Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Reincarnated

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

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

68 members have voted

  1. 1. 3,000 Soldiers For Saddam, Was it worth it?

    • Yes
      25
    • No
      43


417 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

truethat
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.

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

You don't get it.

Its not about the number of lives lost, its about the way the remaining living were able to go on. Little by little terrorism throughout the planet was/is creating an atmosphere of immobility and fighting.

If you look at other countries whom we loathe like say Cuba although I don't care one way or another. But Cuba is like Vegas, what happens in Cuba stays in Cuba. If Cuban refugees were bombing our ports our reaction would be a lot different.

Its the Broken Windows theory. Here's a wiki link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Windows

Bottom line is that it wasn't just small street thugs blowing up cars. It had escalated beyond that for a long long time. A very long time. NOW its going back to being car bombs. It had been about Embassy's being bombed, 9-11, 7/7 etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Episteme

Well I just read through this entire thread. I learned just one thing. Though the majority seems to agree that losing our soldiers so far hasn't been worth the paltry gains, the majority of posts are from conservatives defending the war. Not only that, but if you are to go through the posts with an open mind, you will see that the majority of posts from conservatives are insulting, accusing, and generally mean towards anyone who doesn't agree with them - even if nobody was posting at the time to disagree. There is a reason all those people voting aren't posting in this topic, folks. Anyone not involved in US politics should come away from this thread with a solid belief that conservative republicans are indeed the party filled with closed minded "meanies", and the democratic and so called "liberals" are the parties in which all the kind hearted folk reside.

Where exactly did the conservatives take the turn from being the kind religious center of our nation, to the rude and angry Rush Limbaughs of the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash_Tyagi
You don't get it.

Its not about the number of lives lost, its about the way the remaining living were able to go on. Little by little terrorism throughout the planet was/is creating an atmosphere of immobility and fighting.

If you look at other countries whom we loathe like say Cuba although I don't care one way or another. But Cuba is like Vegas, what happens in Cuba stays in Cuba. If Cuban refugees were bombing our ports our reaction would be a lot different.

Its the Broken Windows theory. Here's a wiki link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Windows

Bottom line is that it wasn't just small street thugs blowing up cars. It had escalated beyond that for a long long time. A very long time. NOW its going back to being car bombs. It had been about Embassy's being bombed, 9-11, 7/7 etc.

I think you are overblowing the problem, the attacks were showy but all in all didn't kill that many, a few thousand total, much more have died in this pointless ivasion and occupation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
explorer
I will agree with you about that. I still cant figure out why we didnt take him out in 91'.

Interesting quote from then Sec. of Defense Cheney in 1992.

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Link sourced from Link

To be fair, this quote is 14 years old and pre 9/11, but Iraq is not known to have had any involvement in 9/11, yet it gave the Bush admin the political fuel for the long planned regime change in Iraq. Ironically, the last paragraph is quite prophetic.

Edited by explorer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reincarnated
Well I just read through this entire thread. I learned just one thing. Though the majority seems to agree that losing our soldiers so far hasn't been worth the paltry gains, the majority of posts are from conservatives defending the war. Not only that, but if you are to go through the posts with an open mind, you will see that the majority of posts from conservatives are insulting, accusing, and generally mean towards anyone who doesn't agree with them - even if nobody was posting at the time to disagree. There is a reason all those people voting aren't posting in this topic, folks. Anyone not involved in US politics should come away from this thread with a solid belief that conservative republicans are indeed the party filled with closed minded "meanies", and the democratic and so called "liberals" are the parties in which all the kind hearted folk reside.

Where exactly did the conservatives take the turn from being the kind religious center of our nation, to the rude and angry Rush Limbaughs of the world?

Thank You! I just hope more people on these forums realize this. Edited by Reincarnated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
Well I just read through this entire thread. I learned just one thing. Though the majority seems to agree that losing our soldiers so far hasn't been worth the paltry gains, the majority of posts are from conservatives defending the war. Not only that, but if you are to go through the posts with an open mind, you will see that the majority of posts from conservatives are insulting, accusing, and generally mean towards anyone who doesn't agree with them - even if nobody was posting at the time to disagree. There is a reason all those people voting aren't posting in this topic, folks. Anyone not involved in US politics should come away from this thread with a solid belief that conservative republicans are indeed the party filled with closed minded "meanies", and the democratic and so called "liberals" are the parties in which all the kind hearted folk reside.

Where exactly did the conservatives take the turn from being the kind religious center of our nation, to the rude and angry Rush Limbaughs of the world?

Really I disagree with you completely. Case in point, once el midgetron and Avinash stopped being snide and rude we were able to just "discuss" the issue at hand. I have often wanted to listen to what the other "side" has to say but I am usually called names like Bush Lover, O'Reilly Fan, Fox Junkie all sorts of insults that are entirely not true instead of just focusing on having a conversation. It has been this way since we went to the war and its very hostile and mean. So how you can say the liberals are nice is beyond me. When did "conservatives" take the turn? When we got slammed for having an opinion over and over again. I am not a republican. I WAS a democrat but the behavior of my fellow democrats caused me to quit them. They have been nothing but vulgar and hostile for the last three years.

I am not a conservative Republican. But I do think a lot of the liberals in the US don't have a lot of comprehension about what happens world wide. At the very least they don't know people who have actually lived in parts of the world that have to deal with terrorism on a daily basis. I also see a lot of "well it's their problem" ala Rwanda. So what really how does it affect us. So for years the problem was let slide. It seems to me that these people fail to realize it was brought to our land in the 911 attacks and also the months after in the anthrax attack. Maybe if you didn't live in the US and didn't have to open your mail with surgical gloves and a face mask it didn't quite sink in.

It seems to me by allowing these terrorists to do what they did with virtually no response this emboldened them. And they escalated. Had we not done something, they would have likely nuked us. Who knows.

The point is liberals seem to act like the state of the world today is what would have been had we not taken out Saddam. And we don't know that this is true. It might be that it would have been better than now in a lot of ways. But I think it would have been worse. I think the suicide attacks would have escalated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron
Really I disagree with you completely. Case in point, once el midgetron and Avinash stopped being snide and rude we were able to just "discuss" the issue at hand. I have often wanted to listen to what the other "side" has to say but I am usually called names like Bush Lover, O'Reilly Fan, Fox Junkie all sorts of insults that are entirely not true instead of just focusing on having a conversation. It has been this way since we went to the war and its very hostile and mean. So how you can say the liberals are nice is beyond me. When did "conservatives" take the turn? When we got slammed for having an opinion over and over again. I am not a republican. I WAS a democrat but the behavior of my fellow democrats caused me to quit them. They have been nothing but vulgar and hostile for the last three years.

In my own defense, I am always willing to discuss the issue at hand and I think I keep my comments above presonal attacks and name calling. However, I do sink to the level set by those who wish to engage me or disrupt a discussion, in a more petty fashion. Truethat, I think you are as prone to call some one a tin hat liberal crazy, as anyone is.

For me, it does seem to be the conservatives who end up taking the low road more often than the liberals or CTers. Perhaps thats because I am ususaly on left side of the argument. However, I don't identify with either left or right and neither side is something I would never bring up as a basis for a claim. Which is where I see the real problem with the bickering. Alot of people automaticaly assume some one is of the opposite political party when they don't have the same opinion as they do. One thing that the conservatives do seem to is change their stance to fit the offical line. If its WMDs, then we need to make sure those WMDs don't fall into the hands of terrorist. If its crimes Saddam commited 20 years ago, then we have to stop the evil dictator. Any reason seems to suit them as long as they can moraly justify it in someway and if that justification isnt true tomorrow, then they can find another to suit them.

I am not a conservative Republican. But I do think a lot of the liberals in the US don't have a lot of comprehension about what happens world wide. At the very least they don't know people who have actually lived in parts of the world that have to deal with terrorism on a daily basis. I also see a lot of "well it's their problem" ala Rwanda. So what really how does it affect us. So for years the problem was let slide. It seems to me that these people fail to realize it was brought to our land in the 911 attacks and also the months after in the anthrax attack. Maybe if you didn't live in the US and didn't have to open your mail with surgical gloves and a face mask it didn't quite sink in.

It seems to me by allowing these terrorists to do what they did with virtually no response this emboldened them. And they escalated. Had we not done something, they would have likely nuked us. Who knows.

The point is liberals seem to act like the state of the world today is what would have been had we not taken out Saddam. And we don't know that this is true. It might be that it would have been better than now in a lot of ways. But I think it would have been worse. I think the suicide attacks would have escalated.

I think when it comes right down to it, both parties, hence the majority of US foregin policy, is dictated by money (but this isnt the only factor). If there is nothing to gain from Rwanda, then the action from Washington is going to be slow and heavy with red tape and there also isnt going to be much coverage in the news.

As for Saddam, I still think he was a much hyped threat. There are any number of leaders in the middle east which could have been splashed on the news and made out to look like the biggest threat on the face of the Earth. Saddam was singled out and groomed in the media to be this "bad guy" who was going to destroy America.

I know of nothing which has been done to protect us from a nuclear attack. I think its still very much an event to fear and I don't think Iran should be the first matter we address in this issue. If the war on terrorism continues in the direction it is going......I think such an attack is inevitable.

I don't think Saddams death is going to make a bit of difference in the amount of terrorist activity. I also think its only going to make things worse for our troops in the middle east. Time will tell, I supose....

Edited by el midgetron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

el midge. Sorry But after 3 years of being called all kinds of names for DARING to say I can look at the war from a different perspective that's why I started coming back with the "liberals'

Nearly every time this topic comes up if I dare say that I think Saddam needed to be taken out I get slammed just as you did. I wasn't calling anyone names.

And the deconstruct is done the exact same way every time. Line by line quotes with snide replies and commentary that I must be an O'Reilly fan etc.

Oddly I am legally deaf and haven't watched television since the week after 911. I can't hear and have to use the Closed Captioning so its not worth it.

But of course ALL of my thoughts are always attributed to some Conservative nut job and I'm called a neocon.

Perhaps this is what both sides feel. That we are being attacked. So I suggest that for a New Years Resolution people refrain from doing this and try to be more open minded and actually listen to what the other side is saying.

I can't even begin to describe the kind of hatred that has been thrown my way from the beginning. I voted for Bush the first time, not because I liked Bush but because I liked and respected Colin Powell. I thought Gore was a nut job. He just freaked me out. I had no way of knowing that the elections would be counted the way they were. The whole Florida fiasco swore me off politics for good. Then 911 and then the war......well this isn't what I was voting for when I voted for Bush. But people act like I caused all these things.

No I am just a voter like you who voted for the lesser of two evils at the time. If I could do it again knowing what I know now, I'd vote for Gore but who knows what would have happened with that.

ETA Btw I was so stoked to vote for the Democrat! Any DEMOCRAT. Just like I am right now. I just want Republicans out of the white house. But when they offered up Kerry I nearly died. I voted for him but I knew he wouldn't win. I really hope the next time they give us something we can work with.

Edited by truethat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
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.

WRONG! When we went in that is when we found out that Saddam was able to corrupt Germany, France and Kofi Anan himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Well I just read through this entire thread. I learned just one thing. Though the majority seems to agree that losing our soldiers so far hasn't been worth the paltry gains, the majority of posts are from conservatives defending the war. Not only that, but if you are to go through the posts with an open mind, you will see that the majority of posts from conservatives are insulting, accusing, and generally mean towards anyone who doesn't agree with them - even if nobody was posting at the time to disagree. There is a reason all those people voting aren't posting in this topic, folks. Anyone not involved in US politics should come away from this thread with a solid belief that conservative republicans are indeed the party filled with closed minded "meanies", and the democratic and so called "liberals" are the parties in which all the kind hearted folk reside.

Where exactly did the conservatives take the turn from being the kind religious center of our nation, to the rude and angry Rush Limbaughs of the world?

OK, now you have taken side, join in and enjoy the debate. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
WRONG! When we went in that is when we found out that Saddam was able to corrupt Germany, France and Kofi Anan himself.

Saddam was no direct threat to us, bottom line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash_Tyagi
WRONG! When we went in that is when we found out that Saddam was able to corrupt Germany, France and Kofi Anan himself.

Like Fluff said, he wasn't a threat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
capeo
WRONG! When we went in that is when we found out that Saddam was able to corrupt Germany, France and Kofi Anan himself.

That was still no threat to us anymore than say Chavez is today, and it's certainly no foundation for an invasion. He had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11, that's the bottom line. We should've went into Afghanistan, did away with the Taliban, got bin Laden and stayed their till their government was fully in power. These were people where the majority wanted a democratic government. We had the troops and capability to do that. Now the Taliban is on the rise again because we're spread to thin and their governments faltering. So instead of going after who attacked us and creating an ally in a strategic area we're going to wind with a failed state in Afghanistan that will be a terrorist training ground again and a civil war in Iraq we can't do a thing about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Saddam was no direct threat to us, bottom line.

Then why are we and the UN containing him then? Why the UN 17 Resolutions then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

That was the exact reason why he was not a threat. His military had been crushed and he didn'y have the resources to rebuild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
That was the exact reason why he was not a threat. His military had been crushed and he didn'y have the resources to rebuild.

So we thought that we had him contained, until we found out he was able to buy Germany, France and Kofi. It was a matter of time then and he will be back.

If he was not a threat anymore, then why didn't the UN declared so? I mean it took almost 2 years before we moved in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash_Tyagi
So we thought that we had him contained, until we found out he was able to buy Germany, France and Kofi. It was a matter of time then and he will be back.

If he was not a threat anymore, then why didn't the UN declared so? I mean it took almost 2 years before we moved in.

Because not one of them was able to think for themselves and just got on the bush train. He wasn't coming back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
capeo
Then why are we and the UN containing him then? Why the UN 17 Resolutions then?

Because he may well have been a threat to Kuwait again. I'm not saying the man couldn't have been dangerous to neighboring countries if he had weapons of mass destruction, but so can 30 other countries in the world right now, and he didn't have them. Are we invading North Korea right now? They pose more of threat to us than Iraq did when we invaded it. The infrastructure of Iraq was a mess, Saddam couldn't raise a worthwhile army if he wanted to, the country was broke and, most importantly the whole point of the invasion was in response to 9/11, an event he had no connection to. Besides a full scale invasion never would have been necesary even if he did have WMDs. We'd bomb those sites like we threatened to bomb North Korea's sites. A full-scale ground invasion with the intention of staying there was and still is impossible to pull off. In this day and age we should be pouring more military resources into intelligence and quick strike capabilities because that's how to thwart the style of threat we face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Because not one of them was able to think for themselves and just got on the bush train. He wasn't coming back.

Nope, it is because not one of them is sure either if Saddam has WMD or not. We all know now why Germany, France and Kofi Anan was against the invasion for one thing, at least that part was cleared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
So we thought that we had him contained, until we found out he was able to buy Germany, France and Kofi. It was a matter of time then and he will be back.

If he was not a threat anymore, then why didn't the UN declared so? I mean it took almost 2 years before we moved in.

The resolutions were keeping him broke and unable to get his military rebuilt. The oil for food scandle was horrible but in the long run it was a drop in the bucket. When we went in in 2003 everyone hailed our destruction if his military as a huge event but in reality his army was a joke. He didn't have the resources to attack a neighbot let alone us.

The un was obligated to keep an eye on him. Of course he was going to do everything in his power to try and rebuild his military, he was a dictator and that is what they do, but the resolutions did a good job of keeping him from doing so. He was someone who was going to have to be watched, but that is much easier than killing and wounding thousands of our kids and tens of thousands of iraqi's

Bush wanted to go in, so we went; it had nothing to do with him being a danger to us. He was contained rather well, but that was not enough; bush was willing to risk everything to do what his dad didn't and we have a major fiasco with no end in sight now because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Because he may well have been a threat to Kuwait again. I'm not saying the man couldn't have been dangerous to neighboring countries if he had weapons of mass destruction, but so can 30 other countries in the world right now, and he didn't have them. Are we invading North Korea right now? They pose more of threat to us than Iraq did when we invaded it. The infrastructure of Iraq was a mess, Saddam couldn't raise a worthwhile army if he wanted to, the country was broke and, most importantly the whole point of the invasion was in response to 9/11, an event he had no connection to. Besides a full scale invasion never would have been necesary even if he did have WMDs. We'd bomb those sites like we threatened to bomb North Korea's sites. A full-scale ground invasion with the intention of staying there was and still is impossible to pull off. In this day and age we should be pouring more military resources into intelligence and quick strike capabilities because that's how to thwart the style of threat we face.

Kim of N Korea has threatened the West but so far has not acted. Saddam has made war with Iran, gas the Kurds, invaded Kuwait, defied the UN, killed his own people, able to corrupt Germany, France and the HEAD OF THE UN!!! I mean what more do you want???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

Threats do not mean that he can act on them, and that is the bottom line. No on is saying that the guy was a saint, but the bottom line is that he was no threat to us, the resolutions were working and we could have avoided spending a billion dollars a day on this neverending war if we would have just helped to keep him contained; something that was easy and inexspensive to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
The resolutions were keeping him broke and unable to get his military rebuilt. The oil for food scandle was horrible but in the long run it was a drop in the bucket. When we went in in 2003 everyone hailed our destruction if his military as a huge event but in reality his army was a joke. He didn't have the resources to attack a neighbot let alone us.

The un was obligated to keep an eye on him. Of course he was going to do everything in his power to try and rebuild his military, he was a dictator and that is what they do, but the resolutions did a good job of keeping him from doing so. He was someone who was going to have to be watched, but that is much easier than killing and wounding thousands of our kids and tens of thousands of iraqi's

Bush wanted to go in, so we went; it had nothing to do with him being a danger to us. He was contained rather well, but that was not enough; bush was willing to risk everything to do what his dad didn't and we have a major fiasco with no end in sight now because of it.

A drop in the bucket??? The fact that he was able to corrupt key allies and the head of the UN!!! That was nothing???

He was starting to have the ones watching him work for him. GEE! Can't you even figure that out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
capeo
Kim of N Korea has threatened the West but so far has not acted. Saddam has made war with Iran, gas the Kurds, invaded Kuwait, defied the UN, killed his own people, able to corrupt Germany, France and the HEAD OF THE UN!!! I mean what more do you want???

As far as "corruption" the US was complicit in the scandal and allowed it to happen according to the senate subcommitee that investigated it. It was good for Jordan and Turkey and 52% of the kickback money was cleaned through US oil companies so we let it go. Everyone was aware of what was going on and were only forced to act when an Iraqi newspaper brought world attention to it.

As for Saddam, he was a bad guy, no doubt a monster, but there are many of them in the world today and we don't go invading them unless they pose a direct threat to us or a close ally (even in such a case a complete occupation would never be on the table). Iraq was nowhere near that threat level. Bush wanted to finish what his father didn't. It's clear from those who spoke out that were in the military or the administration at the time. He directly ignored intelligence memos that said Huissein had no connection to 9/11 and in certain instances outright asked to be brought such intelligence, knowing full well it had to false or outright fabricated. That's why jumped on the British intelligence, it gave him a shield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

I can figure plenty out, no need for the cheeky comment...

As I said what happened in the food for oil scandal was illegal and a bad thing, but that can be resolved rather easily without going to war. There were enough people watching the countries finances that nothing big can happend without being found out before too much damage has been done. What happened with annan was something that shouldn't have happened and it should have been dealt with immediately. That illegal activity however doesn't warrant going to war though.

As I have said, he was contained and not a threat. many countries were watching him and abiding by the resolution and the result was that he had a crushed joke of a military and lacked the resources to do much more than sabre rattle.

There was no reason to go to war other than a vendetta from the bush camp.

There may have been a time where it would have been necessary to attack iraq again, but that was not the case. We could have easily destroyed any built up military from the skies(which we are great at) with the support of the majority of the world without having to step foot into the country. We were watching the borders and knew the status of his military; it wasn't a threat, and if it did become a threat we could handle it without making the mistake of coming in and trying to rebuild the entire country which has us in a horrible position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.