• 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
Jack Hays said:
I doubt very, very seriously that there will be war with Iran, for the simple reason that the task is beyond our strength.:cool:
Click to expand...

we shall see.... I don't put it past Obama to pull that trigger...he hasn't shied away from using military force since he's been in office, i don't think he shy away from that one.
 
Of course the world is a better place without the Baathists in power. There's just the teeny weeny question of the bloody freaking COST of this improvement.
 
Navy Pride said:
On the anniversary of the Iraq war the question begs to be asked.
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. However, on the scale of good-better-best, would it have been BEST if Saddam Hussein had never been the dictator of Iraq in the first place? I more emphatically say yes but sadly our economic survival depended upon access to the world's major oil reserves due to oil's exclusive grip on personal and commercial transportation in the US with a heck of a lot of deliberate suppression of alternative competitors to oil in the interest of ensuring the continued high profits realized by oil interests. That survival included convert support for brutal regimes that did not share our values as well as cleaver public relations campaigns crafted to ignore the connection between oil and the tragic geo-political history and consequences brought about by the oil monopoly, its toll in human suffering and death at home and abroad, painting a false picture that any and all alternatives to oil are now and will always be inferior until the last drop of oil is drilled from the ground and those who advocate for other options and trying to destroy the US economy and/or are closet communists/socialists.

Saddam Hussein - YouTube
 
TheDemSocialist said:
No its not stable no where near stable. Its categorized as a failed state. It still suffers sectarian violence and some say the civil war is still going on to this day. When Saddam was in power not a single terrorist attack happened in Iraq today its averaging one a day.
Click to expand...

Saddam himself was executing terrorist attacks.
 
Cyrylek said:
Of course the world is a better place without the Baathists in power. There's just the teeny weeny question of the bloody freaking COST of this improvement.
Click to expand...

There is the cost to consider, however, I think that when you have a government mass murdering it's people the cost is justified in removing that government. I won't argue that the war was poorly executed, but it was the right thing to do.
 
Navy Pride said:
On the anniversary of the Iraq war the question begs to be asked.
Click to expand...
This is a question that Iraqis should answer.

I'm not that interested in the answer from Americans, or Iranians, or Israelis, or Chinese, or Russians .. or French ... .

All of them have their issues, some nuclear, most oily.

But we slaughtered hundreds of thousands of men women and children in ousting Saddam and setting up our puppet regmine (yes, that's all it really is right now).

So there was a heavy price Iraqis paid.

I'd like to hear from them if they think their world is a better place now that everything has changed associated with ousting Saddam .. or if they'd rather have everything back the way it was, which would include Saddam.

For what it's worth, though, the next time we want to effect regime change with a head-lopping .. let a damn drone do it.
 
muciti said:
There is the cost to consider, however, I think that when you have a government mass murdering it's people the cost is justified in removing that government. I won't argue that the war was poorly executed, but it was the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

That was my thinking back in 2003. While extremely skeptical of the "nation building", I was sold on the idea that nothing could be worse than letting the murderous Stalinoid regime stay in place. But as time passed, I had to admit that we are pretty much "burning the village to save it". Iraq is still a grim, dangerous place - and the cost - both human and material - had been enormous.

Next time around, let's arrange for talking in as many refugees as possible, but keep our soldiers home. I am not saying this should be an absolute commitment, a la Ron Paul, but exceptions must have absolute clarity of goal and degree of involvement.
 
Medusa said:
proof ?

l am not a fan of saddam or uday but l dont think they were like Ratko miladiç..
Click to expand...

How about the personal testimonials of the victims and uday's own personal physician?
 
No, not really.

Iraq is still a horrid place to go plagued with terrorist insurgents and rolling blackouts. Did we make their lives better? I think we replaced one evil with another...hardly makes the world better.
 
In a Zogby poll last year 42% of Iraqis said they were worse off since the invasion.
 
Last edited:
Thrilla said:
true enough...

you know my stance on this... a single bullet would have been far preferable to a costly invasion/occupation. ( I have zero problem with Congress granting a letters of marque and reprisal)

it's a very good thing that the tyrant is dead... his sons too.
Click to expand...

give him cancer...I hear the CIA is pretty good at that.
 
Navy Pride said:
Yes but thanks to Obama we have and interest in a stabalized middle east.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't actually explain anything about 2003. You know, before Obama....

The world is better without Saddam. I think that invading when we did wasn't the best idea, and it was poorly planned. Listen to Richard Perle, a Pentagon advisor who pushed for the war, right around 4:20:

Perle Looks Back On The Start Of The Iraq War : NPR

We were just going to "turn things over immediately to Iraqis." Which begs the question "Which Iraqis?"
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Yes, but the attempt nation building, not so much...
Click to expand...

Yes. unfortunately the U.S. and many Euros think the rest of the world 'is just like us', and because nation building was successful in Japan and Germany, that sort of plan will be successful in other cultures. It won't, and we've learned that lesson, and hopefully won't be making that mistake again, and use the military for what it is intended to be for in the future. It really is a waste of time to try and bring pre-medieval savages into the 21st century.
 
Navy Pride said:
On the anniversary of the Iraq war the question begs to be asked.
Click to expand...

I think it is kind of a meaningless question. Iraqis are still suffering, many died, many more displaced, much of their problems still exist, and they still aren't thrilled with us and our invasion. We spent a lot of lives, a lot of money, and still face much of the problems we did before the invasion, if not more.

So, in the larger scale of things, in the big picture, what did Saddam actually mean?
 
disneydude said:
The world is a better place now because we don't have GWB in the whitehouse lying us into more wars and driving this country to the brink of economic and moral bankruptcy. The Iraq war has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Yes, because so much has changed in the last 5 years on all of the fronts you speak of :roll: Just replace GWB with BHO and your statement still stands.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Yes, because so much has changed in the last 5 years on all of the fronts you speak of :roll: Just replace GWB with BHO and your statement still stands.
Click to expand...

That may be. But no matter what, he merely took over and continued, not started. The problem was always the starting down the road in the first place.
 
Boo Radley said:
That may be. But no matter what, he merely took over and continued, not started. The problem was always the starting down the road in the first place.
Click to expand...

That can be said of many, many gov't programs. Once started a gov't program simply grows and its mission morphs into something that the lobbyists and campaign contributors want it to be. We now have over 70 "low income assistance" programs and over 40 "job training" programs.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That can be said of many, many gov't programs. Once started a gov't program simply grows and its mission morphs into something that the lobbyists and campaign contributors want it to be. We now have over 70 "low income assistance" programs and over 40 "job training" programs.
Click to expand...

Not sure those are bad, but yes. Things are more likely to grow than shrink.
 
no
The "concept" of hatred, disrespect for others is still very much alive.
It may take a century or a millenium of good works for man, particularly in the middle east to become cilvilized.
 
This is great providing you are a citizen of Iraq...If not, then we have another opinion....of little value.
I'll not believe our propaganda.
DVSentinel said:
Yes. Hell Yes. Damned straight and any other words expressing extreme positives.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
That may be. But no matter what, he merely took over and continued, not started. The problem was always the starting down the road in the first place.
Click to expand...

IMO continuing down a path you know is bad is far worse than ignorantly starting down the same path. Pres Obama knew the path we were on was wrong and continued down it. The beginning of Afghanistan was totally warranted. I think we both agree on that. As far as Iraq, Pres Bush, according to him, was led down the wrong path due to WMD's. Whether that's true or not we'll never know for sure. But the fact of the matter is that Pres Obama knew the road we were on and didn't have the balls to say "Screw it, I'm pulling us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Both theaters are dead ends." Instead, he let the SOFA negotiations appear to fail (just my opinion) and doubled down on Afghanistan. He did the same thing Pres Bush did yet he knew the consequences already. Pres Bush didn't have the benefit of history and lessons learned. Pres Obama did. Yet he still doubled down in A-stan. In addition, he increased drone strikes, didn't close Gitmo like he said he would, and got into another ME theater (Libya). The dude's no less a warmonger than Bush and IMO far worse. Go ask a terrorist if he'd rather be waterboarded or hellfired. The only reason you give him a pass is because of that word beside your lean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom