Why bother even posting nonsense like this? WTF are you trying to say? Right or wrong, it’s still right? Jesus. And what exactly did “we” see in Iraq that convinces you? WMDs? Armed conflict? What?
I would ask HOW the world is better off without Saddam??
I would suggest that the average Iraqi sees very little difference in dying by decree or dying by DU or “Smart” bombs…
perhaps the difference being that Saddam protected them rather well against what is happening now.
He is a murderous bastard, no doubt, but you cannot argue the fact that he held a stable nation by whatever means.
The rate of death in Iraq remains higher now than during his reign, the resources of Iraq are now taken further from the Iraqi people, the world of Islam is now hell-bent on revenge for the war, the Iraqi infrastructure is in ruins AGAIN, which will cause hundreds of thousands of deaths by disease and starvation.
Americans are faced with paying for the war at the expense of critical social infrastructure. (This is very bad for the world IMHO.)
The world is retching at the obscene way Iraqi resources are being (mis)-handled by White House cronies.
The Middle East is hugely de-stabilised once again. (Bad for the world, GREAT for oil interests…)
American credibility in terms of policy is gutted, perhaps permanently. ( Now THAT might be a good thing for the world, now that the cards are on the table.)
So the world would be better off with Saddam in power? OK, we pretty well see where you’re coming from…
Oh, and to answer your question: torture chambers, mass graves, child jails, genocide…
Right on, Desmo! I too yearn for the happy days when Saddam was in power!
S/he’s being sarcastic. C’mon, you’re from the UK, you’re meant to get irony!
Is that the best you can do? You know what, Brutus, a couple more months of inspections and the whole of the UNSC and more would have been behind an invasion to remove Saddam. I would have applauded this on humanitarian grounds. But the PNAC administration and their meat puppet GWB (and their zombie-like my prez right or wrong supporters) couldn’t wait, and threw the international community into deep crisis. And it indeed turns out that the motivation for this “urgency” was a crock. That is what people are objecting to. I’m sorry that what we’ve been saying for more than a year now is turning out to be true, and your side turns out to be full of shit. It must be deeply disheartening.
Ahh… The good old days, when Saddam was Reagan’s best little fuckbuddy in the Middle East. Nobody cared about few gassed Kurds back then. Saddam and Rummy shaking hands like long-lost fratboys meeting again. Good times…
And no doubt the Iraqis that were killed during the invasion are happy now. As are their families. All of them free from the threat of Saddam killing them. Ditto with the U.S. soldiers who have died. Their families can now say, “well, at least Saddam didn’t kill them”. And you guys get to pay, what, 6 billion a month for this happy outcome?
Knowing you, Brutus, you could say that without anyone even suspecting any sarcasm. 
Mass graves like the ones needed now for the Iraqi civilian war dead? Or political prisons without trial or charge like Gitmo?
What’s worse anyhow? People being tortured and imprisoned or being outright killed by huge scale bombing or poisoned by radioactive munitions? Both the same in my book.
By your logic, the situation in Iraq is better now than before the war. How is that? Why are there demonstrations all over Iraq to get the US the hell out ? How EXACTLY has the world political climate or standrd of living been improved?
So Iraqis are better off dead than oppressed? Is their oppression over? There’s about 5,000 miles of razor-wire and about 10,000 dead civilians to illustrate the “end of oppression” in Iraq.
What about the “democracy” now in place in Iraq? Yep, LOTS of elected leaders there now, you betcha.
Money spent so far on pillaging the oil resources? 150 billion or so?
Money spent so far on critical infrastructure? Any guesses? Maybe 0?
Progress and plans made towards holding free elections in Iraq? None?
Progress towards raping the country and making sure ALL the money goes to American corporate interests? Right on schedule.
Credible sources of information justifying ANY of the reasons for going to war? 0?
Credible sources of information from inside Iraq these days? 0? Oh darn, they’ve all been shut down or killed.
Progress towards prosecution of those responsible for 9/11? None?
Witholding of information critical to successful determination of culpability in 9/11 by the American government? Excellent so far.
Screwing of the American soldiers taking part in this war? Unequaled in history. Likewise taxpayers.
Repeat with me: The ends do not justify the means.
Desirable ends do not justify evil means. Accomplishing desirable ends by bad means is never desireable or acceptable. The USA has used lies, has subverted international relations and has become an agressor which is evil which can never be justified by any ends.
If Saddam had slipped on a banana peel and broke his neck I definitely would not miss him. But the way his removal was achieved is shameful and signifies a great loss for the world. Yes, I wish we could go back to the previous situation where Saddam was in power but where the USA had not done so many evil and immoral things.
