• 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
Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?
Click to expand...


Iraq war anniversary: 'Iraqis would be better off under Saddam', says Andrew Gilligan

"Speaking on the anniversary of the Iraq invasion, former war reporter and Sunday Telegraph London editor Andrew Gilligan said that rather than rescuing Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, the toppling of former dictator Saddam Hussein had in fact negatively impacted the lives of ordinary citizens.

"Life under Saddam under the last ten years would not have been pleasant but it would have been better for most people, and a lot fewer people would have died, than it has been under so-called liberation," he said.

"Life is less secure, life is less prosperous and basic services still haven't returned to the level they were pre-war."

Mr Gilligan spoke shortly after a wave of bombings tore through Baghdad on Tuesday morning, killing at least 56 people in a spate of violence timed to coincide with the anniversary of the US-led invasion. "

Video: Iraq war anniversary: 'Iraqis would be better off under Saddam', says Andrew Gilligan - Telegraph
 
Catawba said:
Iraq war anniversary: 'Iraqis would be better off under Saddam', says Andrew Gilligan

"Speaking on the anniversary of the Iraq invasion, former war reporter and Sunday Telegraph London editor Andrew Gilligan said that rather than rescuing Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, the toppling of former dictator Saddam Hussein had in fact negatively impacted the lives of ordinary citizens.

"Life under Saddam under the last ten years would not have been pleasant but it would have been better for most people, and a lot fewer people would have died, than it has been under so-called liberation," he said.

"Life is less secure, life is less prosperous and basic services still haven't returned to the level they were pre-war."

Mr Gilligan spoke shortly after a wave of bombings tore through Baghdad on Tuesday morning, killing at least 56 people in a spate of violence timed to coincide with the anniversary of the US-led invasion. "

Video: Iraq war anniversary: 'Iraqis would be better off under Saddam', says Andrew Gilligan - Telegraph
Click to expand...

The late, great Michael Kelly can answer.

"To march against the war is not to give peace a chance," he wrote six weeks before his death. "It is to give tyranny a chance." In another column, filed from Kuwait, he recalled George Orwell's line about tyranny being "a jackboot forever stomping on the human face."

"I understand why some dislike the idea, and fear the ramifications of, America as a liberator. But I do not understand why they do not see that anything is better than life with your face under the boot." In all the arguments about the war, both before and after Kelly's death, I have never seen this basic moral point convincingly refuted by anyone.

After Kelly died, a selection of his magazine articles and newspaper columns was collected in a single volume titled "Things Worth Fighting For." --WSJ:cool:

Remembering Michael Kelly

Wall Street Journal ‎- 1 day ago
In The Wall Street Journal, Global View columnist Bret Stephens writes about a writer who hated phonies, stood for truth, and died for his ...http://Remembering Michael Kelly Wall Street Journal ‎
 
Jack Hays said:
Please note that the SOTU was on 29 January and Wilson was contacted in February. Also please note there is a difference between "a CIA report" and "a report in the possession of the CIA.":cool:
Click to expand...
That's too funny, the SOTU was Jan 29, 2003 Wilson's trip to Niger was late February 2002 Mr. CIA Man. :lamo
 
Jack Hays said:
The late, great Michael Kelly can answer.

"To march against the war is not to give peace a chance," he wrote six weeks before his death. "It is to give tyranny a chance." In another column, filed from Kuwait, he recalled George Orwell's line about tyranny being "a jackboot forever stomping on the human face."

"I understand why some dislike the idea, and fear the ramifications of, America as a liberator. But I do not understand why they do not see that anything is better than life with your face under the boot." In all the arguments about the war, both before and after Kelly's death, I have never seen this basic moral point convincingly refuted by anyone.

After Kelly died, a selection of his magazine articles and newspaper columns was collected in a single volume titled "Things Worth Fighting For." --WSJ:cool:

Remembering Michael Kelly

Wall Street Journal ‎- 1 day ago
In The Wall Street Journal, Global View columnist Bret Stephens writes about a writer who hated phonies, stood for truth, and died for his ...http://Remembering Michael Kelly Wall Street Journal ‎
Click to expand...



Nice to know that you put a higher priority on your ideology than than you do the actual living conditions for the Iraqis. Thanks for sharing that about you, it provides much insight into the formulation your opinions.
 
pbrauer said:
That's too funny, the SOTU was Jan 29, 2003 Wilson's trip to Niger was late February 2002 Mr. CIA Man. :lamo
Click to expand...

You are correct and my post was in error. Shows the danger of quick replies about events ten years ago.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Nice to know that you put a higher priority on your ideology than than you do the actual living conditions for the Iraqis. Thanks for sharing that about you, it provides much insight into the formulation your opinions.
Click to expand...

I would say you're the one driven by ideology.
 
ChrisL said:
Bush is NOT the only one to say that. There were other UN inspectors who stated that they felt Saddam was hiding something. Go back and read the links. It's ALL there.
Click to expand...
In 2003, Bush was the only one to say that Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in. Everything in your article about inspectors being denied access was from before November 2002 when Hussein let the inspectors back in.

ChrisL said:
Again, how many times do I have to repeat myself? He may have let them in, and he may have let them inspect certain areas, but he was NOT open and honest, and he was NOT cooperative with a LOT of things.
Click to expand...
I would point out that there's a chasm as wide as the Grand Canyon between Hussein not being open and honest with Hussein not letting the inspectors in, but I realize that would be a complete waste on someone who can't discern the difference between "decade" and "decades." Oh well, c'est la vie. :shrug: Needless to say, words have meaning and those words don't mean the same thing. Though I do understand you are trying to change the definition of words in a failed attempt to spin your lie into something you can defend, but unfortunately for you, it ain't workin'.

ChrisL said:
That's like saying the world isn't a better place without Hitler in it. Please.
Click to expand...
Yeah, sure, it's just like saying that .... except that it's not. :roll:

ChrisL said:
Are you effing kidding me? That statement is SO contradictory it's not even funny!
Click to expand...
You really have no idea what you're talking about. Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies. Now, Iraq is West Iran. I can't help that you are incapable of fathoming the geopolitical implications of such a chaotic disaster.

ChrisL said:
The way we went about removing him was not ideal. I would have preferred sending in some CIA assassins or a small team of assassins to take him out and spare our soldiers.
Click to expand...
That doesn't even address the question. That isn't how it went down. The way it went down was, although we were told it would take no more than 6 months, $50 billion dollars, and that Iraq would pay for their own rebuilding; it actually took 9 years, as much as $2 trillion dollars, we paid to rebuild their nation, and it cost us 35,000+ casualties, about 5,000 deaths, and sparked a civil war which killed no less than 100,000 Iraqis. The question was -- was that worth it? The question was not, how would you have liked to see it go down?

ChrisL said:
Yeah, well that isn't the question. The question is "IS the WORLD a better place without him?" YES it is.
Click to expand...
This is a chatroom -- we're not limited to one question. Though some people do like to hide behind the thread topic to avoid tougher questions.
 
ChrisL said:
Blah, blah, blah, whatever. Maybe I misread your post.
Click to expand...
"Maybe???" You're not sure? :lamo :lamo :lamo

"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

ChrisL said:
This is totally irrelevant and off point.
Click to expand...
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.

ChrisL said:
Do YOU think the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein? If not, please list his contributions that made him a valuable member of society and the world, besides "keeping the Iraqis in line" because that would really only be a benefit depending upon how you view the particular situation.
Click to expand...
Asked and answered.
 
Jack Hays said:
The clear context of our earlier exchange was the sixteen words.
Click to expand...
You're confused. You made claims that are simply not true. And by doing so, you undermine your own claims of ownership to classified intelligence that no one else here is aware of. These are well known facts which have been corroborated by multiple sources. They're no longer classified and they have been studied inside and out. We know what the forged documents were about, we know when the CIA received them, we know what they did with them, we know what intelligence agencies thought of them and we know when it became known they were forgeries. There is nothing you know that the rest of the world doesn't know in terms of those documents. It's a fact that the first of the forged documents made it into CIA hands in 2001. It's a fact that the CIA drafted reports based on them. It's a fact that the CIA thought they were credible and it's a fact that the INR had doubts to their authenticity. It's fact that in 2003, the IAEA conclusively determined they were forgeries.

Despite your claims to the contrary, reports were written up based on the forgeries because it was suspected by the CIA that the could have been authentic. So authentic, that they sent Wilson in 2002 to investigate the possibility of Niger selling of Uranium to Iraq after vice-president Cheney had questions they couldn't readily answer after reading a DIA report. The intelligence in that report was based on the forged documents. This is all public information. The fact that it's embarrassing to our government and intelligence agencies lends to the credibility of the reporting that we're now aware of.

Jack Hays said:
From Wilson's 6 July 2003 NYT article: "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."
Click to expand...
By the time Wilson published that piece in the NY Times, the story of the forged documents was 4 months old. You are flat out lying when you blame Wilson for injecting those documents into the international discussion of them. The IAEA determined in March of 2003, 4 months earlier, that the documents were forgeries.

This is just more evidence that you have no idea what you're blabbering about, you have nothing but rightwing talking points about blaming Wilson, and you again undermine your own BS claim of clandestine information that no one else here is privy to.

Jack Hays said:
The reason the report was never used to prep the SOTU was because it was in question, as Wilson noted. That's also why GWB only referred to Saddam attempting to procure uranium, drawing back from the claim that a deal had been made.
Click to expand...
I hate to sound reduntant, but I have little choice when you once again undermine your own claims to superior knowledge by demonstrating that you have no friggin' clue to what you're talking about.

... the forged documents never indicated that a deal was made. The documents ranged from stating that they could deliver the goods and could ensure their transport, to indicating Iraq's interest in acquiring yellowcake from Niger.

Jack Hays said:
The National Security Advisor erred.:cool:
Click to expand...
It wasn't just the National Security advisor. It was also the Director of the CIA. It was also a top aide to Condoleeza Rice. It was also the White House. They all admitted that including those words in the SOTU address was a mistake in light of the IAEA's determination that the documents which formed the basis of the opinion that Hussein sought yellowcake, were forgeries. They had even had similar sentiments removed from earlier speeches but neglected to remove them from the SOTU address. If what you were saying was true, and it's clearly not, the White House would have been defending the 16 words, not confessing they was insufficient intelligence to confirm them.

Plus there was the IAEA stating that those documents were centeral to the case that the U.S. and Britain were making towards Hussein seeking nuclear materials. You can't make this xit up.

You can spout all the bullxit you want -- you cannot alter history. No matter how hard you try.
 
Jack Hays said:
The clear context of our earlier exchange was the sixteen words.

From Wilson's 6 July 2003 NYT article: "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

The reason the report was never used to prep the SOTU was because it was in question, as Wilson noted. That's also why GWB only referred to Saddam attempting to procure uranium, drawing back from the claim that a deal had been made.

The National Security Advisor erred.:cool:
Click to expand...

Um, I don't think she erred at all, here is what she said on national television:

*"The president quoted a British paper. We did not know at the time--no one knew at the time, in our circles-maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course, it was information that was mistaken. But the-it was a relatively small part of the case about nuclear weapons and nuclear reconstitution." Condoleeza Rice, NBC Meet the Press, 6/8/03​

You can also see her saying it at the 1:40 mark in the following video:


 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
We know what the forged documents were about, we know when the CIA received them, we know what they did with them, we know what intelligence agencies thought of them and we know when it became known they were forgeries. There is nothing you know that the rest of the world doesn't know in terms of those documents. It's a fact that the first of the forged documents made it into CIA hands in 2001. It's a fact that the CIA drafted reports based on them. It's a fact that the CIA thought they were credible and it's a fact that the INR had doubts to their authenticity. It's fact that in 2003, the IAEA conclusively determined they were forgeries.

Despite your claims to the contrary, reports were written up based on the forgeries because it was suspected by the CIA that the could have been authentic.
Click to expand...


Source of Forged Niger-Iraq Uranium Documents Identified - New ...
www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/international/europe/04italy.html
By ELAINE SCIOLINO and ELISABETTA POVOLEDO. Published: November 4, 2005. ROME, Nov. 3 - Italy's spymaster identified an Italian occasional spy ...
http://Source of Forged Niger-Iraq Uranium Documents Identified - New ... www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/international/europe/04italy.html

You are just close enough to the truth to be wrong. Reports based on the forgeries came into CIA hands in 2001, but the documents themselves were only obtained much later. Once in hand, they immediately aroused skepticism.:cool:
 
pbrauer said:
Um, I don't think she erred at all, here is what she said on national television:

*"The president quoted a British paper. We did not know at the time--no one knew at the time, in our circles-maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course, it was information that was mistaken. But the-it was a relatively small part of the case about nuclear weapons and nuclear reconstitution." Condoleeza Rice, NBC Meet the Press, 6/8/03​
Click to expand...

The British case did not depend on the forgeries.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
The British position to this day is that their judgment did not depend on the forgeries.:cool:
Click to expand...
Why would they admit to being so stupid? Besides Wilson is sent to Niger to investigate a sale of uranium to Iraq by Niger. What iS Wilson to think when he hears her on the tube June 6, 2003? His NYT op-Ed WAS July 6, 2003.
 
pbrauer said:
Why would they admit to being so stupid? Besides Wilson is sent to Niger to investigate a sale of uranium to Iraq by Niger. What iS Wilson to think when he hears her on the tube June 6, 2003? His NYT op-Ed WAS July 6, 2003.
Click to expand...

I will not try to discern what others may have thought, but the British case never depended on the forgeries.:cool:
 
Good times!


April 2, 2013
Iraq: 4 Newspapers Are Attacked

"About 50 gunmen in military uniforms burst into the offices of four independent newspapers in Baghdad, stabbing and beating employees, staff members and officials said Tuesday. The raiders attacked reporters with batons and knives and smashed computers and furniture in the offices of one newspaper, according to its editor, Bassam al-Sheikh. He said he recognized the attackers as militant Shiites belonging to a hard-line group led by the cleric Mahmoud al-Sarkhi. During the attack on Monday evening, the attackers berated the editor for publishing an article in his paper accusing Mr. Sarkhi of trying to dominate the Shiite holy city of Karbala, the editor said. Mr. Sarkhi’s office was not available for comment."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/world/middleeast/iraq-4-newspapers-are-attacked.html?_r=0
 
Jack Hays said:
I will not try to discern what others may have thought, but the British case never depended on the forgeries.:cool:
Click to expand...
That's either your opinion or a fact you can prove.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom