http://wcbstv.com/topstories/topstories_story_252203351.html#w

Quote :

"Rockefeller went a step further. He says the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq — even if it means Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq. He said he sees that as a better scenario, and a safer scenario, "because it is called the 'war on terror.'" Does Rockefeller stands by his view, even if it means that Saddam Hussein could still be in power if the United States didn't invade? "Yes. [Saddam] wasn't going to attack us. He would've been isolated there," Rockefeller said. "He would have been in control of that country but we wouldn't have depleted our resources preventing us from prosecuting a war on terror which is what this is all about." "

I sure hope Mr. Rockefeller never plans on meeting any Kurds whose families he massacred. The world is safer without Saddam.

9/19/2006 4:28:32 PM

Nonsense. The world would be safer with Saddam in power and George W Bush in retirement!

Priorities, people. Priorities. 

9/19/2006 4:30:35 PM

lots of people are against the Iraq war because they are humanitarians who know war = death

they just arent very humanitarian when it comes to people in iraq, kuwait, etc, having to live with another merciless dictator

9/19/2006 4:31:20 PM

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!

I like this scenario: we defeat Saddam, then we defeat the region's terrorists. It's the only win-win situation.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 4:32 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2006 4:31:47 PM

Quote :

"I sure hope Mr. Rockefeller never plans on meeting any Kurds whose families he massacred. The world is safer without Saddam."

Would someone educate me on these matters? Under Saddam's control, were Kurds (and I suppose shias) systematically being murdered/tortured? at what level? Or were the kurd killings a statistical excursion in the scheme of things?

9/19/2006 4:34:26 PM

Quote :

"Human rights organizations have documented government approved executions, acts of torture, and rape for decades since Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979 until his fall in 2003."

including Kurds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam%27s_Iraq

Quote :

"In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms, and power stations. "

anyone who defends Saddam as a just leader or says we would be better off with him remaining in power is grossly mistaken and misinformed

9/19/2006 4:37:11 PM

^^

Regardless of what the answer to those questions are.... why is the US responsible for those Kurds?

9/19/2006 4:38:55 PM

Actually, the predominantly Kurdish portion of Iraq was already semi-autonomous before we invaded. Most of those abuses occurred before Saddam was "contained".

9/19/2006 4:38:56 PM

^^who else was going to look out for them? not their OWN government

9/19/2006 4:39:35 PM

plz to quote actual human rights organizations and some instances of human rights abuses since 1991. and THEN tell me how those human rights abuses are a threat to our people. and THEN tell me how that threat is larger than the ones posed in n. korea, iran, pakistan, russia, etc.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 4:40 PM. Reason : 91]

9/19/2006 4:39:47 PM

so just because it happened pre-1993 means its ok?

but if you must know

Quote :

"In June of 1994, the Hussein regime in Iraq established severe penalties, including amputation, branding and the death penalty for criminal offenses such as theft, corruption, currency speculation and military desertion. "

Quote :

"In March of 2003, Britain released video footage of Iraqi soldiers firing on fleeing Iraqi citizens near the town of Basra in southern Iraq. "

Quote :

"Also in April of 2003, CNN revealed that it had withheld information about Iraq torturing journalists and Iraqi citizens in the 1990s. According to CNN's chief news executive, the channel had been concerned for the safety not only of its own staff, but also of Iraqi sources and informants, who could expect punishment for speaking freely to reporters. Also according to the executive, "other news organizations were in the same bind."[1] "

awaits sarijoul to defend this cold blooded killer

9/19/2006 4:42:38 PM

i asked further questions.

and i'm not defending him, btw. but why did we decide out of all dictatorships in the world that we were going to impose a great political experiment on these people.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 4:44 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2006 4:43:32 PM

why dont you focus on the thread topic about whether or not the world is safer with or without Saddam in power instead of forming your own questions that compare threats of other countries while ignoring the original question of whether or not the world is better with Saddam out of power

9/19/2006 4:44:48 PM

^^clearly because bush is a zionist controlled puppet who is being told to invade ME countries in order to further the NWO and profit....duh

and yes...those who defend saddam are pretty ignorant and stupid

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 4:45 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/19/2006 4:45:10 PM

your average iraqi is certainly in more danger today than he would have been five years ago, that's for sure. ditto for our troops.

9/19/2006 4:49:00 PM

9/19/2006 4:51:00 PM

^^

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 4:53 PM. Reason : b]

9/19/2006 4:52:53 PM

i'll just take you guys' word for it that your "average Iraqi" is safer today than 5 years ago since you have no evidence whatsoever to support your incorrect claims

no disagreements about the US troops though...considering they werent there 5 years ago and logically its impossible that they could be safer nowadays

9/19/2006 4:53:48 PM

Quote :

"i'll just take you guys' word for it that your "average Iraqi" is safer today than 5 years ago since you have no evidence whatsoever to support your incorrect claims"

ummmmmm

HUH?

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 4:56 PM. Reason : m]

9/19/2006 4:55:29 PM

so something like 20-30 iraqis dying per day from violence. there's no evidence anywhere near this sort of violence was going on before we invaded (and certainly not in 2003)

9/19/2006 4:55:52 PM

you people are forgetting that sadam had a nuke pointed at NYC

9/19/2006 4:57:02 PM

Quote :

"so something like 20-30 iraqis dying per day from violence"

average Iraqi = Iraqi who attacks US troops and gets killed?

9/19/2006 4:59:55 PM

Quote :

"and i'm not defending him, btw. but why did we decide out of all dictatorships in the world that we were going to impose a great political experiment on these people."

I know you seem not to know much history of the area, but do you remember that Iraq actually invaded another fairly recently? That right there shows that Saddam had no qualms about war on other countries.

The only reason he wasn't already ravaging other countries is because we put the smack down on him when he tried. He was most likely just waiting for another chance to try again.

9/19/2006 5:00:59 PM

^^no these are usually civilians being killed by explosives and whatnot

^i actually got an a in the history of the modern middle east. but you know. whatever, keep trying to insult my intelligence.

(and the point is: he didn't try again, and we had no evidence that he was going to)


[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 5:02 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2006 5:01:25 PM

Quote :

"^^who else was going to look out for them? not their OWN government"

again, how is that OUR problem?

And if you want to venture down that line of reasoning, where are the US invasions of the various African countries where genocide on a much larger scale was/is occurring?

I contend that our government's responsibility is to our own people, not the rest of the world. The U.N., however inept it may be, owns the responsibility of humanitarian ventures.

9/19/2006 5:02:18 PM

Quote :

"He was most likely just waiting for another chance to try again."

O RLY??

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 5:02 PM. Reason : n]

9/19/2006 5:02:21 PM

^^^i dont believe you please post a link

cause ive heard of iraqi's who are pleasantly shocked that when US troops have come into their homes to search them, they dont mess them up, they dont wreck their houses...the owners can hardly tell they were there

now insurgents who have it in their minds to kill the american devils...thats another story...those are certainly not "average Iraqi's"

Quote :

"I contend that our government's responsibility is to our own people, not the rest of the world."

well our govt thinks bigger than that...maybe if we show some responsibility to some middle eastern countries, instead of letting them become falsely indoctrinated to violence, their people will be less likely to fly planes into our buildings

9/19/2006 5:02:56 PM

it's the insurgents or sectarian violence that is doing most of the killing these days. i'm not saying our troops are killing lots of civilians these days. far from it. i'm just saying that your average iraqi is at a greater danger today than 4 years ago.

9/19/2006 5:04:27 PM

^and you've yet to post a single source to cite that claim

9/19/2006 5:04:52 PM

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&hs=DiR&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&ct=title&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=iraqi+suicide+bomb&btnG=Search+News

don't act dumb tree.

9/19/2006 5:05:45 PM

hes not acting

9/19/2006 5:06:24 PM

Quote :

"well our govt thinks bigger than that...maybe if we show some responsibility to some middle eastern countries, instead of letting them become falsely indoctrinated to violence, their people will be less likely to fly planes into our buildings"

And starting a war against them is the way to not let them become "falsely" indoctrinated to violence....

9/19/2006 5:06:39 PM

how come you guys completely forget how unsafe iraq was when saddam was killing TENS OF THOUSANDS of his own people? oh yeah that was 1988 and saddam is born again nowadays

blame america first

^did we start a war with the iraqi people? i couldve sworn it was with the iraqi govt/military...

9/19/2006 5:07:49 PM

^liberals are in lock-step with that mantra

9/19/2006 5:09:29 PM

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

minimum:43,269
maximum: 48,046

so: 43269/3.5 years/365 days = 33 civilians dead/day

or you could just read the paper and see the suicide bomb totals for the day.

9/19/2006 5:10:02 PM

Quote :

"killing TENS OF THOUSANDS of his own people?"

i dont see us doing anything about darfur

9/19/2006 5:10:09 PM

*insert partisan political catch-phrase here*

9/19/2006 5:10:47 PM

^^^so thats safer than 1988?

Quote :

"The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children"

oh yeah, dont go back to 1988! that year doesnt fit my argument!

9/19/2006 5:10:57 PM

i thought we were talking about how safe the world is now versus before we invaded, which happened to be in 2003, no 1988. there's a whole war and loads of sanctions in between those two times.

9/19/2006 5:13:06 PM

sanctions iraq didnt follow

9/19/2006 5:14:10 PM

like having wmd.

9/19/2006 5:14:33 PM

somalia was a successful war because we pulled out early

9/19/2006 5:17:00 PM

way to keep on topic there, chief.

9/19/2006 5:17:17 PM

yeah josh####

9/19/2006 5:18:32 PM

ok. so apply that to both of you.

so how is the world safer now than pre-invasion?

9/19/2006 5:19:11 PM

Quote :

"well our govt thinks bigger than that...maybe if we show some responsibility to some middle eastern countries, instead of letting them become falsely indoctrinated to violence, their people will be less likely to fly planes into our buildings"

Wow, I can't figure out how you are posting so quickly. I figure you would be in the pisser every 5 minutes trying to rid your body of all that kool aid you've been drinking.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 5:24 PM. Reason : x]


In regards to the original question. It certainly seems there is a ton more tension in the world today than before we invaded Iraq. I'd like to think had the rhetoric meter post 9/11 been only pegged with talk of being resilient in the face of overwhelming adversity...rather than rich with "we're gonna take the fight to our enemies on their turf" (while attacking Iraq for some pretty shaky reasons), the collective tension in the world today would be levels and levels lower.



[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 5:27 PM. Reason : a]

9/19/2006 5:22:52 PM

why do you even argue with joshretardednumbers?

9/19/2006 5:24:58 PM

^^great input

9/19/2006 5:26:52 PM

^ You're the one who has been quick to call out people for not answering the original question without really diving into what the reality of today's world is.

Here, I'll show you

Quote :

"how come you guys completely forget how unsafe iraq was when saddam was killing TENS OF THOUSANDS of his own people? oh yeah that was 1988 and saddam is born again nowadays"

Did you stop for one second to think about the death toll from new infuriated terrorist (because we invaded Iraq) popping nukes all over the planet might be orders of magnitude higher than what Saddam was responsible for during his tenure?

It's really pretty absurd that anyone today can answer this question anyway. Let's wait 10 years and revisit it.


[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 5:32 PM. Reason : a]

9/19/2006 5:28:22 PM

i shouldve known better than to try and convince people that Saddam Hussein was a heartless killer...what was I thinking...we all know Bush is much worse...murdering tens of thousands of American women and children because of their beliefs and all

9/19/2006 5:29:12 PM