Comments on: Iraq Wants What … Saddam Provided

By: Hugo Schmidt

Hugo Schmidt — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:53:05 +0000

Myron,

The foregoing is not an argument about the properness of America’s role abroad, but a frank “Saddam made the trains run on time” appeal. As I said, that is something very different from a principled isolationist stance.

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:35:34 +0000

From the things I gather from different posts on the web, Saddam started off his rule on a good foot; built electric and water plants in the heavily populated areas, started schools and universities. He provided equality among the citizens and a minority had the same rights as a Muslim. Then over time for reasons of his own, he ignored the infrastructure and began a process of empire building; with new palaces, wars. Weapons of mass destruction were a preoccupation if not a fact. It didn’t help that the US and Briton kept up their harassment but his distraction started before our involvement. Soldiers report that the reason the water and electric or schools didn’t work was because the maintenance had been ignored, not because the plants were bombed, though some were. We invaded a country on the verge of collapse, no matter how much oil money they had. We are rebuilding the country to equal the one that Saddam had started, but from what it looks like, the next Saddam will be no different from his predecessor except that the minorities are already being disenfranchised and there is a good chance of civil war when we leave.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:44:10 +0000

HUGO: The US neither has to “support” nor “overthrow” every penny ante schnook on the planet with either bombs nor aid.

Maybe the Federal government could do something really revolutionary instead like lowering taxes and balancing our budget instead of micromanaging the world.

By: Hugo Schmidt

Hugo Schmidt — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:45:07 +0000

Here is what Saddam provided:

http://www.mimetic.com/gallery.php?ProjectID=53&groupid=2

And this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

And so on…

Iraq was undergoing slow, evolutionary progress

That is one point of view. Here is another. Iraq was undergoing a slow-motion implosion, following Saddam’s death, there would have been a power struggle between his delightful sons, made that more terrible by the jihadist Fedayeen Saddam elements, and it’s not unlikely that neighboring states would have poured into that Congo-style vacuum.

It’s one thing to deplore what has gone wrong in the occupation of Iraq. It’s quite another to express support for one of the most hideous tyrannies the world has ever seen.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:24:15 +0000

Software companies, pharmaceutical industry, oops – not Iraq – no, that’s the evil Zionistic entity. Here, it is a bunch of corrupt goons splitting oil revenue with 4 million displaced people thanks to our “liberation”. Does Iraq manufacture anything outside of Improvised Explosive Devices?

Italy, Germany, Korea, and Japan hold elections and we still have over 100,000 occupation troops.

Maliki is one of the many elected “leaders” that America has installed at gunpoint including Haiti’s Aristede and Preval, Cuba’s Batista, Vietnam’s Diem and Thieu, Korea’s Rhee, Park and Chun, and Afghanistan’s Karzai. All of them “elected” kleptocratic suckups whose continued survival apparently made our nation the great free state it is today!