• 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
I have always acknowledged that there are bad guys on both sides.

But I don't believe that justifies the USA using an/or creating these regimes.

"Timmy did it too" has never been an excuse for bad behavior. Check with your mother on this.

The USA was happy to use Saddam to restrain Iran for a while.View attachment 67144854

Yes, that's Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in happier days for the two of them.

There is no sportsmanship trophy in international relations. We take our friends where we can find them.
 
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 may indeed. I believe the GWB administration sought to create a Middle East Pax Americana based in Iraq to enable a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.:cool:
 
The writing is mostly done. I just gotta combine files, edit, create graphs maps and charts and build a final system model. Kenya, south (wet) side of the mountain, up against the forest.

congratulations! :2dance:
 
I may indeed. I believe the GWB administration sought to create a Middle East Pax Americana based in Iraq to enable a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.:cool:

Do you think Bush knows what "Pax Americana" means? Actually, do think he knows what "comprehensive" means? :?
 
I may indeed. I believe the GWB administration sought to create a Middle East Pax Americana based in Iraq to enable a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.:cool:



That seems to have been the neocons plan.

Didn't work out like they thought it would, eh?

Instead it helped Iran and did nothing for Israel and the West.

Israel was better off when Iraq was keeping Iran busy.

Sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.

Hopefully someone learned something from the Bush mis-administration's failed adventure in Iraq.

It has turned out about like I thought it would so far.:roll:


"The best laid schemes of Mice and Men
oft go awry,
And leave us nothing but grief and pain,
for promised joy."
~ Robert Burns, To a Mouse, (Poem, November, 1785)
 
Last edited:
No.
Saddam was the best choice in keeping Iraq safe and secure.

since his murder Christians are fleeing the country in droves.

the place is a hell hole..

ask any Iraqi Christian on how Saddam treated them.

his food tasters were only Christian.

this was madness at it's height and it took a huge lie to the world to do it...

look at what you have...
bush promised cheaper gas to his people and they bought it...lol..

you gotta love America...
 
Whether you can handle it or not, the truth is always the truth.

wouldn't it be nice if we could always agree on what the truth is? even if "the truth is always the truth," finding or determining it is not always easy ...
 
I won't speculate. Good afternoon, Bori.:2wave:

I will ... he would have no idea what "pax" means, but I'll give him comprehensive ... fair enough? good day to you as well ...
 
I will ... he would have no idea what "pax" means, but I'll give him comprehensive ... fair enough? good day to you as well ...

You would be quite surprised by GWB's intellectual depth and range. Regardless, the explanation fits the observed facts of the matter.:cool:
 
If there were another attack on the scale of 9/11, but this time it was Saddam's government responsible, would it have been worth it then?

there was no credible evidence and I think a lot of folks who voted for the war did so because of political expediency ... people were afraid, and we're big on revenge as a country and wanted to do someting to someone ... many politicians, Dems among them, had no backbone on this one ... the issue is whether the administration concocted stuff to justify going in and the evidence suggests rather strongly that they did ... I think Hubris was well done, although I know that most conservatives will dismiss it outright regardless of the evidence ... the issue isn't whether Iraq is better off without him ... the issue is whether it was worth the cost. Can you imagine if we expended an equal number of lives and money on every head of state who their country would be better off without?
 
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?

The mere act of repeating nonsense doesn't make it any less nonsense.
 
I think you have a bit of a comprehension problem.

when someone asks - Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein? to say "no" is not the same thing as saying he made the world a better place.

It is the same as saying the world is better with him. If you don't think so, then indeed, it's YOU who has the "comprehension problem" -- though that is plain enough with the inane posts you've made in this thread.

In any case, the idea that it's not better without him, his death squads, his sons, his mass executions -- you're so wrapped up in anti-Bush and anti-American drivel that your head is twisted around several times.

Haterz gonna hate, though, so I won't bother trying to change your mind on any of the nonsense. The radical seldom have any inclination to moderate themselves.
 
That seems to have been the neocons plan.

Didn't work out like they thought it would, eh?

Instead it helped Iran and did nothing for Israel and the West.

Israel was better off when Iraq was keeping Iran busy.

Sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.

Hopefully someone learned something from the Bush mis-administration's failed adventure in Iraq.

It has turned out about like I thought it would so far.:roll:


"The best laid schemes of Mice and Men
oft go awry,
And leave us nothing but grief and pain,
for promised joy."
~ Robert Burns, To a Mouse, (Poem, November, 1785)


Absolutely wrong! The OIL is in the Western Energy Distribution Network, so if Big Money Energy Corporations had a large monetary push and media agenda to initiate the war and bring the OIL into western distribution networks, they have succeeded handsomely. They also made the first profits because Wars run on energy and they were the USA's best fuel providers. Now they drill, refine, transport, retail the forbidden fruits that were denied by Saddam. Of course, you have to presume that the USA is about business and war is good business for this to make any sense. Check those big campaign donations.
 
If there were another attack on the scale of 9/11, but this time it was Saddam's government responsible, would it have been worth it then?

that would be a differrent story, wouldn't it? the issue is that they concocted a story that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, among them thousands of soldiers who deserved better JC ... that's where the criminality lies ... what they did was reprehensible and they'll live the rests of their lives in comfort, while the families of those killed will suffer their loss day in and day out until the day they die ... it almost doesn't matter, does it? I think we know the way it will end, regardless ...
 
Yes, it would be a different story had we not gone to war with Iraq, and you don't know the outcome.

Who concocted this story?

that would be a differrent story, wouldn't it? the issue is that they concocted a story that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, among them thousands of soldiers who deserved better JC ... that's where the criminality lies ... what they did was reprehensible and they'll live the rests of their lives in comfort, while the families of those killed will suffer their loss day in and day out until the day they die ... it almost doesn't matter, does it? I think we know the way it will end, regardless ...
 
shrug ...

I'm still sorry that you feel so ashamed of your nation that you believe yourselves to be the worst people ever.

We're not the worst, but we are the most dangerous due to our military strength and tendency to meddle in other's affairs.
 
It is important that everyone know that Cheney clearly knew the likely result of an invasion of Iraq. (its catually imppressive how accurate his prediction was) I suspect he probably mentioned it to Bush at some point. Their decision to proceed with the attack, invasion and occupation despite this knowledge was criminal.

".....if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?

Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right."
Dick Cheney, 1994

 
Yes, it would be a different story had we not gone to war with Iraq, and you don't know the outcome.

Who concocted this story?

JC, if after looking at the evidence, you still believe that the administration believed that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, God Bless You, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you of that. have a good one ...
 
wouldn't it be nice if we could always agree on what the truth is?



Simple-take the opposite of anything that the Bush mis-administration said about the Iraq war and you will have the truth.
 
Simple-take the opposite of anything that the Bush mis-administration said about the Iraq war and you will have the truth.

Sadly, I have no doubt you believe this sincerely.
 
You would be quite surprised by GWB's intellectual depth and range.




Tony Blair wrote in 2010 that the caricature of Bush as being dumb is "ludicrous" and that Bush is "very smart".

I have never doubted that.

But a lot of smart people do a lot of what turn out to be seen as stupid things because of the choices they make.

Bush made enough bad choices to be considered one of America's worst presidents by panels of historians and presidential scholars.

I accept their judgement which you can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W_Bush#Image
 
Tony Blair wrote in 2010 that the caricature of Bush as being dumb is "ludicrous" and that Bush is "very smart".

I have never doubted that.

But a lot of smart people do a lot of what turn out to be seen as stupid things because of the choices they make.

Bush made enough bad choices to be considered one of America's worst presidents by panels of historians and presidential scholars.

I accept their judgement which you can read here: George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History's judgments evolve over time. I think I'll let a little more go by. Thanks.:cool:
 
Tony Blair wrote in 2010 that the caricature of Bush as being dumb is "ludicrous" and that Bush is "very smart".

I have never doubted that.

But a lot of smart people do a lot of what turn out to be seen as stupid things because of the choices they make.

Bush made enough bad choices to be considered one of America's worst presidents by panels of historians and presidential scholars.

I accept their judgement which you can read here: George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wait a sercond ... what standard are you holding him up to? And what is Blair supposed to say? Blair is now held in contempt by many Brits for being the Bush's gofer ... I agree, he's not as dumb as Palin or Quayle, but come on guys ...
 
Back
Top Bottom