Saddam Hussein would still be in power

[Marginal]

Why did we attack Germany in WWII? They never attacked us. Japan was the one who spilt our people's blood. Why did we bother to help Britain liberate Europe from Hitler?

On a different note, why didn't Britain and France stop Germany after he took over Poland or even before then? Why can't we and other countries help other countries in need?

Please. What happened would be the WWII equivalent of Japan bombing Pearl Harbor so we focus our resources on an invasion of Italy because Benito's a "bad man". Was Saddam voraciously taking one country after the next? Well, no. He attempted to invade Kuwait, and was beaten back in short order. He was then sealed in his country and left with no real capacity to make war again.

Anyway, my point is: it is our job as a superpower to support democracy and human rights and to stop others who violate them. What is wrong with helping those who are oppressed or in need?

What happened to stopping those nasty terrorists? For that matter, who are we helping? Afghanistan seems to be completely forgotten now, and it's a mess.

Ah right. They don't matter anymore. We're bringing light to the dark, dark world now because the Allmighty told Bush to do so.

 

[michaeledward]

Why did we attack Germany in WWII? They never attacked us. Japan was the one who spilt our people's blood. Why did we bother to help Britain liberate Europe from Hitler?

On a different note, why didn't Britain and France stop Germany after he took over Poland or even before then? Why can't we and other countries help other countries in need?

Anyway, my point is: it is our job as a superpower to support democracy and human rights and to stop others who violate them. What is wrong with helping those who are oppressed or in need?

The world is a better place without Saddam in power. Michaeledward, how can you even compare George Bush to someone like Saddam? Disliking a president is a TOTALLY different matter than not disliking a Stalin-like dictator.


Upnorthkyosa, you might be right. Maybe we did ignore Saddam when he was at his worse. Does that give any reason why we shouldn’t care now? Where going to just let him get away with all the horrible things he did? I don't think so.

OK, this thread has drifted a bit, but concerning Germany, back in the Good Old Days of 'Declared War' (Congress's obligation); Follow along now.

United States enforces an English and Dutch oil embargo on Japan. Summer 1941
Japan attacked United States
Japan Declared War on the United States
Germany, Japan's ally, Declared War on the United States. December 11, 1941

That's why we attacked Germany in WWII.

On your second note .. Why can't we help others? This is a wonderful question. I don't know the answer, but, as a matter of policy, the United States does not send military troops into other nations for humanitarian reasons. The term 'Genocide' must be used before we will even begin discussing 'helping' others. See Colin Powell's recent use of 'Genocide' in referring to the Darfur region of Sudan. I would be willing to discuss whether we should get invovled to help out on another thread.

By the way, it is not our job to support democracies around the world, support human rights and stop those who violate them. Now, you might argue that it is our responsibility to behave so, but I think you would be in a very small minority. Also, there is a great deal of recent history in the New World you are ignoring. The United States has removed democracies from many Central and South American in favor of dictatorship that would 'properly' support American Business.

Ah, here we get to the topic of this thread.

"The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power".

I don't know about the world, but let us turn an eye toward Iraq. This morning I read two articles about Iraq that were pretty disturbing. The United States military has given over Fallujah, Samarra, Ar Ramadi and Baquba; we just gave that territory away because a) the insurgency was too effective, b) we didn't have the stomach for it.
There just might be an argument that, in these Iraqi cities at least, things were better when Saddam Hussein was in power.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5973272/site/newsweek/

Kane, please pay very important attention to this next part.

I did not compare Saddam Hussein to George Bush.​

You said:

I can't believe you would want him (Saddam Hussein) to still be in power.

We were discussing 'wants'. I said, what I "want" is irrelevant. I have lots of wants. Wanting something does not make it so. To make a 'want' a 'reality' takes action and money. Concerning George Bush, rest assured, I will take action against him in November. That is a want I would support taking action for.

I said, the cost to remove Saddam Hussein has been too high. When I balance my 'want' against the 'action' and 'cost', I can not square them on the balance sheet.

Again, if you want to compare and contrast George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein, I will be happy to, on another thread.

Mike

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Why did we attack Germany in WWII? They never attacked us. Japan was the one who spilt our people's blood. Why did we bother to help Britain liberate Europe from Hitler?

As Michael said, they declared war on US. We invaded so as to whip him.

On a different note, why didn't Britain and France stop Germany after he took over Poland or even before then?

Read.

On September 3, 1939, the Allies (France and Germany) declared war against National Socialist Germany. The declaration did not--and could not-- save Poland. Lodz was about to fall, and Krakow fell on September 6. The fort at Danzig fell on September 7, after a week of direct fire from German battleships. On the 17th of September Russia invaded Poland from the East. In a span of two weeks that country was crushed. Great Britain and France had no time to save anything...hence the name "Blitzkrieg" or "Lighting War."

France was invaded the following May 13th. Within two weeks the British were cut off at Dunkirk and by June 14, 1940...one month and one day following the invasion...Paris surrendered.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make but last I checked, Saddam didn't have too much of a blitzkrieg going against us or against anyone. I believe it was the other way around.

Anyway, my point is: it is our job as a superpower to support democracy and human rights and to stop others who violate them. What is wrong with helping those who are oppressed or in need?

Cite the Constitutional reference for that, sunshine.

"Helping Iraq" was not the reason we invaded. Its a reason Bush and you have fallen back on having failed to prove a threat to our nation's security. It is a moral appeal, and a failed one at that.



Regards,


Steve

 

[Kane]

On a different note, why didn't Britain and France stop Germany after he took over Poland or even before then?

Read.

On September 3, 1939, the Allies (France and Germany) declared war against National Socialist Germany. The declaration did not--and could not-- save Poland. Lodz was about to fall, and Krakow fell on September 6. The fort at Danzig fell on September 7, after a week of direct fire from German battleships. On the 17th of September Russia invaded Poland from the East. In a span of two weeks that country was crushed. Great Britain and France had no time to save anything...hence the name "Blitzkrieg" or "Lighting War."

France was invaded the following May 13th. Within two weeks the British were cut off at Dunkirk and by June 14, 1940...one month and one day following the invasion...Paris surrendered.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make but last I checked, Saddam didn't have too much of a blitzkrieg going against us or against anyone. I believe it was the other way around.

Anyway, my point is: it is our job as a superpower to support democracy and human rights and to stop others who violate them. What is wrong with helping those who are oppressed or in need?

Cite the Constitutional reference for that, sunshine.

"Helping Iraq" was not the reason we invaded. Its a reason Bush and you have fallen back on having failed to prove a threat to our nation's security. It is a moral appeal, and a failed one at that.



Regards,


Steve

When Germany attacked Poland they still waited many months befroe attacking Germany. When it was too late.

What is wrong in helping those in need? Not only are we helping a people in need, we are destroying an ally of Al Queda. I don't see why that isn't enough to justify this war.

 

[Flatlander]

What is wrong in helping those in need? Not only are we helping a people in need, we are destroying an ally of Al Queda. I don't see why that isn't enough to justify this war.

So, based upon morals, rather than Law. If you are so morally inclined, and feel that this was a 'human' duty, I'm curious, did you enlist?

 

[qizmoduis]

When Germany attacked Poland they still waited many months befroe attacking Germany. When it was too late.

This line of "reasoning" is so irrelevant to the original topic of this thread I'll not even bother to address it.

What is wrong in helping those in need? Not only are we helping a people in need, we are destroying an ally of Al Queda. I don't see why that isn't enough to justify this war.

So we should, as a rule, use our military power to impose our will on all national governments we see as being distasteful to us? That doesn't strike me as good policy, and it certainly wasn't the justification for us going into Iraq in the first place. The justifications were that Saddam had WMDs, was selling them to terrorists, and was supporting terrorist training camps. those justifications, we now know, were based on faulty or even possibly manufactured evidence. This nonsense about liberating Iraq from an evil dictator with links to Al Qaeda is pure face-saving political garbage. What we've really done is create a seething, fermenting cesspool that is tailor made to recruit anti-US terrorists. We are in more danger from attack NOW than we were before Bush went on his anti-Saddam crusade.

As good as it makes us feel on a personal level to give a nasty dictator a good ***-kicking, it doesn't make for good policy on an international level.

 

[michaeledward]

we are destroying an ally of Al Queda. I don't see why that isn't enough to justify this war.

What part of 'There are no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda' don't you understand?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html


By the way .... please see definition of 'ally'.

1 : to unite or form a connection between : [size=-1]ASSOCIATE[/size] <allied himself with a wealthy family by marriage>
2 : to connect or form a relation between (as by likeness or compatibility) : [size=-1]RELATE[/size]

Germany declared War on the United States in WWII, as mentioned earlier, because they were an 'Ally' of Japan. Not only were there no ties between the two organizations in question, even the meetings and exploritory communications that did exist can not possibly be compared to the relationships between Germany & Japan in 1941; or amongst the countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

To make such a claim (that Iraq and al Qaeda were allies) would be like comparing President Bush to Saddam Hussein.

Good Grief - Mike

 

[hardheadjarhead]

When Germany attacked Poland they still waited many months befroe attacking Germany. When it was too late.


You're woefully ignorant of military history. They didn't attack Germany. You need to hit the books, lad. Or better, yet, read my post...it pretty much outlined it for you there.


You're also ducking the issue and the questions posed.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Tkang_TKD]

So, based upon morals, rather than Law. If you are so morally inclined, and feel that this was a 'human' duty, I'm curious, did you enlist?

That's a very good question indeed. So Kane, did you enlist, or do you plan to? Let me know. I'm sure I can find a recruiter to speak with you.

 

[Kane]

What part of 'There are no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda' don't you understand?

Didn't you read any of the sources I gave? I know some of the links didn't work, but a lot of them should have worked. Try them again and don't give up after one try.

Good grief, I don't see how you can say Saddam has no ties to Al Queda. Try the link below;

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp

Try the link below too;

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Try each link more if it doesn't work the first time.

 

[michaeledward]

Didn't you read any of the sources I gave? I know some of the links didn't work, but a lot of them should have worked. Try them again and don't give up after one try.

Good grief, I don't see how you can say Saddam has no ties to Al Queda. Try the link below;

Yes, I followed the first link ... as I said .. the weekly standard and Stephen Hayes can hardly be considered a 'reliable source'. Let's see .... Stephen Hayes ... or ... the 911 commission. Of course, why didn't I see it ... of Course Stephen Hayes must be the more credible, despite the agenda.

Kane, I know the right wing radio promote these sources all the time. But there are much better sources available. If these guys were correct, it would be just them calling out from the darkness.

Honestly, I can say that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had no ties (which, by the way, is way less than being allies) because all of the evidence provided by the United States Government says they had no ties. Yes, they did have some meetings in the mid 90's ... but those meetings did not result in a 'functional relationship'. That is what the evidence shows.

So, you can go back to arguing that we should have unseated Hussein on Humanitarian reasons now.

Thanks for participating. Mike

 

[rmcrobertson]

Beyond the fact that the "techcentral," people have long articles extolling ol' Dugout Doug himself as a beautiful example of personal commitment to a cause (you know...the Douglas Mac Arthur who ran out at Bataan, leaving General Wainwright and tens of thousands of troops to face the music without him...then exceeded his orders in Korea and got China into the war?), and their charming piece equating, "ecoterrorists," with Al Quaida and arguing that their costs should be paid out of the EPA budget, here's who these guys are:

"Tech Central Station is supported by sponsoring corporations that share our faith in technology and free markets. Smart application of technology - combined with pro free market, science-based public policy - has the ability to help us solve many of the world's problems, and so we are grateful to AT&T, Avue Technologies, The Coca-Cola Company, ExxonMobil, General Motors Corporation, Intel, McDonalds, Merck, Microsoft, Nasdaq, PhRMA, and Qualcomm for their support. All of these corporations are industry leaders that have made great strides in using technology for our betterment, and we are proud to have them as sponsors. However, the opinions expressed on these pages are solely those of the writers and not necessarily of any corporation or other organization."

But I, like, so TOTALLY believe everything they say! Totally!!

It's a right-wing uber-capitalist website, dude. What'd you THINK they'd say? Did you expect they'd back up their claims, as ignert groups like the 9/11 commission did? If you trust their sort of "evidence"--and I use the word loosely--when are we invading Iran? Saudi Arabia? North Korea? places where we have far-solider cause?

 

[Kane]

Yes, I followed the first link ... as I said .. the weekly standard and Stephen Hayes can hardly be considered a 'reliable source'. Let's see .... Stephen Hayes ... or ... the 911 commission. Of course, why didn't I see it ... of Course Stephen Hayes must be the more credible, despite the agenda.

Kane, I know the right wing radio promote these sources all the time. But there are much better sources available. If these guys were correct, it would be just them calling out from the darkness.

Honestly, I can say that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had no ties (which, by the way, is way less than being allies) because all of the evidence provided by the United States Government says they had no ties. Yes, they did have some meetings in the mid 90's ... but those meetings did not result in a 'functional relationship'. That is what the evidence shows.

So, you can go back to arguing that we should have unseated Hussein on Humanitarian reasons now.

Thanks for participating. Mike

Yes, my main reason was because of the way Saddam treated his people in the present AND the past. It doesn't mean Saddam never had ties to Al Qaeda, which I believe he did.

The commission found that there was no evidence to support the Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection to the attacks on 9-11. That was the mission they were assigned and that was all they looked into. Also, the Clinton Administratration Justice Department obviously had enough evidence of the ties betwen Iraq & Al-Qaeda, or did they lie to a Grand Jury and fabricate the evidence in order to get an indictment?

 

[bignick]

what i'd like to do is get those son of a guns that set Osama bin Laden up with all his arms and training...when i find them i'll....oh wait...it was us..oops

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Here you go, Kane...but will you read it?:

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell reversed a year of administration policy, acknowledging Thursday that he had seen no “smoking gun [or] concrete evidence” of ties between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150/

Nice little flip flop there.

I have seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime and what happened on 9/11," Powell said.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics...rror_comment_kerrys_response_would_be_robust/

[A] March 2004 Knight Ridder report that quoted administration officials conceding “there never was any evidence that Hussein’s secular police state and Osama bin Laden’s Islamic terror network were in league.”

Also:

In June 2003, the chairman of the U.N. group that monitors al Qaeda told reporters his team found no evidence linking the terrorist group to Iraq.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/



The list goes on. You list a brief mention of a link in an indictment given in a district court. Have anything a tad higher than that insofar as intel? The preponderance of evidence refutes the Al Qaeda/Saddam link, and yet you persist.

Is this an issue of faith with you? Or do you have some solid facts to counter with?



Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

Yes, my main reason was because of the way Saddam treated his people in the present AND the past. It doesn't mean Saddam never had ties to Al Qaeda, which I believe he did.

The commission found that there was no evidence to support the Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection to the attacks on 9-11. That was the mission they were assigned and that was all they looked into. Also, the Clinton Administratration Justice Department obviously had enough evidence of the ties betwen Iraq & Al-Qaeda, or did they lie to a Grand Jury and fabricate the evidence in order to get an indictment?

Excellent. Thank you Kane. Here at last is the crux of this discussion.

which I believe he did.

I can not alter your beliefs. You are entitled to believe anything you wish, with evidence or without. That's all fine. Hell, I didn't believe the Monica Lewinsky story until the blue dress showed up.

Again, you are in the minority in why you support the action in Iraq. Only after the Weapons of Mass Destruction were not found and David Kay told us we were "all wrong", did the huminitarian reasons rise to prominence in motivating the invasion.

Concerning an Indictment, Grand Juries are not required to present the other side of the argument, which is why we will hear about 'being able to indict a ham sandwich'.

Kane, again, you truly can "believe" whatever you wish (please see the threads about 'proof' of a higher power), but in this situation the preponderance of evidence is aligned contrary to your belief.

Thanks for playing - Mike

 

[bassplayer]

Nevermind that intelligence from Russia, England, and the US all said without a doubt, 'he's got 'em' - nevermind that Saddam DID actively pursue weapons grade materials and have his own chemical & biological agents - nevermind that he looked the other way where al quaeda was concerned, but had the presence of mind not to blatantly dirty his hands with that mess - nevermind the tunnels and tunneling devices that we heard about ever so briefly at the beginning of the war (what the hell happened to that, btw?) - nevermind the maneuvered border guards and all of the trucks that went into Syria just before we invaded - and nevermind the two ABSOLUTE LUNATICS that were going to be running the country once Saddam died!!! And we all think Kim is dysfunctional!!!

Oh, but of course, its ALL the president's fault. Blame it all on one man. God forbid we're proactive, causing controversy, as opposed to reactive and having the economy, and a big ET. AL., suffer as a result. God forbid we say 'enough already!' What were the UN resolutions for, anyway??? Saddam ignored them and the squeamish nations (or the ones that were contracting his oil under the table) balked at actually putting something behind their words like they have done so many times before. We enforce it to avoid a potentially significant craptastrophe in the future and people go apesh*t saying its unjustified?
I remember the president's remark about nation building before he got elected. I think we can all safely recall that a lot of things came to a head shortly after he got elected. Was it right for him to say that? Yes. Was it ok for him to change that position in light of events after that fact? I think it is justifiable.

And the bit about people thinking we're going after his oil...please, we're not conquerors taking over a country and pillaging its resources here! Realistically, its not going to be THAT long before oil is obsolete, anyway. Technology is a good thing!

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Nevermind that intelligence from Russia, England, and the US all said without a doubt, 'he's got 'em' - nevermind that Saddam DID actively pursue weapons grade materials and have his own chemical & biological agents -

So he did have chemical and biological weapons? Damn, sure missed THAT news report.

nevermind that he looked the other way where al quaeda was concerned, but had the presence of mind not to blatantly dirty his hands with that mess -

In other words, nevermind that Saddam didn't do anything about Al-Quaeda?

nevermind the tunnels and tunneling devices that we heard about ever so briefly at the beginning of the war (what the hell happened to that, btw?) -

Call me ignorant, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

What were the UN resolutions for, anyway??? Saddam ignored them and the squeamish nations (or the ones that were contracting his oil under the table) balked at actually putting something behind their words like they have done so many times before.

This I have to agree with, to a certain point. Hussein was refusing to cooperate with UN sanctions, and by all means, the UN should have enforced them. However, that does not mean that it falls to the US to take charge, barring any evidence that Iraq actually posed a threat to the United States.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Nevermind that intelligence from Russia, England, and the US all said without a doubt, 'he's got 'em'

Except, wait, you're wrong. This has been covered in multiple threads on this board... please read them and get back to us.

nevermind that Saddam DID actively pursue weapons grade materials and have his own chemical & biological agents

... with the help of the United States. Let's bomb Washington!

nevermind that he looked the other way where al quaeda was concerned, but had the presence of mind not to blatantly dirty his hands with that mess

So we can invade any country that didn't dirty its hands with Al-Qaeda? I say we start with England... I love their sports cars.

What were the UN resolutions for, anyway???

Again, please read the other threads on these topics and come back when you know more. To sum up:

-- Previous UN inspection regimes declared Iraq's ability to wage chemical/biological/nuclear warfare destroyed
-- Iraq was complying with UNSCOM when we invaded

It's always nice to see new voices on the Study, but it would be helpful if you brought some facts with you to the table.

We enforce it to avoid a potentially significant craptastrophe in the future and people go apesh*t saying its unjustified?

When it's not justified, yeah, we do. We're kinda anal about that.

And the bit about people thinking we're going after his oil...please, we're not conquerors taking over a country and pillaging its resources here!

Aren't we? Who gets the contracts to rebuild Iraq? Who gets the contracts to extract their oil?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Bassplayer would do well to read Christopher Hitchens' articles on "Slate," which do a pretty good job of arguing for the invasion without making claims that simply aren't remotely true.

I'd be interested to see how he explains the Administration's complete changes (there were more than one) of its story on Iraq, however. Or how we justify going after Hussein because he was a threat, before going after very much clearer threats:

1. North Korea
2. Iran
3. The guys who we KNOW aided and abetted terrorists--Saudi Arabia
4. Chechniya
5. Organized crime in the US
6. White-collar crime in the US
7. Cocaine cartels in Mexico and Colombia

...and oh yes...Osama bin Laden...remember him?