• 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
Saudi and Kuwaiti oil were indeed important in the first Iraq war, but no one's oil was a motive for the second.:cool:

Prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had brought charges for several years against Kuwait that it was drilling diagonally near the Iraqi border into Iraq. Not being an oilman but understanding the concept of "diagonal", I have always been curious as to why the UN unilaterally refused to look into those charges............................
 
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?
Here's a novel idea, why not just stay out of the country???? Why not finish the job of getting OBL "dead or alive?"
 
Could you please back that statement up?


With reference to the first war, we were forthright about the importance of oil. With reference to the second, we held absolute power for years in Iraq and conferred no contracts on U.S. companies.:cool:
 
Prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had brought charges for several years against Kuwait that it was drilling diagonally near the Iraqi border into Iraq. Not being an oilman but understanding the concept of "diagonal", I have always been curious as to why the UN unilaterally refused to look into those charges............................

No idea.:peace
 
With reference to the first war, we were forthright about the importance of oil. With reference to the second, we held absolute power for years in Iraq and conferred no contracts on U.S. companies.:cool:

We could have invaded so an undesirable country couldn't get it. I actually think there were several reasons we invaded and oil was one of them.

  • Oil
  • Infect the ME with a democracy.
  • Saddam tried to kill Bush's dad
  • Rid Israel of an enemy
  • Etc.
 
We could have invaded so an undesirable country couldn't get it. I actually think there were several reasons we invaded and oil was one of them.

  • Oil
  • Infect the ME with a democracy.
  • Saddam tried to kill Bush's dad
  • Rid Israel of an enemy
  • Etc.

I'm not going to go around and around about this again. There is no evidence, either before the invasion or after, that oil was a war aim. That idea lives exclusively in the realm of lefty mythology.:cool:
 
I'm not going to go around and around about this again. There is no evidence, either before the invasion or after, that oil was a war aim. That idea lives exclusively in the realm of lefty mythology.:cool:

You mean lefties like "The American Conservative?"

Oil for War | The American Conservative

Controlling Iraq’s oil has historically been a vital factor in America’s involvement in Iraq and was always a crucial element of the Bush administration’s plans for the post-Saddam era.

Nevertheless, oil was the foremost strategic focus for the U.S. military in Iraq. The first objectives of the invading forces included the capture of key Iraqi oil terminals and oilfields. On March 20, 2003, Navy SEALs engaged in the first combat of the war when they launched a surprise invasion of the Mina al-Bakr and Khor al-Amaya oil loading terminals in the Persian Gulf. A few hours later, Marine Lt. Therral Childers became the first U.S. soldier to die in combat in the invasion

Oil was also the first objective when U.S. forces reached Baghdad on April 8. Although the National Library of Iraq, the National Archives, and the National Museum of Antiquities were all looted and in some cases burned, the oil ministry building was barely damaged. That’s because a detachment of American soldiers and a half-dozen assault vehicles were assigned to guard the ministry and its records.


Yep. "Lefty mythology..." :lamo
 
Yup. Lefty mythology, and if you took the time to read what you post you might have seen that. The passages you quoted refer to securing the oil industry as a tactical objective, not as a war aim or strategic goal. Of course the facilities were important: they were vital to rebuilding post-Saddam Iraq. Think first. Then post.:cool:
 
Yup. Lefty mythology, and if you took the time to read what you post you might have seen that. The passages you quoted refer to securing the oil industry as a tactical objective, not as a war aim or strategic goal. Of course the facilities were important: they were vital to rebuilding post-Saddam Iraq. Think first. Then post.:cool:

You're telling me to think, and you think oil has nothing to do with our foreign policy in that region?

I'm not talking the talking points of "it was all about helping Bush's oil buddies" or any of that crap. I do, however, think that oil from that area represents a clear national security interest. To say that it had nothing to do with the war is childish. Of course it had something to do with it.
 
You're telling me to think, and you think oil has nothing to do with our foreign policy in that region?

I'm not talking the talking points of "it was all about helping Bush's oil buddies" or any of that crap. I do, however, think that oil from that area represents a clear national security interest. To say that it had nothing to do with the war is childish. Of course it had something to do with it.

I have already posted that oil (in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) had everything to do with the first Iraq war. The second Iraq war was entirely different; oil did not figure in planning, strategy, execution or exploitation, except as a resource base to rebuild Iraq. Proof? We held absolute power in Iraq for years and neither took nor asserted control over any oil.:cool:
 
I have already posted that oil (in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) had everything to do with the first Iraq war. The second Iraq war was entirely different; oil did not figure in planning, strategy, execution or exploitation, except as a resource base to rebuild Iraq. Proof? We held absolute power in Iraq for years and neither took nor asserted control over any oil.:cool:

I see you are denying the recorded evidence of our oil interest in Iraq just as you deny AGW, and with the same lack of proof in each case.
 
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.

I see.

and you're right: The Chinese would be likely to see American troops in NK as a threat.
But we don't want NK any more than the Chines want Mexico.
Which is why an invasion of NK would be a terrible idea. Taking out their missile launch facilities, however might not be such a bad idea. We wouldn't need boots on the ground, or an elaborate and long term "nation building" project.

Please, no more nation building projects.
 
I see you are denying the recorded evidence of our oil interest in Iraq just as you deny AGW, and with the same lack of proof in each case.

There is no evidence that Iraqi oil was a war aim or strategic objective in the second Iraq war. You've raised your "evidence" before. It has nothing to do with the war.:cool:
 
There is no evidence that Iraqi oil was a war aim or strategic objective in the second Iraq war. You've raised your "evidence" before. It has nothing to do with the war.:cool:

Thanks for your opinion Jack! There is written documentation that says otherwise: Strategic Challenges for the 21st Century- March 2001. I referenced it above.
 
Thanks for your opinion Jack! There is written documentation that says otherwise: Strategic Challenges for the 21st Century- March 2001. I referenced it above.

Yes, I know. I read it when it was first published and I noted you posted it previously. Its meaning in the context of Iraq war aims is exactly zero.:mrgreen:
 
Yes, I know. I read it when it was first published and I noted you posted it previously. Its meaning in the context of Iraq war aims is exactly zero.:mrgreen:


Thanks for your opinion Jack!
 
Yes, but the attempt nation building, not so much...

That is yet to be seen sir. Take a look at Japan and S.Korea. Both were large efforts on the part of the US and both are thriving as a result of our rebuilding efforts. I think Iraq has a very good chance of eventually going that direction if we stick by their sides as we have S.Korea and Japan.
 
You're welcome. Since the U.S. held absolute power over Iraq for years and took no oil, it's an opinion borne out by events.:cool:

You did not read Cheney's task force report if you think our purpose was to steal their oil.

US and British oil are back in Iraq for the first time since they were kicked out of Iraq in 1973 and we made that happen through our invasion, occupation and regime change, whether you choose to deny it, like you choose to deny climate science, or not.

Oil output from Iraq is increasing and Saddam is not holding back supply to drive up world oil prices. Those were stated goals to achieve in Cheney's report.
 
Last edited:
[h=1]Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

Al-Qaida in Iraq admits links to Syrian jihadist fighters[/h]
"Al-Qaida in Iraq has confirmed its links to a jihadist group fighting inSyria, Jabhat al-Nusra, saying both are now fighting under the same banner.Diplomats and intelligence officials view the move as an attempt exploit the battlefield gains of al-Nusra, which has risen in prominence among Syrian militants over the past seven months.
The move to rename both groups was reported on websites used in the past by al-Qaida-aligned militants to post messages. There was no immediate response from al-Nusra, which was last year also prescribed as a terror group by the US, Britain and some European states. The post said the new group would be called the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It is unclear if the rebranding will have any practical implications.
The growing role of al-Nusra among the anti-Assad rebels has alarmed western officials and the Arab League and further polarised views on how to deal with the humanitarian catastrophe.
A deteriorating security situation in Iraq is also causing widespread concern, with Sunni groups who were disaffected by the toppling of Saddam Hussein, which led to a Shia-led power-base being formed there, increasingly emboldened by opposition advances in Syria.
An intensified campaign of bombings and assassinations, primarily targeting government, or Shia interests, in and around Baghdad, is believed to be being driven by al-Qaida in Iraq, which has also sent members to fight in Syria."

Al-Qaida in Iraq admits links to Syrian jihadist fighters | World news | guardian.co.uk
 
You did not read Cheney's task force report if you think our purpose was to steal their oil.

US and British oil are back in Iraq for the first time since they were kicked out of Iraq in 1973 and we made that happen through our invasion, occupation and regime change, whether you choose to deny it, like you choose to deny climate science, or not.

Oil output from Iraq is increasing and Saddam is not holding back supply to drive up world oil prices. Those were stated goals to achieve in Cheney's report.

A free market is a good thing, but was not a motive for the invasion. The US is not a significant player in Iraqi oil today.:cool:
 
A free market is a good thing, but was not a motive for the invasion. The US is not a significant player in Iraqi oil today.:cool:


Is oil production increasing in Iraq? Yes. Is Iraq withholding oil to drive up world prices? No.

Mission Accomplished!
 
Is oil production increasing in Iraq? Yes. Is Iraq withholding oil to drive up world prices? No.

Mission Accomplished!

I see. So Iraqis acting rationally in pursuit of their economic interests is proof what exactly? Do you receive secret messages via the fillings in your teeth?:lamo
 
There is no man better to debate the Iraq war then this man.. Christopher Hitchens. Who lays the Hitch Slap down on the anti-Iraq war crowd big time!!!



Watch and enjoy.
 
Back
Top Bottom