• 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
JC Callender said:
It wasn't just Bush, it was Hillary, John Kerry, Joe Biden.....but you knew, in hindsight, there were no weapons and that's what counts.
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't Hillary, Kerry, Biden, or anyone else, including the 263 Congressional Republicans who voted for H.J.Res. 114.

Only one person was in a position to deploy troops to Iraq -- the Commander-in-Chief.

What Congress did was to authorize him to use force if he deemed it was necessary to protect us from "the continuing threat posed by Iraq," and that further diplomacy would "not adequately protect the national security" against that threat.

Only Bush never gave diplomacy the chance to work because in reality, he didn't want diplomacy -- he wanted to go to war. So he pulled the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq before they had the opportunity to complete their mission because during the time they were there, they hadn't found the smoking gun Bush was warning us about. He wasn't about to allow such pesky details interfere with his war agenda.

It was like handing Bush a gun and now blaming Democrats because he used it erroneously.
 
JC Callender said:
So they simply voted to give Bush a blank check without knowing what it would go towards?

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Yes. Who could have known Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq when he was stating publicly that he didn't want to go to war?

But regardless, only the Commander-in-Chief could make that call. Bush admitted so himself, even if his supporters can't understand that...

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." ~ George Bush, 12.14.2005
 
Sure is ironic to see the far right go back and forth from defending the invasion of Iraq, to blaming the Democrats for it. Decide whether you think the war was legit or not and get back with us. Thanks!
 
ChrisL said:
Saddam wasn't letting UN inspectors in. He acted like a man with something to hide.
Click to expand...
Say what?? That's a lie that George Bush told -- that doesn't make it true ...

Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.

(washingtonpost.com)
 
Boo Radley said:
Those are the ones I'm talking about. Snopes explains how they are misused rather well:

However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes
Click to expand...

Speaking of quotes ... here are some you will never hear a rightie quote ...


  • "We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place." ~ Colin Powell, 2.24.2001

  • "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." ~ Condoleezza Rice, 7.29.2001

  • "Russia has seen no evidence that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction. Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data which would support the existence of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received from our partners such information as yet." ~ Vladimir Putin, 10.11.2002

  • "Well, I don’t know [if Hussein has WMDs]. I have no evidence to support that... It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of." Jacque Chirac, 3.16.2003
 
Catawba said:
You are paranoid, the head of the inspection team that made 700 inspections said there was no threat!
And the body that paid for the multi-million dollar inspection program in Iraq decided they did not think there was a threat that merited attack.
Click to expand...

And you are full of it. Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMD. That is a fact. Also, the head of the UN inspectors at that time even believed that Saddam had WMD. Most of the civilized world believed that to be the case. He was NOT cooperative. He played the same games that Ahmadinejad plays.

In the decade since the invasion of Iraq, a number of arguments to explain the intelligence failure there are now accepted as gospel truth. Certainly, there were plenty of mistakes made then that should be avoided in the future. However, many of these arguments seem grounded in politics rather than reality.

No Books Were Cooked - By Charles Duelfer | Foreign Policy


More...
One of the most obvious examples is the widely accepted statement that President George W. Bush lied about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) stockpiles. But here's the thing: If Bush knew that Saddam did not have such weapons, he would have been the only one -- even Saddam wasn't 100 percent certain about what resided in his stockpiles. In reaction to insistent U.S. and British statements about Iraq's WMD, at an October 2002 Revolutionary Command Council meeting, Saddam asked his own staff whether they might know something he did not about residual WMD stocks.

The intelligence wasn't cooked or slanted to make policymakers happy. It was just wrong. That made Bush mistaken -- but it doesn't make him a liar.

Intelligence agencies around the world erred in their assessments about Iraqi WMD. Some were more wrong than others. But the broadly held view by intelligence practitioners was that Saddam had capabilities that exceeded the limitations placed on him by the United Nations after the 1991 Gulf War. And in fact, Saddam was not fully compliant with the United Nations: He had ballistic missiles that exceeded permitted range limits and he had certainly had a long track record of blocking and deceiving U.N. weapons inspectors. His cooperation was always less than needed. But as it turned out, by 2002, the Iraqi president did not have militarily significant stocks of chemical or biological agents, and his nuclear program had been halted years earlier.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Say what?? That's a lie that George Bush told -- that doesn't make it true ...

Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.

(washingtonpost.com)
Click to expand...

Oh what's this? Some more quotes. Are you going to claim that the Democrats in Congress at the time did not believe Saddam had WMDs?

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People — Version 3.0 | Right Wing News

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
 
Even the head of the UN inspectors believed Saddam had WMDs at the time.

David Kay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The research of his team determined that the Iraqi unconventional weapons programs had mostly been held in check, with only small amounts of banned material uncovered (this included a number of vials containing biological agents stored in the home refrigerators of Iraqi scientists, for example). None of these substances had been "weaponized" — no such agents were found in missiles or artillery, and none could be easily installed. These discoveries indicate that some of the primary reasons President George W. Bush used for going to war with Iraq did not reflect the true situation in that country, and contradicted statements made by Kay himself in the lead-up to the war.

Before the 2003 war, as U.S. government officials were pushing the idea that Saddam Hussein was in possession of WMD, many people would direct reporters toward David Kay to reinforce their point of view. In September 2002, Kay told U.S. News & World Report that "Iraq stands in clear violation of international orders to rid itself of these weapons." His credibility as a former U.N. weapons inspector convinced many observers.
 
pbrauer said:
Which one of the Democrats called for the invasion of Iraq with our boots on the ground??? NADA
Click to expand...

Let's face it, your idols approved of the Iraq War. They also believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD. The reason we went to Iraq was NOT oil but because Saddam HIMSELF made it appear as if he had WMDs or was producing WMDs. Those are words from his own mouth.

I'm sorry, but your democrat politicians are just no better than any other politicians.
 
The bottom line being, all of these politicians voted (majority) to give George Bush the power to go to war with Iraq. They all knew the same things that he knew. Now you all are going to cry "but, but, but they were RAILROADED!" :lamo
 
Boo Radley said:
Controlled? No. Helping the Kurds, our best supporters, against Saddam. See yet how silly invading Iraq was yet?
Click to expand...
WRONG!

You have no idea what you are talking about. AQ controlled territory in Iraq and were fighting against Saddam's Kurdish enemies in Iraq, the PUK.

You are consistently wrong about everything. If I was as ignorant and misinformed as you then I might think invading Iraq was a bad decision too.
 
Last edited:
I'm certainly not defending the war or George Bush. I think that it was a terrible idea and the timing and the reasoning behind going were WRONG, but it was a mistake and not some evil plan to obtain cheap oil. If you believe that, then you must believe that George Bush is an evil genius.

It was out of fear, and everyone was feeling it because of the 9/11 tragedy. I think some of you should go over to the conspiracy theory section of the forum for real. :roll:
 
Muhammed said:
WRONG!

You have no idea what you are talking about. AQ controlled territory in Iraq and were fighting against Saddam's Kurdish enemies in Iraq, the PUK.

You are consistently wrong about everything. If I was as ignorant and misinformed as you then I might think invading Iraq was a bad decision too.
Click to expand...

That is factually incorrect. They were not working with or for Saddam.
 
pbrauer said:
Considering the cost in blood and treasure, I had no choice to vote NO. It's been recently estimated the ultimate cost to be $2.2 Trillion 4500 of our troops died there; thousands of our troops received life altering injuries. Including Iraqis, 190,000 people died in the war, which is enough to complexly fill every seat of Yankee Statium 4 times.
Click to expand...

Are we going to argue over number again? No one knows for sure of that 190,000 how many were the enemy. Frankly I don't trust the numbers, because the enemy aren't military, don't dress as military and don't conduct themselves in a military fashion. I'll bet you believe that everyone of those 190,000 were innocent people, just innocent unarmed bystanders that got shot. WWII was by far (putting it very lightly) the most expensive war in both casualties and money, in history; and everyone thinks it was worth fighting now. Not so at the time.
 
Who lied, and why were all of the rest of the supporters so naive to believe it?

marywollstonecraft said:
invasion supporters should feel bad for cheering on these people to death, injury and the after effects of a war they fought for no other reason than trusting those who lied to them, and who had made the decision based on a crock of lies.
Click to expand...
 
Here are the Democratic Senators who voted YEA on October 2002.

Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
James Love: Who voted to authorize force in Iraq October 2002?


Sheik Yerbuti said:
No, it wasn't Hillary, Kerry, Biden, or anyone else, including the 263 Congressional Republicans who voted for H.J.Res. 114.

Only one person was in a position to deploy troops to Iraq -- the Commander-in-Chief.

What Congress did was to authorize him to use force if he deemed it was necessary to protect us from "the continuing threat posed by Iraq," and that further diplomacy would "not adequately protect the national security" against that threat.

Only Bush never gave diplomacy the chance to work because in reality, he didn't want diplomacy -- he wanted to go to war. So he pulled the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq before they had the opportunity to complete their mission because during the time they were there, they hadn't found the smoking gun Bush was warning us about. He wasn't about to allow such pesky details interfere with his war agenda.

It was like handing Bush a gun and now blaming Democrats because he used it erroneously.
Click to expand...
 
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Yes. Who could have known Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq when he was stating publicly that he didn't want to go to war?

But regardless, only the Commander-in-Chief could make that call. Bush admitted so himself, even if his supporters can't understand that...

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." ~ George Bush, 12.14.2005
Click to expand...
 
Notice the words "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate. . . "

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

So, as I said, they let the decider decide. They did not declare war. And spoke of how invading outside the UN would be wrong. The thing is JCC, do you want the truth, or an excuse for Bush?
 
JC Callender said:
Here are the Democratic Senators who voted YEA on October 2002.

Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
James Love: Who voted to authorize force in Iraq October 2002?
Click to expand...

Good morning, JC. :2wave:

Excellent! Some heavy hitters on that list! Thanks for your research. :thumbs:
 
JC Callender said:
Who lied, and why were all of the rest of the supporters so naive to believe it?
Click to expand...

why are you asking this?

it is well known, and it is also clear that americans especially had been vulnerable to the influence of these lies due to 9/11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom