• 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
if you had the evidence it would be as easy to supply it as to play silly buggers and avoid answering the question.
It would also be easy for you to look it up yourself. And while you're doing that you might get educated.
 
And you are full of it. Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMD. That is a fact. Also, the head of the UN inspectors at that time even believed that Saddam had WMD. Most of the civilized world believed that to be the case. He was NOT cooperative. He played the same games that Ahmadinejad plays.

In the decade since the invasion of Iraq, a number of arguments to explain the intelligence failure there are now accepted as gospel truth. Certainly, there were plenty of mistakes made then that should be avoided in the future. However, many of these arguments seem grounded in politics rather than reality.

No Books Were Cooked - By Charles Duelfer | Foreign Policy


More...
One of the most obvious examples is the widely accepted statement that President George W. Bush lied about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) stockpiles. But here's the thing: If Bush knew that Saddam did not have such weapons, he would have been the only one -- even Saddam wasn't 100 percent certain about what resided in his stockpiles. In reaction to insistent U.S. and British statements about Iraq's WMD, at an October 2002 Revolutionary Command Council meeting, Saddam asked his own staff whether they might know something he did not about residual WMD stocks.

The intelligence wasn't cooked or slanted to make policymakers happy. It was just wrong. That made Bush mistaken -- but it doesn't make him a liar.

Intelligence agencies around the world erred in their assessments about Iraqi WMD. Some were more wrong than others. But the broadly held view by intelligence practitioners was that Saddam had capabilities that exceeded the limitations placed on him by the United Nations after the 1991 Gulf War. And in fact, Saddam was not fully compliant with the United Nations: He had ballistic missiles that exceeded permitted range limits and he had certainly had a long track record of blocking and deceiving U.N. weapons inspectors. His cooperation was always less than needed. But as it turned out, by 2002, the Iraqi president did not have militarily significant stocks of chemical or biological agents, and his nuclear program had been halted years earlier.




"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003."

U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush Administration for lack of "critical thinking" in Iraq



"Iraq arms inspector Blix warned of weak war evidence."


Iraq arms inspector Blix warned of weak war evidence | Reuters



"During three hours of damning testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry, Dr Blix revealed he warned Mr Blair there was no evidence the tyrant possessed chemical and biological missiles."

Read more: Iraq inquiry: Hans Blix told Tony Blair before invasion he would not find WMD | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
I'm certainly not defending the war or George Bush. I think that it was a terrible idea and the timing and the reasoning behind going were WRONG, but it was a mistake and not some evil plan to obtain cheap oil. If you believe that, then you must believe that George Bush is an evil genius.

It was out of fear, and everyone was feeling it because of the 9/11 tragedy. I think some of you should go over to the conspiracy theory section of the forum for real. :roll:


Ha! The feeble and fearful were used Bush/Cheney like the fearful saps used by the televangelists, and just as shameful to prey on the feeble and frightened. Hell, some were so scared they still believe the lies!!!
 
Here are the Democratic Senators who voted YEA on October 2002.

Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
James Love: Who voted to authorize force in Iraq October 2002?

Does that mean you think that, if all those prominent Democrats voted for it, then it must have been the right decision?
Or are you saying that it's not just the Republicans who got us into that godawful mess in the Mid East?

I'd agree with that second one, but certainly not the first.
 
And you are full of it. Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMD. That is a fact. Also, the head of the UN inspectors at that time even believed that Saddam had WMD. Most of the civilized world believed that to be the case. He was NOT cooperative. He played the same games that Ahmadinejad plays.

In the decade since the invasion of Iraq, a number of arguments to explain the intelligence failure there are now accepted as gospel truth. Certainly, there were plenty of mistakes made then that should be avoided in the future. However, many of these arguments seem grounded in politics rather than reality.

No Books Were Cooked - By Charles Duelfer | Foreign Policy


More...
One of the most obvious examples is the widely accepted statement that President George W. Bush lied about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) stockpiles. But here's the thing: If Bush knew that Saddam did not have such weapons, he would have been the only one -- even Saddam wasn't 100 percent certain about what resided in his stockpiles. In reaction to insistent U.S. and British statements about Iraq's WMD, at an October 2002 Revolutionary Command Council meeting, Saddam asked his own staff whether they might know something he did not about residual WMD stocks.

The intelligence wasn't cooked or slanted to make policymakers happy. It was just wrong. That made Bush mistaken -- but it doesn't make him a liar.

Intelligence agencies around the world erred in their assessments about Iraqi WMD. Some were more wrong than others. But the broadly held view by intelligence practitioners was that Saddam had capabilities that exceeded the limitations placed on him by the United Nations after the 1991 Gulf War. And in fact, Saddam was not fully compliant with the United Nations: He had ballistic missiles that exceeded permitted range limits and he had certainly had a long track record of blocking and deceiving U.N. weapons inspectors. His cooperation was always less than needed. But as it turned out, by 2002, the Iraqi president did not have militarily significant stocks of chemical or biological agents, and his nuclear program had been halted years earlier.

I concur.

It's all here -> Saddam Hussein Talks to the FBI:
Twenty Interviews and Five Conversations with "High Value Detainee # 1" in 2004

Saddam Hussein Talks to the FBI
 
Ha! The feeble and fearful were used Bush/Cheney like the fearful saps used by the televangelists, and just as shameful to prey on the feeble and frightened. Hell, some were so scared they still believe the lies!!!

That includes your democrat idols. :lol:
 
"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003."

U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush Administration for lack of "critical thinking" in Iraq



"Iraq arms inspector Blix warned of weak war evidence."


Iraq arms inspector Blix warned of weak war evidence | Reuters



"During three hours of damning testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry, Dr Blix revealed he warned Mr Blair there was no evidence the tyrant possessed chemical and biological missiles."

Read more: Iraq inquiry: Hans Blix told Tony Blair before invasion he would not find WMD | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Saddam played with the UN inspectors exactly like Ahmadinejad does. You know this. I don't know why you are trying to make it sound as if Saddam was OH SO compliant with inspectors. You are being hyperpartisan I think.
 
You're making some great points, Chris! I hope you don't mind, but I may use some of your points and links in the future.

Sure thing! Thank you very much for the compliment! :mrgreen:
 
and Saddam, for all his many faults, always kept religion strictly out of government.

I don't agree with that. Sure, he was secular but he was so because that gave him absolute power. Remember, he had institutionalized rape. If he allowed religion into his government, there would be a second power base (against some things he did) unless he went Pubah. Another reason is that he ruled as a minority. Untimately, he did not have a secular government out of any sense of rights or secular law but because it served his (grotesque) purposes.
 
That includes your democrat idols. :lol:

My idols were the majority of Democrats in Congress that voted against giving Bush AOF in Iraq! :cool:
 
You are being paranoid I think.

I don't think that acknowledging facts is being paranoid. I think you just have nothing else of relevance to add to the discussion.
 
On average, about 2,000 people were killed during the last ten years of the Saddam regime. But since he has been overthrown, at least 120,000 Iraqi's have been killed (plus 4,000+ Americans).

And mass corruption/torture still thrive inside Iraq.

To say Iraq (overall) is better off now then under Saddam in the ten years before his overthrow is - imo - ignorant in the extremis.


But no doubt a bunch of ignorant neo-cons will say otherwise.


America is being ruined by Neo-Cons (foreign policy) and Keynesians (the economy).

I can at least live with the latter because their intentions are generally good (if rather lazy).

The former are just selfish, power-mad control-freaks.
 
Last edited:
On average, about 2,000 people were killed during the Saddam regime. But since he has been overthrown, at least 120,000 Iraqi's have been killed (plus 4,000+ Americans).

And mass corruption/torture still thrive inside Iraq.

To say Iraq (overall) is better off now then under Saddam is - imo - ignorant in the extremis.


But no doubt a bunch of ignorant neo cons will say otherwise.


America is being ruined by Neo Cons (foreign policy) and Keynesians (the economy).

I can at least live with the latter because their intentions are generally good (if rather lazy).

The former are just selfish, power-mad control-freaks.

It's obvious that you have NO idea what you are talking about. :roll:

Crimes of Saddam Hussein
 
I made an edit. Read the article.
NOTE - to be fair, I edited my above post to include that I was referring to the last ten years of Saddam's regime when he was under intense supervision.

Those atrocities in your linked article were all before America/the UN was watching him like a hawk.

There is no way as long as the No Fly zones PLUS UN inspectors were staying on top of him that he could do any of those atrocities.


To say that Iraq is better off now then the ten years before his overthrow is ignorant beyond measure.

20,000 deaths compared to 120,000 with no lessening of corruption or torture? That should be proof to any decent, reasonably balanced person.


And btw - the rights of women have been pushed way, WAY back in Iraq since his overthrow.

http://www.peacewomen.org/news_article.php?id=5832&type=news
 
Last edited:
Those were all before America/the UN was watching him like a hawk.

There is no way as long as the No Fly zones PLUS UN inspectors were staying on top of him that he could do any of those atrocities.

Seriously? Wow are you naive. Look at the atrocities that happen all over the world. As if the UN can actually watch anyone like a "hawk." Please, that's just stupid. :lamo

To say that Iraq is better off now then the ten years before his overthrow is ignorant beyond measure.

20,000 deaths compared to 120,000? That should be proof to any decent, sane person.

You are WRONG. Let's see some evidence of your 20,000 deaths. That is just INSANE. Obviously you didn't read my link!


And btw - the rights of women have been pushed WAY back in Iraq since his overthrow.

Obviously you've never heard of the rape squads, and during the last few years of Saddam's reign, he became VERY religious and started building mosques and encouraging that kind of stuff.

NOTE - to be fair, I edited my above post to include that I was referring to the last ten years of Saddam's regime when he was under intense supervision.

Well THAT is not fair. You have to count ALL of his murders. :doh Good LORD!
 
Seriously? Wow are you naive. Look at the atrocities that happen all over the world. As if the UN can actually watch anyone like a "hawk." Please, that's just stupid. :lamo



You are WRONG. Let's see some evidence of your 20,000 deaths. That is just INSANE. Obviously you didn't read my link!




Obviously you've never heard of the rape squads, and during the last few years of Saddam's reign, he became VERY religious and started building mosques and encouraging that kind of stuff.



Well THAT is not fair. You have to count ALL of his murders. :doh Good LORD!

Geez - you sure get over-emotional and rude quick. I had other dealings with you and developed some respect for you. I guess it was misplaced - too bad.
I cannot be bothered to deal with posters that come on here just to vent - which clearly you seem to do. Especially on a board with as many ridiculous free speech-restricting rules as this place has. Life is WAY too short for that.


Now, please name one major atrocity that occurred in Iraq between the end of the Kurd Uprising and Saddam's overthrow?

And my source for the 20,000 number is the following:

Gwynne Dyer: Decade-old lessons from George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq | Georgia Straight

And your unbiased source that states that this figure is wrong is what?
 
Last edited:
Boy - you do get emotional don't you? I have chatted with you before and had some respect for you. But if you are going to resort to childish venting everytime someone makes a point you don't like - forget it. If you cannot keep it mature - find someone else to vent on, please. But if you want to really have at it with me on this - then lets go to the basement where I can say what I want and not have mods looking over my shoulder all the time watching every little word I type.

What in the heck are you talking about? :confused: Quit being so sensitive.


Now, name one major atrocity that occurred in Iraq between the end of the Kurd Uprising and Saddam's overthrow?

Read about the mass graves in a link I provided earlier in the discussion.


An INCREDIBLY horrible biased source, making TONS of assumptions.

And your unbiased source that states that this figure is wrong is what?

Again, you obviously didn't read my link. Educate yourself about what a rotten man Saddam Hussein was instead of defending him.
 
What in the heck are you talking about? :confused: Quit being so sensitive.
NO - I was just sorry that I thought you were someone who I thought I could have a rational, mature debate with. That is rare around here. And I can see I was mistaken.
That's all.



An INCREDIBLY horrible biased source, making TONS of assumptions.
Gwynne Dyer is biased on Saddam Hussein? Okaaaaay.

And obviously you cannot produce ANY evidence for me that disproves the number I quoted (and there is no way I am sifting through your posts to find some link you might have posted...I have a life. And since you have over 5 times as many posts as me yet have been here several months less - apparently you don't).


Again, you obviously didn't read my link. Educate yourself about what a rotten man Saddam Hussein was instead of defending him.

I am not defending him - I am calling him the lesser of two evils.


Anyway...I have better things to do then to endlessly debate with closed minded people (as you seem to be on this subject). If I want to do that, I can just go to a gun thread and say 'guns are bad' and watch the foaming-at-the-mouth, NRA'ers come a running - lol. Or go to a Keynesian thread and say 'Paul Krugman is an idiot' and get the same reaction - lol.

WHen you are prepared to post links to unbiased facts/stats, I will read them.

Otherwise, I could care less about your closed minded theories...no offense.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
A better question is: is the world Better for the Iraq invasion?

The answer is no.
 
NO - I was just sorry that I thought you were someone who I thought I could have a rational, mature debate with. That is rare around here. And I can see I was mistaken.
That's all.



Gwynne Dyer is biased on Saddam Hussein? Okaaaaay.

And obviously you cannot produce ANY evidence for me that disproves the number I quoted (and there is no way I am sifting through your posts to find some link you might have posted...I have a life. And since you have over 5 times as many posts as me yet have been here several months less - apparently you don't...no offense).




I am not defending him - I am calling him the lesser of two evils.


I have better things to do then to endlessly debate with closed minded people (as you seem to be on this subject).

WHen you are prepared to post links to unbiased facts/stats, I will read them.

Otherwise, I could care less about your closed minded theories...again, no offense.


Have a nice day.

Don't be lazy, they aren't back more than 10 pages.
 
Back
Top Bottom