[Helmling]

"It's still difficult. Obviously, major, major work to do is ahead of us. But the fact is, the world is better off today with Saddam Hussein out of power. Think where we'd be if he was still there," Cheney said.

According to CNN...

Let's see if we can help him imagine:

The U.S. would still have some credibility on the world stage.

Our national deficit would not be in the hundreds of billions.

Over one hundred thousand US service men and women would be home with their families.

More than two thousand American families would not be going to cemetaries to visit their sons and daughters.

Thirty thousand Iraqis--including one pretty little Iraqi girl who was raped and murdered by some deviants we let into our otherwise upstanding military in order to meet recruitment quotas--would still be alive, though admittedly living under the thumb of a dictator...but living.

Iraq would not be on the brink of Civil War and the region would not be facing quite such an uncertain future.

The U.S. would actually have some ground to stand on in its dealings with Israel, Palestine, Syria, and Iran--instead of being a bastion of hypocrisy in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Sorry, Mr. Cheney, but only a deluded fool could believe that your policy in Iraq has done anything to improve this world.

[Spliffdaddy]

call me a deluded fool then.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

call me a deluded fool then.

You know it's bad when Spliff has run out of any sort of argument...

[stevesnj]

We could of actually gone after the group that admitted their role in 9/11 using the forces that were instead put into Iraq......imagine that

[spacefreak]

Why in the world people would want Saddam still in power befuddles he crap out of me. Even an overwhelming majority of Iraqis wanted the man out of power, and it's their nation.

But because some complainers wanted Saddam to remain on power (and still do as evidenced in this thread), the Iraqis should be forced to live under a brutal, theiving, raping, murdering tyrant and his equally-as-brutal sons?

Unfrigginbelievable.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by stevesnj

We could of actually gone after the group that admitted their role in 9/11 using the forces that were instead put into Iraq......imagine that

The group that admitted their role in 9/11 is in Iraq. Read some news. We've captured and killed a bunch of them.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Why in the world people would want Saddam still in power befuddles he crap out of me. Even an overwhelming majority of Iraqis wanted the man out of power, and it's their nation.

But because some complainers wanted Saddam to remain on power (and still do as evidenced in this thread), the Iraqis should be forced to live under a brutal, theiving, raping, murdering tyrant and his equally-as-brutal sons?

Unfrigginbelievable.

Why? Because a dictator that oppresses his people is still favorable to a power vacuum or civil war.

The sentiment is its all well and good liberating people but you couldn't pick a stupider place, a worse time, or dumber reasoning.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by goMac

You know it's bad when Spliff has run out of any sort of argument...

What's to argue?

I agree with everything Cheney said.

[MinM]

Originally Posted by Helmling

Thirty thousand Iraqis...would still be alive, though admittedly living under the thumb of a dictator...but living.

Oh right, Hussein was always very good about letting his people live. He certainly never killed them en masse and dumped their bodies into mass graves.

Oh wait, he totally did.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Why in the world people would want Saddam still in power befuddles he crap out of me. Even an overwhelming majority of Iraqis wanted the man out of power, and it's their nation.

And it's their job to remove him from power. We didn't like the English King lording over us so we got all the English out of the colonies. It was that little thing called the American Revolution. The Czechs didn't like their Soviet overlord and brought about the Velvet Revolution. The same thing happened in Ukraine and several other former Eastern-Bloc nations.

When the Iraqi people had had enough of Saddam Hussein they would have risen up and over-thrown him. Why is it so hard to think the Iraqi people would not do it for themselves?

As for Saddam Hussein being in power, I don't think anyone on here wants Saddam in power. But I, and many others, don't want the US to be the one who decides a) he should be removed from power and B) to be the ones to do it.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

And it's their job to remove him from power. We didn't like the English King lording over us so we got all the English out of the colonies. It was that little thing called the American Revolution. The Czechs didn't like their Soviet overlord and brought about the Velvet Revolution. The same thing happened in Ukraine and several other former Eastern-Bloc nations.

When the Iraqi people had had enough of Saddam Hussein they would have risen up and over-thrown him. Why is it so hard to think the Iraqi people would not do it for themselves?

As for Saddam Hussein being in power, I don't think anyone on here wants Saddam in power. But I, and many others, don't want the US to be the one who decides a) he should be removed from power and B) to be the ones to do it.

They tried on numerous occasions and were crushed. He didn't have the 3rd or 4th most technologically advanced army on this planet for no reason. He also had the nasty habit of killing anyone who he saw as capable of staging such a coup.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

The group that admitted their role in 9/11 is in Iraq. Read some news. We've captured and killed a bunch of them.

They WEREN'T when you should have gone after them instead of into Iraq.

We read the news, too.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

The group that admitted their role in 9/11 is in Iraq. Read some news. We've captured and killed a bunch of them.

Read some news yourself.

Zarqawi was not a member of al Queda prior to our invasion of Iraq. The organization he founded and led, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, has overlapping ideaologies, such as world-wide Jihad and there was to some extent a funding relationship, but they were seperate organizations.

In fact, there was a level of rivalry between two, as evidenced by intelligence intercepted phone conversations of between Zarqawi and some German based members of his group with Zarqawi growing angry with the for also raising money for al Queda at the same time.

Zarqawi saw the invasion of Iraq by US forces as an opportunity to take the fight directly to the enemy and he established himself and his group as the leading foreign terrorist faction in the country. About a year into the US invasion he changed the name of his group to al Queda in Iraq and publicly announced his loyalty to bin Laden, who in turned declared him an emir.

Even with this change Zarqawi, a Sunni, consistently drove a wedge between himself and the leaders of al Queda by his consistent attacks on Shitte muslims in Iraq. This action was counter productive to al Queda's larger goals and eventually led to the marginalizing al Queda in Iraq vis-a-vis other insurgent groups and public opinion on the Arab street.

To think that al Queda had a thriving organization within Iraq prior to 9/11 shows a lack of understanding of the situation in that country under Hussein.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Why in the world people would want Saddam still in power befuddles he crap out of me. Even an overwhelming majority of Iraqis wanted the man out of power, and it's their nation.

But because some complainers wanted Saddam to remain on power (and still do as evidenced in this thread), the Iraqis should be forced to live under a brutal, theiving, raping, murdering tyrant and his equally-as-brutal sons?

Unfrigginbelievable.

It's not a matter of wanting a brutal dictator in power. If that's our cause there's a long list of countries we're going to be invading. Had we done this without hubris, had the Bush admin listened to the generals and diplomats who said you would need to do x, y, and z and use these # of forces to achieve success perhaps things would have developed differently.

Instead all we have done is create a power vaccum into which has risen a civil war, the rise of the regional power of Iran and the further eroding of American influence in the ME. I guess if that was the goal then Mission Accomplished.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Helmling

"It's still difficult. Obviously, major, major work to do is ahead of us. But the fact is, the world is better off today with Saddam Hussein out of power. Think where we'd be if he was still there," Cheney said.

According to CNN...

Let's see if we can help him imagine:

The U.S. would still have some credibility on the world stage.

Our national deficit would not be in the hundreds of billions.

Over one hundred thousand US service men and women would be home with their families.

More than two thousand American families would not be going to cemetaries to visit their sons and daughters.

Thirty thousand Iraqis--including one pretty little Iraqi girl who was raped and murdered by some deviants we let into our otherwise upstanding military in order to meet recruitment quotas--would still be alive, though admittedly living under the thumb of a dictator...but living.

Iraq would not be on the brink of Civil War and the region would not be facing quite such an uncertain future.

The U.S. would actually have some ground to stand on in its dealings with Israel, Palestine, Syria, and Iran--instead of being a bastion of hypocrisy in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Sorry, Mr. Cheney, but only a deluded fool could believe that your policy in Iraq has done anything to improve this world.

1. The US still has more credibility then all of Europe
2. Our deficit would still be huge.
3. Before or after GW1, I wasn't at home with my family. I was sent to mop up after the UN failures
4. Check the numbers of American families visiting sons and daughters in cemetaries from drunk drivers.
5. Can't say for sure if she would have lived under Saddam. Much less any of the 30,000.
Who are mostly killed my insurgents. And how many of the 30K were soilders?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

We didn't like the English King lording over us so we got all the English out of the colonies. It was that little thing called the American Revolution.

I'm sorta glad you forgot about the French fleet, but only sorta.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by finboy

I'm sorta glad you forgot about the French fleet, but only sorta.

Yes, the French did help us in the Revolution. But they helped at our request. They didn't invade the colonies and throw out the British because they tought we needed to be liberated. They helped an active and on-going insurgency (the Revolutionary forces) to both survive and thrive. All of which was done at the request of the Revolutionary forces.

Do you see the difference between what happened then and what is happening now in Iraq? It would be as if the French, with little or no contact with the colonies, decided the colonies needed to be liberated from the tyranny of the British monarchy and invaded the colonies to throw out the British irrespective of the wishes of the current citizens living in the colonies.

[Monique]

Bush and Cheney and their suiters live in a bubble and of course they are going to spin this to death. As good little Republicans they do not care what happens to the little people that get killed in Iraq.

And Cheney says: look I do not like you very much would you like to come hunting with me?

[Sky Captain]

The French were interested in giving the British a bloody nose.
It's sad how the French went from a world power to a second world nation.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

The French were interested in giving the British a bloody nose.
It's sad how the French went from a world power to a second world nation.

Oh, no doubt the French were looking for a fight with the British. But, did they invade the colonies with the express intent of doing that? No. They came and gave assistance in fighting the British at our request.

How hard is it to understand that what drove the early colonists to rise up and fight the tyranny of the British is exactly what was needed by the Iraqis to over-throw Saddam. What was needed by the Iraqis was the willingness to say "No more" and to act collectively to remove him from power.

[Sky Captain]

I agree. Completely.
My job wasn't finished in GW1.
I firmly believe that if we had rolled into Bagdad, most of Saddams troops would have changed sides.
A true civil was.
Not this insurgency the left is trying to brand as a civil war.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Why in the world people would want Saddam still in power befuddles he crap out of me. Even an overwhelming majority of Iraqis wanted the man out of power, and it's their nation.

But because some complainers wanted Saddam to remain on power (and still do as evidenced in this thread), the Iraqis should be forced to live under a brutal, theiving, raping, murdering tyrant and his equally-as-brutal sons?

Unfrigginbelievable.

Nobody wants that monster in power, but the first President Bush saw clearly the dangers of removing him--sadly, little Bush Jr. didn't pay attention to his father's lead.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by MinM

Oh right, Hussein was always very good about letting his people live. He certainly never killed them en masse and dumped their bodies into mass graves.

Oh wait, he totally did.

Horrible, no doubt. But not our fault...there are issues of responsibility to be considered. Everything that's happening now is our fault. There are many other dictators in the world, there are many other mass graves. The horrible truth is that we cannot prevent them all. We can only be responsible for our own actions.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

The group that admitted their role in 9/11 is in Iraq. Read some news. We've captured and killed a bunch of them.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has no actual connection to Al Qaeda. They just used the name for PR value, and to scare Americans like you into responding the way you do.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

1. The US still has more credibility then all of Europe
2. Our deficit would still be huge.
3. Before or after GW1, I wasn't at home with my family. I was sent to mop up after the UN failures
4. Check the numbers of American families visiting sons and daughters in cemetaries from drunk drivers.
5. Can't say for sure if she would have lived under Saddam. Much less any of the 30,000.
Who are mostly killed my insurgents. And how many of the 30K were soilders?

1. Says who?
2. Not THIS huge.
3. So you're in the "let's go it alone; screw international cooperation" camp...
4. What the hell does that have to do with anything? No war can be of consequence until it outstrips other causes of death? So until our death toll exceeds the casualties from cancer, we don't have to pay any attention?
5. Granted, Usay or Quasay or whatever the hell his sons' names were might have gotten to this poor little girl...but it wasn't those monsters who burned her family...it was monsters we put in uniform because we had an unpopular war to fight. Are you really so comfortable with that fact that you can just dismiss such an atrocity?

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Helmling

1. Says who?
2. Not THIS huge.
3. So you're in the "let's go it alone; screw international cooperation" camp...
4. What the hell does that have to do with anything? No war can be of consequence until it outstrips other causes of death? So until our death toll exceeds the casualties from cancer, we don't have to pay any attention?
5. Granted, Usay or Quasay or whatever the hell his sons' names were might have gotten to this poor little girl...but it wasn't those monsters who burned her family...it was monsters we put in uniform because we had an unpopular war to fight. Are you really so comfortable with that fact that you can just dismiss such an atrocity?

1. Says who on the first attack on credibility? A some anonymous member of an internet bullitin board?
2. No data to prove otherwise.
3. I was a soilder, I wasn't home before GW1 or after, what's going on now is no different.
4. Plenty. The death toll is not that high compaired to ANY OTHER CONFLICT. In fact it very low. Very very low.
I keep hearing Iraq being compared to Vietnam. This has NOWHERE NEAR the casualty rate.
5. Disease could have got her too. But 30,000 Iraqis were not shot by ground troops.
But by insuirgent action.
I hope those couple of soilders burn in hell for what they did.
Here's a lesson also. We hunt and punish our monsters. The ME worships theirs.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

1. Says who on the first attack on credibility? A some anonymous member of an internet bullitin board?
2. No data to prove otherwise.
3. I was a soilder, I wasn't home before GW1 or after, what's going on now is no different.
4. Plenty. The death toll is not that high compaired to ANY OTHER CONFLICT. In fact it very low. Very very low.
I keep hearing Iraq being compared to Vietnam. This has NOWHERE NEAR the casualty rate.
5. Disease could have got her too. But 30,000 Iraqis were not shot by ground troops.
But by insuirgent action.
I hope those couple of soilders burn in hell for what they did.
Here's a lesson also. We hunt and punish our monsters. The ME worships theirs.

I'm not anonymous, you've got my name, "Sky Captain." Anyway, what do I need to show you to establish the loss of American credibility in the world at large, since apparently you haven't watched the news in three years? Name what you'd expect to find, given a loss of credibility, and I'll go do the googling for you...honestly, no trouble. It's simple.

And most of those (and actually, the number I remember seeing was closer to 25,000 but it was a while ago. "30,000" is, I think, the number Bush casually admitted during a press conference some time ago) were not shot by ground troops, but killed by errant "smart" bombs.

[Monique]

Originally Posted by Helmling

I'm not anonymous, you've got my name, "Sky Captain." Anyway, what do I need to show you to establish the loss of American credibility in the world at large, since apparently you haven't watched the news in three years? Name what you'd expect to find, given a loss of credibility, and I'll go do the googling for you...honestly, no trouble. It's simple.

And most of those (and actually, the number I remember seeing was closer to 25,000 but it was a while ago. "30,000" is, I think, the number Bush casually admitted during a press conference some time ago) were not shot by ground troops, but killed by errant "smart" bombs.

Your post makes me think about my mom and my sister, when they say if they do this or this people won't like you. Who cares, the Americans have certainly more clout than any other countries in the world. By fear or respect or any other reasons people will listen if you mention you are from the United States.

[besson3c]

You've got my name too. I'm "besson3c".

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Oh, no doubt the French were looking for a fight with the British. But, did they invade the colonies with the express intent of doing that? No. They came and gave assistance in fighting the British at our request.

How hard is it to understand that what drove the early colonists to rise up and fight the tyranny of the British is exactly what was needed by the Iraqis to over-throw Saddam. What was needed by the Iraqis was the willingness to say "No more" and to act collectively to remove him from power.

Do you just enjoy totally ignoring my posts, or am I on your ignore list?

They tried several times. We did not offer enough support then and their coups all failed due to the fact that you can't stand up to an army that well trained and equipped.

We were supported in the invasion by 50,000+ Kurdish soldiers. This was not just us invading with no support at all from within.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Monique

Your post makes me think about my mom and my sister, when they say if they do this or this people won't like you. Who cares, the Americans have certainly more clout than any other countries in the world. By fear or respect or any other reasons people will listen if you mention you are from the United States.

I don't care who likes us. A nation as powerful as ours will always be resented by some. But when the whole world turns against you, when your oldest allies turn on you, then you must take pause to think...to examine your actions. If when you examine your actions, you find them to be pure, to be blameless then that is one thing, but when you examine your actions and see that they have led to massive loss of life, then it is time to take responsibility.

That is what this administration, if it was made up of moral people, would have done by now.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Oh, no doubt the French were looking for a fight with the British. But, did they invade the colonies with the express intent of doing that? No. They came and gave assistance in fighting the British at our request.

How hard is it to understand that what drove the early colonists to rise up and fight the tyranny of the British is exactly what was needed by the Iraqis to over-throw Saddam. What was needed by the Iraqis was the willingness to say "No more" and to act collectively to remove him from power.

Though I realize we're on the same side of this issue, I've got to say I think this is a bit unrealistic. They did try to overthrow Hussein, if you remember. They were slaughtered. We watched. We went through international channels and established the no-fly zones to try to protect those people from Hussein. That was all we could do...all we could do without incurring the kind of disaster we are now presiding over, that is.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by besson3c

You've got my name too. I'm "besson3c".

Well, I wasn't talking to you, but nice to meet ya just the same.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I agree with everything Cheney said.

That's like saying water's wet.

[D. S. Troyer]

It's about the oil. It frikkin' backfired on the the bastards tho.

Now the U.S. has set a precedent and must free all countries of dictators...oh...wait a minute it was about the oil.

Africa is full of the assholes...but I guess they're black and who gives a sh!t about Africa anyways. It a sh!thole except for the cool animals.

[Spliffdaddy]

omg. There's still one left!

A liberal that says it's about oil.

And as an added bonus - he threw in a "they're racist, too" comment.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

They tried on numerous occasions and were crushed. He didn't have the 3rd or 4th most technologically advanced army on this planet for no reason. He also had the nasty habit of killing anyone who he saw as capable of staging such a coup.

You mean the resistance that was backed by Iran and Al Qaeda.

Boy, I'm sure glad we helped them out...

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Helmling

I'm not anonymous, you've got my name, "Sky Captain." Anyway, what do I need to show you to establish the loss of American credibility in the world at large, since apparently you haven't watched the news in three years? Name what you'd expect to find, given a loss of credibility, and I'll go do the googling for you...honestly, no trouble. It's simple.

And most of those (and actually, the number I remember seeing was closer to 25,000 but it was a while ago. "30,000" is, I think, the number Bush casually admitted during a press conference some time ago) were not shot by ground troops, but killed by errant "smart" bombs.

Anonymous still the same. Many write stuff here they wouldn't dare say in public actually to someone's face. Anonymous. Hiding behind the safety of the internet.

You mean googleing other people's opinions on America's credibility?
You mean what the MEDIA thinks? Or some slanted web blog? Or some bulletin board?
I could care less what the media thinks. Much less some some kid spouting off on a web blog.

"Errant" = someone lit up the wrong target.
I have searched and the data points to insurgent action.
I don't deny that some civilians have died from a soilders error.
But not 30K.
I've seen thousands dead.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

But not 30K.
I've seen thousands dead.

Really? So you've gone to Iraq and counted now?

[Sky Captain]

I was there in GW1.
You really want me to describe the caranige?
I have a hard time thinking about it now.

So now I pose the same question to you.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

They tried on numerous occasions and were crushed. He didn't have the 3rd or 4th most technologically advanced army on this planet for no reason.

What?!?!?!?!

Are you being serious here!? 3rd or 4th?!?!

greg

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

I was there in GW1.
You really want me to describe the caranige?
I have a hard time thinking about it now.

So now I pose the same question to you.

Isn't GW1 a teensy bit different than the war now?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by goMac

Isn't GW1 a teensy bit different than the war now?

In the particulars? Perhaps, to some degree. But in general? Not as much as one might think. Hell, even most of the anti-war slogans from GW2 are recycled from GW1.

[Sky Captain]

It's the same war.
GW1 was unfinished.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Plus, "GW1" is a misnomer...since the Gulf War wasn't even a "war" to begin with.

greg

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Millennium

In the particulars? Perhaps, to some degree. But in general? Not as much as one might think. Hell, even most of the anti-war slogans from GW2 are recycled from GW1.

Sky Captain is trying to say that he hasn't seen 30k dead, except he certainly wasn't there for any long term occupation. That's the difference. This war is a long term street war.

[Sky Captain]

Just curious, what constitutes a war?

[Monique]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Just curious, what constitutes a war?

A conventional war, 2 armies fightin against each other. But, then after the 2nd world war, countries engaging in spying war which was the cold war. And of course terrorism; it seems in Georgie's world with GI Joes and tiny toy tanks, he thinks that life is like a movie, he just send his toy soldiers against other toy soldiers and he is going to win.

[Sky Captain]

Do I detect a hint sarcasm?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well, I don't think the "Gulf War" constitutes a war in the opinion of most warfare historians.

I mean, maybe the Gulf Rout, or something? Or the Gulf Target Practice? I don't know...

greg