• 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
Rocketman said:
Makes little difference, similar rulers, tactics, and outcomes
Click to expand...

A declaration of war makes little difference?
How about a nation that actually had the power to carry out its imperialistic goals, as opposed to one that had no such power?
 
Dittohead not! said:
A declaration of war makes little difference?
How about a nation that actually had the power to carry out its imperialistic goals, as opposed to one that had no such power?
Click to expand...

I wonder how many wars we have been in and how many were declared.
 
Dittohead not! said:
A declaration of war makes little difference?
How about a nation that actually had the power to carry out its imperialistic goals, as opposed to one that had no such power?
Click to expand...

So you support any dictator in the world murdering, raping, and molesting people whether they be Jews or from Iraq?

Interesting?
 
Rocketman said:
So you support any dictator in the world murdering, raping, and molesting people whether they be Jews or from Iraq?

Interesting?
Click to expand...

It would be very interesting if anyone actually expressed such an opinion.

Which, of course, hasn't happened, now has it?
 
Sherman123 said:
There are some pretty massive problems with your narrative.

1. I'm not sure how it make sense to compare the removal of a brutal dictator (your words) to a butterfly spreading its wings. That is just nonsensical.

2. Actually Saddam is ranked fairly high in terms of the amount of people slaughtered under his rule. Between the al-Anfal Campaign and the suppression operations of the 1990's it is estimated Saddam's regime directly murdered almost half a million of its citizens. This puts him somewhere in between Mengstu and Pol Pot, so let's not quibble: he was a monster.

3. Iraq's acquisition of chemical weapons has sourced to a huge variety of countries and petrochemical companies that exported chemical compounds and in some cases synthesized materials to Iraq. The largest patrons were the Netherlands, Germany, France, Singapore, Brazil, etc. The United States provided comparatively little and nor did the Commerce Department approve the direct export of chemical products to Iraq.

4. Desiring that neither Iranian theocracy nor the fascistic government of Iraq would dominate the region was not a sin on the Reagan administration. Like Kissinger quipped "It's a pity they can't both lose." Absent of direct intervention, the only tool the US had was tinkering with the levers of supply and support and fighting on the margins to prevent one side from claiming victory. Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad took place in this context.

5. No question the decision to abandon the Kurds, and specifically the Barzani's without warning is one of the darkest blemishes Kissinger has to his name. However it is again worth noting that absent actual intervention like we had in 2003 there was not a huge amount that could have been done beyond funneling arms and supplies to the Kurds which we had been doing.

6. The Kurds should be outside national controls, they have a Federal agreement with the central government and quite frankly the KRG is an exemplar of what the Iraq War could still accomplish.

7. The elections were hardly shams, that was the whole problem remember? Allawi's Iraqqiya list won a slim majority over Malaki's list, however it took months of painstaking negotiations to get a coalition agreement and keep the government standing. Despite the flaws the situation was resolved via a political resolution, not death squads. Moreover the recent local elections once again have shown that power can and has shifted electorally in the country.

8. The proponents of the Iraq War are usually not arguing that in 2013 Iraq is better than it was in 1979 (before the Iran-Iraq war and the tightening of Saddam's group) what they have usually argued is that Saddam's removal and the implantation of democratic rule offers Iraq the chance at a better future than its ever expected before and the situation is continually improving.
Click to expand...

1. THAT is exactly the point, it is a nonsensical question...is the world better off.... either way. remember we are talking about the world, not just Iraq.

2. can you source your estimate on civilian deaths? I can find where 122,000 Iraqi civilians died since 2003 in the post Saddam era we ushered in. Puts us up there on that list doesn't it?

3. ahhh excellent dodge, WE didn't do much when compared to others, and we did turn a blind eye to much that was sent... very convenient, we claim multinationals did it, not us.... well whatever helps you sleep at nite.

4. I don't believe we wanted both to lose, we wanted Iran punished and cared little for the details. Interesting that we forget we had a huge part in creating the 'bad' Iran and to this day work very hard to keep it that way. (not to put to fine a point on it but 'our' oil Muslims are Sunni and Iran is Shia that has something to do with it.) Reagan and his neo-con policy makers were playing checkers with little regard for future consequences. I seem to recall three attacks on US Navy ships that we didn't respond with strong military strikes. The USS Pueblo, the USS Liberty and the USS Stark. North Korea, Israel and Iraq.

5. Kissinger has a few other blemishes on his name, Chile comes to mind. We abandoned the Kurds, like anyone else that no longer is useful to our national interests. I was thinking of a poster using pictures of children's clothing as proof of why Saddam had to go when we have watched repeated attacks on the Kurds with no real effort to enact ANY sanctions to include Kirkpatrick watering down UN sanctions.

6. So you want Iraq partitioned, why stop at cleaving off the Kurds? Why not divide Sunni from Shai? Either Iraq is a nation, like we are with all our differences or not. Perhaps the Balkanization of the Middle East is the future, most of the nations are artificial constructs left over from the age of imperialism.

7. There was a great deal of horse trading before, during, and after the elections. The sham part is once the votes were cast the power brokers decided the results. Chicago style.

8. so to rephrase all of that, if we had not helped Saddam maintain his position during the Iran-Iraq war, he wouldn't have been as powerful as he was just before Kuwait, wouldn't have murdered thousands of people, and more than likely would not be in power today. Either way Iran ends up where it is a very strong nation and Shia counterpoint to Sunni Saudi.
 
Sherman123 said:
Stalinist domination of Western Europe, and the deaths of tens of millions in Asia under the boot of Imperial Japanese rule isn't concerning to you?
Click to expand...

Is it concerning to me? Yes. Does that mean we should of got directly involved if we were not attacked and not declared war upon? No. I think we should of kept up aid to the allied forces if we were not attacked but if we were not directly attacked or declared war upon i still think we shouldn't get involved.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Is it concerning to me? Yes. Does that mean we should of got directly involved if we were not attacked and not declared war upon? No. I think we should of kept up aid to the allied forces if we were not attacked but if we were not directly attacked or declared war upon i still think we shouldn't get involved.
Click to expand...

Then I guess it was lucky for civilized people everywhere that the Japanese attacked us and Hitler declared war on us.
:2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag:
 
Jack Hays said:
Then I guess it was lucky for civilized people everywhere that the Japanese attacked us and Hitler declared war on us.
:2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag:
Click to expand...

We are not the policemen of the world. The US military should only be used for defense of the US. Not what we think is the best interest of Iraq or X country.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
We are not the policemen of the world. The US military should only be used for defense of the US. Not what we think is the best interest of Iraq or X country.
Click to expand...

Lucky for me my post had nothing to do with Iraq.
:2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag:
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yes. Does that justify our actions in Iraq? No.Its not our job to overthrow foreign nations leaders.
Click to expand...

And it does not excuse our efforts to keep him in power when he was at his murderous worst.

rumsfeld-saddam.jpg



1982
"Apparently without consulting Congress, Reagan also removed Iraq from the State Dept. list of terrorist sponors. This meant that Iraq was now eligible for US dual-use and military technology.


This shift marked the beginning of a very close relationship between the Reagan and Bush administrations and Saddam Hussein. The US over following years actively supported Iraq, supplying billions of dollars of credits, US military intelligence and advice, and ensuring that necessary weaponry got to Iraq."

"1983:
The State Dept. once again reported that Iraq was continuing to support terrorist groups

- Iraq had also been using chemical weapons against Iranian troops since 1982; this use of chemical weapons increased in 1983. The State Dept. and the National Security Council were well aware of this.


- Overriding NSC concerns, the Secretaries of Commerce and State pressured the NSC to approve the sale to Iraq of Bell helicopters "for crop dusting" (these same helicopters were used to gas Iraqi Kurds in 1988).


In late 1983, Reagan secretly allowed Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, to transfer US weapons to Iraq; Reagan also asked the Italian prime minister to channel arms to Iraq


December 1983 was a particularly interesting month; it was the month that Donald Rumsfeld -- currently US Secretary of Defense and one of the most vocal proponents of attacking Iraq -- paid a visit to Saddam Hussein in Baghdad as Reagan's envoy.

Rumsfeld claims now that the meeting was about terrorism in Lebanon.

But State Dept. documents show that in fact, Rumsfeld was carrying a message from Reagan expressing his desire to have a closer and better relationship with Saddam Hussein.

Just a few months before Rumsfeld's visit, Iraq had used poison gas against Iranian troops. This fact was known to the US. Also known was that Iraq was building a chemical weapons infrastructure.

NBC and The New York Times have recently reported that Rumsfeld was a key player in the Reagan administration's strong support for Iraq, despite knowing of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. This relationship became so close that both Reagan and VP Bush personally delivered military advice to Saddam Hussein. [1]


1984

In March, the State Dept. reported that Iraq was using chemical weapons and nerve gas in the war against Iran; these facts were confirmed by European doctors who examined Iranian soldiers

The Washington Post (in an article in Dec.1986 by Bob Woodward) reported that in 1984 the CIA began secretly giving information to Iraqi intelligence to help them "calibrate" poison gas attacks against Iranian troops.


1985
The CIA established direct intelligence links with Baghdad, and began giving Iraq "data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography" to help in the war.


This same year, the US House of Representatives passed a bill to put Iraq back on State Dept. supporters of terrorism list.

The Reagan administration -- in the person of Secretary of State George Schultz -- pressured the bill's sponsor to drop it the bill. The bill is dropped, and Iraq remains off the terrorist list.


Iraq labs send a letter to the Commerce Dept with details showing that Iraq was developing ballistic missiles.


Between 1985-1990 the Commerce Dept. approved the sale of many computers to Iraq's weapons lab. (The UN inspectors in 1991 found that: 40% of the equipment in Iraq's weapons lab were of US origin)


1985 is also a key year because the Reagan administration approved the export to Iraq of biological cultures that are precursors to bioweapons: anthrax, botulism, etc.; these cultures were "not attenuated or weakened, and were capable of reproduction."

There were over 70 shipments of such cultures between 1985-1988.

The Bush administration also authorized an additional 8 shipments of biological cultures that the Center for Disease Control classified as "having biological warfare significance."
This information comes from the Senate Banking Committee's report from 1994. The report stated that "these microorganisms exported by the US were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."
Senator Riegle, who headed the committee, noted that: "They seemed to give him anything he wanted. It's right out of a science fiction movie as to why we would send this kind of stuff to anybody."

Our History with Iraq - Oct. 22, 2002
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Is it concerning to me? Yes. Does that mean we should of got directly involved if we were not attacked and not declared war upon? No. I think we should of kept up aid to the allied forces if we were not attacked but if we were not directly attacked or declared war upon i still think we shouldn't get involved.
Click to expand...

Alright, I think this line of questioning kind of drives home the point that many proponents of moral interventionism would have. There are more principles in the world than whether or not our national sovereignty was violated. The enslavement of hundreds of millions and the slaughter of tens of millions more are worthy enough causes to engage in conflict. The salvation of our brothers and sisters in Asia and in Europe was a cause worth fighting for in an effort to repel the Nazi yolk, halt the Stalinist advance, and overthrow the Empire of Japan. The 'America First' proponents were wrong in 1939 and they would be wrong today.
 
We ****ed up when we consolidated Saddam's power in Iraq under Reagan and Bush I, and then we ****ed up again when we invaded Iraq to get big oil back in for the first time since 1973. The only way we could have ****ed up more would have been by making our occupation permanent as McCain wanted to do.
 
Rocketman said:
If these groups cared about human rights at all they would be all over Obama over his policies, you will have to do better.
Click to expand...

That's hyperbole nonsense as well. That kind of comment can never be taken seriously.
 
Catawba said:
And it does not excuse our efforts to keep him in power when he was at his murderous worst.

In late 1983, Reagan secretly allowed Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, to transfer US weapons to Iraq; Reagan also asked the Italian prime minister to channel arms to Iraq

December 1983 was a particularly interesting month; it was the month that Donald Rumsfeld paid a visit to Saddam Hussein in Baghdad as Reagan's envoy.

Rumsfeld claims now that the meeting was about terrorism in Lebanon.

But State Dept. documents show that in fact, Rumsfeld was carrying a message from Reagan expressing his desire to have a closer and better relationship with Saddam Hussein.

Just a few months before Rumsfeld's visit, Iraq had used poison gas against Iranian troops. This fact was known to the US. Also known was that Iraq was building a chemical weapons infrastructure.

NBC and The New York Times have recently reported that Rumsfeld was a key player in the Reagan administration's strong support for Iraq, despite knowing of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. This relationship became so close that both Reagan and VP Bush personally delivered military advice to Saddam Hussein. [1]


1984

In March, the State Dept. reported that Iraq was using chemical weapons and nerve gas in the war against Iran; these facts were confirmed by European doctors who examined Iranian soldiers

The Washington Post (in an article in Dec.1986 by Bob Woodward) reported that in 1984 the CIA began secretly giving information to Iraqi intelligence to help them "calibrate" poison gas attacks against Iranian troops.


1985
The CIA established direct intelligence links with Baghdad, and began giving Iraq "data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography" to help in the war.


This same year, the US House of Representatives passed a bill to put Iraq back on State Dept. supporters of terrorism list.

The Reagan administration -- in the person of Secretary of State George Schultz -- pressured the bill's sponsor to drop it the bill. The bill is dropped, and Iraq remains off the terrorist list.


Iraq labs send a letter to the Commerce Dept with details showing that Iraq was developing ballistic missiles.


Between 1985-1990 the Commerce Dept. approved the sale of many computers to Iraq's weapons lab. (The UN inspectors in 1991 found that: 40% of the equipment in Iraq's weapons lab were of US origin)


1985 is also a key year because the Reagan administration approved the export to Iraq of biological cultures that are precursors to bioweapons: anthrax, botulism, etc.; these cultures were "not attenuated or weakened, and were capable of reproduction."

There were over 70 shipments of such cultures between 1985-1988.

The Bush administration also authorized an additional 8 shipments of biological cultures that the Center for Disease Control classified as "having biological warfare significance."
This information comes from the Senate Banking Committee's report from 1994. The report stated that "these microorganisms exported by the US were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."
Senator Riegle, who headed the committee, noted that: "They seemed to give him anything he wanted. It's right out of a science fiction movie as to why we would send this kind of stuff to anybody."
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be the first, or last, time that we followed the old adage: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Catawba said:
We ****ed up when we consolidated Saddam's power in Iraq under Reagan and Bush I, and then we ****ed up again when we invaded Iraq to get big oil back in for the first time since 1973. The only way we could have ****ed up more would have been by making our occupation permanent as McCain wanted to do.
Click to expand...

Saddam did not need our help to consolidate his power. The decision to support him against Iran followed an assessment that his grip on power was not threatened. The oil we protected in the first Gulf War was the oil in the Saudi and Kuwaiti fields. Iraqi oil was never a war aim.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
It wouldn't be the first, or last, time that we followed the old adage: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Click to expand...

And how did that practice work out for us and the poor Iraqis?


Saddam did not need our help to consolidate his power.
Click to expand...

Only if you ignore the Shi'a and Kurdish movements seeking to overthrow the government, and his belligerent, Iran


The decision to support him against Iran followed an assessment that his grip on power was not threatened. The oil we protected in the first Gulf War was the oil in the Saudi and Kuwaiti fields. Iraqi oil was never a war aim.:peace
Click to expand...


Cheney's own task force report in 2002 spells out why Saddam's practice of withholding oil to drive up prices had to be stopped and recommended military action.
 
Catawba said:
And how did that practice work out for us and the poor Iraqis?




Only if you ignore the Shi'a and Kurdish movements seeking to overthrow the government, and his belligerent, Iran





Cheney's own task force report in 2002 spells out why Saddam's practice of withholding oil to drive up prices had to be stopped and recommended military action.
Click to expand...

The Iraqis are better off. The Shia & Kurds had no chance. You have read Cheney's task force report?:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
The Iraqis are better off. The Shia & Kurds had no chance. You have read Cheney's task force report?:cool:
Click to expand...

When did the Iraqis ask us to invade and occupy their country? Who made you god to determine what another countries people want? The Shia and Kurds had more of a chance before we strengthened Saddam for 8 years. And yes, I have read Strategic Challenges for the 21st Century, completely. There is more proof in that report the war was about oil, then there was proof of Iraq being a threat to the US.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's hyperbole nonsense as well. That kind of comment can never be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

neither can a liberal that supports poor performance without question
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom