• 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
Just for the record, Hitler helped us out by declaring war on us as we began to grapple with the political problem of how to include Germany in our war against Japan after Pearl Harbor.:cool:
 
Unfortunately we live in a world where resources have been involved with most wars. That's just the way it is. Whining about it or pretending that peope don't have to die over it won't get you anywhere. It's only a matter of time before it happens again. Did you know that water is the biggest resource that people fight over in the Middle East? Syria threatens Turkey constantly over water. We got over 70 percent of our rubber from Vietnam before we started sending troops abroad to maintain a sense of stability when the French hauled ass.

My point is that you may as well see the greater issues at stake than simple resources that will always be involved. To think that after ridding ourselves and the ME of Hussein wasn't going to offer some kick back is foolish. Even keeping him on his throne as his people starved to death throughout the 90s was about oil stability. I know that was more than acceptable to people that looked the other way until 2003, but it's all the same manipulations for resource stability and regional social escalating chaos. I'm pretty sure you are older than me, so how is it that you pretend that oil in the Middle East is an anomaly to history?


You may value oil more than human lives, I do not, and I do not use our past immoral acts to justify our current immoral acts. If the American people had not been lied to about the reasons for the war they would never have supported it.
 
No, but our options are always imperfect and tolerance for moral ambiguity is the price of admission to the grown-ups' table.:cool:

That's exactly what the terrorists use to justify their actions. That's what you call grown-up?
 
You may value oil more than human lives, I do not, and I do not use our past immoral acts to justify our current immoral acts.

Who made you Pope?

If the American people had not been lied to about the reasons for the war they would never have supported it.

I supported the Iraq war regardless of WMDs. Other parts of the platform were far more important to me (see signature, below).
 
I could not disagree more. U.S. government support for Israel has always been viewed as a negative by our oil companies. We offer that support in spite of our economic interests, not because of them.:cool:

"Early Western control of oil

In the 18th and 19th centuries, major European nations competed to establish and maintain colonies around the world. Superior military power and economic leverage allowed them to create new markets for their manufactured goods, and to exploit the natural resources of the African, American, and Asian continents.

Since the early part of the 19th century, Europeans vied to control the Middle East. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 divided the Ottoman lands between the British and the French, giving those nations control over any natural resources, most importantly oil.

Modern armies were thirsty for oil. The British navy was the first to switch from coal to oil in 1912, and other new technologies, like automobiles and airplanes, quickly and drastically increased the demand for fuel.

The United States was becoming an important player in world affairs during the early 20th century, and soon Americans found they, too, had a vested interest in developing and controlling oil reserves in the Middle East to supply their growing needs.


Struggles over Iranian oil

More than 1,000 years ago, Zoroastrians in Iran revered the perpetual flames that burned where natural gas vented from the earth. In the early 20th century, British prospectors discovered oil in Iran and in 1908 began the first large-scale drilling projects there. The government of Iran sold the exclusive right to explore and drill for oil in Iran -- a "concession" -- to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). The British government bought a controlling stake in AIOC, and by the start of World War I, Iranian oil was Britain's most important strategic resource.

In time, Iranians grew to resent the AIOC. The terms of the concession were so unbalanced that British investors were rewarded handsomely while the government of Iran made very little profit. Foreign businessmen and engineers in Iran led extravagantly wealthy lifestyles that contrasted sharply with the poverty of the local population.

Frustration with foreign exploitation led to nationalization. The Iranian government of Mohammed Mossadeq nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1953, but in a coup engineered by the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), this nationalist government was overthrown, and a government friendly to Western interests was installed under the control of the Shah of Iran.

The continued economic and cultural influence of the West and the repressive nature of the Shah's regime led to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The Shah was overthrown and exiled, and the new Islamic Republic of Iran was established, led by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.


American dependence on Middle Eastern oil

After World War II, Britain and France gave up control over much of the Middle East, as they could no longer afford to continue their imperialist strategies, either politically or economically. But a new world power, the United States, increased its presence in the region as American demands for oil were rapidly growing and outstripping domestic supply.


Standard Oil of California first discovered oil in Saudi Arabia in 1936. The huge deposits there and in the neighboring Persian Gulf countries -- the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Bahrain -- established these countries as some of the richest in the world.

Continuing American military power and domestic lifestyles depend on available access to Middle Eastern oil and reasonably low world petroleum prices. Thus, U.S. foreign policy initiatives work to support the stability of pro-U.S. governments, prevent anti-U.S. powers or blocs from forming, and reduce tension and potential armed conflict in the region.


Relations between the Saudi and U.S. governments have traditionally remained strong. Some Americans have questioned that relationship since the events of September 11, 2001, when Osama bin Laden and several other Saudis were involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. At the same time, many Saudis mistrust their government's close relationship with the U.S. and resent other American policies in the region, such as U.S. support for Israel and the U.S.-led bombing of Iraq. The presence of armed U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia -- the birthplace of Islam -- is particularly galling to many Muslims.

Because the Middle East has the world's largest deposits of oil (55 percent of the world's reserves) in an easily extracted form, Middle Eastern oil continues to be necessary to the United States. American dependence on foreign oil has grown steadily over the years; currently about 55 percent of the oil consumed in the U.S. is imported. This reliance on foreign oil leaves the country vulnerable to unilateral political and economic acts by oil producing countries. For example, although the U.S. advocated economic sanctions against Iraq after the Gulf War, 9 percent of the oil used by Americans after the war still came from Iraq, shipped through other countries."
Global Connections . Natural Resources | PBS
 
And yet still nothing to support your claim that Iraqi oil was a US war aim.
 
Only our convenience makes us better. I realize that acknowledging human nature is difficult, but the truth is that we are all immoral when the lights are out. Is the poor unemployed man robbing the local store to feed his starving family less moral than the rich man who feasts nightly? Convenience defines most things. Dropping nuclear bombs on civilian cities vs. a terrorists who slaughter a couple hundred people. "Terrorism" is a funny definition. Pretending otherwise is exactly why we are involved in wars longer than we need to be and seeing more blood run than is necessary. It's our "morality" that allows us to stand by and watch people starve to death at the hands of foriegn leaders. It's our "morality" that has us obeying international laws of stability where oppressive and brutal nations have a vote. It's out "morality" that kicks in only after we decide that enough is enough and we send CNN and FOX along with troops to record the carnage we created by ignoring the problems.

I have no problem with my moraity. I define it according to the world I live in and what I have seen the truth of. Others define their morality to convenience, outdated international laws, and the false idea of a utopian world that doesn't exist. The Middle East lingers in misery and blood baths because our "morality" has refrained us from making these terrorists and their part of the civilization so scared that they would rather defy their God than defy us. Our retaliations should be so shocking that even our allies cringe. But instead we play this "moral" game. How much longer and how much more blood would have been shed had we played this game during World War II? For one side to lose a war, it must be convinced that it lost. Our morality has denied us the ability to convice anybody since World War II. Even the "victory" during the Gulf War was hlf assed and hallow given what it set us up for in 2003. We have lost our ability to convince anybody due to our false sense of superior morality. All we have done is prove to the world that we can a create a great amount of damage while preaching about morality. And what's morality without a victory? It's bull ****. Victory is forgiven and only then will our morality mean something.



You and the terrorists have the same world view!
 
And yet still nothing to support your claim that Iraqi oil was a US war aim.

Only according to the far right. Most of world knows the war was about oil.
 
Your statement would be wise were it not that it ignored the foreign leader of topic.
No it didnt ignore that at all.


So when it comes to Saddam Hussein, merely stating that our job is not to overthrow foreign leaders doesn't quite cover the issue. Some would argue that instead of simply rushing in to ovethrow a foreign leader we gave him 12 years to stop being the Middle East menace his neighbors were constantly afraid of. The invasion of Iraq was always just a matter of time.
It shouldnt just been a "matter of time". Saddam never threatened the US, he never killed an innocent US civilian. He posed no threat to us.
Did you remember this?
Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice Tell The Truth About Iraq - YouTube

His military was never rebuild after the first gulf war, he was weak, his economy was in shambles, he was in not use to go to or threaten anyone.
 
I could not disagree more. The terrorists are absolutists. You and they might get along.:cool:

The terrorists believe that the ends justify the means, exactly like the US did in the Iraq invasion and occupation.
 
Who made you Pope?



I supported the Iraq war regardless of WMDs. Other parts of the platform were far more important to me (see signature, below).

Ideology over human rights?
 
Only our convenience makes us better. I realize that acknowledging human nature is difficult, but the truth is that we are all immoral when the lights are out. Is the poor unemployed man robbing the local store to feed his starving family less moral than the rich man who feasts nightly? Convenience defines most things. Dropping nuclear bombs on civilian cities vs. a terrorists who slaughter a couple hundred people. "Terrorism" is a funny definition. Pretending otherwise is exactly why we are involved in wars longer than we need to be and seeing more blood run than is necessary. It's our "morality" that allows us to stand by and watch people starve to death at the hands of foriegn leaders. It's our "morality" that has us obeying international laws of stability where oppressive and brutal nations have a vote. It's out "morality" that kicks in only after we decide that enough is enough and we send CNN and FOX along with troops to record the carnage we created by ignoring the problems.

I have no problem with my moraity. I define it according to the world I live in and what I have seen the truth of. Others define their morality to convenience, outdated international laws, and the false idea of a utopian world that doesn't exist. The Middle East lingers in misery and blood baths because our "morality" has refrained us from making these terrorists and their part of the civilization so scared that they would rather defy their God than defy us. Our retaliations should be so shocking that even our allies cringe. But instead we play this "moral" game. How much longer and how much more blood would have been shed had we played this game during World War II? For one side to lose a war, it must be convinced that it lost. Our morality has denied us the ability to convice anybody since World War II. Even the "victory" during the Gulf War was hlf assed and hallow given what it set us up for in 2003. We have lost our ability to convince anybody due to our false sense of superior morality. All we have done is prove to the world that we can a create a great amount of damage while preaching about morality. And what's morality without a victory? It's bull ****. Victory is forgiven and only then will our morality mean something.

morality isn't based on fear.
 
It is the same as saying the world is better with him. If you don't think so, then indeed, it's YOU who has the "comprehension problem" -- though that is plain enough with the inane posts you've made in this thread.

In any case, the idea that it's not better without him, his death squads, his sons, his mass executions -- you're so wrapped up in anti-Bush and anti-American drivel that your head is twisted around several times.

Haterz gonna hate, though, so I won't bother trying to change your mind on any of the nonsense. The radical seldom have any inclination to moderate themselves.

saying no to the question ..... Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein? is not the same thing as saying he made the world a better place.
 
I may indeed. I believe the GWB administration sought to create a Middle East Pax Americana based in Iraq to enable a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.:cool:

and it failed dismally .....
 
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.

perhaps the problem is that influential people are prone to believing what they want to believe, rather than relying on fact.

in the build up to the war I saw/heard many interviews with people who were well informed that argued the contrary.

At the very least, invading a country when there was a substantial doubt about WMD's should have been avoided.

I suspect you don't know much about PTSD, based on your post.
 
It isn't just me, its the majority of people in the world and was a big factor of why the GOP lost the Whitehouse. Those that refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

What do you mean it isn't just you? Don't you understand that by keeping the "hate" alive, you aren't helping anyone? Obviously, you are caught up in your hatred and you don't care at all about the people of Iraq. It's quite obvious that you are only continuing a cycle of hate, which is ONE of the biggest problems those third-world countries have.

Their dictators keep them hating all outsiders so that they keep the attention from themselves, and you are adding fuel to that fire. Hatred and vengeance are the most destructive emotions. Nice job!
 
I've linked evidence on that. Even Iraqis knew that was mostly over. While he was actually doing the killing, we sat and watched. That us why I say we added injury to injury.

Oh really? Have you? Well please link to it again as I must have missed it. Thanks in advance. :)
 
What do you mean it isn't just you? Don't you understand that by keeping the "hate" alive, you aren't helping anyone? Obviously, you are caught up in your hatred and you don't care at all about the people of Iraq. It's quite obvious that you are only continuing a cycle of hate, which is ONE of the biggest problems those third-world countries have.

Their dictators keep them hating all outsiders so that they keep the attention from themselves, and you are adding fuel to that fire. Hatred and vengeance are the most destructive emotions. Nice job!

LOLS!

Read your own posts on this thread?
 
LOLS!

Read your own posts on this thread?

I don't have to read them. I typed them. You feign concern over the Iraqi people, but if you really cared about them one iota you would be encouraging them to not dwell on the past but to do things that will make their futures brighter and more promising.

Hatred and feelings of vengeance which you are spreading are destructive and do not help anybody or anything. :shrug:

I'm sure that the dictators, oppressors and radical imams are probably spreading similar hatred to what you are doing here on the forum.
 
Back
Top Bottom