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 77 of 152 FirstFirst ... 2767757677787987127 ... LastLast
Results 761 to 770 of 1513

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

  1. #761
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,044

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Because of insurgents loyal to the Baath party.
    They are loyal to the Sunni tribe. The Baathist Party had little to do with it. Syria's government is based in the Baathist Party. However, fighters from all over the region, where there are no Baathist Parties, traveled to Iraq to slaughter fellow Muslims within the Shia tribe. What unites the insurgents is their tribal affiliation not a political party.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  2. #762
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,044

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

    Quote Originally Posted by marywollstonecraft View Post
    regardless of whether this is true or not (and not all of the violence is necessarily attributable to this), why was it higher after the invasion?
    Because it isn't true. It's tribal based.

    1) With Democracy giving the majority (the Shia) its power, nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria now had one less tribal ally (though they hated Hussein). This is why they did nothing to curb the border crossings from their side.

    2) The significance of Baghdad in Islamic history compelled many fighters to defend the Sunni tradition of power.

    3) With a democratic success in Iraq, other nations in the Middle East are now having to contend with their people who also want social justice and a more democratic setting (ironic to fanatics, democracy was the original base of government behind the Caliphate). An entire region wasn't blind to what was happening in Iraq. If some watched and knew to go stop it, then most certainly wanted to see a success. Hence the Arab Spring, which lends credibility to the Sunni governments that feared the implications of a succesful Iraq.

    And this is why violence in Iraq and in other places is higher than normal before our involvement in Iraq in 2003 (whle we pretend we weren't involved with his majestic soveriegnty since 1991). We stirred the pot. Obviously it was a pot that needed stirring. With Iraq's status quo getting upended and sitting in the heartland of the Islamic world, the invasion into Iraq had bigger implications to our security. Anyone that argues that it was because of WMD are either lying (White House) or don;t know how to present the issues correctly. WMD is a default argument for ignorant in both the supporter's and protestor's side.
    Last edited by MSgt; 03-27-13 at 04:50 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  3. #763
    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
    This has always been your problem. You see things in a spectrum.

    This isn't right. This isn't left. It's the world view that you and I live in. What you constantly complain about suggests that you live in a different world from the rest of us. Marxist utopia does not exist and never will. It can't. The closer we get, the better we become. But this does not mean its achievable anymore than winning a "War on Drugs" or winning a "War on Terror" as they are implied. The wars are a marathon with no finish line. So is security and growth in this world.

    120+ democracies created since 1900 and all embrace capitalism. Even China is developing within the industrial and economic system we created in the West. Calling it far right may make you feel better, but this is the world and this is security. Why do you think politicians spend more time bickering over the issues than fixing them? Because most of the issue are not to be fixed as long as people remain imperfect the issues are a matter of life where only details can get smoothed out. Preach about a perfect system and I will point out Mao, Stalin, and Hitler who thought they could fit imperfect people into a "perfect" system. At the heart of all civilizations is resources. If we vacated all our holdigs into resources and isolated ourselves from the world, we would just get sucked out again by the very people who deem themselves our superiors. It is a fact that Americans were happier before World War I when we practiced a great degree of isolationalism (never in its pure form). But who in the world twice proved that we can't be left alone in our happines? Who in the world demanded that a big brother be present just to avoid the calamities of global destruction?

    This is the world. Better to shape it in our image than to keep getting sucked into it after the fact.


    Whether you want to call it left and right or something else does not change the fact that the country is divided into two very different ideological groups, one that like you, believes in might-makes-right and US hegemonic domination of the rest of the world to serve our needs, and another group that believes in providing for our own needs, working cooperatively and helping with humanitarian aid to other countries, but basically keeping our nose out of how other countries wish to rule themselves, unless they attack us.
    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

  4. #764
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,044

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Whether you want to call it left and right or something else does not change the fact that the country is divided into two very different ideological groups, one that like you, believes in might-makes-right and US hegemonic domination of the rest of the world to serve our needs, and another group that believes in providing for our own needs, working cooperatively and helping with humanitarian aid to other countries, but basically keeping our nose out of how other countries wish to rule themselves, unless they attack us.
    These categories aren't distinct. Both political parties have a background in the idea of shaping the world to our interests. It's what the world gets for starting two World Wars and a Cold War while insisting we have a part in each. And doing what you suggest is very grey. The history of Vietnam (going back to Roosevelt) proves how grey adhering to your suggestion is. The only black and white is whether or not we are in the word or isolated. There is no coincidence that our involvement in World War I was the era in which globalization really began (though I could argue that it started with the War of 1812). We had to learn the hard way with World War II that staying in the world's affairs was a necessity if only for our own security. If the world powers didn't prove twice that their greatest talent is to suck the rest of us into their party of gore and destruction then we wouldn't be in the position we are in now looking for the world to look more like us.

    But we basically do keep our nose out of other people's business. This has always been an exaggeration. We are looked down upon by Europeans for not sticking our noses into their business sooner during both Wolrd Wars. We didn't tell Cold War dictators to abuse their people; we merely wanted stability. We did nothing to fix Afghanistan until after 9/11, but we are blamed for not sticking our nose into their affairs prior to. In fact, people have gone so far as to state that American got what it deserved since we left Afghanistan the way we did. So, American can't win either way. What we do is conduct business with governments. That's it. It is not our fault that the Chinese deal with an oppresive state simply because we conduct business with their government. It is not our fault that France is the world's chief supplier of weapons to Africa simply because we conduct business with its government. It is not our fault that Europe and China was dumping toxic waste in Somali waters throughout the 1990s that set the conditions for piracy, which demands American interference yet again in securing international water ways. You can believe in a theory of utopia all you want, but as long as we live in a world of other competitive and leeching powers, we are burdened with a leadership role over misfits who hypocritically and pathetically preach to us about morality. Morality is not watching human abuses across the world, yet international law through the United Nations insists on just that. France's moral war against Gudaffi seemed pathetic given a month prior they insisted on supporting their dictator in Tunisia. Is this moral?

    But let's talk about humanitarian issues. Feeding Somalis through the UN also came with combat operations against those who disrupted humanitarian operations. We were conducting humanitarian operations in Kurdistan throughout the 1990s while Iraq was starving to death under the UN. See how quickly a humanitarian mission gets bloody? Very quickly even our missions of humanitarianism turn to violence because we live in a world full of ****. And **** has weapons and intents that don't meet with our own.

    We have been attacked twice in our history once we took shape. Pearl Harbor = War in the Pacific. 9/11 = Afghanistan. There is a whole lot of conflict and wars not mentioned here. Why is this? Does American security involve economic security and way of life, which involves far more than a simple pre-requisite of being physically attacked? What was the Revolutionary War about other than economic security and the means in which to internationally trade in accordance to our wants? The United States has never been what you preach we should be. Even Jefferson and Adams was dissapointed in democracy during their time. People are stupid and given the freedom to decide self-interest they will always doom a bigger picture. This is true for our internal politicis and international politics. Hell, given a democratic vote, we would not have physically participated in World War I or in the European theatre for World War II. Lucky for the world and for us we have leaders that do what they believe is right at the time despite American selfishness and a false idea of morality.

    That's America.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  5. #765
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,894
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I've already documented the plan before the war recommended in Cheney's Task Force Report, Strategic Energy Challenges for the 21st Century.

    And the new Iraq oil law that we helped draw up was a key benchmark for the new Iraq government:

    "The oil law was drafted in 2006, after the first post-Saddam permanent government was formed. Then the Bush administration pushed it especially hard through 2007.

    The law had three purposes. The first was to create a framework in which multinationals would have a primary role in developing Iraq’s oil industry, and to determine exactly the extent of that role, what rights they would have, and the extent of their powers. The second element was to clarify how that would work in an emerging federal system in Iraq. To put it simply: With whom would they sign contracts? Was it with the central government in Baghdad, or was it with regional governments—in particular, the only one that exists so far, the Kurdistan regional government?

    The third element of the law was to essentially disempower parliament in relation to decisions around oil. . . .
    Since 1967 Iraq has had a law in place, No. 97, which said if the government were to sign contracts to develop oil fields and run them, the parliament would have to sign a specific piece of legislation to approve them. [In other words,] the parliament would have to say, “We support and agree with this contract and we give it validity in law.” That was still in force in 2003, and indeed in 2006. The government could legally sign contacts with foreign companies. But if it did so, it would have to get the OK from parliament for them to have any force. Therefore, the most important role of the oil law of 2006/2007 was not [so much] to allow contracts to be signed by multinationals, as that was already possible. It was to allow them [i.e., the contracts] to be signed without parliament having any oversight.

    Incidentally, the importance of parliamentary oversight is that oil accounts for over ninety-five percent of government revenue. So it is quite reasonable for parliament to have some say in how that works.

    So this was the oil law. The United States, Britain, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and other financial institutions wanted to see it passed as soon as possible once the permanent post-Saddam government was formed in May 2006. As soon as that happened, the United States and the Britain started to say, “your priority is going to be to pass the oil law.” I have documents from that period which make this very clear. They moved very quickly to draft an oil law in August 2006, and it basically delivered those three asks of it. Getting this law passed in parliament became the major political priority of the United States."

    The Unfinished Story of Iraq's Oil Law: An Interview with Greg Muttitt
    Bilge and lefty agit-prop with no supporting evidence whatsoever. No law, and virtually no position for US oil companies in post-war Iraq. No significant US effort to push for same. All you have is a desperately strained ideological polemic.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  6. #766
    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
    These categories aren't distinct. Both political parties have a background in the idea of shaping the world to our interests.
    That is changing, as documented the majority of Democrats voted against war on the Iraqis.


    But we basically do keep our nose out of other people's business.
    The wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq show that we do not.

    But let's talk about humanitarian issues. Feeding Somalis through the UN also came with combat operations against those who disrupted humanitarian operations.
    I never said a humanitarian effort couldn't get bloody. However, my morals draw distinction between trying to help, and attacking others for control of their property.



    We have been attacked twice in our history once we took shape. Pearl Harbor = War in the Pacific. 9/11 = Afghanistan.
    I support our war when we ere attacked by Japan. Afghanistan never attacked the America.
    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

  7. #767
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    They are loyal to the Sunni tribe. The Baathist Party had little to do with it. Syria's government is based in the Baathist Party. However, fighters from all over the region, where there are no Baathist Parties, traveled to Iraq to slaughter fellow Muslims within the Shia tribe. What unites the insurgents is their tribal affiliation not a political party.
    Okay, that makes sense that they would be more loyal to their respective tribes.

  8. #768
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    These categories aren't distinct. Both political parties have a background in the idea of shaping the world to our interests. It's what the world gets for starting two World Wars and a Cold War while insisting we have a part in each. And doing what you suggest is very grey. The history of Vietnam (going back to Roosevelt) proves how grey adhering to your suggestion is. The only black and white is whether or not we are in the word or isolated. There is no coincidence that our involvement in World War I was the era in which globalization really began (though I could argue that it started with the War of 1812). We had to learn the hard way with World War II that staying in the world's affairs was a necessity if only for our own security. If the world powers didn't prove twice that their greatest talent is to suck the rest of us into their party of gore and destruction then we wouldn't be in the position we are in now looking for the world to look more like us.

    But we basically do keep our nose out of other people's business. This has always been an exaggeration. We are looked down upon by Europeans for not sticking our noses into their business sooner during both Wolrd Wars. We didn't tell Cold War dictators to abuse their people; we merely wanted stability. We did nothing to fix Afghanistan until after 9/11, but we are blamed for not sticking our nose into their affairs prior to. In fact, people have gone so far as to state that American got what it deserved since we left Afghanistan the way we did. So, American can't win either way. What we do is conduct business with governments. That's it. It is not our fault that the Chinese deal with an oppresive state simply because we conduct business with their government. It is not our fault that France is the world's chief supplier of weapons to Africa simply because we conduct business with its government. It is not our fault that Europe and China was dumping toxic waste in Somali waters throughout the 1990s that set the conditions for piracy, which demands American interference yet again in securing international water ways. You can believe in a theory of utopia all you want, but as long as we live in a world of other competitive and leeching powers, we are burdened with a leadership role over misfits who hypocritically and pathetically preach to us about morality. Morality is not watching human abuses across the world, yet international law through the United Nations insists on just that. France's moral war against Gudaffi seemed pathetic given a month prior they insisted on supporting their dictator in Tunisia. Is this moral?

    But let's talk about humanitarian issues. Feeding Somalis through the UN also came with combat operations against those who disrupted humanitarian operations. We were conducting humanitarian operations in Kurdistan throughout the 1990s while Iraq was starving to death under the UN. See how quickly a humanitarian mission gets bloody? Very quickly even our missions of humanitarianism turn to violence because we live in a world full of ****. And **** has weapons and intents that don't meet with our own.

    We have been attacked twice in our history once we took shape. Pearl Harbor = War in the Pacific. 9/11 = Afghanistan. There is a whole lot of conflict and wars not mentioned here. Why is this? Does American security involve economic security and way of life, which involves far more than a simple pre-requisite of being physically attacked? What was the Revolutionary War about other than economic security and the means in which to internationally trade in accordance to our wants? The United States has never been what you preach we should be. Even Jefferson and Adams was dissapointed in democracy during their time. People are stupid and given the freedom to decide self-interest they will always doom a bigger picture. This is true for our internal politicis and international politics. Hell, given a democratic vote, we would not have physically participated in World War I or in the European theatre for World War II. Lucky for the world and for us we have leaders that do what they believe is right at the time despite American selfishness and a false idea of morality.

    That's America.
    Excellent post and very educational too.

  9. #769
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Thanks for the far right talking points to desperately try to justify their war against the Iraqis. The majority of the country are no longer buying what you are trying to sell.
    No one is justifying the war, just saying that there ARE other reasons why we went there. It was NOT all about the oil. We had just been attacked by terrorists, and Iraq was a known terrorist haven with lots of training camps.

  10. #770
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,570

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    No one is justifying the war, just saying that there ARE other reasons why we went there. It was NOT all about the oil. We had just been attacked by terrorists, and Iraq was a known terrorist haven with lots of training camps.
    Was it?

    What terrorists? Not Al Qaeda, as Hussain and Al Qaeda were enemies.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

Posting Permissions

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