Thread: Say you ain't glad that Saddam was defeated!

Defeating Saddam was Bush's stupidest mistake that is still costing many lives today and hasn't made the Middle East a safer place.

The real weapons of mass destruction are built in Iran at this very moment. Because of Iran's large population no one is going to defeat its president.

I don't think any one in this forum is more happy than me. But I also do not think that anyone of you (with all respect), whether if you are happy or sad about it, can really appreciate what it means to be rid of Saddam if you have not really suffered from his regime.

Originally Posted by Rawaz

I don't think any one in this forum is more happy than me. But I also do not think that anyone of you (with all respect), whether if you are happy or sad about it, can really appreciate what it means to be rid of Saddam if you have not really suffered from his regime.

Be that as it may (and it may, I agree), others can have perfectly valid perspectives about what it means to assume the "ridder" role whilst otherwise living relatively peacefully in the land of good 'n plenty on the other side of the planet.

Originally Posted by northpaw

Be that as it may (and it may, I agree), others can have perfectly valid perspectives about what it means to assume the "ridder" role whilst otherwise living relatively peacefully in the land of good 'n plenty on the other side of the planet.

Certainly this is true and I do not doubt it at all, what I meant was however just that unless you experienced it you cannot really apprecieate it on a cetain level, perhaps on an emotional level. But yes of course others can have their perspectives, but they can also perhaps only imagine it I think.

Originally Posted by Rawaz

Certainly this is true and I do not doubt it at all, what I meant was however just that unless you experienced it you cannot really apprecieate it on a cetain level, perhaps on an emotional level. But yes of course others can have their perspectives, but they can also perhaps only imagine it I think.

I know, and I think we're talking about two different things. While I completely agree that Americans have no basis to make claims about what life under Saddam was like, we do have every reason to argue the pros and cons of invading a remote country based on the bull**** reasons our government offers at the time.

Originally Posted by northpaw

If the acid test for "bad guy" is going to be sending intelligence agents to do illegal things in foreign countries, we're gonna have a hard time finding any "good guys".

You seem to be OK with state sponsored terrorism. You are one tough boy, allright.

Originally Posted by sparq

You seem to be OK with state sponsored terrorism. You are one tough boy, allright.

And you seem to be somewhat limited as to your criteria of what state-sponsored terrorism is, or possibly in your knowledge of exactly who has been doing what for the past half-century or so. As for me, I don't feel particularly expert or self-righteous enough to endorse or condemn any of it; I just don't like when we forget who we are.

*Edit*

That sounds overly harsh, so let me add a few things. I love my country, but to me, that means acknowledging its warts, too, some of which are pretty damn huge. Should anyone flat-out deny that the US has often been neck-deep in "state-sponsored terrorism" (under pretty much any definition), I'd suggest they have some reading to do. Again, that doesn't mean that I love my country any less, but I'm not willing to hold other countries to a higher standard than I'd hold my own, particularly in that regard (we've been the big dog on the block for a while, after all). Apologies if the way I express myself makes me sound like an ass - I truly don't mean any disrespect to you or anyone else.

Originally Posted by sparq

You seem to be OK with state sponsored terrorism. You are one tough boy, allright.

Having lost friends and relatives to US-sponsored terrorism in the not-so-distant past, I find that quote entertaining.

Don't forget that the pre-existing requirement to claim the moral high ground is to occupy the place first.

Glad Sadam's gone? I would have preferred to have Bin Laden gone. Remember him? He's the guy who attacked us. (We went looking for the other guy).

Originally Posted by leadduck

Glad Sadam's gone? I would have preferred to have Bin Laden gone. Remember him? He's the guy who attacked us. (We went looking for the other guy).

True. But bin Laden wasn't sitting on a humongous oil reserve for which he wanted euros instead of dollar.