• 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
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.

neither the invasion nor the court was legal ,chris




l am not a fan of saddam and dont support any violence used on people but İ am trying to explain why the other horrible monsters are never mentioned .
 
Is the pope a catholic?

Don't ask these kinds of self answering questions, of course removing Saddam Hussein from this world is a good thing. But I am not sure that good thing was worth the lives of the more than 100,000 dead Iraqi's, the almost 4,800 dead coalition troops or the hundreds of thousands of injured people.

I think it is wonderful that the world is rid of Hussein but I think the US rushed the world into a war that was ill planned, ill conceived and poorly executed. And then I am not really talking about the role of the troops in the fight. They did their job as excellently as they do all their jobs. It was all that happened after the fighting itself stopped that is the big issue.

And then there is also the reasons for going into this war. The war was started on bad intelligence if you look at the issue with your most pro-G.W. Bush-glasses as possible and if you do not wear those kinds of glasses one might be a little bit or a lot more negative as to why this war was started and how G.W. Bush and his neo-cons played their parts in this war.
 
neither the invasion nor the court was legal ,chris

That's not our problem. We handed him over to them, and they did what they did to him. Everyone complains when we get involved, and then they complain when we don't too. Too bad, we can't please everyone all the time.




l am not a fan of saddam and dont support any violence used on people but İ am trying to explain why the other horrible monsters are never mentioned .

Well, this thread is about Iraq. What other horrible monsters are you talking about?
 
Even Iraqi Body Count, considered about as reliable as GWShiiteForBrains WMD claims, acknowledges 123,000 killed and states the figure is probably 2-3 times that if you include the citizens killed by causing instability in Iraq. We caused that instability. Cost of war=Cost of lies about WMD.

And the body count from Saddam is STILL not known. They'll probably still be finding mass graves for years to come. How can you think that anyone would be better off with a person like that in charge?
 
That's not our problem. We handed him over to them, and they did what they did to him. Everyone complains when we get involved, and then they complain when we don't too. Too bad, we can't please everyone all the time.






Well, this thread is about Iraq. What other horrible monsters are you talking about?

who wanted it ?

did they invite you to their country * :mrgreen:
 
So what do you 'think' that the USA accomplished in Iraq, other than helping Iran?

You may not think that the death of so many innocent Iraqi's as a consequence of G.W. Bush's decision (He was the 'decider'.) to attack Iraq is no big thing, but I guarantee you that those peoples family and tribe have a totally different view.

They are looking for some payback, they won't forget and they'll never forgive. This is a blood debt, and they are looking for some payback.

The USA is less safe because of Bush's war in Iraq.

Think about it.

Did I say it was no big thing? No, I did not. I said that Iraq is better off without Saddam and that progress there is going to take TIME.
 
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

I'm sure there would bitching about that too.
 
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.

I've read that they are happy that he's gone, except of course his insurgent supporters. Same thing would be happening if the Iraqis themselves took him out. His own party members would wage attacks. That is just how things are over there, and it's going to take a lot of time for things to settle down. I'm hopeful that eventually things will work out over there eventually. If you want to continue with bitterness over the GWB era, and be hopeless, then that's fine.
 
That's OK. There are a lot of repressive regimes not friendly to us.:cool:



I have always acknowledged that there are bad guys on both sides.

But I don't believe that justifies the USA using an/or creating these regimes.

"Timmy did it too" has never been an excuse for bad behavior. Check with your mother on this.

The USA was happy to use Saddam to restrain Iran for a while. handshake300.jpg

Yes, that's Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in happier days for the two of them.
 
who wanted it ?

did they invite you to their country * :mrgreen:

The Iraqis wanted him. That's why we handed him over to them, and they executed him.
 
I have always acknowledged that there are bad guys on both sides.

But I don't believe that justifies the USA using an/or creating these regimes.

"Timmy did it too" has never been an excuse for bad behavior. Check with your mother on this.

The USA was happy to use Saddam to restrain Iran for a while.View attachment 67144854

Yes, that's Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in happier days for the two of them.

Yes, sometimes you have to keep your enemies close. Also, in this world you have to sometimes deal with less than savory people for the greater good.

This isn't Candy Land you know.
 
I think the US rushed the world into a war that was ill planned, ill conceived and poorly executed.

Rushed? 17 unscrs (the last of which promised ~"dire" ~"any" or some such consequences), decades of chem use, invasions and starvation. Ill planned? As you note below, and I specify, it's not like coulda planned to find a social capital desert. Conceived? Iraq was the best country to nation build for a number of reasons, oil giving it the power to stand on its own being a significant one. Executed? As you note below, it was a big crap sandwich. But that's not our fault, Saddam killed every half-brain that dared speak freely.

It was all that happened after the fighting itself stopped that is the big issue.

Right. We booted Baath and there was nothing left - oops. Ok, our bad but we didn't know.

And then there is also the reasons for going into this war.

200k Kurds - Genocide
50k Marsh Arabs - Genocide
500k Iraqis - Iran War
400k children - Selling food-for-oil products, this occured just prior to invasion

Faking a WMD program to deter Iran, institutionalized rape, FGM, honor killings and a general lack of human rights for women.

Saddam was a horrible monster that left nothing behind, he burned it all. We were too late. Perhaps in a generation or two, Iraq will be on its feet and verging on developed country status, it has the resources to do so and now it has the chance.


ps. Not voting because I don't like the framing.
 
Last edited:
Maybe if that moron had complied with the international community, he wouldn't have made himself into a target, and after 9-1-1 everyone was a bit paranoid.
 
Maybe if that moron had complied with the international community, he wouldn't have made himself into a target, and after 9-1-1 everyone was a bit paranoid.

Oh so you think the U.N. should have authority over countries. Interesting.
 
Oh so you think the U.N. should have authority over countries. Interesting.

He threatened that he had WMDs. This country was an instigator. A known rogue nation that attacked other nations and committed GENOCIDE. What exactly is your stance on this anyway?

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions

Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991

Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
 
Oh so you think the U.N. should have authority over countries. Interesting.

Countries with twice genocidal dictators? Yes. The no-fly zone was needed to prevent further genocide.
 
Rushed? 17 unscrs (the last of which promised ~"dire" ~"any" or some such consequences), decades of chem use, invasions and starvation. Ill planned? As you note below, and I specify, it's not like coulda planned to find a social capital desert. Conceived? Iraq was the best country to nation build for a number of reasons, oil giving it the power to stand on its own being a significant one. Executed? As you note below, it was a big crap sandwich. But that's not our fault, Saddam killed every half-brain that dared speak freely.



Right. We booted Baath and there was nothing left - oops. Ok, our bad but we didn't know.



200k Kurds - Genocide
50k MArsh Arabs - Genocide
500k Iraqis - Iran War
400k children - Selling food-for-oil products, this occured just prior to invasion

Faking a WMD program to deter Iran, institutionalized rape, FGM, honor killings and a general lack of human rights for women.

Saddam was a horrible monster who left nothing behind, he burned it all. We were too late. Perhaps in a generation or two, Iraq will be on its feet and verging on developed country status, it has the resources to do so and now it has the chance.

That is real funny, the genocide of the Shiite's living in the Marsh was revenge for the uprising president Bush urged them to instigate but he was not able to protect or defend them when Saddam, who was left most of his power in his own land murdered them by the thousands. The Iraqi chemical and biological weapons was only possible with the help of Germany, France and to some extent the US and many other countries including the Netherlands.

Where was all the indignation for the war against Iran and all the people that died from that war? It wasn't from the US or much of Europe.

Saddam was a monster, but a monster that both the Communists and we from the West created and kept in power with weapons, technology and support.
 
Countries with twice genocidal dictators? Yes. The no-fly zone was needed to prevent further genocide.

We killed the Indians and owned slaves and are the only nation to use nukes. If the U.N passes a law against us you will agree they have authority?
 
That is real funny, the genocide of the Shiite's living in the Marsh was revenge for the uprising president Bush urged them to instigate but he was not able to protect or defend them when Saddam, who was left most of his power in his own land murdered them by the millions.

Oh yes, so funny. Genocide is always a hoot, especially when blaming it on the US.

The Iraqi chemical and biological weapons was only possible with the help of Germany, France and to some extent the US and many other countries including the Netherlands.

Botulism vaccine was needed or all the cows in Iraq die. Saddam weaponized it and let the cows die. That was the only US government involvment.

Where was all the indignation for the war against Iran and all the people that died from that war? It wasn't from the US or much of Europe.

You're claiming that no one cared so it doesn't count?

Saddam was a monster, but a monster that both the Communists and we from the West created and kept in power with weapons, technology and support.

Yeah, well, we changed policy. No more destabilization, that didn't work. Now we nation build.
 
That is real funny, the genocide of the Shiite's living in the Marsh was revenge for the uprising president Bush urged them to instigate but he was not able to protect or defend them when Saddam, who was left most of his power in his own land murdered them by the thousands. The Iraqi chemical and biological weapons was only possible with the help of Germany, France and to some extent the US and many other countries including the Netherlands.

Where was all the indignation for the war against Iran and all the people that died from that war? It wasn't from the US or much of Europe.

Saddam was a monster, but a monster that both the Communists and we from the West created and kept in power with weapons, technology and support.

That's because, like others have said, we thought he could keep that country under control. However, he was very defiant and a basically nothing but a bully. What would your suggestion be? Is peace important to you?
 
We killed the Indians and owned slaves and are the only nation to use nukes. If the U.N passes a law against us you will agree they have authority?

This is so irrelevant it's actually amusing. :lol:
 
We killed the Indians and owned slaves and are the only nation to use nukes. If the U.N passes a law against us you will agree they have authority?

Here we go, kids!

Indians, a-bombs and Vietnam, oh my!

We all took history in elementary school, spare us.
 
Back
Top Bottom