Do you believe the World is Safer with Saddam in Prison, Yes or No?

[Nimble_Idea]

I remember some short stumpy dopey man once saying , Theres a sign out west..It says "Wanted, Dead or Alive"..... now, We don't know where he is, don't care, it doesn't matter, he's of no concern, the war on terror is bigger than just one man....? So you.... ask if the world is safer or not in reference to Saddam? ...funny..

Isn't it the case according to shrub, that it doesn't matter? The security of the US is bigger than just one person. This is a global effort on terror groups that have no nationalities and operate in many nations.
Saddam wasn't the leader of the group that attacked us on 9/11, it was the man who was the leader of the group that organized the biggest murder plot in history, the same man that Shrub says he doesn't care about anymore.

The question is not whether or not the world is safer with or without saddam, it's whether it's safer now.......We leave that question to the American People... Whether you believe that Shrub has made us safer by his blunder, or Whether we need more thougthful and effective leadership in the world, to wage a global war on terror.

[MasonJar]

1. Nothing is safer now.

[Catch22Dem]

2. No

The world is less safe because our foreign policy is in the hands of madmen.

[xray s]

3. The world should be a safer place with Saddam behind bars

But Bush's incredible incompetence has made the world less safe with Saddam behind bars.

Only Bush could have screwed this up so horribly.

[MissB]

4. What was that other thread tonight? Beware the false dichotomy? (nt)

[spanone]

5. No....I don't even think the Iraqis are safer.

[ncteechur]

6. only if * is his cellmate!!

[Demi_Babe]

7. no

not at all

[5thGenDemocrat]

8. I think it's a non-sequitor argument

Saddam wasn't threatening world peace -- he was a nasty POS dictator exploiting, for the very most part, his own people. But the Al-Queda -- if they even exist as a group rather than as a convenient catch-all term for a commonly motivated but structurally unconnected group of bad guys -- are chummier with the Saudis than to Saddam Hussein.
It's arguably better for the Iraqis that Saddam is locked up (more so after we get the hell out of there and let the Iraqis get on with that messy business of democracy), but world terrorism and Hussein were two different and separate things.
John
And, yeah, Dopey is far more of a threat to world peace than Saddam ever was -- and not much better on the civil liberties bit, for that matter.

[beanball]

9. A safe planet

If Sharon and Shrub were behind bars this would be a safer place.(oh yeah Chaney too.)

[kodi]

10. not if bin laden's still free to kill us in our sleep.

.

[DrFunkenstein]

11. Who Was More Dangerous - Saddam Or Osama?

How hard is it to switch up the question?

Have Kerry say, "If you think the answer is Saddam, vote for Dopey. If you think it is Osama, vote for someone that would have nailed him in Tora Bora."

[Nimble_Idea]

13. nice one

.

[cyr330]

12. That depends. . . . .

The world isn't safer having Saddam in prison after unilaterally attacking Iraq without provocation. Now, if Saddam had been removed by diplomatic measures without infuriating the entire region, perhaps, yes, the world would be safer. As it is now, it's much, much worse than it was.

[Nimble_Idea]

14. I like that too

.

[Zero Gravitas]

15. No

All things being equal of course its better that someone like Saddam is in jail rather than in power. But all things are NOT equal, the world is not the simplistic place that Bush and his deluded supporters think it is. The price of getting rid of Saddam is already way to high: 1,000+ US troops dead, 10s of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians dead, Iraq sliding toward chaos, the Mid East less stable now than before, international alliances broken, US credibility wasted, the so-called "War On Terror" weakened, Al Qaeda has a new recruting cause, the US Military pinned down in a quagmire with no end in sight and therefore less able to deal with REAL threats, 100s of billions of US taxpayer money pissed away on this mess etc.

So the US, Iraq, and the world in general are worse off now than before Mr. Bush's War.

[Nimble_Idea]

20. that's alot of stuff

.

[TryingToWarnYou]

16. No. Saddam was not a threat to "the world".

Hell, Iraq barely had indoor plumbing and running water.

[DrFunkenstein]

17. Why Did Saddam's Neighbors (Like Turkey) Oppose The Invasion?

Well, except for Iran, who thought it was a great idea (and now we know why - nice nuke program, guys!).

[rndmprsn]

18. its not a yes/no question

i dont think people in tanzania were quaking in their boots when saddam was around...and now that he's gone, do you really think they noticed?

is the US safer that saddam is gone...NO

and i quote "we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure".

for you history people out there...iraq/saddam, the stong bulwark against iranian fundamentalism that we spent so much time and money to build is gone...in its place we have a very very weak puppet govt propped up exclusively with american arms and money, with no real legitimacy and shrinking national authority.

in term of realpolik...we, and the region are less safe now.

edit

[dansolo]

19. Iraq isn't even safer

So I would say, no, the world is not safer. Now if Bush was in prison, then you might have a point.

[Radio-Active]

21. problem is,

the media has demonized Saddam ever since '91.. Even though there are worse dictators, and worse men could take his place, many Americans considered him the "worstest bad guy". Bush wants people to focus on Saddam as being the only bad dictator guy out there. Unfortunately, simply getting rid of Saddam does little. Now, Iraq is much worse off.