Login/Sign Up




The world was more peaceful with Saddam in power than without him.
Politics

ultradeepbase
Feb 08, 2007
24 votes
10 debaters


+ Add Argument

12
The world is safer now that Saddam is gone.


capitalistocrat
Feb 09, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
After every radical change, especially in an already unstable area, it will take time for the changes to have its effects.

People fear that which they do not know, people become afraid, and most of the time, we know that this is for no reason.

The perception of threat is always bigger than the realistic threat.

 
nix
Feb 09, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I love this. Ask a f**king Kurd how safe the world is now that Saddam is dead. Get over it. That's like asking if things would be rosier if Hitler had one WWII. Are you people serious? Perhaps retarded? Or do you hate America so much that you remember Saddam as a giant teddy bear?

 
nix
Feb 10, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: hyperion Show

Rebuilding takes time, and things ARE a mess right now. Give them time to rebuild and bring some freedom to the nation, and you'll get your running water (that wasn't the question, but I'll respond), jobs, food, freddom from the fear that your government will kill you, and maybe the women will actually be able to take those stupid hoods off their heads and be treated like humans.

 
nbcrusader
Feb 12, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Most Westerners preferred the day when Saddam was in power and their headlines weren't crowded with stories of people dying in Iraq. People were still dying, it just didn't impact the blissful ignorance of those outside Iraq.

Sorry to bust the idyllic bubble.

 
melchizedek
Feb 14, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: patternjuggler Show

Perhaps restoring Saddam Hussein to power would have given us the opportunity to get out of Iraq. Maybe leaving Saddam Hussein in power would have saved American soldiers. It's possible that Saddam Hussein was better for Iraq than what's happening now.

But right now, the United States has drawn most of the focus of groups like Al Queida(sp?) to Iraq. Instead of attacking the United States on our home soil, they are attacking us in Iraq. As long as that remains true, the average American citizen, or in my opinion the average person anywhere, has a lot less reason to worry about terrorists than they otherwise would.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal killer, and, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, he would not have hesitated to use them. While he may not have had any, the United States had reason to believe that he did. Removing him from power was essential to stop him from having any possibility of having weapons of mass destruction.

The War in Iraq serves as a distraction for terrorists. While it may put more soldiers at risk, it protects people from threats of terrorist attacks. If that isn't a good use of the army, I don't know what is.

 
melchizedek
Feb 15, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shehzad Show

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that now, instead of targeting American civilians withing America, the terrorists are targeting American soldiers within Iraq. We're now fighting the War on Terror on our terms instead of on their terms.

 
scorpiel115
Feb 15, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The world was alot safer when santa claus existed.

 
shehzad
Feb 16, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: melchizedek Show

It's not about who's terms your fighting on. The iraqi's DON'T want the american's there. That's why the soldiers are being killed. They have given up their lives for a LIE told by the american president to his nation.

I don't know if you are aware of it, but Saddam had absolutely no link with al Qaeda. Therefore the attack on Iraq was wrong. The american occupation is a further example of terrorism. In this case the Iraqi's are suffering.

The other point is that this is a factual record that Osama bin Laden was a CIA operative helping the Afghan's repel the Russian invasion. He probably still is, since he still hasn't been caught despite using trackable communication links like phones and other facilities (the american's dug up Saddam who was holed up like a rat). It just seems too fishy.

Stop believing everything Fox news says. Do your independant thinking and look at ALL the evidence. Clinton was impeached for lying about sex. Bush lied about an imminent terror threat, using billions of american tax payer dollars and using countless american lives!

 
+ Add Argument

12
The world was safer with Saddam in power.


patternjuggler
Feb 08, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If Iraq has taught us anything at all, it is that brutal, repressive dictators have their place in the world. If this administration had any brains at all, they would have had a Delta squad hunkered down right under the gallows with a stepstool, ready to spirit Saddam away to his rightful place at the capital. It takes a mean bastard to run a 160,000 square-mile lunatic asylum.

 
hyperion
Feb 09, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: nix Show

"Ask a f**king Kurd how safe the world is now that Saddam is dead."

i think you should. there are very few places in iraq with running water now.

 
brine
Feb 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: nix Show

duly noted.

debater spontaneously acknowledges the probability of Adolf Hitler having experienced multiple WWIIs (possibly referring to alternate dimensional space-times continua), expresses curiosity about down syndrome, draws non-sequitur relationship between hatred of america and delusional conception of saddam hussein as lovable stuffed animal.

huzzah.

 
lucym7
Feb 14, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I would say the world was safer with Saddam in power. Perhaps not Iraq, but the world as a whole? Yes that was safer, but the puppet that is George Bush was gonna have a war one way or another. Pls America, next time you vote in a President make sure it's one that doesn't base his politics on a game of Cowboys and Indians.

 
shehzad
Feb 14, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Don't fix it if it ain't broke!

Saddam was a tyrant because no one was strong enough to stand upto him. Why the Iraqi's weren't so strong or believed in Saddam is because of the sanctions. The sanctions only made the average man suffer (I doubt it had any effect on military spending or Saddam's lifestyle).

Now that the US has opened up Iraq like a Pandora's box, they have to face the threat of the region descending into chaos and anarchy. Now that they've broken it, it is their responsibility to fix it. This can't be done as long as the local residents resent the intrusion. For one I can vouch for the fact that the Iraqi's DID NOT invite the US to get rid of Saddam and get them their freedom.

The US President LIED to the American population and the world at large when he claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat since Saddam intended to use it! Remember the original reasoning people.

The resentment has grown and the whole region is way more unstable than it was previously.

 
shehzad
Feb 14, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: melchizedek Show

"But right now, the United States has drawn most of the focus of groups like Al Queida(sp?) to Iraq. Instead of attacking the United States on our home soil, they are attacking us in Iraq. As long as that remains true, the average American citizen, or in my opinion the average person anywhere, has a lot less reason to worry about terrorists than they otherwise would."

The sheer audacity to suggest the above shows the inhumanity and disregard for non-American lives. This is the main reason that the world hates america. To be able to comment so casually that other lives are not as important as American lives just shows how selfish and self-centred the american nation really is. If they really are concerned for themselves alone, then they should try to stay OUT of the problems of other nations. Being governed by a dictator was the problem of the Iraqi's and not the americans which wasn't even the original pretext!

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong