• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?


  • Total voters
    102

The former quote was to mislead the enemy, pure and simple. The effort to track down bin Laden never flagged.
The latter quote is not one any thinking person should dispute.:cool:
 
What do you mean "didn't stop there"? And why are you blaming me for Hillary's context, I didn't quote her, I gave you a video of her speaking.

Many people in powerful and influential positions supported the Iraq War, including these three, who I added because they're probably the three most influential Democrats right now, proving that it wasn't just "Bush's war".

Stop at Hillary. You listed others. Do I really have to link the post I responded to?

I showed one of the three spoke specifically that Saddam did not meet the threat that required invasion outside the UN. No one voted for war. No declaration of war. They voted to let Bush decide. He and he alone decided.
 
So they simply voted to give Bush a blank check without knowing what it would go towards?

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop at Hillary. You listed others. Do I really have to link the post I responded to?

I showed one of the three spoke specifically that Saddam did not meet the threat that required invasion outside the UN. No one voted for war. No declaration of war. They voted to let Bush decide. He and he alone decided.
 
So they simply voted to give Bush a blank check without knowing what it would go towards?

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes. Remember back. Those who resisted loudest lost their seats. Congress cowardly passed the buck, plain and simple. Most democrats have been largely quoted out of context, snoopers looked at those quotes most throw out and notes while those words were said, they were largely in the context of arguing not to invade.
 
Why talk about context of what they said when there is a clear vote for the Iraq Resolution.....that's all you need. And do you have a list of all of these people drummed out of office for not voting for the war, and proof of it?

Yes. Remember back. Those who resisted loudest lost their seats. Congress cowardly passed the buck, plain and simple. Most democrats have been largely quoted out of context, snoopers looked at those quotes most throw out and notes while those words were said, they were largely in the context of arguing not to invade.
 
Why talk about context of what they said when there is a clear vote for the Iraq Resolution.....that's all you need. And do you have a list of all of these people drummed out of office for not voting for the war, and proof of it?

Those who won't look at context demonstrate they are trying to fool someone. Context always matters. The best and most successful lies use a little truth to hide the complete truth.
 
There were no more terrorists there than in other countries around the world, so that's not it! As a matter of fact the Pentagon said their was no al Qaeda/Saddam link. They did not get along.

Saddam wasn't letting UN inspectors in. He acted like a man with something to hide.
 
And this is very interesting too. Maybe Saddam is to blame for his death and the war too.

Lessons from Iraq 1: Why did we believe in WMD?

Of course, the main reason that everyone thought Saddam Hussein had WMD was that he acted like he had them. He made veiled threats to his enemies – not always too veiled, at that. He offered firm (if imprecise) reassurances to his supporters that Iraq was a power to be reckoned with. And he played relentless cat-and-mouse games with the U.N. inspectors, stalling them without explanation at random intervals as if he needed to move forbidden weapons out of this building or that one before letting them see it. The world watched this behavior and quite reasonably concluded that Saddam acted like a man who had every reason for confidence – a man with tools that could repel every enemy – a man, in short, armed with WMD.

Why did he act this way if he didn’t have them after all? In an interview he gave shortly after he was first captured by American troops, Saddam answered exactly this question. I don’t have the text of the interview handy, and have hunted in vain to find it again, so I have to reproduce the gist of it from memory. This means I may get the wording a little wrong, or the topics slightly out of order, but I believe I have preserved the substance faithfully.

First, the interviewer asked if he hadn’t been afraid that his resistance to American and international pressure would have the result it finally did have, namely an American invasion which drove him from power.

No, Saddam replied, that never crossed his mind.

Why not?

Because he thought the CIA knew everything! He thought the CIA knew that he didn’t have WMD. He also calculated that America would always support him in the end, because America is threatened by radical Islam; and Saddam, for all his many faults, always kept religion strictly out of government. So he thought he was one of our natural allies in the Middle East against the jihadist theocrats, and he assumed that we saw things the same way.

Then how could he account for all the speeches President Bush made warning him over and over to give up his weapons and comply with the inspectors?

Oh, that’s easy. He figured Bush was just blustering in public to look strong to his neighbors, the same way Saddam blustered in public to look strong to his neighbors.

Now we are getting to the heart of things. Why did you bluster like that to your neighbors in the first place? Why did you pretend to have WMD at all, when the reality is that you had been completely and successfully disarmed after the First Gulf War?

Because, explained Saddam, I had a lot of enemies. I had enemies abroad who hated Iraq, I had neighbors who would have loved to seize my oil fields, and I had enemies at home who resented all my years in power. If everybody had known that I was defenseless, my country would have been torn to bits by foreign adventurers and you could have counted out my life in days. The only way I had to protect Iraq’s sovereignty and independence, and to save my own neck, was to lie relentlessly to the rest of the world so that everyone thought they had something to fear from me. If you had been in my shoes, you would have done exactly the same thing.
 
And this is very interesting too. Maybe Saddam is to blame for his death and the war too.

Lessons from Iraq 1: Why did we believe in WMD?

Because, explained Saddam, I had a lot of enemies. I had enemies abroad who hated Iraq, I had neighbors who would have loved to seize my oil fields, and I had enemies at home who resented all my years in power. If everybody had known that I was defenseless, my country would have been torn to bits by foreign adventurers and you could have counted out my life in days. The only way I had to protect Iraq’s sovereignty and independence, and to save my own neck, was to lie relentlessly to the rest of the world so that everyone thought they had something to fear from me. If you had been in my shoes, you would have done exactly the same thing.

That is an excellent point. On the U.S. side, the decision for war preceded the intelligence; it did not follow it. Saddam never discerned that, at least not until it was too late.:cool:
 
Simple. "Them," those who attacked us, those who we needed to tackle, were not based in Iraq.
You are wrong, AQ controlled territory in Iraq. They had bases in Iraq.
 
Here are some quotes for you.

Democrat Quotes on WMD

Those are the ones I'm talking about. Snopes explains how they are misused rather well:

However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes
 
You are wrong, AQ controlled territory in Iraq. They had bases in Iraq.

Controlled? No. Helping the Kurds, our best supporters, against Saddam. See yet how silly invading Iraq was yet?
 
You equate democracy and "rampant consumerism"? Please, let's not pretend that only democracies buy stuff. Dictatorships buy stuff, it's just mostly cronies and military. Your entire post is an indictment of the western world and not democracy. Conflating the two is nothing more than common haterism.

I don't understand you.

I have said that democracy with education and awareness is a good thing. I am not saying that dictatorships is a good thing, but seriously, you can't argue that democracy per se is a good thing for ecology. Surely you know that!

There is no way around the obvious: those without a voice in the authority of their common resources get screwed by the state.

not always. they can get screwed by the corporate world. look at the US, where a change of political party really makes very little difference, the income disparity between rich and poor rivals that of a third world dictatorship, and people think as long as they can get cheap rain forest bred hamburgers and the price of gas enables them to afford gas guzzling hummers, life's good.

Look at China... Oh, wait, that's the US's fault isn't it. hah

that's your opinion. personally I disagree. china is the way it is for a whole range of reasons.



Safer for Kurds, Marsh Arabs and women? Definately. The state no longer slaughters and rapes them wholesale, and such is not legal. If you want to pretend that things are more dangerous today, think for a minute about Saddam's reporting of incidents involving his rape squads.

you mention the Marsh Arabs, and interestingly, that is one area where we might find agreement. The legacy of Saddam's strategy to control them (not through slaughter and rape) has left a legacy of an unmitigated environmental disaster.

Women?

well ... you need to look at stats before and after the invasion... something you obviously haven't done

kurds .. again its not black and white. some kurds served in the army, killing their own people, others lived well and peacefully and did not get involved in politics. for many, being Kurdish would have been at least as bad in Turkey - even if they were not members of the PKK.

and we didn't seem to care so much for the kurds in halabja 25 years ago, when Rumsfeld was still buddy-buddy with saddam.
 
Look lady, I'm just acknowledging that OIL isn't the main reason why we attacked Iraq. To actually believe that is stupid and naive. It's obvious that YOU think we live in a Kumbaya kind of world. That is just ignorant as hell. Keep burying your head in the sand and crying over dead murderous tyrannical dictators. Seems that's what you're good at.

I don't think I have said anywhere that I think it was all about oil ....

and what was the main reason in your opinion?
 
Yeah, it sure seems that way:)

Whenever anyone acts like the war was a total mistake and a total waste, I always feel so bad for our troops who fought so bravely for us.

invasion supporters should feel bad for cheering on these people to death, injury and the after effects of a war they fought for no other reason than trusting those who lied to them, and who had made the decision based on a crock of lies.
 
Saddam wasn't letting UN inspectors in. He acted like a man with something to hide.

You are paranoid, the head of the inspection team that made 700 inspections said there was no threat!
And the body that paid for the multi-million dollar inspection program in Iraq decided they did not think there was a threat that merited attack.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom