Does anyone think that saddam's regime should have been left alone?

Question

Putting aside the arguments about WMD and terrorists, can anyone tell me why they think Saddam should not have been taken out of power?

If you are going to say, "he has the right to run his country", my answer is this. If he has the 'right' to rape, murder, and torture people in his country, who is to say we don't have the right to invade him? If you say (to answer my sub-question) the UN, well the UN has said saddam must not do certain things, and he continued to do them, so why should we have to listen if he doesn't?.


I SERIOUSLY WANT TO HEAR FROM A LIBERAL HERE. Tell me why he should have been left alone.





*why do I know half the answers are going to say something like, "he didn't have weapons", and "there were official no ties to al qaeda"

Answer 1

Yes

Saddam believes that

Go big Red Go

Answer 2

I'm not a Liberal in the American or British political sense but to answer your first question I would say undoubtedly Saddam should have been left to pursue his agenda all along and right from the take over of Kuwait, he was a useful ally and ran the most secular country in the region. Kuwait was a far less democratic country and its people are subjects not citizens.
In putting aside the alleged arguments about WMD and terrorists you are putting aside the entire reasoning and false justification for the undeclared and now irresolvable war that we are stuck w. possibly for generations to come.
If you say that you/we know he raped, murdered, and tortured his people, what is he on trial for, most Americans believe whatever their government tells them and they've been told what the verdict is years ago, why pretend it's Nuremburg where evidence was required?
As you may know it has been officially acknowledged today by the US government that Saddam indeed did not have any ties to Al Qaeda, so that is no longer going to be considered a potential theory or supporting argument.
Ultimately there are loads of terrible leaders in that area; fortunately none of them have the power that the 'advisers' of President Bush have. We used Iraq to fight Iran; we created two Frankensteins now we are only making matters worse by the day and potentially stoking WW3.
Wars of conquest where we take over resource rich countries on false pretexts and install puppet governments can only lead to bigger problems in the future. We ran Iran w. a puppet Shaw until the '79 revolution, look at the problems that has caused before during and since, great injustices have a tendency to lead to greater injustices.
Further it's not worth it, rich men's wives could drive smaller cars, we can run diesels on veg oil there's alcohol/electric/hydrogen and conservation which is required in the long term anyway. We should plow the billions being wasted on fighting a whole race and religion of people who we are making hate us into new technologies that can make petroleum as obsolete as whale oil.

Answer 3

Saddam did most of his murdering and raping etc. with the tacit consent of the US, the enemy of our enemy stuff. Bush 1 encouraged an uprising in Southern Iraq after Gulf War 1 and then gave no support, and Saddam slaughtered them. The Bad Saddam argument only came up after no WMD's were found(spare me your bringing up those 500 1988 depleted shells) . He was contained in his country with the no fly zones. His army was a shell of what it had been before Iran War and Gulf I. No Air Force. No Nuclear program no navy. Inspectors were on the ground before we invaded, the few missiles he had were being destroyed -- it was right there on the TV. He was no threat to the United States, and apparantly not to any of the countries on his border, as none of them supported our invasion. After our removing him at least 70,000 Iraqi civilians have died and more are dying every day in sectarian violence. Thousands of Shia demonstrated on the street in favor of Hezbollah. The new constitution is Islamic. There is a good chance the Shia majority will will gain the upper hand and put in an anti US regime, Billions of dollars have been thrown down the drain that could have been spent in Afghanistan, on intelligence and on security measures in the US. Our troops have be sent back for second and third tours and our ability to repsond elsewhere has been diminished. The Taliban is active again is Afghanistan (yes we need kill a buncf of them recently). Recruitment for our armed forces is down. Because of our actions terrorists were handed a recruiting tool.

There have plenty of other dictators that have been left to their own devises to rape murder etc. I didn't hear any republican voices saying we should invade Rwanda, depose Idi Amin, stop genocide in Kosovo, Stop death squads in Guatamala and El Salavador. We currently support other repressive regimes in former former Soviet Republics like Uzbekistan. I don't say any of these people have or had the "right" to do this, but there seeems to be a great deal selectivity on which dictators we go after.

And a ditto for TM and all the other "dumbass liberals" here who did a great job refuting you!

Answer 4

I don't think people are upset that Saddam is out of power. It's the way Bush went about it that pissed everyone off. He lead Americans to believe he was going in there to get the wmd. Then when there were none he used 9/11 to smooth things over with the American public. So you can sit there and think your president did a good thing by taking Saddam out....maybe he did. But do you have any clue as to how many corrupt leaders there are out there just like Saddam??? You probably don't. So why not go after them too? You want to police the world then do it right. You can't just pick and choose which bad guy gets amnesty.

Answer 5

I do...(hand raised).

I would be careful with the UN mandates. The UN has told us to stop certain things too... I certainly don't believe our disregard for UN mandates makes it open season on the US. And frankly I'm surprised that conservatives actually quote the UN in their arguments, since you seem to loathe the UN. And hey the Iranians are defying the UN too....we going to invade them tomorrow???

Saddam is a bad guy, but we all know that there are lots of bad guys out there and many that we openly support, because they bring stability to their countries or to their region. It's good for business and good for America.

The Chinese are a classic example. They are communists and really don't give a rip about human rights and they are our biggest trading partner. Oh and they also have WMD's and actually fought against us in the Korean War...or did we forget that it was Chinese troops that crossed the Yalu River and took away the victory over the North Koreans that America nearly had in its grasp.

Truly, if this nation had allowed Bush Sr.'s initial plan to follow its course, we might have normalized our relations with Saddam by the mid-90's with great benefits for all. And if American troops had not been stationed on Saudi soil....then maybe another tragic event never happens...

Bush Sr. left Saddam powerful enough after the Gulf War to control his nation and to resist Iran if need be. Bush Sr. was right on target and did the proper strategic move. He didn't time for silly spreading freedom baloney.

But then he was stung by criticism from the right and the left that he should have removed Saddam. So rather than ignore it and be confident with his decision, he uses our covert assets to get the Kurds and the Shiites to rebel...and guess what it's Bay of Pigs all over again as the Kurds and Shiites are practically wiped out....(that's why we are finding so many nice mass graves).

In our attempt to stop the slaughter, we impose no fly zones, which compel us to have an ongoing military presence in Iraq for over a decade preceding our invasion. How utterly ridiculous and once we did that there was no hope of normalizing relations with Saddam.

But again, a boots on the ground invasion of Iraq was completely uncalled for. We could have controlled Iraq from the air if we had so chosen. We could then have deployed the boots on the ground that would have ensured success in Afghanistan, which may ultimately end in failure, if not reinforced.

Were there ties to Al Quaeda. Yeah, I believe there was loose connections, which if memory serves were part of the whole Hamburg Cell connection. It is very safe to say that Saddam would have enjoyed any payback he could get, but it is also fair to say that he would never have tolerated them in his own country.

And again, do we really believe anything happened in Iraq that we didn't know about it. I don't believe that.

And frankly I'm tired of conservatives telling me Iraq was connected to 9/11.

Answer 6

Do you listen to the terrorism anaylists when they discuss how much worse off we are with what we've "CREATED" in Iraq..

...than we are with a man who was not currently posing an ****immediate threat**** to our country?

Remember the talk of "mushroom clouds"...?

The LIES that Weapons of Mass Destruction could be activated within a fifteen minute time period?

The LIES that the Inspectors believed the search was futile and that it should not continue?

Ever take a gander at the news reports for just ONE day in Iraq? Take a look sometime at the news that rolls through .. the news you likely never see because you probably tune into Faux News

>>> http://icasualties.org/oif/

Why is it that so many top Generals have asked for Rumsfeld's resignation? Republican Generals at that.

You're suggesting that there was an immediate threat so incredibly severe that Bin Laden and the war in Afghanistan had to be placed on the back burner so that 2700 of our troops could be killed.

Is it any wonder that sixty one veteran's came home to run as Democrats this November in the upcoming Congressional races -- and only ONE Republican?

I think that I understand why they've chosen to run as Democrats.

Don't you?
.

Answer 7

We have no business tampering with another country. 2600 plus Americans, 10's of thousands of Iraqi have died because George W. Dishrag decided to go to war with Iraq. I do not care how you try to rationalize it, it was wrong from the start, we went there based on a lie. There was no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam had no connections with al quida, he was no threat to the U.S. in any way. We had no business taking him out of power no matter how bad he and his boys were, it just plain is none of our business. 10 billion a month is being spent to keep the peace and has been spent for the last 3 years. How can you justify that when there are 45 million people right here in the U.S.A. that don't have health care. Any U.S. citizen that still supports the dirty armhole should be taken for electro shock therapy.

Answer 8

I AM a Liberal Ta ta du du da da(horn player blows the charge cadenza or maybe "Miles" solo on "7 steps to heaven) -There are and were so many dictators in the world (just hang out in any country in Africa) when Sadam was in power who were just as bad if not worse, robbing, raping, murdering, torturing with as much gusto, vigor, and hell bent enthusiasm, that the proper question to be asked is "Why him" out of all the other equally liable candidates. Now the we have almost officially ruled out WMD and Sadm's no-existent relationship with Al-Queda..We have two plausible ansews 1) Oil, oil and Oil. 2) Finish the Job Daddy couldn't 3) People in Africa were Black so they didn't really count 4)all the other ansews liberals have used that I neglected to list

Answer 9

at the start of the astonishing to come to a decision on relating to the way forward for the country rests with its people on my own. In Iraq, Saddam took over the country with the help of violent skill. The Iraqis had seen many invaders interior the previous centuries and it rather is history that no invader ought to rule it peacefully. The Iraqis had desperate to undergo the rigors and machinations of Saddam. the perfect mistake he did replaced into to invade Kuwait and after the war, the U. S. ought to have left it there and can have ensured prevention of an identical. the U. S. is truthfully to blame and Russia to a important quantity for the situation in middle East, Afganisthan, Pakistan and someplace else interior the international. a great capacity has a extra physically powerful duty to the international. it is going to no longer intervene in each us of a's affairs. every person rather everyone seems to be paying the cost what US did while it supported Osama in Afghanisthan, Saddam throughout Iran-Iraq war. the effort-free mistake united states of america did replaced into while it desperate to sell capitalism international extensive with the help of any skill. it ought to have limited itself to opposing erstwhile Soviet Union yet allowed itself to open new fronts over the time. there have been many circumstances of civil insurrection against a dictator or an oppressive regime. It has to return from interior yet no longer be inspired from exterior. countries may be supportive to the inhabitants and help them interior the progression of insurrection yet no longer create civil war or invade the different us of a.

Answer 10

well,, although i do think he was slated for regime change and settup by being led to believe america was behind him invading kuwait ... we should have taken him out the first time and that wouldve been it... the iraqis laid down their weapons and were smiling to see us there ... we should have just rolled right on in and help them set up a govt using the existing apparatus and a party that was sypathetic to america and it wouldve been over long ago. ... but its not about saddam now is it? its about america taking over the middle east for various reasons and the fact that we didnt finish him off in the 90s' suggests that the overall plan including 9/11 has been around for years...