I know he is a S.O.B. but he can become once again our SOB and if you bring him back you will see these Insurgents disappear like Rats disapear when they see the Cat.
2006-11-14 00:45:28 · 19 answers · asked by Dr.O 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
That isn't an option anymore, his base of power has been eroded to the point he would no longer be able to control the militias.
2006-11-14 01:07:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so. Sadam Hussein didn't contribute to ending our civil war, so why should we contribute to endidng his? The good people of Iraq are finally getting tough and fighting back at the insurgency. Why would we want to stop that? I don't consider these good people part of the insurgency. They are helping rid Iraq of the insurgency. Plus, Osama Bin Laden hasn't exactly been our friend either, so why should we want to bring back Hussein to allow him to give Bin Laden a new home from which to prepare to bomb us again? We are promoting the spread of freedom, not the spread of SOBs for everyone to hate. And I don't think the insurgents would disappear like rats when the see the cat. I believe that the bulk of the insurgency is pro-Hussein, so they would rejoice and give support to reestablishing the old Hussein regime again.
2006-11-14 01:12:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Luckily for me, sanity, logic and rationality prevent me from agreeing with this idiotic proposition.
1. Saddam was never 'our' SOB. But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your gibberish.
2. The insurgents are the people who put Saddam into power and kept him in power. They were the ones who were raping and torturing and murdering etc when he was in power.
3. The carnage would only increase.
So, I assume you don't really care about Iraqis, because you don't seem to mind the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis that have been found in mass graves, that were murdered by Saddam.
No, you proposition and the 'rationale' behind it are not something an intelligent, thoughtful, or caring person would accept.
2006-11-14 01:01:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. See, the Sunnis, who are the minority, were in charge when Hussein ruled. They are now part of the insurgence. The Shi'ites, who are the majority, were heavily persecuted. They are the ones who want to rebuild the country, and who want the democracy to work.
I say go with the majority.
As others have said, would you put Hitler back in charge, just to avoid the "carnage" of war?
Fewer Iraqis have been killed in this nearly four-year "war" so far than have been killed in ANY war that has lasted this long.
The death toll is at just over 150,000, and most of those have been killed by the INSURGENTS, not by us.
Sounds like war to me, but not as bad as it could be.
2006-11-14 00:56:19 · answer #4 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
So you agree the insurgents are terrorists then. So maybe it's not a very good idea to cut and run out of Iraq. To leave Iraq now the terrorists will continue to multiply and start plotting attacks against America. Wow finally someone agrees that Iraq is a terrorist state. Kuddos to you. Hee Hee.
2006-11-14 00:57:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
1. It ain't great, but it ain't "carnage" out there. Look at the body counts for virtually every war or civil war in history, and this one is tame by comparison.
2. Saddam killed over 800,000 in his bloody 20 years... that's 40,000 per year... that's over 3,000 per month... by body-count alone (forgetting the rape rooms, people shredders, etc), it would be a moronic move.
3. The insurgents are there to bring him back. They were in power when he was in office. If he were reinstated, they'd have jobs, and wouldn't need to commit atrocities anymore.
4. Are you French? Surrender for peace at all costs is your motto?
2006-11-14 00:49:55 · answer #6 · answered by Alan B 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think, it is past it. Wether Saddam Hussein is brought in or not, very little will be changed as far as carnage goes. It will just be more killing committed by another group of people.
2006-11-14 00:50:36 · answer #7 · answered by paloma 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do you see an "undo" button in your real life? Iraq is not a computer game and such wrong assumptions have already caused big damages. Iraqi people are the only people who are "eligible" to choose their fate.
The fact that US has only been backing up dictator regimes using it's army and secret services around the world is not a credit.
2006-11-14 00:57:02 · answer #8 · answered by Pishisauraus 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You know I just had a discussion about this with my brother. It seems the longer we are in Iraq the more it seems Saddam was necessary. It's like these people only respect the most evil, and Saddam was able to provide that for them. At least they had more security then.
2006-11-14 00:52:07 · answer #9 · answered by LOUDOBBS 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You want to bring back a genocidal maniac who believes himself the physical reincarnation of Nebacanazeur, who believes in the racial superiority of the Arab race, and who believes it is his destiny to join all Arab peoples under his banner as he resurects a pan-arabic babylonian empire?
Democracy and capitalism lead to freedom. In the first ten years of our Republic, we had three open rebellions, and it took us longer to write our constitution than it did for the Iraqi's.
Iraq is better off today than it was six years ago. You are less likely to die a violent death in Baghdad than you are in DC.
2006-11-14 01:00:45 · answer #10 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