Why should we be afraid to say ~ America is not better off without Saddam

[mzmolly]

Hussein in power, when it's the truth?!

How has pulling Saddams elderly arse out of a hole in Iraq made you/me or any of the people in Iraq safer?

In fact, over 50% of Iraqis polled recently feel our presence in Iraq has made them less safe.

We took a contained fairly stable Iraq (comparitively speaking) and turned it into complete chaos? Tell me again what did *we* gain?

He had no WMD
He had no connection to Al Qaida
We had no LEGITIMATE REASON FOR THIS WAR.

[Catfight]

1. I know for sure there are some American corporations that are WAY

better off now that Saddam is out of power...namely Halliburton, Dickhead Cheney, Bushco, Enron, etc...etc...

[mzmolly]

2. True, a very small *we* huh?

The execs at Haliburtion are laughing all the way to the bank.

3. I know why! I know why!

never mind
nothing to see here
move along

[mzmolly]

4. LOL.

Indeed, nothing to see there ... still no WMD! ;)

[noahmijo]

5. Basically because

Saddam is a murdering barbarian who committed astounding atrocities, but the fact of the matter is he hated and would have killed anyone who dared defy him..including Al-Queda...(Sorry Bush you're not going to convince me that Al-Queda types and Saddam were good buddies they hated eachother because Saddam was a socialist dictator who said "fuck God you bow to me haha!" and Al-Queda are Muslim extremists)

I personally equate Saddam with Stalin in alot of ways in that in a sick way we have a similar problem with a group of nuts trying to kill us (Nazis/Al-Queda) yet we completely condemn the way the dictator chooses to torture and murder his own people when they don't play ball.

[mzmolly]

7. Saddam being a barbarian doesn't mean were better off because

he's not in power in a country the size of Cali? Also, becoming the greater barbarian in the eyes of the world, has not been a plus.

I maintain that we are in fact worse off without Saddam in power. ;)

[noahmijo]

9. I didn't say we are better off with him gone did I?

In so many words it pains me to say that we were better off with him IN power, but I feel rotten for saying that because of the shit he did, but the fact of the matter is our nation was better off with him in power.

At the same time, I still wouldn't refuse a notion to have removed him and any other dictators (with UN support ect) that do the types of things Saddam did, but of course that's my fantasy world.

[mzmolly]

10. I'm with you. If were are going to enforce hr violations it should be

done in every country, with the support of the UN. :hi:

I didn't think you said we weren't better off, I understood your point. It just think it's a distinction that needs to be drawn better by our Democratic leaders. - Sorry bout the confusion. ;)

[noahmijo]

13. Sorry if I sounded offended or anything

I figured you weren't saying that, but one thing I noticed on here is that unless you make everything you say crystal clear, the slightest misinterpretation is labeled as different opinion than the one you're trying to convey.

I just jumped the gun on you a little that's all my apologies.

:toast:

[mzmolly]

21. I know what you mean.

No need to apologize. ;)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. Report to Room 101 for political re-education IMMEDIATELY!!!

Such blasphemy will not be tolerated.

Yours Truly,
John Ashcroft.

[mzmolly]

8. EEK!

Room 101 is at Gitmo I presume? ;)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. Think 1984

[venus]

11. Right on. And I recall when Howard stated publicly

publicly that we were no safer with Saddam's capture, both Dems, repugs, and the Repug media beat him up about it. Even Wes, who is my man for V.P., said we are "safer" without Saddam.

[mzmolly]

12. And... as long as we keep playing the 'were safer' bullshit, the war is

*justified* ... there is no way around it. It's time to start telling the truth.

And, there is a graceful way to do so.

"I believed we were safer because I believed the President when he said Saddam had WMD's. Turns out he he lied ... and the case for war was bogus........"

Of course the wording would have to be much more eloquent and a bit less direct, but you get the picture. ;)

Welcome to DU! :toast:

[Lefty Pragmatist]

14. Don't go there.

Debating the finer points of whether or not the removal of a brutal dictator advanced our national interest, especially when there are good arguments to be made on both sides, is something one does in the comforts of the classroom, not on the campaign trail.

The line, with Kerry at the helm, ought to be:

+ Saddam sucked and goodbye to his ass.
+ Bush had a hundred better ways to accomplish it and took the worst.
+ And he lied, Lied, LIED about his reasons and motives.
+ Plenty of people, including DOD and DOS experts, *warned* us.
+ We went from having every post-9/11 benefit to being Voltron.
+ We broke it, we bought it -- we're honorable, but...
+ When the Iraqis tell us they want us out, we'll respect that.

Throw in a reversal of the utter toadying up to Sharon and we've got a mid-east strategy that's a tie. Throw in expressing distaste with anti-Democratic regimes throughout the mid-East (Saudi Arabia, Syria), and we might even tip over the edge into the win column. At least we'll have the moral high ground again.

[mzmolly]

17. OH IM GOING THERE.

+ Saddam sucked and goodbye to his ass.
+ Bush had a hundred better ways to accomplish it and took the worst.
+ And he lied, Lied, LIED about his reasons and motives.
+ Plenty of people, including DOD and DOS experts, *warned* us.
+ We went from having every post-9/11 benefit to being Voltron.
+ We broke it, we bought it -- we're honorable, but...
+ When the Iraqis tell us they want us out, we'll respect that.

I agree with everything you said. However we had other far more pressing issues. Saddam sucked but Osama sucks more! We got Saddam, and Osama is still runnin around Pakistan.

This war has not made us safer/better off p.e.r.i.o.d ...

As Richard Clark said:

Clarke relates how, for various political reasons, BushCo consistently trivialized the terrorist threat prior to 9/11 and have done little to nothing since to improve national security. In fact, they've made us less safe by diverting badly needed military forces to the misguided and failing oil crusade in Iraq.

This was was a bait and switch. I refuse to pander to that.

I think the approach you note is the one that will be taken, but I am tired of our leaders being afraid to tell the truth because they fear a Limbaugh backlash. WE ARE NOT ANY BETTER OFF WITH SADDAM GONE, WE ARE IN FACT "LESS SAFE" Richard Clark and many others would agree. I am not ashamed to tell it like it is (course I've got nothing to lose ;) )

If we state things as you have, true it is safe politically, but then the war is still justified, right? That's what *they* want from us. Bush is daring us, and I would like to rub the truth right in that smirk of his.

Can you tell I'm a Dean supporter :P

[Lefty Pragmatist]

25. "It's on."

Well, it's not, but I couldn't resist the South Park reference.

I'm not saying we should say this because of a fear of a Rushite backlash. I don't advise catering to the hard right -- even less so to the jock sniffers of the hard right like Rush, Coulter, Hannity, and Carlson.

I'm saying we need to pitch a big enough tent that those moderates who supported the invasion but rejected Bush's criminal and moronic methods will come to us. Now, that's not exactly a reach for me, because that is my position. At the same time, I've always thought those who conscientiously pointed out the risks of and their opposition to the war also need to be respected. The way to have it both ways is to focus on the future, not the past. And happily, that's also the way to win.

[mzmolly]

28. *You've been served*

Another South Park reference :P

I think we can accomplish both if Kerry becomes the person who was "lied too" and is angry about it. He can state it in a manner that is more subdued, but he needs to say it clearly.

He represents you currently, and I believe he can represent me as well.

So many of us on the left feel alienated by Kerry.

What do you suggest he do about that? Especially considering Nader could help swing the election *again* ?? I am ABB, always have been, but I'm one person.

I dont think Kerry has to choose between moderates and lefties. I think he can have it all.

[bigwillq]

16. We shouldn't be afraid to say it

I personally don't think we're more safe or less safe.

Saddam was no factor in our homeland security, imo., so his capture on the home front I feel is negated.

I think we are less safe in a lot of ways but not entirely because Saddam was captured or not. History, past and present, has proven there are far worse enemies than Saddam so in a way that makes us less safe.

[mzmolly]

18. And, less safe because we used resources on Saddam vs. Osama and

Al Qaida. Less safe because we've created more enemys. Less safe because our soldiers and National Guard are in Iraq and would not be available in a crisis. Less safe because we had to cut fire fighters and emergency responders to cut Bush's taxes and fund the war. Less safe because we diverted funds and attention from the war on terror ...

We are less safe indeed. :hi:

[bigwillq]

19. I agree with all your comments on why

we are less safe.

Dean DID get it right when he said we are less safe now that Saddam is captured, however, he just said it at the wrong time.
Regardless, I think some Americans are turning the corner and realizing that in one regard, that we are not as safe as this administration portrays us to be.

[mzmolly]

20. I agree. Right thing to say, wrong time to say it.

:hi:

[bigwillq]

23. Dean is still the man in my book

But Kerry will make us proud. I have faith in him to turn this country around.

[mzmolly]

32. I really do too, as lackluster as I feel about him I expect to be very

pleasently surprised.

I think Kerry is very thoughtful and deliberate. And that combination is so very much what is needed today. Especially after the wreckless administration of the Busistas. :hi:

[funky_bug]

22. We shouldn't!

Bottom line, this world seems so much LESS safe BECAUSE of * and his war on Terra. If we were safer, why the elevated levels? If we're safer, why the need for so much safeguarding? I sure don't remember feeling unsafe during Clinton's term.

Catching Sadaam didn't make Nick Berg safer, didn't make Paul Johnson safer, and didn't make a damn bit of difference in the hunt for Osama.

This was one of the most ball-sy things that Dean EVER said, and it absolutely made me fall in love with him!

[mzmolly]

29. Thanks. As I always say "history will be good to Dean"

:hi:

[JHBowden]

24. Damn straight!

Hussein, constrained with inspectors and no-fly zones, despite being a piece of shit, is far preferable to a loony-toons Islamic Republic harboring terrorists and seeking WMD.

[mzmolly]

30. INDEED!

:hi:

[Hippo_Tron]

26. It's better that we have the guy in captivity than roaming free

But the price we paid (and are still paying) is BY NO MEANS worth it.

[TexasSissy]

27. I think we ARE safer. But that's not the issue to me.

We'll always be safer any time a foreign dictator thug is removed from power.

That doesn't mean we should pre-emptively go to war against all those dictators, etc., and present American lives on a platter without solid proof that we're in immediate danger.

I see a difference.

[mzmolly]

31. Well, frankly I don't see how were safer?

Read JHBowdens post.

Sometimes your better off containing these people-this was one of those times.