America is a better place WITH Saddam Hussein

Isn't everyone tired of the phrase �The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein." Im sick and tired of that. You know what? Iraq down the road might be a better place without Saddam Hussein. But the world, and especially America, would be better withSaddam Hussein. That�s right, with him.

During the Cold War, by not toppling so many dictators� and by supporting so many dictators, we never had to make that argument. We never said, �The world would be a better place without Marcos in the Philippines� or Mobutu in Zaire, or any number of dictators we supported. We just said, �You know what, the world is a tough place, and we have to sometimes support bad people to be a bulwark against even worse people.�

And that�s what we would have if Saddam was still in Iraq: We would have $200 billion more in our bank, in our coffers for America. We would not have the world hating us. We would not have the entire Arab world out for jihad because we have invaded the heart of the Muslim world. And we would have a guy in Iraq, by the way, who would never, ever have allowed a terrorist bastion in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein didn�t care about jihad and Allah and all that stuff. He cared about power and keeping his power. He would have made sure Iraq was his and not the province of these guys who are cutting off people�s heads. He was the head-cutter in that country.

[edit on 26-9-2004 by Banshee]

I totally agree. If the question is of America's safety, then the war in Iraq was a complete distraction and mistake.

What we must realize, though, is that this war had absolutely nothing to do with the safety of the American people...it was an excuse.

Saddam Hussein didn�t care about jihad and Allah and all that stuff. He cared about power and keeping his power. He would have made sure Iraq was his and not the province of these guys who are cutting off people�s heads. He was the head-cutter in that country.

yes how do we know that these pepole saddam was beheading were from the same group now beheading pepole in iraq.
yes some may have been inocent but how many men & women in america and australia (when capitol punishment was still here) that later on were found to inocent? for shame u.s.a gassing, frying and injecting poison into innocent pepole.

Iraq was in a better place thats for sure.

America was never in danger of Iraq. Saddam had nothing. No jet, maybe a couple of tanks.

Some have nothing to offer but criticism; some have plans.

www.cnn.com...

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Some have nothing to offer but criticism; some have plans.

how dumb can i be the last post i made would have to be the dumbest yet the coalition (not the usa) are chasing the same pepole sh*t i feel dumb.

We wouldn't be in this mess right now if Bush wouldn't have been in a hurry to "scratch his itch", and just left Saddam alone, and if Bush hadn't made deals with his contributors to his campaign in 1999-2000 , over the Iraqi oil.

I say, arrest George Bush & Co., for war-crimes against the USA and Iraqi people, and release Saddam back into his rightful place in Iraq , then turn these war-criminals over to Saddam, it would serve them right

Knowing everything we know now America was many times better off with Saddam in power and sanctions in effect, and especially with UN weapons inspectors there.

Some people have a hard time admiting the TRUTH

Some people JUST LIKE WAR. . . . PERIOD
.

This article below came to mind when I stumbled across this thread. Though I am not happy with the events that transpired leading up to the War in Iraqi, I however do not feel resentment now that we are there nor do I feel a sense of regret now that Saddam is out of power. I felt like this was an event that was bound to happen eventually, but I also thought that Saddams removal should have been taken care of with the first conflict, The Gulf War. Yes, I agree that it would have been nice to get international support from all nations, and we tried, eventually getting the UN to pass an article that allowed �severe consequences� to come about if Iraq violated the article. Iraq violated the article 17 times. But France and Russia weren�t concerned with Saddam's lack of respect for the international article and they didn't seem to think it was a problem for him to violate these orders. And why should they?? They were not going to attack Iraq when knowingly they were involved in a oil for food scandal with Saddam and his administration. They wanted to delay the US from attacking Iraq so the scandal would not be uncovered, hoping that a war would not materialize. Saddam thought the same way, thinking that keeping his ties intact with France and Russia, would keep America off his back. For all we know Saddam could have been the 3rd antichrist, following in the foot steps of Napoleon and Hitler. Even though I think that this is very doubtfully, no one can ignore his hunger for power. This hunger for power is the type of attribute that ties all three of these murderers together.

�Only opposing a war, without anything further, implies that Saddam Hussein should remain in power to perpetuate his well-documented crimes against the Iraqi people and others. In other words, while decrying what might happen to the Iraqi people during a war, the anti-war movement is forgetting that Iraqi's are suffering and dying at the hands of one of the most brutal dictators the world has seen since World War II.�

Saddam's just a Hitler with a bigger mustache by Bill O' Reilly
It is absolutely eerie how closely the current Iraq situation parallels the rise of the Third Reich 70 years ago. I consider Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to be Hitler lite because he has the same virulent anti-Semitism, the same callous disregard for human life and the identical lust for power that Adolf possessed. The only difference between the two villains is the size of the moustache.

Back in the 1930s, millions of people the world over did not want to think about the evil Hitler was brewing up. France and Russia were the chief appeasers, as they are today. Josef Stalin ultimately signed a treaty with Hitler making it possible for him to use most of his forces to crush Europe, and France simply allowed Hitler to violate the Treaty of Versailles, even more than the 17 times Saddam has violated UN mandates. Britain went along with France in the '30s, but now it seems the United Kingdom has learned from its historical mistakes.

Then there's the Pope, who recently said any war against Iraq would be "immoral." Back in the '30s, Pius XII actually supported Hitler politically - at least in the beginning of his rise, when Pius was stationed in Germany. The Third Reich was considered a bulwark against communism, which the church greatly feared. Subsequently, Pius kept quiet about the atrocities of Hitler's regime because he knew that the Vatican itself could easily be vanquished by the Huns.

Today, Pope John Paul deplores the violence that comes with any war but is at a loss to explain how terrorism and the states that enable it should be dealt with. Remember, the Pope did not approve of the military action against the Taliban.

Peace, of course, should be the goal of all civilized people. Millions of Americans are against a war in Iraq, and millions were vehemently opposed to confronting Hitler. Back then, the anti-war movement was led by Charles Lindbergh and Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, who largely dismissed accusations of Nazi brutality and weapons production as propaganda. In 1939, SS Chief Heinrich Himmler was even on the cover of Time magazine. I have the issue. The article criticized Himmler and hinted at barbaric behavior, but there was no smoking gun.

The failure to confront the obvious evil of the Nazis early, of course, led to the deaths of more than 55 million in Europe. Millions of Jews were stunned when they were led by German guards to the gas chambers. How could human beings do this? Even after evidence of mass executions surfaced, many the world over refused to believe it. Liberating American soldiers were horrified at what they found. Most had no idea what they were really fighting.

Does anyone today believe Al Qaeda or Saddam would not slaughter Jews and, indeed, Americans if they had the power to do so? So what is the difference between a dictator like Saddam and Hitler?

It astounds me that 37% of Americans, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, do not support the removal of Saddam unless other countries sign on. Why allow a dictator who has weapons that would make Hitler salivate remain a threat to the world?

If France, Germany, China and Russia would support the U.S. against Saddam, he'd already be out of power. If France, Russia and Britain had marched into Germany in 1933, there would have been no World War II or Holocaust.

Nobody can predict the outcome and aftermath of any war. But we can learn from history. Evil has a way of killing people. The only way evil will be stopped is for just and courageous people to confront it.

Originally posted by XxaudioholicxX
Saddam's just a Hitler with a bigger mustache by Bill O' Reilly

You should know better than to quote O'Reilly here. Everyone knows Bush is Hitler. Saddam's a warm fuzzy little dictator who was deposed by the white male-dominated patriarchal hegemonic oil barons who run the world from a subterrainian complex beneath the Alleghenys.

Everyone knows that any garden-variety fifty-year-old grandmother who lives in Kansas and works as a greeter at Wal-Mart knows more about foreign policy than the Office of the President.

You should be ashamed.

[edit on 04/9/26 by GradyPhilpott]

lol..... Thanks Grady for the comic relief!!! I knew I was missing something in my last post!!!

Awesome post Audioholic. Mind if I show it to a few of my Bush hating, "SADDAM SHOULD STAY", Kerry supporting, friends?

Wasteddeath777,
Go ahead, show it to whomever you wish. It is just something I wanted to throw out there. Of course, not my ideas, they have been kicked around by other people, but I do share this belief. I guess I will stick with this until I see something with some substanial proof that shows Saddam as a caring, tree hugging, lover of all american people, to who he wishes the best and gives us gods blessings and peace on earth.... Not gonna happen!!

The fact is, you can spin some facts to present the case that almost any one of a dozen dictators who support the US are evil, barbaric, etc. The populations of most countries just listen to Big Daddy (their government) and have no recollection of recent history, especially in foreign matters.

Bush is itchy to win reelection
and to go into Iran-thats when things will get REAL ugly. Shall we give him another chance to eradicate more people? innocents???

vote Bush

Mind if I zero in on some of these points?

Originally posted by XxaudioholicxX
This article below came to mind when I stumbled across this thread... but I also thought that Saddams removal should have been taken care of with the first conflict, The Gulf War.

Unfortunately Bush Sr. was as complicit as Reagan in ascending Hussein, so it was unlikely that he would turn 180 in such a short time.

(Russia and France) They were not going to attack Iraq when knowingly they were involved in a oil for food scandal with Saddam and his administration.

Each party has its own way of spinning a story does it not? Those who live in France and Russia are afforded a different point of view. Time will tell on this story as it did with Vietnam, Korea, Cuba and Iran. Just as it is difficult for Americans to digest the (treasonous?) dealings of Bechtel, and Conoco with listed enemies of the U.S, and the media to divulge that information, so too can you expect you are not privy to the full story.

They wanted to delay the US from attacking Iraq so the scandal would not be uncovered, hoping that a war would not materialize.

I offer a diferent take. Bush et al could not wait for UNMOVIC to issue a report claiming that Iraq had no WMD, or there would have been no reason to invade and secure the oil in Halliburton's name. Had Bush waited, Hussein would have been significantly downgraded as a threat to world peace, while Russia and France, the sole beneficiaries of oil contracts, would have walked away with the prize.

Saddam's just a Hitler with a bigger mustache by Bill O' Reilly

Is O'Reilly the same fellow who promised an apology if WMD was not found by a certain date? Has he kept that promise or is he just making excuses now and playing with the public?

It is absolutely eerie how closely the current Iraq situation parallels the rise of the Third Reich 70 years ago.

This is very true, but the parallel has nothing to do with Hussein but rather the dogma of the neo-conservatives.

Back in the 1930s, millions of people the world over did not want to think about the evil Hitler was brewing up.

Imagine that happening again, whereby the majority are enthralled with the down home lack of elocution, or who steadfastly believe in a man who seduces the voters by double speak while arousing a fanatic following by his, either for or against choices of patriotism? Imagine that the way to win hearts is to portray the enemy as evil so as not to cast aspersion on the evil speaking to them?

Peace, of course, should be the goal of all civilized people. Millions of Americans are against a war in Iraq, and millions were vehemently opposed to confronting Hitler.

Can you see a parallel in the latter part of your statement? Look hard as you should lkeep an open mind.

Does anyone today believe Al Qaeda or Saddam would not slaughter Jews and, indeed, Americans if they had the power to do so? So what is the difference between a dictator like Saddam and Hitler?

Yes I believe that Hussein would not have done so, at least not as long as the U.N had him squarely in their sights. To believe anything else, in my opinion, is to believe Rumsfeld when he said " we know where they (WMD) are, They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." For we already KNOW that were WMD really there they would have been found. So Hussein was no threat to the nuclear power, Israel.

Nobody can predict the outcome and aftermath of any war. But we can learn from history. Evil has a way of killing people. The only way evil will be stopped is for just and courageous people to confront it.

You are correct. And how long did it take for the naysayers to prove prophetic on Vietnam?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Saddam's just a Hitler with a bigger mustache by Bill O' Reilly

Is O'Reilly the same fellow who promised an apology if WMD was not found by a certain date? Has he kept that promise or is he just making excuses now and playing with the public?

O'Reilly did, indeed, apologize. He has done so several times, in fact. Not that I think he owes anyone an apology. But, he is a man of his word.

Nobody can predict the outcome and aftermath of any war. But we can learn from history. Evil has a way of killing people. The only way evil will be stopped is for just and courageous people to confront it.

You are correct. And how long did it take for the naysayers to prove prophetic on Vietnam?

The naysayers during the war in Vietnam were more than prophets. They were the fifth columnists who turned American streets and campuses into battlegrounds with enemy and their "useful idiots" battling the police, commandeering university administrative buildings, bombing ROTC buidings and on and on ad nauseum.

America turned its back on the communist genocide in Indochina and on its veterans. The current population of Americans should pay a heavy price for this sin, but I'll willing to wait until sometime nearer my natural death. Actually, the demise of the America is happening right now, because fewer and fewer are willing to sacrifice anything for their liberty. We are very fortunate that we still have young men who are willing to sacrifice all on the alter of freedom and so that the cowardly and the seditious can express their condemnation of a system that grants them the liberty to do so, perhaps the ultimate paradox.

[edit on 04/9/26 by GradyPhilpott]

Thanks for replying Somewhereinbetween,

I appreciate replies like yours because they give new views on these subjects empowering people to draw perhaps new conclusions and I think you raise some good points here.

I do not have conclusive evidence in linking Russia and France and their involvement in an oil to food scandal with Iraq, just as people who say Bush is involved in a 9/11 consipracy do not have evidence. As you said time will tell. All that I believe regarding this issue is that it is just my view of the situation with the information I have seen and heard. And I am not claiming it as fact but only as my theory on this matter. It is the only rational explanation I can come up with to why everyone in the international community thought Saddam had WMDs, violated the UN mandate, and Russia and France debunked every effort to make this war non existent, even when they themselves told us that yea, Saddam has weapons, without a doubt. I am curious to why Saddam, 17 times violated the UN mandate, which happened over a span of months, that would have proved his innocents and probably would have stopped the war (if we are to believe that he at the time didn�t have WMDs. It seems kind of odd to me that he would have let this transpire when he had a chance to prove to the world once and for all he had no WMDs. And for almost a year he ducked UN inspectors,(You can look here, but not there), do you think in that amount of time he could have destroyed the WMDs or sold them and materials on the black markets before a US invasion? Seems possible to me.

As far as waiting for the document, UNMOVIC document that is, how long do you think we should have waited for?? The funny part is even Han Blix said without a doubt that Iraq was working on WMDs and had materials. What I get out of this is: Saddam did one thing right; he was able to fool the whole world about WMDs. Everyone thought it was a slam dunk, the USA, Russia, France, Britain, China, UN, everyone�

The Halliburton Bush scandal is un-provable, though it is an interesting theory; I think it is false and would be a mistake for someone like Bush who is seeking re-election. Though I will keep an open mind about it and if you have some evidence please post it so I can read.

Believe it or not O Reilly did fuss up to the WMDs, now calling Bush�s War on Iraq a �mistake� only basing it on that. Not to say he thinks the war was wrong on a Right or Wrong basis, but Bush only using the WMDs was not a strong enough case to go to war. If Bush would have said hay Iraq violated mandates, has terrorists ties (which is still debatable) but they claim to have proof of links (we will have to wait and see), and WMDs it would have been a stronger case. But the fact of the matter is that no finding the WMDs is what is damaging Bush and everyone's oppinion on the war.

Your Comment � Imagine that happening again, whereby the majority are enthralled with the down home lack of elocution, or who steadfastly believe in a man who seduces the voters by double speak while arousing a fanatic following by his, either for or against choices of patriotism? Imagine that the way to win hearts is to portray the enemy as evil so as not to cast aspersion on the evil speaking to them? �

This is a very intriguing comment, however it to me is very unbelievable and without a doubt harder to prove then the Oil for Food Scandal (which at least this has a supposedly �paper trial� linking France and Russia to Iraq. This has not been released, and probably won�t be).

�Can you see a parallel in the latter part of your statement? Look hard as you should lkeep an open mind.�

I see where you are going with this, but I ask you this: If Hitler was stopped early on, even without the �smoking gun�, would he have caused as much damage as he did with the death of over 55 million people and would World War 2 have even happened?? Sure wars have their casualties, but not dealing with Germany and Hitler early on turned out to be a grave mistake.

Thanks again for bringing up some good points.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

We are very fortunate that we still have young men who are willing to sacrifice all on the alter of freedom and so that the cowardly and the seditious can express their condemnation of a system that grants them the liberty to do so, perhaps the ultimate paradox.

[edit on 04/9/26 by GradyPhilpott]

Not all veterans are gung-ho for every conflict we can possibly engage in.

If you see your country making a mistake, should you not point it out? You make comments supporting the US position in Iraq, and are free to point it out, and I won't malign you for stating your views. I come here to read, get insight from others, and add my own feedback, and some stuff I've read for you has altered my own views.

As you must know, critics of the current situation in Iraq include Veterans like myself, and many others. It's not that I have a hobby of ridiculing the US government. I'm disturbed by the precedent of our first pre-emptive war and question the wisdom and necessity of it, and the way it was planned. I don't believe the civilian architects for this war have been honest about their motives and intentions, and I believe that both the stated intentions and larger national benefits derived from this war could have been achieved without conflict, which saves lives and money.

In my opinion, the comments over Veterans regarding a war have more veracity than those of non-Veterans. Some people debase their own arguments and reveal their prejudice with anti-American remarks. However, everyone is free to state their opinion, and doing so is not an act of sedition or treachery, and I would never accuse anyone of either of those because utilizing freedom of speech is part of our culture. People making wild statements about the evil of the US, etc., and people calling out traitors, cowards, and the like might want to realize that people cannot be swayed by inflammatory remarks, but polite, consistent arguments work wonders.

Or as Dale Carnegie might say, "You get more flies with honey than vinegar."

My pleasure Audio as I prefer an exchange of ideas also, you raise a number of issues and I have a long response so I will omit quoting you while addressing your points.

I understand you position. I view with scepticism, the accusations thrown out by either side and instead try to find answers based on the information that is available. It is all too easy to use as a tool against the French and Russians the contracts they had with Iraq while disregarding the fact that the oil contracts rest solely with Halliburton a Cheney connection, and a company given carte blanch contracts before the bids even started. The masses are swayed using the argument that the U.S did the liberating so they should get the spoils. But so did the British and for their efforts, found themselves locked out of the bidding for lead contracts.

I contend that The U.S could have garnered assistance from France had they been willing to honour some part of that contract, but instead France was vilified and demonised to the extent of employing childish games such as dropping "French" from a food, and effectively wiping from the collective memory, France's complete backing after 9/11 and for the Afghanistan war. It is not well known, but shortly after Baker visited with Putin, Russian petroleum firms were on the ground in Iraq, I suspect that Russia is no longer being lambasted by the U.S administration because of some deal struck. But then again France is no military power, nor do they have an oil reserve.

I see the Hussein issue differently. Blix himself claims that the U.N has no intelligence of its own, that it has relied on the parsed intel provided on Iraq which came mostly from the U.S. And yes, the dissenting countries did have intel of their own, but they did not believe Hussein a threat and they did believe the inspections to be working. So did I since I had read the resolutions and all of Blix's reports. Hussein was asked to prove that he did not have wmd, and no matter what he offered up, it was shot down as proof. As far as I could see, only one answer was acceptable and that was for him to acqueisce. He played games with them, but then again he was the leader of a country that he desperately wanted to rule and keep the hounds outside its borders.

Blix proclaimed that Hussein was co-operating, and asked for a few more months to complete the inspections. It was at that time that Bush decided to ramp up to war, which made me suspicious of his motives, because in one of Blix's reports, it was proven that Hussein's claim that he had dumped WMD in some pit, was in fact true. Blix stated that a team of analysts visited the site and found much evidence in the soil but that there was no technology currently available to discern the quantity. Further, Blix found no hard evidence anywhere of WMD after he said he was given free, unqualified and unannounced access to the sites listed by intelligence sources. The issue with Hussein was blown out of proportion because he claimed to have made X amount of WMD and had X number of disallowed missiles, yet, he also claimed that the 1991 war literally destroyed much of it, and that he gave the order to destroy the remaining missiles. This two was proven true in part by Blix save for a couple that were found by the inspectors. Add to this Clinton�s 1998 bombardment of suspected facilities and the claim that it was relatively successful, which I took into consideration. Blix also made mention that his team discovered no facilites currently capable of producing the agents. As far as I am concerned the benefit of the doubt should have been given to Blix and Hussein, and a few more months should have been allowed at which time the entire world would have been provided with a U.N position.

We must remember all of the hoopla and false cries of �WMD found!� after the invasion, and understand that the Bush administration, along with Blair, steadfastly held to the premise that they knew Hussein had WMD. Powell gave a rather comprehensive presentation to the U.N that included renderings of drones, and satellite photos of facilities and trucks moving this WMD, as well as biological trailers. But Powell did not say and no one asked why it is that satellite images could capture the loading of these trucks and the movement of these trailers, but not know where these trucks eventually ended up. I wanted to know, and I wanted to know why, given the bombing of military complexes in the no-fly campaign, they found it unnecessary to bomb these facilities and trucks they were so sure about, rather than press a case for an all out invasion risking the release of the weapons on the troops.

I had come across a transcript of a senate hearing into Iraq�s wmd (Sept. 2002 thereabouts) whereby the defence department paraded a plethora of Iraqi exiles to proclaim Hussein�s guilt on a host of atrocities and his stockpiling of weapons. The latter caused me to do some research where I found that these individuals had been ex-pats for far too long to know what he had, further, they were all attached to Chalabi�s organization. I also noted that many witnesses were U.S military officials, scientists and diplomats who gave an opposing argument to Hussein as a danger, and therefore I came away concluding that a case against him had not been made, and so I was confounded by the later resolution for Bush, but acknowledeged to myself that they should have far more insight than Joe public.

When Bush first started mentioning Iraq I did some searches and came across the PNAC document along with a transcript of another senate investigation into the U.S providing the precursor agents. Rumsfeld was the star witness, and he claimed to not know anything about this, but a video of his meeting with Hussein was about to expose him as being deceitful. Included in that transcript were records from the Commerce department (I believe) that indeed showed that as early as 1984 Hussein was being supplied with dual use agents. The PNAC document I paid no attention to at the time, but I smelled a rat with the latter. It was late in 2002 that I began to have some suspicion about the PNAC document being connected to the ever present rhetoric about the axis of evil and a war that certainly looked to me like it was not going to be stopped.

I believe my commentary on seducing voters by double speak is very likely. We must not forget that Hitler was very good at it. Plus, Hitler made his meteoric rise at a time when Germans were tired of the decades of unrest, changing of hands, breaking up of the country, religious dogma, communism, civil unrest, unemployment and poverty. Hitler rallied them behind him, but to your other point, yes, if he had been stopped earlier on, the extensive damage would not have been done, however, Hitler came to power as a champion for the underdog, wooing the hearts and minds of the people with charisma and great oratory. He had no record of belligerence save for his vitriol levied at the Semites and his initial plan to expel same. His rise in stature and renown was marked by providing for his country not for his aggressiveness against other nations, and given the recent history at the time, his persecution of a people was not an unfamiliar or unknown occurrence around the globe. It was not until after he launched his military offensives that his genocidal plan was enacted.

There are similarities between dictators past and present, Hitler just thought a little harder about how to execute his plan, and were another as heinous to come power, I am sure a little tweaking here and there from Hitler�s philosophy and concepts is what would give rise to a man more deadly man than he.

I am pleased to read that O�Reilly made good on his promise, I have seen his television appearances only twice, which is all Iever will, but was recalling from memory what I had read.