Show me ONE person on here that says Saddam should have been left in power.

For that matter, show me ONE Congressperson.

This accusation is a bald faced lie, danielost!

dictator gene

i don't have an example

but the demos keep saying we shouldn't have attacked iraq. which means that saddam should have been left in power

(Citizen)COL GeneJuly 10, 2007 07:13:06Reply #62
Rightwinger

I do not doubt that Iraqi's oppose al Qaeda. The problem is that we have allowed BOTH the internal violence between Iraqi's as well as the Foreign Terrorists to take hold in Iraq. When we removed the control exercised by Saddam, we did not have the power to STOP the internal factions from arming and organizing nor did we have the troops to prevent the foreign elements from entering Iraq and establishing operations. Now we have the worst of all worlds-- Internal fighting, Foreign Terrorists, potential conflict with countries like Turkey because of the Kurds and a government that WE ENABLED that is close to Iran and incapable of dealing with either the internal or external violence. They also refuse to make the political choices as the report clearly states. That makes it IMPOSSIBLE for our military to bring stability to Iraq. All we do is a continuous bleed of our troops and money.

The time has come to turn the future of Iraq over top the Iraqi people. If as you say the People want to save their country it may mean a period of more intense violence. The difference it will be up to them. We were WRONG to invade Iraq and then we compounded that mistake by sending less then 1/3 the troop level required to prevent the violence we see in Iraq today. Bush is the one that made those choices and is responsible for one of the worst foreign policy choices this country has ever made.

danielost

What I sad you idiot is that Saddam should have been removed by the Iraqi People. The problem that we faced is the Moslem World did not accept the U.S. invading and occupying a Moslem Country even to remove Saddam. I never said Saddam should remain in power but it was not up to the United States to remove him. Bush was warned by Armitage, Baker and Powell what would most likely happen if we invaded Iraq and what the warned has come true!

what you have said several times is that saddam should have been left in power becouse he kept the violence down.

and how did he keep the violence down he killed the ones who disagreed with him

You've pointed to one person, danielost. As he's here to defend himself I will let him do so. That's hardly an organized group of thought.

I'm sure there are people who believe that Saddam should not have been removed from power. But they're not the majority of thought, and hopefully don't occupy seats in our legislature. If they do, you would be doing us a service by pointing them out.

Danielost, attacking the war in Iraq doesn't mean supporting Saddam Hussein staying in power. Me, I like to blame the people who aided in his staying power in the first place.

Keep a sharp look out for some familiar names.

A reading from the book of Wikipedia, Chapter, Saddam Hussein:


Throughout the 1980s U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, and Central Intelligence Agency director Robert Gates worked to improve political and economic relations with Iraq. They did this in order to defeat and neutralize the Islamic fundamentalists of Iran which they perceived as an enemy at the time.[18] Despite reports of Iraq's use of chemical weapons and Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons ambitions, the U.S. still barred the export of U.S. military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a "don't ask - don't tell" basis.

In April 1984, the Iraqi Ministry of Defense purchased helicopters which were not to be "in any way configured for military use" from Bell Helicopter Textron.[20] Congressional investigations found that Saddam Hussein was being financed through U.S. entities such as the Export-Import Bank,[21] CCC and Eximbank.

The United States Embassy in other countries were also used for cargo shipments to Saddam.[23] On December 10, 1983 Donald Rumsfeld visits directly with Saddam Hussein. According to the head of the U.S interest section in Baghdad they told the Iraqi Under Secretary Mohammed al-Sahhaf that "the establishment of direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein." will be "perhaps the greatest benefit" of Donald Rumsfeld's upcoming visit to Baghdad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein

President Reagan did not know about the mass murders.

Saddam hadn't yet tried to kill all of the Kurds

but the dictator gene does know about these things.

so do the idiots in Washington.


it is the same thing with this people in America who are now believing that idiot in Iran about the holocaust. The killing of all those Jews just because they were Jews.

the generals during the war didn't know about them. if they had i believe that war would have been over a lot sooner.

President Reagan did not know about the mass murders. - Danielost

A really great book about the Reagan Administration and his propensity to delegate is The Acting President; co-authored by Bob Shieffer and Gary Paul Gates (E.P. Dutton, 1989). It unfortunately does not cover any Iraqi mischief but it does well in providing a good feel for how the Reagan Administration was run. Check it out at your local library if you've got the time.

I wish Gene would re-consider his ham-handed approach. He's doing a discredit to everyone, but, y'know, at least he's having a good time.

Right Colonel?

if you give a bat to a kid and later he starts hitting people with it.

do you not take the bat away from him.

do you not take the bat away from him. - danielost

You know what Def would do?

Instruct the child not to do that again (depending upon the intensity of the whacks) then spank the shit out of the kid (up until a certain age, of course).

Notice I didn't mention taking away the bat. Eventually, that kid's gonna' have a bat whether you like it or not.

we did this for 12 years