• 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
Catawba said:
The thread is about whether the world is a better place without Saddam, the people of Iraq are saying the civil unrest is our fault. Whether you think they are better off or not is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

And I'm saying the civil unrest is their fault.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
The British report was never refuted and remains HMG's official view to this day. The matter of "falling on their swords" speaks to political hyperventilation and confusion of the period rather than to the facts of the case. GWB's SOTU statement was accurate.:cool:
Click to expand...

Do you know what Dick Cheney asked the CIA to investigate AND do you know what the CIA asked Joe Wilson was asked to investigate? I suspect you don't have clue.:cool::cool:
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Let's replay this for the benefit of those who may have missed it ...

ChrisL: "Saddam wasn't letting UN inspectors in. He acted like a man with something to hide."

Sheik Yerbuti: "Say what?? That's a lie that George Bush told -- that doesn't make it true ..."​

Do you see that? The lie which Bush told and you repeated was that Hussein wouldn't let the U.N. inspectors back into Iraq. I proved that was not true by responding with a quote by Hans Blix as he described the unfettered access U.N. inspectors enjoyed since returning to Iraq.

That was a lie Bush told. That is not a lie any Democrat made.

Not one.
Click to expand...

Saddam was never compliant with UN inspections.

Iraq: A Chronology of UN Inspections | Arms Control Association
 
pbrauer said:
Do you know what Dick Cheney asked the CIA to investigate AND do you know what the CIA asked Joe Wilson was asked to investigate? I suspect you don't have clue.:cool::cool:
Click to expand...

I know that chapter and verse. You have no idea how detailed is my knowledge of that episode.
 
Saddam was the same as Ahmadinejad. You can look at this, but you can't look at that. :roll:
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm trying to remember the last time an Arab leader stood up and said, "Wait! It's our fault. We're responsible for our country and our society."
I can't seem to come up with anything. Darn.:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
Click to expand...

You don't remember the civil war that started in 2007 between the Sunni and Shiites? That wouldn't have happened if the invasion hadn't occurred, the invasion stirred the pot so to speak.
 
Jack Hays said:
The "documents that turned out to be forgeries" were never the basis of any claim by anyone. The insertion of them into the discussion was Wilson's egregious contribution to the confusion of the question. Those documents were, however, essential to Wilson's attempt to carve out a putative important role for himself. They were part of his fraud.:cool:
Click to expand...

You demonstrate you really have no idea what you're talking about. The forged documents came from an ex-Italian spy, not because Wilson "inserted them" into the discussion. That first of those documents was first brought to the attention of the CIA in 2001 and was the basis for an intelligence report on the matter of Iraq purchasing Uranium from Niger. Also in that report was the mention that there was no corroborating evidence of such a sale. This occurred before Wilson ever entered the picture. A few months later, another document repeating that claim made it to the CIA. This document also preceded Wilson's involvement in the affair, but would be a catalyst for his trip to Niger in order to answer questions opn the matter by vice-president Cheney.

So for you to claim that it was Wilson who "inserted" them into the "discussion" only serves to reveal your lack of information on the subject. It's all detailed in the Senate Intelligence's prewar intelligence assessment on Iraq report. You should read up on it before making erroneous claims here.
 
pbrauer said:
You don't remember the civil war that started in 2007 between the Sunni and Shiites? That wouldn't have happened if the invasion hadn't occurred, the invasion stirred the pot so to speak.
Click to expand...

Complete nonsense. Sunni and Shia have been killing each other for over a thousand years and will likely still be doing that throughout our lifetimes and beyond. We're no more responsible for that than for the lack of water in the desert.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
You demonstrate you really have no idea what you're talking about. The forged documents came from an ex-Italian spy, not because Wilson "inserted them" into the discussion. That first of those documents was first brought to the attention of the CIA in 2001 and was the basis for an intelligence report on the matter of Iraq purchasing Uranium from Niger. Also in that report was the mention that there was no corroborating evidence of such a sale. This occurred before Wilson ever entered the picture. A few months later, another document repeating that claim made it to the CIA. This document also preceded Wilson's involvement in the affair, but would be a catalyst for his trip to Niger in order to answer questions opn the matter by vice-president Cheney.

So for you to claim that it was Wilson who "inserted" them into the "discussion" only serves to reveal your lack of information on the subject. It's all detailed in the Senate Intelligence's prewar intelligence assessment on Iraq report. You should read up on it before making erroneous claims here.
Click to expand...

The forged documents were immediately determined to be forgeries and were never used in any report. Wilson didn't know that, and conflated them with other intelligence that had nothing to do with the forgeries.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
Complete nonsense. Sunni and Shia have been killing each other for over a thousand years and will likely still be doing that throughout our lifetimes and beyond. We're no more responsible for that than for the lack of water in the desert.
Click to expand...
Well before we invaded, the Sunni pretty much populated Baghdad, after the invasion the Shiites did.
 
Jack Hays said:
And no one has produced any proof that he did not. The Brits regard their report as firmly corroborated and all but irrefutable. :cool:
Click to expand...
That's complete and utter bullxit. There's no evidence to support that occurred. There's no evidence that Iraq sought Uranium. Citing a third party, who even after 10 years, refuses to cite their source, doesn't justify it.

And we don't ****ing invade countries because no one can prove another country doesn't have weapons for which we're invading.

And what the British say is irrelevant. We also don't invade countries based on foreign intelligence agencies when our own intelligence agencies can't confirm the very same allegations.

Your allegiance to Bush is unjustifiable.
 
pbrauer said:
Do you know what Dick Cheney asked the CIA to investigate AND do you know what the CIA asked Joe Wilson was asked to investigate? I suspect you don't have clue.:cool::cool:
Click to expand...
Not a clue at all.

:coffeepap
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
That's complete and utter bullxit. There's no evidence to support that occurred. There's no evidence that Iraq sought Uranium. Citing a third party, who even after 10 years, refuses to cite their source, doesn't justify it.

And we don't ****ing invade countries because no one can prove another country doesn't have weapons for which we're invading.

And what the British say is irrelevant. We also don't invade countries based on foreign intelligence agencies when our own intelligence agencies can't confirm the very same allegations.

Your allegiance to Bush is unjustifiable.
Click to expand...

He's mister know-all, don't you know? The more he writes, the less credible he gets.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
That's complete and utter bullxit. There's no evidence to support that occurred. There's no evidence that Iraq sought Uranium. Citing a third party, who even after 10 years, refuses to cite their source, doesn't justify it.

And we don't ****ing invade countries because no one can prove another country doesn't have weapons for which we're invading.

And what the British say is irrelevant. We also don't invade countries based on foreign intelligence agencies when our own intelligence agencies can't confirm the very same allegations.

Your allegiance to Bush is unjustifiable.
Click to expand...

No allegiance to GWB. I have posted repeatedly that the decision to invade Iraq preceded the intelligence; it did not follow it. The matter of Saddam seeking uranium in Niger is a question of fact, and to facts I have allegiance.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
No allegiance to GWB. I have posted repeatedly that the decision to invade Iraq preceded the intelligence; it did not follow it. The matter of Saddam seeking uranium in Niger is a question of fact, and to facts I have allegiance.:cool:
Click to expand...
I suppose you were at that meeting as well. :cool:
 
ChrisL said:
Saddam was never compliant with UN inspections.

Iraq: A Chronology of UN Inspections | Arms Control Association
Click to expand...

:doh :doh :doh

Did you not read the quote I provided by Hans Blix?

"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." ~ Hans Blix

Your claim is simply not true and the link you gave to correoborate your incorrect claim doesn't help buy you any credibility since it only goes up to the period in late 2002 when the U.N. inspectors went back into Iraq.

Read Blix again ... "since we arrived in Iraq ..." Your article doesn't dicuss that period.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
:doh :doh :doh

Did you not read the quote I provided by Hans Blix?

"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." ~ Hans Blix

Your claim is simply not true and the link you gave to correoborate your incorrect claim doesn't help buy you any credibility since it only goes up to the period in late 2002 when the U.N. inspectors went back into Iraq.

Read Blix again ... "since we arrived in Iraq ..." Your article doesn't dicuss that period.
Click to expand...

Did you read my link. It has all of the inspections listed and problems with them up until 2002. I'll say it AGAIN. Saddam played the same games that Ahmadinejad plays now with the UN inspectors. Are you trying to lead us to believe that he was compliant and cooperative with inspections?
 
pbrauer said:
Please prove that if can.
Click to expand...

pbrauer said:
He's mister know-all, don't you know? The more he writes, the less credible he gets.
Click to expand...

Further explanation is not possible. Although I retired in 2009, some restrictions don't end. I have shared as much as I can. I doubt you will find that satisfactory, but that's it. Maybe some day.:cool:
 
I don't understand what you mean by "it only goes up to 2002." Obviously, inspectors had not been there since.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom