• 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
Jack Hays said:
Wilson's grandstanding irreparably distorted and damaged the discussion.

The Butler Committee, appointed by then Prime Minister Tony Blair, concluded that the report Saddam's government was seeking uranium in Africa appeared "well-founded":

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.
b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.
c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.
d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.[31]

:cool:
Click to expand...



All sounds completely reasonable at first glance: Then, when what occurred is reconsidered ie the collective failure of the intelligence services of the the US, the UK, and Israel, something stinks there..............
 
Bonzai said:
All sounds completely reasonable at first glance: Then, when what occurred is reconsidered ie the collective failure of the intelligence services of the the US, the UK, and Israel, something stinks there..............
Click to expand...

For intelligence services, the Iraq-WMD matter is a "bad news" -- "worse news" story. The bad news is that the intelligence was (mostly) wrong. The worse news is that it didn't matter. The decision to go to war in Iraq preceded the intelligence; it did not follow it. The irony in this discussion is that the British report that GWB cited in the SOTU was one of the few reports that was probably accurate.:cool:
 
....soooooo...the deal is...Iraq sought uranium...but didn't not buy... or ever possess...? Thus...the relevance to the sales job to go into Iraq is? Oh yeah...oil.

Hell, Iran blatantly gloats about having uranium. They have for a long time. North Korea...no need to say where they are. Pakistan...a time-bomb waiting to go off...with an atomic incident. Intelligence about these countries hasn't inspired the US to jump in and invade "yet".

Iran has bunches of oil. North Korean has bunches of starving people. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and still has a bunches of 3rd world mentality. Too bad for their neighbors. Camels carrying nukes...are hard to spot on radar.

So it looks like "Iran" is the next in line...unless the kid who runs N. Korea finds a way to boat in a nuke and set it off on the west coast.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Good luck with this. Good evening 2m. I'll just sit back and watch this one...
Click to expand...

Good evening, AP. It's actually an easy case to make. We had absolute power in Iraq for many years and awarded ourselves zero contracts.:2wave:
 
Jack Hays said:
Oil was no part of the decision to invade Iraq.:cool:
Click to expand...

I would dare to guess that everything would have gone differently except for the truly bizarre US Star Treklike non interference policy of the occupation of Iraq had been replaced by something a little more sensible.........................
 
Jack Hays said:
Good evening, AP. It's actually an easy case to make. We had absolute power in Iraq for many years and awarded ourselves zero contracts.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Yes, but good luck convincing the "believers"...
 
Jack Hays said:
Oil was no part of the decision to invade Iraq.:cool:
Click to expand...

It was a reckoning...I know. But while the reckoning was going on...they did have a rather large resource to keep the battle machines running.
 
Bonzai said:
I would dare to guess that everything would have gone differently except for the truly bizarre US Star Treklike non interference policy of the occupation of Iraq had been replaced by something a little more sensible.........................
Click to expand...

Good evening, Bonz! :2wave:

Glad to see you back among us!

What would you have done instead?
 
Bonzai said:
I would dare to guess that everything would have gone differently except for the truly bizarre US Star Treklike non interference policy of the occupation of Iraq had been replaced by something a little more sensible.........................
Click to expand...

Removable Mind said:
It was a reckoning...I know. But while the reckoning was going on...they did have a rather large resource to keep the battle machines running.
Click to expand...

I confess that I haven't the slightest idea what is meant by either of these posts.:confused:
 
Jack Hays said:
I confess that I haven't the slightest idea what is meant by either of these posts.:confused:
Click to expand...

Obviously...

Your special insight to government intelligence regarding the invasion of Iraq...does seem to overshadow the opinions of what others are saying.
 
polgara said:
Good evening, Bonz! :2wave:

Glad to see you back among us!

What would you have done instead?
Click to expand...



Penitence for my evil ways.....................?.......................
 
Jack Hays said:
I confess that I haven't the slightest idea what is meant by either of these posts.:confused:
Click to expand...

Defeated countries being occupied and run by the victors.............Ring any normal world bells ?......................
 
Bonzai said:
Penitence for my evil ways.....................?.......................
Click to expand...

Ah yes. May I assume a new you is to be expected any time now.... :lamo:

What would you have done differently in Iraq, referencing our non-interference policy there?
 
Bonzai said:
Defeated countries being occupied and run by the victors.............Ring any normal world bells ?......................
Click to expand...

I infer that you are agreeing with me, but I'm cautious whenever that happens.
 
polgara said:
Ah yes. May I assume a new you is to be expected any time now.... :lamo:

What would you have done differently in Iraq, referencing our non-interference policy there?
Click to expand...

Yes. We should have taken over, if only temporarily, Iraq. That is the normal thing to do. Sitting on the sidelines watching all hell break loose is the highly abnormal response...............just saying.......................
 
Grant said:
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Click to expand...

There is a reasonable doubt, and I would risk another optional war because of that. We've seen in Iraq what happens when you go to war for the wrong reasons. It all turns to ****, hundreds of thousands die, and there is no benefit to anyone but the 1%.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
I really don't think the Chinese want Mexico.

and anyway, would Chinese troops across the street from San Diego be any worse than violent drug cartels in the same place? It could be an improvement overall. Anyway, I'll bet the Chinese could put a stop to the drug trade, and probably illegal crossings as well.
Click to expand...

The Chinese aren't about to invade Mexico. What I'm saying is that our government is likely to see something like that as a threat. As the Chinese would see American troops in NK.
 
Jack Hays said:
Oil was no part of the decision to invade Iraq.:cool:
Click to expand...

Of course it did. I'm not going to sit here and say it was all for Halliburton's benefit or anything like that, but you better believe that the safe flow of oil in the Gulf was definitely in our interests, and probably part of the decision that was made.
 
rocket88 said:
Of course it did. I'm not going to sit here and say it was all for Halliburton's benefit or anything like that, but you better believe that the safe flow of oil in the Gulf was definitely in our interests, and probably part of the decision that was made.
Click to expand...


That was the plan two years before we invaded Iraq, and here is the record of it -

Strategic Energy Policies for the 21st Century
Report of an Independent Task Force convened by Dick Cheney

"As it is, national solutions alone cannot work. Politicians still speak of U.S. energy independence,while the United States is importing more than half of its oil supplies and may soon for the first time become reliant on sources outside North America for substantial amounts of natural gas."

"Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets."

"The United States should conduct an immediate policy review towards Iraq, including military" - March 2001

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...nxOOpH&sig=AHIEtbR--nt_IbRGuJyjEdkzTeJq-hEtVQ


US invades Iraq - March 19, 2003
 
rocket88 said:
Of course it did. I'm not going to sit here and say it was all for Halliburton's benefit or anything like that, but you better believe that the safe flow of oil in the Gulf was definitely in our interests, and probably part of the decision that was made.
Click to expand...


Saudi and Kuwaiti oil were indeed important in the first Iraq war, but no one's oil was a motive for the second.:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom