Posted on 07/07/2014 9:16:33 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
Yeah you can kind of see why he was killing his own people. They deserved it.
I agree and there was no bigger supporter of the war than I.
Can’t wait until they head for the shrines of Saudi Arabia
ISIL leader already said they plan to destroy the kabaa
hey even Hitler and Stalin had their good features, I mean they kept stability and order, right?
Tolerating genocide by a psycho dictator has advantages if your permanent national security interest is geopolitical stability
Finally someone over there we can work with .....
Jonah . . . wasn't he the guy that so many chrstians insist never actually existed?
Insofar as America’s national security was concerned Saddam’s regime was far better than what’s there now. Yes, he kept things in line by fear, intimidation and murder. Like it or not, that’s how those people are ruled. Are you going to try to make the case Maliki’s government is any better? Have you studied the plight of religious minorities in Iraq in recent years? Christians were far better off when the Ba’ath party was in power.
“As time goes by, Saddaam is looking more and more like the good guy who was holding back the sea of Islamic insanity. What a stupid move to take him out.”
He still deserved to go, simply because he wouldn’t let us inspect. Even so, Christians had it relatively safe there, thanks to him. Same with Syria and probably Libya.
Now it’s the Dark Ages again there.
Think we should take out China? They won't let us inspect. Russia? Iran? Venezuela? North Korea? Could be a long list of enemies who would not let us inspect within their borders. By what right do we have to inspect. We should reciprocate and let them inspect us?
Our foreign policy should have a state department that advocates for American business and looks out for the interest of our citizens abroad. Our Military should be devoted to protecting America and citizens abroad. Our war policy should be to retaliate against aggressors of American.
The proper way to respond to attacking states would be to sink their navies, cripple their armor, and destroy their airpower. Complete the response by dropping small arms to their oppressed citizens and let them sort out their government and rulers. Leave and rebuild nothing.
We have no moral right to carry our regime changes. Think about the golden or silver rules.
The enemy of God strikes in human form.....and they are all under his control with so much hate and willingness to take live...even from their own.
I don’t believe that we have agreements GUARANTEEING our right to inspect those other countries, as we had with Iraq after the first Gulf War.
But maybe you know something that I don’t know.
....”As time goes by, Saddaam is looking more and more like the good guy who was holding back the sea of Islamic insanity. What a stupid move to take him out”.....
A woman who travels throughout the third world countries says we are so wrong to go into these nations and attempt to change their cultures and lifestyles.
She clearly stated that though it looks to us that the people are suppressed.. she said those suppressed most are the criminals and those who break the laws of their cultures. She also said that though we see the means they use to do that as torture etc....she said so many are violent and often times lash out within their communities..that the only thing that works to curtail them is fear of being tortured.....and also why their prisons are run as they are.
I can agree to some extent...the only way you can change the culture is to get rid of the Koran and those who teach it. That will not happen until the Lord comes and sets them straight.
We shouldn't suppress their culture??
I’m not making a case for Saddam, Mubarak, Maliki, Gaddafi, or any of the other despots who used to rule the various nations in the Middle East. I do not applaud their tactics nor their (former) regimes, regardless of how people fared then vs now.
I am WELL aware of how the various Christian sects have been treated in recent years, as I’ve been to certain areas to see it first-hand. And regardless if it was “better” or “worse” under a despot than it is now, my point is still the same:
Saddam Hussein is not to be praised for being a “good guy.” To another poster’s comment, NO, his genocidal actions are not to be tolerated in the interest of what you term as “global stability”. You ignore that, you become complacent with his brand of evil. You think his actions were acceptable? I do not. You are free to disagree with me if you like. He wasn’t stable to begin with, by the by.
I posted there...and likely will get some backlash for my opinion. But I really do question some of the churches efforts over there....
bump
But maybe you know something that I don’t know.
G.H.W. Bush had no such rights. Kuwait is not a member of NATO nor do we have a treaty with it. We went in solely at the request of Bush's crony buddies, the Saudi's. They are joined at the hips in the world covert financial system. Ordinary Americans had no interest in this. Bush could have just as easily use executive orders to kick the fracking industry in the ass to start moving faster in getting oil production up.
The thanks we got from Saudi Arabia was four gangs taking over four airlines in 2001. You know the rest. We should have let Saddaam have Saudi Arabia. A whole bunch of Muslims could have done us a favor by dwindling their numbers. That's the something I know that you should know.
We haven't had a responsible president since Ronald Reagan.
What the hell does Kuwait have to do with the agreements that Iraq signed?
Kind of like the old Shah of Iran. Perfect person, no. Resisted Islamic nonsense, yes.
How about less-bad guy.
Less bad than anything we had power to supplant him with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.