Is the world "safer" without Saddam Hussein?

[kentuck]

Joe Lieberman says Howard Dean is wrong to say that the world is not safer now that Saddam has been captured. How is the world safer? Iraq may be better off but I do not know if it is "safer"? If Saddam was a threat to us and the world, as Joe Lieberman seemed to think, then I guess it could be argued that the world is safer, but I don't think he was as big a threat as what will take his place - not only in Iraq but in other countries of the Middle East. Israel will not be safer either without Saddam.

[VermontDem2004]

1. If it is then it isn't by much

Getting Bush out of office will make the world safer though. :)

[Triana]

2. not as long as Bu$hit is running the US! (n/t)

[denverbill]

3. Kinda depends Joe.

If Saddam is replaced by a militant Islamic theocracy, then no, the world will be even more dangerous.

[KittyWampus]

4. Incrementally, Yes. In Particular, Iraqis and US Troops

But it is foolish to disregard the fact that going after Saddam sidetracked our efforts against Al Qaida.

Active terrorist organizations are more of a threat than States such as Iraq under Saddam.

[ramapo]

No

Saddam was marginalized a decade ago. He has been out of work for months.

His capture only creates a power vacuum.

I don't think Iraq is going to suddenly become the 51st state. Can the US maintain power in Iraq long-term? I think it will be very expensive. I suspect they won't like us hanging aroundmuch longer.

[Entente]

5. The world would be a lot safer

W/O Bush and Co. than they are w/o Saddam!

[gulliver]

6. Unless you look at the bottom line.

It is a tiny profit in a sea of loss.

[arcane1]

7. Bush declared Saddam AND his WMD were harmless in JUNE!!!

that's when Bush said the Mission was accomplished, and that the Regime is "no more"


http://www2.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/05/qatar.bush/

Bush to troops in Qatar: 'Mission accomplished'
Thursday, June 5, 2003 Posted: 2:06 PM EDT (1806 GMT)

DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- President Bush told U.S. troops in Qatar on Thursday that their duty and sacrifice had liberated the people of Iraq and helped in defeating global terrorism.

-snip-

Bush told the troops that coalition forces will "reveal the truth" in their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"We're going to look," Bush said. "We'll reveal the truth, but one thing is certain -- no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime because the Iraqi regime is no more."
------------------------------------------------

the regime has been "no more" for 6 months now, and the possibility of terrorists getting WMD from Iraq has been over for 6 months now.

arresting Saddam is meaningless in this context... How did catching him make anyone "safer" when he has been unable to hurt anyone since last summer??

though it makes me wonder- if the regime ended 6 months ago, and the WMD threat ended 6 months ago, why are we still there???


(sorry, I've been posting this all over the damned place...)

[Scott Lee]

8. Actually, it's less safe

Iraq's Resistance now can coalesce into a nationalist fighting unit, their purpose, not to reinstall Saddam (who is widely hated in Iraq) but to kick out the invader and occupier. That goal is something that about any Iraqi can get behind. Now, once that's accomplished, the new Iraq will likely fall into civil war that will determine the outcome of a new government - which I predict will be an Islamic one.

As an Islamic state with a history of animosity towards the US that made war against it, it's a perfect base for future terror campaigns. You think Afghanistan was bad? Wait till you see the new Iraqi terror central. Combine that with general Arab resentment of America for it's war policy and continued blind support for rightwing Israel, and you've got one mutha of a dangerous situation for the US that has come about from Bush-hole's war and capture of Saddam.

And one more thing. If Lieberman were to ever be right about a single thing in his life, his neck would jackknife and swallow his head.

[Cocoa]

9. Joe was extremely unconvincing on Hardball

this idea that is so widely accepted only holds up until someone challenges it. Good for Dean for doing it.

[booley]

10. what difference does Saddam make...

when there are so many others willing and able to take his place? So many other countires still have brutal dictators that kill thier own people but are still useful to Shrub or those in power generally so they remain free to do what they will.

If freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal oppresser was so important ot Bush, why does he support China over Taiwan? Why aren't we holding sanctions against Uzbekistan which BOILS political dissidents ALIVE? Why ius Shrub making threatening sounds towards Iran just as the moderates were just beginning to get some power away from the conservative Mullahs?

why do cons always have such selective outrage?

[knight_of_the_star]

11. No

He was barely even a threat to his neighbors, forget the entire world. If anything, this has made the world MORE dangerous than before.

[DrFunkenstein]

12. Even Dean Conceded That Saddam Posed A Threat

Just not an imminent one. He also said he would be "surprised" if WMDs were not found.

The more you look at the history of UNSCOM, the more you realize that Saddam was truly a loose cannon with a genocidal record - and had been actively developing nuclear capabilities until the Gulf War belw his cover.

Saddam had spent the 80's in a dispute with Iran over a small patch of worthless land. Millions died. He also dropped chemical weapons on an urban center in northern Iraq, and people experienced a bad taste in their mouth and dropped dead on the spot.

Yeah, I think we are safer without him.

[Zero Gravitas]

13. unknown

Obviously he was a menace to his own people, or rather the people of Iraq (the Kurds aren't "his people" for instance.) He was no longer a threat to the region since he had been kept in his box since the end of the Gulf War, and didn't even bother to re-start his weapons programs. So the world in general is not "safer" with him gone as he was not much of a threat to start off with.

Most Iraqis were better off to some extent when his regime fell 8 months ago. They are no better off today than they were before Saddam was captured however.

The real test will be what is Iraq like when we eventually leave 3,5,10 years from now? If Iraq is a prosperous western style democracy then it would have been a good thing. If on the potehr hand it disolves into civil war or is theocracy then the world would not be a better place.

[Isome]

14. Safer? Ha ha!!

Lieberman is delusional if he really believes that. If anything, the world is in more danger because this administration now feels it has proven itself and is justified in making future imperialistic invasions of other countries.

[lefty_mcduff]

15. Gee - I don't know Joe....

..not sure about what sort of menace that old guy they're showing on TV represented or how much dastardly influence he had from his hole-in-the-ground. Guess we're safer from head lice though, now that he's cleaned up...

[Old and In the Way]

16. Now that we've created a new State for Islam to take over, I think not.

I always though Saddam provided a stable counter to a pan-Islamic monolythic region. Now, who knows what/who will be controlling Iraq a year from now? Who knows if it will remain a State? Certainly dimson has no clue.

I also wonder how long Chalabi will survive? It will surprise me not in the least if he's assassinated.

[mvd]

17. No

Because we invaded his country, we made Saddam's capture into something that MIGHT be good for our troops - but I doubt it will be. Bin Laden is still the real prize. Also, Hussein didn't look like he was in the condition to be leading the resistance much.

[TheWebHead]

18. it's an unfair quote to respond to

Dean's full remark on this was:
"The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will help keep our soldiers safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer."

the most often heard argument was that "at least it is safer for the troops".. Well, if they quote Dean's prior sentence, that's what he says. Nobody hears the prior quote from Dean, he has to learn to realize the biased media will cherry pick quotes and that he needs to mix both thoughts so that they can't manipulate what he says.

[waywest]

19. I sleep like a baby, now.

I wake up every two hours crying. lol