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 56 of 152 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866106 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 560 of 1513

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

  1. #551
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    Yes, but the attempt nation building, not so much...
    "Nation building" is precisely why we keep getting in trouble.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  2. #552
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Sadly, I have no doubt you believe this sincerely.


    I do because it's the truth, pretty much everything that Bush and his gang said about Iraq turned out to be lies.

    If you think otherwise, believe what you want to believe. That won't cost me a nickle.

    And it certainly won't help Bush's bottom basement image in future history books.



    "Maggie, we're through with lies and liars in this house. Lock the door." ~ Tennessee Williams, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

    Last edited by shrubnose; 03-24-13 at 06:44 PM.

  3. #553
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

    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.
    Your statement would be wise were it not that it ignored the foreign leader of topic. The problem with extending this sentiment towards Saddam Hussein in 2003 is that we ignored that sentiment in 1991 and throughout the next decade. It was the West, with America leading, that starved out countless Iraqis through the UN mission of containment and sanctions. It was the U.S. that built and escalating amount of troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait everytime Hussein rushed his troops towards those borders or flew fighter jets over Saudi and Jordanian air space. Osama Bin Laden's excuses for 9/11 involved the "starving chidlren of Iraq" and "foreigners in the Holy Land."

    So when it comes to Saddam Hussein, merely stating that our job is not to overthrow foreign leaders doesn't quite cover the issue. Some would argue that instead of simply rushing in to ovethrow a foreign leader we gave him 12 years to stop being the Middle East menace his neighbors were constantly afraid of. The invasion of Iraq was always just a matter of time.

    Now if you had actually gave it some thought and stated that the way we did it was stupid then I would have been with you. If you had stated that the idea of automatic nation building after we have punished an offender then I would have been with you. Hell, if you had stated that Rumsfeld was probably the worst Secretary of Defense in United States history, then I would have applauded your assesment. But the default protest of Iraq is tired. It was tired then when Bush was designing WMD excuses giving protestors designed excuses to complain about a bigger on going issue they pretended didn't exist.

    As far as "our job," aside from war in the Pacific during World War II and Afghanistan, the vast majority of every single foreign war/conflict in American history has one common theme and has had nothing to do with defense. "Our job" is and has always been the preservation of economic security. Even our Revolutionary War was about economic freedom.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #554
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bori View Post
    Wait a sercond ... what standard are you holding him up to? And what is Blair supposed to say? Blair is now held in contempt by many Brits for being the Bush's gofer ... I agree, he's not as dumb as Palin or Quayle, but come on guys ...



    I am not saying that Bush is a genius, but he's way smarter than some people think.

    As I said, a lot of smart people make bad choices in life.

    I have never mis-underestimated people whose opinions don't fall in line with mine.

  5. #555
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    History's judgments evolve over time. I think I'll let a little more go by. Thanks.


    Most historians and most academics in general with advanced degrees are liberal. That is a fact.

    How do you think that future, liberal, academics will judge Bush?

    It will not be a friendly court.

  6. #556
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

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

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    The world is a better place now because we don't have GWB in the whitehouse lying us into more wars and driving this country to the brink of economic and moral bankruptcy. The Iraq war has nothing to do with it.

    Glass-Steagall Act.

    1933 - The Glass-Steagall Act was one of the first reform efforts of Roosevelt after the Great Depression. It was introduced to banking law in 1933. It established the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC insured bank deposits of up to $2,500 and most importantly prohibited banks from making risky, unsecured investments.

    1998 - Democrat President Bill Clinton and the Republican Party repealed it as a part of a deal. Republicans wanted it gone. Clinton wanted reform in welfare. The two collaborated.


    If Glass-Steagall was implimented directly after the Great Depression in an effort to correct the economic foolishness of our institutions, what would be the harm in removing it? oday's recession mirrors the Great Depression. Do you think it is a coincidence that Glass-Steagall sits squarely between the two? Or do we just want to blame the Bush guy for inheriting an economic disaster waiting to happen?

    Grow beyond the party partisan foolishness. Democrats won't bring up Glass-Steagall because it means blaming Clinton. Republicans don't defend Bush because it means blaming themselves. So what we have is a Congress and a White House getting away with it. Of course they only get away with it because their sheep continue to be ignorant of what is going on. Worse than ignorance is how plenty of people know this, but choose to play the blame-bush-game.

    By the way, we are the most powerful nation in history with history's greatest spy network even before 9/11. What's more sad than Bush lying about WMD in Iraq is that so many Americans lacked the common sense to see beyond that shallow excuse and look at bigger things. The White House obviously had no faith in Americans to end what we had been doing since 1991. When Bin Laden reached out to people like you to tell you that 9/11 was because of the "starving children of Iraq" and "foriegners in the holy land," did you not think about the UN mission that offered him that excuse? Sadly, Bush had to rely on the threat of WMD to live up to the American rhetoric.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  7. #557
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    "Nation building" is precisely why we keep getting in trouble.


    The USA should start doing almost all of its "Nation building" inside U.S. borders, there's plenty to do in the USA.

    After we get the USA squared away would be a good time to start 'thinking' about helping others.

  8. #558
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    The mere act of repeating nonsense doesn't make it any less nonsense.


    Your saying that something is nonsense doesn't make it nonsense.

    You can call a cow a horse, but that won't help it win the Kentucky Derby.

  9. #559
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:15 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    Your saying that something is nonsense doesn't make it nonsense.

    You can call a cow a horse, but that won't help it win the Kentucky Derby.
    Or, you can do as you've been doing and call a cow patty a cogent argument.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #560
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 12:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    203

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

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    Most historians and most academics in general with advanced degrees are liberal. That is a fact.

    How do you think that future, liberal, academics will judge Bush?

    It will not be a friendly court.
    this is also a response to your earlier e-mail SN ... it's not hard for him to be smarter than what most people think ... low threshhold ...

    on this point, is it possible that a disproportionate number of acdemics are liberals because liberals are more likely to put more faith in science and the scientific process, so that their analysis of Bush will not be a positive one not because they are liberal, but because they will rely more on evidence, data, etc. and the evidence, as we're seeing already, will not put him in a favorable light? I'm hoping for a fair court, not a friendly or hostile one. But, even that may not matter, since increasingly people on the right reject outright analyses by those on the left regardless of how good it is, and vice versa.

    I've known Jack for a couple of years now on these threads, and he tends to be kinder to those on the right than on the left ... you should get his take on Pinochet, Castillo Armas, and Somoza ... interesting ...

Posting Permissions

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