• 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
Saddam and his antics were destabilizing the region anyway. Just take a look at these dictators. If anyone is to blame for destabilizing a region, it is them without a doubt. Just look at what's going on in NK now. Who is the destabilizing factor there? Lil' Kim, that's who. Not much different than Saddam either.
 
Saddam and his antics were destabilizing the region anyway. Just take a look at these dictators. If anyone is to blame for destabilizing a region, it is them without a doubt. Just look at what's going on in NK now. Who is the destabilizing factor there? Lil' Kim, that's who. Not much different than Saddam either.

Lil' Kim must be Saddamized as well.
 
Saddam and his antics were destabilizing the region anyway. Just take a look at these dictators. If anyone is to blame for destabilizing a region, it is them without a doubt. Just look at what's going on in NK now. Who is the destabilizing factor there? Lil' Kim, that's who. Not much different than Saddam either.

There's a couple of big important differences.

1) NK actually HAS nukes. Not just a "program" to get them. We attack, they probably use them. That would be bad.

2) Saddam didn't have China on his side.
 
There's a couple of big important differences.

1) NK actually HAS nukes. Not just a "program" to get them. We attack, they probably use them. That would be bad.

2) Saddam didn't have China on his side.

Is China really on NK's side at this point?

Plus, he has nukes in the sense that he's able to detonate a nuclear explosion. It's not ideal of course but it's still very different from being able to fire them at the United States on a missile.
 
Last edited:
Is China really on NK's side at this point?

only in a sense that they don't want millions of NK refugees flooding their border. It is in their best interest to keep NK as stable as possible
 
You remain in denial. To this day, there remains no proof that Hussein sought Uranium from Niger outside the forged documents.
I agree with you he is in denial. But you should have pasted my post inside of Jack's, not the other way around. The way you did it, it looks like you are saying that i am in denial.
 
There's a couple of big important differences.

1) NK actually HAS nukes. Not just a "program" to get them. We attack, they probably use them. That would be bad.

2) Saddam didn't have China on his side.

As to your #1 point, if anyone has to worry about NK deploying nukes, it would more likely be SK or Japan. I doubt that NK has the means or even the drive to deploy any nukes in our direction.

As to #2, I think that China MUST be getting sick of the demented Kims by now. They don't want to risk their status and standing in the world over a piss ant like Kim. And if they do, then China must be much more stupid than I thought.
 
As to your #1 point, if anyone has to worry about NK deploying nukes, it would more likely be SK or Japan. I doubt that NK has the means or even the drive to deploy any nukes in our direction.

If they nuke SK or Japan, that is our problem. We defend them, especially Japan after WWII when we demanded that they demilitarized. (Could you imagine it happening in Japan? They'd have to be asking why nobody but them can get nuked!)

As to #2, I think that China MUST be getting sick of the demented Kims by now. They don't want to risk their status and standing in the world over a piss ant like Kim. And if they do, then China must be much more stupid than I thought.

I'm sure they are getting sick of them, but there's still a matter of saving face geopolitically. North Korea is the only thing keeping our troops off of their border, which is also something they don't want. Russia also. Unless we had assurances from the Chinese and the Russians that they weren't going to jump into the fray, I'd be very wary of doing anything preemptive.

Picture if the Chinese invaded Mexico. No matter our feelings about the Mexican government, having Chinese troops across the street from San Diego (which Tijuana is) would be very bad for us.
 
Thought of the day: While Little Kim doesn't have a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to the United States, how difficult would it be to load one on a boat and sail it into New York harbor and just set it off?
 
Thought of the day: While Little Kim doesn't have a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to the United States, how difficult would it be to load one on a boat and sail it into New York harbor and just set it off?
well the technology today would detect it's movements immediately.

this is why it never happens.

it's like having a huge floodlight in the open and hoping you don't see it.

no threat of nuclear war in a luggage style bomb EVER!!!

NKorea has a stockpile of chemical biological weapons....whole other problem
 
Lil' Kim must be Saddamized as well.

Right, what we need to do is spend trillions more for another optional war. Good plan! :roll:
 
Why would it cost trillions?

Regime change is not cheap for those that payed attention to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
If they nuke SK or Japan, that is our problem. We defend them, especially Japan after WWII when we demanded that they demilitarized. (Could you imagine it happening in Japan? They'd have to be asking why nobody but them can get nuked!)

Oh, I suppose that was for no good reason either.


I'm sure they are getting sick of them, but there's still a matter of saving face geopolitically. North Korea is the only thing keeping our troops off of their border, which is also something they don't want. Russia also. Unless we had assurances from the Chinese and the Russians that they weren't going to jump into the fray, I'd be very wary of doing anything preemptive.

I don't think anything is going to come of this anyway, just more hot air.

Picture if the Chinese invaded Mexico. No matter our feelings about the Mexican government, having Chinese troops across the street from San Diego (which Tijuana is) would be very bad for us.

I don't think we would go to war about it. :shrug:
 
Picture if the Chinese invaded Mexico. No matter our feelings about the Mexican government, having Chinese troops across the street from San Diego (which Tijuana is) would be very bad for us.

I really don't think the Chinese want Mexico.

and anyway, would Chinese troops across the street from San Diego be any worse than violent drug cartels in the same place? It could be an improvement overall. Anyway, I'll bet the Chinese could put a stop to the drug trade, and probably illegal crossings as well.
 
Regime change is not cheap for those that payed attention to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Then don't do it like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq!

That would seem straightforward enough.
 
Then don't do it like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq!

That would seem straightforward enough.


So you think Kim is the one in NK that calls the shots, and not the military?
 
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.

I don't need to tell what they want. We don't own any of it. Lithe people in those countries own it. It will flourish or fall based on their action. It's not our place to to try and control it.

And in the context of which I said it, no, no one did. In your context, not to the extent to warrant invasion.

Yes, we agree destabilization is risky. I knew it before hand. So did many others, many, many others. So, we were reckless. Nw we have to hope wiser heads win the day over there.
 
Btw, just watched an Iraqi who was there when they tore down Saddam's stature. He said Saddam held them back a hundred years, but h US pushed back three hundred. He put the stature back up if he could.

It was on local kmit news. I'll try later to get a link if someone wants.
 
Wilson did not hijack the debate about the forgeries.

He couldn't have. By the time he mentioned them, they were already public knowledge.

Wilson's grandstanding irreparably distorted and damaged the discussion.

The Butler Committee, appointed by then Prime Minister Tony Blair, concluded that the report Saddam's government was seeking uranium in Africa appeared "well-founded":

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.
b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.
c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.
d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.[31]

:cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom