Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
Thanks. Yeah no more in doubt than you are certain about it. I just notice that you keep stating it as if it is an accepted certainty; it is far from it. That is all I am saying. And of course it is a classic Liberal double standard. There is no way you can justify SH and all of his actions, up to an including gassing innocents, with this supposed evidence. That is all I am saying.
Find evidence. I would like to see it. Because all the folks and counties in the know don't believe it. So why do you choose to when it is generally seen as unreliable?
Also no need for name calling. That makes it look as if you are desperate am cannot support your argument. By now you know well enough that if you sow me evidence, I will cede the point. I am not into name calling. Not saying Republicans are smart. Just saying I only hear this from Liberals is all. And so many countries that are liberal didn even support SH.
The reason I say it is implausible (no sure that's the right word) is that this seems to be only an excuse to go in. Like the quote said---even the folks in the oil business working there don't agree.
Interesting...you call me out for a repub comment, when you made the typical liberal comment first. I was not name calling one bit, rather pointing out the absurdity of your generalization.
Also interesting when you quote unnamed folks in the oil business, when if you even look a LITTLE bit you can find equal information for SH and Iraq's POV on the subject...that Kuwait purchased American drilling equipment which Iraq felt gave them horizontal capabilities and that Iraq had geographic surveys which to THEM proved that Kuwait was doing this for decades..this came as an issue several times before the invasion...if you look it is right there as it was for me when I spent 10 minutes to look.
I also find it interesting how you generalize me again and say that I am ok with SH and all his atrocities just because I said Iraq had probable cause to be concerned about what the Kuwaitis were doing...if you had been around longer you might have sorted out my opinion on SH and maybe you would not have said such a lame generalization like this.
My viewpoint on SH is that region was in better condition for the majority when he was in power..for MANY reasons I have discussed here...more people had rights and a better standard of living with his approach than existed before him and for sure after him.
There is no hope for a nice kind republican leader to rule in Iraq..you have several severe religious groups who are ready and interested in wiping the other off the map, that does not seem to be a good democratic environment. The ONLY way Iraq ever returns to some sort of normalcy short of destroying the entire region (including other countries) is for someone with a firm grip on keeping religions groups from killing each other. Saddam controlled the religious majority and minorities and that kept relative peace for the majority. Women had more rights, the general condition of the country was better than it was before and now.
I dont condone his means nor the way his sons acted, but when there are no alternatives you have to go with what works best for the majority..and he was able to do better than what was before or after him.