Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 7, 2022, 2:50 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is world better without Saddam?
#1
Is world better without Saddam?
Greetings all.

Given the rise of ISIS, and the antagonism of the Bush/Cheney/Christian crowd toward him originally, it might be tempting to think that Saddam Hussein, while a repellent person was what "Iraq needed" and it is sort of a shame he is gone.

But is that really true?

The more I read about him, the more I am convinced that Saddam eventually would have posed a danger of some sort to the USA, and the war might have prevented that from happening.

Apparently from 1991-2003 Iraq was a fairly strange and dystopian country in sort of a twilight zone of sovereignty. It was subjected to around 13 UN resolutions and was constantly visited by UN personell, convinced apparently that Iraq had WMD or was interested in acquiring them. While he ultimately did not have them, I believe one of the biggest reasons he did not was the great damage of the first Gulf War, and all the tough and rigorous sanctions on his country.

Iraq during this time had no control of 2/3s of it's airspace, which was patrolled by British/US pilots to stop him from gassing/bombing innocent Kurds and Shias.

Also, I am not too sure about Saddam's regime being "secular" or putting a lid on Islamic extremism. I believe he started out that way, but towards the end of his reign Iraq had strict Sharia punishments for theft, prostitution, etc. and even had "Allah Akbar" on it's flag.

When 9/11 happened I recall nearly every leader in the middle east (even Iran and Syria!)condemning the attacks and saying they had nothing to do with Islam.

Saddam was the only one who declined, saying something to the effect of "America has reaped what it has sowed" and refusing to condemn them.

I know it is an unpopular belief, and one I have only held recently, but I think that there may have been a cost to keeping Saddam in power. Would we have suffered if we had not invaded his country? What would Iraq be like with him in power?

It is hard to say. But I believe some leftists present us with the false notion that there would have been no regional or national security consequences to keeping Saddam around. Thoughts?

Also some links

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_biol...ns_program

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rihab_Taha

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat...Commission

4. http://www.cfr.org/iraq/testimony-richar...tion/p4687
Reply
#2
RE: Is world better without Saddam?
Yup.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#3
RE: Is world better without Saddam?
No, I mean obviously not. Iraq was certainly better with him in place. He might have been an evil fuck, but what replaced him is far far worse.

He wasn't a threat to the US. He had no weapons of mass destruction and no means of making them very limited connection to terrorist organ, much less a system required to reach the US. Eventually he'd be out of power anyway. It pains me to say it, but the world would probably be better if he was still in charge of Iraq.
[Image: dcep7c.jpg]
Reply
#4
RE: Is world better without Saddam?
Quote:The more I read about him, the more I am convinced that Saddam eventually would have posed a danger of some sort to the USA, and the war might have prevented that from happening.

That's one of the most outstandingly stupid things I've heard in a long time. It is no more morally right to launch a pre-emptive war than it is to shoot someone on the off chance he might decide to rob a bank someday.

Boru
‘Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.’ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Reply
#5
RE: Is world better without Saddam?
I honestly don't think there'd be such a thing called ISIS if Saddam was still in power, but hey, what do I know.
Reply
#6
RE: Is world better without Saddam?
Considering that ISIS has many former Bathists in its ranks that is a reasonable conclusion.
Reply
#7
RE: Is world better without Saddam?
(December 29, 2015 at 5:30 pm)Napoléon Wrote: I honestly don't think there'd be such a thing called ISIS if Saddam was still in power, but hey, what do I know.

Absolutely correct. And it's not as if this hadn't been predicted by many experts around the world before Shrub started his little adventure. Removing the lid from the kettle is never a good idea. But the idiots surrounding the president obviously didn't have any clue of what would happen.
[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]
Reply
#8
RE: Is world better without Saddam?
I don't think there's really any question about this at this point-- clearly, no.
Reply
#9
RE: Is world better without Saddam?
(December 29, 2015 at 5:27 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:
Quote:The more I read about him, the more I am convinced that Saddam eventually would have posed a danger of some sort to the USA, and the war might have prevented that from happening.

That's one of the most outstandingly stupid things I've heard in a long time.  It is no more morally right to launch a pre-emptive war than it is to shoot someone on the off chance he might decide to rob a bank someday.

Boru

If you read the links you might know that there was wide suspicion that Saddam was making deadly WMDs: Nerve gas, anthrax, nuclear weapons, smallpox, etc etc.

The USA was already in a war with him, since the first Gulf War had not ended.

I suppose I wonder what if any adverse consequenes would there be if he and his regime were still around? Would he be a threat or would he help keep Iran in check like he did in the 80s?
Reply
#10
RE: Is world better without Saddam?
(December 29, 2015 at 7:24 pm)TrueChristian Wrote: If you read the links you might know that there was wide suspicion that Saddam was making deadly WMDs: Nerve gas, anthrax, nuclear weapons, smallpox, etc etc.

The USA was already in a war with him, since the first Gulf War had not ended.

Wide suspicion as in USA and several puny bootlickers. I'm European and I'm old enough to remember the prelude pretty clearly. How the German foreign minister publicly told Rumsfeld off for not having made the case. How French politicians reacted to Bush's plans. Basically the whole of Europe, except some Eastern European countries and Aznar's Spain presented the findings of their own secret services to counter Bush's allegations. They trusted in what the UN commission, led by Mohammed el-Baradei presented, after investigating Iraq. An investigation, cut short by Bush's cronies, by basically ordering them out, since they wanted to finally start their war. Even Collin Powell was and still is outraged over what he had to present to the UN. False documents, based on one single source. A source, the German BND warned to be a phony, since they already investigated him.

Here's Joschka Fischer, then German foreign minster, adressing Rumsfeld at a conference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k_QbpFl7RM

Finally, the feudal attitude of the former Bush administration manifested itself in the transcript of a press conference, Bush, Aznar and Blair gave, right before giving their marching orders. In the transcript, everything said by Aznar was labelled to have been said by "josè". Same with Blair, who was adressed as "Tony". Only Bush was adressed as "The president of the United States". That in itself speak volumes about the coalition of the willing and their role.

And by the way, Bush and cronies took an extended piss on the grave of Justice Jackson, chief persecutor at the Nuremberg tribunals. In his opening statement, Jackson seeked to criminalize all forms of aggressive war. The full statement can be read here.

https://www.roberthjackson.org/speech-an...-tribunal/
[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Belief without Verification or Certainty vulcanlogician 40 1179 May 11, 2022 at 4:50 pm
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  If people were 100% rational, would the world be better? vulcanlogician 188 8641 August 30, 2021 at 4:37 pm
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  Argument from "better to seek proper vision". Mystic 53 4245 October 25, 2017 at 1:13 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Abundance Without Attachment Whateverist 12 1859 December 16, 2014 at 4:37 pm
Last Post: Tonus
  Religion had good intentions, but nature has better LivingNumbers6.626 39 7435 December 3, 2014 at 1:12 pm
Last Post: John V
  Trying to Understand Many-Worlds Interpretation Better GrandizerII 45 6025 November 29, 2014 at 5:05 pm
Last Post: Alex K
  >without the bad you can't appreciate the good MusicLovingAtheist 19 3255 October 22, 2014 at 10:41 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Happy people are better and superior Mozart Link 30 3353 August 11, 2014 at 2:17 pm
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  What better explains choosing religion of parents. Mystic 11 1364 July 27, 2014 at 11:51 am
Last Post: Dystopia
  Thought Without Limit Foxaire 7 1921 April 28, 2014 at 11:46 am
Last Post: sven



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)