• 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
Again, the draft is used when personnel needs are not being met. There is no issue with meeting enlistment quotas today...
Like I previously said, they took National Guard units for Iraq and Afghanistan. And then rotated them several times because they didn't have enough.
 
Last edited:
The result would be that the draftees would still have the option of a career path if they chose to follow it. Your response was a straw man, as I didn't say that there would be no professional military.

Now, in WWII, there was a draft. The nation was on a war footing, nearly every American supported the war, sacrificed for the war, did what they could to win the war. The result was that the war was won in about three years. In Vietnam, there was a draft. Only a few supported the war, found the war really necessary, sacrificed for the war. As a result, the war dragged on for a total of 21 years, and we lost.

In the current wars, only the military has sacrificed anything for the wars, the average American has taken no part at all in the wars, and they have dragged on now for a decade.

The point of all that is that we should never go to war unless the entire nation is behind it, willing to sacrifice for it, willing to go and fight, and to do whatever it takes to win it.

WWII was necessary, but neither Vietnam, nor Iraq, nor Afganistan were.


This is where I agree completely with libertarians! Well said Dittohead not!
 
Again the point was not understood. As long as there are more individuals wanting to join than is necessary to meet the military's personnel requirements, if the draft was brought back and some arbitrary number of our armed forces was to be drawn from that pool, there would be some who had hoped to enlist that might not be able to do so. As far as I am aware, this country has only used the draft when its personnel needs were not being met through enlistment which is why all males are still required to register with the Selective Service...

Currently the military's personnel needs are only being met by forcing enlistees to continue their duty past their expected end of service.

Personally, I don't support a draft, but I can appreciate the argument that an all-volunteer force allows the public to forget that we are putting people in harm's way unnecessarily.
 
From post 130.

In our view, as a threshold matter, humanitarian intervention that occurs without the consent of the relevant government can be justified only in the face of ongoing or imminent genocide, or comparable mass slaughter or loss of life.

(snip)

Brutal as Saddam Hussein's reign had been, the scope of the Iraqi government's killing in March 2003 was not of the exceptional and dire magnitude that would justify humanitarian intervention. We have no illusions about Saddam Hussein's vicious inhumanity. Having devoted extensive time and effort to documenting his atrocities, we estimate that in the last twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule the Iraqi government murdered or "disappeared" some quarter of a million Iraqis, if not more. In addition, one must consider such abuses as Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers. However, by the time of the March 2003 invasion, Saddam Hussein's killing had ebbed.

(snip)
Humanitarianism, even understood broadly as concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people, was at best a subsidiary motive for the invasion of Iraq.

(snip)

Conclusion

In sum, the invasion of Iraq failed to meet the test for a humanitarian intervention. Most important, the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention. In addition, intervention was not the last reasonable option to stop Iraqi atrocities. Intervention was not motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns.

War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention | Human Rights Watch

So? WTH is this? It doesn't prove anything at all. :confused:
 
So? WTH is this? It doesn't prove anything at all. :confused:

They are one of the groups that watched his killing. Called for action when it was going on. And noted why they wouldn't support our action. Like I said, we stopped nothing. And by merely adding thousands, tens of thousands of extra deaths, and millions displaced, there is no humanitarian element to our action. We simply added injury to injury.
 
They are one of the groups that watched his killing. Called for action when it was going on. And noted why they wouldn't support our action. Like I said, we stopped nothing. And by merely adding thousands, tens of thousands of extra deaths, and millions displaced, there is no humanitarian element to our action. We simply added injury to injury.

No one is saying the war was right. I remember wondering why we were going to Iraq when I first heard about it, but it is in the past now, and bitching about it accomplishes absolutely nothing and is more than likely more harmful than anything.

I'm sorry, but your link proves nothing. People were "watching the killing." Oh okay. Lol. :roll:
 
No one is saying the war was right. I remember wondering why we were going to Iraq when I first heard about it, but it is in the past now, and bitching about it accomplishes absolutely nothing and is more than likely more harmful than anything.

I'm sorry, but your link proves nothing. People were "watching the killing." Oh okay. Lol. :roll:

There is nothing harmful about learning from our mistakes. Some still see it as humanitarian. It wasn't. Some still believe he was a treat that required this action. He wasn't. Some still believe we weren't deceived, but we were. If we do not learn, it will be repeated (and maybe next time with a democrat in office).
 
There is nothing harmful about learning from our mistakes. Some still see it as humanitarian. It wasn't. Some still believe he was a treat that required this action. He wasn't. Some still believe we weren't deceived, but we were. If we do not learn, it will be repeated (and maybe next time with a democrat in office).

I think most people have learned. The point is that you aren't helping the Iraqi people by complaining about it. It's done. It's over, and the Iraqi people have to get their country together. Dwelling on this stuff doesn't help anyone.
 
I think most people have learned. The point is that you aren't helping the Iraqi people by complaining about it. It's done. It's over, and the Iraqi people have to get their country together. Dwelling on this stuff doesn't help anyone.

I'm neither hurting nor helping he Iraqi people. They are not dependent on me, and should not depend on the US. Whatever happens there will depend on them.

However, you should know they already understand what I have said. You can find quotes from them that are even harsher than what I say.
 
I'm sorry, but your link proves nothing. People were "watching the killing." Oh okay. Lol. :roll:

You may want to read the article. And check out their home page. Keeping track is what they do.
 
Ideology for human (and eco) rights. Can you see my signature, below? If you can understand it, you'll see how it all fits together. As you probably don't understand that democracy is good for ecology, it will be difficult for you. Of course, if you believe that Saddam was not doing any harm to the people (or eco) of Iraq, then you are incapable of grasping the premise in context.

I've done more for world development and the alleviation of developing world poverty than you've dreamed about, so spare me the demonization. Nothing makes me laugh like a keyboard activist telling others how immoral they are.

I have not said that saddam was good for anyone or anything.

the question asked is - is the world a better place without saddam hussein?

I say, no it is not.

I looked at your signature. I suspect that on many issues you and I may be on the same page, but in relation to the war in Iraq, we are not even in the same library.

I also don't know that a blanket statement that democracy is good for ecology is true either. it depends what kind of democracy you are talking about. for many people in emerging economies and former CIS states, democracy means increased consumerism, increased use of personal motor vehicles and increased pollution, habitat loss, exploitation of resources and vulnerable communities elsewhere and so on.

Democracy without meaningful education has its downside.

The Iraq war was bad for women, and for the environment.

I have mentioned the experience of women I knew in Iraq, and others here have talked about that too.

environmentally the war was a bad thing: Environmental Costs | Costs of War

this does not mean saddam was good for women or for the environment.

quite frankly, if the US and other coalition nations had invested the money they spent on the war into researching and developing renewable energy, education(both home and abroad), programs that assist local communities to develop sustainable industries ... including I believe the work that you are involved in - just imagine how much better the world would be!
 
No, what I see through is your spin on it, which is, of course, from your hardcore anti-Bush, anti-American hate which makes YOU incapable of acknowledging any result of anything they did which isn't awful.

I'm thinking that your reaction suggests that you are extremely angry .. and that it may be you who hates people.

Both anger and hate really come from fear, so perhaps it might be interesting for you to explore what it is that you are afraid of.
 
I wonder how various people would respond to a similar question posed about the state next door? Is the world better off without the Shah?

Like Sadaam, the Shah was ruthless to his political enemies. His secret service was dastardly and tortured people. He was no saint. Looking at what has happened to Iran since his ousting, however, the world is certainly not a better place by any stretch of the imagination.

What people fail to realize when addressing Iraq is that half of all Iraqis are married to their own family members. Their allegance is to blood ties, not philosophical, and whatever "democracy" that can exist will be subserviant to these blood ties. There is a reason countries such as Iraq tend to produce authoritarian leaders, as the nature of their culture is such that there is little alternative. Populist movements in countries such as Iraq are profoundly conservative, and so the eventual outcome of removing the strong armed, but somewhat secular leader is to open the door for other elements to take over. Are those elements better for the world? In the case of Iran they weren't, and so I would suggest taking the broader view when addressing Iraq and ask what Pandoras box have we helped open here.

Strong armed leaders are the cork on the bottle. Once the cork has been removed, all sorts of things poor out, many of which cannot be predicted and are not necessarily better in the long term.
 
Sure ... It's also a better place with out George W Bush.
 
The Iraq war was bad for women, and for the environment...

environmentally the war was a bad thing: Environmental Costs | Costs of War


Oh, please. Women did not have human rights under Saddam and were (legally) subject to honor killings, FGM and institutionalized rape. Of course, they could not vote.

Democracy is always good for the environment. When those directly affected by environmental degradation have no voice in the management of said resources, the situation only gets worse. Let's not forget that Saddam was an eco-terrorist, killing the deep sea coral in the Gulf on purpose. And, finally, let's note the environmental impact of Saddam invading Iran in an 8 year war, invading Kuwait, draining the Marsh Arab land and other atrocities.


Short term thinking is inferior.
 
Last edited:
He's still here, isn't he?

Or has Texas seceded from the rest of the world? I'm sure there are Texans who would like to.

Yup, but not in any power, he's as relevant now to politics now as Saddam Hussain is.
 
Yup, but not in any power, he's as relevant now to politics now as Saddam Hussain is.

Thank goodness for that.

But, sometimes I think that Obama is just the third Bush administration in a different body.
 
Thank goodness for that.

But, sometimes I think that Obama is just the third Bush administration in a different body.

Basically, if not worse, but the point is Bush was a war criminal (as is Obama), that doesn't give other countries the right to invade the United states and assisinate him.
 
Oh, please. Women did not have human rights under Saddam and were subject to honor killings, FGM and institutionalized rape.

sorry, but what you are revealing here is a lack of knowledge about the position of women in Iraq

Iraq: Women's rights in danger - Focus - Al Jazeera English

Did the wars liberate Afghan and Iraqi women? | Costs of War
Democracy is always good for the environment. When those directly affected by environmental degradation have no voice in the management of said resources, the situation only gets worse. And let's not forget that Saddam was an eco-terrorist, killing the deep sea coral in the Gulf on purpose.

sounds like a mantra you want to believe

Short term thinking is inferior.



ten years is a long time.

those living through it might not regard it as the short term.
 
Back
Top Bottom