Was the deposing of Hussein/ this Iraq war a good thing?

[Deja Q]

Poll question: Was the deposing of Hussein/ this Iraq war a good thing?

Given that recent events (prison abuse, highly questionable Nick Berg murder video) have now put American (Troops and civilians overseas) lives in greater mortal danger in Iraq, not to forget how the prison scandal is going to affect America's credibility that much more severely than before, was this war to eliminate one evil man a good thing?

And with the purported overextension of our troops overseas, who's left to guard the US should anybody try to operate from within? :scared: Thank you Tom Ridge, you're really on the ball, aren't you?

[Radical Activist]

1. This war wasn't about removing Saddam

The US has many ways it can remove or assasinate foreign leaders. If all Bush really wanted was to rid the world of Saddam then he could have used one of many other means available to him.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I don't think we should allow Republicans to pretend that this war was about removing a dictator.

[Deja Q]

2. Very true. But I was speaking to a different audience of sorts...

The common man, the one who watches the corporate media, gets a constant barrage of "liberating Iraq", "WMDs", and "removing a terrible evil dictator". I personally don't know how ANYBODY can watch the news and give it any credibility anymore, but I digress. Using the corporate media's own terminologies they've been shoveling to the audiences, that's how I would want to engage the people who watch the news. They clearly haven't thought out the repercussions in points 2 and 3.

The common man has been duped by the repukes and still believes this war was about liberation, et al (though 'liberation' was a lie, * hyped up bogus imminent danger and WMD threats just before he launched the first missile).

After speaking to the masses in the terms they've been fed by those who control in order to open the proverbial door and gain their interest, that's when I'd get into total specifics and blow the door off its hinges. Kerry needs to use this tactic. Speaking to the people using the terms the corporate media has swindled them with to get them to even listen and after that expound on the total details, I'd hope, would get more of them to listen and change their tune.

The 'war' itself was about Boyking George* getting revenge over a lopsided comment Saddam made years ago. A comment that President Clinton paid for in kind. Boyking* just wanted cheap glory and personal vengeance, turning a molehill into a mountain. And a big mountain indeed. And people still think it's about liberation and supernatural ghostlike WMDs that just can't be found for some reason...

[Deja Q]

3. I'm surprised by those who chose #2 (And #1)

It's possible I'm in total tinfoil mode, but option 3 is a significant one, as I will shortly adumbrate upon. But it is possible that the world may eventually settle back into its happy mindless status quo and continue to think of us as a good nation with good intentions. (the retort of "yeah, right" instantly comes to mind.) So I'm trying to understand why people chose #2, but I just can't agree with them.

I wish the person who chose #1 responded. Seems to be a bit timid if that person says we're better off now than we were when * lied to thrust us into this unholy 'war'. With all the anti-war sentiment on DU, this one person had the responsibility to remind us why he felt he was right. I'm assuming it's a "he". Oh well. For option 1, I should have said "Give us an explanation or consider the vote invalid.) I dunno. I certainly wasn't sure of the invasion originally, but with each passing day it became more and more crystal clear that it really was totally wrong. (It really started to frost my weenie when pics of soldiers hoisting up the US flag came about... at first they were told to take it down as we were (snicker) "liberators, not conquerors" but eventually we still saw pics of US flags draped everywhere and people stopped complaining. Looks like we weren't really liberators after all... real liberators wouldn't come in and put up their own idols and possessions all over the place, liberators would RESPECT the populace. Don't forget, soldiers were told NOT TO INTERFERE when the looting began and the soldiers didn't have a qualm about obeying the master. Once again, we were not liberators of any sort. If we were, we would have protected Iraq's possessions.)

My take as to why choices 2 and 3 is most correct: With the Abu-Gharib incident (and others we don't know of yet but the Iraqi people might, remember the statue that was around before the torture pics were released...), surely the US has lost a lot of credibility when the pictures of sincerely happy looking soldiers alongside of mutilated, humiliated, and/or dead bodies turned loose? (The Iraq war itself probably hurt us some, but the prison torture/murder story has got to take the cake, along with the icing and ice cream on the side... there should be not a single light sentence for the perpetrators (which appeared to be many more than the four currently awaiting court-martial), the least acceptable punishment being a dishonorable discharge AND 25 years in jail, kept in cells with vicious repeat-offenders. The US is going to pay big-time in one form or another and thanks to some of our troops in uniform, other and innocent US troops will pay with their very LIVES because of the anger our guilty troops have incited over in Iraq, does that make anybody feel happy? So, this is not a college prank or hazing game. It's de-evolved torture and murder and it also removes us from the list of "civilized nations". The republicans and others who support this "war" can go fuck off. We are not a good nation thanks to these events and the repercussions will hurt us big time, in a multitude of ways. How can they not see this and, indeed, try to write it off as being inconsequential?!?!?!

[JohnLocke]

4. First one good, second one bad.

[Deja Q]

5. I concur. Saddam and his two sons were monsters and I am not crying over

their departure.

But the cost seems to be increasingly and intolerably high. Especially when * used hyperbole, exaggeration, and outright lies to get his way.

It had been said that there were many ways we could have gotten rid of Hussein. I wonder if * was aware of those options, or if he went for good old fashioned mindless and simple blow'em'up revenge...

[JohnLocke]

9. It's all about oil.

A well-placed bullet, some backroom diplomacy, and financial support would have brought peace and democracy to Iraq at a much lower cost. But this wouldn't involve stealing petroleum, would it? So Bush started the war.

[mot78]

6. Could we tombstone the two who voted for #1?

[rucky]

7. Poll question: Is Death Nifty?

yes or no

[Deja Q]

8. That's semi-related and a big topic.

Hussein killed his own people. He used weapons we gave him when we were friends with him because we wanted his help to kill the commies. :eyes:

Of course death isn't nifty. But it's the only thing the barbarians in power (Hussein, bin Landen, Bush, et cetera) seem to know. And it's sad. And we're all the pawns in their game.