Saddam Hussein would still be in power

[michaeledward]

As this election has been reported to be the first election in 30 years to have 'Foreign Policy' as the primary reason people are voting, I think this topic is worth discussing.

At a campaign stop on Friday September 10, 2004, President Bush made the following statement:

“The newest wrinkle is that Sen. Kerry has now decided we are spending too much money in Iraq even though he criticized us earlier for not spending enough,” Bush said. “One thing about Sen. Kerry’s position is clear ... if he had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power and would still be a threat to our security and to the world.”

Now, I do not want to talk about Saddam Hussein of the mid-80's, when he used chemical weapons against the Iranians and Kurds. I don't want to talk about Saddam Hussein of the early 90's, making a land-grab in Kuwait. But let's take a close look at Saddam Hussein of the 21st century.

If Saddam Hussein was still in power, today, in 2004, would he be a threat to our security? to the world? How would that threat manifest itself? What actual dangers did Saddam Hussein pose?

If, indeed, Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq would be a threat, then the President's claim may have some merit, and we could then debate the merit of removing Hussein, and against Kerry. But, are you ready to accept the premise?

I do not think that Saddam Hussein in power over Iraq was a threat to American Security. I do not think Saddam Hussein in power over Iraq was a threat to the world. It had been years since the fighter planes had been off the ground. His military was not fully staffed. Spare parts were not available for his armor, and he could not acquire them due to lack of capital and embargoes.

In the words of Mr. O'Reilly ... "What say you?"

Mike

 

[Flatlander]

I think that the primary threat that Saddam posed outside of his own country was toward Israel. He was financially supporting the Palestinian suicide bombers, and I would imagine allowing the most wanted of them safe haven. So, if anyone believes that a threat to Israel corresponds to a threat to the US, then sure. I, however, do not.

 

[bignick]

Saddan Hussein was absoluetly no threat to america...at least i've seen no evidence of it...

but he had those WMDs, right?

well...he was had the facilities to build them, right?

But, he had every intention doing so, right?

Well, he was a tyrant and treated his people horribly, right?

this one is true...but there is no justification to go to war over internal conflicts withing a country...if it is...well...we've got a lot more wars we need to start...

 

[Kane]

As this election has been reported to be the first election in 30 years to have 'Foreign Policy' as the primary reason people are voting, I think this topic is worth discussing.

At a campaign stop on Friday September 10, 2004, President Bush made the following statement:


Now, I do not want to talk about Saddam Hussein of the mid-80's, when he used chemical weapons against the Iranians and Kurds. I don't want to talk about Saddam Hussein of the early 90's, making a land-grab in Kuwait. But let's take a close look at Saddam Hussein of the 21st century.

If Saddam Hussein was still in power, today, in 2004, would he be a threat to our security? to the world? How would that threat manifest itself? What actual dangers did Saddam Hussein pose?

If, indeed, Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq would be a threat, then the President's claim may have some merit, and we could then debate the merit of removing Hussein, and against Kerry. But, are you ready to accept the premise?

I do not think that Saddam Hussein in power over Iraq was a threat to American Security. I do not think Saddam Hussein in power over Iraq was a threat to the world. It had been years since the fighter planes had been off the ground. His military was not fully staffed. Spare parts were not available for his armor, and he could not acquire them due to lack of capital and embargoes.

In the words of Mr. O'Reilly ... "What say you?"

Mike

In time he would be a threat to America and the rest of the world, he has ties to Al Queda. Just imagine if he developed any stronger weapons. I'm sure eventually Saddam would develop a nuke.....and give it to Bin Ladden. I don't know about you, but I definitely don't want to wait around for that too happen.

 

[bignick]

where is your evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda?

 

[michaeledward]

In time he would be a threat to America and the rest of the world, he has ties to Al Queda. Just imagine if he developed any stronger weapons. I'm sure eventually Saddam would develop a nuke.....and give it to Bin Ladden. I don't know about you, but I definitely don't want to wait around for that too happen.

How much time would it take for Saddam Husseing to be a threat to America? And you do realize that your President said that Saddam Hussein was a threat to America. Do you think someone who makes that assessment deserves to be President? From the first sentence in your post, you do not think Saddam Hussein was the a threat to America in 2001, 2002.

According to the 9/11 Commission, the group investigating al Qaeda's attacks on America, Saddam Hussein did not have ties to al Qaeda. What evidence do you have to counter their research? This is important, because your premise is that even if Hussein could develop Nuclear Weapons, or if he had Chemical and Biological weapons (which he apparently didn't), he would deliver those weapons to Bin Laden. Why do you make this assertion?

How are you sure that Saddam would develop a nuclear weapon? There is no evidence of a nuclear weapons development going on in Iraq between the time the UNSCOM inspectors left in 1998 and when the UNMOVIC inspectors returned in late 2002.

I don't want to wait around til the next planet killing asteroid impacts the planet Earth, but I'm not going to go commit suicide because it is going to happen.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yeah, but you've gotta love watching the Big Lie mutate from "we know for sure," to, "well, he mighta."

 

[Kane]

where is your evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda?

Connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...03/378fmxyz.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...04/152lndzv.asp

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...ein_al_ qaeda/

The 911 Commission is full of it.


Weapon's of Mass Destruction in Iraq;

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6705


President Bush speaks out about Iraq & Al Qaeda ties...

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/new...id=azMEdM2f.xzQ

Clinton Justice Dept Bin Laden indictment cites Iraq ties...in 1998!

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html


Honestly though, why would anyone of you want Saddam in power.

 

[bignick]

the only linked that work was the very last one...

Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

and that was the entire evidence within that article...this isn't evidence...this is a sentence that says they did...where is the evidence behind that statement

 

[Kane]

Connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...03/378fmxyz.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...04/152lndzv.asp

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...ein_al_ qaeda/

The 911 Commission is full of it.


Weapon's of Mass Destruction in Iraq;

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6705


President Bush speaks out about Iraq & Al Qaeda ties...

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/new...id=azMEdM2f.xzQ

Clinton Justice Dept Bin Laden indictment cites Iraq ties...in 1998!

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html


Honestly though, why would anyone of you want Saddam in power.

The links should work now. If they don't work the first time click on them a few more times.

Connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/06/16/bush_backs_cheney_on_assertion

The 911 Commission is full of it.


Weapon's of Mass Destruction in Iraq;

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6705


President Bush speaks out about Iraq & Al Qaeda ties...

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&refer=top_world_news&sid=azMEdM2f

Clinton Justice Dept Bin Laden indictment cites Iraq ties...in 1998!

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html


Honestly though, why would anyone of you want Saddam in power.[/

 

[bignick]

it's not a question of saddam being in power...it's a question of our rights and responsibilities. We neither had the right nor the responsibility to invade Iraq...not to mention over the thousand lives it's cost us...

if the desire to develop WMDs lays upon us the responsibiility to invade and overthrow a sovereign nation...we've got a lot of work to do....

 

[michaeledward]

The links should work now. If they don't work the first time click on them a few more times.

Connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda?

Weapon's of Mass Destruction in Iraq;

President Bush speaks out about Iraq & Al Qaeda ties...

Clinton Justice Dept Bin Laden indictment cites Iraq ties...in 1998!

Honestly though, why would anyone of you want Saddam in power.

In answer to your question ... Because it was none of our business!.

I looked at the first few links and found the names Douglas Feith, Dick Cheney, and Stephen Hayes. Kane, you are aware that Douglas Feith and Dick Cheney were heavily involved in the planning and execution of the invasion of Iraq. They can hardly be considered 'Reliable Sources'. Stephen Hayes is someone I am not very familiar with, but as his major supporter seems to be Bill O'Reilly, I do have a hard time taking him seriously.

I checked the link to the American Spectator. Here was an articel talking about someone named 'Demetrius Perricos'. That is a name I am not familar with, perhaps there is something here. I read the article and it states "While it's true that these finds are not the chemical and biological weapons...". But you are citing this as a source for "Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq".

Hmmm ... Doesn't seem like strong evidence to me.

I did a Google on Demetrius Perricos and found this ... the first hit.

U.N. weapons inspector sees vindication in U.S. frustration

UNITED NATIONS — Demetrius Perricos, acting head of the United Nations weapons inspection program, can't disguise his satisfaction that almost a year after the invasion of Iraq, U.S. inspectors have found the same thing that their much-maligned U.N. counterparts did before the war: no banned weapons.

OK ... so let's review ... the one neutral name you mention gets a report in American Specator that there are not chemical biological weapons; and my find says that this source is satisfied that the United States weapons inspectors are coming up empty handed too.

Geesh ... with evidence like this ... How can you be asking these questions?

Mike

 

[Kane]

I can't believe you would want him to still be in power. Don’t you think someone like Saddam shouldn’t be in power?

My main reason why I supported the Iraq war was not because of the ties to Al Queda, it was the fact that Saddam treated his people lower than dirt. He has done so many violations of human rights. He SHOULDN'T be in power.

Michaeledward, I remember one time you said that you define yourself as a extreme liberal. If this is the case, how and why would you want someone like Saddam to rule? Liberal is a short term for sdomeone who believes in liberty. Do you think Iraq had any liberty under Saddam?

 

[Makalakumu]

I can't believe you would want him to still be in power. Don’t you think someone like Saddam shouldn’t be in power?

My main reason why I supported the Iraq war was not because of the ties to Al Queda, it was the fact that Saddam treated his people lower than dirt. He has done so many violations of human rights. He SHOULDN'T be in power.

Michaeledward, I remember one time you said that you define yourself as a extreme liberal. If this is the case, how and why would you want someone like Saddam to rule? Liberal is a short term for sdomeone who believes in liberty. Do you think Iraq had any liberty under Saddam?

Kane, when Saddam was at his most ruthless, the US could care less. He gassed his own people with the weapons we sold him. And the whole gassing event makes no mention of the people he gassed for us in Iran. Yep, women and children died their too. Perhaps someone should ask our esteemed secratary of defense about this event?

 

[Flatlander]

I can't believe you would want him to still be in power. Don’t you think someone like Saddam shouldn’t be in power?

My main reason why I supported the Iraq war was not because of the ties to Al Queda, it was the fact that Saddam treated his people lower than dirt. He has done so many violations of human rights. He SHOULDN'T be in power.

Michaeledward, I remember one time you said that you define yourself as a extreme liberal. If this is the case, how and why would you want someone like Saddam to rule? Liberal is a short term for sdomeone who believes in liberty. Do you think Iraq had any liberty under Saddam?

Kane, I agree with you. However, there is a major difference between legal justification and moral obligation. You started off with trying to show legal justification. Now you're abandoning that for moral obligation as justification.
And that's a bad can of worms to open, - where does the line get drawn? Those are not democratic values based upon rule of law, they are based on rule of morality, and all people carry different ways of interpreting morality. Rule of law can be an absolute foundation, and thus provide irrefutable justification for any action, provided the law is followed.

In this case, it wasn't.

 

[michaeledward]

I can't believe you would want him to still be in power. Don’t you think someone like Saddam shouldn’t be in power?

My main reason why I supported the Iraq war was not because of the ties to Al Queda, it was the fact that Saddam treated his people lower than dirt. He has done so many violations of human rights. He SHOULDN'T be in power.

Michaeledward, I remember one time you said that you define yourself as a extreme liberal. If this is the case, how and why would you want someone like Saddam to rule? Liberal is a short term for sdomeone who believes in liberty. Do you think Iraq had any liberty under Saddam?

You can't believe I would still want Saddam Hussein in power?

What I want really is not the issue ... I don't want George Bush in power. I don't want Kim Jong Il in power. I don't want Ahmed Chalabi or Ayotollah al-Sadr in power in Iraq. I don't want Hamid Karzai in power in Afghanistan.

To want something doesn't make it so. To make is so, takes action and money. I am not willing to obligate the United States of America, the soldiers wearing her unifrom, and the taxpayers who support the government and service to making my wants a reality.

As of this posting, 1007 United States soldiers have been killed in Iraq. To me, that price is unacceptable.
As of this posting, the United States has spent $137,756,000,000.00 dollars to remove Saddam Hussein from power. To me, that price is unacceptable.

I don't know if 'Liberal' and 'Liberty' are the synonyms you are claiming them to be, but if I recall my history, when, in 1775, there were people in the colonies feeling that their liberty was being denied by their ruler, they not only rebuked their ruler with words, but pledged their 'Lives', their 'Fortunes' and the 'Sacred Honor'.

Why should not the Iraqi's make a similiar pledge for their own liberty?


Post Script

My main reason why I supported the Iraq war was ... the fact that Saddam treated his people lower than dirt. He has done so many violations of human rights.

Were these your motivations prior to May 19, 2003? If so, you are in a distinct minority among the American people. Prior to the invasion, the Administration, on Douglas Feith's recommendation, presented this war as necessary because of the Weapons of Mass Destruction. With this argument, American public opinion supported the war. Without this argument, there was insufficient support for the war.

Them's the facts.
Mike

 

[bignick]

some of you may have seen this...some may not...it's a picture of Bush's man Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with the man himself, Saddam Hussein

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I got bad links on several of those you posted as well.

Here's a link that works. Scroll down to the section on the Saddam/Al Qaida connection:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/

I'll snip a piece of it for you to preview:

It started on September 25, 2002, when Bush said, “you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam.” This was news even to members of Bush’s own political party who had access to classified intelligence. Just a month before, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, “Saddam is not in league with al Qaeda. I have not seen any intelligence that would lead me to connect Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda."

The article links with the following piece, which can give you a bit of background on the issue:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/26/time.iraq/

I can't believe you would want him to still be in power. Don’t you think someone like Saddam shouldn’t be in power?

My main reason why I supported the Iraq war was not because of the ties to Al Queda, it was the fact that Saddam treated his people lower than dirt. He has done so many violations of human rights. He SHOULDN'T be in power.
[/color]

So that is the role of our military, then? The world's police?

Given that we've got this new agenda set by you and the administration, let's remember there are five remaining terrorist states on the State Department's list of rogue nations. We have China to deal with as well. China has killed...how many Chinese and Tibetans in my lifetime alone? At least 1.5 million.

One of those documents you provided "linking" Saddam to Al Qaeda also listed Iran...several times. Are they next on our hit list? Cuba? North Korea? Syria? Turkey? Sri Lanka? Chechnya? Do we go after the ones with the nukes first, or do we go after the ones that our allies? We seem to like to financially support murderous thugs who abuse their people. I'd like you to tell me which murderous thugs we support, and which we go after for "moral reasons". I'm a tad confused...particularly since Saddam was one of those cretins we supported.

Bottom line: The purpose of the United States Military is NATIONAL SECURITY. Nowhere does our Constitution list "nation building" as a job description for our troops. George Bush said that before getting elected. Pity he flip flopped.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Kane]

So that is the role of our military, then? The world's police?

Why did we attack Germany in WWII? They never attacked us. Japan was the one who spilt our people's blood. Why did we bother to help Britain liberate Europe from Hitler?

On a different note, why didn't Britain and France stop Germany after he took over Poland or even before then? Why can't we and other countries help other countries in need?

Anyway, my point is: it is our job as a superpower to support democracy and human rights and to stop others who violate them. What is wrong with helping those who are oppressed or in need?

The world is a better place without Saddam in power. Michaeledward, how can you even compare George Bush to someone like Saddam? Disliking a president is a TOTALLY different matter than not disliking a Stalin-like dictator.


Upnorthkyosa, you might be right. Maybe we did ignore Saddam when he was at his worse. Does that give any reason why we shouldn’t care now? Where going to just let him get away with all the horrible things he did? I don't think so.

 

[Raewyn]

I dont live in your country but you have made some real vailid points. Do you think maybe the oil over in Iraq had anything to do with part of the decision to invade it?? It is a land quite rich in resources (oil). I think if it had been another country ie Zimbabwe (which is also run by a shady dictator) which does not really have that much to offer, would Bush still have invaded Iraq if it had no oil??