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 17 of 152 FirstFirst ... 715161718192767117 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 1513

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

  1. #161
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,962
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Is it concerning to me? Yes. Does that mean we should of got directly involved if we were not attacked and not declared war upon? No. I think we should of kept up aid to the allied forces if we were not attacked but if we were not directly attacked or declared war upon i still think we shouldn't get involved.
    Then I guess it was lucky for civilized people everywhere that the Japanese attacked us and Hitler declared war on us.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  2. #162
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Then I guess it was lucky for civilized people everywhere that the Japanese attacked us and Hitler declared war on us.
    We are not the policemen of the world. The US military should only be used for defense of the US. Not what we think is the best interest of Iraq or X country.


  3. #163
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,962
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    We are not the policemen of the world. The US military should only be used for defense of the US. Not what we think is the best interest of Iraq or X country.
    Lucky for me my post had nothing to do with Iraq.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  4. #164
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Lucky for me my post had nothing to do with Iraq.
    That why i said "X" country.


  5. #165
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,962
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    That why i said "X" country.
    Lucky for me that both the "X" countries in my post started their wars with us all by themselves.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  6. #166
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Yes. Does that justify our actions in Iraq? No.Its not our job to overthrow foreign nations leaders.
    And it does not excuse our efforts to keep him in power when he was at his murderous worst.




    1982
    "Apparently without consulting Congress, Reagan also removed Iraq from the State Dept. list of terrorist sponors. This meant that Iraq was now eligible for US dual-use and military technology.


    This shift marked the beginning of a very close relationship between the Reagan and Bush administrations and Saddam Hussein. The US over following years actively supported Iraq, supplying billions of dollars of credits, US military intelligence and advice, and ensuring that necessary weaponry got to Iraq."

    "1983:
    The State Dept. once again reported that Iraq was continuing to support terrorist groups

    - Iraq had also been using chemical weapons against Iranian troops since 1982; this use of chemical weapons increased in 1983. The State Dept. and the National Security Council were well aware of this.


    - Overriding NSC concerns, the Secretaries of Commerce and State pressured the NSC to approve the sale to Iraq of Bell helicopters "for crop dusting" (these same helicopters were used to gas Iraqi Kurds in 1988).


    In late 1983, Reagan secretly allowed Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, to transfer US weapons to Iraq; Reagan also asked the Italian prime minister to channel arms to Iraq


    December 1983 was a particularly interesting month; it was the month that Donald Rumsfeld -- currently US Secretary of Defense and one of the most vocal proponents of attacking Iraq -- paid a visit to Saddam Hussein in Baghdad as Reagan's envoy.

    Rumsfeld claims now that the meeting was about terrorism in Lebanon.

    But State Dept. documents show that in fact, Rumsfeld was carrying a message from Reagan expressing his desire to have a closer and better relationship with Saddam Hussein.

    Just a few months before Rumsfeld's visit, Iraq had used poison gas against Iranian troops. This fact was known to the US. Also known was that Iraq was building a chemical weapons infrastructure.

    NBC and The New York Times have recently reported that Rumsfeld was a key player in the Reagan administration's strong support for Iraq, despite knowing of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. This relationship became so close that both Reagan and VP Bush personally delivered military advice to Saddam Hussein. [1]


    1984

    In March, the State Dept. reported that Iraq was using chemical weapons and nerve gas in the war against Iran; these facts were confirmed by European doctors who examined Iranian soldiers

    The Washington Post (in an article in Dec.1986 by Bob Woodward) reported that in 1984 the CIA began secretly giving information to Iraqi intelligence to help them "calibrate" poison gas attacks against Iranian troops.


    1985
    The CIA established direct intelligence links with Baghdad, and began giving Iraq "data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography" to help in the war.


    This same year, the US House of Representatives passed a bill to put Iraq back on State Dept. supporters of terrorism list.

    The Reagan administration -- in the person of Secretary of State George Schultz -- pressured the bill's sponsor to drop it the bill. The bill is dropped, and Iraq remains off the terrorist list.


    Iraq labs send a letter to the Commerce Dept with details showing that Iraq was developing ballistic missiles.


    Between 1985-1990 the Commerce Dept. approved the sale of many computers to Iraq's weapons lab. (The UN inspectors in 1991 found that: 40% of the equipment in Iraq's weapons lab were of US origin)


    1985 is also a key year because the Reagan administration approved the export to Iraq of biological cultures that are precursors to bioweapons: anthrax, botulism, etc.; these cultures were "not attenuated or weakened, and were capable of reproduction."

    There were over 70 shipments of such cultures between 1985-1988.

    The Bush administration also authorized an additional 8 shipments of biological cultures that the Center for Disease Control classified as "having biological warfare significance."
    This information comes from the Senate Banking Committee's report from 1994. The report stated that "these microorganisms exported by the US were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."
    Senator Riegle, who headed the committee, noted that: "They seemed to give him anything he wanted. It's right out of a science fiction movie as to why we would send this kind of stuff to anybody."

    Our History with Iraq - Oct. 22, 2002
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  7. #167
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Is it concerning to me? Yes. Does that mean we should of got directly involved if we were not attacked and not declared war upon? No. I think we should of kept up aid to the allied forces if we were not attacked but if we were not directly attacked or declared war upon i still think we shouldn't get involved.
    Alright, I think this line of questioning kind of drives home the point that many proponents of moral interventionism would have. There are more principles in the world than whether or not our national sovereignty was violated. The enslavement of hundreds of millions and the slaughter of tens of millions more are worthy enough causes to engage in conflict. The salvation of our brothers and sisters in Asia and in Europe was a cause worth fighting for in an effort to repel the Nazi yolk, halt the Stalinist advance, and overthrow the Empire of Japan. The 'America First' proponents were wrong in 1939 and they would be wrong today.

  8. #168
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    We ****ed up when we consolidated Saddam's power in Iraq under Reagan and Bush I, and then we ****ed up again when we invaded Iraq to get big oil back in for the first time since 1973. The only way we could have ****ed up more would have been by making our occupation permanent as McCain wanted to do.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  9. #169
    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 Rocketman View Post
    If these groups cared about human rights at all they would be all over Obama over his policies, you will have to do better.
    That's hyperbole nonsense as well. That kind of comment can never be taken seriously.

    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.

  10. #170
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,962
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    And it does not excuse our efforts to keep him in power when he was at his murderous worst.

    In late 1983, Reagan secretly allowed Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, to transfer US weapons to Iraq; Reagan also asked the Italian prime minister to channel arms to Iraq

    December 1983 was a particularly interesting month; it was the month that Donald Rumsfeld paid a visit to Saddam Hussein in Baghdad as Reagan's envoy.

    Rumsfeld claims now that the meeting was about terrorism in Lebanon.

    But State Dept. documents show that in fact, Rumsfeld was carrying a message from Reagan expressing his desire to have a closer and better relationship with Saddam Hussein.

    Just a few months before Rumsfeld's visit, Iraq had used poison gas against Iranian troops. This fact was known to the US. Also known was that Iraq was building a chemical weapons infrastructure.

    NBC and The New York Times have recently reported that Rumsfeld was a key player in the Reagan administration's strong support for Iraq, despite knowing of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. This relationship became so close that both Reagan and VP Bush personally delivered military advice to Saddam Hussein. [1]


    1984

    In March, the State Dept. reported that Iraq was using chemical weapons and nerve gas in the war against Iran; these facts were confirmed by European doctors who examined Iranian soldiers

    The Washington Post (in an article in Dec.1986 by Bob Woodward) reported that in 1984 the CIA began secretly giving information to Iraqi intelligence to help them "calibrate" poison gas attacks against Iranian troops.


    1985
    The CIA established direct intelligence links with Baghdad, and began giving Iraq "data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography" to help in the war.


    This same year, the US House of Representatives passed a bill to put Iraq back on State Dept. supporters of terrorism list.

    The Reagan administration -- in the person of Secretary of State George Schultz -- pressured the bill's sponsor to drop it the bill. The bill is dropped, and Iraq remains off the terrorist list.


    Iraq labs send a letter to the Commerce Dept with details showing that Iraq was developing ballistic missiles.


    Between 1985-1990 the Commerce Dept. approved the sale of many computers to Iraq's weapons lab. (The UN inspectors in 1991 found that: 40% of the equipment in Iraq's weapons lab were of US origin)


    1985 is also a key year because the Reagan administration approved the export to Iraq of biological cultures that are precursors to bioweapons: anthrax, botulism, etc.; these cultures were "not attenuated or weakened, and were capable of reproduction."

    There were over 70 shipments of such cultures between 1985-1988.

    The Bush administration also authorized an additional 8 shipments of biological cultures that the Center for Disease Control classified as "having biological warfare significance."
    This information comes from the Senate Banking Committee's report from 1994. The report stated that "these microorganisms exported by the US were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."
    Senator Riegle, who headed the committee, noted that: "They seemed to give him anything he wanted. It's right out of a science fiction movie as to why we would send this kind of stuff to anybody."
    It wouldn't be the first, or last, time that we followed the old adage: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    We ****ed up when we consolidated Saddam's power in Iraq under Reagan and Bush I, and then we ****ed up again when we invaded Iraq to get big oil back in for the first time since 1973. The only way we could have ****ed up more would have been by making our occupation permanent as McCain wanted to do.
    Saddam did not need our help to consolidate his power. The decision to support him against Iran followed an assessment that his grip on power was not threatened. The oil we protected in the first Gulf War was the oil in the Saudi and Kuwaiti fields. Iraqi oil was never a war aim.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

Posting Permissions

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