[BurlyShirley]

Just curious what the consensus is on this, or rather, if there is one. Looking at the mess now, it seems like it was very ill-planned, but do you agree that it was the right move?
I go to school with alot of Iraqis (Kurds mostly) and Ive asked many of them their opinion, and I havent heard one yet say that Saddam should still be in charge, although many have been critical of the US admin and its campaign in other areas.

What say you?

 

[H8R]

One right move done in the wrong way followed by countless wrong moves.

 

[MMike]

Ends justify the means? Mmmmmm....I dunno...

655000 dead?

How many jews did Hilter gas?

 

[BurlyShirley]

One right move done in the wrong way followed by countless wrong moves.

So you voted "Right" then?

 

[urbaindk]

I think our time and money would have been better spent if we had left Saddam in place (at least for the short term) and focused our efforts on Afghanistan. It's my opinion that he was such an egomanical dictator he would not have allowed al qaeda or anybody else to operate with in his borders allowing us some time to clean up else where first.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Ends justify the means? Mmmmmm....I dunno...

655000 dead?

How many jews did Hilter gas?

Depends on who you beleive, just like your 655000 number.

 

[Transcend]

Right in the sense that sadaam was a total douche, wrong in that the US had no authority or reason to go in and get it.

That'd be like saying Russia doesn't like bush, so they should just bomb the **** out of the US with tactical nukes, and remove him from power.

It could probably have been done in a much more discreet manner, and then he'd be out, some new puppet leader would be in place, and the violence would possibly be much lower. The biggest thing woudl have been to leave the infrastructure intact.

 

[dante]

I voted "not worth the cost".

 

[H8R]

So you voted "Right" then?

Yes. I think it was the right thing to do, and if the poll only has two choices...

Now if we can just get someone to violently remove OUR leader everything will be peachy.

 

[MMike]

Depends on who you beleive, just like your 655000 number.

"Supposedly" they have death certificates to back up the numbers...

 

[BurlyShirley]

...something just occured to me. I havent heard any news about Saddam's trial. Why taking so long?

 

[Westy]

I don't think removing him in a different way would have prevented some kind of anarchy. Saddam was the glue that held that country together, without him the Shiites and Sunnis would have fought no matter what. This was what all the "experts" were saying was the biggest risk when we entered it. I'm sure there are a lot of Iraqis whe are glad he is gone but does that justify our actions? There are a lot of ****ty leaders in Africa doing the same things and we just ignore it.

So the question as stated whether it was right to remove Saddam is a little narrow in scope so I will answer as if the question were should we have moved into Iraq and I say no.

 

[MMike]

...but as for good or bad, I think it ended up being kind of a lateral move. Just a different brand of hell.

 

[H8R]

How many jews did Hilter gas?

Who the fvck is Hilter?

 

[RenegadeRick]

funny that there are more posts than votes.

I went with wrong, because it was none of our business in the first place.

 

[Transcend]

I went with wrong, because it was none of our business in the first place.

See with that I disagree, that's like saying Darfur isn't anyone else's business either. A crisis is a crisis. A dictator murdering, gassing and torturing is a problem. In this case however, it was the only way to keep the 3 faction sin his country from going toe to toe.

 

[MMike]

Who the fvck is Hilter?

http://www.pythonland.com/episode12.php
http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Scripts/TheNorthMineheadBye-election

 

[BurlyShirley]

Those voting "no" are you doing so because of # of deaths that saddam has caused vs. what US forces/insurgents have caused? Or, Are you voting "no" because you dont feel the US actually has genuine intentions for what its doing? Or Both?

Those voting "yes" do you feel that the # of deaths at any point will outweigh the benefits of removing saddam?

 

[urbaindk]

In principle I think it's right to remove Sadam. I voted 'no' because I think we should have focused in Afghanistan first. (I guess I already said that above). 'Yes, with the following contengencies...' wasn't a poll option.

 

[Slugman]

I voted NO becasue Saddam had done nothing against anyone when we invaded. No WMD, no ties to Al Q, and no aggression towards anyone.

Had Bush Sr. done it while he had the chance, then it would have been justified. But for shrub to go do it, and then set up his puppet administration - that was an illegal invasion by the USA and gave Al Q some great recruitment material.

 

[dante]

Those voting "no" are you doing so because of # of deaths that saddam has caused vs. what US forces/insurgents have caused? Or, Are you voting "no" because you dont feel the US actually has genuine intentions for what its doing? Or Both?

I voted no because we went in with false pretenses, and the side benefit of removing a horrible dictator was not worth the deaths (both iraqi and US) nor the resulting destabilization of the region, nor the ill will felt by the rest of the world, nor the resulting terrorists sympathy that it has caused.

Pro - Removed horrible dictator
Con - Destabilized region, increased sympathy for Islamo-facists, increased hatred of the US, raised the cost of oil, hindered our efforts to deal with Iran and NK, cost at least $200b (more?), 2700 dead, 30,000 wounded, countless Iraqis dead or wounded, ummmmm...

so yeah, good deed, not worth the cost.

 

[urbaindk]

Had Bush Sr. done it while he had the chance, .

I think that's the real failure here. if you are going to blame anybody about this mess, blame el Senior. Not that it does anybody lick of good now.

At this point I don't really see what we can do other than build a big fence around the whole place and let them fight it out amongst themselves.

 

[Inclag]

There are a lot of ****ty leaders in Africa doing the same things and we just ignore it.

Well, they are black.... (sorry can of worms)

 

[Jeremy R]

Well, they are black.... (sorry can of worms)

No, they are poor.
When Darfur strikes oil we will provide them freedom.

 

[Silver]

Neither.

 

[Transcend]

I voted NO becasue Saddam had done nothing against anyone when we invaded. No WMD, no ties to Al Q, and no aggression towards anyone.

Had Bush Sr. done it while he had the chance, then it would have been justified. But for shrub to go do it, and then set up his puppet administration - that was an illegal invasion by the USA and gave Al Q some great recruitment material.

Bush Senior had no right to do anything more than what he did. He completed a mission given to them by the UN security council, to oust Saddam from Kuwait. They did their job perfectly and completed the mission given to them.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Bush Senior had no right to do anything more than what he did. He completed a mission given to them by the UN security council, to oust Saddam from Kuwait. They did their job perfectly and completed the mission given to them.

LOL!!

 

[LOOnatic]

No, they are poor.
When Darfur strikes oil we will provide them freedom.

Oh good call

 

[Westy]

Those voting "no" are you doing so because of # of deaths that saddam has caused vs. what US forces/insurgents have caused? Or, Are you voting "no" because you dont feel the US actually has genuine intentions for what its doing? Or Both?

Those voting "yes" do you feel that the # of deaths at any point will outweigh the benefits of removing saddam?

When you say "false pretense" could you lets us know which false pretense you are referring to. There were the pre-war false pretenses, the "whoops no WMD's but.." then the remanufactured pretenses that were thrown up after the whole thing became a debacle.

I voted no because that was what my beleifs were before it all happened. At the time I didn't really believe in the WMD excuse nor the 911 Terrorist link, Bush talked about invading Iraq before 911.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Those voting "no" are you doing so because of # of deaths that saddam has caused vs. what US forces/insurgents have caused? Or, Are you voting "no" because you dont feel the US actually has genuine intentions for what its doing? Or Both?

Those voting "yes" do you feel that the # of deaths at any point will outweigh the benefits of removing saddam?

Wrong, because god didn't actually tell him to do it.

OK, I'm just kidding there.

The ends don't justify the means. We squandered world opinion, we sunk billions of dollars, we've killed countless people, we took our focus off Afghanistan and Al Qaeda (the group that actually attacked us) and all for what? To depose someone who probably isn't the worst dictator on the planet?

 

[ohio]

The ends don't justify the means. We squandered world opinion, we sunk billions of dollars, we've killed countless people, we took our focus off Afghanistan and Al Qaeda (the group that actually attacked us) and all for what? To depose someone who probably isn't the worst dictator on the planet?

That statement assumes there is an "ends."

 

[RenegadeRick]

See with that I disagree, that's like saying Darfur isn't anyone else's business either. A crisis is a crisis. A dictator murdering, gassing and torturing is a problem. In this case however, it was the only way to keep the 3 faction sin his country from going toe to toe.

So to end the murdering, gassing, and torturing, we invaded another country and began murdering and torturing the Iraqis ourselves?
Maybe we didn't use gas, but we did use napalm and white phosphorous.
Please explain what the funk is the difference.

 

[Transcend]

So to end the murdering, gassing, and torturing, we invaded another country and began murdering and torturing the Iraqis ourselves?
Maybe we didn't use gas, but we did use napalm and white phosphorous.
Please explain what the funk is the difference.

If you had read the entire thread, you would have noticed how I said that the methods used were not kosher.

 

[dante]

When you say "false pretense" could you lets us know which false pretense you are referring to. There were the pre-war false pretenses, the "whoops no WMD's but.." then the remanufactured pretenses that were thrown up after the whole thing became a debacle.

I voted no because that was what my beleifs were before it all happened. At the time I didn't really believe in the WMD excuse nor the 911 Terrorist link, Bush talked about invading Iraq before 911.

false pretenses - 9/11 link and WMDs. regardless as to whether they "lied" or not, the reasons for going to war weren't true.

 

[sanjuro]

So to end the murdering, gassing, and torturing, we invaded another country and began murdering and torturing the Iraqis ourselves?
Maybe we didn't use gas, but we did use napalm and white phosphorous.
Please explain what the funk is the difference.

I am against the war, so obviously the problems in Iraq pain me beyond measure.

It was not like Saddam's Iraq was paradise. We didn't hear about his "reign of terror" over his own people, but ask any Kurd about Saddam.

But considering America has backed plenty of dictatorships, it seems peculiar that we invaded this one.

 

[Slugman]

Bush Senior had no right to do anything more than what he did. He completed a mission given to them by the UN security council, to oust Saddam from Kuwait. They did their job perfectly and completed the mission given to them.

It was my understanding that we had the RIGHT to go into Baghdad if we chose.

We definitely did not just go to Kuwait and oust him from there - we continued up into Iraqi soil and then stopped because the military advisors told Sr. that going into Baghdad would be a bad idea.

We had troops in northern and southern Iraq, plus we were bombing Baghdad - so why was Baghdad off limit?

 

[jimmydean]

I don't feel he was a threat when we did it. I also thought (my own fault) that there WAS a connection with 9/11, so I agreed with going in thw with plan that was in place.

I don't agree with "stay the course" and I think the cost in $$$ and lives on both sides are way too great of a price.

 

[N8 v2.0]

We needed a military stronghold in the Middle East to protect our interests and since our good buddies, the Saudis, kicked us out of their country, Iraq fit the bill.

Once the terrorists see we ain't leaving and that their cause is totally unsupported by the citizens of Iraq, things will calm down and we can do what needs to be done.

 

[MMike]

We needed a military stronghold in the Middle East to protect our interests and since our good buddies, the Saudis, kicked us out of their country, Iraq fit the bill.

Once the terrorists see we ain't leaving and that their cause is totally unsupported by the citizens of Iraq, things will calm down and we can do what needs to be done.

Whatever lets you sleep at night......

 

[RenegadeRick]

If you had read the entire thread, you would have noticed how I said that the methods used were not kosher.

I know. I was being a troll.

I'm hoping someone will step up and explain why our murder and torture is better for the Iraqis than Saddam's was.