Edward you just don't get it and I am convinced you never will

Submitted by Rick (United States), Jul 15, 2008 at 09:51

As to your comment, "Which region did it threaten? Show me that threatened region..."

Saddam invaded Iran and fought an eight year war. Have you forgotten that? Saddam then invaded Kuwait and this lead to the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam also threatened Saudi Arabia. Saddam also supported palestinian suicide bombers with gifts of $25K to the families. He was a destructive force in the region. And with WMD his reach would have been unlimited. And don't forget that when his army was beaten in Kuwait - from which they stole everything that wasn't nailed down and even some that were, he set every oil well on fire which caused a major environmental crisis for the region and if they weren't put out would have increased respiratory and other ailments throughout the region.

And let's not forget what he did to his own country to the "swamp Arabs" who lived for centuries amid the swamps and waterways of the area near Basra. He drained and destroyed all the waterways because he saw these people- Shi'ites of course, as political enemies. So he was willing to do whatever he thought was necessary to destroy his enemies including destory the environment. He wa a menace, an evil force and if you don't agree that he and his regime should have been removed by any means necessary then you are either a Baathist in sympathy with him or a total fool. Your next comment shows you to be a supporter of Saddam.

As to your incorrect comment which does show your support for Saddam,...bush can actually go ahead and write in his CV if he has any, that he managed to invade and take over a sovereign country of the 21st century in an unsanctioned war and murdered its islamic and legitimate leader on a global islamic holiday of Idd..." First, the US did not kill Saddam. It was the Iraqi government in the hands of the majority Shi'ites who did it as well as try and execute a few of his relatives who were "generals" in his army like Chemical Ali. . So you are again wrong on facts.

And you expose yourself as a Saddamist when you call him a "legitimate leader". He was a dictator and owed his legitimacy to the gun. His secret police would have made Stalin offer congratulations. His torture of not only political opponents but everyday people who just got on his nerves was infamous. He may be "legitimate" by Arab standards of Fascist standards but he was an evil, dictatorial and dangerous leader who ruled by fear and only fear.

Although I agree that it is not the job of the US to force US style democracy down Arab throats, we have a responsibility to remove by the best means available a menace like Saddam. As he has millions of political enemies, assassination could have been effected. Of course his two idiotic, sadistic sons had to go as well. The fascist family run regime had to be destroyed. Maybe democracy will take hold in Iraq. An Iraqi sort of democracy. I hope so but I agree with the majority of Americans who think the lost of American lives is worth it.

Amercians died in the hundred thousands in Europe to remove Hitler and restore France, Italy and the rest of Europe to a democratic basis. Americans do not think it wasn't worth the sacrifice. But with Arabs there is little gratitude. Although we liberated Iraq, we are called occupiers. I see no Iraqis - at least those in government - who have shown any gratitude and respect for what the US did by removing this dictator. That is why Americans want out. We do not trust Arabs and I agree with the sentiment of the overwhelming majority of Americans. You call Saddam a "legitimate leader". That is just like a German calling Hitler a legitimate leader. Very few Germans thought that way in 1950. Yet, here we have you calling Saddam 'legtimate'. That proves what Americans think about Arabs.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".