• 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
ChrisL said:
Don't be lazy, they aren't back more than 10 pages.
Click to expand...
In a thread with 90 pages? I am supposed to go back and find some link you may have posted?

Lol - you know where it is ---you re-post it or tell me where it is.

You post over 30 times a day - it ain't like you are too busy.


Have a nice day.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't think that acknowledging facts is being paranoid. I think you just have nothing else of relevance to add to the discussion.
Click to expand...


You are not acknowledging these facts: The head of the inspection team did not find your interpretation of the facts to be a credible reason to go to war, and neither did the body that payed for and conducted the inspections.
 
Catawba said:
You are not acknowledging these facts: The head of the inspection team did not find your interpretation of the facts to be a credible reason to go to war, and neither did the body that payed for and conducted the inspections.
Click to expand...
Yup.


I don't know if this was posted before in this thread...

'Hans Blix: Iraq War was a terrible mistake and violation of U.N. charter'

'The war aimed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, but there weren't any.

The war aimed to eliminate al Qaeda in Iraq, but the terrorist group didn't exist in the country until after the invasion.

The war aimed to make Iraq a model democracy based on law, but it replaced tyranny with anarchy and led America to practices that violated the laws of war.'

Why invading Iraq was a terrible mistake - CNN.com
 
DA60 said:
In a thread with 90 pages? I am supposed to go back and find some link you may have posted?

Lol - you know where it is ---you re-post it or tell me where it is.

You post over 30 times a day - it ain't like you are too busy.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension. I said it is not back further than 10 pages from this current page. :roll:
 
Catawba said:
You are not acknowledging these facts: The head of the inspection team did not find your interpretation of the facts to be a credible reason to go to war, and neither did the body that payed for and conducted the inspections.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. However, they were suspicious if not convinced that Saddam had WMD, and that was HIS own doing.
 
ChrisL said:
Reading comprehension. I said it is not back further than 10 pages from this current page. :roll:
Click to expand...
Yeah -you say it is 10 pages. It could be 20 or 30 or 50 for all I know.

I am not wasting one second on this.

If I still had respect for you - I would. I do not so I will not.


If you know where it is - then post it.

Otherwise, forget it.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
I am not wasting one second on this.

If I still had respect for you - I would. I do not so I will not.


If you know where it is - then post it.

Otherwise, forget it.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Okay, whatever. :shrug:
 
Well, gotta log off from this computer because I'm done with work for the day and it's Friday! Woo-hoo!!! :2razz:
 
DA60 said:
Yup.


I don't know if this was posted before in this thread...

'Hans Blix: Iraq War was a terrible mistake and violation of U.N. charter'

'The war aimed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, but there weren't any.

The war aimed to eliminate al Qaeda in Iraq, but the terrorist group didn't exist in the country until after the invasion.

The war aimed to make Iraq a model democracy based on law, but it replaced tyranny with anarchy and led America to practices that violated the laws of war.'

Why invading Iraq was a terrible mistake - CNN.com
Click to expand...




Exactly, and I've already posted where Blix warned both the US & and the UK that their inspection findings didn't indicate war on Iraq was necessary.

The inspection team and the UN were ignored by those with an agenda.
 
ChrisL said:
I agree with that. However, they were suspicious if not convinced that Saddam had WMD, and that was HIS own doing.
Click to expand...

Lots of things are suspicious in the world, however the inspection team did not verify a threat. And they were right! There was no threat!
 
MSgt said:
These categories aren't distinct. Both political parties have a background in the idea of shaping the world to our interests. It's what the world gets for starting two World Wars and a Cold War while insisting we have a part in each. And doing what you suggest is very grey. The history of Vietnam (going back to Roosevelt) proves how grey adhering to your suggestion is. The only black and white is whether or not we are in the word or isolated. There is no coincidence that our involvement in World War I was the era in which globalization really began (though I could argue that it started with the War of 1812). We had to learn the hard way with World War II that staying in the world's affairs was a necessity if only for our own security. If the world powers didn't prove twice that their greatest talent is to suck the rest of us into their party of gore and destruction then we wouldn't be in the position we are in now looking for the world to look more like us.

But we basically do keep our nose out of other people's business. This has always been an exaggeration. We are looked down upon by Europeans for not sticking our noses into their business sooner during both Wolrd Wars. We didn't tell Cold War dictators to abuse their people; we merely wanted stability. We did nothing to fix Afghanistan until after 9/11, but we are blamed for not sticking our nose into their affairs prior to. In fact, people have gone so far as to state that American got what it deserved since we left Afghanistan the way we did. So, American can't win either way. What we do is conduct business with governments. That's it. It is not our fault that the Chinese deal with an oppresive state simply because we conduct business with their government. It is not our fault that France is the world's chief supplier of weapons to Africa simply because we conduct business with its government. It is not our fault that Europe and China was dumping toxic waste in Somali waters throughout the 1990s that set the conditions for piracy, which demands American interference yet again in securing international water ways. You can believe in a theory of utopia all you want, but as long as we live in a world of other competitive and leeching powers, we are burdened with a leadership role over misfits who hypocritically and pathetically preach to us about morality. Morality is not watching human abuses across the world, yet international law through the United Nations insists on just that. France's moral war against Gudaffi seemed pathetic given a month prior they insisted on supporting their dictator in Tunisia. Is this moral?

But let's talk about humanitarian issues. Feeding Somalis through the UN also came with combat operations against those who disrupted humanitarian operations. We were conducting humanitarian operations in Kurdistan throughout the 1990s while Iraq was starving to death under the UN. See how quickly a humanitarian mission gets bloody? Very quickly even our missions of humanitarianism turn to violence because we live in a world full of ****. And **** has weapons and intents that don't meet with our own.

We have been attacked twice in our history once we took shape. Pearl Harbor = War in the Pacific. 9/11 = Afghanistan. There is a whole lot of conflict and wars not mentioned here. Why is this? Does American security involve economic security and way of life, which involves far more than a simple pre-requisite of being physically attacked? What was the Revolutionary War about other than economic security and the means in which to internationally trade in accordance to our wants? The United States has never been what you preach we should be. Even Jefferson and Adams was dissapointed in democracy during their time. People are stupid and given the freedom to decide self-interest they will always doom a bigger picture. This is true for our internal politicis and international politics. Hell, given a democratic vote, we would not have physically participated in World War I or in the European theatre for World War II. Lucky for the world and for us we have leaders that do what they believe is right at the time despite American selfishness and a false idea of morality.

That's America.
Click to expand...
In other words - screw the will of the people and morality. The Neo-Con elite of America will do whatever they wish and no matter how awful it is...it's always the right thing to do in the grand scheme of things because it's America.

No offense, but what a load of Neo-con nonsense.


And this part you typed: 'But we basically do keep our nose out of other people's business.'

That is - to my knowledge - the single most ignorant statement I have read on this forum in at least a few weeks.

American troops are stationed in almost 150 countries and you say America basically keeps it nose out of other people's business?

Riiiiiiight.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Exactly, and I've already posted where Blix warned both the US & and the UK that their inspection findings didn't indicate war on Iraq was necessary.

The inspection team and the UN were ignored by those with an agenda.
Click to expand...
In his book and reports to the UN Blix admitted that Iraq was not fully cooperating with the weapons inspectors.

That alone is enough cause for the invasion even without the plethora of other reasons.
 
Muhammed said:
In his book and reports to the UN Blix admitted that Iraq was not fully cooperating with the weapons inspectors.

That alone is enough cause for the invasion even without the plethora of other reasons.
Click to expand...


That alone was not enough for anyone familiar with the findings of the 700 inspections and the decision by the body that paid for and conducted the inspections, which was they did not merit attack.

The threat was fabricated and the fearful bought it. A few are still buying it!
 
Muhammed said:
It would also be easy for you to look it up yourself. And while you're doing that you might get educated.
Click to expand...

the "evidence" that I can find correlates with what others here have said.

You appear to be the man with an alternative source that should correct this lack of information.

share it.
 
JC Callender said:
Actually, I don't know who lied. Could you please tell me?
Click to expand...

here are some examples:

As Secretary of State Powell summarized in his February 5, 2003 presentation to the U.N. Security Council, "the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction."[36]
Click to expand...

Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The White House Iraq Group (aka, White House Information Group or WHIG) was the propaganda arm of the White House whose purpose was to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the public. The task force was set up in August 2002 by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and chaired by Karl Rove to coordinate all the executive branch elements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. One example of the WHIG's functions and influence is the "escalation of rhetoric about the danger that Iraq posed to the U.S., including the introduction of the term 'mushroom cloud'"[1
Click to expand...

the full article should quite interesting for you ....

White House Iraq Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

especially when you compare what is said in Blix's statement:

Full text: Hans Blix's briefing to the UN security council | World news | guardian.co.uk

then there is the issue of 9/11 ...

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there is a lot more, but basically regardless of which government was in, the US had been itching to go into Iraq for years. 9/11 provided a way of ensuring they didn't have to do it alone - and the WMD lies were fuel to the fire.

the US population especially was manipulated: Popular opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Muhammed said:
In his book and reports to the UN Blix admitted that Iraq was not fully cooperating with the weapons inspectors.

That alone is enough cause for the invasion even without the plethora of other reasons.
Click to expand...

wiser people than you, including the inspectors on the ground in Iraq, would disagree.
 
ChrisL said:
Well, gotta log off from this computer because I'm done with work for the day and it's Friday! Woo-hoo!!! :2razz:
Click to expand...

I am shocked that you use your employers time in that way.
 
Wow, I asked you who lied about WMD's and you gave me a books worth of material to read....thanks! If you care what I think about your argument, you'll break it down into a concise paragraph to make your point, if you can.




marywollstonecraft said:
here are some examples:



Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



the full article should quite interesting for you ....

White House Iraq Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

especially when you compare what is said in Blix's statement:

Full text: Hans Blix's briefing to the UN security council | World news | guardian.co.uk

then there is the issue of 9/11 ...

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there is a lot more, but basically regardless of which government was in, the US had been itching to go into Iraq for years. 9/11 provided a way of ensuring they didn't have to do it alone - and the WMD lies were fuel to the fire.

the US population especially was manipulated: Popular opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
JC Callender said:
Wow, I asked you who lied about WMD's and you gave me a books worth of material to read....thanks! If you care what I think about your argument, you'll break it down into a concise paragraph to make your point, if you can.
Click to expand...

I can give you dot points ... but if you weren't following what was happening at the time, you are better off familiarizing yourself with the full picture.

Really, to me this was common knowledge - even before the invasion started it was discussed in the media that there were doubts and inconsistencies, and over the next few years the evidence showed that these doubts were well founded.

anyone who looked at a variety of media sources over those years would know what was lied about, and if not aware of the actual source, would be aware that some key people were regurgitating lies which bolstered their agenda.

not exclusively in the US, either.
 
Catawba said:
"Iraq war my biggest regret, Bush admits."
Interview: Iraq war my biggest regret, Bush admits | World news | The Guardian
Click to expand...

False headline from a squishy source.

"The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq," Bush told ABC television in an interview scheduled for broadcast last night. "I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess."...

"It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington DC, during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world, were all looking at the same intelligence."
Click to expand...
 
ecofarm said:
False headline from a squishy source.
Click to expand...


There was no intelligence failure. 700 inspections made by the UN inspection team did not verify a threat, so the UN made the decision an attack was not merited.

Bush and Dick were the deciders according to the Authorization of Force Resolution.
 
Catawba said:
There was no intelligence failure.
Click to expand...

Well, now you've denied the article and substituted a headline that's totally off-base. Why did you bother with that source if you claim it is not true. Oh, yeah, the headline.

Case closed.
 
ecofarm said:
Well, now you've denied the article and substituted a headline that's totally off-base. Why did you bother with that source if you claim it is not true. Oh, yeah, the headline.

Case closed.
Click to expand...


From the article - "He was not asked about allegations that political pressure was brought to bear on the CIA and other intelligence agencies in the run-up to the war."
 
Catawba said:
From the article - "He was not asked about allegations that political pressure was brought to bear on the CIA and other intelligence agencies in the run-up to the war."
Click to expand...

What do you think his answer would have been?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom