Saddam gets the last laugh

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

So is saddam a personal hero to you or is he somebody you just have a lot of respect for?

Saddam is a somewhat morally ambiguous figure; on the one hand, it probably takes a tyrant to bring stability to Iraq. On the other hand, the ends don't always justify the means. With that said, he's an infinitely preferable figure as compared to that imbecilic degenerate who inherited our Presidency from his patrician daddy.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

Saddam is a somewhat morally ambiguous figure; on the one hand, it probably takes a tyrant to bring stability to Iraq. On the other hand, the ends don't always justify the means. With that said, he's an infinitely preferable figure as compared to that imbecilic degenerate who inherited our Presidency from his patrician daddy.

Yea, America would be much better off with Saddam at the helm You were goin good and then lost it with that statement and the use of "inherited"

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yea, America would be much better off with Saddam at the helm You were goin good and then lost it with that statement and the use of "inherited"

How many American soldiers and civilians were killed from 1995 (when clinton took office) until 2003 (when we invaded) because of Saddam?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

How many American soldiers and civilians were killed from 1995 (when clinton took office) until 2003 (when we invaded) because of Saddam?

Well there's a good sign of a foreign potential leader for the US

How many Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed because of Saddam? This argument entire argument is laughable.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Well there's a good sign of a foreign potential leader for the US

How many Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed because of Saddam? This argument entire argument is laughable.

Does that matter when deciding on whether we invade and occupy a country...I never heard the US state that if a dictator has a country with a high mortality rate we must invade and set up our own US government

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Well there's a good sign of a foreign potential leader for the US

How many Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed because of Saddam? This argument entire argument is laughable.

you can not pick and choose or if you do you are open to some serious scrutiny.

either the interests of the Iraqi population is the job of the US gov or it is not.

if the argument is the betterment of the IRaqis lot then a much greater sacrifice is required by the US population all the way down to resource allocation and relative wealth.

if OTOH US interests are at stake in Iraq as a priority then using Iraqi welfare as a argumentative tool is bogus.

This tearing apart of ethical directions in a way is one root of the problem.

The welfare of foreign peoples is a political tool used in a domestic US debate and is countered by a US interest tool.

Perhaps we should look at it as a combined general advantage gain/loss

On average is the welfare of the US and Iraq combined better off now than say 2002?

the welfare of the average US citizen is pretty static but the average Iraqi is much lower so on average the result is negative, but perhaps this is only temporary and things will turn for the better and cancel out this negative phase

end justifies the means and all that

but how long and how bad?

Is there a wider effect of the war outside the US and Iraq and is that positive or negative?

Does Saddams execution and the manner it was conducted have a positive or negative effect? (not whether he deserved it or not)?

on balance I would characterize Saddam's execution and the subsequent PR effect as a disaster on top of a ongoing calamity.

IF one was trying to go out of ones way to manipulate his execution for a negative effect you couldn't do much better than this

Boris
london

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Does that matter when deciding on whether we invade and occupy a country...I never heard the US state that if a dictator has a country with a high mortality rate we must invade and set up our own US government

Manifest Destiny. And the Monroe Doctrine.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Manifest Destiny. And the Monroe Doctrine.

Actually we do the opposite for the latter, and the first and second both have nothing to do with Iraq

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

How many American soldiers and civilians were killed from 1995 (when clinton took office) until 2003 (when we invaded) because of Saddam?

Clinton took office in 1995? Oh, Hillary was president 92-94!

And Somalia looks real good now. Atleast Ethiopia has some guts!

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Clinton took office in 1995? Oh, Hillary was president 92-94!

And Somalia looks real good now. Atleast Ethiopia has some guts!

Oh god a typo

Yeah Ethiopia invades after how many years of having an incredibly instable neighbor...

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yea, America would be much better off with Saddam at the helm

I never suggested that; while Bush is a terrible President, his style of governance is better suited to a Western industrial democracy than a tribalist tyrant like Saddam. Never-the-less, Saddam at least had some admirable traits and some bona fide accomplishments. Bush seems totally devoid of anything worthwhile.

Originally Posted by JaJae

"inherited"

Technically he didn't inherit the Presidency, but were it not for his rich daddy, he'd have never gotten rich himself, nor elected Governor of Texas, let alone ascend to the Presidency. Its still pretty much the functional equivalent of an inheritance.

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Manifest Destiny. And the Monroe Doctrine.

The Monroe Doctrine only applies to the Western Hemisphere, and Manifest Destiny would only be an issue if we intended, in some manner, to sweep aside the indigenous Iraqi population in order to open up Mesopotamia for colonization by U.S. citizen would-be homesteaders. Even the neo-cons aren't that nuts.