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 60 of 152 FirstFirst ... 1050585960616270110 ... LastLast
Results 591 to 600 of 1513

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

  1. #591
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    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
    Unfortunately we live in a world where resources have been involved with most wars. That's just the way it is. Whining about it or pretending that peope don't have to die over it won't get you anywhere. It's only a matter of time before it happens again. Did you know that water is the biggest resource that people fight over in the Middle East? Syria threatens Turkey constantly over water. We got over 70 percent of our rubber from Vietnam before we started sending troops abroad to maintain a sense of stability when the French hauled ass.

    My point is that you may as well see the greater issues at stake than simple resources that will always be involved. To think that after ridding ourselves and the ME of Hussein wasn't going to offer some kick back is foolish. Even keeping him on his throne as his people starved to death throughout the 90s was about oil stability. I know that was more than acceptable to people that looked the other way until 2003, but it's all the same manipulations for resource stability and regional social escalating chaos. I'm pretty sure you are older than me, so how is it that you pretend that oil in the Middle East is an anomaly to history?
    Last edited by MSgt; 03-24-13 at 08:57 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  2. #592
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,755
    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?
    No, but our options are always imperfect and tolerance for moral ambiguity is the price of admission to the grown-ups' table.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  3. #593
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    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.
    I did. I read. I don't and didn't blame Bush for being a politician. What I don't forgive is the countless Liberal/Democrats who protested the very things that Obama continued to their silence. This tells me that most protestors were playing to their political party at the expense of bigger issues left unexplained. Ignorance is only the politicians fault if he starts burning the books.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #594
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,755
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    The middle east oil wars started long before GWB became president. Study your history man. If there were no oil in the middle east, Israel would have moved or fallen years ago without much support from us.
    I could not disagree more. U.S. government support for Israel has always been viewed as a negative by our oil companies. We offer that support in spite of our economic interests, not because of them.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  5. #595
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,755
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    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.
    Nothing is certain, but I doubt that victory or defeat in war will be an overriding consideration for our postulated future historians.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  6. #596
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    So it is your opinion we are no better than terrorists. Thanks for sharing!
    Only our convenience makes us better. I realize that acknowledging human nature is difficult, but the truth is that we are all immoral when the lights are out. Is the poor unemployed man robbing the local store to feed his starving family less moral than the rich man who feasts nightly? Convenience defines most things. Dropping nuclear bombs on civilian cities vs. a terrorists who slaughter a couple hundred people. "Terrorism" is a funny definition. Pretending otherwise is exactly why we are involved in wars longer than we need to be and seeing more blood run than is necessary. It's our "morality" that allows us to stand by and watch people starve to death at the hands of foriegn leaders. It's our "morality" that has us obeying international laws of stability where oppressive and brutal nations have a vote. It's out "morality" that kicks in only after we decide that enough is enough and we send CNN and FOX along with troops to record the carnage we created by ignoring the problems.

    I have no problem with my moraity. I define it according to the world I live in and what I have seen the truth of. Others define their morality to convenience, outdated international laws, and the false idea of a utopian world that doesn't exist. The Middle East lingers in misery and blood baths because our "morality" has refrained us from making these terrorists and their part of the civilization so scared that they would rather defy their God than defy us. Our retaliations should be so shocking that even our allies cringe. But instead we play this "moral" game. How much longer and how much more blood would have been shed had we played this game during World War II? For one side to lose a war, it must be convinced that it lost. Our morality has denied us the ability to convice anybody since World War II. Even the "victory" during the Gulf War was hlf assed and hallow given what it set us up for in 2003. We have lost our ability to convince anybody due to our false sense of superior morality. All we have done is prove to the world that we can a create a great amount of damage while preaching about morality. And what's morality without a victory? It's bull ****. Victory is forgiven and only then will our morality mean something.
    Last edited by MSgt; 03-24-13 at 09:11 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  7. #597
    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
    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.

    Ironically you seem to paint a world more black and white than you realize ... but let me try to respond to some of what you wrote, including with some questions, both rhetorical and actual questions to make sure I understand what it is that you are saying ... I'm on my way out, so this will be a bit rished ...

    let me begin with some questions ... How did 9/11 demonstrate that it was a regional threat? Did Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor show the threat was the region? What, exactly, is the threat? Has U.S. policy in the region, recent and in the more distant past, contributed to the way we are perceived in that part of the world (and elsewhere) and helps to explain the "threat?" Are we that innocent, or is what you're suggesting is that that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that we win against them. Am I understanding you correctly? What are these themes that they share? Sounds a lot like the familiar they're all the same, they all look alike.

    I don't see how I'm clinging to the WMD idea, but if it helps you make your point to say that, go for it. We do agree that there is a lot that westerners do not undersatand, including the role that the U.S. has played in taking out democratically-elected and popular leaders and replacing them with dictators, and then arming them to the teeth, even training them on American soil, all in the name of national security. But then again, that makes it all legitimate and us innocent victims.

    Looking forward to reading your response a little later. Now I have to peel potatoes ...

    Gray ... a lot of gray ...

  8. #598
    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
    I did. I read. I don't and didn't blame Bush for being a politician. What I don't forgive is the countless Liberal/Democrats who protested the very things that Obama continued to their silence. This tells me that most protestors were playing to their political party at the expense of bigger issues left unexplained. Ignorance is only the politicians fault if he starts burning the books.
    You likely misunderstand the protest. All of this begins with Bush. He invaded on a pretext. He broke laws. Deceived. Obama did not invade. Dud not call torture advanced interrogation techniques. Did not open Gitmo.

    Yes, Obama deserves criticism, and gets it. Many like myself denounce the drone use. Did not support him going with Afghan surge. Think he should not have allowed fear mongering (largely from republicans) to prevent him from moving forward with closing Gitmo. And yes, rendition should be stopped.

    But do not confuse these things as being completely equal to Bush. Nor should one suggest that we elect worse because Obama isn't perfect.

    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. #599
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bori View Post
    Ironically you seem to paint a world more black and white than you realize ... but let me try to respond to some of what you wrote, including with some questions, both rhetorical and actual questions to make sure I understand what it is that you are saying ... I'm on my way out, so this will be a bit rished ...
    Ironically (or hypocritically), while accusing others of a black and white outlook, I do hold my own sense of a black and white. I involve the grey in my assesments and turn it into black and white conclusions. Does that even make sense? I just know that "WMD" and "imminent threat" has nothing to do with it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bori View Post
    let me begin with some questions ... How did 9/11 demonstrate that it was a regional threat?
    Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. However, Al-Queda was and is bigger than those 18 few. They were victims of the Wahhabist rhetoric that comes from the House of Saud that reaches the region. Al-Queda is made up of citizens from all those nations and they are all victims of social injustice and economic failure that encourages religious extremism as an answer for all problems. The answer is not the images of 9/11. It is behind it. 9/11 was a symptom and the act of it was forecasted by plenty Middle Eastern experts like Ralph Peters and Bernard Lewis.

    The ease in which people from all over the region traveled to fight Americans and the Shia in Iraq to disrupt any sense of social democratic progress should demonstrate how regional and civilizational this issue is. Shouldn't the fact that Al-Queda had traveled from Sudan, to Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Pakistan, to Mali prove that these type organizations find comfort throughout the region for a reason? It's because they are accepted from place to place wherever they find a portion of the population that approves of their measures. This is a civilizational problem for which Iraq was only locally exempt because "our" one time brutal dictator (while funding terrroist organizations) brutalized the population and created the very thing that creates the Al-Quedas throughout the region. The answer to Al-Queda is not to create brutal dictators.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bori View Post
    Did Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor show the threat was the region?
    Pearl Harbor was a national attack comprised of Japanese citizens. It was not a result of a regional social and economic failure trapped in an endless game of blame. In other words, the attack did not involve citizens throughout the Pacific. Our enemy then was easier to identify. Today, we have to find a scapegoat like Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden to explain away the regional conflict we are actually in.

    However, why did we choose Germany as an enemy that had nothing to do with attacking us? Because they were the larger economic problem that the rest of Europe was failing to curtail. The minute they began sinking our ships in the Atlantic Roosevelt started hamming up "democracy" and "freedom." The same was true for World War I with Wilson. Behind these words was economic instability caused by the Central Powers/Axis and the Allies. Like that, Al-Queda was not solely an Afghanistan issue. It was closer to the heartland of Islam, where Saddam Hussein (who we needed to get rid of anyway) sat in the middle of. Our bigger economic issues was Europe, not the Pacific. Out bigger 9/11 threats was the Sunni Middle East, not Asian Afghanistan.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bori View Post
    What, exactly, is the threat? Has U.S. policy in the region, recent and in the more distant past, contributed to the way we are perceived in that part of the world (and elsewhere) and helps to explain the "threat?" Are we that innocent, or is what you're suggesting is that that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that we win against them. Am I understanding you correctly? What are these themes that they share? Sounds a lot like the familiar they're all the same, they all look alike.

    The threat is economic stablity. Always has been. The same as it was for the Barbary Pirates Wars, World War I, World War II in Europe, Vietnam, and the Gulf War. We have been attacked 2 times (I don't include the Mexican-American War) - Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Beyond wars against the Japanese and the Afghans, what was the rest of these wars even about? We fooled ourselves into thinking that economic stability in the Middle East was always going to be secure under dictators who defied the Soviet Union. As soon as Hussein invaded Kuwait we should have accepted that our foreign policy needed to change. The Arab Spring of a few years ago proved that our foreign policies were not keeping up with the changing of the times. We don't get to witness the creation of over 120 democracies in the world since 1900 and keep denying the Middle East (an entire region) their opportunity to grow forever. In the mean time, Islmaic extremism exponentially grew under the brutality and oppression of dictators.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bori View Post
    I don't see how I'm clinging to the WMD idea, but if it helps you make your point to say that, go for it. We do agree that there is a lot that westerners do not undersatand, including the role that the U.S. has played in taking out democratically-elected and popular leaders and replacing them with dictators, and then arming them to the teeth, even training them on American soil, all in the name of national security. But then again, that makes it all legitimate and us innocent victims.
    There it is. You just described the Cold War I was talking about - exactly what our foriegn policy was about. STABILITY. However, this stability was at the expense of the populations and was always temporary. Business endures because democracies don't die. Will our business deals with France end becaus the French President has a heart attack? Dictators die and along with them any deals they made with foreign countries. This is why we struggled to maintain their thrones throughout the Cold War. When that Berlin Wall came down, we didn't know what to do. It was like releasing the pressure of a soda can we had been shaking for decades. Eventually, that can will explode. It was seen all over the world as dictators no longer had to hold to the superpower rules of their controllers. The populations festered under their dictators. Many eventually joined others alreay in terrorist groups against their governments. Some went international to blame that good ole' foreign devil. Never did they or do they look in the mirror and examine their own culture. We help them to legitimize their own designed denials into what their people are doing.

    The problem many people seem to have is that they are quick to point out our Cold War mistakes, but quick to dismiss what we are supposed to do about the repercussions. Looking the other was a foreign policy praticed between the Berlin Wall coming down (11/9) and 9/11. Citizens, who need "WMD" to define their world, still fancy this option.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  10. #600
    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
    Ironically (or hypocritically), while accusing others of a black and white outlook, I do hold my own sense of a black and white. I involve the grey in my assesments and turn it into black and white conclusions. Does that even make sense? I just know that "WMD" and "imminent threat" has nothing to do with it.




    Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. However, Al-Queda was and is bigger than those 18 few. They were victims of the Wahhabist rhetoric that comes from the House of Saud that reaches the region. Al-Queda is made up of citizens from all those nations and they are all victims of social injustice and economic failure that encourages religious extremism as an answer for all problems. The answer is not the images of 9/11. It is behind it. 9/11 was a symptom and the act of it was forecasted by plenty Middle Eastern experts like Ralph Peters and Bernard Lewis.

    The ease in which people from all over the region traveled to fight Americans and the Shia in Iraq to disrupt any sense of social democratic progress should demonstrate how regional and civilizational this issue is. Shouldn't the fact that Al-Queda had traveled from Sudan, to Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Pakistan, to Mali prove that these type organizations find comfort throughout the region for a reason? It's because they are accepted from place to place wherever they find a portion of the population that approves of their measures. This is a civilizational problem for which Iraq was only locally exempt because "our" one time brutal dictator (while funding terrroist organizations) brutalized the population and created the very thing that creates the Al-Quedas throughout the region. The answer to Al-Queda is not to create brutal dictators.




    Pearl Harbor was a national attack comprised of Japanese citizens. It was not a result of a regional social and economic failure trapped in an endless game of blame. In other words, the attack did not involve citizens throughout the Pacific. Our enemy then was easier to identify. Today, we have to find a scapegoat like Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden to explain away the regional conflict we are actually in.

    However, why did we choose Germany as an enemy that had nothing to do with attacking us? Because they were the larger economic problem that the rest of Europe was failing to curtail. The minute they began sinking our ships in the Atlantic Roosevelt started hamming up "democracy" and "freedom." The same was true for World War I with Wilson. Behind these words was economic instability caused by the Central Powers/Axis and the Allies. Like that, Al-Queda was not solely an Afghanistan issue. It was closer to the heartland of Islam, where Saddam Hussein (who we needed to get rid of anyway) sat in the middle of. Our bigger economic issues was Europe, not the Pacific. Out bigger 9/11 threats was the Sunni Middle East, not Asian Afghanistan.





    The threat is economic stablity. Always has been. The same as it was for the Barbary Pirates Wars, World War I, World War II in Europe, Vietnam, and the Gulf War. We have been attacked 2 times (I don't include the Mexican-American War) - Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Beyond wars against the Japanese and the Afghans, what was the rest of these wars even about? We fooled ourselves into thinking that economic stability in the Middle East was always going to be secure under dictators who defied the Soviet Union. As soon as Hussein invaded Kuwait we should have accepted that our foreign policy needed to change. The Arab Spring of a few years ago proved that our foreign policies were not keeping up with the changing of the times. We don't get to witness the creation of over 120 democracies in the world since 1900 and keep denying the Middle East (an entire region) their opportunity to grow forever. In the mean time, Islmaic extremism exponentially grew under the brutality and oppression of dictators.



    There it is. You just described the Cold War I was talking about - exactly what our foriegn policy was about. STABILITY. However, this stability was at the expense of the populations and was always temporary. Business endures because democracies don't die. Will our business deals with France end becaus the French President has a heart attack? Dictators die and along with them any deals they made with foreign countries. This is why we struggled to maintain their thrones throughout the Cold War. When that Berlin Wall came down, we didn't know what to do. It was like releasing the pressure of a soda can we had been shaking for decades. Eventually, that can will explode. It was seen all over the world as dictators no longer had to hold to the superpower rules of their controllers. The populations festered under their dictators. Many eventually joined others alreay in terrorist groups against their governments. Some went international to blame that good ole' foreign devil. Never did they or do they look in the mirror and examine their own culture. We help them to legitimize their own designed denials into what their people are doing.

    The problem many people seem to have is that they are quick to point out our Cold War mistakes, but quick to dismiss what we are supposed to do about the repercussions. Looking the other was a foreign policy praticed between the Berlin Wall coming down (11/9) and 9/11. Citizens, who need "WMD" to define their world, still fancy this option.

    Unfortunately (or fortunately if one is hungry, as I am) I'm cooking and had only a brief moment to read your response (I hear beeping in the kitchen, so I have to hurry), and find that we're not nearly as apart as I first thought ... I'll try later to respond in more detail, but if I don't make it, have a good night, and I'll try to respond tomorrow ...

Posting Permissions

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