Finway wrote:
I'm sorry, but I'm going to focus this post primarily on terrorism. I hate to break it to you, but Saddam Hussein was one of the wort dictators in human history.
Now, I'm not claiming he wasn't a huge steaming pile of human excrement, and a seriously horrific guy, but to say he was one of the worst dictators in human history is stretching things more than just a little.
To try to rank him with Hitler or Pol Pot. How about
Omar al-Bashir in Sudan, who, as the USA invaded Iraq and Saddam was cooperating with UN weapons inspectors, was starting his slaughter of over 180,000 and displacement of over 6 million. Nothing has been done about him, and killings and fighting continues. Another contemporary would have been
Charles Taylor from Liberia.
Those two people have inflicted at least as much pain and suffering as Saddam, and yet nothing is said about them. Their nations are poor, resource rich and politically and strategically insignificant. For some reason that means they matter less.
And you can't even start to compare any of them to the first two.
Quote:
And just to let you know, a terrorist is anyone, anyone that is a cause of terror. Just because Al-Quaida and other terrorist groups hated Saddam Hussein, doesn't mean he wasn't a terrorist.
I'm sorry, I assumed you meant that he was a terrorist with regards to the USA.
Seriously, terrorist today means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. Terrorists are a threat to the USA. Terrorists are anyone who threatens anyone. Terrorists are those who use weapons.
If you want to use the definition you just gave, then every military force in the world is a terrorist organisation. The USA and its military and nuclear arsenal is the biggest terrorist state in the world. The UK and France and the rest of the EU are all terrorist states.
Seriously, weak play.
Quote:
And it doesn't matter now of the justification for the war in Iraq prior to the invasion. Most Iraqis are grateful he's gone.
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/Look at some more
recent numbers;
Quote:
50.3 per cent of Iraqis polled answered that the 2003 invasion was somewhat or absolutely wrong.
Quote:
Opinions on withdrawal: Asked what they would like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do, 70% of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces. This number divides evenly between 35% who favor a short time frame of “within six months” and 35% who favor a gradual reduction over two years. Just 29% say it should “only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq.”
Opinions on attacks on Coalition forces: Overall, 47% say they approve of “attacks on US-led forces” (23% strongly). There are huge differences between ethnic groups. An extraordinary 88% of Sunnis approve, with 77% approving strongly. Forty-one percent of Shia approve as well, but just 9% strongly. Even 16% of Kurds approve (8% strongly).
Quote:
# 62% say Iraq is heading in the wrong direction; 30% say it is heading in the right direction
...
# Just 1% trust the multinational forces to protect their personal security, compared to 43% trusting the Iraqi police and 35% trusting the Iraqi army
Quote:
John Simpson for the BBC reports a US Department of Defense poll which found that about 75% of Iraq's five million Sunni Muslims now support the armed insurgency against the coalition.
This compares with 14% in the first opinion poll the Defense Department in 2003. Simpson attributes much of the change to the 2004 attack on Fallujah.
Quote:
Nov 2006 poll of 2000 people in Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies, finding that:
* 95 per cent of respondents believe the security situation has deteriorated since the arrival of US forces
* Nearly 66 per cent of respondents thought violence would decrease if US forces were to leave
*Thirty-eight per cent were also "unconfident" that Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, would be able to improve the situation in Iraq and nearly 90 per cent described the government's implementation of its commitments and promises as very poor
*36.5 per cent said they felt the official security forces were unable to keep control in the country
Quote:
This poll was conducted in Baghdad for the Iraqi government, surveying 4000 people. The results were not officially made public, but some were provided to the Examiner by an anonymous source in the US army. The poll found that:
* Only 3% believed security in their neighbourhood had improved in the past 3 months, and only 10% expected it to improve in the following 3 months
* 34% had a favourable view of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
* 32% said that their neighbourhoods were secure
Quote:
Poll of 2,212 people conducted from 25 February to 5 March 2007, in all 18 provinces. Covered political, security and economic questions. This is the 3rd such poll since 2003, allowing some comparison across time.
* perception of overall decline in quality of life since 2007
* shows much less optimism about the future than 2004 or 2005 (32% expected that in a year's time things would be somewhat worse or much worse, compared to 12% in 2005 and 6% in 2004; only 35% thought they would be much or somewhat better, compared to 64% in 2005 and 71% in 2004)
*shows polarising opinion about the US-led invasion, with more believing it to have been either absolutely right or absolutely wrong than in 2005 or 2004
*reports declining quality/availability of electricity supply, water, fuel, education, local government and medical care
*still majority (58%) support for "One unified Iraq with a central government in Baghdad", although declining since 2005 (70%) and 2004 (79%)
*a majority believe that the surge of US troops in Anbar and Baghdad will worsen security (49%) or have no effect (22%)
*17% said an immediate family member had been harmed by the violence
*only 14% reported that Shiites and Sunnis living in their neighbourhood had separated to separate neighbourhoods (37% said their neighbourhood remained mixed; 47% that their neighbourhood had never been mixed)
Quote:
About 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military "surge" of the past six months.
Suggests that 'the overall mood in Iraq is as negative as it has been since the US-led invasion in 2003'. Only 29% think things will get better in the next year, compared to 64% two years ago. Nearly 60% see attacks on US-led forces as justified. This rises to 93% among Sunni Muslims compared to 50% for Shia. Growing disparity between Shia and Sunni satisfaction levels.
You might not want to rely upon Iraqi opion for your arguments.
Quote:
And yes, he did possess weapons of mass destruction.
I'm sorry, but you are arguing against the CIA and other inteligence agencies here. [url=http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Iraq3FullText.pdf]A detailed report on the whole affair (just browse it, most of it is relevant).
Quote:
They reveal that the threat as the war began lay not in stockpiles or active production of unconventional weapons, but in Iraq’s long-standing determination to acquire such weapons, its scientific and technical resources (including facilities and human resources) to make them, and its demonstrated willingness to use chemical weapons. These constituted a long-term danger that could not be ignored or allowed to fester unaddressed. They did not, however, pose an immediate threat to the United States, the region, or global security.
Quote:
In fact, however, there was no positive evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD or agents to terrorist groups and much evidence to counter it.
Quote:
Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon programs and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence failures noted above.
Quote:
Sometimes the most apparently insignificant word or two can make a world of difference. In his October 7 speech, the president refers to a finding by UN inspectors that Iraq had failed to account for a quantity of bacterial growth media. If that material had been used, the inspectors had reported, it “could have produced about three times as much” anthrax as Iraq had admitted to. The president, however, said this: “The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions” (emphases added). In two sentences, possibility first becomes likelihood, likelihood then subtly becomes fact, and a huge stockpile is created. Finally, biological agent is transformed into weapons, and not just any weapons but extremely sophisticated delivery systems—the only way such weapons could kill “millions.” Small changes like these can easily transform a threat from minor to dire.
Quote:
Before 9/11, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice had no doubts that Iraq was fully deterred. If Iraq were to acquire WMD, she wrote in an article laying out then-candidate Bush’s foreign policy views, “The first line of defense should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence—if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration.
Quote:
In fact, as discussed at question 4, it appears that the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspectors were in the process of fi nding most of what was there and that they had been unexpectedly effective in constraining Iraq’s WMD programs during most of the 1990s. Thus, the choice was never between war and doing nothing.
Sorry for so much text, but it is a really good summary of the data. Enjoy.
Quote:
And a recruitment tool for terrorists? They were already there, and poured across the border to begin their savagery when the US troops showed up.
Again, look at the polls I posted. The majority of Iraqis now support the groups that want to attack Americans. It turns out that when you kill peoples family members and friends, even by accident, they often want to get some sort of revenge.
On abortion, I'm not going to bother doing a link dump or anything like that. I will just say that making abortion illegal doesn't stop it. Nations with blanket bans still have high abortion rates - as well as sky high mortality rates for women who undergo illegal, unsafe abortions.
Just consider the question - what sentence would you put on a woman who had an abortion out of fear? What sentence would you give a doctor who conducted an abortion rather than let a woman try to perform one on herself? If it is a crime, you need a punishment.
.
bartoron 
