If only Saddam Hussein were alive and still in power

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Parche  (1000+ posts)      Wed Sep-01-10 12:22 AM
Original message
Official 'I wish Saddam still in power, we never invaded, 5000 brave US Soldiers still alive Thread

Drunken Irishman  (1000+ posts)        Wed Sep-01-10 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. No I don't wish Saddam was still in power.
 Other than that, sure! 

HysteryDiagnosis (1000+ posts)      Wed Sep-01-10 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. I heard it rumored that Christian churches were let alone in those
 days, there were more PHD's per capita in Iraq than in America and women held all sorts of positions that they have probably never held in Afghanistan. Lawyers, doctors, professors and so forth. Tell me if I am wrong.

slay (1000+ posts)      Wed Sep-01-10 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. You are 100% correct
 Iraqi's had it much much much better off under Sadamm - in general. Women could dress in jeans and t-shirts AND their oil money paid for college for everyone who wanted to go. They had running water, steady electricity, and didn't have sewage running in the streets like they do now. Oh and there were a couple hundred thousand more Iraqi's alive back then.

Sadamm was a bad dude - a dictator no less. But how else are you going to run a country full of radical religious extremists? I feel very sorry for the Iraqi's and what we did to them. If they didn't have oil we never would have ****ed with them to begin with.

 

gerenimox (59 posts)      Wed Sep-01-10 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. who cares if a few millions of muslims got genocided?
 in the christian world no one does.

Genocide?

Tansy_Gold  (1000+ posts)        Wed Sep-01-10 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
4. As difficult as it is to wish for Saddam back, maybe it would have 
 been a whole lot better.

He was, after all, contained. Most of us knew -- or were pretty damn sure -- there were no WMDs and suspected that even if there WERE, Saddam would be a fool to use them.

So I'll K&R to counter at least one of the unrecs, because I think the invasion was a mistake from the very beginning. There are a lot of bad heads of state around the world, but we don't seem to be going after them. North Korea, for example. I think there's a reason behind that saying about better the devil you know. . . . ..

Dawson Leery  (941 posts)      Wed Sep-01-10 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
5. Saddam was a little 'man' and was well contained.

Yeah. The French andRussians were going to block renewing sanctions because they and the UN were making money hand over fist. We even found brand new French SAM launchers when we went in.

USArmyParatrooper  (931 posts)      Wed Sep-01-10 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
8. I don't wish Saddam was still in power
 Prior to my first tour in Iraq I thought Saddam's brutality might have been exaggerated a bit (though I never doubted he was brutal). But from countless conversations with many Iraqis I learned Saddam and his sons were even more brutal than even the media portrayed.

I do think invading Iraq was a huge mistake, but I'm not sorry Saddam is gone. 

RandomThoughts  (1000+ posts)        Wed Sep-01-10 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. When Sadam died naturally, after a couple decades.
 His handing of power by monarchy totalitarian ways, would have caused the civil war that would have liberated Iraq, would have taken a few decades.

The US invasion was using the wrong means, when you can not use better means, do nothing till an opening occurs, a window where better ways of helping people allows for better methods to fix things.

Reality-based community.

WinkyDink  (1000+ posts)      Wed Sep-01-10 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. We killed more Iraqis, I'd bet.

No, it's what you dream about to justify your insane treason.

ipaint (1000+ posts)      Wed Sep-01-10 01:21 AM
Response to Original message
17. People have short memories
 "imagine what it must have been like for some of them. They were probably huddled in their houses- some of them- tens of thousands of them- couldn’t leave the city. They didn’t have transport or they simply didn’t have a place to go. They sat in their homes, hoping that what people said about Americans was actually true- that in spite of their huge machines and endless weapons, they were human too.

And then the rain of bombs would begin… the wooooosh of the missiles as they fell and the sound of the explosion as it hit its target… and no matter how prepared you think you are for that explosion- it always makes you flinch. I imagine their children covering their ears and some of them crying, trying to cover up the mechanical sounds of war with their more human wails. I imagine that as the tanks got closer, and the planes got lower- the fear increased- and parents searched each other’s faces for a solution, for a way out of the horror. Some of them probably decided to wait it out in their homes, and others must have been desperate to get out- fearing the rain of concrete and steel and thinking their chances were better in the open air, than confined in the homes that could at any moment turn into their tombs.

That’s what we were told before the Americans came- it’s safer to be outside of the house during an air strike than it is to be inside of the house. Inside of the house, a missile nearby would turn the windows into millions of little daggers and walls might come crashing down. In the garden, or even the street, you’d only have to worry about shrapnel and debris if the bomb was very close- but what were the chances of that?

That was before 2003… and certainly before Falloojeh.

That was before men, women and children left their homes only to be engulfed in a rain of fire."

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_archive.ht...


Americans better hope there is no such thing as karma. What we did was an atrocity. There are no words to describe the horror and devastation we wrought on an innocent people. Absolutely obscene.

So no one ever lived in fear under Saddam and the bombs the jihadist ****s used to blow up markets were more justified than the guided munitons against military and government assets.

Got it.

ShadowLiberal (1000+ posts)        Wed Sep-01-10 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
19. Saddam was predictable and could be controlled with force if necessary, what we have now can't be
 Things would likely be simpler today with Saddam in power, simply because it was easy to predict what a Saddam might do. If Saddam tries to invade a nearby country like he did Kuwait we can just send in troops to stop his invasion and save the country, and push them back to Iraq, then go home. Problem solved fast and cheaply.

The problem we caused by getting rid of Saddam is that we've upset the balance of power in the middle east, we made Iran stronger and more of a threat to us by taking out Saddam, and Iran noticed and has taken full advantage of it with their nuclear weapon development. They know full well we don't have the troops or money to spare to come in and invade and occupy them like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, not when things were so bad we had to talk about the possibility of being forced to bring back the draft to keep up those wars (a move Iran knows would be suicide for any American politician).

And it's more then just Iran that's been given power by this, we opened Pandora's box by getting rid of Saddam, and there's no way to close it.

Are these the same assholes who constantly berate us for supporting Pinochet in order to oppose communism but these idiots support Saddam to stop what exactly?

Xithras  (1000+ posts)        Wed Sep-01-10 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
24. Saddam was responsible for the genocide of approximately 200,000 Iraqi's
 So we had to kill 650,000 Iraqi's to free them from his tyrrany.

Saddam death count gets rolled back while ours is inflated.

All you need to know about liberal fascist liars.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9053152

[Ralph Wiggum]

slay (1000+ posts)      Wed Sep-01-10 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. You are 100% correct
 Iraqi's had it much much much better off under Sadamm - in general.

How far into his rectum did this moron reach to pull out this bullshit?

[jukin]

The truth of the matter is that Obama was handed a pretty good situation in Iraq. violence was virtually non existent, the government was working, and growth was happening. Obama's one job was to get a new government together within the two years after Bush signed the Forces Agreement in 2008. 

What has Obama done?  Nothing.  Perhaps made the situation worse.  There is no cohesive government (but of course Biden the Dumb will make it happen) and violence is ramping up daily.

Iraq will be a violent and dangerous place within a year and those thousands of lives and all the sacrifices of our brave service personnel will be squandered by our community organizer. Every situation, no matter what it's condition, has become worse under the Affirmative Action president.

Sad but true.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

How far into his rectum did this moron reach to pull out this bullshit?

Micheal Moore-on's, Reifenstahl 911 showed Iraqi kids playing on a playground on a sunny day then flash-cut to bombs exploding throughout Bahgdad at night.

[true_blood]

What is it with the left and the fascination with dictators anyways?!?! Is it because they don't know how to live their lives, that they want people controlling their every move/function?!?! 
These people are morons!

[AllosaursRus]

I guess it don't matter the asshole killed 250,000 of his own people that we can even document!

Who knows how many mass graves we don't know about!

These asshats really don't have a clue!

Hey stooooopid? How many lives do ya think we saved?

[Loyaltytestssuck]

The truth of the matter is that Obama was handed a pretty good situation in Iraq. violence was virtually non existent, the government was working, and growth was happening. Obama's one job was to get a new government together within the two years after Bush signed the Forces Agreement in 2008. 

What has Obama done?  Nothing.  Perhaps made the situation worse.  There is no cohesive government (but of course Biden the Dumb will make it happen) and violence is ramping up daily.

Iraq will be a violent and dangerous place within a year and those thousands of lives and all the sacrifices of our brave service personnel will be squandered by our community organizer. Every situation, no matter what it's condition, has become worse under the Affirmative Action president.

Sad but true.

Time will tell...

[TheSarge]

ShadowLiberal (1000+ posts)        Wed Sep-01-10 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
19. Saddam was predictable and could be controlled with force if necessary, what we have now can't be
 Things would likely be simpler today with Saddam in power, simply because it was easy to predict what a Saddam might do. If Saddam tries to invade a nearby country like he did Kuwait we can just send in troops to stop his invasion and save the country, and push them back to Iraq, then go home. Problem solved fast and cheaply.

The problem we caused by getting rid of Saddam is that we've upset the balance of power in the middle east, we made Iran stronger and more of a threat to us by taking out Saddam, and Iran noticed and has taken full advantage of it with their nuclear weapon development. They know full well we don't have the troops or money to spare to come in and invade and occupy them like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, not when things were so bad we had to talk about the possibility of being forced to bring back the draft to keep up those wars (a move Iran knows would be suicide for any American politician).

And it's more then just Iran that's been given power by this, we opened Pandora's box by getting rid of Saddam, and there's no way to close it.

Somebody was watching the Today Show recently:

CURRY: Meantime had the U.S. not invaded Iraq, where would Iraq be today? Where would the geopolitical situation be today?

ENGEL: If there had been no invasion Saddam would still be in power. He was probably getting more moderate. He was being welcomed into the, into, by, by a lot of European countries, he was being welcomed in Eastern Europe in particular. He was heading in a, in a direction of accommodation. The, the sanctions regime that was holding in place was starting to fail. So I think he would, it would be somewhat of a basket case but it would still, it would be - Iran would be a lot more contained. So it would be a dictatorship that was trying to break out of its box but Iran would not be as dangerous as it is, as it is today.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/08/31/nbcs-engel-dumps-iraq-war-claims-hussein-was-becoming-more-moderat#ixzz0yMVRHHs9


Plagiarism...even of a hack like Engel is still plagiarism.

Remind me again DUmmies who the "mindlss sheep" are?

[Todzilla]

I'm no fan of Saddam, but I think it's fair to ask if Iraqis are better off now, as compared to 2002 or so.  I've seen conflicting polls, but most recent ones indicate nostalgia for the stability of his regime, if not for his indisputably immoral tactics.

I know this much, Iran has been the unquestionable beneficiary of the Iraq War.  And that sucks narwhal.

[TheSarge]

I'm no fan of Saddam, but I think it's fair to ask if Iraqis are better off now, as compared to 2002 or so.

yes. 

I've seen conflicting polls, but most recent ones indicate nostalgia for the stability of his regime, if not for his indisputably immoral tactics.

Hitler made the trains run on time.  Doesn't mean he should have been kept in power for stability's sake once we kicked Germany's ass.

Don't listen to the stupid MSM generated polls.  Talk to those of us that were there. 

I know this much, Iran has been the unquestionable beneficiary of the Iraq War.  And that sucks narwhal.

Iran has been the recipient of spinless Democrats who'd rather kiss their ass than kick it.  Like with N. Korea the Liberals in the U.S. have been more than willing to look the other was as Iran's power had increased and been too content with meaningless U.N. Resolutions while they used al-Qaeda in Iraq to fight a proxy war with us.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I'm no fan of Saddam, but I think it's fair to ask if Iraqis are better off now, as compared to 2002 or so.  I've seen conflicting polls, but most recent ones indicate nostalgia for the stability of his regime, if not for his indisputably immoral tactics.

Some Russian jackasses want the "stability" of the old Soviet Union. I suppose for a while many Italians missed having the trains run on time and let's face facts: Hitler did wonders for building up Germany's industrial base and infrastructure. Ditto Hirohoto.

But the fact remains: Saddam never abandoned his ambitions for WMD and more importantly he actively worked with and harbored terrorists with American blood on their hands even after 9/11.

I don't care if 99% of the Iraqis polled wanted Saddam's steadying influence back then fact remains Saddam was an enemy of the US and those 99% can follow him to the grave.

I know this much, Iran has been the unquestionable beneficiary of the Iraq War.  And that sucks narwhal.

Iran was nervous as **** that they were next and they were on the strategic defense. The pro-democracy elements were emboldened as were the Lebanese who kicked out Syria and we even saw the beginning of a woman's suffrage movement in Kuwait.

Democrats with their feckless treason reversed that situation.

[USA4ME]

Roll back the clock 230 years, and these same primitives would have been saying "Sure King George was a tyrant, but we were better off under the rule of the crown than we are now."

.

[TheSarge]

Roll back the clock 230 years, and these same primitives would have been saying "Sure King George was a tyrant, but we were better off under the rule of the crown than we are now."

.

Hell roll back a mere 71 years and you'd find them agreeing with the U.S. Ambassador to the House Of Windsor who thought Hitler was ok.

[Wineslob]

I'm no fan of Saddam, but I think it's fair to ask if Iraqis are better off now, as compared to 2002 or so.  I've seen conflicting polls, but most recent ones indicate nostalgia for the stability of his regime, if not for his indisputably immoral tactics.

I know this much, Iran has been the unquestionable beneficiary of the Iraq War.  And that sucks narwhal.

Saddam's ruthlessness continued unabated after 1979. A symbol of things to come was the infamous purge he carried out shortly after shuffling al-Bakr out of office. Saddam announced at a party meeting that twenty-one senior Ba'thists present at the meeting were part of an alleged Syrian conspiracy against him. One by one, he called out the names of the "traitors" while smoking his trademark cigar, filming them as they were led out of the conference hall to be shot. He later ensured that copies of the film were circulated throughout the country. Thereafter, Saddam took great pains to eliminate any possible rivals. He presided over a totalitarian regime in Iraq from 1979 to 2003, the cruelty and brutality of which were matched only by the fear it inspired. Saddam succeeded in using this fear to stay in power, which he did longer than any ruler in modern Iraqi history. An expert in the bureaucracy of terror, Saddam oversaw five overlapping intelligence agencies plus the Ba'th Party's own security service. These agencies not only spied on the populace, but on each other, so that Saddam could foil any plots from within the regime. To protect himself, Saddam also created two Praetorian Guard organizations. He presided over one of the twentieth century's most pervasive cults of personality as well. Photos and statues of the dictator were ubiquitous, and constituted a visible reminder throughout the country of his seeming omnipresence.

The Ba'th regime also persecuted entire groups of people. The large-scale deportations, destruction of villages, and executions Saddam ordered against the country's non-Arab Kurdish population during the 1988 "Anfal" campaign rose to the level of genocide. He is responsible for war crimes and/or crimes against humanity during the 1980–1988 Iran-Iraq War, when Iraqi forces used chemical weapons against Iranian troops. During the 1990–1991 Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait, such crimes went beyond the torture, execution, and disappearances mounted against Kuwaiti individuals to include large-scale looting of museums and archives.

Typical Libtard. I go by polls, therefore it is a consensus!


http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/saddam-hussein

[DumbAss Tanker]

Hitler made the trains run on time.

They were German trains.  They always ran on time.     You're thinking of Mussolini, whose brutal Fascist regime did actually make the chaotic Italian public services, including the train timetables, work for the first time in living memory of most Italians.  Of course he was otherwise a creep who persecuted his domestic political opponents and slaughtered hordes of generally-innocent people from Libya to the Horn of Africa with his irredentist adventures, and flung his country headlong into wars far beyond its capability to fight or even survive, so the basic point is valid.

Mainly though I just wanted to endorse Jukin's post, which is right on the money.   

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Typical Libtard. I go by polls, therefore it is a consensus!


http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/saddam-hussein

Hey now.

Everytime there was an election Saddam won by wide margins.

[Ballygrl]

HysteryDiagnosis (1000+ posts)      Wed Sep-01-10 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. I heard it rumored that Christian churches were let alone in those
 days, there were more PHD's per capita in Iraq than in America and women held all sorts of positions that they have probably never held in Afghanistan. Lawyers, doctors, professors and so forth. Tell me if I am wrong.

I guess this fool forgot about all the Iraqi's who were abducted off the streets by Saddam and his sons, all the women who were kidnapped and raped, and people who were fed to Tigers while they were alive.

[AllosaursRus]

HysteryDiagnosis (1000+ posts)      Wed Sep-01-10 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. I heard it rumored that Christian churches were let alone in those
 days, there were more PHD's per capita in Iraq than in America and women held all sorts of positions that they have probably never held in Afghanistan. Lawyers, doctors, professors and so forth. Tell me if I am wrong.

HysericalDouche seems to forget the only women holding any position other than a man's slave were from Sadumb's own tribe! Not exactly what I would call freedom!

Hell, he was huntin' down satellite antennas tryin' to bust those who were trying to converse on the internet, for cripes sake! Hey DoucheBag, wanna know what the penalty for exercising freedom of speech was?

[Wineslob]

Actually I perfer to call it HystericalDUmass.