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 59 of 152 FirstFirst ... 949575859606169109 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 590 of 1513

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

  1. #581
    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 MSgt View Post
    That's not exactly what he meant. He was comparing the idea of leaving a dictator to sit upon his throne in 1991 to leaving a dictator to sit on his throne in 1945. Of course, the big difference is culture. The German population was not dividied into tribes since they had gone ahead and slaughtered out the "imperfect" souls prior to. Iraq's population was divided in hitorical tribal hate and the fear of instability acytually convinced the most poerful nations in the world to embrace the dictator.

    More telling is the difference in Western population. Both events needed the threat of a foreign jack-ass to light a fire under American butts. Both events had bigger economic issues that were really at stake. And both events had physically nothing to do with Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Yet, both events were about something bigger than words like "Democracy," "Freedom," or today's "WMD."

    Twisted is pretending that we can reduce these global events to a black and white ordeal.
    You're right, the world is not, and never has been, black and white, but you may have forgotten to state the most important difference ... in one case the threat was nonexistent (they had to make it up), and even then not imminent ... in the other, there was nothing imminent about it ... anything but ...

  2. #582
    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 Catawba View Post
    You are saying there should be no consideration of ethics in international relations? Neither side is morally superior to the other? We are no better than terrorists, we just have better weapons?


    Jack Hays, like most of us, has some good ideas and some not-so-good ideas.

    Seems like most of his ideas are pretty good.

    But sometimes he throws out the champagne with the cork.

    I'll leave it at that for now.

  3. #583
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,027

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    We are no better than terrorists, we just have better weapons?
    We are better than terrorists because we choose to pretend we have better morals. It's a matter of convenience. International politics has and will always revolve around power. Those with it can label the terrorists. Even our role in Europe's World War I came down to being forced to protect our economic interests. Were it not for the Brtish embrago forcing our trade to the Allied side, we would not have been compelled to protect that trade. Before that embargo, we traded with the Central Powers as well. When it came to World War II, we assisted the allies in bombing out cities full of citizens and later nuked two Japanese cities. During the Cold War, we supported those brutes who catered to the free world against the Soviets and during the Clinton years ignored the building repercussion of those decades.

    Morality has nothing to do with it. Neither do friends in which nations have none. They only have fleeting allies. Simple moralities is just what politicians use to get the population spinning because they lack an understanding of the world they live in. But even with moralities, populations like America need to see an attack to get behind a plot of revenge. Preaching about morality while supporitng a war of revenge, but not a war of "humanitarian" rhetoric is beyond hypocracy.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #584
    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 MSgt View Post
    "Nation building" is precisely why we keep getting in trouble.
    Without nation building in Iraq, we could not have installed a new government that would enforce new oil law that let US and British oil companies back in Iraq for the first time since 1973
    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

  5. #585
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,351

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bori View Post
    Does your husband know how lucky he is? If not, get him on these threads and I'll straighten him out.
    Executing graceful curtsey for your compliment!

  6. #586
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,870
    Blog Entries
    2

    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.
    That will largely depend the nature of the great questions facing that future society. Our present circumstances often determine the questions we ask of the past.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  7. #587
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,027

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bori View Post
    You're right, the world is not, and never has been, black and white, but you may have forgotten to state the most important difference ... in one case the threat was nonexistent (they had to make it up), and even then not imminent ... in the other, there was nothing imminent about it ... anything but ...
    This is exactly what I'm talking about. Simple black and whites. Was Germany a threat to our nation during World War II? Who attacked us? Japan I believe. Germany was the face of a bigger regional economic issue.

    9/11 showed that the threat was the region. It's the same threat that analysts in the Pentagon had been producing intel reports on since the end of the Cold War. Why did it take 9/11 to convince the politicians? And why did they have to pretend that a single country was the threat? Al-Queda and hundreds of other terrorist organizations in the region comprised of citizens from every single Middle Eastern nation. They all have common themes amongst their societies. This means that everything between Cairo and Islamabad was and is a threat. Democrats crying about ridding ourselves of the UN mission over Iraq and Republicans crying about the Arab Spring causing instability are both ignorant and traitorous to American security. Since it was and is understood that Cold War dictators helped to facilitate this social mess in the region that helped to create an exponentially growing religious extremism that facilitated a regional capability for a 9/11, it must also be understood that dealing with this region's mess was more than a single dictator sitting in Iraq under a UN mission we mostly enforced.

    But, I see you ignore these conditions and opt to simply cling to the "WMD" idea of excuse. Do you see why Bush and Co. was compelled to find the simple to explain away a wider issue that Westerners (especially isolated Americans) couldn't understand? Even Osam Bin Laden offered up the "starving children of Iraq" and "escallating troops in the holy land" for why a 9/11 occurred. But still you will default back to whether or not Iraq had WMD, ignoring the wider escallating problems that threatened stability everywhere underneath dictators that only we or an Arab Spring could address.

    Bush stumbled into the recipe of correction. Rumsfeld fumbled his way through Iraq until fired so that others could put on the better path. Arabs elsewhere, who didn't rush to Iraq to disrupt any sense of democracy that would give Baghdad to the Shia, later orchestrated government protests and coups to brig their own democracies. Republicans, Democrats, and many Europeans behaved ignorantly from one year to the next throughout either supporting democracy in the region or acting as if petrified of it. And Bush haters can find no comfort in any of it except to reflect on whether or not Iraq had WMD.

    Black and white.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  8. #588
    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 MSgt View Post
    No you wont. Westerners like simple. This is where "WMD" came from. This is also where ignoring all the issues building towards 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq come in for protestors.

    While the rest of the world actually deals with the grey, Westerners need everything to fit into perfect categories of organization and fixed to labels. Do you think hundreds of thouands of starving Iraqis cared about WMD or Democracy or 9/11? If we are to assume that those words held little meaning to them prior to 2003, why do you think those words were used by the White House when addressing a Western world? It's because we are shallow people in the West and our leaders know it. The less we know about what we do to the rest of the world for our economic securities, the better we like it. What we don't like is a war that involves economic security, because it reminds us that energy doesn't simply spring forth from the ground as if a gift from the energy fairy. This is why "WMD" and "Democracy" are used. "Democracy" and "Freedom" are the same words used by American leaders when trying to convince Americans that war in Europe was necessary during both World Wars. Do you think America's econmic security being threatened was used by Truman or Roosevelt to convince Americans that Europe mattered? No way. Willing to forgive a little deciet for those periods though arent you?

    You see, we don't care how many people starve or are oppressed into economic misery and religious zealousy under leaders we maintain just as long as we don't conduct a war to remind us of it. And when an event like 9/11 occurs we like to pretend that our enemy simply hates freedom or that Americans simply had it coming to them. It's not war that bothers people who have absolutely nothing to do with it as they flip channels in their Western world. It's feeling that they are supposed to care that drives them to protest the very thing that provides them that channel flipping security. We would rather ignore nations we condemn to hell through peaceful means than actually break a sweat dealing with an issue that has been ignored for too long for our securities.

    Do you actually think France cares about Libyans or Africans below the Sahara? Of course not. Just 1 month prior to insisting that American help them against Libya's dictator, they were publicing announcing their support for Tunisia's dictator. It's all about economic security. So when looking for the truth, one might need to think harder than just opposites of what politicians state to an academically lazy and spolied West.
    While I agree it is complicated, and that both the reasons given for war and what people look at are simplistic representations, we still need a truthful rationale. We did not get that.

    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.

  9. #589
    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
    That will largely depend the nature of the great questions facing that future society. Our present circumstances often determine the questions we ask of the past.


    Most people have heard that "The histories of wars are written by the victors".

    I suppose in the future the victors will be those who will have survived what happened in their past.

  10. #590
    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 MSgt View Post
    We are better than terrorists because we choose to pretend we have better morals. It's a matter of convenience. International politics has and will always revolve around power. Those with it can label the terrorists. Even our role in Europe's World War I came down to being forced to protect our economic interests. Were it not for the Brtish embrago forcing our trade to the Allied side, we would not have been compelled to protect that trade. Before that embargo, we traded with the Central Powers as well. When it came to World War II, we assisted the allies in bombing out cities full of citizens and later nuked two Japanese cities. During the Cold War, we supported those brutes who catered to the free world against the Soviets and during the Clinton years ignored the building repercussion of those decades.

    Morality has nothing to do with it. Neither do friends in which nations have none. They only have fleeting allies. Simple moralities is just what politicians use to get the population spinning because they lack an understanding of the world they live in. But even with moralities, populations like America need to see an attack to get behind a plot of revenge. Preaching about morality while supporitng a war of revenge, but not a war of "humanitarian" rhetoric is beyond hypocracy.

    So it is your opinion we are no better than terrorists. Thanks for sharing!
    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

Posting Permissions

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