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 79 of 152 FirstFirst ... 2969777879808189129 ... LastLast
Results 781 to 790 of 1513

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

  1. #781
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JC Callender View Post
    Many influential people world wide believed he was a serious threat, including Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. That's what we knew at the time, and that's what we went off of. Did you know at the time that we or one of our allies wouldn't get attacked with WMD's?....of course you didn't. And how do you know that he didn't bury them in the sand? Is it more important for you to hail some kind of moral victory with the advantage of hindsight rather that to say with humility that we tried our best?
    You would have a valid point if there were no weapons inspectors in Iraq.

    But there were. And had Bush let them finish their job, we would know what we know today, but without the high cost of some 35,000 American casualties. At least a trillion dollars, probaby way more. And the moral price of at least 100,000 Iraqi deaths.

    Bush did not have to deploy troops to Iraq.

  2. #782
    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 JC Callender View Post
    Many influential people world wide believed he was a serious threat, including Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. That's what we knew at the time, and that's what we went off of. Did you know at the time that we or one of our allies wouldn't get attacked with WMD's?....of course you didn't. And how do you know that he didn't bury them in the sand? Is it more important for you to hail some kind of moral victory with the advantage of hindsight rather that to say with humility that we tried our best?

    I've always wondered if much of the PTSD from this war comes from our service people injuring and or killing Iraqi's for the sake of freedom and justice, only to have the case made ad nauseam that it was totally unjustified.
    Of course the response of three you listed we're a little more nuanced. Kerry for example explained his speech in the vote that Saddam's threat didn't warrant an invasion outside the UN. So the word threat is not equal to supporting Bush's actions.

    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.

  3. #783
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,582

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Well, it was called "The War on Terror."
    Yes, it was, which was one of the problems. Fighting a "war on terror" is fighting a strategy of warfare. We didn't really know who our enemy was, at least not specifically. Fighting a war on Al Qaeda would have given us more focus.

    Better yet, we could have gone after Bin Laden and his cohorts and gone home.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  4. #784
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Yes, it was, which was one of the problems. Fighting a "war on terror" is fighting a strategy of warfare. We didn't really know who our enemy was, at least not specifically. Fighting a war on Al Qaeda would have given us more focus.

    Better yet, we could have gone after Bin Laden and his cohorts and gone home.
    The U.S. Navy SEAL team took care of Bin Laden long ago
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  5. #785
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Muhammed View Post
    Got any proof to back up that contention?
    Saddam Hussein was secular whereas al-Qaida was religious.


  6. #786
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Mecca
    Last Seen
    01-14-15 @ 07:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,426

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Saddam Hussein was secular whereas al-Qaida was religious.
    Is that why he built all of those mosques?

  7. #787
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    The U.S. Navy SEAL team took care of Bin Laden long ago
    On May 2, 2013 it will be two years.


  8. #788
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Muhammed View Post
    Is that why he built all of those mosques?


    Saddam Hussein: Secular or Religious Ruler?

    Saddam Hussein's popularity in the Muslim and Arab world varied greatly, depending upon whom one asked and what the political situation at the time was. Because of his repression of the religious Shi'ite minority in Iraq and his long war with Shi'ite Iran, it was difficult for Shi'ite Muslims to find anything good to say about Hussein. In addition, because of his staunch secularism and his secularization of Iraq, it was been difficult for devout and conservative Muslims of any type to think well of him.

    Hussein, Saddam


  9. #789
    Sage
    BretJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:39 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,382

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JC Callender View Post
    Many influential people world wide believed he was a serious threat, including Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. That's what we knew at the time, and that's what we went off of. Did you know at the time that we or one of our allies wouldn't get attacked with WMD's?....of course you didn't. And how do you know that he didn't bury them in the sand? Is it more important for you to hail some kind of moral victory with the advantage of hindsight rather that to say with humility that we tried our best?

    I've always wondered if much of the PTSD from this war comes from our service people injuring and or killing Iraqi's for the sake of freedom and justice, only to have the case made ad nauseam that it was totally unjustified.
    Argue either way about the validity of the war. Everyone has an opinion. Do not make the mistake of saying "no" WMDs were found. Several of my co-workers were injured by WMDs that supposedly did not exist and still have medical issues because of it. They may not have been a nuclear variety WMD, but a few pounds of the materials that were found could have been smuggled into the U.S. far easier than nuclear material and kill far more than the attack on 9/11.
    The opposite of hero is not villain, it is "bystander"
    " In doing what we ought we deserve no praise, because it is our duty." -Aurelius Augustine
    "But why do they use them to make Brawndo??!!"

  10. #790
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

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

    'WHY DID GEORGE W. Bush choose March 19, 2003, to invade Iraq, rather than some day in May, or July, or never? Because he was afraid that further delay would give United Nations arms inspectors time to refute the accusation—his sole pretext for making an unprovoked attack on an independent country—that Saddam Hussein’s regime was working on nuclear weapons.

    The U.S. president couldn’t say that, of course, and so instead his administration’s spokesmen mumbled about the need to get the war over and done with before the summer heat made fighting impossible. Yet American soldiers proved perfectly capable of operating in that summer heat during the ensuing seven years of fighting, in which over 4,000 of them were killed.

    That was nothing compared to the number of Iraqi deaths. At least five times as many Iraqis have died violently in the decade since the U.S. invasion as were killed by Saddam’s regime in the 10 years before the invasion. The exact number is unknown, but Saddam’s secret police were probably killing less than 2,000 people a year from 1993 to 2003. An estimated 121,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the military and political struggles of the past 10 years.

    Iraq’s infrastructure has still not recovered to its prewar level. More than a million Iraqis still live in internal exile, unable to return to the homes from which they were “cleansed” during the Sunni-Shia sectarian war of 2006–2007. Another million have fled the country for good, including a large proportion of the country’s intellectual and professional elite.

    Iraq ranks eighth from the bottom on Transparency International’s corruption index, ahead of Somalia and North Korea but below Haiti and Equatorial Guinea. The government in Baghdad, though dominated by sectarian Shia politicians, does little for the impoverished Shia majority. The Sunni minority fears and hates it. And the Kurdish ethnic minority in the north just ignores Baghdad and runs a state that is independent in all but name.

    Iraq’s courts do the regime’s will, torture is endemic, and the swollen army and “security” forces (used almost exclusively for internal repression) eat up a huge share of the budget. And from the perspective of American grand strategy, the main result of the war has been to weaken the position of the U.S. in the Gulf region and strengthen that of its perceived opponent, Iran.

    The United States spent about $800 billion on the Iraq war, and will eventually spend at least another trillion dollars on military pensions, disability payments, and debt service. Yet it achieved less than nothing. Why on earth did it invade in the first place?

    Even the defenders of the invasion have stopped claiming that Saddam Hussein was cooperating with al-Qaeda terrorists who were plotting to attack the United States. They were also plotting to overthrow and kill Saddam, as everyone with any knowledge of the Middle East already knew.

    The UN weapons inspectors never found the slightest evidence that Saddam had revived the nuclear weapons program that had been dismantled under UN supervision in the early 1990s. The people in the White House who took the decision to invade must have known that there was no such program: the way they carefully worded their propaganda in order to avoid explicit lying is ample evidence of that.

    The strategist Edward Luttwak once suggested that the real reason was that the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 had been too easy. After 9/11 the American people really wanted to punish somebody, and Afghanistan had not provided enough catharsis. So another invasion was an emotional necessity, and, given the American public’s ignorance about the Middle East, almost any Arab country would do.

    There was certainly a parallel desire among the neo-conservatives in the Bush White House to restore American power to unchallenged dominance after what they saw as the fecklessness of Bill Clinton’s administrations in the 1990s. That required a short and successful war that would put everyone else in awe and fear of American military might—but, once again, any weak and unpopular country would have done. Why Iraq?

    The closest we can come to a rational answer is the argument, common in Washington a decade ago, that permanent military bases in Iraq would give America strategic control over the entire Gulf region.

    The role of those bases would not be to ensure prompt delivery of the region’s oil to the United States at a low price: only 11 percent of U.S. oil imports come from there. The bases would instead enable the United States to block Gulf exports of oil to China if the United States found itself in a confrontation with that country. (Geostrategic arguments are often frivolous.)

    None of these explanations can justify what was done, and we haven’t even gone into the damage done to international law by this blatantly criminal act. But can we at least conclude that the world, or even just the United Nations, has learned a lesson from all this?

    Probably yes for the United States, at least until memories fade. (Give it 10 more years.) Not so much for the rest of the world, but then most other countries are less prone to invade faraway places anyway.'

    Gwynne Dyer: Decade-old lessons from George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq | Georgia Straight

Posting Permissions

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