• 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
Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?
Click to expand...


The Iraq Effect: War Has Increased Terrorism Sevenfold Worldwide

"The president's argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.

The administration's own National Intelligence Estimate on "Trends in Global Terrorism: implications for the United States," circulated within the government in April 2006 and partially declassified in October, states that "the Iraq War has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists ... and is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives."

"Our study shows that the Iraq War has generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly rate of fatal jihadist attacks, amounting to literally hundreds of additional terrorist attacks and thousands of civilian lives lost; even when terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is excluded, fatal attacks in the rest of the world have increased by more than one-third."

The Iraq Effect: War Has Increased Terrorism Sevenfold Worldwide
 
Jack Hays said:
Just for the record, Hitler helped us out by declaring war on us as we began to grapple with the political problem of how to include Germany in our war against Japan after Pearl Harbor.:cool:
Click to expand...

My information says the U.S. declared war on Germany first, after FDR goaded Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor.
 
Jack Hays said:
I found their case persuasive then, and I have seen no reason to change my view.:cool:
Click to expand...

Fair enough then, it's your opinion.

What was Condoleezza Rice talking about then?

Ambassador Wilson, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.
AMB. WILSON: Thanks, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: I want to bring our viewers back to some recent history here and put this all in context. This is what started this whole discussion with you, the president's State of the Union message January 28, 2003.

(Videotape, State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003):

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: You saw the president say that and thought what?

AMB. WILSON: I thought, well, he must not have been talking about Niger because he would know better if he was. I then called the Department of State and talked to the Bureau of African Affairs, who had not seen the State of the Union address, but their interpretation was that he was probably speaking about another African country, which was fine for me, so long as he wasn't talking about Niger.

MR. RUSSERT: Then on June 8, Dr. Rice, the national security adviser, appeared on MEET THE PRESS, and I asked her about how those words wound up in the president's State of the Union address, and she said this:

(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, June 8, 2003):

DR. CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: When you saw that?

AMB. WILSON: Well, I knew that she had fundamentally misstated the facts. In fact, she had lied about it. I had gone out and I had undertaken this study. I had come back and said that this was not feasible. There was already lots of suspicion about the documentation, and in fact, as it's been borne out, when the vice president was on this show and you had asked him if he had asked the question about going to Niger, he had said, "Well, I asked the CIA briefer about these reports, and he had come back and told me within a couple of days that there was nothing to them." That was a year before the State of the Union address. This government knew that there was nothing to these allegations.
Click to expand...
 
pbrauer said:
Fair enough then, it's your opinion.

What was Condoleezza Rice talking about then?
Click to expand...

Actually, an informed professional judgment. I have no idea why Rice would have said what she said. Wilson is easier; he didn't know what he didn't know. :cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
Then your information is false.
Click to expand...

Could be false, I read, and listen to both sides on major issues. One thing I know the U.S. was on the side of Bolshevik Communist Russia in WWII. And I confident the U.S. and Russia committed more, and worse, war crimes than did Germany.

I'll check for that declaration of war on Germany. I know I read it somewhere but don't know the truth of it.
 
AllanHampton said:
Could be false, I read, and listen to both sides on major issues. One thing I know the U.S. was on the side of Bolshevik Communist Russia in WWII. And I confident the U.S. and Russia committed more, and worse, war crimes than did Germany.

I'll check for that declaration of war on Germany. I know I read it somewhere but don't know the truth of it.
Click to expand...

What did the US do then that was worse than genocide? I'm trying to see your reasoning.
 
Boo Radley said:
What did the US do then that was worse than genocide? I'm trying to see your reasoning.
Click to expand...

I know nothing at all of any genocide and I am only sharing information. The U.S. and England fire bombed Dresden, Germany murdering a reported 2 to 3 hundred thousand civilians and after the war Eisenhower starved a reported million or two captured German soldiers. Not to mention the thousands of German women raped and murdered by Russian soldiers. Deanna Spingola and Carolyn Yeager are historians and have studied WWII history extensively and report much information on it. There is a site in Europe with excellent information going back to WWI; http://www.thenewsturmer.com/
 
AllanHampton said:
I know nothing at all of any genocide and I am only sharing information. The U.S. and England fire bombed Dresden, Germany murdering a reported 2 to 3 hundred thousand civilians and after the war Eisenhower starved a reported million or two captured German soldiers. Not to mention the thousands of German women raped and murdered by Russian soldiers. Deanna Spingola and Carolyn Yeager are historians and have studied WWII history extensively and report much information on it. There is a site in Europe with excellent information going back to WWI; Overskrift settes inn her
Click to expand...

If you don't know about German genocide against Jews, you don't know enough to speak on the subject. And yes, Dresden is worthy of condemnation. Feel free to do so. However, I would not call it worse or even as bad as much of what Germany did during WWII.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
"Maybe???" You're not sure? :lamo :lamo :lamo

"Do you have anything to argue other than decade old talking points?" ~ Sheik Yerbuti

"Decades old? What the hell are you talking about? We are talking about the Iraq war, which is only ONE decade. My suggestion to you is to read more carefully. ...... I can read. Can you? You did say "decades old talking points." Don't be dishonest. It just makes you look like an ass." ~ ChrisL


No, actually, it's very relevant. It demonstrates you can't understand what you read. What chance do you have insisting the articles you post mean what you think they do when you can't even understand that when I said "decade old talking points," I meant talking points from one decade ago? Or like you claiming that Hussein being dishonest about the WMD he had in his possession it the same thing as Hussein not letting the inspectors in.

So, yes, it's quite relevant, as well as informative.


Asked and answered.
Click to expand...

So much time spent on changing font and colors. :roll: Good Lord, how annoying.

Anyhow, it doesn't mean anything of the kind. It was a simple mistake that I was big enough to admit to. Now, stop it with the childish behavior.

Again, you keep missing the point that Saddam was NEVER cooperative with inspections. In 2002, he was finally frightened enough to cooperate MINIMALLY. There WERE areas that he would NOT allow inspectors to see, just like Ahmadinejad does now. Are you STILL denying that fact?
 
ChrisL said:
So much time spent on changing font and colors. :roll: Good Lord, how annoying.

Anyhow, it doesn't mean anything of the kind. It was a simple mistake that I was big enough to admit to. Now, stop it with the childish behavior.

Again, you keep missing the point that Saddam was NEVER cooperative with inspections. In 2002, he was finally frightened enough to cooperate MINIMALLY. There WERE areas that he would NOT allow inspectors to see, just like Ahmadinejad does now. Are you STILL denying that fact?
Click to expand...

List the sites the U.N. was not allowed to inspect after they went back into Iraq in November, 2002...

And before you answer, here are some of the sites Blix mentioned they did have access to...

 "The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq, at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centers, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile-production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites." ~ Hans Blix
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
List the sites the U.N. was not allowed to inspect after they went back into Iraq in November, 2002...

And before you answer, here are some of the sites Blix mentioned they did have access to...

 "The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq, at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centers, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile-production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites." ~ Hans Blix
Click to expand...

This link is interesting because it has statements from both sides of the fence. Obviously there were some who did not feel that Iraq was completely cooperating with inspections.

Was the Iraqi government cooperative with the UN weapons inspectors in 2002 and 2003? - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org

Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association (ACA), and Paul K. Kerr, Analyst in Nonproliferation in the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division at the Congressional Research Service (CRS), wrote in a July 2003 article titled "Disarming Saddam - A Chronology of Iraq and UN Weapons Inspections" on Arms Control Association | The authoritative source on arms control since 1971.

"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...
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 [2003]."
 
ChrisL said:
This link is interesting because it has statements from both sides of the fence. Obviously there were some who did not feel that Iraq was completely cooperating with inspections.

Was the Iraqi government cooperative with the UN weapons inspectors in 2002 and 2003? - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org

Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association (ACA), and Paul K. Kerr, Analyst in Nonproliferation in the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division at the Congressional Research Service (CRS), wrote in a July 2003 article titled "Disarming Saddam - A Chronology of Iraq and UN Weapons Inspections" on Arms Control Association | The authoritative source on arms control since 1971.

"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...
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 [2003]."
Click to expand...

From YOUR link:

"In my 27 January [2003] update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences." ~ Hans Blix

Even in the part you quoted above ...

"Although Iraq was cooperative on what inspectors called 'process' - allowing inspectors access to suspected weapons sites, for example"

So to claim Hussein "wouldn't let them in," is a bald faced lie.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
From YOUR link:

"In my 27 January [2003] update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences." ~ Hans Blix

Even in the part you quoted above ...

"Although Iraq was cooperative on what inspectors called 'process' - allowing inspectors access to suspected weapons sites, for example"

So to claim Hussein "wouldn't let them in," is a bald faced lie.
Click to expand...

Okay, if you want to continue on with this childish name-calling, I'll play along even though it's STUPID beyond belief and accomplishes ABSOLUTELY nothing.

You're LYING now because I NEVER claimed he would not allow them access. I said he was never COMPLETELY cooperative with inspectors.
 
Boo Radley said:
If you don't know about German genocide against Jews, you don't know enough to speak on the subject. And yes, Dresden is worthy of condemnation. Feel free to do so. However, I would not call it worse or even as bad as much of what Germany did during WWII.
Click to expand...

I don't "know" about any German genocide against Jews. I've read that there are headline news paper reports that Judea, and or world Jewry, declared war on Germany in 1933.

I hear/read about the genocide of Palestinians in Palestine by Jews, any truth to that? I have heard first hand reports about Israel's attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 murdering 34 and wounding 171 U.S. Sailors. I have heard reports that Congress has funded and armed Israel for over sixty years. Americans are paying a Rabbi fee (called Kosher tax) on their food, how can that be but by extortion?
 
AllanHampton said:
I don't "know" about any German genocide against Jews. I've read that there are headline news paper reports that Judea, and or world Jewry, declared war on Germany in 1933.

I hear/read about the genocide of Palestinians in Palestine by Jews, any truth to that? I have heard first hand reports about Israel's attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 murdering 34 and wounding 171 U.S. Sailors. I have heard reports that Congress has funded and armed Israel for over sixty years. Americans are paying a Rabbi fee (called Kosher tax) on their food, how can that be but by extortion?
Click to expand...

It appears you do lack knowledge. Is it possible you don't want to know?

The systematic policy of racial extermination carried out against Jews by the Nazis in Europe during World War II stands out as one of history’s most horrifying events.

Genocide - World War 2 on History

The murder of the European Jews in the Second World War was unique. Never before did a state decide to kill a specific group of humans -- including old people, women, and children -- without any reservation or examination of the individual case, and enact this murder with the means of State power."

-- Eberhard Jäckel, German Historian and Director of the Institute for Contemporary History, University of Stuttgart

The Nazi Genocide of the Jews, 1933-1945

The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.

Introduction to the Holocaust

If you truly read as you say, this should not be hard for you to find.
 
AllanHampton said:
I don't "know" about any German genocide against Jews. I've read that there are headline news paper reports that Judea, and or world Jewry, declared war on Germany in 1933.
Click to expand...

Holy crap.
 
Catawba said:
The Iraq Effect: War Has Increased Terrorism Sevenfold Worldwide

"The president's argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.

The administration's own National Intelligence Estimate on "Trends in Global Terrorism: implications for the United States," circulated within the government in April 2006 and partially declassified in October, states that "the Iraq War has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists ... and is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives."

"Our study shows that the Iraq War has generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly rate of fatal jihadist attacks, amounting to literally hundreds of additional terrorist attacks and thousands of civilian lives lost; even when terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is excluded, fatal attacks in the rest of the world have increased by more than one-third."

The Iraq Effect: War Has Increased Terrorism Sevenfold Worldwide
Click to expand...

Here's a link to the official declassified government document showing how terrorism has increased.


I can't paste sections of it as it is in PDF format.

This report reminds me of the Pentagon Papers that came to light during the Vietnam wa.. I mean conflict.
 
Quick side question:

Does anyone agree with Allan that "world Jewry" declared war on Germany and Hitler was just fighting back against terrorists?
 
ecofarm said:
Quick side question:

Does anyone agree with Allan that "world Jewry" declared war on Germany and Hitler was just fighting back against terrorists?
Click to expand...

:roll:

No!
 
ecofarm said:
Hey, there might be someone! Let's see.
Click to expand...

There's usually someone who will agree with any statement, however absurd it may be.

and that one is way beyond the absurd end of the plausible to absurd scale.
 
Boo Radley said:
It appears you do lack knowledge. Is it possible you don't want to know?

The systematic policy of racial extermination carried out against Jews by the Nazis in Europe during World War II stands out as one of history’s most horrifying events.

Genocide - World War 2 on History

The murder of the European Jews in the Second World War was unique. Never before did a state decide to kill a specific group of humans -- including old people, women, and children -- without any reservation or examination of the individual case, and enact this murder with the means of State power."

-- Eberhard Jäckel, German Historian and Director of the Institute for Contemporary History, University of Stuttgart

The Nazi Genocide of the Jews, 1933-1945

The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.

Introduction to the Holocaust

If you truly read as you say, this should not be hard for you to find.
Click to expand...

Have you read Martin Luther's book "Jews and their lies"? Who was Christ speaking to in John; 8, 44? There are plenty of reports that there was no genocide of Jews in Germany, no gassing, no lamp shades, etc. Somebody is lying for sure.

I hear/read between 1933 - 1939 Jews were free to leave Germany, with the aid of the German government, and take their money and possessions with them. And many Jews that remained in Germany served in government and the army.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom