3,000 Soldiers For Saddam, Was it worth it?

[truethat]

There's no more sacrifice to Saddam. He's gone. And I can't help but notice how people assume that nothing would have continued to happen if we hadn't taken him out. The guy financed terrorism. Openly and privately. But since we've been in Iraq the attacks have gone from highly organized orchestrations in Madrid, London and the US to car bombs. So even though we haven't solved it, we still have stopped the full speed ahead that was coming from that part of the world. Don't believe it? Its up to you. I'm not here to convince you. This is just my opinion.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

How about just because one is a Tyrant? You do know what a Tyrant is, right?

He wasn't a threat to us (and unlike Truethat seems to think there was no link with him and 9/11), instead we've wasted lives and money for no benefit to us

[AROCES]

He wasn't a threat to us (and unlike Truethat seems to think there was no link with him and 9/11), instead we've wasted lives and money for no benefit to us

How about to the benefit of those in the world who sometimes gets hope to see that there are still those who would do something about TYRANTS and not just condemn them and basically do nothing to stop the very act of being a Tyrant? You do know why one is called a Tyrant, right?

[el midgetron]

There's no more sacrifice to Saddam. He's gone. And I can't help but notice how people assume that nothing would have continued to happen if we hadn't taken him out. The guy financed terrorism. Openly and privately. But since we've been in Iraq the attacks have gone from highly organized orchestrations in Madrid, London and the US to car bombs. So even though we haven't solved it, we still have stopped the full speed ahead that was coming from that part of the world. Don't believe it? Its up to you. I'm not here to convince you. This is just my opinion.

So Saddam was behind the 2005 London bombing even though he was hiding in a hole in the ground since the attack on Iraq bagan in 2003? I know you are not here to convince anyone but even if you could just be so kind as to share some of the evidence for your claims, I would be interested to see it.

[truethat]

My evidence is his own words. He financed it. I'm not going to discuss this with you because you are just ........well a waste of time. He wasn't sitting in a fox hole planning out the details. Funding was already a done deed. Without money to operate this terrorists lose steam. Which they have. That's evidence that he might have had something to do with the funding of terrorism. Especially since he stated it himself. So now he's lying about himself? Whatever dude. Enjoy your fantasy world.

[Reincarnated]

I'm not going to discuss this with you because you are just ........well a waste of time.

What's the point? There are none so blind as those who will not see. Why should I waist my breath on you and your ilk? You are simply not able to grasp a coherent thought that doesn't involve hatred of GWB.

Notice the similarities They make all these claims then when confronted for evidence, they scurry away like dogs with tails between their legs.

[truethat]

Not quite. When someone posts like a troll there's really no discussion. I imagine that like others I will post replies more so for others who might read the thread that the person actually asking the question. And gee I think I have answered the question.....looks....yeah I did.

I am not going to get dragged into his baiting. That's not a discussion. Sorry, that to me is a waste of time.

Edited January 3, 2007 by truethat

[Cinders]

Did anyone catch Keith Olbermann last night?

I uploaded a bit of it - about Bush, "sacrifice", General Casey, Saddam, and his Special Comment here:

(Note: if the video hangs, click on the video window to pause it so it can load, then hit play)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xwwf0_olb...acrifice-saddam

No.. it was and still is NOT worth it...

[el midgetron]

Not quite. When someone posts like a troll there's really no discussion. I imagine that like others I will post replies more so for others who might read the thread that the person actually asking the question. And gee I think I have answered the question.....looks....yeah I did.

I am not going to get dragged into his baiting. That's not a discussion. Sorry, that to me is a waste of time.

If just asking for some evidence is "baiting" then I guess I am guilty.

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html

The best evidence the Council on Foreign Relations own site is some vauge attacks on US facilities 12 years before the current war in Iraq began. Better late than never I guess.

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?

Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/

There are six or seven countries the US lists as terroist nations. Thats alot of war ahead of us if we are going to go after any country that supports terrorism. The real problem is the war on terrorism is to loosely defined. But lets just say we do go after all the terrorist nations and topple them all. Is that going to solve the problem? I don't think so. Like truethat said, "Without money to operate this terrorists lose steam" but how much money do they really need? 9/11 was carried out for little more than the price of 19 one-way tickets and some box cutters. So little money was involved that the 9/11 Commision didn't even think the money trail was worth investigating. OKC was funded by Timothy selling anti-American literature at guns shows.

So what happens if there is another large attack that shows the terrorist havent "lost steam"? Throw more troops on the fire and hope it goes out?

[truethat]

Well since your willing to "discuss this" then I'll answer you. Read what you just posted. That's why I believe he had something to do with it. I mean I can't believe that something of this magnitude was orchestrated and he knew absolutely nothing about it. And if he knew about it and felt it would work, I'm sure he'd want in on it. I think the mural painted in his home with the planes being depicted as Iraqi is a real hint.

Do I have proof? No. Not at all. But that's like asking someone to prove Capone was murdering people. They knew Capone was doing it but they couldn't prove it. So they nabbed him on tax evasion instead.

How much money? Well to hijack the plane? Not much but the path to it requires a lot of padding. If it was so easy then why aren't there more attacks right now? All you'd have to do is drive a car on the FDR and stop right under the UN and blow it up.

I'm not saying that Saddam was responsible for 911 but I am saying we're better off without him. The post was 3000 troops worth it to take out Saddam? Yes. Does that mean I think the war in Iraq is a success or we should be at war? No. I don't.

But in answering the original question, I think world wide it was worth it to take out Saddam.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

How about to the benefit of those in the world who sometimes gets hope to see that there are still those who would do something about TYRANTS and not just condemn them and basically do nothing to stop the very act of being a Tyrant? You do know why one is called a Tyrant, right?

As John Quincy Adams, author of the Monroe Doctrine put it, "America... does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

[truethat]

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ (or words to that effect)

[Avinash_Tyagi]

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ (or words to that effect)

Edmund Burke.

Ah but we were doing something, we were containing him and keeping him weak, invading brought us nothing, especially when the threat was small, and alternatives were available.

[truethat]

The problem with Saddam was that we stopped during the Persian Gulf war. We should have taken him out then and whatever mess would have been would have been.

The embargoes were doing nothing but killing children and padding France's pockets. So to the original question were 3000 troops worth it?

Hmmmm

Put it this way.

When I watch a movie like The Bourne Supremacy or Pirates of the Caribbean (I know stupid movies) but I get really annoyed when the "Hero" is in a predicament that causes him to fight for his life.

Like Jason Bourne doesn't want to fight any more. Or the Lovers in the Pirate movie are going to be hanged. Then throughout the movie a total of about 100 people wind up getting killed while the hero struggles to save his own hide. And we are supposed to cheer them on? I can't do it. I get annoyed that somehow their life is worth more than the regular schmuck in the movie. To me a life is a life is a life. So to me those 3000 soldiers are no more valuable than the thousands of Iraqi children that died each month (that's not counting regular people who died or were murdered under his regime) well to me the math is simple. If 2000 children died each month and we have been there for 3 years plus that means about 80,000 children's lives have been saved at the cost of 3000. Is it worth it? Absolutely.

Plus is it worth it not to have to spend money on investigations about WMDs any more? Or getting dragged into other wars? Well economically for us it blows but for the rest of the world its pretty good.

Now the one place I question is the loss of Iraqi lives. Because that far exceeds those 3000 however it seems to me we broke even on that account.

Maybe I should care more, In fact I do. But that's not the question that was posed.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

The problem with Saddam was that we stopped during the Persian Gulf war. We should have taken him out then and whatever mess would have been would have been.

The embargoes were doing nothing but killing children and padding France's pockets. So to the original question were 3000 troops worth it?

Hmmmm

Put it this way.

When I watch a movie like The Bourne Supremacy or Pirates of the Caribbean (I know stupid movies) but I get really annoyed when the "Hero" is in a predicament that causes him to fight for his life.

Like Jason Bourne doesn't want to fight any more. Or the Lovers in the Pirate movie are going to be hanged. Then throughout the movie a total of about 100 people wind up getting killed while the hero struggles to save his own hide. And we are supposed to cheer them on? I can't do it. I get annoyed that somehow their life is worth more than the regular schmuck in the movie. To me a life is a life is a life. So to me those 3000 soldiers are no more valuable than the thousands of Iraqi children that died each month (that's not counting regular people who died or were murdered under his regime) well to me the math is simple. If 2000 children died each month and we have been there for 3 years plus that means about 80,000 children's lives have been saved at the cost of 3000. Is it worth it? Absolutely.

Plus is it worth it not to have to spend money on investigations about WMDs any more? Or getting dragged into other wars? Well economically for us it blows but for the rest of the world its pretty good.

Now the one place I question is the loss of Iraqi lives. Because that far exceeds those 3000 however it seems to me we broke even on that account.

Maybe I should care more, In fact I do. But that's not the question that was posed.

I disagree, I wouldn't want any of my family going over there and risking their lives for something which gained no benefit for the US, it is different when the enemy was like the Axis powers in WW2, that represented a threat to us, and you bring up a good point, this war has resulted in more Iraqis dying than the embrago, or Saddam

[truethat]

I disagree, I wouldn't want any of my family going over there and risking their lives for something which gained no benefit for the US, it is different when the enemy was like the Axis powers in WW2, that represented a threat to us, and you bring up a good point, this war has resulted in more Iraqis dying than the embrago, or Saddam

Well I disagree that Saddam posed no threat. Hmmm I think there is a difference in saying did Iraq pose a threat and did Saddam pose a threat. I don't think Iraq posed a threat but I do think that Saddam did. That's why I see this differently. I also think his regime posed a thread in a personal way ex funding terrorism. They paid suicide bombers families? I mean I think that needs to be taken out. Do I think other leaders need to be taken out? Not yet. I haven't seen them threaten others to the same degree that Saddam did.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Well I disagree that Saddam posed no threat. Hmmm I think there is a difference in saying did Iraq pose a threat and did Saddam pose a threat. I don't think Iraq posed a threat but I do think that Saddam did. That's why I see this differently. I also think his regime posed a thread in a personal way ex funding terrorism. They paid suicide bombers families? I mean I think that needs to be taken out. Do I think other leaders need to be taken out? Not yet. I haven't seen them threaten others to the same degree that Saddam did.

Even if he paid suicide bomber families, so what? That's small, potatoes, and not worth thousands of lives to deal with.

[truethat]

I disagree. You know I used to work for the Community Board here in NY and we found (under Giuliani's tenure) that the small crimes were the stepping stones to the big ones. If you have a group of people with nothing better to do, and you promise them reward for being part of the problem rather than part of the solution, then there will never be a solution or peace/ Maybe its small potatoes to you to think about living day to day in a country where an attack happens every month but I think back to the days after 911 where we lived in fear. Bush didn't manufacture my fear. I and everyone I knew felt it. So maybe my view is distorted from yours if you are not a NYer. I remember the true fear on 911 was not all the buildings falling and lives lost, although that didn't help, but the true fear was that we were being attacked in mass assaults around the country.

Now we are spoiled in this country but other parts of the world deal with this on a regular basis. It has no part in the modern world. Terrorism needs to stop. You suggest that we talk things out and I agree. However how are we ever going to talk things out when someone is paying people Not to? Unless both sides want to talk all that's going to happen is you show up and the other person blows up the room.

So if a person wants progress one of the first things we need to do is to stop that. One of the best ways to stop that is to stop the funding. I am sure that there is more funding. But at least we stopped it from being a full force gush. And in some strange sense have given the rebels something to fight about in their own land instead of ours.

I just feel for the Iraqi women and children. I can't imagine what it must be like for them and I feel very bad about that.

[Conspiracy]

should have gotten him assassinated

[el midgetron]

How much money? Well to hijack the plane? Not much but the path to it requires a lot of padding. If it was so easy then why aren't there more attacks right now? All you'd have to do is drive a car on the FDR and stop right under the UN and blow it up.

I think you might be expecting to much to quick. Right after 9/11 I expected more follow-up attack which never happened. If they are after us, what are they waiting for? But when you look at how often in the past large scale attacks happen (which would require the most funding) there in no indication they happen more than once every several years. Considering that 7/7 was just a year and a half ago I see no indication that the war on terrorism is having any effect.

The problem with Saddam was that we stopped during the Persian Gulf war. We should have taken him out then and whatever mess would have been would have been.

I will agree with you about that. I still cant figure out why we didnt take him out in 91'.

The embargoes were doing nothing but killing children and padding France's pockets.

Our embargos right?

Like Jason Bourne doesn't want to fight any more. Or the Lovers in the Pirate movie are going to be hanged. Then throughout the movie a total of about 100 people wind up getting killed while the hero struggles to save his own hide. And we are supposed to cheer them on? I can't do it. I get annoyed that somehow their life is worth more than the regular schmuck in the movie. To me a life is a life is a life. So to me those 3000 soldiers are no more valuable than the thousands of Iraqi children that died each month (that's not counting regular people who died or were murdered under his regime) well to me the math is simple. If 2000 children died each month and we have been there for 3 years plus that means about 80,000 children's lives have been saved at the cost of 3000. Is it worth it? Absolutely.

But you are saying that sacrificing troops so we could end OUR child-killing embargo makes sense. I dont understand. 80,000 is still 20,000 shy of the estimated 100,000 dead in Iraq. Add the 3,000 troops and you have 23,000 more dead than you would with just the embargos. All of this depends on what happens in Iraq in the future. So far, it isnt looking good.

Plus is it worth it not to have to spend money on investigations about WMDs any more? Or getting dragged into other wars? Well economically for us it blows but for the rest of the world its pretty good.

But not as good as when we were making money selling Saddam WMDs? We wont need to be dragged into other wars because we are going to beat war in Iraq for years to come.

I think you have good intentions with your opinion about the 3,000 lost in Iraq and the civilian tolls. However, I think you see Saddam as much more of a threat than he realy was. A brutal dictator, yes but unfortunatly he was only one of many.

[truethat]

I agree. Except his regime would have just gone on. We didn't just take out Saddam we took out his regime.

To el midgetron

Our embargoes. Yes. But not our. One of the biggest misconceptions out there is that the Persian Gulf war was OUR war. It was not. We went there on behalf of the UN. Why did we stop? Because the UN told us so. That's why I think this time Bush didn't listen to them.

There is a big problem in the UN with regard to civil war. They told us that we should allow the Kurds to stand up in their own right and to pull out. And so we did. And this is a problem because when the US is often acting as the "world army" for the UN it ultimately winds up in our servicemen and women dying for a cause that has nothing whatsoever to do with our country.

People scream about the oil in this war and to me I'm thinking I'd rather go to war for something that could actually benefit this country than for someone else that probably hates us any way. How many service men and women died in the Persian Gulf war? Far more than we realize due to the chemical warfare used there.

We are often in other parts of the world fighting their wars for them. We apologized for not being in Rwanda for example. No one else did. Prior to this war we were expected to fight for others. So in my mind, either way those soldiers would have died. Either for US or for Israel or Kuwait or Lebanon. etc.

Taking out a source of death and war is a good thing at the end of the day. I just wish they would have been able to have assasinated them.

Edited January 3, 2007 by truethat

[AROCES]

As John Quincy Adams, author of the Monroe Doctrine put it, "America... does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

And soon the Monster had become so big and reach her soil, she ended up fighting it and the toll was way bigger, if only she has dealt with it when it was a small monster.

9/11?

Edited January 4, 2007 by AROCES

[Avinash_Tyagi]

I disagree. You know I used to work for the Community Board here in NY and we found (under Giuliani's tenure) that the small crimes were the stepping stones to the big ones. If you have a group of people with nothing better to do, and you promise them reward for being part of the problem rather than part of the solution, then there will never be a solution or peace/ Maybe its small potatoes to you to think about living day to day in a country where an attack happens every month but I think back to the days after 911 where we lived in fear. Bush didn't manufacture my fear. I and everyone I knew felt it. So maybe my view is distorted from yours if you are not a NYer. I remember the true fear on 911 was not all the buildings falling and lives lost, although that didn't help, but the true fear was that we were being attacked in mass assaults around the country.

Now we are spoiled in this country but other parts of the world deal with this on a regular basis. It has no part in the modern world. Terrorism needs to stop. You suggest that we talk things out and I agree. However how are we ever going to talk things out when someone is paying people Not to? Unless both sides want to talk all that's going to happen is you show up and the other person blows up the room.

So if a person wants progress one of the first things we need to do is to stop that. One of the best ways to stop that is to stop the funding. I am sure that there is more funding. But at least we stopped it from being a full force gush. And in some strange sense have given the rebels something to fight about in their own land instead of ours.

I just feel for the Iraqi women and children. I can't imagine what it must be like for them and I feel very bad about that.

Terrorism has always existed, but there is no unified threat or mass assaults, he was paying the families of a few crazies here and there, so what? I could live with that, in excange for the lives that have been lost in this war.

And soon the Monster had become so big and reach her soil, she ended up fighting it and the toll was way bigger, if only she has dealt with it when it was a small monster.

9/11?

That monster is dead, so what is there to worry about

Edited January 4, 2007 by Avinash_Tyagi

[AROCES]

Terrorism has always existed, but there is no unified threat or mass assaults, he was paying the families of a few crazies here and there, so what? I could live with that, in excange for the lives that have been lost in this war.

- A few crazies here and there was able to kill 3,000 Americans in one day. You can live with that I guess, rather than fight!

[AROCES]

That monster is dead, so what is there to worry about

Where is your carcass?