• 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
Saddam admitted to making it seem as if he was hiding something with the UN inspectors and the rest of the world too. He wanted people to think he had weapons.
 
Jack Hays said:
Further explanation is not possible. Although I retired in 2009, some restrictions don't end. I have shared as much as I can. I doubt you will find that satisfactory, but that's it. Maybe some day.:cool:
Click to expand...

although I find it unlikely that someone who was privy to that level of information would be discussing it (even at this level) on internet forums even after they retire ... it may explain why you are reluctant to acknowledge information that conflicts with decisions made at that time.

you would have a lot more invested in those decisions being the right ones than most people.
 
Another thing is that WE didn't kill him. The Iraqi people killed him. So now some of you are claiming that we are to blame for his death because we gave him to them, and they made the decision to try him and execute him?

And just because things aren't so great in Iraq now does not mean they will never get better. Bunch of whining pessimists. It takes time for things to improve.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
although I find it unlikely that someone who was privy to that level of information would be discussing it (even at this level) on internet forums even after they retire ... it may explain why you are reluctant to acknowledge information that conflicts with decisions made at that time.

you would have a lot more invested in those decisions being the right ones than most people.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I have nothing invested and have spoken publicly on the matter.:cool:
 
ChrisL said:
I don't understand what you mean by "it only goes up to 2002." Obviously, inspectors had not been there since.
Click to expand...

Obviously, the report you cite is over. 10 years old. When bush invaded March 2003, he asked the the UN inspectors headed by Hans Blix to leave the country.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't understand what you mean by "it only goes up to 2002." Obviously, inspectors had not been there since.
Click to expand...

they there up until the day before the invasion in 2003. they were still doing the job the "coalition of the willing" did not want them to do.
 
ChrisL said:
Saddam admitted to making it seem as if he was hiding something with the UN inspectors and the rest of the world too. He wanted people to think he had weapons.
Click to expand...

Yes, mainly people in Iran. He didn't think the US would actually invade, which was an error on his part.
 
Jack Hays said:
No allegiance to GWB. I have posted repeatedly that the decision to invade Iraq preceded the intelligence; it did not follow it. The matter of Saddam seeking uranium in Niger is a question of fact, and to facts I have allegiance.:cool:
Click to expand...

To be clear, you're promoting facts that have not been established.

At the time, Our own intelligence community found the allegation "inconclusive." Since that time, the documents which formed the opinion that there could be substance to the allegation proved to be worthless forgeries. The is the same intelligence the British claimed; which Bush spoke of in his State of the Union address.

Which is why after the speech, Bush's security advisor took the blame for those 16 words being in the address, stating, "the high standards the president set were not met."

That was after CIA Director Tenet took the blame, stating, "those 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," and, "this was a mistake."

... which was before Rice acknowedged the 16 words were bullxit, stating, "what we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech -- but that's knowing what we know now."

... which was about the time Bush's press secretary (a tough job to be sure) also admitted the 16 words were wrong when he stated, "now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect."

I find it amusing that even after Hadley, Tenet, Rice, and Fleisher all confess the 16 words were wrong, there remains to this day people committed to the insane notion that Hussein was seeking Uranium, despite the fact that to this day, there is no evidence to support that allegation.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, mainly people in Iran. He didn't think the US would actually invade, which was an error on his part.
Click to expand...

You know what sucks though? If we did nothing and he DID have WMD, America would probably get blamed for that too!
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Did you not read the quote I provided by Hans Blix?

"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming." ~ Hans Blix

Your claim is simply not true and the link you gave to correoborate your incorrect claim doesn't help buy you any credibility since it only goes up to the period in late 2002 when the U.N. inspectors went back into Iraq.

Read Blix again ... "since we arrived in Iraq ..." Your article doesn't dicuss that period.

ChrisL said:
Did you read my link. It has all of the inspections listed and problems with them up until 2002. I'll say it AGAIN. Saddam played the same games that Ahmadinejad plays now with the UN inspectors. Are you trying to lead us to believe that he was compliant and cooperative with inspections?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Holy xit!!!

Did you not see where I pointed out the fallacy in your link being it only went up until the point when Blix and U.N. inspectors went back into Iraq in late 2002.

How would I know that about your link unless I read it??

:doh :doh :doh

And still, Bush's lie that Hussein would not let the inspector's in ... a lie you repeated here ... remains a lie.

Despite your best efforts to distract from that comment, it still remains a lie.

Hussein did in fact let the inspectors back into Iraq. Bush's claim that he didn't is a lie.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
To be clear, you're promoting facts that have not been established.

At the time, Our own intelligence community found the allegation "inconclusive." Since that time, the documents which formed the opinion that there could be substance to the allegation proved to be worthless forgeries. The is the same intelligence the British claimed; which Bush spoke of in his State of the Union address.

Which is why after the speech, Bush's security advisor took the blame for those 16 words being in the address, stating, "the high standards the president set were not met."

That was after CIA Director Tenet took the blame, stating, "those 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," and, "this was a mistake."

... which was before Rice acknowedged the 16 words were bullxit, stating, "what we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech -- but that's knowing what we know now."

... which was about the time Bush's press secretary (a tough job to be sure) also admitted the 16 words were wrong when he stated, "now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect."

I find it amusing that even after Hadley, Tenet, Rice, and Fleisher all confess the 16 words were wrong, there remains to this day people committed to the insane notion that Hussein was seeking Uranium, despite the fact that to this day, there is no evidence to support that allegation.
Click to expand...

Your faith in their accuracy exceeds mine. I have said all I can. I await the eventual public airing of this matter with, in the words of Mark Twain, "the calm confidence of a Christian holding four aces." Be well.:cool:
 
ChrisL said:
Saddam admitted to making it seem as if he was hiding something with the UN inspectors and the rest of the world too. He wanted people to think he had weapons.
Click to expand...
That is true, but it just points to the fact, that we haven't had any further physical intelligence, all we've had is speculation.

please watch and listen to the following video:

 
ChrisL said:
I don't understand what you mean by "it only goes up to 2002." Obviously, inspectors had not been there since.
Click to expand...
What a pity that reality doesn't conform to your hallucinations ....

New team, technology heading to Iraq

An advance logistical team for the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, or UNMOVIC, is scheduled to arrive Monday in Baghdad.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, mainly people in Iran. He didn't think the US would actually invade, which was an error on his part.
Click to expand...

Errors all around then. He underestimated the stupidity of GW Bush. A lot of Americans did that too.
 
[h=1]US General admits war was for oil and more![/h]
 
ChrisL said:
You know what sucks though? If we did nothing and he DID have WMD, America would probably get blamed for that too!
Click to expand...
Not really. Had Hussein really had the WMD for which Bush invaded, the U.N. would have found and destroyed them as they had done years earlier.

It still would have saved us:

over 35,000 American casualties

as much as 2 trillion dollars

the unjustifiable deaths of at least 100,000 Iraqis
 
Jack Hays said:
Your faith in their accuracy exceeds mine. I have said all I can. I await the eventual public airing of this matter with, in the words of Mark Twain, "the calm confidence of a Christian holding four aces." Be well.:cool:
Click to expand...

Umm, the "public airing" of this already occurred. Regrettably, based on the nonsense you've been posting -- it appears you missed it.

But you are well-armed with talking points, I'll grant you that. :peace
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
What a pity that reality doesn't conform to your hallucinations ....

New team, technology heading to Iraq

An advance logistical team for the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, or UNMOVIC, is scheduled to arrive Monday in Baghdad.
Click to expand...

That is from 2002, just like in my link. So what are you talking about?

From my link:

Prior to the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1441 in November 2002 giving Iraq a “final opportunity” to comply with its disarmament requirements under previous Security Council resolutions. At issue was Iraq’s failure to provide an adequate accounting of its prohibited weapons programs or to convince UN inspectors that its weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed as Baghdad claimed.

UN weapons inspectors worked in Iraq from November 27, 2002 until March 18, 2003. During that time, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) conducted more than 900 inspections at more than 500 sites. The inspectors did not find that Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons or that it had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.

Although Iraq was cooperative on what inspectors called “process”—allowing inspectors access to suspected weapons sites, for example—it was only marginally cooperative in answering the questions surrounding its weapons programs. Unable to resolve its differences with Security Council members who favored strengthening and continuing weapons inspections, the United States abandoned the inspections process and initiated the invasion of Iraq on March 19.
 
pbrauer said:
That is true, but it just points to the fact, that we haven't had any further physical intelligence, all we've had is speculation.

please watch and listen to the following video:

Click to expand...


Okay, that's one 56-second quote. Here are some more of her quotes. Do you think she was lying? And Colin Powell too? So, the whole administration was lying, except for the democrat politicians right? They didn't know anything right? :roll:

Iraq Statements by Former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Not really. Had Hussein really had the WMD for which Bush invaded, the U.N. would have found and destroyed them as they had done years earlier.

It still would have saved us:

over 35,000 American casualties

as much as 2 trillion dollars

the unjustifiable deaths of at least 100,000 Iraqis
Click to expand...

You would hope anyway.
 
Jack Hays said:
Your faith in their accuracy exceeds mine. I have said all I can. I await the eventual public airing of this matter with, in the words of Mark Twain, "the calm confidence of a Christian holding four aces." Be well.:cool:
Click to expand...

I also look forward to the public airing of the lead up to this whole sorry affair.

The Chilcott inquiry, which will be released later this year will provide some interesting reading, and in Australia, only a few weeks ago a former Defence Department Secretary stated that an inquiry into how Australia became involved in the Iraq War would expose the fragility of the decision making process.

the whistleblowers have already revealed that public opinion was manipulated by those who misrepresented information ... but it looks like there is more ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom