Would you support a war against America and a takeover by foreign soldiers like the one in Iraq?

Question

Say we were the ones who had Saddam Hussein as our leader. Would you support the war if we had bombs go off all over America every single day and people getting killed and you being afraid to leave their house and complete instability and foreign soldiers walking all over our streets?

Now I know that some of you are going to say "Saddam killed his own people." But the last time he gassed his own people was in the 1980's. And there was no evidence that he would use or even had weapons of mass destruction again.

So basically, if the current situation in America would be just like one in Iraq (bombs going off every day, never knowing if you are going to make it to the next day, absolutely no "freedom" to leave your house without being scared that you will never return, having friends and family dead and/or completely mutilated) would you support the conflict?

Glen B: But see, the thing is, if this war would be just like the one in Iraq, you're children may not even be alive because of the violence.

Rollmanjmg: Obviously you have no idea what reality is like for the Iraqi civilians. Obviously you are a typical American who is completely oblivious to the reality of war. I feel sad for you.

Rachella: I did NOT say that Saddam should be king. If we had set up a mission to assasinate him, I wouldn't have minded. But a war?? Saddam had no power. He had no weapons of mass destruction. He had no navy. He was not a threat to the U.S. Even al-Qaeda hated him!

Asshat: When did I say their lives were great under Saddam??? You are right, under Saddam they had no freedom and yes Uday did rape women. But does that mean we should attack them?? We killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and many more will die. There is no stability. Before the war, bombs did not go off every single day. There was no civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites. There was no al-Qaeda IN IRAQ. Let me tell you something. Saddam Hussein hated Osama bin Laden and vice versa. Saddam wanted the sole power in Iraq and did not want to give it to bin Laden or any terrorist. But after this war, terrorists are free to roam Iraq. We've given them a new base. Way to go Bush!

Scenic Point: They are enjoying liberty and the freedom to express themselves?????? Are you f**ckin out of your mind???? Since there is so much freedom there, why don't you go to Iraq and show off some American pride, since now it is a free country, you'll be so happy to do that wouldn't you? And who said the Iraqis are not crying over what is happening??? You obviously have no idea what it is like to have bombs go off every single day and to live in fear like they do now. While Saddam ruled, they did not have freedom, but at least they was no civil war in the country.

Mr. Burns: So you say that you would resist a takeover of America, but then you say what America is doing in Iraq is okay. Typical statement from someone who thinks that America is the world police.

Bfldmom: However much you want to believe it, the soldiers in Iraq are not fighting for our freedom. I hate it when you idiot neo-cons say that we are fighting to defend our freedom. Our freedom has always been intact. Even after 9/11, we have had freedom. Whether you want to believe it or not, Saddam Hussein was never a threat to America. Secondly, you can't compare the war in Iraq with World War 2. Adolf Hitler invaded other countries and that is why we attacked Germany. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, I supported the war, because he had caused war. But there is no point in attacking Iraq because Saddam had some torture chambers, etc. That has NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR FREEDOM OR 9/11 OR OSAMA BIN LADEN!!!!!!!!

And for those of you who said he had torture chambers up until the last day he ruled, i'm not saying he didn't. I'm not saying he wasn't a dictator. I'm not saying that there was freedom in Iraq when he ruled.

Answer 1

No, of course I wouldn't, even in the extremely unlikely event the USA ever functioned as 2001 (or even 1980s) Iraq did. Then again, while I approved of sending US soldiers into Afghanistan, I've protested the Iraq war from the start, so in my case you're preaching to the choir *shrug*

I would hope that if we ever got a president like Saddam, the American citizenry would take care of him without needing the help of a foreign invasion.

Answer 2

Let me guess: the holocaust has been overstated as well?

While you minimize the horror of Ali's nerve agents on the Kurds with a buffer of 'time', you still have neglected the random, indiscriminate and frequent arrests and torturing of Saddam's 'people by his henchmen.

Granted, through this Stalinesque policy he kept the insane Shiites in check, so maybe you have a partial point for making a case that Saddam's stance of brutality was legitimate.

As for the USA killing more Iraqis than Saddam ever did....absolute rubbish.


Although I see the point you're proffering, and yes I'd resist if I thought the invading country was acting against my nation's best interests, in Iraq, America is not.


If I may edify: I think getting rid of Saddam was a mistake, but what is done is done.

America's presence in Iraq is not to subjugate the people, despite what the media bellows out on a daily basis.

Hypothetically, if an American president ran violently amuck, and say a country like Finland came to help the American people depose him, I'd be on their side.

But, if the hypothetical Fins had ideas about setting up perogi factories and spreading bobsledding throughout the contiguous states, then I would resist.

As I said previous: America has no designs on occupying Iraqi land any longer than necessary.

Am I happy about everything that has occurred over there?

No.
Personally, I detest war, but understand it.

Answer 3

If members of my family had disappeared without a trace into the dungeons, I would support it.
If my sisters had been viciously raped by the sons of Saddam, I would support it.
What more do you need? Personally, I may have preferred a quiet assassination, but that is always easier said than done.

Added Aug 1/07
If you weren't interested in our answers, why did you ask for them? You tell people they don't know what it is like to be an Iraqi now, and I submit you don't know what it was like to be an Iraqi then. To take answers and then turn around and basically attack anybody who posts an answer you don't like, in what you originally started as a discussion, NOT a friggin argument, is ignorant.

Answer 4

Saddam's crimes against humanity continued right up to the point where he lost power. Political prisons were operated and torture was routine. Just one example:

""I have seen interrogators break the heads of men with baseball bats, pour salt into wounds and rape wives in front of their husbands," said former Iraqi soldier Ali Iyad Kareen, 41.

He then revealed dozens of Polaroid pictures of beaten and dead Iraqis from the directorate's files.

The beatings continued until the last days of the old government. Iraqi Maj. Shakir Hamid, 33, and his two brothers said they were arrested March 5 by military intelligence police and charged with being informants for the CIA. They were released by sympathetic Iraqi soldiers last week, Hamid said.

He and his two brothers, Majeed and Shakeer, have cigarette burns on their wrists, the bottoms of their feet and their inner thighs. He pointed out dried blood stains on the cement floor of several jail cells. "The interrogators kept telling me, 'Admit it, you work for the Americans, don't you?' " Hamid said. "Under Saddam, you were found guilty whether or not there was any evidence against you.""

There are thousands of stories you can find with a simple Google search regarding atrocities committed by Hussein, his perverse sons and his regime. Post a question with all the facts, not the ones cherry picked to suit your political agenda and I'll answer. Implying that Saddam stopped committing atrocities in 1980 is false and an outright lie. I don't like this war, don't like President Bush and despise reading this type of prevaricative nonsense.

Answer 5

Because the American people have nothing but the news media to rely on. Soldiers on the other hand can compare the media reports with what they see with their own eyes. If the American people demanded accountability from the news media then you would see a more accurate picture of the war appear - and fewer soldiers shocked at how biased and negative the reporting is.

Answer 6

No way. Most Iraqis say life was better under Saddam. At least they knew what to expect, and they had working services! Like electicity and water! And jobs!

We, as Americans, would not tolerate the situation for a second, which makes so many of us total hypocrits.

Yes, Saddam was a total despot and evil, but the fact is life for the average Iraqi was better under him than the civil war and chaos of today.

Give me thumbs down if you want, but I think your opinions carry far less weight from over here than someone actually LIVING there.

Answer 7

It's a great question but you are pushing a wheelbarrow up hill if you expect many people on here to respond sensibly to a hypothetical one.
Not an American but I suspect you would respond to an attack from outside by doing all you could to eject them, no matter how good their intentions. Isn't that what the Iraqis are doing? Even if their motive was honorably to remove the cause of your suffering you would expect them to leave straight away in the knowledge you could now manage your own affairs.

Answer 8

You should tell this to a family member who had a loved one in 911. Seriously this is why our soldiers fight so that you have the freedom to spout off your rhetoric. Maybe these people should be fighting back but they're not. Should we let all this go on without consequence? I think not. I think that if it was all happening to make the world a better place for our children then it would be worth it. You don't hear this kind of talk from Jewish people who were living in Germany in the time of WW2.

Answer 9

Tragedies have always plagued the Iraqi people. The only difference is that previously, they were at the hands of Saddam.

The Iraqi people are currently enjoying freedom of choice and freedom to express themselves as individuals for the first time in their history. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis celebrated in the streets following the fall of the Saddam regime, upon the killing of his sons, upon his own death.

I think their own actions speak best about their feelings on this subject.

They aren't crying on his behalf or, in memory of their past under him so, why are you?

Answer 10

The last time Saddam gassed his own people was in the 1980's? WRONG.

But even if that WAS true...

That wasn't enough genocide for you?

And let's not forget his son Uday was accused of raping women and girls under 18 with NO consequence.

Yeah, their lives were great under Saddam.