Sadaam poll

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » June 9, 2005, 2:29 pm

The world in general and Iraqis in particular will be better off without him running a country IMO. He'd never be anything but a murderous thug.

I've never believed the reasons given for going in, but don't disagree with his being removed from the world stage at all. Neither did his neighbors apparently.

No, I didn't give many options.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » June 9, 2005, 2:45 pm

I don't think anyone will dispute that his removal can be anything less than a good thing.(except for maybe Nick and Kyo and other anti-Americans) I think the dispute comes in how it was done.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » June 9, 2005, 2:46 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote:I don't think anyone will dispute that his removal can be anything less than a good thing.(except for maybe Nick and Kyo and other anti-American) I think the dispute comes in how it was done.

Exactly. It wasn't our friggin problem.

The money we spent and the lives we lost as well as the civilian lives they lost that are a catalyst to terrorist recruitment made this a foolish effort by us.

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » June 9, 2005, 2:50 pm

I think the US filed 'Irreconcilable Differences' and is still awaiting word from the judge.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » June 9, 2005, 3:02 pm

Lohrno wrote:
Bubba Grizz wrote:I don't think anyone will dispute that his removal can be anything less than a good thing.(except for maybe Nick and Kyo and other anti-American) I think the dispute comes in how it was done.
Exactly. It wasn't our friggin problem.

The money we spent and the lives we lost as well as the civilian lives they lost that are a catalyst to terrorist recruitment made this a foolish effort by us.

Yes it was. We helped put him there. If someone else had gone in to take him out, it would have only led to even more fighting and instability in the area. Instituting stability in the region is the U.S. goal there from what it appears....even if it requires mass force to make it happen.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » June 9, 2005, 3:12 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote: Yes it was. We helped put him there. If someone else had gone in to take him out, it would have only led to even more fighting and instability in the area. Instituting stability in the region is the U.S. goal there from what it appears....even if it requires mass force to make it happen.

At the very least if we had gone about it with international cooperation we would see way less resentment from europe and the middle east.

Hey but maybe we shouldn't have put him there? Who was responsible for that one? Hm.... One mistake after another, and here we are.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 9, 2005, 3:18 pm

The world in general and Iraqis in particular will be better off without him running a country IMO

How exactly is the "world in general" better off without him running the country?

How about the 25k dead Iraqis and the hundreds of thousands more who's homes and lives were destroyed by SHOCK AND AWE?
Are they better off?

Maybe 20-30 years down the road after a civil war and the rebuilding of the countries infrastructure, the next generation of Iraqis might be better off.... but who am I to say?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » June 9, 2005, 3:27 pm

miir wrote: How exactly is the "world in general" better off without him running the country?

Well he wasn't the most peaceful dictator...But that's what we liked about him. =P

How about the 25k dead Iraqis and the hundreds of thousands more who's homes and lives were destroyed by SHOCK AND AWE?
Are they better off?

Maybe 20-30 years down the road after a civil war and the rebuilding of the countries infrastructure, the next generation of Iraqis might be better off.... but who am I to say?

That wasn't the question. Of course the way we did things was wrong, but the question was "Is the world better off without Saddam in power?" not "Was what we did right?"

I would say yes to the first and no to the second.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 9, 2005, 3:29 pm

Yes it was. We helped put him there.

Not at all.
He came to power in Iraq without the help of the mighty USA.
The US did (help)fund the war agaisnt Iran, in essence keeping him in power during that period.

If someone else had gone in to take him out, it would have only led to even more fighting and instability in the area.

When Saddam and the Baath party made their power-play to gain control of Iraq, it did not cause instability in the area. Sure there was rebellions, attempted coups and assainations but those were brutally stomped out... for example, you like to claim he 'gassed his own people' when he was fighting the Kurdish rebels.

Instituting stability in the region is the U.S. goal there from what it appears....even if it requires mass force to make it happen.

So you believe that the goal of the US government (spending hundreds of billions of dollars) in a country halfway around the world is simply to make the middle east a better/stable place?

Are you really that fucking gulliable?

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » June 9, 2005, 3:29 pm

I'm happy Saddam is toppled but I'm much more relieved that Uday and Qusay are dead.

There are 2 people I'm happy will never be at the head of a state.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 53,00.html

miir · Post by **miir** » June 9, 2005, 3:35 pm

Lohrno wrote:Well he wasn't the most peaceful dictator...But that's what we liked about him. =P

No seriously.
Be specific.
How is the "world in general" better off?

I can understand that some Iraqis ar beetter off, while others who prospered under Saddam are not better off.

But other than his big bonehead move of invading Kuwait, the rest of the world was very much unaffected by Iraq.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » June 9, 2005, 3:43 pm

Well, what about the Iran-Iraq war?

He used WMD on the Iranians. That's not good. (Yes they were supplied by us but that he used them...)

As a sidenote, that should make it more clear that he didn't have WMDs when we invaded since he was not hesitant to use them.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 9, 2005, 3:59 pm

He used WMD on the Iranians. That's not good. (Yes they were supplied by us but that he used them...)

The US used WMDs on Japan.
What's your point?

20 years after WW2 would the world have been better off if some other country took it upon themselves to invade and occupy the US and topple their government?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » June 9, 2005, 4:06 pm

miir wrote: The US used WMDs on Japan.
What's your point?

True, but they were a different class of WMDs. You could argue that more lives were saved by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki than would have been had we conducted a protracted land invasion. I'm not sure if it was the right action or not though. You can kinda see why we did it though, and it was the first and hopefully the last time such weapons are used.

20 years after WW2 would the world have been better off if some other country took it upon themselves to invade and occupy the US and topple their government?

Those WMDs he used were of a slightly lesser scale. If the US used nukes any time again as an attack method, I would be strongly against that and might tend to agree... (Maybe not 20 years in the future, but an immediate invasion might be warranted.) If Saddam had nukes he would have used them even if such use were unwarranted. Not only that but he attacked Iran. In our defense, Japan attacked us.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 9, 2005, 5:22 pm

Him attacking Iran was in the strategic interest of the United States, and precisely the reason we were supplying him with the weapons.

what on earth are you talking about?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » June 9, 2005, 5:27 pm

Voronwë wrote:Him attacking Iran was in the strategic interest of the United States, and precisely the reason we were supplying him with the weapons.

what on earth are you talking about?

Right, but if he were not an aggressive person he could have told us to stuff it. He didn't HAVE to attack Iran when there were diplomatic options available.

Hmm sounds familiar...

miir · Post by **miir** » June 9, 2005, 5:54 pm

Hmm sounds familiar...

In whos fucking universe?

Invading and occupying a sovreign nation halfway across the globe sounds similar to a decades long border/land dispute between 2 neighbouring countries ?

*boggle*

Right, but if he were not an aggressive person he could have told us to stuff it. He didn't HAVE to attack Iran when there were diplomatic options available.

Diplomatic options availble to deal with Khomeini?
Come on dude, you're not that much of a fucking retard. I'd expect a statement like that from the likes of the idiot mouth breather brigade but you're actually capable of forming a complete sentance.

Unless of course im completely missing the sarcasm/irony.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 9, 2005, 5:57 pm

- I don't think the world as a whole is better off at this point in time. I dare say it has lead to more unrest and uncertainty.

- I will say that Iraq has a CHANCE of being better off but it is WAY too early to tell.

- If it was to be done I believe it was done horribly wrong.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » June 9, 2005, 5:59 pm

miir wrote:
Hmm sounds familiar...
In whos fucking universe?

Invading and occupying a sovreign nation halfway across the globe sounds similar to a decades long border/land dispute between 2 neighbouring countries ?

*boggle*

Iraq didn't just invade to take back some portion of it's border, Saddam wanted to march on Tehran. He used a supposed assasination attempt as a pretext for invading.

Here's where I'm getting my information...Wikipedia.

If there is anything innacurate feel free to let me know...

miir · Post by **miir** » June 9, 2005, 6:06 pm

Iraq didn't just invade to take back some portion of it's border, Saddam wanted to march on Tehran.

Um... do you actually know anything about the Iran/Iraq war?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » June 9, 2005, 6:08 pm

Sorry, I edited after that. If there is something glaring, please feel free to inform me..

miir · Post by **miir** » June 9, 2005, 6:15 pm

LOL

Saddam Hussein boasted he would be in Tehran in 3 days

So, you found one comment made by Saddam that was likely from a morale boosting speech and assume that was the original intent of the war?
Not like the leader of any country ever made any far fetched claims... like oh, let's say... misison accomplished to boost troop morale.

Despite the fact that there were no offensive launched towards Tehran or that the warzones, in 8 years never came within 300 miles of the city, you still believe that it was Iraq's intent to conquer the whole contry?

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » June 9, 2005, 6:19 pm

Kelshara wrote:- I don't think the world as a whole is better off at this point in time. I dare say it has lead to more unrest and uncertainty.

- I will say that Iraq has a CHANCE of being better off but it is WAY too early to tell.

- If it was to be done I believe it was done horribly wrong.

I'd hate to live with a chronic pessimist.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » June 9, 2005, 6:51 pm

miir wrote: So, you found one comment made by Saddam that was likely from a morale boosting speech and assume that was the original intent of the war?
Not like the leader of any country ever made any far fetched claims... like oh, let's say... misison accomplished to boost troop morale.

Despite the fact that there were no offensive launched towards Tehran or that the warzones, in 8 years never came within 300 miles of the city, you still believe that it was Iraq's intent to conquer the whole contry?

Fair enough. I really don't know too much more about it than what's in that article. But that he attacked in the first place and used chemical weapons is still not really good.

Although to his credit he started less wars over a longer time than Bush did in a shorter.

Also, I think one less dictator in the world is generally good.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 9, 2005, 7:51 pm

Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote:- I don't think the world as a whole is better off at this point in time. I dare say it has lead to more unrest and uncertainty.

- I will say that Iraq has a CHANCE of being better off but it is WAY too early to tell.

- If it was to be done I believe it was done horribly wrong.
I'd hate to live with a chronic pessimist.

Far from a chronic pessimist. However, I wont buy what Rummy and co tries to sell me either. Do I hope Iraq turns out for the better? Definitely. But it wont be anytime soon. It is a VERY long and bloody process that is far from over.

The other points are hardly pessimistic.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 9, 2005, 8:01 pm

Taken wholistically? It's a hard call. He's a megamaniacal narcissist, not the kind of people you want running countries. However, I think the resentment and fervour invading troops create far outlives what was left of Saddam's life.
And lets remember, he was (as I said repeatedly) scared enough of the US to disarm quietly without letting his people know, and no particular threat to anyone outside his borders.

How long did you resent the British again after the war? (and you don't even have a religious difference to help things along)

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 9, 2005, 8:13 pm

"anti-american". The new great buzzword of the century, doesn't mean much, doesn't even have to be accurate, but it sounds catchy!!!

I am not anti-Noel, Anti-Masteen, Anti-Sylvos, Anti-Winnow, Anti-Voronwe (sorry to others not mentioned that I

), they are all from the USA as far as I can tell......nice labelling Bubba, shows your open mindedness and rationality.

It could very easily be argued that the WORLD is not a better place after the invasion (such is the level of resentment felt towards the unilateral dangerous action taken by the USA and its cohorts), maybe Iraq MIGHT be a better place 20-30 years down the line from now. Time will tell. As it stands currently Iraq is still sadly worse off than it was under Saddam.

It's a flawed poll, that once again really refuses to handle the meat of the issue.

On the WMD issue, if the US or any other country supplied them, are they not as culpable as whoever used them? Hmm.....

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » June 9, 2005, 9:36 pm

Nick wrote:It's a flawed poll, that once again really refuses to handle the meat of the issue.

No, it was a poll to get people's opinion in a straightforward manner without all the side jaunts.

10-15 years from now you'll either be laughing and looking back at what an idiot you were (as is usually the case), or you'll be well on your way to being a bitter and discontented old man.

Even Jane Fonda grew up eventually.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » June 9, 2005, 10:02 pm

Aabidano wrote: No, it was a poll to get people's opinion in a straightforward manner without all the side jaunts.

Do NOT confuse "Is the world better off without Saddam?" with "Should we have done what we have done?"

Those are two very different issues.

If you made a poll about the second, you will not find so many yes votes.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » June 9, 2005, 10:02 pm

Yeah, so he's a liar and a murderer, and a greedy prick who took his people for everything he could steal, using fear, religion and the media to control them.

But didn't he give them tax breaks?

No?

Oh.

Fucking terrorist.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 9, 2005, 10:43 pm

10-15 years from now you'll either be laughing and looking back at what an idiot you were (as is usually the case), or you'll be well on your way to being a bitter and discontented old man.

So if we don't agree with Bush we will turn into bitter and discontented old men? Or rather, if we don't agree with Bush in the future we will be considered to be one?

Makes sense.

Arsecn · Post by **Arsecn** » June 9, 2005, 11:46 pm

You have that Anti-American tag for a reason... because most of your rants tend to lump all of us USAers in the same evil boat you fucking rant about and then proceed to preach how we will regret it, rest of world hates us all, we are but just sheep, etc... yadda yadda.

You do have an stick up your ass for Americans, it comes out in your posts until you're called on it, then you back peddle and try this same old shit... "no not all you Americans bloke, just your government and mindless sheep, ..." blah blah blah.

Stuff a sock in it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 10, 2005, 12:21 am

Removing Saddam from power was not only a bad idea, but you haven't even begun to reap the negative side effects from it.

Here is a clue: You have a country with 3 major population bases, all of whom have hated each other since the USA was nothing but indians and buffalo. All 3 factions have access to enormous amounts of firepower and explosives. Now you take away the only stability in the entire country: a brutal dictator who will fuck you and your entire family up seventeen ways from sunday if you even have a dream about starting shit up with that nearly identical sect of islam with a different name than the one you belong to. Now all you have is a power vaccuum with the 3 original population bases all trying to take control, with a 4th new faction trying to install a laughably pathetic "democracy" filled with a bunch of pre-approved political parties that no one in the actual country is even familiar with.

While you cretins look at the violence in Iraq and make tsk'ing sounds at the insurgents "killing their own people" all I see is sunni's killing shi'ites and shi'ites killing kurds and everybody killing christians.

Prior to the USA's little oil grab, Iraq was the most secular major nation in the arab world. There were christians in major positions in the government, women could go to university and become any career they wanted to become, and non-muslims could go to the store and buy alcohol and pork without worrying about gangs of muslims burning their shops down.

No, Iraq wasn't utopia and Hussein wasn't Ghandi, but maybe an area like the intersection of the tigris and euphrates needs a brutal dictator to keep all of the factions in line. maybe you will come to realize that when a year from now the news will be filled with american troops arresting Iraqi "insurgents" in the middle of the night and burning down "terrorist villages" that maybe a little hardcore ass kicking is what is needed to keep down 25 million people who mostly hate each other from starting a civil war.

then again, you probably won't be able to wrap your brains around it enough to figure it out.

you will probably keep waving your stupid flag around and talking about how its all for their own good while women are raped and murdered for leaving the house without their bhurka on and your totally ineffectual democratically elected Iraqi government votes in an overwhelming majority to give kellogg, brown and root another no compete contract to rebuild a swingset and baghdad national park for seven hundred and fifty million dollars in oil money. (and blaming everything on france and now britain)

also, Iran started the war between Iran and Iraq. Iraq may have attacked first, but only after Iran declared that they were going to turn baghdad into a sea of fire and started massing troops and artillery on the border after the fundies took control of the government in the islamic revolution. learn some god damn fucking history.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 10, 2005, 4:56 am

Great post Arse! Nice way to violently avoid blatant fact, sorry if you feel I lump you in with the sheep, although you are probably correct to do so.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » June 10, 2005, 6:50 am

Lohrno wrote:Do NOT confuse "Is the world better off without Saddam?" with "Should we have done what we have done?"
...
If you made a poll about the second, you will not find so many yes votes.

Should we have done what we did and for the purported reasons did it? No, probably not. I've said all along I don't agree with a lot of this mess we're in.. As someone else mentioned, either of his sons being in power after him would have been a larger nightmare.

On your logic Kyou, I guess what's happening around Darfur is fine and we should leave them be to settle it amongst themselves? Those naughty dissenters must have deserved butchering in Stalnist Russia and Pol Pot's Cambodia as well.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 10, 2005, 7:09 am

Aabidano wrote: On your logic Kyou, I guess what's happening around Darfur is fine and we should leave them be to settle it amongst themselves? Those naughty dissenters must have deserved butchering in Stalnist Russia and Pol Pot's Cambodia as well.

That point would be a lot stronger if you apparently gave a shit about any of those countries.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » June 10, 2005, 8:54 am

So you are saying we should go there and help someone? Or should we ignore the rest of the world entirely and let everyone slug it out? I know that if there were no nukes in the world today, I would let the whole fucking world just kill each other rampantly until the population had dwindled, then I would take my army in and take control and put them under strict regimes.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 10, 2005, 11:33 am

Nice guy

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 10, 2005, 1:30 pm

Who said anything about peace in Iraq or the Middle East? Saddam was an external threat. Whether the nut could actually do anyting or not is debatible but he had a big mouth when it came to praising terrorist activities. Now we're back to in-fighting and localized conflicts.

Balancing out the factions to keep one from getting too powerful is all that matters.

All is good.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 10, 2005, 2:38 pm

By external threat do you mean not the actual threat? I.e - The one that got you planed?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 10, 2005, 4:09 pm

Nick wrote:By external threat do you mean not the actual threat? I.e - The one that got you planed?

I don't understand what you just said there but what I mean by "external threat" is a threat to stability beyond his own country and the Middle East (except for Iran...who cares if he attacks them) via support of terrorism.

Like we can't say "bomb" on an airplane, leaders of the middle east can't say "jihad" with reporters around or they get the Team America smack down.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 10, 2005, 4:47 pm

via support of terrorism.

Other than publicaly offering the families of Palestinian suicide bombers financial assistance, how else did Saddam 'support terrorism'?

The government of every islamic country in the middle east and africa (including Saudi Arabia) most likely does the same, but privately.

I fail to see how exactly was he a threat to anyone... and how is the world better off without him in power?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 10, 2005, 4:55 pm

and what's with ex Canadian singer Alanis Morissette becoming a U.S. citizen recently?

We'll take Captain Kirk and maybe the engineer from Firefly, Kaylee, who I think is Canadian but that's IT!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 10, 2005, 5:32 pm

contrasting to the "Support of Terrorism" going in on Saudi Arabia: where 15 of the highjackers were from, where members of the Royal Family (the federal government is that family) offer financial assistance to Wahabiist extremists who teach open Jihad against the West.

that administration gets hand held walks through the garden.

Arsecn · Post by **Arsecn** » June 12, 2005, 10:33 am

Nick wrote:Great post Arse! Nice way to violently avoid blatant fact, sorry if you feel I lump you in with the sheep, although you are probably correct to do so.

Just trying to point out why you think you are wrongly labeled. Violently avoid blatant fact? I choose not to debate with shit heads like you on these boards. Go Jihad you fucking leprachaun.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 12, 2005, 1:14 pm

WoW that was original!!

Are you anti - Irish?!

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, the jihad is on you, not me

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » June 12, 2005, 2:25 pm

no it's on you too.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 12, 2005, 4:09 pm

Yep let's remember all the times Al'Quaida mentioned Ireland in their releases.

Better yet, let's see who is targetted first.

Edit: Even better, how come it's such a crime to dislike US and developed countries foreign policy yet it's perfectly ok to be bigoted towards every other nation on the planet whilst basing any shitty insult on hilarious stereotypes from fairy tales.

Wow, let's have stupid double standards, it's so in these days after all.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 12, 2005, 5:05 pm

Nick wrote:Yep let's remember all the times Al'Quaida mentioned Ireland in their releases.

The word insignificant comes to mind. Someone's got to give a damn about you before you're mentioned. Your country is just grouped in with "European Nations" or "Western Nations". These terrorists don't have time to write out every fucking country in their announcements.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 12, 2005, 7:25 pm

Personally I would prefer to be insignificant than a fucking gaping blistering chasm of gormless stupidity (you?)

Btw, someone "giving a damn" about your governments shitheaded murder excursions is nothing to be proud of.

VeeshanVault

Sadaam poll

Sadaam being removed from power was a good thing:

Sadaam poll

Re: Sadaam poll

Re: Sadaam poll

Re: Sadaam poll