Let's bury this meme for good: The world is NOT safer with Saddam gone!

[arbusto_baboso]

I know, I know, this is not going to be a popular opinion. But if you follow my logic, most likely you'll wind up agreeing with me.

By way of comparison, let's take the Cold War. Now, for decades we lived under the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction. So, when the Soviet Union finally collapsed, we all thought we would take our "peace dividend", beat our swords into plowshares, and have a safer, more peaceful world. Problem was, when the Soviet Union broke up, we went from one nation with nuclear weapons and a strong central government, to FOUR nations with nukes and horrible economies. Thankfully, the Politburo was always sane enough to resist the temptation to use nukes. Otherwise, it might've been "game over" for all of the human race during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The new governments of the former republics, however, are struggling to make ends meet, and have all this spare plutonium around, so.....

End result, world LESS safe, not more.

Same with Saddam. Is he a delusional madman? Yes. Did he commit horrible crimes against his own people? Of course. But are things better for the average Iraqi now, than before? Think carefully before you answer that question. We had Saddam's army beaten to a pulp during the Gulf War, and quite frankly,the only "threat" Iraq posed was a strictly regional one, which was and would be contained quite well with sanctions and no-fly zones. In addition, as long as the average Iraqi kept his/her mouth shut, and voted for his/her only choice during national elections, he/she had dependable electricity and water, didn't have to worry too much about where tomorrow's meals would come from, and could walk the streets of Iraq in relative safety. None of those conditions exist now in pre-civil war Iraq. Instead, Iraq now IS the haven for terrorists that Bush had told us it was before the war, and is such a lawless region that area are too unsafe for American troops to enter. (Remember, this is the most awesome military in the world's history, and it's TOO DANGEROUS to send them into certain areas! WTF?!?!?!)Indeed, any attacks on Amerian soil in the future will likely originate from terrorists cells which now operate out of bases in Iraq. Bases which didn't exist, and had no reason to exist before our invasion.

So, the world is safer without Saddam Hussein in power? Get real.

[venus]

1. I agree. Too bad none of our Representatives except for

Howard Dean dare to say it. They articulate everything else pretty much in the last part of your post; except for those damning words. This way the Repugs can always throw it back in our faces with the meme ; "well if Kerry or Clinton were Pres, then Saddam would still be in power..". I say so what, who cares. he wasn't a threat to us now how noway. We were starving the country into the ground and children were being denied medicine because of those awful sanctions. They were whipped before we wen tin to occupy them. Ever see any pictures of a fat Iraqi?

[Unstuck In Time]

2. Why unpopular? You're quite right.

We've traded a contained, constrained Saddam for a seething cauldron of Islamofacist violence, a terrorist breeding ground and safe haven for our enemies.

Simple fact.

[Union Thug]

3. I share your thoughts.

Even in a dictatorship, the vast majority of people simply go about their lives getting up, going to work and trying to enjoy their friends and families. These common, working people have had their children torn to shreds, lost wives and husbands and had their entire world turned upside down by the arrogant plans for world domination put together by a small number of rich and powerful assholes.

It's the same war we've always fought... Rich man's war, poor man's fight.

[MissMarple]

4. George is creating a far more dangerous world than Sadam

ever could. He is leading us into international chaos and a possible world war. His dream of an American empire is a fools' illusion that we will all come to regret as we try to pick up the pieces.

The Washington Post article that George is so badly trying to parody actually shows just why John Kerry is the best man for the presidency today. It shows that this is the time for Kerry. The cold war is over, and George and the PNAC crowd are anachronisms. That is why he is trying so hard to ridicule it.

[MissMarple]

6. OOPS, it was the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/10KERRY.html

Starting around page six you can see why Kerry is the right man, in the right place, at the right time.

[Papa]

5. Only Chimpy boy could actually make the world less safe with Sadam gone

Only Georgie could screw something like that up.

[sandnsea]

8. That is what to say

It ought to be safer, thanks to Bush, it's not.

[roseBudd]

7. Here is proof, Army War College report

"Bounding the Global War on Terrorism" --
was issued in December 2003 by the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) of the Army War College. The SSI is the U.S. Army's think tank for the analysis of national security policy and military strategy. SSI
provides direct analysis for Army and Department of Defense leadership, and serves as a bridge to the wider strategic community. The report was written by Dr. Jeffrey Record, professor at the Air War College and long-time defense expert who is a visiting research professor at SSI.
In his summary of the report, Dr. Record writes:

"Of particular concern has been the conflation of al-Qaeda and Saddam
Hussein's Iraq as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat. This was a strategic error of the first order because it ignored critical
differences between the two in character, threat level, and
susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action. The result has
been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq
that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism
and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American
homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaeda. The war
against Iraq was not integral to the , but rather
a detour from it."

--

SUMMARY

The author examines three features of the war on terrorism as currently
defined and conducted: (1) the administration's postulation of the
terrorist threat, (2) the scope and feasibility of U.S. war aims, and
(3) the war's political, fiscal, and military sustainability. He
believes that the war on terrorism--as opposed to the campaign against
al-Qaeda--lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives, and
may not be sustainable over the long haul. He calls for downsizing the
scope of the war on terrorism to reflect concrete U.S. security
interests and the limits of American military power.


And show him this flyer. I use it all the time with people who think * has made us safer:



Go to http://somnamblst.tripod.com to download flyers to print.