Many have criticized the US for the Iraq war and taking Hussein out of power. The fact is that he is in custody. Should we put Hussein back in power, and allow Iraq to operate the way it was before?

I think it is cruel to keep that man locked up. He ruled a country. That has to count for something. As a leader he united a country under is banner. No one who does that deserves to be behind bars.

I think it would be fitting if we elected John Kerry President of the United States, and we elected George Bush President of Iraq.

I honestly cannot believe you two voted to release Sadaam. :confused:

The Iraqi Idiot is almost where he belongs. Once he's been drawn & quarterd he can be released and his remnants taken in 4 directions to seperate gator pits. He used up his quota of air as soon as he used chemical agents against the very people he was the leader of. He should have been taken out following the invasion of Kuwait, but the UN chickened out.

What a ridiculous question to ask. Of course he should not be given back to Iraq. He was a threat. But was he the most prevalent threat? Was he an imminent threat? Was it the time to take him out, when we are fighting terrorism? Those are the questions you have to take into consideration. He had no weapons. He had almost no links to terrorism. And he was almost no threat. The fact is, the reasons Bush gave are false. They are utterly wrong.

Saddam should never be given back to the Iraqis now, since we already have him. Putting Saddam back into Iraq would not accomplish anything. This is a stupid, dumb, idiotic question to ask. To even think I’d recommend we give him back to Iraq, is ridiculous.

Do I think we should have attacked him? No. But we have to live in reality, and the reality is, we have a situation on our hands. We are in Iraq, and we need to do the job in Iraq done correctly.

What a ridiculous question to ask.

This is an especially funny quote to me. Overdose, you've made the case over and over and over again about Saddam's innocence. I keep hearing from several liberals on the board, especially you, Overdose, who keep saying that it was a mistake to invade Iraq.

If you truly believe that the Iraqi war was a mistake, and that Saddam was innocent, then shouldn't you release him? What justification do you have in keeping him captive, if you really believe that he was innocent??

Read this again, you I guess didn’t catch what I said…

Of course he should not be given back to Iraq. He was a threat. But was he the most prevalent threat? Was he an imminent threat? Was it the time to take him out, when we are fighting terrorism? Those are the questions you have to take into consideration. He had no weapons. He had almost no links to terrorism. And he was almost no threat. The fact is, the reasons Bush gave are false. They are utterly wrong.

I said he was a threat. But that he wasn’t the most prevalent threat, and that other countries/areas should have been dealt with before Iraq was taken into consideration.

Help me out here, Overdose, I'm totally confused. How can he be a threat if he has no WMD? You did say he had no WMD, right? You're not going to back away from those, literally, hundreds of posts that you made about Saddam's innocence, are you?

Here is what you, yourself said in your post:

He had no weapons. He had almost no links to terrorism. And he was almost no threat.

So I'll repeat my question, since you did ABSOLUTELY nothing to answer it: what justification do you have in keeping him captive?

This ought to be good ... speak up, OD.

Karankawa you are so hysterical…

The reasons the Bush Administration gave were wrong and false. The reasons for why we should put Iraq before all the other countries that were far more of a threat, was wrong.

The point I’m trying to convey is, yes Saddam was an evil dictator and needed to go at some point...but that doesn’t mean he was a threat to America, directly. And although he had no WMD’s, and no links to terrorism, we are living in reality. We are in Iraq, and we need to finish our job.

Of course we shouldn’t give Saddam back. Saddam wasn’t a good person, and doesn’t deserve to be in power. But that doesn’t stray away from the fact that, I believe we should have taken care of higher priorities that were a direct and prevalent threat to America.

Saddam was a man that provided the Middle East with instability. After terrorism was under-control, Osama was caught, the more threatening countries (who had weapons), were also under-control, I could see why Saddam would need to be taken care of. For he was a source of concern in the Middle East. But he would have needed to be taken care of in a way, that could take him effectively out of Iraq, and not turn Iraq into the cesspool of chaos it is now.

Karankawa you are so hysterical…

Awesome, too bad we can't sit across the table from each other and just laugh our asses off. Because frankly, once you have decided that Saddam has "no WMD’s, and no links to terrorism" (that is a direct quote from you), he is less of a threat to the US than several other rulers in the middle east.

Let me go ahead and ask you a fun question: what do you propose that we do with the leaders of terror harboring countries like Syria and Iran?

Oops, I said that they were terror harboring because many sources of intell have cited this; however no UN inspectors have been dispatched to verify. Darest we trust our own intel, or should we wait for UN inspectors to get led around the country first?

We had UN Reports that showed Saddam had no weapons. We have factual proof of Iran and Syria producing and creating weapons. When the Bush Administration said ”Saddam has weapons” it was going off speculation and assumption from many sources that were sometimes and sometimes not creditable. Right now we have photographs, and these Governments admitting the production of these weapons.

I’m afraid we can’t do much, for we have already over stretched our military. Right now, it’s almost a free for all…for these countries to do whatever the hell they want…thanks to Bush’s miss planning.

Originally posted by HaVoK
I honestly cannot believe you two voted to release Sadaam. :confused:

That's good HaVok...you shouldn't believe things you don't know are true...

Btw, although I didn't vote in the poll because I think the question is rather absurd, I do think we should release Saddam from US custody immediately. We should hand him over to the Iraqis. The fact that we can't because of security concerns, says a lot about how successful we've been in stabilizing that country.

I voted yes just for fun. To see some reactions.

OD can't be too ridiculous because I agree with and understand his position. Basically, he's recognizing that our resources are limited. He's recognizing that our army, our lives, our reputation and our money could be used in more productive ways.

Of course, no one thinks Sadaam Hussein is a good guy that should be restored to power. Everyone with an IQ above 80 knows that is a loaded question. But many of us do realize that, even with our relatively enormous resources, that we (the U.S.) can't single-handedly police the world.

Republicans can't keep seeing the world from such an absurdly simplistic perspective and expect our country to be successful under that leadership.

I didn't vote for the poll because I think it's pointless.

Originally posted by Leper
OD can't be too ridiculous because I agree with and understand his position. Basically, he's recognizing that our resources are limited. He's recognizing that our army, our lives, our reputation and our money could be used in more productive ways.

Of course, no one thinks Sadaam Hussein is a good guy that should be restored to power. Everyone with an IQ above 80 knows that is a loaded question. But many of us do realize that, even with our relatively enormous resources, that we (the U.S.) can't single-handedly police the world.

Republicans can't keep seeing the world from such an absurdly simplistic perspective and expect our country to be successful under that leadership.

So you're saying that you hate America and everything that it stands for?

Just trying to beat one of our right-wingers to the punch. :)

I didn't vote for the poll because I think it's pointless.

EXACTLY.

In case I'm confusing anyone, this poll and thread are an attempt to show what a waste of time it is to second guess the Iraq war. Liberals and conservatives agree. and as common sense dictates, it is a very foolish idea to release Saddam Hussein. In that respect, the Iraq War has done something very worthwhile. We have locked up a man who apparently was simply biding his time until he was under less scrutiny, and then would immediately begin producing WMD as soon as he could get away with that.

And in spite of the liberals' attempts to portray Bush as a "liar", the war was started with good and sound reason backed up by, what was thought by both liberals and conservatives alike, good intelligence.

The whole debate about whether or not the US should have invaded Iraq is a complete waste of time. I, personally, would LOVE to see another topic dominate this forum and the scrutiny of the national media. There are many, many, MUCH more worthwhile topics to debate. Both Kerry and Bush have basically identical plans on how to handle Iraq.

So how about we quit wasting our time and move on to another topic around here?

Sorry, I will complain all I want about how we should have gone to other countries first and how the reasons Bush gave were false. Have fun trying to make a pointless, point.

Oh, yes, very worthwhile! The only way it could be slightly worthwhile, is if we had run this war correctly and had enough troops to make Iraq this "wonderful Democracy" Bush wants. Sadly, the little worthwhile we could have gotten out of war with Iraq, is not possible because of the way Bush has run this war.

so you agree with the war OD...you just dont like how it was run?

Originally posted by Decka
so you agree with the war OD...you just dont like how it was run?

When did I say I agreed with this war, Decka?

the way you were talking it sounded like you agreed with going into iraq, just didnt like how it was being handled.

If you don't agree with the war...thats fine. Too bad your candidate did until he saw the ramifications and then ran over to the other side of the fence. Kerry had the same intel as Bush and said Saddam needed to be dealt with.

Kerry is a good manipulator

Decka, I think he was saying, if there was any of chance of getting out of the war on a good note, the Bush team has dont squandered it.

jerejerebinks sez:

" ... if there was any of chance of getting out of the war on a good note, the Bush team has dont squandered it. "


Huh??

Vilepagan won't correct his grammar because he's a liberal.

And to translate Overdose, he likes the result of the war (which can be un-done), he just doesn't like that Bush did it. If it were Kerry or Clinton, I promise you, he would be singing a completely different tune. Sad.

Originally posted by Decka
the way you were talking it sounded like you agreed with going into iraq, just didnt like how it was being handled.
The way I was talking about it? Saddam was not a threat (no wmds), and had no (slim at best) connections to terrorism. Why would I support a war with Iraq, when we are suppose to be fighting terrorism and threats to America?

Originally posted by Decka
If you don't agree with the war...thats fine. Too bad your candidate did until he saw the ramifications and then ran over to the other side of the fence.
I’m sorry, but I was for the Iraq War back in 2002. I was manipulated by the Bush Administration, into buying in that Saddam was a threat. John Kerry was also, manipulated into believing Saddam was a threat. He didn’t “jump the fence”, he just got the facts the Bush Administration wouldn’t give us.

Kerry saw the same intelligence reports that bush did....thats the case right? Thats my understanding....but then again im not in the whitehouse.

Did Kerry see it, or did the senate and house go on what the President was lie..errrr telling them?

well....you have no way of proving that conspiracy theory that you said.....so give me one reason why i should believe it lol.

Originally posted by Decka
Kerry saw the same intelligence reports that bush did....thats the case right? Thats my understanding....but then again im not in the whitehouse.
John Kerry saw a lot of what Bush saw, but not all of what he saw.

there is NO way of backing that up OD...that is just your conspiracy theory and you are entitled to it.

Originally posted by Decka
there is NO way of backing that up OD...that is just your conspiracy theory and you are entitled to it. do you HONESTLY think , kerry was privey to EVERYTHING bush had ? why would bush tell or show him EVERYTHING ? you have to be kidding me. dont forget, when it comes to most things, they are just as partisan as we are....it doesnt take a conspiracy theorist to come to that conclusion......partisan or not, hell if i were president, i wouldnt tell the opposition everything.........but decka, have you checked the chain of events that happened that day ? not partisan shit, from dems and republicans........it was very weird..

John Kerry saw a lot of what Bush saw, but not all of what he saw.

Wow, is this the latest cop-out for Kerry? I would be willing to wager that Senators and Representatives are privvy to much more information than the general public is, don't you agree?

And I would certainly hope that no one would vote for war when they have no reason for it. I think it's pretty safe to assume that Congress felt like there was a pretty good reason to go to Iraq at the time. It was a pretty overwhelming majority that supported, iirc. In any case, Kerry voted for, and that's who we're talking about.

This whole thing about Kerry voting for the war and then speaking badly afterwards about it stinks of politics. How can anyone not see that?

Its obvious Karankawa...he jumped the fence after he saw we didnt find WMD(although we found evidence that they had expertise and supplies to make them)......Kerry is a good manipulator, ill give him that. BUT, the question is: Can Kerry pronounce enough claims on Bush to get people to vote for him? Looks like its working....most of Kerry's claims lately have no basis and are only said so uneducated people hear them out of context and think Bush is bad.


Most dems i talk to have no reason to vote for kerry....the reasons they give are laughable at best. If only the facts could be let out by the media as much as all the other stuff.

You guys really have a limited view on things don’t you? George Bush was using information from a man called Ahmad Chalabi. Bush was bypassing the CIA and using this information to strengthen his case for war. Bush used this information, without telling Congress where he got it, to manipulate everyone into believing Saddam had weapons.

Chalabi was used for intelligence, but as we know now (after his arrest from American troops) he was not to be trusted. George Bush did trust him, and used his information for war with Iraq.

Clinton didn’t trust him, and took him off our intelligence agency after Bush Senior left office. But lone-be-hold, Bush puts him back on the intelligence agency once he gets in office. And we now know Clinton was right, because we arrested him in Iraq.

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/031027fa_fact (we let him give us intelligence)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/19/wirq19.xml (proves he gave faulty intelligence)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/20/223555/186 (Met with Bush at the State of the Union Address, after having close relations)

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5019721 (Arrest)

So yes, Bush did use information that not everyone was given…to try and manipulate everyone into buying into this war.

so you're theory is that the ONLY reason the united states went to war is because "ahmad Calabi" said so?

Did I say that? You always come up with lame responses. When did I say that was the only reason? Do not put words in my mouth, Decka. I was simply pointing out that John Kerry did not get all of the intelligence Bush did. And that Chalabi was a large part of the intelligence, not all, but a lot. And pointing out that, he was a fraud and gave faulty intelligence. Maybe Bush should have listened to Clinton a little more...

Who voted to release Saddam? Wow.

Originally posted by Overdose
Did I say that? You always come up with lame responses. When did I say that was the only reason? Do not put words in my mouth, Decka. I was simply pointing out that John Kerry did not get all of the intelligence Bush did. And that Chalabi was a large part of the intelligence, not all, but a lot. And pointing out that, he was a fraud and gave faulty intelligence. Maybe Bush should have listened to Clinton a little more...

do you have proof that John Kerry didnt get all the intelligence Bush did? or are you just saying that so it fits your theory? You put so much emphasis on that ahmad guy how could i not think that......

You dont know how much this ahmad guy had to do with bush's decision, you just say that so it fits your theory.....

If Clinton would have done more over there while he was in office maybe 9-11 would've never happened. Clinton was good on some things.....but dont praise him like he's some abraham lincoln lol.

Originally posted by Decka
do you have proof that John Kerry didnt get all the intelligence Bush did? or are you just saying that so it fits your theory? You put so much emphasis on that ahmad guy how could i not think that......
I gave you the links that the Bush Administration used him for the intelligence.

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20040330-094240-7127r.htm He was one of the leading intelligence providers. But since he was a “fugitive” the Bush Administration never claimed where they got this information. Which thus means, Bush manipulated the intelligence and John Kerry did not get to see the whole story.

Originally posted by Decka
If Clinton would have done more over there while he was in office maybe 9-11 would've never happened.

Clinton DID do a lot…I’ve posted this before…it's just my paper on Clinton and terrorism.


Clinton:
In 1993 at the first attack on the World Trade Center, no one blamed the first Bush for these bombings, and not “doing enough” But yet we can now blame Clinton for not doing “enough” to stop 9/11.

But you know what Clinton did in 1993 (on the first attacks on the WTC)? He put Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah who were behind these attacks, behind bars. Clinton also stopped the terrorist bomb plot against the US embassy in Tirana, Albania.

Clinton in 1993 tripled the counter terrorism budged for the FBI. He destroyed 20 Al Qaeda cells in more then 20 countries. He also created a top-level national security post to coordinate all federal counter terrorism activity.

His first antiterrorism bill, he put in place, had tons of antiterrorism legislation. His second one did as well. He also did simulations to see how local, state, and federal officials should respond to a terrorist attack.

“By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism then any president before him,” Barton Gellman reported in the Washington Post.

In 1996 Clinton wanted more antiterrorism money, and the Republicans in the senate fought against him. They controlled Congress, and Hatch (a big Republican) always objected, and shot down his bills with the Republican’s voting party lines. So it was the Republicans who were to blame for a lot of this “terrorism” you see now.

A year before the horrific Oklahoma City bombing, Republicans rejected Clinton’s proposed expansions of intelligence agencies wiretap authority in order to fight terrorism.

But, Clinton did what he could, and he struck targets in Sudan and Afghanistan with Thom hawk missiles in retaliation to terrorist strikes against our embassies in Kenya.

When Osama Bin Laden was offered to America, Clinton declined because we had no evidence to support his capture.

But immediately after the embassy bombings, Clinton issues the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, because we then had evidence to capture or kill him.

This brings me to, if you are going to blame Clinton, why didn’t we blame the first Bush in office for the 93' attacks?

The Republicans were the ones who cut and stopped Clinton from doing what he wanted to do in antiterrorism funding.

But regardless of this, he still stopped a lot of terrorism. He was offered Osama, but we didn’t have sufficient evidence to support getting him. But once the Embassy bombings happened, he did do something.

Clinton did get info in regards to Osama Bin Laden and attacks. Which is why he passed it along to the Bush Administration to do something (explain more later)

Former senior Clinton aide told Time, “we would be handing [The Bush Administration] a war then they took office”

And my final point, is when the Republicans say, “Oh Clinton didn’t do enough when he got that warning of Osama Bin Laden”

But actually, Clinton officials met with Condoleeza Rice and other Bush appointees, and gave then warnings on terrorism and Osama Bin Laden. Bush and his cronies ignored them, and did nothing but cut terrorism, and ignore even more warnings.

From Al Franken:
"Clinton’s administration was praised by two former Reagan counter terrorism officials. "

“Overall, I give them very high marks,” Robert Oakley, who served as ambassador for counter terrorism in the Reagan State Department, told the Washington post, “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which made him stronger”

Bremer said that Clinton, “correctly focused on bin Laden” and “by any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any President before him,” Barton Gellman reported. He also said Clinton was the “first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort”

Originally posted by Overdose
Did I say that? You always come up with lame responses. When did I say that was the only reason? Do not put words in my mouth, Decka. I was simply pointing out that John Kerry did not get all of the intelligence Bush did. And that Chalabi was a large part of the intelligence, not all, but a lot. And pointing out that, he was a fraud and gave faulty intelligence. Maybe Bush should have listened to Clinton a little more...

How would Kerry know? He didn't show up for many of the intelligence committee meetings.

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
How would Kerry know? He didn't show up for many of the intelligence committee meetings.

Care to cite that? And it does not matter. Bush was giving speech after speech saying Saddam had weapons using the information I've cited. Deal.

Originally posted by Overdose
Care to cite that?


"Official records show Kerry not present for at least 76% of public hearings held during his eight years on the panel, and possibly 78% (the record of one hearing is ambiguous)."

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=241.html

I love it when you guys think we're just making up crap.


And it does not matter. Bush was giving speech after speech saying Saddam had weapons using the information I've cited. Deal.

If it doesn't matter, why did you ask me to cite a source?

The fact remains, Kerry has NOT done his job in the senate. He's lousy at takinga stand on any issue other than big government spending.

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby

The fact remains, Kerry has NOT done his job in the senate. He's lousy at takinga stand on any issue other than big government spending.

No, the fact remains that George Bush was Governor for a measly two terms in Texas. And yet, that qualified him to be the Republican nominee. He did nothing in that amount of time, either. So don't even think about criticizing Kerry's record, because Bush hardly had a record when it was his first term running for office.

George Bush has taken more vacation then any other President in US history. I don't think George Bush has done his job. The fact is, not doing your job as Senator is not as bad as not doing your job as President.

Certain conditions have to be met in order to qualify for the Office of President of the United States. Being a lifelong goldbrick and lackluster politician is not one of them.

Originally posted by es347fan
Being a lifelong goldbrick and lackluster politician is not one of them.

So 20 years in the Senate (even if you think he did poorly, and don't agree with what he did do in the Senate) A Vietnam Veteran, who understands war. A man who has worked on the foreign relations committee for years. Is not as "qualified" as man who was Governor for 2 terms (not as hard as being a Senator, for 20 years, nor did he gain the experience John Kerry did) A man who didn't serve in Vietnam or work on the foreign relations committee...IS qualified?

That doesn’t add up, nor make any sense. The fact is, George Bush was never qualified to lead this nation. If you compare Bush's first year of running qualifications, and Kerry's first year of running for President, any sane person can see Kerry has many more qualifications.

senator is harder then governor? no way. and please, enlighten us to a few bills kerry proposed that were passed. that is after all the hard part of being a senator, getting your proposals through. simply voting isnt very hard.

Originally posted by es347fan
Certain conditions have to be met in order to qualify for the Office of President of the United States. Being a lifelong goldbrick and lackluster politician is not one of them.

Bush got elected with those qualifications, why not someone else? :D

Originally posted by Travh20
senator is harder then governor? no way. and please, enlighten us to a few bills kerry proposed that were passed. that is after all the hard part of being a senator, getting your proposals through. simply voting isnt very hard.

not as hard as being a Senator for 20 years.

Learn to read.

Face it -- the hardest thing about being a Senator is running for re-election. Period.

Kerry understands war? Bullshit.