I believe President Bush is a threat to America and to the world and both America and the world would be better off without him. If he had choked to death on a pretzel I would not miss him but I would never condone his assasination.
What you are saying is that anything goes if the ends are good and that you find it acceptable that people who think President Bush is evil would try to kill him. That is what you and Brutus are saying and I disagree. You should not be proposing such points of view.
Scary how well some get to know me here
Hans Blix is a lawyer first and a diplomat second, beaurocrat third, with anything else in his resume probably coming a distant fourth. I have no objection to what he’s saying, that almost all of what Saddam had in the summer of '91 was probably destroyed just as Iraq had claimed.
This does not explain the fact that sometime between 1991 and 2001 Iraq had developed a nuclear program under the noses of the inspection teams (says the IEAE), had experimented with VX gas under the noses of the inspection teams (says Scott Ritter), and somehow had proscribed spanking-new missiles in residence when the inspection teams were allowed back in last year - despite Iraq being sanctioned up the wazoo and having few resources with which to devote to arms production. And God only knows what else is contained in that country, where average farmers have stockpiles of C4 explosive and 10-year olds possess RPGs and Kalishnikovs.
The whole lot of “inspections” is a sick joke, as are sanctions and Oil-for-Food. But the international community congratulates itself on “containment” and lavishes praise. [And ignores - wholesale - the fact that he was fighting a war by proxy under containment, as sure as if he was launching missiles, in Palestine. Judging from the amount of “Free Palestine” signs carried at the anti-war demonstrations, people did notice this situation and marched in favor of it, which is just disgusting.]
The US and the UK flying over parts of the country to keep the rabid ruler from exterminating Iraqis of the wrong sort - of this, I’m proud. I think toppling Saddam should have been done sooner instead of bombing at will and sanctioning the place into vast poverty…but in the end I’m satisfied that Saddam has been removed permanently and the Iraqis have a shot at a genuine representational government for the first time since the country was formed. And that eventually thereafter, there will be that much less US presence in the Middle East.
We will, out of our own pockets and with help sent from numerous countries, rebuild their schools and their infrastructure, and assist them in rebuilding their security forces, their government and their industries, athletic programs, etc, and then we’ll leave. That’s pretty much how its going to be, imo.
Is the world better off with Kim Jong Il in power in North Korea? By your logic, Bush is shirking his international responsibilities by not invading immediately. America is not responsible for toppling every tin-horn despot in the world.
Ah, my bad. I was thinking they’d done that in 1992, as a reprisal for Desert Storm.
Ah, how soon we forget. True, Blix and the UN were in favor of more Inspections, and waiting to see what the Inspections found (as was I). But Blix openly praised the * realistic threat* of US agression, as he admitted that Saddam would never had let the Inspectors back in without it. Nor did Blix say at that time that he doubted that Iraq had any WMD. In fact- again I will point out that Blix was openly dubious about Saddams lack of evidence for such destruction. True- Blix was keeping an open mind. However, he never predicted there weren’t any WMD’s either.
Like I said- NOW he says it is clear there are no WMD. Yes- “NOW”. I agree that we should have waited and let the Inspections continue, but Blix doing this now is purely Political.
But again- the fact that there are none there NOW is NOT evidence at all that there weren’t any. They could have been moved to Syria.
>And maybe the simplest explanation of all is the right one. The
>Iraqis said they had destroyed them and they had. They were
>never able to be believed because their enemy just didn’t want
>to believe, no evidence was good enough or ever could have
>been good enough.
Right. Even though they let inspectors through to rummage through their collective cellars, and the inspectors came up with nothing, the silly US and its mindless zombie cohorts wouldn’t admit that they had no WMDs. Silly Yankees!
>Money spent so far on pillaging the oil resources? 150 billion or so?
Secure to prevent burnings a la 1991 and pillaging are two entirely different things.
>Money spent so far on critical infrastructure? Any guesses? Maybe 0?
Cite?
>Is the world better off with Kim Jong Il in power in North Korea?
>By your logic, Bush is shirking his international responsibilities
>by not invading immediately. America is not responsible for
>toppling every tin-horn despot in the world.
Obviously, the US wanted to remove SH before he became KJI. Two entirely different situations, though I’m sure that if KJI had no nukes, the US would jump at the chance.
Besides, it’s obvious that Iraq must be invaded before. Why? Because we have to do it alphabetically !
Or, outer space!
So… does anyone still think we’re going to find WMD’s?
So far no one seems ready to defend a positive on this. While there are plenty of off-topic “Saddam was evil” and some almost on topic “containment didn’t work”, but still no “we’ll find them eventually”.
Interesting.
He said there was not enough evidence.
The USA said there was more than enough evidence.
Blix and the UN were right.
The USA was wrong.