• 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
Do you mean in addition to the hundreds of thousands killed necessary to install the new regime? And we aided Saddam for 8 years when he was the most brutal. Why wait until he was an old man with a shotgun?

Torture in Iraq 'worse than under Saddam'

"Torture in Iraq is worse now than it was under the regime of Saddam Hussein and "is totally out of hand", according to a United Nations investigator.
"The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein," said Manfred Nowak, a UN special investigator on torture, at a press conference in Geneva.

He said government forces, private militia and terrorist groups were all involved.

"You have terrorist groups, you have the military, you have police, you have these militias. There are so many people who are actually abducted, seriously tortured and finally killed," said Mr Nowak, an Austrian law professor."

Torture in Iraq 'worse than under Saddam' | World news | guardian.co.uk


Don't be tellin' those nasty truths here. Can't y'all detect that they is a whole crew participating on this OP that lives in a bubble. It worse than a FauxNEWS shutdown and they gotta think fo' themselves. They'll be fartin' in the cookie jars.
 
Fascinating link that provides no evidence whatsoever that the war was fought for access to Iraqi oil. War in Iraq has indeed always been about oil for the US: oil in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The fact that Iraq's oil sector was state-owned and is now privatized only puts Iraq in step with most other major oil producers. As for Halliburton, it is by far the world's largest and most capable oil production services firm. They are everywhere, so it's unsurprising that they're in Iraq. Learn first. Then post.:cool:

It provides more evidence than anyone has provided evidence that Iraq was a threat, which is why a majority of people in the world agree the Iraq war was about oil. You may believe whatever you wish.
 
It provides more evidence than anyone has provided evidence that Iraq was a threat, which is why a majority of people in the world agree the Iraq war was about oil. You may believe whatever you wish.

I think you need to remind him that Halliburton's success is not neccessarily "our" success......................
 
Torture in Iraq 'worse than under Saddam'



And guess who set it up?

The USA did and here's the proof:

www.democracynow.org/2013/3/22/new_expos_links_torture_centers_in

A shocking new report by the Guardian and BBC Arabic details how the United States armed and trained Iraqi death squads that ran torture centers. It is a story that stretches from the U.S.-backed death squads in Central America in the 1980's to the imprisoned Army whistleblower Bradley Manning.

The video exposes the role that retired U.S. Army colonel, and torture expert, James Steele, a veteran of U.S. proxy wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua, played in training Iraqi police commando units.

A Pentagon spokesman told the Guardian it had seen the reports and was looking into the situation. This is way worse than Abu Ghraib, it goes up the chain of command, Colonel Steele reported directly to General Petraeus, who reported to G.W. Bush. Do the math.

This will not go away. Some people may be going to jail.

They should be going to jail, they crossed the line.

If you don't go to the link and watch the video, don't post a comment because you won't know what you are talking about, OK?
 
Last edited:
And guess who set it up?

The USA did and here's the proof:

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/22/new_expose_links_torture_centers_in

A shocking new report by the Guardian and BBC Arabic details how the United States armed and trained Iraqi death squads that ran torture centers. It is a story that stretches from the U.S.-backed death squads in Central America in the 1980's to the imprisoned Army whistleblower Bradley Manning.

The video exposes the role that retired U.S. Army colonel, and torture expert, James Steele, a veteran of U.S. proxy wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua, played in training Iraqi police commando units.

A Pentagon spokesman told the Guardian it had seen the reports and was looking into the situation. This is way worse than Abu Ghraib, it goes up the chain of command, Colonel Steele reported directly to General Petraeus, who reported to G.W. Bush. Do the math.

This will not go away. Some people may be going to jail.

They should be going to jail, they crossed the line.



And yet some people seem surprised that Iraqis consider the hell of Saddam the lesser of the hell of the US military!!!
 
I think you need to remind him that Halliburton's success is not neccessarily "our" success......................



But it's 'Dick' Cheney's success!

Isn't that a great American story?
 
And yet some people seem surprised that Iraqis consider the hell of Saddam the lesser of the hell of the US military!!!



Did you watch the video?

I do believe that there will be consequences.

We may need to start a thread about this news. I'll check it out.
 
And yet some people seem surprised that Iraqis consider the hell of Saddam the lesser of the hell of the US military!!!



The people in Iraq are not surprised. Many of them were victims of this torture.

Learn more here: Pentagon investigating link between US military and torture centres in Iraq | World news | The Guardian

It will be interesting to see if the GOP-controlled House opens up an investigation into this.

Probably not, I'm sure that they have 'more important things to do'.

Maybe the Senate will take a look at it.
 
I've read that they are happy that he's gone, except of course his insurgent supporters. Same thing would be happening if the Iraqis themselves took him out. His own party members would wage attacks. That is just how things are over there, and it's going to take a lot of time for things to settle down. I'm hopeful that eventually things will work out over there eventually. If you want to continue with bitterness over the GWB era, and be hopeless, then that's fine.

well I would say that you access some pretty limited sources.

BBC World Service - The Documentary, After Saddam - Hugh Sykes Returns To Iraq, Episode 1

I would also say that you have hardly ever spoken to an Iraqi.

religious minorities such as Sabeans and Christians were better off under Saddam. The Sabeans and Chtistians I have met have fled SINCE 2003. And they will never go back:

Persecution of Religious Minorities in Iraq by Shatha Almutawa

the UN estimates that about 7% of the population fled:

Refugees of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

these people are not insurgents.

The people who live in fear now are not insurgents.

Its not a matter of whether I am bitter.

As someone who has over many years worked with people from Iraq, I am offended by the inhumanity expressed by those who dismiss the ongoing tragedy and refuse to accept that the invasion was the catalyst for hundreds of thousands of deaths and the suffering of millions of people, no matter what evidence is presented.
 
Let's face it, the United States is damned if they do take action and damned if they don't take action, so we're always going to be the bad guys in some people's eyes who can't seem to grasp the entire picture.

The problem is that often it is the US that doesn't grasp the entire picture. they see it through a prism of "what will benefit the corporations that grease the US govts palm."
 
Oh, *yawn*. Not this routine again.

That was then, this is now. Live in the now!

Do you honestly believe that you're the only person who knows that the US is not perfect? Do you really believe that anyone thinks so? Why must you review elementary history school, complete with personal perversions, every time someone criticizes Saddam.

... those who ignore history ....
 
... those who ignore history ....

Oh, please! There's a big difference between ignoring history and refusing to accept that actions decades or centuries ago define foreign policy today. I'm not asking that people ignore the past, just that they pay some kind of attention to the world today.
 
Last edited:
Is the pope a catholic?

Don't ask these kinds of self answering questions, of course removing Saddam Hussein from this world is a good thing. But I am not sure that good thing was worth the lives of the more than 100,000 dead Iraqi's, the almost 4,800 dead coalition troops or the hundreds of thousands of injured people.

I think it is wonderful that the world is rid of Hussein but I think the US rushed the world into a war that was ill planned, ill conceived and poorly executed. And then I am not really talking about the role of the troops in the fight. They did their job as excellently as they do all their jobs. It was all that happened after the fighting itself stopped that is the big issue.

And then there is also the reasons for going into this war. The war was started on bad intelligence if you look at the issue with your most pro-G.W. Bush-glasses as possible and if you do not wear those kinds of glasses one might be a little bit or a lot more negative as to why this war was started and how G.W. Bush and his neo-cons played their parts in this war.

the question wasn't whether it was a good thing ... it was whether the world is better off.

the invasion has made the wold less safe for many people, so no ... the world is NOT better off.
 
... people who are well informed?

Oh, so to be "well-informed" is to think that Saddam Hussein made the world a better place? This is what you're saying, and my god, it's asinine.
 
Rushed? 17 unscrs (the last of which promised ~"dire" ~"any" or some such consequences), decades of chem use, invasions and starvation. Ill planned? As you note below, and I specify, it's not like coulda planned to find a social capital desert. Conceived? Iraq was the best country to nation build for a number of reasons, oil giving it the power to stand on its own being a significant one. Executed? As you note below, it was a big crap sandwich. But that's not our fault, Saddam killed every half-brain that dared speak freely.



Right. We booted Baath and there was nothing left - oops. Ok, our bad but we didn't know.



200k Kurds - Genocide
50k Marsh Arabs - Genocide
500k Iraqis - Iran War
400k children - Selling food-for-oil products, this occured just prior to invasion

Faking a WMD program to deter Iran, institutionalized rape, FGM, honor killings and a general lack of human rights for women.

Saddam was a horrible monster that left nothing behind, he burned it all. We were too late. Perhaps in a generation or two, Iraq will be on its feet and verging on developed country status, it has the resources to do so and now it has the chance.


ps. Not voting because I don't like the framing.

yes rushed.

Hans Blix asked for more time, and if WMDs were the issue - they should have given it to him.
 
Are probably not quite as bad as those who try to rewrite it, as many on these forums try to do.

Oh, yeah... exciting! The nebulous badguys. Ooooohhhh... Who are they?!

Spare us the victim routine. Shouldn't you be investigating 9/11?
 
Maybe if that moron had complied with the international community, he wouldn't have made himself into a target, and after 9-1-1 everyone was a bit paranoid.

so what you are saying is that the decision was based on emotion, not reason?

That is appalling.
 
Hans Blix asked for more time, and if WMDs were the issue - they should have given it to him.

How many years were we gonna let Hans Solo search? It had been many and, as history notes, Saddam was faking a WMD program.
 
That is real funny, the genocide of the Shiite's living in the Marsh was revenge for the uprising president Bush urged them to instigate but he was not able to protect or defend them when Saddam, who was left most of his power in his own land murdered them by the thousands. The Iraqi chemical and biological weapons was only possible with the help of Germany, France and to some extent the US and many other countries including the Netherlands.

Where was all the indignation for the war against Iran and all the people that died from that war? It wasn't from the US or much of Europe.

Saddam was a monster, but a monster that both the Communists and we from the West created and kept in power with weapons, technology and support.

not to mention that the US was one among several nations supplying weapons TO BOTH SIDES in the Iran/Iraq conflict.
 
not to mention that the US was one among several nations supplying weapons TO BOTH SIDES in the Iran/Iraq conflict.

And we slaughtered Native Americans. And we had slaves!
 
This is so devoid of anything approaching sense it boggles the mind.

actually ... its all true.

The USA is a dangerous country.

It has a habit of invading other countries which are no real threat to the USA.

It is the only country on this planet to have ever used nuclear weapons.

Which is one reason why some countries see having nukes as a good thing.

and after the invasion of Afghanistan AND Iraq on either side of them ... how do you think Iran might have felt?
 
And we slaughtered Native Americans. And we had slaves!

Yet some of us have demonstrated the hubris to think we are morally superior to the people in the middle east.
 
Back
Top Bottom