New job for Saddam

[romachko]

Rumsfeld might hire Saddam as a consultant to keep Al Kaeda terrorist group out of Iraq. Most of insurgents in Iraq are Al Kaeda terrorists, not Saddam's men because the latter, "infidels," won't do suicide attack and they don't have guts to do it either. Saddam had successfully kept Al Kaeda out of Iraq for many years. He might know the trick of a trade!

Comparing Saddam with Hitler would be a great insult to the Fuehrer. If Saddam were a rat, Hitler would have been a T-Rex. There are many ranks and levels for each of the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

It still won't justify this war. Bush clearly said the reason for this war was WMD, which turned out to be a phantom over Arabian desert. If the reason was to free Iraq from Saddam, Bush should have stated it clearly at the beginning, not as a side issue. I'll tell you a very sad episode. One of the chopper, which was shot down, came from Peoria, IL. The dead pilot, an Illinoisan, was the son of a Latvian immigrant, who served as a U.S. paratrooper. The pilot's older brother served in Gulf War and his younger brother is a Marine. At the pilot's funeral, the family refused to wrap his coffin with the flag. The entire family is quite critical about this war, the object of which is not clear at all to them. Who can blame this patriotic family?

I am wonderring why Saddam had been so successful to control Iraq for so many years. He is quite apparently neither smart nor brave. Or, anyone with a little luck can be a leader in Iraq?

[Robert D]

... in response to New job for Saddam, posted by romachko on Dec 15, 2003

if you had 10 years of warnings, you could hide the entire city of Bagdad buddy, so it will take time to find what we know is there, after all the man buried 7 war jets once before which we found purely by luck, so now that folks will have no fear of talking now, we will find what we are looking for then eveyone opposed to the war will find other reasons to oppose the war.  
Saying no to war is easy, no sane person likes it.   But to avoid all war, even in the face of terrible things including what this man did to his own, not to mention, his hatred for us which was limited only by his current inability to attack and kill us, well that is insane as well.  (like delay on N. Korea)   We know what the cost of delay is, 20 million Russians, 5 million allies, for not going ager Hitler until he was too powerful.  War is not nice, delay more often than not is worse

robert D.

[Streetwise]

... in response to New job for Saddam, posted by romachko on Dec 15, 2003

The call to war may have been made on a red herring but the net result is that an evil regime has been removed, which is good for mankind as a whole. Not only does it mean the end of the suffering inflicted on the Iraqis, it sends a strong signal beyond. The fact that Saddam crawled out of his hole without a fight also helps, as many of his followers (who would have expected him to either top himself or go out like Butch Cassidy) have now lost respect for him.

I keep hearing people hinting that Saddam was somehow "useful" as he knew what it took to keep control over there. Why should instability and civil strife be inevitable in that part of the world? For example Jordan doesn't need an animal to keep its population under control.

[wsbill]

... in response to Re: New job for Saddam, posted by Streetwise on Dec 15, 2003

We've probably know where he's been all along.  The republicans needed something to jump start the Christmas shopping season which had recently gone sour.

Where is BL ?

[Robert D]

... in response to Re: Where is Bin Laden ?, posted by wsbill on Dec 15, 2003

bull, he is in a hole just like Sadam and in an area more difficult to search, where many misguided people like him for killing americans.   He will get flushed out one day or die from kidney failure first, either way he will die as most murdering idots have as history has shown us.  

Robert D

[wilmc]

... in response to Re: New job for Saddam, posted by Streetwise on Dec 15, 2003

You make a very good point, saddam needed to be stopped.

My concern though is with the rational and methods.  Certainly, I admit I do not have all the answers but there is a lot about bush's Iraq adventure that smells darn fishy to me.

My perception was that we preemptively attacked Iraq because of imminent danger to our national security, due to WMD's and a terrorist alliance with al qaeda.  That is what bush  and blair told us.  Where oh where are those WMD's?  Near as I can tell the WMD's that caused the most harm were the cluster bombs used by our forces that are still killing innocent Iraqi kids.  And any alliance between al qaeda and the secular baathists defies reason.  Consequently I must suspect there was some other motive for the haste to go to war.  If so, why were we misled?  

In order to depose saddam we killed at least 4,000 Iraqi civilians and God knows how many conscript soldiers who were either running away or trying to surrender.  We continue to use overkill methods to combat the guerrila fighters, and "shades of Viet Nam" have resorted to "body counts" to measure our "successes."  

It is a sticky mess and my deepest sympathies lie with the coalition soldiers who are in the thick of it.  In my humble opinion we need to get relief for them as quickly as possible.  Instead the bush team, (pun intended), continues to "poison the well" with acts of stupidity concerning our relations with the family of nations.  

As a tax payer I am offended that all comptent suppliers are not given the opportunity to bid on Iraq reconstruction projects instead of the "secret 'rip off' deals" that have been made.

Perhaps if the bush regime had been more honest instead of playing the r 9/11 revenge card to wage war on Iraq they could have built a legitimate UN endorsed coalition.  

To rid Iraq of saddam may very well have required military action and some "collateral damage," probably would have occurred. Maybe not, the "cold war" was won with containment as I recall.  Somehow though, if it had been done "legit," I think the world would be in a lot better shape today.  

Of course then the neo-cons could not have shown all those "wimp nations" how tough we are.  As Shakespeare's Puck said, "What fools these mortals be."

[LP]

... in response to New job for Saddam, posted by romachko on Dec 15, 2003

[This message has been edited by LP]

...smarts or luck to rule a country, only an iron fist and the minions to apply it. (It's exactly the same in the US, other than the iron fist being in a velvet glove.) They all have to face the music in the end and Saddam (or Bush) is no different.

I still find it disturbing that the US would invade another nation without proof of any wrong doing by it, then hunt it's leader for months and tout his capture. No one is disputing Saddam is a bad guy but the world is full of bad guys and it's not our job to police them. Not to mention he was our buddy when it suited our needs.

Dubya is quite amazing at times, this display of further US arrogance will only deepen the hatred felt by those against America and we will pay for it in more lives lost. Whats good for politics is seldom good for people, as long as it "plays in Peoria" the country will never learn this lesson.

And like Saddam was running the resistance from his hole, what a joke...

[jrm]

... in response to You don't need...., posted by LP on Dec 15, 2003

n/t

[wsbill]

... in response to You don't need...., posted by LP on Dec 15, 2003

We watched genocide in Kosovo and the Congo...this was just to finish the job his old man didn't finish.  Besides it also distracted people from point the finger at how bad the economy really is...

Hope you don't work for IBM - there goes 4700 jobs to Asia.

[LP]

... in response to Re: We wouldn't be there if it weren't f..., posted by wsbill on Dec 15, 2003

[This message has been edited by LP]

...Not a chance. But I have to be careful because my opinions could jepordize my livelihood. The gum'mint doesn't like those it can influence not towing the line ya know. They might take away my toys or stop me from flying to places I don't want to go in the first place. Isn't 'Merica great?

Why is this topic even on here? Politics is messy and this is a particuarly sore subject. There are two definite camps so why beat it on a R/W forum?

[Richard]

... in response to Re: We wouldn't be there if it weren't f..., posted by wsbill on Dec 15, 2003

as the saying goes, IBM = I've been moved.  Oh, I forgot.  They don't want to pay american salaries: they won't be moving anybody!

[MtMav]

... in response to You don't need...., posted by LP on Dec 15, 2003

"...... this display of further U.S. arrogance will ....."
My, my, my .... the pot calling the kettle black!

[LP]

... in response to , posted by MtMav on Dec 15, 2003


...to hear from you there old man. I see all those years of military service done brainwashed you good. Hail to the Bozo and all that.

Now go back to microwaving a bagel and having sex with it...leave the heavy lifting to me.

[Lynn]

... in response to You don't need...., posted by LP on Dec 15, 2003

But the real WMD's that Bush/Blair were worried about was the fact that Saddam was pushing towards not accepting the US$ in payment for oil. Since there have been no other WMD's found------maybe this was to "kill" the "gold dinar" and install the IMF as their money system.

[wilmc]

... in response to New job for Saddam, posted by romachko on Dec 15, 2003

I can understand the reaction of the Latvian immigrant  who lost his son.
This morning I heard a report on radio by Allen Sloan, Wall Street Editor, Newsweek.  He commented on "bush, the unelected's" defence of rewarding contracts only to countries who participated in the coalition.  They were in response to bush's statment on 11 december 2003,  "And the expenditure of US dollars will reflect the fact that U. S. troops and others risk their lives."  Mr. Sloan said that if his son or daughter had been killed so that Halliburton could get lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq he would be apoplectic, (outraged.)
My sentiments exactly.