If the basis for war with Iraq was removing Saddam from power b/c he was a brutal dictator, why not ?
827637
I'd love to see detailed reports on how Bush is "profiting" from the oil. 6 Years later and your still clinging to your catchy bumper sticker slogans...
860177
A totally different topic. Saddam was sentenced to death because of crimes against humanity (if you believe that). In other countries, you may not agree with a head of state, but the underlying problems are greater than any one person can tackle.
771732
Saddam had the know how to keep control of his people.  He was successful in keeping his enemies at bay, as well, particularly Iran.\n\nThe one thing that Saddam didn't control was his own family.  His two sons were simply evil people.  They murdered, maimed, raped, tortured simply because they could.  Saddam did very little to change their uncontrollable behavior, and eventually it came back to haunt him.\n\nSaddam's own arrogance was his worst enemy.  Why he thought the US wouldn't come after him a second time was a poor calculation.  His own defiance did him in.\n\nDon't do a disservice to the men and women of the armed forces by suggesting the Saddam ran a tighter ship, because he didn't.  Today, much of the blame for Iraq's quagmire can be blamed on Syria and Iran.  Ahmadinejad as much as admitted that he could stop the fighting with the snap of his fingers.  This also means that he's the one who is causing Iraq's civil war.\n\nFor this, he should be punished, severely!
1002391
Yes. Because he was ratted out by one of his own. And more and more, the Iraqi people are informing on the bloody terrorist insurgents. Iraq has taken another huge step towards being rid of these scum.\n\nGod bless our troops and all those who fight for Iraqi freedom and liberty.
156470
In war you have to be no less ruthless then your adversary.  When you are dealing with a dictator who for decades ruled thru terror, force and corruption you have to respond with greated force.  He felt if you wanted to defeat an army you have to kill an army.  What great military leaders weren't ruthless?  Ruthless - Yes.  A bastard - please do some research and form your own opinion.
1149483
I'm sure somebody used em to describe Vietnam.   I think, though, that the issue they're talking about is our responsibility to provide stability in government. The removal of Saddam created a very real power vaccume in Iraq. (question of right/wrong in doing so aside) Simply leaving after getting Saddam, would have drawn even more condemnation from the world. The world would  be screamin at us for NOT doing something to help them. As it is, they're screaming at us FOR doing somehthing. Whether or not what we're doing is effective, is another story.
568621
1) Saddam was in Iran not Iraq.  So to talk about him is a different topic.\n2) Don't you think that if the Iraqi radicals stopped trying to demolish Iraq and allowed a safe and stable government that the American military would be able to leave.\n3) Hey guys, do you like watching girls walk down the street in shorts and little bitty tops, do you like girls in bikinis?  Girls, do you like to dress the way you want?  Do you think that was happening in Iraq?\n4) Do you think you could have spoken out against either the governments of Iran or Iraq and been allowed to live a normal life.\n\nBefore you shoot your mouths off, think about what has been happening in Iraq, think about torturing of people under Sadam.  Better yet, go move to the middle east and then come back in a few years and run your mouth some more.
303048
Actually, Saddam seized power all by himself, locking up and in some cases executing members of his own party in order to declare himself dictator.  The US did not do that; Saddam did, and the Iraqi people let him.  Get your facts straight.\n\nIraq before Saddam was already a bit of a basket-case.  The regional and sectarian splits that we see today were definitely around back then.  If Saddam had not seized power, somebody else might have.  The government was pretty corrupt, like most in that part of the world.  Iraq had joined other Arab states in attacking Israel, so it is likely that a Saddam-less Iraq would have continued in its hostility to Israel, possibly supporting terrorist groups like its neighbors Iran and Syria.  It is difficult to say how exactly things might have turned out, but there is no good reason to believe that it would be much different.
500061
Because the Dictator in Egypt is OUR Dictator.\nAnd since when were we promoting freedom in Iraq? I think I missed that news story.
262405
Indeed, I wonder how long he'd last on the streets of Baghdad! I think one would have to be extremely politically correct to worry whether or not Saddam's getting a fair trial... Sad though it is - and a noble experiment - Bush's plan to bring democracy to Iraq has predictably turned to crap; give them democracy and they'll elect an autocratic cleric or madman. The Middle East typically produces characters like Saddam, essentially because that's what it wants. You can't educate people who are stuck in the Dark Ages.
112654
Maybe for the challenge.  Everyone knows Saddam gassed the Kurds and invaded Kuwait.  But some lawyers are competitive that thrive on the challenge.  Here you have the opportuniry to represent a head of state, accused of crimes against humanity and the peace that are irrefutable, but what does it feel like to be responsible for an entire country, while surrounded by neighbors like Iran and Syria, where there is a strong presence felt from world powers like China, Russia and the U.S.  This is a cuthroat region where everyone wants or needs a piece of the action because of the oil reserves in the region.  What is the history of the region?\n\nA lawyer cannot change facts or perform magic.  Even Clarence Darrow had a case where he had his clients plead guilty to murder, and instead argued at sentencing in an effort to save his clients from capital punishment.  That's what I would do if I represented Saddam.  I would argue that he's not a sadistic criminal that deserves the death penalty, instead he was a politcal strongman that did his best to protect his country in a region where it's kill or be killed.  I would argue that life in prison is sufficient punishment.
862381
yes i believe a small or mayb a large section the baath ( hope i've spelled that right ) sect of iraq society will martyr saddam.\nprobably not on the scale of buddha.  but enough 2 leave a power-struggle or a vacuum in an already destabilised country.\ni think the toppling of a dictator well/may make a continuing civil war in iraq 4 decades 2 come.\nthanx gw, \nhow thoughtful and sensible, NOT!\nthe lack of consideration by 1 texan village idiot & what he'll do 2 steal oil, hasn't escaped a growing band of disgruntled westerners attention & left us thinking was it really worth it.
751383
this war and Saddam was not worth one penny or one life.if you think about it,Saddam got rid of all his weapons and was complying with all the U.N. sanctions therefore he should have never been attacked.Bush stated he didn't care what the inspectors said he knew there were weapons and would attack any way.2 years later he admitted he was wrong because he was given bad intelligence.so he should be tried for war crimes.too many people have died because of his bad intelligence.
106906
It probably happens more often, but a lot less often than if the Iraqi Defense Force was there.  For all the issues that has been brought up, Saddam already have everyone beat when he was the dictator.  He killed thousands that opposed him.
759765
Yes, for the sake of not leaving another civil war in our wake and another terrorist training camp.\n\nThe only way this will be accomplished however is with another dictatorship.\n  \nSaddam knew how to control these people.  We are not up for the task nor should we be.  The only answer is to install another puppet governement ala Saddam and keep tight reigns on him.\nSad but true.\n\nDemocracy WILL NOT WORK with when a percentage of the poplution are religious fanatics that see their own martyrdom as victory.  \n\nWe did not have to deal with THAT in WWII as the German Soldier valued his own life more than that of his questionable cause.
675370
it was much better indeed in many ways.i dont deny the opression and tourtures that took place then,but who respected himself wasnt touched at all.there was at least security,ethics,a government anyone can complain with.now nothing,you may be picked from your home for nothing,tourtured in a savage way never practiced anywhere in the world,holes will be made in your body by electrical drills,then you are thrown in a sewage dump after you die.\ni wonder that most of those who give their openions are not iraqies,ask the iraqies what they are suffering from.those who say (i have been in iraq,i have seen,i talked to a fraind,etc),dont reflect the truth,cause  either they havent gone deep in to what is going on,or they some of those benefited from what is going on there.how can the iraqies be happier with only 4 houres of electricity a day,with ni petrol,with such an increasing poverity,with 100 people slaughtered in baghdad only,with 1090 women widowed ,500 children orphaned every day.be rational.where and when in the hell did occupation forces took care of a country and its people.do you think usa spent more than 400 billions and 2400 of its youth plus the thousands injured and crippled ,just to remove saddam and give the iraqies democracy.if you belive it,you are naive,i am sorry.mind you ,i hate saddam and his regime to the bone,but,now it is much worse.
407754
Alright, first of all Hussein was not a Communist he was a fascist dictator. I think you might be thinking about why he was not removed in the first war after the invasion of Kuwait. That was because the Soviet Union was still in existence and the west did not want a power vacuum in Iraq filled by a Communist regime.\n\nThe rationale behind attacking was he has used chemical weapons on his own citizens in the past and has made claims of having the capacity to deliver chemical or biological weapons by missile or air strike. He was also, and this is a fact, bankrolling and supplying suicide bombers in Israel.\n\nSince he claimed to be on a course of acquiring nuclear weapons and was adamantly supportive of Bin Laden, a preemptive strike was devised to topple Hussein and restore Iraq to a democracy.\n\nHussein had shown how bloodthirsty and cruel he could be in the first Gulf War and his decade long battle with neighbor Iran, not to mention his treatment of Kurds, Berbers and his own Shiite countrymen. There was no question given the opportunity his antipathy for the United States would lead to some kind of terrorist or military attack in the future.\n\nAs for Iraq, it really is not a 3rd world country like Afghanistan. It has tremendous oil deposits and a modern infrastructure.