• 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
I agree.

Bush deserves all the credit for the dead and wounded and the money wasted in Iraq.

The man should be locked up.

He is not alone. And many more should be fired, republican and democrat for not doing their jobs.
 
He is not alone. And many more should be fired, republican and democrat for not doing their jobs.



I totally agree there are guilty people on both sides of the aisle, but Bush was the Commander-in-Chief and the 'decider' so, for sure he deserves most of the blame, followed closely by 'Dick' Cheney.
 
I totally agree there are guilty people on both sides of the aisle, but Bush was the Commander-in-Chief and the 'decider' so, for sure he deserves most of the blame, followed closely by 'Dick' Cheney.

Agreed.
 
Error is not a crime.:cool:



It is when it costs so many people their lives and so many others their health.

Someone needs to pay a price for that.

No one has really even said that they're sorry yet, unless I missed it.
 
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:

I don't guess you noticed who the other major belligerent was in the Iraq war? US and British oil firms were kicked out of Iraq in 1973 when Iraq nationalized the remainder of their oil fields. They are back in Iraq for the very first time since 1973, and this was made possible by our invasion, regime change and new oil law we demanded as a benchmark for leaving.

"Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.

It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom's bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

"From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access."

"For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society.

These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Today it does."



Here's how they did it ......................

Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil | News - Home
 
Who are the fake democrats/democracies?

the ones who support fascist dictators ,who are the puppets of globalists


l dont understand why the middle class defends the global creepies.
 
Last edited:
Most of that he did when we were his ally. And we've killed almost as many Iraqis as he did. As one Iraqi said that escaped - "The hell that was Saddam was not as bad as the hell that was the US military." And the government there now is just as corrupt as the last one.

Is there any evidence of mass murders lately under the new regime, or people just disappearing into thin air? I like you're "one Iraqi" quote too. Not to mention, we only captured him and turned him over to the Iraqis. We didn't kill Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people did.
 
Is there any evidence of mass murders lately under the new regime, or people just disappearing into thin air? I like you're "one Iraqi" quote too. Not to mention, we only captured him and turned him over to the Iraqis. We didn't kill Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people did.

yes but you let it happen.

saddam was not a serbian rapist like mladiç and karadziç .

Qaddafi ,saddam and assad now ?

viva democracy .))))
 
yes but you let it happen.

saddam was not a serbian rapist like mladiç and karadziç .

Qaddafi ,saddam and assad now ?

viva democracy .))))

Medusa, he was found guilty of crimes against humanity and executed by his own people. We only turned him over to them. He was a terrible rotten person Medusa.

Just SOME of Saddam's crimes.

The War Crimes of Saddam Hussein - War Crimes of Saddam Hussein

Ethnic Cleansing:

The two dominant ethnicities of Iraq have traditionally been Arabs in south and central Iraq, and Kurds in the north and northeast, particularly along the Iranian border. Hussein long viewed ethnic Kurds as a long-term threat to Iraq's survival, and the oppression and extermination of the Kurds was one of his administration's highest priorities.
Religious Persecution:

The Baath Party was dominated by Sunni Muslims, who made up only about one-third of Iraq's general population; the other two-thirds was made up of Shiite Muslims, Shiism also happening to be the official religion of Iran. Throughout Hussein's tenure, and especially during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), he saw the marginalization and eventual elimination of Shiism as a necessary goal in the Arabization process, by which Iraq would purge itself of all perceived Iranian influence.
The Dujail Massacre of 1982:

In July of 1982, several Shiite militants attempted to assassinate Saddam Hussein while he was riding through the city. Hussein responded by ordering the slaughter of some 148 residents, including dozens of children. This is the war crime with which Saddam Hussein was formally charged, and for which he was executed.
The Barzani Clan Abductions of 1983:

Masoud Barzani led the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), an ethnic Kurdish revolutionary group fighting Baathist oppression. After Barzani cast his lot with the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War, Hussein had some 8,000 members of Barzani's clan, including hundreds of women and children, abducted. It is assumed that most were slaughtered; thousands have been discovered in mass graves in southern Iraq.
The al-Anfal Campaign:

The worst human rights abuses of Hussein's tenure took place during the genocidal al-Anfal Campaign (1986-1989), in which Hussein's administration called for the extermination of every living thing--human or animal--in certain regions of the Kurdish north. All told, some 182,000 people--men, women, and children--were slaughtered, many through use of chemical weapons. The Halabja poison gas massacre of 1988 alone killed over 5,000 people. Hussein later blamed the attacks on the Iranians, and the Reagan administration, which supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, helped promote this cover story.
 
Likely not as many. To quote an Iraqi on NPR, "Saddam had finished killing. All America will do is start the killing all over again." He was profoundly correct.

:lamo OMG! He had finished killing? Seriously? A madman who idolized Stalin just decided to stop killing people to further his own self-aggrandizing agenda. Good Lord, now I've heard everything.
 
There are 4,300 GIs that don't feel better off without him. There are 600,000 (Lancet) Iraqis that don't feel better off without him. There are millions of refugees that don't feel better off without him. There are birth defects and increased cancers to make many living Iraqis not feel better off without him. We got the OIL.

For one thing, I have to question your figures. If you do some research, you will find that the estimates of the death toll related to the war is very questionable and controversial. For one thing, a lot of deaths that were caused by insurgents are included in those death tolls, such as car bombings, market bombings, roadside IEDs, etc. All of those things have led to the deaths of innocent Iraqi citizens.

Conditions are definitely a mess over there because of the war. Such is the cost of war. I think that if they can get a decent administration in place, they could really make some headway. Democracy and order isn't going to take place overnight, and I think it would be kind of silly to expect that to happen in the first place.
 
For one thing, I have to question your figures. If you do some research, you will find that the estimates of the death toll related to the war is very questionable and controversial. For one thing, a lot of deaths that were caused by insurgents are included in those death tolls, such as car bombings, market bombings, roadside IEDs, etc. All of those things have led to the deaths of innocent Iraqi citizens.

Conditions are definitely a mess over there because of the war. Such is the cost of war. I think that if they can get a decent administration in place, they could really make some headway. Democracy and order isn't going to take place overnight, and I think it would be kind of silly to expect that to happen in the first place.

this was not happening before the invasion. its all very well for americans to say its the cost of the war, but don't expect the millions of Iraqis who have lost family members, been injured, been made refugees SINCE the war to see you as the people who saved them from a tyrant.
 
this was not happening before the invasion. its all very well for americans to say its the cost of the war, but don't expect the millions of Iraqis who have lost family members, been injured, been made refugees SINCE the war to see you as the people who saved them from a tyrant.

good post (btw, I like the stuff you wrote) -- let's say the world is better off without him (as it would've been without Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Beck, Bachmann, and Limbaugh), the real question is whether it was worth the price. I think most of us would agree that taking Hitler out was worth the price. Was it really for Saddam Hussein? And if anyone's answer is yes, can you think of other tyrants that should go and are you willing to sacrifice your life and that of your loved ones to take them out too (rather than avoiding combat as Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld did)?
 
Who on earth would say this world ISN'T a better place without him? He was a murderous tyrant.
 
the ones who support fascist dictators ,who are the puppets of globalists


l dont understand why the middle class defends the global creepies.

Why can you not give any examples of your claim? What democrats/democracies are fake?

Are you saying that the West, or the US, is worse than Saddam?
 
Im still waiting for someone to explain to me how this has affected the WORLD... and not just IRAQ.
 
Im still waiting for someone to explain to me how this has affected the WORLD... and not just IRAQ.

In ~20 years, Saddam spent ~half invading neighbors.
17 Chapter 7 UNSCRS
Heavy sanctions
IAEA evasion for a fake WMD program (meant to scare Iran)
Firing on no-fly zones created to prevent genocide

In more than a few ways, Saddam gave the world the run-around and his neighbors war.
 
good post (btw, I like the stuff you wrote) -- let's say the world is better off without him (as it would've been without Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Beck, Bachmann, and Limbaugh), the real question is whether it was worth the price. I think most of us would agree that taking Hitler out was worth the price. Was it really for Saddam Hussein? And if anyone's answer is yes, can you think of other tyrants that should go and are you willing to sacrifice your life and that of your loved ones to take them out too (rather than avoiding combat as Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld did)?

I think the answer is never black and white.

There will be Iraqis who are glad saddam has gone - and I wouldn't pretend to say otherwise, but the cost, for a far larger number of Iraqis was way too high.

those of us sitting in countries which haven't experienced anything like a war on our own soil over the last 60 years are not really in a position to judge on this, because it really hasn't cost us that much (even trillions in debt is not comparable to what it has cost the Iraqis).

other dictators like saddam ... again, I am really not sure that it is that black and white. If you look at Syria, I think Assad should go, but TBH, I think a lot of the rebels are not those we would regard as welcome friends, and I suspect that alawites and Christians, and possibly some others, will suffer more AFTER the fall of Assad than they ever did before this whole thing started.

I also suspect the position of women will be worse, and Israel may be more vulnerable to attack from that quarter.

Libya ... well, we don't hear about that so much these days, and while I think there may be some positives that came out of it, my understanding is that while state violence is less, inter tribal violence is worse ...

and then, while the Arab spring may have erupted in north Africa, attempts in places like Bahrain have been quashed, yet Shi'ites there have been the victims of harassment and discriminations for decades - and it seems that we support the abuse of their human rights.

I think the Iranian regime is a shocker, but are we helping or hindering the people there with our sanctions?

Myanmar was a brutal dictatorship for decades, we didn't do anything at all but change eventually came about with new leadership, ...

I think these issues are extremely difficult. We seem to side against/for a dictator, depending on our own interests, and it seems that sometimes we encourage uprisings that will lead to even greater instability for the people.

I suspect if you really want some of these situations to improve for the people, you have to offer incentives to make corrupt dictators want to change. even those who are guilty of gross abuses of human rights ... it would probably save lives in the end.
 
Im still waiting for someone to explain to me how this has affected the WORLD... and not just IRAQ.

Its probably made Iran stronger - or at least allowed the regime there to feel justified.

In some senses, it has also allowed Iranian Shi'a fundamentalists to have a far greater influence in Iraq

al qaeda in Iraq that started suicide bombings and internal terrorist activities (they didn't exist under saddam) spread to Afghanistan, and increased the level of violence there.

the millions of refugees that fled into neighbouring countries have contributed to higher levels of social and political instability on the region generally.

It is unlikely that several other bombings that occurred in western countries (eg Madrid and London bombings) would have happened.

It has probably made the world less safe in many ways, and it has contributed to a greater level of anti American sentiment, not just in the arab world, but in a number of other countries.
 
Who on earth would say this world ISN'T a better place without him? He was a murderous tyrant.

When you replace evil with evil...you didn't make things better. Iraqis are not living any better today than they were under Hussein. They have to deal with a lot including rolling blackouts, terrible infrastructure, terrorist insurgents, etc...
 
We didn't kill Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people did.



Could the Iraqis have killed him if the USA had shipped him to Gitmo?

I don't believe.

The USA abdicated it's responsibility, no big deal, just another war crime.



"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." ~ Jesus H. Christ
 
Who on earth would say this world ISN'T a better place without him? He was a murderous tyrant.



I will agree that the world is a better place without him, but who gave anyone the right to kill him or anyone else?

When you start killing people, how do you know where to stop?

The world would also be a better place if G.W. Bush hadn't been born, but time travel hasn't been invented yet.

Someone should get to work on that.
 
Back
Top Bottom