• 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
Grant said:
That was the Islamists. Surely you know that.

They were the ones murdering Iraqi citizens and discouraging them from voting. They'll be taking over Iraq soon too,
Click to expand...

Of course they weren't prior to us invading.
 
OscarB63 said:
who said they were grateful?
Click to expand...

I thought you claimed they were better off due to our invasion and occupation. Have you abandoned that position now?
 
Catawba said:
I thought you claimed they were better off due to our invasion and occupation. Have you abandoned that position now?
Click to expand...

just because someone is better off, doesn't mean they are grateful. you only have to look at the career welfare bums here to see that.
 
OscarB63 said:
just because someone is better off, doesn't mean they are grateful. you only have to look at the career welfare bums here to see that.
Click to expand...

So you think you know better than the people of Iraq whether they are better off or not?
 
DA60 said:
Where is your link to unbiased factual proof of this?

You say he should 'know' it? Well then I assume you think that you 'know' it.

And for you to know it, then you must have unbiased, factual proof - otherwise you just believe it, not know it.

Huge difference.
Click to expand...

You really don't know who was killing the Iraqi people. committing terrorist acts, preventing them from voting?

I find that unbelievable!!!
 
Grant said:
You really don't know who was killing the Iraqi people. committing terrorist acts, preventing them from voting?

I find that unbelievable!!!
Click to expand...

So you have no link - noted.


Have a nice day.
 
Grant said:
LOL!! There are probably only two people in the world who don't know that.
Click to expand...

Still no links huh?

Noted.

Until you provide one - your posts will probably be ignored on this subject...I could care less what your opinion is on this.

And remember, you typed the following:

'That was the Islamists. Surely you know that.'

That 'was' the Islamists. Meaning - they were solely responsible.
Which I assume you mean by 'Islamists' is fundamentalist Muslims who commit violence to further their fundamentalist causes.


I want to see your link(s) to verified, unbiased, factual proof of this or your statement means ZERO.

All I am interested in is verified, unbiased facts - not speculation.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Still no links huh?

Noted.

Until you provide one - your posts will probably be ignored on this subject...I could care less what your opinion is on this.

And remember, you typed the following:

'That was the Islamists. Surely you know that.'

That 'was' the Islamists. Meaning - they were solely responsible.
Which I assume you mean by 'Islamists' is fundamentalist Muslims who commit violence to further their fundamentalist causes.


I want to see your link(s) to verified, unbiased, factual proof of this or your statement means ZERO.

All I am interested in is verified, unbiased facts - not speculation.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

You can't google, huh?
 
Grant said:
You can't google, huh?
Click to expand...

Clearly, you've got nothing...just as I expected.

So not only can you provide ZERO proof of a matter-of-fact statement you made.

But you have not even got the maturity just to admit you don't - as I would (hopefully) have done right away were I in your shoes.

Both noted.

I am done with you on this.


Have a nice day.
 
DA60 said:
Clearly, you've got nothing...just as I expected.

So not only can you provide ZERO proof of a matter-of-fact statement you made.

But you have not even got the maturity just to admit you don't - as I would (hopefully) have done right away were I in your shoes.

Both noted.

I am done with you on this.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Is this what you're looking for?

Iraq War insurgent attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_insurgent_attacks
Insurgent attacks of the. Iraq War. ‡ indicates attacks resulting in over 100 deaths .... The motives behind these kidnappings include influencing foreign governments with troops in Iraq and foreign companies with workers .... Terrorism in Asia ...
Bombings - Massacres - Kidnappings and hostages - Assassinations

:cool:
 
DA60 said:
Clearly, you've got nothing...just as I expected.

So not only can you provide ZERO proof of a matter-of-fact statement you made.

But you have not even got the maturity just to admit you don't - as I would (hopefully) have done right away were I in your shoes.

Both noted.

I am done with you on this.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep on telling me to have a nice day?

In fact I'm having a wonderful day already!
 
Boo Radley said:
Not to the degree they were afterwards, yes. They were largely held in check.
Click to expand...

Maybe 'held in check' isn't quite the right way to put it but close enough. And yes, once he was removed the Islamists moved in.

Do you think they'll take over the Middle East as some predict?
 
Grant said:
Maybe 'held in check' isn't quite the right way to put it but close enough. And yes, once he was removed the Islamists moved in.

Do you think they'll take over the Middle East as some predict?
Click to expand...

I think that s up the ME. But our stupidity has helped them.

Look, no one cared about Saddam. But, we played into our enemies hands by being the imperialist aggressors they said we were. It's risky to destabilize, as it opens doors for very bad people. We should have acted smarter.
 
Jack Hays said:
Is this what you're looking for?

Iraq War insurgent attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_insurgent_attacks
Insurgent attacks of the. Iraq War. ‡ indicates attacks resulting in over 100 deaths .... The motives behind these kidnappings include influencing foreign governments with troops in Iraq and foreign companies with workers .... Terrorism in Asia ...
Bombings - Massacres - Kidnappings and hostages - Assassinations

:cool:
Click to expand...

Interesting, but no (in so far as proving Grant's point).

These do not prove that it was ENTIRELY and EXCLUSIVELY the work of 'Islamists' who did it for the sole reason of furthering Islamic fundamentalism....as Grant inferred.

They could have been for fundamentalist reason. Or sectarian revenge killings (which clearly was a large part of the deaths in Iraq). Or simply a whacko blowing up people he hated.

There is no single reason for the murders/bombings.

If he had said, 'Islamist-fueled killings played a large part in the total number of deaths' I could have maybe lived with that.

But inferring they were the sole and/or overwhelmingly major reason?

Not a chance.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
I think that s up the ME. But our stupidity has helped them.

Look, no one cared about Saddam. But, we played into our enemies hands by being the imperialist aggressors they said we were. It's risky to destabilize, as it opens doors for very bad people. We should have acted smarter.
Click to expand...

Sums it up well, imo.
 
Jack Hays said:
And that had nothing to do with the forged documents. Please note there is no reference to a contract, the center piece of the forgeries. It was the great disservice of Wilson, acting out of ignorance, to conflate separate reporting streams in the public debate. This discussion demonstrates the continuing difficulty created when Wilson hijacked the debate on a wrong turn.

Out to dinner.:cool:
Click to expand...
Wilson did not hijack the debate about the forgeries.

He couldn't have. By the time he mentioned them, they were already public knowledge.
 
pbrauer said:
He sure did, from your link:

Nuclear Weapons


  • The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger.
  • Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?

Jack Hays said:
Neither reference draws on the forged documents.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You remain in denial. To this day, there remains no proof that Hussein sought Uranium from Niger outside the forged documents.
 
Boo Radley said:
I think that s up the ME. But our stupidity has helped them.

Look, no one cared about Saddam. But, we played into our enemies hands by being the imperialist aggressors they said we were. It's risky to destabilize, as it opens doors for very bad people. We should have acted smarter.
Click to expand...

It's up to the Middle East? You mean the people of the Middle East? How can you tell what they want?

In fact a great many people cared about Saddam Hussein. You should know that.

But yes, destabilization is risky as we have seen in Libya, Egypt and Syria. It's the domino theory at work it seems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom