[starman2003]

After the embarrassing failure to find WMD the Bush Administration cited Hussein's atrocities against the Shiites as sufficient justification for invading Iraq. Now US troops are massing for a possible confrontation with the Shiites in Najaf. Bush is prepared to do essentially what Hussein found necessary: use military force to keep the Shiites in line. We all would be far better off if the US had rejected neocon schemes and just left Hussein alone. He knew best how to keep the country united and stable, and it was very naive to think the US could remake Iraq in its own image. It was one thing to foil Hussein's quest for regional hegemony, but the US was originally right in 1991 not to try to assume responsibility for the cauldron of Iraq itself.

[Boondock Saint]

Well ... I like playing Monday morning QB too ...

It is true that basically the US is currently finding itself in the same shoes that Saddam had to fill. The problem is ... the US isnt as good at it as Saddy was.

Now, I know lots of folks say 'Americans just shoot whatever moves' and 'they shoot civilians intentionally' ... but in truth the US cannot be as brutal as Saddies regime for lots of reasons.

I will look at the logistical one ...

- Saddy boy had a much larger number of people supporting him WILLINGLY then the US does. For example ... Fellujha wasnt a boiling point for Saddy ... it was a rallying point!

Sadrs militia wasnt even a pipe dream under Saddy, because he was a local dictator ... its always easy for a local person to take over ... its never easy for a foreigner to take over.

The same would happen here in the US for example ...

The American people can tolerate to a degree oppressive measures taken by their gov't without resorting to any violence, in fact the avg. American would be appauled at the thought of killing another American over a dispute about laws ...

But ... toss in a Chinese occupation force or a Russian or {insert nation here} force and Americans would happily kill the occupiers ...

So really there is no difference between Iraqis and Americans other then which side of the fence they are on.

And I wouldnt say the US was right in 91, we should have allowed Saddy boy to keep Kuwait and achieve his hegamony ... if he was capable.

Wouldnt want to be imperialists now would we?

[Warrior Monk]

After the embarrassing failure to find WMD the Bush Administration cited Hussein's atrocities against the Shiites as sufficient justification for invading Iraq.

This is a blatant lie and obviously you have total contempt for history and truth. The atrocities of the Hussein government were discussed for years literally ad nauseum as part of the justification for war before the invasion.

We all would be far better off if the US had rejected neocon schemes and just left Hussein alone.

I agree. Hussein was one of the most effective and efficient Muslim exterminators who's ever lived.

[QatzelOk]

A lot of Iraqis, before the war, thought that this wan't a case of the US wanting to improve on the Iraqi situation. America just wanted full control of it because the proxy leader, Saddam, was no longer able to control the political storm that was coming.
I'd say the strength of the resistance and the brutality of the invasion and occupation makes this claim more reasonable than it seemed at the time. That America's booting of Saddam was just the sorcerer replacing the apprentice. America is Saddam, always was.

[The One.]

A lot of Iraqis, before the war, thought that this wan't a case of the US wanting to improve on the Iraqi situation. America just wanted full control of it because the proxy leader, Saddam, was no longer able to control the political storm that was coming.
I'd say the strength of the resistance and the brutality of the invasion and occupation makes this claim more reasonable than it seemed at the time. That America's booting of Saddam was just the sorcerer replacing the apprentice. America is Saddam, always was.

Speaking of naivete.

keep going its pathetically funny.

[starman2003]

> The atrocities of the Hussein government were discussed for years >literally ad nauseum as part of the justification for war before the invasion.

There was no serious talk of war nor preparations for it until after 9/11 i.e. a whole decade after Hussein's suppression of the Shiites. WMD were virtually the only pretext in the months just prior to the war.

>We all would be far better off if the US had rejected neocon schemes >and just left Hussein alone.
>I agree. Hussein was one of the most effective and efficient Muslim >exterminators who's ever lived.

He did what he had to do to maintain the unity of Iraq; the US is resorting to killing and force itself. And many more Iraqis died as a result of US imposed sanctions. It was a veritable, but politically correct holocaust.

[Monkey Angst]

I agree. Hussein was one of the most effective and efficient Muslim exterminators who's ever lived.

Please clarify this answer. Which of the two statements below accuratley reflects what you were saying with this post?

1) Warrior Monk was being ironic, bringing attention to the fact that Hussein was killing his own people. Warrior Monk actually supports the overthrow of Hussein because he was a mass-murderer, but was using sarcasm to make his pont.
2) Warrior Monk actually believes Hussein Hussein should have been left in power because he killed Muslims, which Warrior Monk holds to be a positive thing.