• 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
A reported contract. :cool:
Which turned out to be a forgery AND Condoleezza Rice said on MTP 6/8/2003 was the basis for the SOTU speech. So what does Joe Wilson think when he sees her on the tube?
 
Which turned out to be a forgery AND Condoleezza Rice said on MTP 6/8/2003 was the basis for the SOTU speech. So what does Joe Wilson think when he sees her on the tube?

At the time Wilson was dispatched, no document was in hand, so there could be no question of a forgery. Wilson had no grounds to conclude anything. He certainly had no right to conclude that the report he knew about was the only report.
 
At the time Wilson was dispatched, no document was in hand, so there could be no question of a forgery. Wilson had no grounds to conclude anything. He certainly had no right to conclude that the report he knew about was the only report.
I disagree, he concluded that such a sale was impossible. He didn't say there was a forgery, he didn't learn that until March 2003.
 
I disagree, he concluded that such a sale was impossible. He didn't say there was a forgery, he didn't learn that until March 2003.

No one ever claimed there was a sale, only a contract. The British never even claimed there was a contract, only an inquiry. Wilson didn't know that, and the nuance seems to have escaped Rice.:cool:
 
No one ever claimed there was a sale, only a contract. The British never even claimed there was a contract, only an inquiry. Wilson didn't know that, and the nuance seems to have escaped Rice.:cool:

Joe Wilson was the last person to confront Saddam Hussein before Desert Storm

When Hussein sent a note to Wilson (along with other embassy heads in Baghdad) threatening to execute anyone sheltering foreigners in Iraq, Wilson publicly repudiated the dictator by appearing at a press conference wearing a homemade noose around his neck and declaring, "If the choice is to allow American citizens to be taken hostage or to be executed, I will bring my own ****ing rope." [8] Despite Hussein's threats, Wilson sheltered more than 100 Americans at the embassy and successfully evacuated several thousand people (Americans and other nationals) from Iraq. For his actions, he was called a "a true American hero" by President George H. W. Bush.[4]
 
Ummm, you said, "Saddam wasn't letting UN inspectors in."

Um, no I didn't. I said that he was never fully cooperative.
Holy ****!!

It's bad enough you can't understand what I write ("decade" vs "decades") ... now you prove you don't understand what YOU write!!

I quoted you verbatim ... That's why I put your words in quotes.

Those were your exact words. But that's ok, I understand why you're running away from them now, now that you've been shown that despite your claim that Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in, Hans Blix revealed that is a lie as the inspectors went where ever they wanted.
 
Joe Wilson was the last person to confront Saddam Hussein before Desert Storm

When Hussein sent a note to Wilson (along with other embassy heads in Baghdad) threatening to execute anyone sheltering foreigners in Iraq, Wilson publicly repudiated the dictator by appearing at a press conference wearing a homemade noose around his neck and declaring, "If the choice is to allow American citizens to be taken hostage or to be executed, I will bring my own ****ing rope." [8] Despite Hussein's threats, Wilson sheltered more than 100 Americans at the embassy and successfully evacuated several thousand people (Americans and other nationals) from Iraq. For his actions, he was called a "a true American hero" by President George H. W. Bush.[4]

True and admirable (if a bit melodramatic for my taste) but irrelevant.:cool:
 
No one ever claimed there was a sale, only a contract. The British never even claimed there was a contract, only an inquiry. Wilson didn't know that, and the nuance seems to have escaped Rice.:cool:

Which means what? It's one of those vague statements that has no real meaning. I might inquire into what going to the moon might take, but I'm not going. I might have talked to any person you can think of, but that doesn't mean we had a relationship of any kind. Such vague meaningless statements did a lot of harm in this case.
 
Which means what? It's one of those vague statements that has no real meaning. I might inquire into what going to the moon might take, but I'm not going. I might have talked to any person you can think of, but that doesn't mean we had a relationship of any kind. Such vague meaningless statements did a lot of harm in this case.

IMO, it was put in the SOTU to scare/shock the masses. I don't think most people would know that it would many years to develop a nuke from the uranium stage.
 

Maybe you can help me out here ...

The article you linked, dated 1933, states there were no less than 14 million Jews world-wide.

Yet in 1947, that number had dropped to 11.2 million


jews1949_zpsd31b19dc.jpg


How do you explain a global decrease of at least 3 million Jews over a 13 year period?
 
Ummm, you said, "Saddam wasn't letting UN inspectors in."

That was your lie.

Hans Blix said the UN inspectors had access to where ever they went:


"In my 27 January [2003] update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences." ~ Hans Blix

Bull, I never said that. I said he was uncooperative. Please quote the post using the quote function where I said he would allow them in.

So I'll give you ANOTHER chance to answer the question and debate this like an adult. Do you really think that Saddam was 100% cooperative with the UN inspections at ANY time?

You quote ONE man who says they had access. I have MULTIPLE people saying the opposite.
 
Bull, I never said that. I said he was uncooperative. Please quote the post using the quote function where I said he would allow them in.

So I'll give you ANOTHER chance to answer the question and debate this like an adult. Do you really think that Saddam was 100% cooperative with the UN inspections at ANY time?

You quote ONE man who says they had access. I have MULTIPLE people saying the opposite.

Whether he was or wasn't is beside the point. Inspectors were on the group. Most of his weapons had been accounted for. There was no reason to believe him anywhere near the kind of threat that justified what we spent both in dollars and lives. And the inspectors themselves called for more time and not to invade.
 
Whether he was or wasn't is beside the point. Inspectors were on the group. Most of his weapons had been accounted for. There was no reason to believe him anywhere near the kind of threat that justified what we spent both in dollars and lives. And the inspectors themselves called for more time and not to invade.

I never agreed with invading Iraq. What I am saying is that I can understand the mindset that led to the invasion. I can completely understand why people would not trust Saddam Hussein and believe that he was a threat, not only to his own country but to the entire region.

Also, the fact that SOME people think we went to war with Iraq strictly over oil is utterly ridiculous. We get MOST of our oil from Canada and South America.
 
All I can tell is what is reported. Put your question in a search engine.
Actually, I did try that, and the answer was that between 5 and 6 million died in death camps in Europe at the hands of the Germans. Since I got the feeling you think it was due to something other than that, I was hoping to get your explanation. I didn't realize you had no explanation for their disappearance.
 
Bull, I never said that. I said he was uncooperative. Please quote the post using the quote function where I said he would allow them in.
Really, Chris. Really? Do we really need to go through this exercise again? Once already I had to drag out a link to a post to show you that you read a post wrong. But at least that was for a post I authored. Now you want to me prove what you said because even you don't know??? :doh :doh :doh

So I'll give you ANOTHER chance to answer the question and debate this like an adult. Do you really think that Saddam was 100% cooperative with the UN inspections at ANY time?
In terms of letting Inspectors into Iraq? Yes. In terms of allowing them unfettered access to inspect sites? Yes. What he wasn't, was forthcoming and helpful with revealing what he had (or didn't have), which he was ordered to do by the U.N.

But he did let the inspectors in. To claim otherwise, as you and Bush have done, is a complete lie.


You quote ONE man who says they had access. I have MULTIPLE people saying the opposite.
I can't help that you can't understand what I post. I already quoted one man saying they had complete and unfettered access to where ever they went, including sites which were off limits back in the 90's when U.N. inspectors were in Iraq, like presidential palaces.

And unlike the quotes you rely on, the one I quoted was actually in Iraq and had first hand knowledge.
 
Actually, I did try that, and the answer was that between 5 and 6 million died in death camps in Europe at the hands of the Germans. Since I got the feeling you think it was due to something other than that, I was hoping to get your explanation. I didn't realize you had no explanation for their disappearance.

I am sure there are other sites that reveal other information.
 
I am sure there are other sites that reveal other information.
As I said, there are; and I found them. Since you appear to be someone with a diffrent opinion, I was hoping you would share it. It's ok that you don't want to, it's off-topic anyway.

Carry on.
 
I never agreed with invading Iraq. What I am saying is that I can understand the mindset that led to the invasion. I can completely understand why people would not trust Saddam Hussein and believe that he was a threat, not only to his own country but to the entire region.

Also, the fact that SOME people think we went to war with Iraq strictly over oil is utterly ridiculous. We get MOST of our oil from Canada and South America.

Trust wasn't required. If he could have done anything to us, he already would have prior to our invasion. CATO states that in a well written article.
 
Which means what? It's one of those vague statements that has no real meaning. I might inquire into what going to the moon might take, but I'm not going. I might have talked to any person you can think of, but that doesn't mean we had a relationship of any kind. Such vague meaningless statements did a lot of harm in this case.

IMO, it was put in the SOTU to scare/shock the masses. I don't think most people would know that it would many years to develop a nuke from the uranium stage.

It means the SOTU language was deliberately restrained so as not to go beyond the intelligence. It was the opposite of scare/shock tactics; it was conservative language.:cool:
 
It means the SOTU language was deliberately restrained so as not to go beyond the intelligence. It was the opposite of scare/shock tactics; it was conservative language.:cool:

Your claim is just the opposite of reality. The reality is that those 16 words should not have been in the speech. That they were, indicates it was to scare America. In fact, they were already taken out of some earlier speeches.
 

Your claim is just the opposite of reality. The reality is that those 16 words should not have been in the speech. That they were, indicates it was to scare America. In fact, they were already taken out of some earlier speeches.

I note that you have not replied to my previous post in our dialogue. As for this one, you are wrong, again.:cool:
 

Your claim is just the opposite of reality. The reality is that those 16 words should not have been in the speech. That they were, indicates it was to scare America. In fact, they were already taken out of some earlier speeches.
Yes, it was, the Cincinnati speech to be exact.
 
Back
Top Bottom