I guess we're for it. We're not invading Darfur.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...

OzOne wrote:

Good point. Perhaps it would be better to let Saddam
run the country again. He could start by killing several
hundred thousand people to regain control, and kill
maybe as few as 10,000 a year to maintain order.

Maybe if you'd left things alone then he wouldn't need such methods.

What was the reason for the invasion again...you seem to have become
lost in the Bushmire.

Hey maybe if you didn't install him in the first place.

Have you ever actually read anything about Saddam?
Try this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

Oh BTW death toll in Iraq has now topped 45,000

This is lower than under Saddam. However, I see your point
he probably would have killed about the same number of people
or perhaps 2-3 times more during the same time frame. We might
have been better off leaving him in power and letting him
continue to kill his people.

You can be either for or against genocide. And the other option,
yours, is to ignore it.

Stalin is proof that this sort of government is stable as long as
people are kept in fear.