• 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 would like you to define democracy, because from where I am sitting, democracy doesn't look like its that good for ecology.

it COULD be, but not without education, and awareness.

that is not rocket science.

Look, it's very simple:

When those directly affected by environmental degradation have NO VOICE in its authority and management, things are bad and get worse. The "education" and "awareness" comes from the fact that these people must LIVE with the degradation and are, in fact, acutely aware of it.

Simple. Logic. Reason. Fact.

I'm not gonna find the thousands of academic references to such.

Good luck and good day.
 
regardless of whether this is true or not (and not all of the violence is necessarily attributable to this), why was it higher after the invasion?

Do you have any idea how little violence was recorded under Saddam? Or has that factor completely escaped your analysis? Could someone really be that blindly committed to a position.
 
You may value oil more than human lives, I do not, and I do not use our past immoral acts to justify our current immoral acts. If the American people had not been lied to about the reasons for the war they would never have supported it.

This is exactly what you don't get - YOU DON'T MATTER. Oil is a national necessity. It is a global necessity. It is a resource. You may live your life gasoline free, plastic free, paper free, rubber free, and machine free, but the rest of the world does not. The rest of the world is sustained on oil. Perhaps instead of protesting the wars that achieve its security (or lack of wars to suport the dictators that do the same) you should actually protest something more closer to the problem - find a replacement for oil. But don't be surprised if we just go to war to protect that as well. The idea that fighting for a resource is unnecessary is stupid. All of history is against you.

It is also not about justification. It's about looking at our reality and dealing with it.

It also has nothing to do with the American people. Over 80% of Americans wanted nothing to do with a war in Europe and believed our war was in the Pacific. The American people didn't send money to France to stay in Vietnam (Truman, Eisenhower) and then send American troops to Vietnam (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon). The American people didn't send troops to Beirut. The American people didn't send me to Somalia or Haiti. This idea that the American people have a say is beyond ignorance.
 
Absolutely not. This is a common occurrence after ANY war. There were also insurgents after WW II and Vietnam. It takes TIME for things to settle down.

It will take more time with Iraq because we are not just dealing with Iraq. We never were. We have every proof before our eyes that we are up against an entire civilization of backwards, radical people between Cairo and Islamabad yet people still want Iraq to just be about Iraq. This is why Americans have no idea what is in their best interest. Anybody that would vote for a politician who preaches about no taxes is definately foolish when it comes to global affairs, especialy in this region.
 
My point is that if you do not "acknowledge the mistakes of the past, you are doomed to repeat them," not to add fuel to any fires of hatred.

Which is why I believe that our politicians should be historians, not lawyers.
 
Does not negate the FACT that Iraq was terrorist friendly and had many terrorist training camps and God only knows what else. Saddam was KNOWN to have produced and used chemical weapons in the past against foreign and domestic enemies. What makes you think he would suddenly change his ways, I don't know. The guy was a danger to his own people and a danger to the world as well. He was unstable and created a lot of instability in the region.

Now, the war has also caused instability in the region, but THAT is to be expected. It takes time to pick up the pieces and get back some stability. This is not some new idea. War tends to temporarily destabilize regions, but eventually things improve with time.


Thanks for the far right talking points to desperately try to justify their war against the Iraqis. The majority of the country are no longer buying what you are trying to sell.
 
This is exactly what you don't get - YOU DON'T MATTER. Oil is a national necessity. It is a global necessity. It is a resource. You may live your life gasoline free, plastic free, paper free, rubber free, and machine free, but the rest of the world does not. The rest of the world is sustained on oil. Perhaps instead of protesting the wars that achieve its security (or lack of wars to suport the dictators that do the same) you should actually protest something more closer to the problem - find a replacement for oil. But don't be surprised if we just go to war to protect that as well. The idea that fighting for a resource is unnecessary is stupid. All of history is against you.

It is also not about justification. It's about looking at our reality and dealing with it.

It also has nothing to do with the American people. Over 80% of Americans wanted nothing to do with a war in Europe and believed our war was in the Pacific. The American people didn't send money to France to stay in Vietnam (Truman, Eisenhower) and then send American troops to Vietnam (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon). The American people didn't send troops to Beirut. The American people didn't send me to Somalia or Haiti. This idea that the American people have a say is beyond ignorance.



Thanks for the far right world view!
 
your argument is not consistent. If it is still taking time to settle down, maybe it is a bit premature to claim the world is a better place.

First you have to understand the world.

Our terrorist problem was that we were facing an exponentially growing and festering religious cess pool of radicals tat were breeding extremists between Cairo and Islamabad. This is why the hundreds of terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East held members from all countries. Your argumentative response here will be to point out that the 9/11 terrorists held no Iraqis. This is true, but it avoids the issue. Hussein did fund terrorist organizations in an attempt to call religious fanatics to his side and he did represent everything that is wrong in the Middle East. The degree of oppression and brutality that ditators like Mubarak, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Gaddafi, and Bashar al-Assad created the environment that left religious people only one avenue to effect change and bring about the social justice they have always wanted. That avenue was God. And in that avenue we know from history in every single culture on earth that fanaticism and extremism is manifested. The fact that Hussein's brand of oppression and brutality maintained good behavior within his borders is not something we should celebrate. This is, however, exactly what people do when they bring up that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Regional change menas regional change. Starting with the very dictator that constantly caused us to maintain a UN mission of starvation and a never ending escallation of troops in Saudi Arabia (among Osama's excuses for 9/11) was necessary. A better complaint was how the White House handled it and made it messier than it had to be.

This Arab Spring, where Muslims rose up against their dictators throughout the Sunni world (Iranian protests were brief and useless in Iran), hasn't cried out for a new dictator. Not a religious theocracy. They cried out for Democracy. This is exactly what needs to happen throughout the region if we are to use the word "peace" more sincerely than we did when we celebrated Saddam Husein's talent fo forcing good behavior amonst his population. What you see in Iraq today is a direct result of a people struggling between the past the inevitable future. Why else do you think fighter from Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt rushed to thwart Iraqi Democracy in those "civil war" years? Why else do you think those governments did nothing to seal their own borders to prohibit Muslims from traveling to slaughter other Muslims? This is a historical changing of a region for the better before your very eyes and you can't see nothing except a bomb in Baghdad that the American invasion is to blame?

If you shake up a can of soda for a few minutes and then pop the top, what do you think will happen? This regin has been shaken from colonization to dictator for so long that popping the top caused the inevitable explosion that was always going to happen. Focusing on Iraq as if it is some floating island where "our" dictator was doing his job apart from the region does not help to understand the world.

This Middle Eastern issue will settle down eventually. However, the sooner peope accept that this has always been generational the better. This isn't as simple as having Japan and Germany fall to their kees in surrender. This is bigger, yet we treat it like its a small inconvenience and only about a single country. Even Afghanistan has proven to be about more than a single country. See what Pakistan's feelings are on the matter, where Al-Queda found support. This region reeks of confusion because of bad European made borders that carved up tribes or forced tribes together. With nuclear power on the way and finding its way into religious hands, how much time did you think we had to address this escallating problem?

The events since the Iraqi invasion througout the region (women driving in Saudi, Arab Spring, Syrians rebelling, etc) shows that the world is headed to a better place. It was the one region on earth left unhealthy after World War II. It also happens to be the one region on earth where religious fanaticism was becoming an art form.
 
Thanks for the far right world view!

This has always been your problem. You see things in a spectrum.

This isn't right. This isn't left. It's the world view that you and I live in. What you constantly complain about suggests that you live in a different world from the rest of us. Marxist utopia does not exist and never will. It can't. The closer we get, the better we become. But this does not mean its achievable anymore than winning a "War on Drugs" or winning a "War on Terror" as they are implied. The wars are a marathon with no finish line. So is security and growth in this world.

120+ democracies created since 1900 and all embrace capitalism. Even China is developing within the industrial and economic system we created in the West. Calling it far right may make you feel better, but this is the world and this is security. Why do you think politicians spend more time bickering over the issues than fixing them? Because most of the issue are not to be fixed as long as people remain imperfect the issues are a matter of life where only details can get smoothed out. Preach about a perfect system and I will point out Mao, Stalin, and Hitler who thought they could fit imperfect people into a "perfect" system. At the heart of all civilizations is resources. If we vacated all our holdigs into resources and isolated ourselves from the world, we would just get sucked out again by the very people who deem themselves our superiors. It is a fact that Americans were happier before World War I when we practiced a great degree of isolationalism (never in its pure form). But who in the world twice proved that we can't be left alone in our happines? Who in the world demanded that a big brother be present just to avoid the calamities of global destruction?

This is the world. Better to shape it in our image than to keep getting sucked into it after the fact.
 
so he is more powerful after his death?

does that mean the world is better off without him?

No...no. That is not what happened. Most of the Iraqi army didn't even see an American tank when we took down Baghdad. This was yet another Rumsfeld blunder who insisted that we avoid cities. Upon reaching Baghdad, the immediate American forces (1st Marine Division) witnessed an orgy of violence from the citizenry. There was great celebration for a couple weeks as people pulled down statues of Hussein, walked on paintings of him in the sidewalks, and even had cars run over artful reminders of Hussein in the highways. At the same time, people were burning every single building that had anything to do with the former government (to include the Olympic training Building). Amongst these people were former criminals that Hussein released before we got to Baghdad. There was looting, rapes, and murders for which the military was ill equiped or trained to deal with. Once again, the military found itself in a situation it was not prepared for (Bosnia, Somalia, Cuba). There was no plan from the Rumsfeld coven after taking Baghdad apart. Shortly after the Marines left. The Army rolled in with an extreme minimum of numbers (as permitted by Rumsfeld). Within months Islamic warriors from all over the region began swarming in on a mission to support the Al-Queda's mission to disrupt any sense of peace and democracy as they ignited the tribal hatred between the Sunni and the Shia. This was inevitable without Al-Queda's and the rest of the region's support. They merely sped it up. Baghdad was a caliphate seat of Sunni power for over six hundred years in the past and seeing it fall to the majority of voters (Shia) was unnacceptable then as it is now. The reason the tribes are so screwed up in these countries (Iraq being the worst because of the distinct separation between Sunni/Shia/Kurd) is historical and is another post - thank Europe though.

The simple fact of this region is that religious fanaticism and extremism cannot find salvation in an enviroment where people have a choice. Without oppression, brutality, economic disaster, and a lack of social justice, religious fanaticism cannot take root. It cannot grow into a festering reality where hundreds of thousands of people now see violence as their only means to an end as they blame the Jews in their midst, the foriegn devils in the West, or the Muslim in a different tribe instead of looking in the mirror. This is why Al-Queda (to name one organization) has shifted from Sudan to Afghanistan to Iraq (where the lack of Hussein's brand of brutality offered opportnuity) to Pakistan to Yemen and finally to Mali until it finds a new home when chased out of there.

Anyway, this is what happened to Iraq. It wasn't as simple as some Iraqis missing their beloved dictator. The only thing local Sunni Iraqis miss was the power they held over the majority (which democracy exposed). The overwhelming rest of the violence was and is from foreign Muslims frou around the region that see Iraq as the pivotal point between the past they want and the future they are going to get.
 
Because of insurgents loyal to the Baath party.

They are loyal to the Sunni tribe. The Baathist Party had little to do with it. Syria's government is based in the Baathist Party. However, fighters from all over the region, where there are no Baathist Parties, traveled to Iraq to slaughter fellow Muslims within the Shia tribe. What unites the insurgents is their tribal affiliation not a political party.
 
regardless of whether this is true or not (and not all of the violence is necessarily attributable to this), why was it higher after the invasion?

Because it isn't true. It's tribal based.

1) With Democracy giving the majority (the Shia) its power, nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria now had one less tribal ally (though they hated Hussein). This is why they did nothing to curb the border crossings from their side.

2) The significance of Baghdad in Islamic history compelled many fighters to defend the Sunni tradition of power.

3) With a democratic success in Iraq, other nations in the Middle East are now having to contend with their people who also want social justice and a more democratic setting (ironic to fanatics, democracy was the original base of government behind the Caliphate). An entire region wasn't blind to what was happening in Iraq. If some watched and knew to go stop it, then most certainly wanted to see a success. Hence the Arab Spring, which lends credibility to the Sunni governments that feared the implications of a succesful Iraq.

And this is why violence in Iraq and in other places is higher than normal before our involvement in Iraq in 2003 (whle we pretend we weren't involved with his majestic soveriegnty since 1991). We stirred the pot. Obviously it was a pot that needed stirring. With Iraq's status quo getting upended and sitting in the heartland of the Islamic world, the invasion into Iraq had bigger implications to our security. Anyone that argues that it was because of WMD are either lying (White House) or don;t know how to present the issues correctly. WMD is a default argument for ignorant in both the supporter's and protestor's side.
 
Last edited:
This has always been your problem. You see things in a spectrum.

This isn't right. This isn't left. It's the world view that you and I live in. What you constantly complain about suggests that you live in a different world from the rest of us. Marxist utopia does not exist and never will. It can't. The closer we get, the better we become. But this does not mean its achievable anymore than winning a "War on Drugs" or winning a "War on Terror" as they are implied. The wars are a marathon with no finish line. So is security and growth in this world.

120+ democracies created since 1900 and all embrace capitalism. Even China is developing within the industrial and economic system we created in the West. Calling it far right may make you feel better, but this is the world and this is security. Why do you think politicians spend more time bickering over the issues than fixing them? Because most of the issue are not to be fixed as long as people remain imperfect the issues are a matter of life where only details can get smoothed out. Preach about a perfect system and I will point out Mao, Stalin, and Hitler who thought they could fit imperfect people into a "perfect" system. At the heart of all civilizations is resources. If we vacated all our holdigs into resources and isolated ourselves from the world, we would just get sucked out again by the very people who deem themselves our superiors. It is a fact that Americans were happier before World War I when we practiced a great degree of isolationalism (never in its pure form). But who in the world twice proved that we can't be left alone in our happines? Who in the world demanded that a big brother be present just to avoid the calamities of global destruction?

This is the world. Better to shape it in our image than to keep getting sucked into it after the fact.



Whether you want to call it left and right or something else does not change the fact that the country is divided into two very different ideological groups, one that like you, believes in might-makes-right and US hegemonic domination of the rest of the world to serve our needs, and another group that believes in providing for our own needs, working cooperatively and helping with humanitarian aid to other countries, but basically keeping our nose out of how other countries wish to rule themselves, unless they attack us.
 
Whether you want to call it left and right or something else does not change the fact that the country is divided into two very different ideological groups, one that like you, believes in might-makes-right and US hegemonic domination of the rest of the world to serve our needs, and another group that believes in providing for our own needs, working cooperatively and helping with humanitarian aid to other countries, but basically keeping our nose out of how other countries wish to rule themselves, unless they attack us.

These categories aren't distinct. Both political parties have a background in the idea of shaping the world to our interests. It's what the world gets for starting two World Wars and a Cold War while insisting we have a part in each. And doing what you suggest is very grey. The history of Vietnam (going back to Roosevelt) proves how grey adhering to your suggestion is. The only black and white is whether or not we are in the word or isolated. There is no coincidence that our involvement in World War I was the era in which globalization really began (though I could argue that it started with the War of 1812). We had to learn the hard way with World War II that staying in the world's affairs was a necessity if only for our own security. If the world powers didn't prove twice that their greatest talent is to suck the rest of us into their party of gore and destruction then we wouldn't be in the position we are in now looking for the world to look more like us.

But we basically do keep our nose out of other people's business. This has always been an exaggeration. We are looked down upon by Europeans for not sticking our noses into their business sooner during both Wolrd Wars. We didn't tell Cold War dictators to abuse their people; we merely wanted stability. We did nothing to fix Afghanistan until after 9/11, but we are blamed for not sticking our nose into their affairs prior to. In fact, people have gone so far as to state that American got what it deserved since we left Afghanistan the way we did. So, American can't win either way. What we do is conduct business with governments. That's it. It is not our fault that the Chinese deal with an oppresive state simply because we conduct business with their government. It is not our fault that France is the world's chief supplier of weapons to Africa simply because we conduct business with its government. It is not our fault that Europe and China was dumping toxic waste in Somali waters throughout the 1990s that set the conditions for piracy, which demands American interference yet again in securing international water ways. You can believe in a theory of utopia all you want, but as long as we live in a world of other competitive and leeching powers, we are burdened with a leadership role over misfits who hypocritically and pathetically preach to us about morality. Morality is not watching human abuses across the world, yet international law through the United Nations insists on just that. France's moral war against Gudaffi seemed pathetic given a month prior they insisted on supporting their dictator in Tunisia. Is this moral?

But let's talk about humanitarian issues. Feeding Somalis through the UN also came with combat operations against those who disrupted humanitarian operations. We were conducting humanitarian operations in Kurdistan throughout the 1990s while Iraq was starving to death under the UN. See how quickly a humanitarian mission gets bloody? Very quickly even our missions of humanitarianism turn to violence because we live in a world full of ****. And **** has weapons and intents that don't meet with our own.

We have been attacked twice in our history once we took shape. Pearl Harbor = War in the Pacific. 9/11 = Afghanistan. There is a whole lot of conflict and wars not mentioned here. Why is this? Does American security involve economic security and way of life, which involves far more than a simple pre-requisite of being physically attacked? What was the Revolutionary War about other than economic security and the means in which to internationally trade in accordance to our wants? The United States has never been what you preach we should be. Even Jefferson and Adams was dissapointed in democracy during their time. People are stupid and given the freedom to decide self-interest they will always doom a bigger picture. This is true for our internal politicis and international politics. Hell, given a democratic vote, we would not have physically participated in World War I or in the European theatre for World War II. Lucky for the world and for us we have leaders that do what they believe is right at the time despite American selfishness and a false idea of morality.

That's America.
 
I've already documented the plan before the war recommended in Cheney's Task Force Report, Strategic Energy Challenges for the 21st Century.

And the new Iraq oil law that we helped draw up was a key benchmark for the new Iraq government:

"The oil law was drafted in 2006, after the first post-Saddam permanent government was formed. Then the Bush administration pushed it especially hard through 2007.

The law had three purposes. The first was to create a framework in which multinationals would have a primary role in developing Iraq’s oil industry, and to determine exactly the extent of that role, what rights they would have, and the extent of their powers. The second element was to clarify how that would work in an emerging federal system in Iraq. To put it simply: With whom would they sign contracts? Was it with the central government in Baghdad, or was it with regional governments—in particular, the only one that exists so far, the Kurdistan regional government?

The third element of the law was to essentially disempower parliament in relation to decisions around oil. . . .
Since 1967 Iraq has had a law in place, No. 97, which said if the government were to sign contracts to develop oil fields and run them, the parliament would have to sign a specific piece of legislation to approve them. [In other words,] the parliament would have to say, “We support and agree with this contract and we give it validity in law.” That was still in force in 2003, and indeed in 2006. The government could legally sign contacts with foreign companies. But if it did so, it would have to get the OK from parliament for them to have any force. Therefore, the most important role of the oil law of 2006/2007 was not [so much] to allow contracts to be signed by multinationals, as that was already possible. It was to allow them [i.e., the contracts] to be signed without parliament having any oversight.

Incidentally, the importance of parliamentary oversight is that oil accounts for over ninety-five percent of government revenue. So it is quite reasonable for parliament to have some say in how that works.

So this was the oil law. The United States, Britain, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and other financial institutions wanted to see it passed as soon as possible once the permanent post-Saddam government was formed in May 2006. As soon as that happened, the United States and the Britain started to say, “your priority is going to be to pass the oil law.” I have documents from that period which make this very clear. They moved very quickly to draft an oil law in August 2006, and it basically delivered those three asks of it. Getting this law passed in parliament became the major political priority of the United States."

The Unfinished Story of Iraq's Oil Law: An Interview with Greg Muttitt

Bilge and lefty agit-prop with no supporting evidence whatsoever. No law, and virtually no position for US oil companies in post-war Iraq. No significant US effort to push for same. All you have is a desperately strained ideological polemic.:cool:
 
These categories aren't distinct. Both political parties have a background in the idea of shaping the world to our interests.

That is changing, as documented the majority of Democrats voted against war on the Iraqis.


But we basically do keep our nose out of other people's business.

The wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq show that we do not.

But let's talk about humanitarian issues. Feeding Somalis through the UN also came with combat operations against those who disrupted humanitarian operations.

I never said a humanitarian effort couldn't get bloody. However, my morals draw distinction between trying to help, and attacking others for control of their property.



We have been attacked twice in our history once we took shape. Pearl Harbor = War in the Pacific. 9/11 = Afghanistan.

I support our war when we ere attacked by Japan. Afghanistan never attacked the America.
 
They are loyal to the Sunni tribe. The Baathist Party had little to do with it. Syria's government is based in the Baathist Party. However, fighters from all over the region, where there are no Baathist Parties, traveled to Iraq to slaughter fellow Muslims within the Shia tribe. What unites the insurgents is their tribal affiliation not a political party.

Okay, that makes sense that they would be more loyal to their respective tribes.
 
These categories aren't distinct. Both political parties have a background in the idea of shaping the world to our interests. It's what the world gets for starting two World Wars and a Cold War while insisting we have a part in each. And doing what you suggest is very grey. The history of Vietnam (going back to Roosevelt) proves how grey adhering to your suggestion is. The only black and white is whether or not we are in the word or isolated. There is no coincidence that our involvement in World War I was the era in which globalization really began (though I could argue that it started with the War of 1812). We had to learn the hard way with World War II that staying in the world's affairs was a necessity if only for our own security. If the world powers didn't prove twice that their greatest talent is to suck the rest of us into their party of gore and destruction then we wouldn't be in the position we are in now looking for the world to look more like us.

But we basically do keep our nose out of other people's business. This has always been an exaggeration. We are looked down upon by Europeans for not sticking our noses into their business sooner during both Wolrd Wars. We didn't tell Cold War dictators to abuse their people; we merely wanted stability. We did nothing to fix Afghanistan until after 9/11, but we are blamed for not sticking our nose into their affairs prior to. In fact, people have gone so far as to state that American got what it deserved since we left Afghanistan the way we did. So, American can't win either way. What we do is conduct business with governments. That's it. It is not our fault that the Chinese deal with an oppresive state simply because we conduct business with their government. It is not our fault that France is the world's chief supplier of weapons to Africa simply because we conduct business with its government. It is not our fault that Europe and China was dumping toxic waste in Somali waters throughout the 1990s that set the conditions for piracy, which demands American interference yet again in securing international water ways. You can believe in a theory of utopia all you want, but as long as we live in a world of other competitive and leeching powers, we are burdened with a leadership role over misfits who hypocritically and pathetically preach to us about morality. Morality is not watching human abuses across the world, yet international law through the United Nations insists on just that. France's moral war against Gudaffi seemed pathetic given a month prior they insisted on supporting their dictator in Tunisia. Is this moral?

But let's talk about humanitarian issues. Feeding Somalis through the UN also came with combat operations against those who disrupted humanitarian operations. We were conducting humanitarian operations in Kurdistan throughout the 1990s while Iraq was starving to death under the UN. See how quickly a humanitarian mission gets bloody? Very quickly even our missions of humanitarianism turn to violence because we live in a world full of ****. And **** has weapons and intents that don't meet with our own.

We have been attacked twice in our history once we took shape. Pearl Harbor = War in the Pacific. 9/11 = Afghanistan. There is a whole lot of conflict and wars not mentioned here. Why is this? Does American security involve economic security and way of life, which involves far more than a simple pre-requisite of being physically attacked? What was the Revolutionary War about other than economic security and the means in which to internationally trade in accordance to our wants? The United States has never been what you preach we should be. Even Jefferson and Adams was dissapointed in democracy during their time. People are stupid and given the freedom to decide self-interest they will always doom a bigger picture. This is true for our internal politicis and international politics. Hell, given a democratic vote, we would not have physically participated in World War I or in the European theatre for World War II. Lucky for the world and for us we have leaders that do what they believe is right at the time despite American selfishness and a false idea of morality.

That's America.

Excellent post and very educational too.
 
Thanks for the far right talking points to desperately try to justify their war against the Iraqis. The majority of the country are no longer buying what you are trying to sell.

No one is justifying the war, just saying that there ARE other reasons why we went there. It was NOT all about the oil. We had just been attacked by terrorists, and Iraq was a known terrorist haven with lots of training camps.
 
No one is justifying the war, just saying that there ARE other reasons why we went there. It was NOT all about the oil. We had just been attacked by terrorists, and Iraq was a known terrorist haven with lots of training camps.

Was it?

What terrorists? Not Al Qaeda, as Hussain and Al Qaeda were enemies.
 
Was it?

What terrorists? Not Al Qaeda, as Hussain and Al Qaeda were enemies.

Terrorism Havens: Iraq - Council on Foreign Relations

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism. The question of Iraq’s link to terrorism grew more urgent with Saddam’s suspected determination to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which Bush administration officials feared he might share with terrorists who could launch devastating attacks against the United States.
 
Terrorism Havens: Iraq - Council on Foreign Relations

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism. The question of Iraq’s link to terrorism grew more urgent with Saddam’s suspected determination to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which Bush administration officials feared he might share with terrorists who could launch devastating attacks against the United States.

The CIA proved wrong about the WMD. What about the terrorists?

From your link:

What type of terrorist groups did Iraq support under Saddam Hussein’s regime?

Primarily groups that could hurt Saddam’s regional foes. Saddam has aided the Iranian dissident group Mujahadeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (known by its Turkish initials, PKK), a separatist group fighting the Turkish government. Moreover, Iraq has hosted several Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel , including the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader, Abu Nidal, was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Iraq has also supported the Islamist Hamas movement and reportedly channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. A secular dictator, however, Saddam tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamist ones such as al-Qaeda, experts say.

If you buy the "wider war on terror" idea, that we're at war with all terrorists of any stripe, then having invaded Iraq does make some sense. However, if we're fighting the people who attacked us, then we'd have been well advised to fight a more narrow sort of battle. How can we end all terrorism? That would be like ending all dictatorships, a great idea, but impossible to accomplish.

as for the Mujahadeen, isn't that related to the group we supported when the old Soviet Union was fighting Afganistan?
 
The CIA proved wrong about the WMD. What about the terrorists?

From your link:



If you buy the "wider war on terror" idea, that we're at war with all terrorists of any stripe, then having invaded Iraq does make some sense. However, if we're fighting the people who attacked us, then we'd have been well advised to fight a more narrow sort of battle. How can we end all terrorism? That would be like ending all dictatorships, a great idea, but impossible to accomplish.

as for the Mujahadeen, isn't that related to the group we supported when the old Soviet Union was fighting Afganistan?

Well, it was called "The War on Terror." :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom