What ABout Saddam

LoneStarMadam wrote:

I'm not surprised that you blame America, it's par for the course for some, including you, apparently.

I blame America for being in the middle of a mess, as result of a war that America started?

<shrugs>

Yes, I guess I do. I would have blamed the USSR for ending up in the mess that Afghanistan was as a result for going into Afghanistan, too. Do you think that is illogical?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Of course I know there's more than one action thatt could be taken in Iraq, however, no matter what's done, short of cutting & running, you & others with your views will still grouse.

No. In fact, I have often argued against leaving. My take on the issue is: you break it, you own it.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Then if we should leave & are attacked again, who will you blame?

Most likely the terrorists.

Wars are messy, no matter where they are or why there is a war. you break it, you own it, no argument there, so lets fix it by winning it.

If you would blame the terrorists for any further attacks on the US, then why aren't you blaming them for the last 8 attacks against us?

Wars are messy, no matter where they are or why there is a war.

What happens if we leave immediately? You believe that the Osamas of the world won't follow our troops home? Are we prepared for that? If we're kicked out, hey, that's it, nothing we can do about it then except hunker down & wait.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

I'm not surprised that you blame America, it's par for the course for some, including you, apparently.

I blame America for being in the middle of a mess, as result of a war that America started?

<shrugs>

Yes, I guess I do. I would have blamed the USSR for ending up in the mess that Afghanistan was as a result for going into Afghanistan, too. Do you think that is illogical?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Of course I know there's more than one action thatt could be taken in Iraq, however, no matter what's done, short of cutting & running, you & others with your views will still grouse.

No. In fact, I have often argued against leaving. My take on the issue is: you break it, you own it.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Then if we should leave & are attacked again, who will you blame?

Most likely the terrorists.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

What happens if we leave immediately? You believe that the Osamas of the world won't follow our troops home? Are we prepared for that? If we're kicked out, hey, that's it, nothing we can do about it then except hunker down & wait.

Short of boarding the same C-130's that our troops would be boarding, how do you think "the Osamas of the world" will follow our troops home? Osama never set foot in the US when al Qaeda carried out its attacks on the US. The way the security apparatus has been operating in the US, any Easterner from a Muslim country who raises the slightest suspicion is quickly 'disappeared' to a country that outsources "interrogation" for the US.

They boarded flights heading to the US, 20 of them, not an army, but they sure managed to take down a big old complex, huh.
C-130s? I don't believe that our guys are traveling to & from the ME on "The lump", they travel mostly by civillian contract planes & have done so since Vietnam. Some travel on the C-141 as well.

parados wrote:

We are there. One thing about being there.

You don't solve a problem using the same thinking that created the problem in the first place. (Einstien)

Continuing to promote that same boneheaded thinking that got us there is a recipe for continuing the disaster. Until you recognize the thinking that caused the problem we won't solve the problem of our being in Iraq

Well, that's simple, lets just leave then, 'k?

Restoring the dictator to power may give Iraqis the jolt of authority they need. Have a better solution?

Hey, Nancy Pelosi just might invite Johnathan to have a chat, she , Murtha, & Johnathan.
Seriously, I don't have a problem with Johnathan sayig that, at least he's honest.

Restoring the expectation of order in Iraq will take some kind of large-scale psychological shock. The Iraqi elections were expected to offer that shock, but they didn't. The return of Saddam Hussein - a man every Iraqi knows, and whom many of them fear - would do the trick.

The disadvantages of reinstalling Hussein are obvious, but consider some of the upside. He would not allow the country to be dominated by Iran, which is the United States' major regional enemy, a sponsor of terrorism and an instigator of warfare between Lebanon and Israel. Hussein was extremely difficult to deal with before the war, in large part because he apparently believed that he could defeat any U.S. invasion if it came to that. Now he knows he can't. And he'd probably be amenable because his alternative is death by hanging.

I know why restoring a brutal tyrant to power is a bad idea. Somebody explain to me why it's worse than all the others.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Hey, Nancy Pelosi just might invite Johnathan to have a chat, she , Murtha, & Johnathan.
Seriously, I don't have a problem with Johnathan sayig that, at least he's honest.

He had actually made a fair point you know. Can you think of anything better to solve the Iraq problem ?

From the LATimes article :

Quote:

Restoring the expectation of order in Iraq will take some kind of large-scale psychological shock. The Iraqi elections were expected to offer that shock, but they didn't. The return of Saddam Hussein - a man every Iraqi knows, and whom many of them fear - would do the trick.

The disadvantages of reinstalling Hussein are obvious, but consider some of the upside. He would not allow the country to be dominated by Iran, which is the United States' major regional enemy, a sponsor of terrorism and an instigator of warfare between Lebanon and Israel. Hussein was extremely difficult to deal with before the war, in large part because he apparently believed that he could defeat any U.S. invasion if it came to that. Now he knows he can't. And he'd probably be amenable because his alternative is death by hanging.

I know why restoring a brutal tyrant to power is a bad idea. Somebody explain to me why it's worse than all the others.

Maybe reinstalling Saddam isn't the answer, but it is clear that we should install some sort of dictator in Iraq.

Maybe....
But that will certainly not be G W Bush

Should he have been left to wantonly kill & maim thousands of Iraqis, his sons to rape & pillage? Should saddam be put back in power?
If yes to these questions, why?
If no, why?
Will you trust the Baker/Hamilton Commission report?