Is not the entire world better off with Saddam's regime gone

War on Terrorism is a Farce
"...60 Minutes reports FBI unit deliberately slowed down the translation of information from terrorism suspects before 9/11 in order to create a backlog of work and show that the bureau needed more funding. This was after John Ashcroft cut the FBI anti-terrorism budget by $58 million and Bush made budget cuts across the board!"

http://www.rememberjohn.com/

Saddam was never a threat to the entire world. Only to his neighbors and his people. And judging from the way we defeated them he was hardly even a threat to his neighbors. So I voted no. Bush is a bigger threat to the world than Saddam was.

Saddam for all his faults hated the al quaida and had a done pretty good job of keeping them out of the region. Now, obviously they are in iraq and are killing americans and the iraqi people in pretty overwhelming numbers.
Caprice, the kurdish people of northern iraq were very severly pummeled by hussien, in numerous unpeakable ways.

Re: War on Terrorism is a Farce

Most people realize that this kind of thing is rampant in government, but if true in this particular case, it should result in serious consequences for those heading the office in question.

That written, I need to correct you on one of your "facts".

According to the 60 Minutes story, Ashcroft did not cut the FBI anti-terrorism budet by $58 million, he cut the requested increase by that amount. This means that they actually got an INCREASE, not a cut as you write, just not as big an increase as they requested.

Here's the exact language from the story:



I'm assuming your error was not intentional, and just wanted to set the record straight. Thanks for bringing this story to my attention. (That's one of the nice things about A2K; once in a while I learn something I didn't know.)

Joe: I agree with you completely that Kim Jong Il is the most dangerous man on the planet. I too could name several others who pose a greater threat to human life than Saddam ever did. Unfortunately, we didn't and still don't have the justification of 17 straight violated UN resolutions to fall back on in North Korea. Before the war; Dennis Miller once referred to Iraq as "East Korea", obviously recognizing that Kim would probably take notice of the thrashing Saddam was about to receive. Take notice he did: Shortly after major combat was declared over in Iraq; Kim did an about face and sat down to multilateral talks that he had adamantly said he'd never agree to. Libya voluntarily disarmed their WMD programs and has now vowed to assist in the hunt for terrorists. LIBYA! Sure, we could debate the degree of effect our assault on Iraq had on these other developments but surely you realize there is some connection. These are bonus benefits to kicking the ass of a man who's killed millions. Further; I do not believe that our attack on Iraq resulted in nationally recognized sympathizers of Al Queda. Those who would help eradicate those criminals still will and are.

I don't have a crystal ball either; so no, I don't know what Iraq will be like in the future. I believe it will be a damn sight better off than it was under Hussein. I also believe that the other, more dangerous, despots in the world have just witnessed that; even if the UN just cries wolf, the US is liable to come and blow your house down. The side effect to liberating a repressed people from a murderous monster is that we have simultaneously demonstrated a staggeringly overwhelming force AND an uncompromising willingness to use it as we see fit. And yes, this does make me feel safer.

As I've said many time before; I only hope we stay the course until all of the murderous despots have been dispatched. Hard as we may try, terrorism is an evil we will likely never be able to completely eradicate. Murderous regimes, on the other hand, can and should be eliminated.

Thanks for the correction.
I feel American is much safer now. Let's hope AQ doesn't slip some people across the border and start blowing up trains in the US. It would be easy to do.

Bill, I hope you don't mind but I'm gonna call you Nurse Strangelove from now on.

I do mind... You can do better than that. :wink:

OccumBill writes:


Why does it make you feel safer? A war on terror hardly seems the place for staggeringly overwhelming forces, yet that's the tool of choice for the US administration precisely because they can't seem to think of any other means. It's the wrong set of weapons if you get my meaning and this air of superiority is merely that, air. The invasion of Iraq doesn't strike at terrorists or their bases of operation. It's a great deal of bang/flash with a considerable loss of life thrown in, but in reality does nothing against the kind of enemy who flies planes into buildings or blows up embassy compounds.

I'm happy that Libya has given up her WMD's, but that was more the result of the exposure of it's dealings with the nuclear weapons trader (traitor to peace as well) Khan of Pakistan, than the conquest of Iraq. Further sanctions by the world community over those dealings would have crushed Libya completely with them already on the verge of collapse.

North Korea has been offering to sit down with US officials since the beginning of the Bush administration. It was our neo-cons who showed no interest in talking to them until it became clear that the North Koreans had gone back to building bombs and missiles and the US had to do something.

Meanwhile Iran, sitting next door to Iraq, shows no sign of slowing it's programs. I'm sure you are aware of the recent finds there of weapons grade materials. Pakistan is testing medium range missiles this week next door to nuclear-equipped India who might be just a little worried. So much for getting the world's attention to what a big badass we are.

What we have is not one war but two. A world wide polliferation of atomic weapons in unstable hands which could kill millions and a war of suicide terrorists killing civilians in groups of hundreds or thousands, Iraq had nothing to do with either war, thinking that way leads one to think things are safer but it is simply not the case. This idea of the Bush administration that a wider program of shock and awe will bring peace is at best shortsighted and at worst the beginning of a worldwide disaster. The truth is the invasion of Iraq was, and is, a waste of time and resources and does nothing to advance our position in the two present wars in which we are engaged.

I'm happy too that you feel safer but I might advise you to stop kidding yourself, you're in mortal danger.

Sweet dreams,

Joe

That is the biggest load of bs I've ever heard. Iraq was never tolerant under Saddam's reign. The moment he seized power, he had all those that don't share his political ideals publically shot. He gassed, raped, murdered, tortured and pillaged the families of anyone that he felt pose a threat to him.

But we didn't seem to care because he posed no threat to us or our interests in the region (oil) at the time.

I am by no means argueing that this war wasn't as much motivated by selfish desires for oil as it was by humanitarian whims. I am not argueing that there aren't crueler dictators throughout Africa that deserved to be deposed more than him.

I am not even argueing that the United States is better off because of this war.

In my world, we would go after all these ruthless fascist tyrants, not merely those that directly threaten us and have something that we want. But in the real world, war is too costly politically, economically and most importantly socially for any President claiming to be acting in the best interests of the United States to do this unless we have something to gain from it.

All that I am argueing is that a world with one less ruthless dictator, especially one foolish enough to directly threaten us is a better world, one that is worth what this war has cost us politically, economically and socially.

And frankly, I am ecstatic that this war has not only managed to take out one bad leader, but will likely take out of power another (Bush).

Joe: I wonder if you heard or read Tony Blair's recent speech. He does an excellent job of explaining why, in light of the events of 9-11, he views rogue regimes under a different light as well.

For the most part; I think our opposing views are well enough documented for a pretty thorough understanding of each other's positions. I will add that I think you underestimate the importance of showing our enemies that we are no longer all talk.

Also, this paragraph wasn't at all accurate:

North Korea was previously insisting on Bilateral talks only, likely in hopes of negotiating another blackmail deal like they got from Carter/Clinton without additional parties to bear witness. They consistently refused Multilateral talks until after Saddam's ass was kicked. The "Neo-cons" did not "show no interest in talking to them…" Bush insisted from the beginning on Multilateral talks and rightly so. In doing so; he positioned himself as the party who is dealing from the position of power. Again, rightly so. This was, IMO, a necessary step to erase the memory of his predecessor's weakness and fear. Message: Since we are the big boy on the block; we will not be bullied by the likes of Kim Jong Il.

Bingo. That is important, and they do underestimate it.

But you have to understand Bill (or at least it will help you avoid frustration) that most of these people are not anti-war, they are anti-Bush. They had no complaint about any of Clinton's military adventures, and have zero credibility in whining about this war now. They also appear willfully blind to the positive effect the war has had in the region and elsewhere. They see value only in getting their way, not in the real lowering of the threat from places like Libya, Syria, and countless other countries that are bending over backwards if not to be our friends certainly to avoid appearing to be our enemies.