Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
Everyone knew he was a despicable tyrant who deserved death or worse, Democrats included. .
|
I know that you are speaking for yourself and birdgirl, but not only have libs on this forum stated that we would be better off today if Saddam were still in power, but major national liberal leaders have said the same as well. Careful, they are going to throw you out of the club if the hear you talking like that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
Everyone knew that he was dangerous and yet not everyone agreed that it would be a good idea to go in and take him out by force given how hard the aftermath would be to manage. Bush senior, Powell, and Cheney all felt that way in '91 when we could have easily taken him out. A lot of people thought we should take him out in '91, but Bush senior, Powell, and Cheney knew the aftermath would be a disaster and said so in '91. And look at where we are now that we went against that wisdom --- a disaster. .
|
What you are saying here isn't entirely factual dragon. Us not going in in 91 was not a decision that was made by us, that was done by the U.N., remember? I believe had they had it their way (Bush 1), they would have kept going, and if I remember correctly there was quite a debate over that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
We had Hussein adequately bottled up and contained with sanctions and the no-fly zones. The fact that we could have easily defeated him at any moment meant we didn't actually have to go in and do it. He was smart enough to know we could take him out any time we wanted to, and he was not looking for a fight. In my judgement and the judgement of many others he was a contained threat.
It's insulting to say that because a person feels Hussein was adequately contained that somehow that person is in FAVOR of Hussein. It's stupid and unsupported.
|
Really, tell that to the Jews that were murdered in public by homicide bombers that were being subsidized by Sadam. What else was he doing? That's not even mentioning what he was doing to his own people. Yeah he was sure contained, not harming anyone huh?
And it's not stupid, it's a fact. If you don't believe that we should have toppled him, then you must believe that he should have been in power. Explain where I am going wrong with that, how exaclty would he have been taken out of power without this war? I am all ears.
Sorry to insult anyone, that's not my intent, it is just a little bit confusing when anyone says that we should have never gone in, but they also think that Saddam should have been removed from power? Which is it? You can't really have it both ways, er, well I guess you can, it just doesn't make any sense. You either support him being removed from power or you don't. Unless you believe that we could have just talked him out of power?
That always works with sadistic homicidal dictators!