• 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
Catawba said:
Untrue. Military action was recommended in 2002 in Cheney's Task Force report. The orders given to the troops were to first secure the oil facilities, before the nuclear facilities. Our most important occupation benchmarks was to get the Iraqi oil law changed, and a government in place and strong enough to enforce it. Big oil is back in Iraq now for the first time since 1973, and that only happened due to our invasion and occupation. Mission Accomplished!

Now what threat did Iraq present to the US or its neighbors that necessitated our attack and occupation in 2003?
Click to expand...

Do not mistake my position. I do not claim that Iraq posed any threat. I believe that the decision to invade preceded the WMD intelligence; it did not follow it. Nonetheless, there is zero evidence to support the assertion that the war was to secure Iraq's oil. The orders to secure the oil facilities were to protect Iraq's financial capacity to rebuild, and prevent environmental degradation that would endanger US troops. At no time during our long occupation did the US government act to direct Iraqi oil to US companies.:roll:
 
Navy Pride said:
Why do you ignore the facts..When we invaded Iraq it was by a 60% favorability.
Click to expand...

The only reason there was any majority favor in the polls about going to Iraq was because BUSH and his war lords lied their asses off about the intelligence regarding WMD...
 
Jack Hays said:
Which means nothing in regard to Iraq war aims.:cool:
Click to expand...

One does wonder why we were never let in on the fact that Iraq was just some typical Muslim hotbed of hot air being kept in check by "The Butcher of Bagdad"..................
 
Jack Hays said:
The currency chosen by Saddam to trade oil could never be a concern. The costs of complicating his transactions would have been his.:cool:
Click to expand...

Right it would...the underlying thing is when countries start to get off the dollar in trading...it causes inflation to a degree. World Reserve status for the dollar is all that is saving us from hyperinflation. Our government will not allow a country like Iraq, Libya, or Iran to get off the dollar without extreme resistance. (Iran has a few major complications in Russia and China)
 
zstep18 said:
Was Saddam worth thousands of Americans dead, thousands and thousands of civilians dead, and trillions in dollars spent?
Click to expand...

We have now plenty of experience showing that taking down dictators usually has unintended consequences, especially when it is done by outsiders. Often these dictators have effectively prevented or limited sectarian violence, which can be worse than the dictatorship. The people of the country should be the ones making these decisions, not outsiders, since they will be the ones experiencing the consequences and best equipped to deal with them.
 
Bonzai said:
One does wonder why we were never let in on the fact that Iraq was just some typical Muslim hotbed of hot air being kept in check by "The Butcher of Bagdad"..................
Click to expand...

Because, my personal opinion only, their aims had little to do with Iraq per se.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
Do not mistake my position. I do not claim that Iraq posed any threat. I believe that the decision to invade preceded the WMD intelligence; it did not follow it. Nonetheless, there is zero evidence to support the assertion that the war was to secure Iraq's oil. The orders to secure the oil facilities were to protect Iraq's financial capacity to rebuild, and prevent environmental degradation that would endanger US troops. At no time during our long occupation did the US government act to direct Iraqi oil to US companies.:roll:
Click to expand...

Poppycock I've just showed you the evidence. And no one to date has shown any evidence that Iraq was a threat. Most of the world knows the war was about oil. Only a few diehards still think it was because Iraq was a threat.

Getting big oil back in Iraq for the first time since 1973 was the mission, and we succeeded.
 
AreteCourage said:
Right it would...the underlying thing is when countries start to get off the dollar in trading...it causes inflation to a degree. World Reserve status for the dollar is all that is saving us from hyperinflation. Our government will not allow a country like Iraq, Libya, or Iran to get off the dollar without extreme resistance. (Iran has a few major complications in Russia and China)
Click to expand...

Actually, the US need not lift a finger. All the countries that holds billions of dollars of dollar-denominated assets do the heavy lifting for us.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
Because, my personal opinion only, their aims had little to do with Iraq per se.:cool:
Click to expand...

Well, I'm still sticking with the theory that the Evangelicals were hoping to set off Armageddon and the Neocons were using them to further the aims of the Zionist extreme in Israel......................
 
Catawba said:
Poppycock I've just showed you the evidence. And no one to date has shown any evidence that Iraq was a threat. Most of the world knows the war was about oil. Only a few diehards still think it was because Iraq was a threat.

Getting big oil back in Iraq for the first time since 1973 was the mission, and we succeeded.
Click to expand...

You showed nothing. I do not claim Iraq was a threat. The war had other aims, in my view. If you think "Big Oil" profited, please identify the US oil companies that are now prominent in Iraq.:cool:
 
Bonzai said:
Well, I'm still sticking with the theory that the Evangelicals were hoping to set off Armageddon and the Neocons were using them to further the aims of the Zionist extreme in Israel......................
Click to expand...

Well, you just carry on.:2wave:
 
muciti said:
There is the cost to consider, however, I think that when you have a government mass murdering it's people the cost is justified in removing that government. I won't argue that the war was poorly executed, but it was the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Although Saddam killed a lot of Kurds among others, he was not in a mass murdering phase when we attacked. We did nothing when he was killing the Kurds, So there is no evidence that our attack saved lives, since it unleashed a lot of sectarian violence.
 
Jack Hays said:
Do not mistake my position. I do not claim that Iraq posed any threat. I believe that the decision to invade preceded the WMD intelligence; it did not follow it. Nonetheless, there is zero evidence to support the assertion that the war was to secure Iraq's oil. The orders to secure the oil facilities were to protect Iraq's financial capacity to rebuild, and prevent environmental degradation that would endanger US troops. At no time during our long occupation did the US government act to direct Iraqi oil to US companies.:roll:
Click to expand...

Maybe the war was to prevent a hostile nation from securing the oil fields. Now that Saddam is gone Iraq is much closer to Iran than it was before the war. Actually I believe the reason for the invasion was to satisfy the neocons at PNAC and because Bush wanted to be a "war president."
 
Jack Hays said:
You showed nothing. I do not claim Iraq was a threat. The war had other aims, in my view. If you think "Big Oil" profited, please identify the US oil companies that are now prominent in Iraq.:cool:
Click to expand...

You lie. I showed you the quote from Cheney's energy task force report.


Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq

"The end of the US military occupation does not mean Iraqis have full control of their oil.

While the US military has formally ended its occupation of Iraq, some of the largest western oil companies, ExxonMobil, BP and Shell, remain.

On November 27, 38 months after Royal Dutch Shell announced its pursuit of a massive gas deal in southern Iraq, the oil giant had its contract signed for a $17bn flared gas deal.

Three days later, the US-based energy firm Emerson submitted a bid for a contract to operate at Iraq's giant Zubair oil field, which reportedly holds some eight million barrels of oil.

Earlier this year, Emerson was awarded a contract to provide crude oil metering systems and other technology for a new oil terminal in Basra, currently under construction in the Persian Gulf, and the company is installing control systems in the power stations in Hilla and Kerbala.

Iraq's supergiant Rumaila oil field is already being developed by BP, and the other supergiant reserve, Majnoon oil field, is being developed by Royal Dutch Shell. Both fields are in southern Iraq.

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iraq's oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks second in the world, only behind Saudi Arabia. The EIA also estimates that up to 90 per cent of the country remains unexplored, due to decades of US-led wars and economic sanctions.

"Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, US and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973."

Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq - Features - Al Jazeera English
 
pbrauer said:
Maybe the war was to prevent a hostile nation from securing the oil fields. Now that Saddam is gone Iraq is much closer to Iran than it was before the war. Actually I believe the reason for the invasion was to satisfy the neocons at PNAC and because Bush wanted to be a "war president."
Click to expand...

Personal opinion alert. The GWB crowd came into office determined to do "big things." I believe they wanted to establish a Pax Americana in the Middle East to enable a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. The destruction of Saddam's regime and the establishment of a powerful American presence in a democratic Iraq would have done that.:cool:
 
Catawba said:
You lie. I showed you the quote from Cheney's energy task force report.


Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq

"The end of the US military occupation does not mean Iraqis have full control of their oil.

While the US military has formally ended its occupation of Iraq, some of the largest western oil companies, ExxonMobil, BP and Shell, remain.

On November 27, 38 months after Royal Dutch Shell announced its pursuit of a massive gas deal in southern Iraq, the oil giant had its contract signed for a $17bn flared gas deal.

Three days later, the US-based energy firm Emerson submitted a bid for a contract to operate at Iraq's giant Zubair oil field, which reportedly holds some eight million barrels of oil.

Earlier this year, Emerson was awarded a contract to provide crude oil metering systems and other technology for a new oil terminal in Basra, currently under construction in the Persian Gulf, and the company is installing control systems in the power stations in Hilla and Kerbala.

Iraq's supergiant Rumaila oil field is already being developed by BP, and the other supergiant reserve, Majnoon oil field, is being developed by Royal Dutch Shell. Both fields are in southern Iraq.

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iraq's oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks second in the world, only behind Saudi Arabia. The EIA also estimates that up to 90 per cent of the country remains unexplored, due to decades of US-led wars and economic sanctions.

"Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, US and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973."

Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq - Features - Al Jazeera English
Click to expand...

Neither BP nor Shell is a US company. US service firms dominate the industry and are present everywhere. You presented no evidence that ExxonMobil or any other US oil company is in Iraq on any significant scale. :cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
Personal opinion alert. The GWB crowd came into office determined to do "big things." I believe they wanted to establish a Pax Americana in the Middle East to enable a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. The destruction of Saddam's regime and the establishment of a powerful American presence in a democratic Iraq would have done that.:cool:
Click to expand...

Maybe..................What amazes me to this day is the scale of failure in achieving those goals......................
 
Jack Hays said:
Neither BP nor Shell is a US company. US service firms dominate the industry and are present everywhere. You presented no evidence that ExxonMobil or any other US oil company is in Iraq on any significant scale. :cool:
Click to expand...

The US gov does love BP with a passion:), and BP loves the US Gov. BPs largest costumer is the US Defense Department.
 
DVSentinel said:
.....If America does not use it's power and influence to better Mankind as a whole, then it is just as evil as those it will not stop from doing evil. If you don't fight evil to the greatest extent possible, then you support and enable evil......
Click to expand...

Sometimes attempting to fight evil does more damage than good. We didn't really go into Iraq to fight evil (although I'm sure many of our troops believed that was the plan) and we did more harm than good. That would have been the case even if our intentions were purely for good.
 
We need to rethink the whole concept of "Preemptive " war.........................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom