Bodies of missing U.S. soldiers recovered

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Besides, if we hadn't invaded that ****hole run by an impotent tinpot crackhead, these two, and 2,500 others (not to mention the thousands of severely wounded) would still be alive,

Yes, but that "impotent tinpot crackhead" would still be in power murdering thousands of Kurds, Shiites and others.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Yes, but that "impotent tinpot crackhead" would still be in power murdering thousands of Kurds, Shiites and others.

And how does that make him any different from numerous other impotent dictators that the US doesn't give a rat's ass about? More to the point, how does that present any threat whatsoever to the US?

[Q Classic]

Well, unlike Kim Jong-Il, Saddam murdered people not of his own ethnic group.

[Lorizael]

Equal opportunity murderers.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
No, what we should have done was ignored by Papa Bush.

And yes, now we need to leave and let them go back to living in a ****hole.

We did end up ignoring Papa, and the consequences are front-page news each and every day.

Leaving them to their ****hole is problematic for two reasons:

a) "you break it you buy it"
b) Failed State (see Afganistan, as relates to Taleban and Al-Q)

Even if you don't give a **** about a, you really might want to seriously consider b.

-Arrian

[germanos]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Yes, but that "impotent tinpot crackhead" would still be in power murdering thousands of Kurds, Shiites and others.

Nowadays though those not in power are murdering thousands of Kurds, Shiites and others. Iraq is not better off, making the whole operation a colossal mistake.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Kontiki
And how does that make him any different from numerous other impotent dictators that the US doesn't give a rat's ass about? More to the point, how does that present any threat whatsoever to the US?

I am just pointing out that some people seem to ignore Saddam's atrocities. They compain about our deaths in Iraq and say that 2500 Americans would still be alive if we've had just left "poor" Saddam alone, which seems to ignore Saddam's atrocities that those 2500 American soldiers helped stop forever.

[Arrian]

Iraq being better off is one part of the equation. Of course, from the perspective of the American government, what matters most is whether America is better off. Obviously, Iraq being better off may play into that, insomuch as a happy-happy-joy-joy Iraq is less likely to produce terrorists or seek WMDs or whatever.

The really damning thing is that Iraq is argueably not better off, and America definitely isn't.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by The diplomat


I am just pointing out that some people seem to ignore Saddam's atrocities. They compain about our deaths in Iraq and say that 2500 Americans would still be alive if we've had just left "poor" Saddam alone, which seems to ignore Saddam's atrocities that those 2500 American soldiers helped stop forever.

It amuses me when Conservatives point at Saddam's atrocities as a casus belli. Our own, of course, are just little mistakes and we shouldn't worry out little heads about them. Seriously, since when do Conservatives really give a **** about atrocities/human rights? Oh, right, since there was a war to justify.

Please note that I do not ignore Saddam's atrocities. If the lives of 2500 American soldiers was the total price tag for removing him from power, it was indeed worth it to me (since, of course, I am not one of them, nor am I related to any, nor did I know any). But that isn't the total price tag. You're forgetting the many Iraqi victims of post-Saddam instability (impossible to accurately estimate that number), the staggering cost of the war in $$ (this is a minor consideration when compared to lives, of course), and the damage done to relations between the US, its allies, and the UN.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
After watching countless hours of protests in the middle east about everything from a cartoon to a ham sandwhich, I realized we don't have that in America. Well, we do, but usually only from dirty hippies.

And dirty hippies have no jobs.

Again...I'm only half joking.

This leads us to the conclusion that generating more economic opportunity would reduce the violence & protests. It goes for the entire ME, although Iraq is the most obvious case right now. It's pretty obvious.

The problem, of course, is trying to create jobs in the midst of a war zone. What infrastructure repairs are made are under threat of being blown up by insurgents/terrorists. People waiting in line to go to work for the new government get blown up regularly.

We spend most of the money on military ops to try to create security, but that kinda looks like a bloody game of whack-a-mole. Meanwhile, that money that is spent on security is not spent on reconstruction.

It's a very difficult situation, and I don't envy the people who are trying to find a way through it. I remain pissed at the people who shouted "Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes" without really thinking about what happens after "major combat operations."

-Arrian

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by The diplomat


I am just pointing out that some people seem to ignore Saddam's atrocities. They compain about our deaths in Iraq and say that 2500 Americans would still be alive if we've had just left "poor" Saddam alone, which seems to ignore Saddam's atrocities that those 2500 American soldiers helped stop forever.

I'll bet the US could do alot more net good if it always followed that formula. I take it you're a firm supporter of the US constantly invading third world dictatorships regardless of the financial costs and sacrificing thousands of soldiers' lives as long as they're potentially saving more civilians than the military is taking in losses?

[Ecthy]

On a sidenote: while everyone agrees that Saddam is a bastard and we're all happy he's now in front of a court, he commited his last atrocities against minorities / insurgents in the early 90s.

He did still suppress his own population after that anyway, what with disappeared citizens and all. This is not something you go to war about anyway.

[DinoDoc]

I'm glad that the families involved now have closure and I'm hopeful that we'll find the one(s) responsible for thier death.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Yes, but that "impotent tinpot crackhead" would still be in power murdering thousands of Kurds, Shiites and others.

Funny that - it wasn't terribly concerning to us when he did all that when he more-or-less played ball with us while we originally focused on Iran.

Why is it such a concern now, after he'd mostly stopped already, and we still have bigger fish to fry?

We certainly haven't been concerned about genocide in Darfur, Rwanda or the Congo, so why does Saddam's bloodthirstiness somehow rate as special?

If Saddam had been equally bloodthirsty, but a loyal hack to US interests (or even a superficially loyal but ultimately two-faced hack like the Pakis and Saudis), he'd be murdering still, while we whistled Dixie and looked the other way.

[Ecthy]

Why do some people just keep asking the same rhetorical questions over and over again... Michael, do you actually have any ANSWERS? It is obviously a matter of interests, so what's the friggin POINT?