Supe, I'm just trying to get to what your true thought are first . ..you said: "not sure the Iraqi people abhor a dictator. I suspect that dictatorship is an aspect of their culture."

That sure sound like you're saying that Iraq needs a ruthless tyrant. Clearly GW isn't doing the right ruthless moves to keep Iraq the lovely way the Lib's, like yourself, liked. (Saddams rule - a town gets outta line --eliminate it. . . .completely.)

Good times, eh supe? We should have Left Saddam to kill . . Left Saddam to expand the worlds 3rd largest army. He would have been great Left as the single dictator of the region and more. -right? :rolleyes:

A legitimate question among mischaracterizations is a step in the right direction.

I don't prefer a dictator, and I don't know anyone personally who does. But obviously, you are free to pretend that liberals prefer dictators. Dishonestly.

Middle eastern cultures have their roots in nomadic desert tribal life. The level of violence they will tolerate and even appreciate is beyond our understanding. For example, I recently read of a ceremony where American military control was being officially handed over to an Iraqi organization. The Americans in the ceremony and audience were a bit abhorred to watch the Iraqi's, the good guys there, taking bites out of live animals. As it turns out, this kind of behavior is part of their official military and police training. It is a part of their culture. We don't understand it.

I had a professor who felt certain that all workers want to participate in managerial decision-making. That prof was a pure educator with no real world experience, and it showed. We knew that some workers don't want that.

We Americans assume that everyone wants a balanced, multi-branch, democratically elected government. But Middle Eastern culture is not like Greek culture. Maybe they don't have any history or experience or model for a bunch of guys sitting around in Togas debating public policy and reaching consensus or a majority vote. Maybe their background contains only "might makes right" decision-making. Maybe the presence of a strong dictator gives them a warm and cozy feeling.

Maybe we're going to find out that a dictator was the only form of government that could hope to hold three religious factions together in something resembling a "nation."

Now......what kind of post are we going to see next?

By the way, I'm not concluding that Iraq, or the world, or America, would be better off if Saddam had been left in palce. I'm raising that specter, but not drawing the conclusion. It is certainly fair to say that Iraq is less stable now. And the world seems to be expecting it to get worse before it gets better. And I don't think even Dubya at this point still imagines, at any point in the future, a united, peaceful, democratic Iraq.

It kind of depends on what your vision for Iraq is in the short term. Like the former Yugoslavia, it was dictatorship that held ethnic tensions at bay, and they exploded when the cork came off the top. If we want to Iraq to exist as a unfied country, perhaps a military strong man is the best option.

But I think we better get used the idea of a federal Iraq. It seems like our best option for leaving the place with some semblance of order.

wow! an 'honest' post from super.

So then WHO (honestly) is to blame for the destabilization of the region?

I think it started with Kuwait and Saddam's huge military build-up. . . but you would likely pin that on US. ...or Boosh. (?)

So then you're certain; Saddam's methods are prefered . . .for those people? :cool:

Look at it objectively. For most peoples, politics, like religion are best accepted if they conform to what they are used to. Introducing a new religion or form of government takes time to be accepted. The "strongman" form of government has been the accepted practice in the Middle East for decades, if not centuries, from European domination to tribal influence. Are dictators good for a country? Sometimes yes, sometimes not. It depends on the mindset of the leadership and whether they are "benevolent" or not. I can see that such a government would be "acceptable" to a country because it removes the necessity to think, with everything decided at the top.

Was Saddam an evil ruler? Undoubtedly. Was Tito? In some instances, perhaps, but like has been mentioned above, he did keep the lid on ethnic differences. Newly proclaimed "freedom" is difficult to swallow, and those not accustomed to it do not realize that there are obligations attached as well.

Yep, let this be a lesson to all petty tyrants that become Bush family retainers. Noriega, Hussein, and the Saud family.

Who were those supplying cocaine to the Bush family when Bush I was head of the CIA, I forget?

No. I'm not certain. The only thing that is certain is that Iraq is not stable and not expected to become stable for some time.

Yes, in a way Dubya destabilized Iraq. Looked at another way, Saddam sowed the seeds of destabilization. But frankly, that's only interesting to someone who is focused on placing blame, or achieving vindication.

I like the idea that America's decision to destabilize Iraq will result in the execution of a dictator. Through a legitimate trial process carried out by the Iraqi government. I think that give Iraqis something positive to conclude about our interference there. That's good.

Overall, I would say no. It has not been worth it. To America, that is. to Iraqis.....a definite maybe. To America, no. But then, I'm not one of those folks who think Saddam attacked the WTC. And I think it's pathetic that so many Americans believe he did. Propaganda works, apparently.

No no no...that was the Jooooooooooooooos.

However, the imperialistic Bush'ist junta and their cabal of mercenaries are directly responsibile for global warming, cooling of the planet's core, and slowing of the planet's rotation.

Bush et al should be immediately tried for crimes against the solar system.

LOL

Of course it was. My bad. All of the Boosh feeding frenzy had me distracted. ;)

When did Hussein get a legitimate trial? The one that produced the death penalty for him certainly was no where near legitimate.

Here's that pic an anonymous Pelican sent me and asked me to post:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...tcmural2qg.jpg

Oh c'mon sniper . . . everyone KNOWs that Saddam would NOT have helped fund 9/11. Saddam was too upfront fo r those types of shenanagans. . . .a real secular straight shooter, doncha know. Other than those previously unknown mass graves we found . . .and the hidden 'food for oil' scam . . . and the sand intombed fighter planes . . . and the secretly built bunkers we've found, Saddam was really open about his military actions. :cool:

There, fixed that for you.

only a brainwashed monkey believes that Iraq was the front line on the "war on terror". Bush most certainly had a personal vandetta.. 9/11 made invading Iraq more convenient.

and the results speak for themselves:

- 3,000 fallen soldiers
- thousands more injured
- hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead.
- millions displaced.
-region instability.
- $500+ Billion taxpayer money spent.

at the same time, oil companies are posting record profits.

war feeds the rich (ie. slimy oil CEOs, aka. Cheney), while it buries the poor.


in all honesty, folks, are we sure we're hanging the right man?

You're a communits, on-ramp. And a WITCH! Obviously you are a terrorist.

(i thought perhaps i'd beat Island to the punch this time)

just calling it like it is.. that's all.

as any reasonable logical person would.

On-Ramp, I can say unequivocally that you are wrong.

It is 3,000 dead US service members.