I hate this statement

[briang5000]

Whenever I begin to win a debate with a Bush supporter they almost always go to the line "If Kerry were President, Saddam would still be in power.... " then they go on with all we know about the terrible things Saddam has done over the years.

I hate this line of thought ... if Kerry were President; It's almost certain we would not have gone to war as quickly. However, that doesn't mean would have never removed Saddam from power. There is no way to state with any certainty what would or would not have happened.

[patrice]

1. Hey, Kerry voted in support of the resolution to allow Bush

to decide whether to go to war. That pretty much prooves that he could be in favor of war under some set of conditions.

[Sean Reynolds]

2. Say this......

If Kerry were president over 1,000 American troops would still be alive and our hunt for bin Laden would be greater....thus we'd have a MUCH better chance at finding his ass.

[NightOwwl]

3. I've heard this response...

"Maybe so, but the world would be better off."

Makes sense to me.

[JPJones]

4. Reply

If Kerry were President - 1100 American troops would still be alive, 100,000 Iraqis would still be alive, we wouldn't have created 1000 Bin Ladens by occupying an Islamic country.

And if Kerry had been President, 3000 American might not have died on Sept. 11.

"Bin Laden determined to strike within the United States". Time to clear some brush.

[NightOwwl]

Best.Response.Ever.

If Kerry had been President, 3000 American might not have died on Sept. 11.

[calmblueocean]

14. YES!

Smack them down with that. Talk about how Cheney was head of the anti-terror taskforce THAT NEVER MET.

[NAO]

5. If Kerry were President...

If Kerry were President...

over 1,000 American troops would be alive to be with their families;

we would have 10,000 fewer disabled veterans;

there would be 100,000 innocent civilian lives spared;

there would be good will in the world toward the United States rather than distrust, fear and contempt;

there would be 120 billion dollars in our treasury to use to make our country better;

and Saddam would be in power in Iraq and he would still be without WMD and would still not be a threat to the United States.

[JPJones]

7. Work Sept. 11 into that list

Blame Bush for that.

Also, Bin Laden wouldn't have had 3 years to plot his next attacks.

[The Traveler]

6. The how is just as important as the why

and HOW this was done has been enormously costly. At 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties, we are, from the perspective of the people we are supposedly liberating, about as bad as Saddam. There were ways we could have taken him down that would have been a lot less costly in life and treasure, and a lot less destabilizing.

[sandnsea]

8. Whack a mole

These people just want to vote for Bush and will just recycle talking points no matter how many times you bat them down. The "gassing his own people" happened when Saddam was our ally. Saddam was killing Shi'ites, just like we are. 100,000 more deaths than normal since we've taken control. Bush is the only person on the planet who could remove a dictator and make the country no better, possibly worse.

[LynnTheDem]

9. bush said Saddam COULD REMAIN IN POWER if he DISARMED

RICE said Saddam could REMAIN IN POWER if he DISARMED.

POWELL said Saddam could REMAIN IN POWER if he DISARMED.

BLIAR said Saddam could REMAIN IN POWER if he DISARMED.

[Casandra]

15. Disarm what?

I've always wondered about these statements. What exactly was Saddam supposed to disarm himself of? These statements were referring directly to WMDs. There werent' any!!!!!!!

Bush clearly knew it too... and knew this was the catalyst that would and DID lead to his opening salvo.

[LynnTheDem]

16. yep.

"And if Saddam again tells us he has no WMD, we will again know he's lying."

Uh huh.

BUSH was the liar.

[Cooley Hurd]

31. Three days before the start of the war...

...Saddam announced that he would:
1) Disarm fully
2) Allow inspectors unfettered access to every square inch of Iraq
3) Hold elections and allow full monitoring by US officials

He rolled. He caved. But the war lust of Lancelot Link* and his secret chimps was not to be satiated by mere words...

1111 US soldiers are dead.

100000 Iraqi civilians are dead.

Can you fucking STAND IT?????:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:

[novadem]

10. Even worse

is when they say Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power but also ruling over Kuwait and possibly Saudi Arabia since JK voted against the first Gulf War.

Poppycock.

[ThePhilosopher04]

11. I would say, "SO WHAT!!"...

The U.S. has never been directly threatened by Sadaam, and for all intents-and-purposes, he was rendered harmless by the first Gulf War and the weapons inspections that followed. No doubt, he was an SOB of the worst kind, but how can anyone say with a straight face the Iraqi people are better off right now???

Additionally, had Kerry been in power, we wouldn't have radicals flowing across the UNGUARDED Iraqi borders and Iraq wouldn't be a breeding ground for terrorists with incredible access to dangerous explosives.

And most importantly, 1,100 American soldiers would likely still be alive today, and thousands more who have been severely mangled probably wouldn't be wishing they were dead!!!

Oh yeah! I would also ask your freep friends if Bush is so intent on securing freedom for oppressed peoples, why is Castro still in power??

[UL_Approved]

12. Staying on target

Our old pal in the white robe and turban, Osama Bin Laden al-Saud, should have been rounded up as our first priority. If we had actually been fighting the war on terror, the Madrid bombings would have never happened. As conservatives, this is just not part of their conversation into the topic. Other such examples exist. I hope that the United States citizens decide to think logically through this stuff before the election.

[TankLV]

13. Turn it around: If Kerry were President, we wouldn't have started a war

based on lies, and we would still be at peace and secure.

The WTC would probably be standing, too.

[Morning Dew]

17. Well, if Al Gore, the real winner of the 2000 election, had been in office

he would have paid attention to the job - up to and including the 8/6 PDB - and, very likely, the events of Sept. 11th, 2001 would have been averted.


Suck that, freeptards.

[George_S]

18. the terrible things Saddam has done over the years.

Two wrong don't make a right.

[FrankenforMN]

19. They act like they gave a ^%#$ when Saddam had been doing this for years.

They are hypocrites. If this was Clinton's war, they would be the first to complain about it. They do not care about Saddam or the Iraqi people. They just want power (I am referring to ALL republicans).

[LittleClarkie]

23. As if Sadaam was any better when he was our buddy

When the spin for the war went from WMD to "liberate the people" is when my alarms went off and I woke up. Sadaam was in power for 30 some years, and in all that time surely we know what he was like. But we're supposed to believe that we're suddenly in the liberation business and the well-being of the Iraqi people is suddenly important to us. Riiiight.

As if we ever did anything in the world for altruistic reasons. And if we are in the liberation business, there are several countries we've left behind over the years.

What a crock.

[Robeson]

24. You hit it on the head. Good Post.

[Robeson]

20. Remind them that...

...9/11 happened under Bush's watch. No matter what they say, again, remind them that 9/11 happened under Bush's watch. When they bring up something else, remind them that 9/11 happened under Bush's watch. Remind them that it didn't happen under Clinton. Tell them it wouldn't have happened under Gore, or Kerry. It happened under Bush's watch. Remind them that our intelligence agencies gave this administration ample warning, yet this administration chose to ignore those warnings. Again, it happened under Bush's watch. If one is given a warning, and they choose not to act, then they are either negligent, or are engaged in complicity. Either choice, shows gross negligence. Remind them of that.

[progdonkey]

21. Tell them that it WOULD be better if Saddam were still in power...

The earlier posts have quite rightly pointed out the "100,000 Iraqi civilians would still be alive, 1100 US soldiers would still be alive, etc." with which I completely agree.

But I think you should be emphatic that you want Saddam to be back in power--using evidence like that above is useless: if these people respected objective evidence, they wouldn't support Bush! It's like standing up to a bully when one teases you--he expects you to cower in fear; but if you stand up to the bully, it completely throws them off and they have no clue how to handle such a situation. Likewise, Freepers don't expect that you'll actually come out in favor of Saddam--it will completely throw them off their game.

A good one-two punch strategy then would be to first reply, "Exactly! Saddam Hussein would still be in power; that's exactly why I'm voting for him!" Then follow up with the facts like those above and in other posts.

[eridani]

22. You are all forgetting one very important thing!

UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were trying to arrange an exile for Saddam, sons and inner circle in order to avoid the destabilization that they knew an invasion would bring. The Psychopath in Chief sez NO WAY! WE ARE INVADING EVEN IF SADDAM LEAVES!! If he had left, he wouldn't have been in power. So that excuse is bullshit too.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/5415227.htm?1c
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/iraq/topstories/031803cciraqbush.709e7010.html
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:MIdjUeeOeKMJ:www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/iraq/topstories/031803cciraqbush.709e7010.html+Fleischer+%22if+saddam+seeks+exile%22&hl=en
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:0XcgLWrA8i8J:www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/5415227.htm+Fleischer+%22if+saddam+seeks+exile%22&hl=en

U.S. troops are headed into Iraq one way or another. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that even if Saddam seeks exile U.S. forces will enter Iraq to disarm it - hopefully without opposition.

The real reasons have been stated many times before when the psychopaths are chatting among themselves.

Garner added, ''Look back on the Philippines around the turn of the 20th century: they were a coaling station for the navy, and that allowed us to keep a great presence in the Pacific. That's what Iraq is for the next few decades: our coaling station that gives us great presence in the Middle East.”

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

As for Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction", these were dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," it says, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business."

[moondust]

25. Perhaps all of the 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians would still be alive.

Not to mention 1100 U.S. troops. And many thousands more of both would not be maimed.

Saddam was defanged and posed no threat. A time for invading Iraq it was not.

To everything there is a season,
a time for every purpose under the sun.
A time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
a time to kill and a time to heal ...
a time to weep and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn and a time to dance ...
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to lose and a time to seek;
a time to rend and a time to sew;
a time to keep silent and a time to speak;
a time to love and a time to hate;
a time for war and a time for peace.

ecclesiastes 3:1-8

[Robeson]

26. The sad thing is, is that these rightwingers don't give a damn...

...about the 100,000 dead in Iraq. They were Arabs, so to them, they're non-entities. Thats why that arguement would fall on deaf ears. And that highlights the difference between wingnuts, and us.

[moondust]

27. That is a very important difference.

For that reason alone, though there are many more, I could never be a repuke. Never.

[Robeson]

28. Absolutely.

[tkmorris]

29. Answer

The last time a DEMOCRATIC president dealt with the leader of a foreign country that refused to comply with UN resolutions and laughed at the notion that we would use our military might against him was......

Slobodan Milosevic.

If I recall correctly we executed a military operation against Serbia, had plenty of allies in doing so, suffered not one single casualty, accomplished what we set out to do, and withdrew. All the while we were simultaneously assisting in a major humanitarian mission dealing with the Kosovar refugees, while negotiating effectively with Macedonia etc. for their temporary safekeeping.

If I am not mistaken Mr Milosevic is currently no longer the president of Serbia and in fact is facing War Crimes charges.

Just imagine if Clinton had been the CIC directing the troops against Iraq.

[ever_green]

30. 100,000 Iraqis, 1,111 American soldiers would still be alive......

So what if Saddam would still be in power, if that's all the good this war has done, then no way in HELL was it worth it. NO way. Saddam was not a threat to us, we are LESS safe than before!