Democrats for mass murders?

Question

Why do liberals prefer Iraq to be under the control of a genocidal mass murderer. By saying we shouldn't have taken Saddam out, doesn't that mean that they want him in power?

Answer 1

No, it means they don't want the US to be the police of the world. Saddam was on a list of about 40 genocidal mass murderer leaders. It is impractical, arrogant, and risky to believe we should go around and remove all these leaders.

Answer 2

Is the US on a mission to take out all the repressive dictators in the world? I think not. Saddam's gassing of the Kurds occurred in the 1980s back when Rumsfeld was shaking hands with him.

Saddam maintained order and ran a country which despite the embargoes, provided full employment and basic necessities to its people. If the US had allowed the nuclear inspections to continue, the economic embargoes against Iraq would have been lifted and we would likely be treating Saddam as we now treat Libya and its repressive Muslim dictator (and former enemy of Reagan and the United States), Moammar Gaddafi.

Democrats do not support mass murders but they realistically know that the US cannot be the world's policeman. Democrats oppose unjust, unnecessary wars by the United States..

Answer 3

Your choice of words- "Democrats for mass murderers/Why do liberals prefer Iraq to be under the control of a genocidal mass murderer"- speaks volumes as to what your intentions were in posting this "question". (Hint: an intelligent and dispassionate exchange of ideas is not what you were going for here.)

And here's a newsflash, by the way: dictators with abominable human rights records are the norm in this world, not the exception. Do a little research on Africa, the Middle East, Asia (with obvious exceptions like Japan, South Korea, and a few other countries), and Latin America if you don't believe me. And that begs the following question: how do we determine which oppressive regimes need to be reigned in, and which we can essentially live with. (Unless of course you're suggesting policing every country in the world without relent or exception.)

It also seems to me that an objective analysis of the situation might lead you to wonder why we worked with Saddam when his country was at war with Iran. Are we to believe that we were under the impression that he was a swell guy back in those days?

Lastly, when will you be enlisting in the military, given what appears to be your gung-ho support for this war in Iraq?

Answer 4

With a header like that I had to tune in.

The point is, there are many more countries that are going through bloody civil wars or under totalitarian regimes. Why pick this one?
Dictator or not, he kept out the Islamic extremists. Now the whole region has destabilized.

On a final note, we have officially killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam did, so Im not seeing us taking the moral high ground here.

Darfur needs our attention a lot more than Iraq did.

Not a Dem btw, but a moderate independent.

Answer 5

Scathing rhetorical questions aside, the primary reasons for not removing Saddam, were the lack of any viable reason to do so: he hadn't invaded any other nation, he was no threat to any other nation (all posturing to the contrary aside), the only people he was abusing were his own, and, as the "legitimate" ruler of his nation, he had no reason to respond to demands and threats made by the US or any other nation. Saddam paled in comparison to the worldwide threat posed by Hitler (I do not mean to belittle the death of a single person versus millions; I'm just making a point).

Having said that, no human being with a conscience would want a despot wiping out an entire culture, which begs the question as to why the US has done virtually nothing about the wholesale massacres of citizens in Darfur, India, the Congo, et al, or of genuine threats by Korea, Iran, and, even, potentially, Pakistan.

And, if I may be allowed my own rhetoric: Who is the worse "villain": The alleged "Democratic/Liberals" who (in your opinion) would have left a well-ordered society alone, or the presumed "Republican/Conservative" ones who destroyed that nation, needlessly causing blood to be shed on all sides, with no apparent end to the conflict in sight? Wow. Toughie.

Answer 6

Governments exist by the consent of the governed. The people of Iraq wanted Saddam or they would have done something about it. (By the way, the regime was beginning to crumble anyway) We cannot have the arrogance to think we can control every country on Earth. Our own country is going to hell in a handbasket while we butt into the affairs of other foreign nations and do so almost unilaterally. If we had most of the world with us that might justify our involvement but in Iraq a very small number of countries are on our side. Those that are have a very small amount of people and equipment there.

No one doubts what Saddam Hussein was. One thing is true, he was no threat to the US. Unlike the Taliban and Al Qaeda who actually attacked us on our soil. Priorities seem to be misplaced with war against Iraq instead of going after Al Qaeda (Bin Laden et al) and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There are diplomatic ways to get Musharrif to cooperate. If he doesn't he is no ally and we need to do what we need to do. I am sure India wouldn't mind helping with that sort of thing.

Answer 7

Why was it up to the U.S. to do so? No one believes Saddam was a good guy, but this is not the war to fight. It was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time run by a bunch of bungling neocon fools. Why have we not gotten OBL yet? Why has Iraq descended into a Civil War? Why do recent intelligence reports indicate that Iraq is a recruiting and training ground for terrorists now? Why do current reports tell us that we cannot account for the money and weapons that have been lost in Iraq?
I believe the NeoCons mismanged this War? Why don't you ask them your questions.

~

Answer 8

Lets talk about Uzbekistan. This country is our ally. We use them as an airbase for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are ruled by a dictator. This dictator has, on more than one occasion, sent his military to kill peacefully pro-democracy ralliers. Among them were woman and children. Tell me, why does Bush allow this genocide? or were those deaths not enough to qualify for a genocide? I say again, we are ALLIES with this nation. I did not support Saddam in any way, but I was not ready to ally myself next to him like Bush has with Karimov. He has even invited him to the White House for a Head of State honoring. WTF


"The crowds, it has been established, were mown down by powerful coaxial 7.62mm machine guns mounted on two Russian-built BTR-80 armored personnel carriers. Such cannons can unleash 2,000 rounds, barely pausing for breath before they need to be reloaded. A military helicopter was used for reconnaissance purposes and Uzbek troops armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles opened fire on the demonstrators creating a deadly field of fire with the BTR-80s from which there was no escape. The soldiers made sure they had done their work well. After the shooting had finished they went from body to body delivering 'control shots' to the back of people's heads and scoured the town's streets for survivors to finish off."
"Karimov claims 32 Uzbek militsia and 137 civilians were killed in the disturbance, numbers belied by the local coroner's own numbering system. "In the end hundreds of bodies--including those of women and children--filled the square," said the Associated Press. Human rights groups say the real death count is between 500 and 1,000."
thats sick

ALLIES

Answer 9

Saddam was keeping al-Qaeda out of Iraq. But taking Saddam out, Bush let al-Qaeda in. Nobody in America liked Saddam Hussein, but there were worse things for our country, and worse things for the world, and even worse things for Iraq, than having him in power there.

By the way, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Just in case you're the next-to-last person on Earth (Bush being the last) who doesn't know it.

Answer 10

Have you looked at a Newspaper or watched the News lately?

If so, then you might ask,

Reps for mass murder, both of our Troops and innocent Iraqi ppl?

Reps and their cowardly leader think they can change the course in Iraq, a course that's been the way it is since Biblical days.

Stay the course?

What part of failure doesn't GWB and his supporters understand? The war in Iraq is lost!!!

Therefore, many more of our Troops and more innocent Iraqi ppl's lives will be sacrificed for nothing, because nothing has improved since the first days of GWB's invasion on Iraq. Nothing will ever change in Iraq...it's a place called....HELL!!