View Poll Results: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

Voters
124. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    87 70.16%
  • No

    37 29.84%
Page 119 of 152 FirstFirst ... 1969109117118119120121129 ... LastLast
Results 1,181 to 1,190 of 1513

Thread: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

  1. #1181
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,854
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    Quote Originally Posted by AllanHampton View Post
    My information says the U.S. declared war on Germany first, after FDR goaded Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor.

    Then your information is false.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  2. #1182
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,854
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Fair enough then, it's your opinion.

    What was Condoleezza Rice talking about then?
    Actually, an informed professional judgment. I have no idea why Rice would have said what she said. Wilson is easier; he didn't know what he didn't know.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  3. #1183
    Educator
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Arkansas, but I am Texan.
    Last Seen
    01-01-17 @ 12:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    699

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Then your information is false.
    Could be false, I read, and listen to both sides on major issues. One thing I know the U.S. was on the side of Bolshevik Communist Russia in WWII. And I confident the U.S. and Russia committed more, and worse, war crimes than did Germany.

    I'll check for that declaration of war on Germany. I know I read it somewhere but don't know the truth of it.

  4. #1184
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    Quote Originally Posted by AllanHampton View Post
    Could be false, I read, and listen to both sides on major issues. One thing I know the U.S. was on the side of Bolshevik Communist Russia in WWII. And I confident the U.S. and Russia committed more, and worse, war crimes than did Germany.

    I'll check for that declaration of war on Germany. I know I read it somewhere but don't know the truth of it.
    What did the US do then that was worse than genocide? I'm trying to see your reasoning.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #1185
    Educator
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Arkansas, but I am Texan.
    Last Seen
    01-01-17 @ 12:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    699

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    What did the US do then that was worse than genocide? I'm trying to see your reasoning.
    I know nothing at all of any genocide and I am only sharing information. The U.S. and England fire bombed Dresden, Germany murdering a reported 2 to 3 hundred thousand civilians and after the war Eisenhower starved a reported million or two captured German soldiers. Not to mention the thousands of German women raped and murdered by Russian soldiers. Deanna Spingola and Carolyn Yeager are historians and have studied WWII history extensively and report much information on it. There is a site in Europe with excellent information going back to WWI; http://www.thenewsturmer.com/

  6. #1186
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    Quote Originally Posted by AllanHampton View Post
    I know nothing at all of any genocide and I am only sharing information. The U.S. and England fire bombed Dresden, Germany murdering a reported 2 to 3 hundred thousand civilians and after the war Eisenhower starved a reported million or two captured German soldiers. Not to mention the thousands of German women raped and murdered by Russian soldiers. Deanna Spingola and Carolyn Yeager are historians and have studied WWII history extensively and report much information on it. There is a site in Europe with excellent information going back to WWI; Overskrift settes inn her
    If you don't know about German genocide against Jews, you don't know enough to speak on the subject. And yes, Dresden is worthy of condemnation. Feel free to do so. However, I would not call it worse or even as bad as much of what Germany did during WWII.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #1187
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    "Maybe???" You're not sure?

    "Do you have anything to argue other than decade old talking points?" ~ Sheik Yerbuti

    "Decades old? What the hell are you talking about? We are talking about the Iraq war, which is only ONE decade. My suggestion to you is to read more carefully. ...... I can read. Can you? You did say "decades old talking points." Don't be dishonest. It just makes you look like an ass." ~ ChrisL


    No, actually, it's very relevant. It demonstrates you can't understand what you read. What chance do you have insisting the articles you post mean what you think they do when you can't even understand that when I said "decade old talking points," I meant talking points from one decade ago? Or like you claiming that Hussein being dishonest about the WMD he had in his possession it the same thing as Hussein not letting the inspectors in.

    So, yes, it's quite relevant, as well as informative.



    Asked and answered.
    So much time spent on changing font and colors. Good Lord, how annoying.

    Anyhow, it doesn't mean anything of the kind. It was a simple mistake that I was big enough to admit to. Now, stop it with the childish behavior.

    Again, you keep missing the point that Saddam was NEVER cooperative with inspections. In 2002, he was finally frightened enough to cooperate MINIMALLY. There WERE areas that he would NOT allow inspectors to see, just like Ahmadinejad does now. Are you STILL denying that fact?

  8. #1188
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    So much time spent on changing font and colors. Good Lord, how annoying.

    Anyhow, it doesn't mean anything of the kind. It was a simple mistake that I was big enough to admit to. Now, stop it with the childish behavior.

    Again, you keep missing the point that Saddam was NEVER cooperative with inspections. In 2002, he was finally frightened enough to cooperate MINIMALLY. There WERE areas that he would NOT allow inspectors to see, just like Ahmadinejad does now. Are you STILL denying that fact?
    List the sites the U.N. was not allowed to inspect after they went back into Iraq in November, 2002...

    And before you answer, here are some of the sites Blix mentioned they did have access to...

    "The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq, at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centers, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile-production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites." ~ Hans Blix

  9. #1189
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    List the sites the U.N. was not allowed to inspect after they went back into Iraq in November, 2002...

    And before you answer, here are some of the sites Blix mentioned they did have access to...

    "The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq, at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centers, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile-production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites." ~ Hans Blix
    This link is interesting because it has statements from both sides of the fence. Obviously there were some who did not feel that Iraq was completely cooperating with inspections.

    Was the Iraqi government cooperative with the UN weapons inspectors in 2002 and 2003? - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org

    Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association (ACA), and Paul K. Kerr, Analyst in Nonproliferation in the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division at the Congressional Research Service (CRS), wrote in a July 2003 article titled "Disarming Saddam - A Chronology of Iraq and UN Weapons Inspections" on Arms Control Association | The authoritative source on arms control since 1971.

    "Prior to the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1441 in November 2002 giving Iraq a 'final opportunity' to comply with its disarmament requirements under previous Security Council resolutions. At issue was Iraq’s failure to provide an adequate accounting of its prohibited weapons programs or to convince UN inspectors that its weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed as Baghdad claimed...
    Although Iraq was cooperative on what inspectors called 'process' - allowing inspectors access to suspected weapons sites, for example - it was only marginally cooperative in answering the questions surrounding its weapons programs. Unable to resolve its differences with Security Council members who favored strengthening and continuing weapons inspections, the United States abandoned the inspections process and initiated the invasion of Iraq on March 19 [2003]."

  10. #1190
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    This link is interesting because it has statements from both sides of the fence. Obviously there were some who did not feel that Iraq was completely cooperating with inspections.

    Was the Iraqi government cooperative with the UN weapons inspectors in 2002 and 2003? - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org

    Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association (ACA), and Paul K. Kerr, Analyst in Nonproliferation in the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division at the Congressional Research Service (CRS), wrote in a July 2003 article titled "Disarming Saddam - A Chronology of Iraq and UN Weapons Inspections" on Arms Control Association | The authoritative source on arms control since 1971.

    "Prior to the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1441 in November 2002 giving Iraq a 'final opportunity' to comply with its disarmament requirements under previous Security Council resolutions. At issue was Iraq’s failure to provide an adequate accounting of its prohibited weapons programs or to convince UN inspectors that its weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed as Baghdad claimed...
    Although Iraq was cooperative on what inspectors called 'process' - allowing inspectors access to suspected weapons sites, for example - it was only marginally cooperative in answering the questions surrounding its weapons programs. Unable to resolve its differences with Security Council members who favored strengthening and continuing weapons inspections, the United States abandoned the inspections process and initiated the invasion of Iraq on March 19 [2003]."
    From YOUR link:

    "In my 27 January [2003] update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences." ~ Hans Blix

    Even in the part you quoted above ...

    "Although Iraq was cooperative on what inspectors called 'process' - allowing inspectors access to suspected weapons sites, for example"

    So to claim Hussein "wouldn't let them in," is a bald faced lie.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •