• 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
lpast said:
Weak ? First trade center attack, the attack on the Cole, the marine barracks in Riad the WTT in NYC and many other and you say weak? Cmon ditto. Theres alot to complain about the war in Iraq but for going there initially not to me. I would have preferred bush senior having gone all the way and getting saddam than bush jr going in a second time for sure.
You do have to admit in the end one arab threat in the middleast is gone. Once iran gets good and spanked things will calm down for a generation. Lets not forget Libya and now Syria and Egypt deciding to get rid of their tyrants. You think that thought and that courage just popped in their head on their own or do you like me them watching iraq gave them the fortitude and the realization that there are no GODS in the middle east Like Mubarek and Saddam and Khadafi.
Click to expand...

From your post:

we havent had an attack on our soil since, just a couple of weak attempts
Click to expand...

Now, are you going to say that there have been no attacks on Americans in the ME since the invasion of Iraq?
 
What if...? said:
Hussein was FAR.too secular for Al.Quaedas taste.
Click to expand...

Yes, he was, and he had no use for Al Qaeda, either. So, why again was attacking a secular state a good idea when fighting radical Islamists? I just don't quite get that one, do you?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, he was, and he had no use for Al Qaeda, either. So, why again was attacking a secular state a good idea when fighting radical Islamists? I just don't quite get that one, do you?
Click to expand...

Its.simply amazing.how the.media played this.country.

I.watched the.whole runup.on free.speech.tv.

There.was.MASSIVE amounts of information counter to the narrative.we.were.fed by the american media and our politicians.

The idea that the world agreed with our assessment is nonsense.
 
Rocketman said:
how so, do you deny Hussein was murdering people just because he felt like it? Maybe we should have let him have his growth so thousands more could have died needlessly.
Click to expand...

I deny it was actively going on to any large degree. And when he was really doing it, we stood by and watched. So what we really did was add injury to injury, costing more lives than would have been lost otherwise. Which is why human rights groups objected to our invasion.

So, no, it is not remotely the same.
 
Rocketman said:
how so, do you deny Hussein was murdering people just because he felt like it? Maybe we should have let him have his growth so thousands more could have died needlessly.
Click to expand...

For your consideration:

In our view, as a threshold matter, humanitarian intervention that occurs without the consent of the relevant government can be justified only in the face of ongoing or imminent genocide, or comparable mass slaughter or loss of life.

(snip)

Brutal as Saddam Hussein's reign had been, the scope of the Iraqi government's killing in March 2003 was not of the exceptional and dire magnitude that would justify humanitarian intervention. We have no illusions about Saddam Hussein's vicious inhumanity. Having devoted extensive time and effort to documenting his atrocities, we estimate that in the last twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule the Iraqi government murdered or "disappeared" some quarter of a million Iraqis, if not more. In addition, one must consider such abuses as Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers. However, by the time of the March 2003 invasion, Saddam Hussein's killing had ebbed.

(snip)
Humanitarianism, even understood broadly as concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people, was at best a subsidiary motive for the invasion of Iraq.

(snip)

Conclusion

In sum, the invasion of Iraq failed to meet the test for a humanitarian intervention. Most important, the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention. In addition, intervention was not the last reasonable option to stop Iraqi atrocities. Intervention was not motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns.

War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention | Human Rights Watch
 
Rocketman said:
Damn, if we had just stayed out of WWI and II
Click to expand...

I think we should of stayed out of WW1. But not WW2. We were attacked directly form one nation, and another national declared war on us.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I think we should of stayed out of WW1. But not WW2. We were attacked directly form one nation, and another national declared war on us.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether we were attacked don't you think it was worthy and important for the United States to intervene in World War II?
 
Sherman123 said:
Regardless of whether we were attacked don't you think it was worthy and important for the United States to intervene in World War II?
Click to expand...

Well because we were attacked by another nation yes i believe we should of intervened. But if we were not attacked and not declared war upon then i don think we should of directly intervened.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Well because we were attacked by another nation yes i believe we should of intervened. But if we were not attacked and not declared war upon then i don think we should of directly intervened.
Click to expand...

You don't think that would have resulted in a moral catastrophe? Let alone a strategic one?
 
Sherman123 said:
You don't think that would have resulted in a moral catastrophe? Let alone a strategic one?
Click to expand...

If we werent attacked and werent declared war on and we didnt intervene? No. Many historians agree that the USSR could of taken back Europe and won WW2 with Britain, and the Partisans.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I think we should of stayed out of WW1. But not WW2. We were attacked directly form one nation, and another national declared war on us.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately we may not have been able to stay out of world war 1. Germany was waging unrestricted submarine warfare and even American ships were fair game. But it was Germany who forced us into conflict, they were trying to negotiate with Mexico in order for it to declare war on the United States, which would have kept us from interfering in Europe. Now of course the fact that it was the British who revealed the plot may have proved suspicious, but could not allow Germany to get away with such deception.
 
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...

Interesting comparison, except thousands of soldiers don't die assisting our nation's poor. Trillions are not poured out on barren lands far from home not helping our citizens past a few defense contractor's bottomline... oh speaking of those guys, so too has simple 'national defense' turned into a huge mess of lobbyists, contractors, and thousands of handouts.

I refrained from posting in this thread mainly because they are rather liberal artsy. Is the 'world' better off without one less brutal dictator? Is the world better when a new butterfly spreads it's wings? :roll:

The World is neither better or worse off. Iran has new found power and position as two sunni rivals have been knocked down a rung or two, the huge cost and distraction caused by Afghanistan and Iraq gave Iran plenty of room to start a regionally destabilizing nuclear program- we swapped a rather caged tiger for an on the loose one... greeeeeat.

Compared to many other past ruthless dictators and mass killers of their own people Saddam is a light wieght. We seem to forget how much assistance we gave him and the blind eye we turned when he slaughtered so many Kurds before we hated him. Doesn't anyone remember Special Envoy for President Reagan, Ronald Rumsfeld classic neo-con, shaking Saddam's hand in 1983? That year is imporatant because according to kurds and iranians thats the year Iraq started using chemical weapons. Two years later Ambassador to the UN Kirkpatrick worked to 'downplay' the UN sanctions against Iraq over the use of 'annihilation insecticides'.

So this newly found disgust and outrage over Saddam doing Saddam seems a bit fake, or at the VERY least ignorant of history.

Those who substituted Iraq for the World in the original question...

Given the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi have died in the war and upheaval since we decided we knew what was best for Iraq, the infiltration of iranian group in the majority Shia population, the tenuous cobbled together government that looks more like the nation of Lebanon rather than Lebanon, Pa....

Ignore the Kurds are basically outside national controls and policies, the Sunni minority is being bribed to play ball and the ****te majority can't govern any better than we did...

I'd say the sham elections that were held are more like a communist staged event than even Chicago elections... :cool:

More negotiating went on behind closed doors to determine the outcome of the 'free and open' elections than any brokered convention we ever had in this country.

Iraq better off???? Not enough time has passed to be able to say it is.
 
Boo Radley said:
I deny it was actively going on to any large degree. And when he was really doing it, we stood by and watched. So what we really did was add injury to injury, costing more lives than would have been lost otherwise. Which is why human rights groups objected to our invasion.

So, no, it is not remotely the same.
Click to expand...

If these groups cared about human rights at all they would be all over Obama over his policies, you will have to do better.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Probably not. You've dug yourself in a hole on equating Bush's War with WWI and WWII. A wise man would stop digging.
Click to expand...

I dug nothing, to deny Saddam Hussein was guilty of horrendous murders and rapes of his own people is irresponsible and a lie
 
TheDemSocialist said:
If we werent attacked and werent declared war on and we didnt intervene? No. Many historians agree that the USSR could of taken back Europe and won WW2 with Britain, and the Partisans.
Click to expand...

Stalinist domination of Western Europe, and the deaths of tens of millions in Asia under the boot of Imperial Japanese rule isn't concerning to you?
 
notquiteright said:
Interesting comparison, except thousands of soldiers don't die assisting our nation's poor. Trillions are not poured out on barren lands far from home not helping our citizens past a few defense contractor's bottomline... oh speaking of those guys, so too has simple 'national defense' turned into a huge mess of lobbyists, contractors, and thousands of handouts.

I refrained from posting in this thread mainly because they are rather liberal artsy. Is the 'world' better off without one less brutal dictator? Is the world better when a new butterfly spreads it's wings? :roll:

The World is neither better or worse off. Iran has new found power and position as two sunni rivals have been knocked down a rung or two, the huge cost and distraction caused by Afghanistan and Iraq gave Iran plenty of room to start a regionally destabilizing nuclear program- we swapped a rather caged tiger for an on the loose one... greeeeeat.

Compared to many other past ruthless dictators and mass killers of their own people Saddam is a light wieght. We seem to forget how much assistance we gave him and the blind eye we turned when he slaughtered so many Kurds before we hated him. Doesn't anyone remember Special Envoy for President Reagan, Ronald Rumsfeld classic neo-con, shaking Saddam's hand in 1983? That year is imporatant because according to kurds and iranians thats the year Iraq started using chemical weapons. Two years later Ambassador to the UN Kirkpatrick worked to 'downplay' the UN sanctions against Iraq over the use of 'annihilation insecticides'.

So this newly found disgust and outrage over Saddam doing Saddam seems a bit fake, or at the VERY least ignorant of history.

Those who substituted Iraq for the World in the original question...

Given the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi have died in the war and upheaval since we decided we knew what was best for Iraq, the infiltration of iranian group in the majority Shia population, the tenuous cobbled together government that looks more like the nation of Lebanon rather than Lebanon, Pa....

Ignore the Kurds are basically outside national controls and policies, the Sunni minority is being bribed to play ball and the ****te majority can't govern any better than we did...

I'd say the sham elections that were held are more like a communist staged event than even Chicago elections... :cool:

More negotiating went on behind closed doors to determine the outcome of the 'free and open' elections than any brokered convention we ever had in this country.

Iraq better off???? Not enough time has passed to be able to say it is.
Click to expand...

There are some pretty massive problems with your narrative.

1. I'm not sure how it make sense to compare the removal of a brutal dictator (your words) to a butterfly spreading its wings. That is just nonsensical.

2. Actually Saddam is ranked fairly high in terms of the amount of people slaughtered under his rule. Between the al-Anfal Campaign and the suppression operations of the 1990's it is estimated Saddam's regime directly murdered almost half a million of its citizens. This puts him somewhere in between Mengstu and Pol Pot, so let's not quibble: he was a monster.

3. Iraq's acquisition of chemical weapons has sourced to a huge variety of countries and petrochemical companies that exported chemical compounds and in some cases synthesized materials to Iraq. The largest patrons were the Netherlands, Germany, France, Singapore, Brazil, etc. The United States provided comparatively little and nor did the Commerce Department approve the direct export of chemical products to Iraq.

4. Desiring that neither Iranian theocracy nor the fascistic government of Iraq would dominate the region was not a sin on the Reagan administration. Like Kissinger quipped "It's a pity they can't both lose." Absent of direct intervention, the only tool the US had was tinkering with the levers of supply and support and fighting on the margins to prevent one side from claiming victory. Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad took place in this context.

5. No question the decision to abandon the Kurds, and specifically the Barzani's without warning is one of the darkest blemishes Kissinger has to his name. However it is again worth noting that absent actual intervention like we had in 2003 there was not a huge amount that could have been done beyond funneling arms and supplies to the Kurds which we had been doing.

6. The Kurds should be outside national controls, they have a Federal agreement with the central government and quite frankly the KRG is an exemplar of what the Iraq War could still accomplish.

7. The elections were hardly shams, that was the whole problem remember? Allawi's Iraqqiya list won a slim majority over Malaki's list, however it took months of painstaking negotiations to get a coalition agreement and keep the government standing. Despite the flaws the situation was resolved via a political resolution, not death squads. Moreover the recent local elections once again have shown that power can and has shifted electorally in the country.

8. The proponents of the Iraq War are usually not arguing that in 2013 Iraq is better than it was in 1979 (before the Iran-Iraq war and the tightening of Saddam's group) what they have usually argued is that Saddam's removal and the implantation of democratic rule offers Iraq the chance at a better future than its ever expected before and the situation is continually improving.
 
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...

Your right, GWB is not in the Whitehouse. Barack Obama is now lying to us on every turn and running up a debt that cannot be paid. What drives a man who wants to be President to want to "fundamentally change" the United States of America. The only reason Obama is President is the color of his skin.
 
Sherman123 said:
Stalinist domination of Western Europe, and the deaths of tens of millions in Asia under the boot of Imperial Japanese rule isn't concerning to you?
Click to expand...

I think Japan was dragging us into an Asian war no matter what. Although I think the argument can be made that Stalinist domination of Western Europe would have ended up being more humane than Stalinist domination in Asia, which lead to tens of millions of deaths and at least 2 major wars.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Probably not. You've dug yourself in a hole on equating Bush's War with WWI and WWII. A wise man would stop digging.
Click to expand...


Why isn't it Clinton's war? He advocated taking out Saddam to but did not have the balls to do it.
 
Navy Pride said:
Why isn't it Clinton's war? He advocated taking out Saddam to but did not have the balls to do it.
Click to expand...

Not really true....Clinton was busy bombing Kosovo at the time and didn't have the propaganda machine initiated for Iraq...that occurred after 9/11 when people were gullible enough to believe Hussein had ties to that attack..
 
AreteCourage said:
Not really true....Clinton was busy bombing Kosovo at the time and didn't have the propaganda machine initiated for Iraq...that occurred after 9/11 when people were gullible enough to believe Hussein had ties to that attack..
Click to expand...

Bingo!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom