• 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
ChrisL said:
Okay, so what do you want to do about it?
Click to expand...

I want us to acknowledge the war on Iraq was wrong and only made things worse there for the Iraqis, and hopefully remember the lessons of Vietnam and Iraq when those start considering the same mistake in Iran.
 
Catawba said:
I want us to acknowledge the war on Iraq was wrong and only made things worse there for the Iraqis, and hopefully remember the lessons of Vietnam and Iraq when those start considering the same mistake in Iran.
Click to expand...

How can you say it made things worse? It hasn't even been two full years yet. Do you have a crystal ball or something?
 
ChrisL said:
How can you say it made things worse? It hasn't even been two full years yet. Do you have a crystal ball or something?
Click to expand...

Because that is what the Iraqis are saying. If a bull is set lose and runs through a china shop, is it the shop owner to blame because the mess hasn't been cleaned up yet?

You don't need a crystal ball to see that things are getting worse, not better in Iraq.
 
ChrisL said:
Are you aware that a lot of those numbers include insurgent attacks? The number of "Iraqis killed" isn't just from our side you know.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you think that makes a difference. In fact, it matters not at all. No invasion, no insurgents.
 
JC Callender said:
The "low confidence" section didn't need to be in the 25 page report, it's what everyone was discussing at the time. Don't you think Clinton, Kerry, Biden, and the many others asked the simple questions posed in the "low confidence" section before agreeing to the Iraq Resolution?
Click to expand...

You provide the perfect example of how easy it was for the Bush administration to dupe the Congress.

Here's a prime example where Bush was given intel which provided him "low confidence" in our intelligence community's belief that Hussein would attack the US Homeland, yet Bush acted as though it was practically a given That Hussein would if he had the opportunity:

  • "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States." ~ George Bush, 10.7.2002 -- after the NIE was in his hands

  • "Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" ~ George Bush, 10.7.2002 -- after the NIE was in his hands

And here's a prime example where Bush was given intel which provided him "low confidence" in our intelligence community's belief that Hussein would give WMD to terrorists to attack us, yet Bush portrayed it as though it were a strong possibility:

  • "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." ~ George Bush" ~ George Bush, 10.7.2002 -- after the NIE was in his hands

Meanwhile, though Bush had an intel report informng him that the scare tactics he was using were bullxit, some 95% of the Congress didn't know better because the doubts expressed in the 96 page NIE were not in the 25 page version.

All members of Congress without Bush clearance had to go by was what Bush was telling him. Since they DIDN'T have the same information Bush had, as many imbeciles try to portray, they couldn't know any better. And who could have known that Bush was bullxitting them??
 
Jack Hays said:
As I noted earlier, I'm quite familiar with the fraudulent docs. They played no role in the SOTU prep, and were easily seen to be forgeries once examined.
Click to expand...
Hell, now you're trying to change what you claimed -- another clear sign you're a fraud.

You didn't claim the forged documents were not part of the 16 words -- you claimed they were not part of any reports (despite the CIA telling the Congress they were) You also claimed it was Wilson who injected the forged documents into the "discussion" at the time. That is completely false since it was determined that the forged documents came from an Italian spy in 2001 and became public information in 2003, before Wilson ever mentioned them in his OP/ED to the NY Times.

Oh, and by the way, the National Security Advisor confessed that the 16 words were based on British intelligence AND the forged documents. Regrettably for you, you have nothing but a fervent imagination working overtime to dispute that.
 
ChrisL said:
Are you aware that Saddam profited some 18 billion dollars from the oil for food program, which was part of sanctions. Yup, he let his people starve to death and die and ignored the UN and every one else. This is the man you are defending.

And do you HONESTLY think Saddam was cooperative with those inspections? That is incredibly naive. I can't even believe it. :roll:

The world is a MUCH better place without him.
Click to expand...
Your non-sequitur aside, there is no evidence that Hans Blix profitted from the oil for food program or had any reason to lie on behalf of Saddam Hussein.

Do you have anything to argue other than decade old talking points?

And who cares what you think about Hussein cooperativeness. Blix was there and you were not. And he said they were not only allowed into Iraq, they gained access to virtually every site they wanted, including presidential palaces.

Now given that, if you want to keep lying for Bush who claimed Hussein woudn't let the inspectors in, that's your business -- but you're not doing yourself any favors; nor are you providing Bush even a plausible deniablity that he lied when he falsely claimed Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in.
 
TurtleDude said:
squashing that cockroach may well be the main reason why daffy quadaffi quit screwing around with us
Click to expand...
May also very well be the reason Iran cranked up the effort to acquire nukes.
 
APACHERAT said:
In fact that was the reason. Like most of our enemies, GT.W. Bush scared them.

I like that, "Daffy Qadaffi."

Qaddafi was so scared of G.W. Bush that he contacted the Americans and told them he was going to destroy his chemical weapons and dismantle his R&D for developing nukes and wanted to join as an ally with America on fighting Al Qaeda.

That it was Qaddafi's intelligence service that took over enhanced interrogation of captured Al Qaeda for the CIA after the liberals got their panties all wadded up that we used loud rock music, sleep deprivation and standing in a corner for hours butt naked of terrorist who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans. That the liberals wanted captured Al Qaeda members to be treated better than what a Marine Corps recruit experienced during boot camp.

Today the only people scared of Barack Obama are our allies wondering if they are next to be thrown under the bus.
Click to expand...
Kaddafi likely killed more Americans than Hussein -- yet Kaddafi cozies up to Bush and the right sing his praise for it.

Go figgur. :shrug:
 
Sorry, I've exposed two incredibly weak examples of yours already and have lost faith that you're actually going to provide reputable examples. Good day.

Sheik Yerbuti said:
You provide the perfect example of how easy it was for the Bush administration to dupe the Congress.

Here's a prime example where Bush was given intel which provided him "low confidence" in our intelligence community's belief that Hussein would attack the US Homeland, yet Bush acted as though it was practically a given That Hussein would if he had the opportunity:

  • "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States." ~ George Bush, 10.7.2002 -- after the NIE was in his hands

  • "Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" ~ George Bush, 10.7.2002 -- after the NIE was in his hands

And here's a prime example where Bush was given intel which provided him "low confidence" in our intelligence community's belief that Hussein would give WMD to terrorists to attack us, yet Bush portrayed it as though it were a strong possibility:

  • "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." ~ George Bush" ~ George Bush, 10.7.2002 -- after the NIE was in his hands

Meanwhile, though Bush had an intel report informng him that the scare tactics he was using were bullxit, some 95% of the Congress didn't know better because the doubts expressed in the 96 page NIE were not in the 25 page version.

All members of Congress without Bush clearance had to go by was what Bush was telling him. Since they DIDN'T have the same information Bush had, as many imbeciles try to portray, they couldn't know any better. And who could have known that Bush was bullxitting them??
Click to expand...
 
JC Callender said:
Sorry, I've exposed two incredibly weak examples of yours already and have lost faith that you're actually going to provide reputable examples. Good day.
Click to expand...
Run, Forrest! Run!!!

l.gif
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Your non-sequitur aside, there is no evidence that Hans Blix profitted from the oil for food program or had any reason to lie on behalf of Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...


And there is NO evidence that the Bush administration profited from the war with oil either, but you and others don't seem to have a problem with connecting THOSE dots, do you?

Do you have anything to argue other than decade old talking points?
Click to expand...

Decades old? What the hell are you talking about? We are talking about the Iraq war, which is only ONE decade.

And who cares what you think about Hussein cooperativeness. Blix was there and you were not. And he said they were not only allowed into Iraq, they gained access to virtually every site they wanted, including presidential palaces.
Click to expand...

My suggestion to you is to read more carefully. You are just wrong. There were places that Saddam would not let them inspect, and there were weapons programs that he kept secret from them.

Now given that, if you want to keep lying for Bush who claimed Hussein woudn't let the inspectors in, that's your business -- but you're not doing yourself any favors; nor are you providing Bush even a plausible deniablity that he lied when he falsely claimed Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in.
Click to expand...

And you aren't doing anyone a favor by stating that the world is a worse place without Saddam Hussein in it. That is complete insanity.
 
Dittohead not! said:
They hung Saddam a lot longer ago than that. How do you determine just when a war like that one is over, anyway?
Click to expand...

Well, officially the war ended in December 2011. That is when we pulled our troops out.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Your non-sequitur aside, there is no evidence that Hans Blix profitted from the oil for food program or had any reason to lie on behalf of Saddam Hussein.

ChrisL said:
And there is NO evidence that the Bush administration profited from the war with oil either, but you and others don't seem to have a problem with connecting THOSE dots, do you?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with your inability to prove what you say?? You're defending Bushes lie that Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in, remember? I know you're trying to take a detour from that since I proved it was a lie, but that ain't gonna happen. I posted a quote from Hans Blix who was not only in Iraq, but said that in the short period they were there, they had already gained access to over 300 sites. You've been all over the map running away from that since.

Bush said Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in.

You repeated, and defended, that lie.

Hans Blix's testimony indicates you're lying.

G'head, this is where you insert your next non-sequitur. :roll:

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Do you have anything to argue other than decade old talking points?

ChrisL said:
Decades old? What the hell are you talking about? We are talking about the Iraq war, which is only ONE decade.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
"Decades???"

Can't you read, Chris?? Where did I said "decades old???" I said, decade old...

ChrisL said:
My suggestion to you is to read more carefully.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I just had to highlight you projecting that immediately after you misread what I wrote. :lamo

Pointing out your lack of self-awareness would be an understatement.

ChrisL said:
You are just wrong. There were places that Saddam would not let them inspect, and there were weapons programs that he kept secret from them.
Click to expand...
While that was true at one time, it's simply not true at the time Bush decided to invade.

Blix reported how they performed over 400 inspections at over 300 sites, including presidential palaces. You can continue to lie about the matter, but you cannot prove your lies are not lies.

ChrisL said:
And you aren't doing anyone a favor by stating that the world is a worse place without Saddam Hussein in it. That is complete insanity.
Click to expand...
What is completely insane is making the blanket statement that the world is a better place without him.

Of course that's true in most regards, but not all. There were benefits to him being in power, namely, he kept Iran in check. Since he's been gone, Iran has gone full-throttle in developing nukes whereas they wouldn't do that while he was in power because they feared him.

So while it's true that the world is a better place without him, that doesn't mean we can't talk about the disadvantages about him being gone.

And the even more salient question is ... was it worth removing him?

At the cost of over 35,000 American casualties ... between 1 and 2 trillion dollars ... our moral highground lost in the deaths over over 100,000 Iraqis ... I say no, it was not worth it. Not even close.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
What does that have to do with your inability to prove what you say?? You're defending Bushes lie that Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in, remember? I know you're trying to take a detour from that since I proved it was a lie, but that ain't gonna happen. I posted a quote from Hans Blix who was not only in Iraq, but said that in the short period they were there, they had already gained access to over 300 sites. You've been all over the map running away from that since.
Click to expand...

Bush is NOT the only one to say that. There were other UN inspectors who stated that they felt Saddam was hiding something. Go back and read the links. It's ALL there. Saddam HIMSELF admitted to making it look that way. Now, we aren't mind readers. If someone tells us that they are hiding something, and after an incident like 9/11, and the games continue with this guy we would be frigging idiots to ignore that.

Bush said Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in.

You repeated, and defended, that lie.
Click to expand...

Again, you haven't been reading the links QUITE obviously. :roll:

Hans Blix's testimony indicates you're lying.
Click to expand...

Oh, this one guy says Saddam is a good cooperative guy right? Good God, join me in the world of reality.

G'head, this is where you insert your next non-sequitur.
Click to expand...
:roll:
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't want to make things more complicated for you.

"Decades???"

Can't you read, Chris?? Where did I said "decades old???" I said, decade old...
Click to expand...

I can read. Can you? You did say "decades old talking points." Don't be dishonest. It just makes you look like an ass.

Sorry, but I just had to highlight you projecting that immediately after you misread what I wrote. :lamo

Pointing out your lack of self-awareness would be an understatement.
Click to expand...

Take a look in the mirror. You either haven't been following along, or you just don't understand. I can't make that call.


While that was true at one time, it's simply not true at the time Bush decided to invade.

Blix reported how they performed over 400 inspections at over 300 sites, including presidential palaces. You can continue to lie about the matter, but you cannot prove your lies are not lies.
Click to expand...

Again, how many times do I have to repeat myself? He may have let them in, and he may have let them inspect certain areas, but he was NOT open and honest, and he was NOT cooperative with a LOT of things.


What is completely insane is making the blanket statement that the world is a better place without him.
Click to expand...


That's like saying the world isn't a better place without Hitler in it. Please. Saddam was a rotten man who would GLADLY rid himself of any obstacle and anyone who disagreed with him, as long as he could. Of course, he took a more cowardly approach with others who weren't at his mercy. He committed genocide more than one time.

Are you arguing that point?

Of course that's true in most regards, but not all. There were benefits to him being in power, namely, he kept Iran in check. Since he's been gone, Iran has gone full-throttle in developing nukes whereas they wouldn't do that while he was in power because they feared him.
Click to expand...

Are you effing kidding me? That statement is SO contradictory it's not even funny!

So while it's true that the world is a better place without him, that doesn't mean we can't talk about the disadvantages about him being gone.

And the even more salient question is ... was it worth removing him?
Click to expand...

The way we went about removing him was not ideal. I would have preferred sending in some CIA assassins or a small team of assassins to take him out and spare our soldiers.

At the cost of over 35,000 American casualties ... between 1 and 2 trillion dollars ... our moral highground lost in the deaths over over 100,000 Iraqis ... I say no, it was not worth it. Not even close.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well that isn't the question. The question is "IS the WORLD a better place without him?" YES it is.
Click to expand...
 
I have to get to work, but I'll address the rest of your post later. For now, I just want to quickly expose you for lies you tell...

ChrisL said:
I can read. Can you? You did say "decades old talking points." Don't be dishonest.
Click to expand...
Seriously, Chris, you're making a complete fool of yourself. I even gave you a link to my post where I said, "decade old talking points."

Here it is again. And with a link which proves you're hallucinating...

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Do you have anything to argue other than decade old talking points?
Click to expand...

I never said what you're hallucinating I said. I can't help you with that more than I have already tried.

ChrisL said:
It just makes you look like an ass.
Click to expand...
Spits the poster who's insisting I said "decades old talking points" despite the evidence that I absolutely did not. :roll:
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I have to get to work, but I'll address the rest of your post later. For now, I just want to quickly expose you for lies you tell...


Seriously, Chris, you're making a complete fool of yourself. I even gave you a link to my post where I said, "decade old talking points."

Here it is again. And with a link which proves you're hallucinating...



I never said what you're hallucinating I said. I can't help you with that more than I have already tried.


Spits the poster who's insisting I said "decades old talking points" despite the evidence that I absolutely did not. :roll:
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah, whatever. Maybe I misread your post. This is totally irrelevant and off point. Do YOU think the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein? If not, please list his contributions that made him a valuable member of society and the world, besides "keeping the Iraqis in line" because that would really only be a benefit depending upon how you view the particular situation.

BTW, I also have to ready for my day at work, so I'll check back with you later. Later!
 
ChrisL said:
Well, officially the war ended in December 2011. That is when we pulled our troops out.
Click to expand...

at least temporarily:

Over 3,000 US troops have secretly returned to Iraq via Kuwait for missions pertaining to the recent developments in Syria and northern Iraq, Press TV reports.


According to our correspondent, the US troops have secretly entered Iraq in multiple stages and are mostly stationed at Balad military garrison in Salahuddin province and al-Asad air base in al-Anbar province.
Click to expand...
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Hell, now you're trying to change what you claimed -- another clear sign you're a fraud.

You didn't claim the forged documents were not part of the 16 words -- you claimed they were not part of any reports (despite the CIA telling the Congress they were) You also claimed it was Wilson who injected the forged documents into the "discussion" at the time. That is completely false since it was determined that the forged documents came from an Italian spy in 2001 and became public information in 2003, before Wilson ever mentioned them in his OP/ED to the NY Times.

Oh, and by the way, the National Security Advisor confessed that the 16 words were based on British intelligence AND the forged documents. Regrettably for you, you have nothing but a fervent imagination working overtime to dispute that.
Click to expand...

The clear context of our earlier exchange was the sixteen words.

From Wilson's 6 July 2003 NYT article: "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

The reason the report was never used to prep the SOTU was because it was in question, as Wilson noted. That's also why GWB only referred to Saddam attempting to procure uranium, drawing back from the claim that a deal had been made.

The National Security Advisor erred.:cool:
 
pbrauer said:
Thanks, but that didn't answer the question as to why a special counsel was put on the leak case.
Click to expand...

It was a reasonable question whether the law had been violated, and the hyper-ventilated politics of the time demanded it.:cool:
 
Please note that the SOTU was on 29 January and Wilson was contacted in February. Also please note there is a difference between "a CIA report" and "a report in the possession of the CIA.":cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom