• 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 don't have to read them. I typed them. You feign concern over the Iraqi people, but if you really cared about them one iota you would be encouraging them to not dwell on the past but to do things that will make their futures brighter and more promising.

Hatred and feelings of vengeance which you are spreading are destructive and do not help anybody or anything. :shrug:

I'm sure that the dictators, oppressors and radical imams are probably spreading similar hatred to what you are doing here on the forum.

I wish you luck in convincing millions of people that it doesn't matter that they lost loved ones, their homes and have to live in fear today just because you want to believe your country did the right thing.
 
Already responded to. I guess your arsenal is empty already. But that's par for the course for haterz.


you appear incapable of seeing the statement as anything but an either/or.

This says more about your thinking style than anything else.
 
you appear incapable of seeing the statement as anything but an either/or.

This says more about your thinking style than anything else.

No, what I see through is your spin on it, which is, of course, from your hardcore anti-Bush, anti-American hate which makes YOU incapable of acknowledging any result of anything they did which isn't awful.
 
No, what I see through is your spin on it, which is, of course, from your hardcore anti-Bush, anti-American hate which makes YOU incapable of acknowledging any result of anything they did which isn't awful.

I think you are putting your own spin on what I say.

The inability to acknowledge the impact the invasion had on the Iraqis, and the inability to accept that it is now well known that people died because politicians from anglo speaking countries lied is what blinds you to the fact that you have swallowed a whole lot of spin, hook line and sinker.
 
Ideology over human rights?

Ideology for human (and eco) rights. Can you see my signature, below? If you can understand it, you'll see how it all fits together. As you probably don't understand that democracy is good for ecology, it will be difficult for you. Of course, if you believe that Saddam was not doing any harm to the people (or eco) of Iraq, then you are incapable of grasping the premise in context.

I've done more for world development and the alleviation of developing world poverty than you've dreamed about, so spare me the demonization. Nothing makes me laugh like a keyboard activist telling others how immoral they are.
 
Last edited:
I did. I read. I don't and didn't blame Bush for being a politician. What I don't forgive is the countless Liberal/Democrats who protested the very things that Obama continued to their silence. This tells me that most protestors were playing to their political party at the expense of bigger issues left unexplained. Ignorance is only the politicians fault if he starts burning the books.

A lot of us are still advocating against the Afghan war and the next one. After all the massive protests against the Iraq invasion, which were ignored by both the media and politicians, it became clear that street protests weren't very effective. Also, it is hard to get people motivated to struggle against a war that already has an expiration date.
 
A lot of us are still advocating against the Afghan war and the next one. After all the massive protests against the Iraq invasion, which were ignored by both the media and politicians, it became clear that street protests weren't very effective. Also, it is hard to get people motivated to struggle against a war that already has an expiration date.

Yes, it is.

Bring back the draft, and then we'll once again see some real protests, just as we did back in the Vietnam era.
 
Yes, it is.

Bring back the draft, and then we'll once again see some real protests, just as we did back in the Vietnam era.

Its so funny that some of you lefties love living in this country but when it comes to defending it then its a whole different matter
 
Why in the hell should we reinstate a draft when the nation's military needs are being met by volunteers?

With Obama cutting benefits to the military that soon might not be true.
 
Why in the hell should we reinstate a draft when the nation's military needs are being met by volunteers?

So that Americans would have to defend our country, of course.

And so that any unnecessary war would be met with justified opposition from the public.
 
So that Americans would have to defend our country, of course.

And so that any unnecessary war would be met with justified opposition from the public.

So you want to remove a very viable career path for many individuals? How caring of you in these times...
 
With Obama cutting benefits to the military that soon might not be true.



defense_twoinflations.jpg
 
It's only a straw man in your narrow minded view. What do you think the results would be?

The result would be that the draftees would still have the option of a career path if they chose to follow it. Your response was a straw man, as I didn't say that there would be no professional military.

Now, in WWII, there was a draft. The nation was on a war footing, nearly every American supported the war, sacrificed for the war, did what they could to win the war. The result was that the war was won in about three years. In Vietnam, there was a draft. Only a few supported the war, found the war really necessary, sacrificed for the war. As a result, the war dragged on for a total of 21 years, and we lost.

In the current wars, only the military has sacrificed anything for the wars, the average American has taken no part at all in the wars, and they have dragged on now for a decade.

The point of all that is that we should never go to war unless the entire nation is behind it, willing to sacrifice for it, willing to go and fight, and to do whatever it takes to win it.

WWII was necessary, but neither Vietnam, nor Iraq, nor Afganistan were.
 
The result would be that the draftees would still have the option of a career path if they chose to follow it. Your response was a straw man, as I didn't say that there would be no professional military.

Now, in WWII, there was a draft. The nation was on a war footing, nearly every American supported the war, sacrificed for the war, did what they could to win the war. The result was that the war was won in about three years. In Vietnam, there was a draft. Only a few supported the war, found the war really necessary, sacrificed for the war. As a result, the war dragged on for a total of 21 years, and we lost.

In the current wars, only the military has sacrificed anything for the wars, the average American has taken no part at all in the wars, and they have dragged on now for a decade.

The point of all that is that we should never go to war unless the entire nation is behind it, willing to sacrifice for it, willing to go and fight, and to do whatever it takes to win it.

WWII was necessary, but neither Vietnam, nor Iraq, nor Afganistan were.

You're missing the point. There was a draft during Vietnam only because of a lack of support. Today many join the military because they believe it's the right choice for them, want to serve, and initially, many think it would be a career or a way to help pay for college once their enlistment is up. Re-instituting the draft would deny many of making that choice...
 
Oh really? Have you? Well please link to it again as I must have missed it. Thanks in advance. :)

From post 130.

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
 
You're missing the point. There was a draft during Vietnam only because of a lack of support. Today many join the military because they believe it's the right choice for them, want to serve, and initially, many think it would be a career or a way to help pay for college once their enlistment is up. Re-instituting the draft would deny many of making that choice...

You can still allow enlistment when their is a draft. During Viet Nam many enlisted rather than got drafted because then you had more options on assignments. Also, currently we have a de facto draft since enlistees are being forced to continue their duty past their expected end of service.
 
You can still allow enlistment when their is a draft. During Viet Nam many enlisted rather than got drafted because then you had more options on assignments. Also, currently we have a de facto draft since enlistees are being forced to continue their duty past their expected end of service.

Again the point was not understood. As long as there are more individuals wanting to join than is necessary to meet the military's personnel requirements, if the draft was brought back and some arbitrary number of our armed forces was to be drawn from that pool, there would be some who had hoped to enlist that might not be able to do so. As far as I am aware, this country has only used the draft when its personnel needs were not being met through enlistment which is why all males are still required to register with the Selective Service...
 
You're missing the point. There was a draft during Vietnam only because of a lack of support. Today many join the military because they believe it's the right choice for them, want to serve, and initially, many think it would be a career or a way to help pay for college once their enlistment is up. Re-instituting the draft would deny many of making that choice...

That's untrue, I was drafted in 1963 way before Vietnam became a real mess. I never served in Vietnam, but spent a year in South Korea. Re-instituting the draft would help stop or curtail the needless wars like Iraq and maybe Afghanistan. BTW, during Vietnam very few National Guard units fought, if any. That's .why George W. Bush joined the TNG. For Iraq and Afghanistan wars state National Guards were used extensively.
 
That's untrue, I was drafted in 1963 way before Vietnam became a real mess. I never served in Vietnam, but spent a year in South Korea. Re-instituting the draft would help stop or curtail the needless wars like Iraq and maybe Afghanistan. BTW, during Vietnam very few National Guard units fought, if any. That's .why George W. Bush joined the TNG. For Iraq and Afghanistan wars state National Guards were used extensively.

Again, the draft is used when personnel needs are not being met. There is no issue with meeting enlistment quotas today...
 
That's untrue, I was drafted in 1963 way before Vietnam became a real mess. I never served in Vietnam, but spent a year in South Korea. Re-instituting the draft would help stop or curtail the needless wars like Iraq and maybe Afghanistan. BTW, during Vietnam very few National Guard units fought, if any. That's .why George W. Bush joined the TNG. For Iraq and Afghanistan wars state National Guards were used extensively.

BTW, thank you for your service...
 
Back
Top Bottom