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, paints quite a different picture. According to captured documents cited in the study and first reported in THE WEEKLY STANDARD in January, the former Iraqi regime was training non-Iraqi Arabs in terrorist techniques.

"Beginning in 1994, the Fedayeen Saddam opened its own paramilitary training camps for volunteers, graduating more than 7,200 "good men racing full with courage and enthusiasm" in the first year. Beginning in 1998, these camps began hosting "Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, 'the Gulf,' and Syria." It is not clear from available evidence where all of these non-Iraqi volunteers who were "sacrificing for the cause" went to ply their newfound skills. Before the summer of 2002, most volunteers went home upon the completion of training. But these camps were humming with frenzied activity in the months immediately prior to the war. As late as January 2003, the volunteers participated in a special training event called the "Heroes Attack." This training event was designed in part to prepare regional Fedayeen Saddam commands to "obstruct the enemy from achieving his goal and to support keeping peace and stability in the province.""

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

in 1998, Iraq began training 2,000 Arab Islamic terrorists a year and that this training continued through 2002. ... snip ... As a U.S. intelligence official explained to this author, the United States has interrogated the Iraqis who trained the foreign terrorists and has their accounts of that training, along with material like group pictures of the graduating classes.

Centcom spokesman General Vincent Brooks said (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/06/se.01.html) on April 6, 2003:

There was a raid last night by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. What they raided was a training camp near Salman Pak....This raid occurred in response to information that had been gained by coalition forces from some foreign fighters we encountered from other countries, not Iraq. And we believe that this camp had been used to train these foreign fighters in terror tactics.... [T]hat's just one of a number of examples we've found where there is training activity happening inside of Iraq. It reinforces the likelihood of links between his regime and external terrorist organizations, clear links with common interests. Some of these fighters came from Sudan, some from Egypt, and some from other places, and we've killed a number of them and we've captured a number of them.

Finally, in all likelihood even if we hadn't invaded Iraq in 2003, the presence of terrorists in Iraq would have continued to grow exponentially. Especially if we'd focused on Aghanistan and Pakistan to such an extent that life became unbearable for them there. They were already establishing camps and a network in Iraq by the time we invaded. That activity would surely have grown regardless of an invasion.

 

[Virus]

Were any of those people radicalized terrorists before we made war on them?

Can you prove that?

Al-Qaeda.

Stupid question really.

 

[BenBurch]

Al-Qaeda.

Stupid question really.

Which had approximately ZERO Iraqi members. We are killing recruits who joined since we started this.

 

[Virus]

Fedayeen Saddam.