Do you believe removing Saddam from power made Persian Gulf Oil supply safer and was the right move?

[U2Edge]

Do you believe removing Saddam from power made Persian Gulf Oil supply safer and was the right move?

YES OR NO?

 

[U2Edge]

Yes indeed, the world is much safer with Saddam's regime out of power in Iraq!

 

[2aguy]

Not a yes/no answer.....sadaam was getting ready to rake in money when the sanctions regime was lifted.....a threat to the whole region...not to forget restarting his weapons production......
and had we left troops in Iraq and Afganistan and kept sanctions against iran, and treated them as the actual threat they are.......then yes......but pulling out our troops, long before we ever did in any other country...Germany, Italy, South Korea, Japan,.........has created a major problem.....

 

[jwoodie]

If Obama had been President at the end of WW2, Europe and Japan would have been taken over by the Soviet Union, just as he is allowing Iran to take over the Middle East today.

 

[U2Edge]

Not a yes/no answer.....sadaam was getting ready to rake in money when the sanctions regime was lifted.....a threat to the whole region...not to forget restarting his weapons production......
and had we left troops in Iraq and Afganistan and kept sanctions against iran, and treated them as the actual threat they are.......then yes......but pulling out our troops, long before we ever did in any other country...Germany, Italy, South Korea, Japan,.........has created a major problem.....

Its a problem, but Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are still safer today than they were in prior to 2003. Saddam overran Kuwait in 12 hours back in 1990. There is currently no entity that exist in Iraq that could take on Kuwait in any serious way and that demonstrates how much safer Kuwait is today since Saddam was removed in 2003.

 

[U2Edge]

If Obama had been President at the end of WW2, Europe and Japan would have been taken over by the Soviet Union, just as he is allowing Iran to take over the Middle East today.

Well, to Obama's credit, he has redeployed 4,800 US ground troops to Iraq since August 2014. Back in June 2014, there were no US ground troops in Iraq except about 100 to protect the US embassy in Baghdad. So Obama is in a way continuing the War which is a good thing and somewhat close to what Bush and McCain would have done.

 

[kiwiman127]

Obviously removing Saddam from office opened up wounds between the Sunni and Shiites which eventually led to the emergence ISIS.
Saddam was a bad, bad man but as history shows his presence and his ability' kept peace between the Sunni and Shiites. Once he was disposed, that all changed. Even with US troops present, civil war broke our between the two factions. The fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki marginalized and harassed the Sunni eventually led to radical Sunni creating ISIS. This led to the instability that is present in the oil rich region of the ME.

 

[kiwiman127]

Not a yes/no answer.....sadaam was getting ready to rake in money when the sanctions regime was lifted.....a threat to the whole region...not to forget restarting his weapons production......
and had we left troops in Iraq and Afganistan and kept sanctions against iran, and treated them as the actual threat they are.......then yes......but pulling out our troops, long before we ever did in any other country...Germany, Italy, South Korea, Japan,.........has created a major problem.....

Its a problem, but Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are still safer today than they were in prior to 2003. Saddam overran Kuwait in 12 hours back in 1990. There is currently no entity that exist in Iraq that could take on Kuwait in any serious way and that demonstrates how much safer Kuwait is today since Saddam was removed in 2003.

I disagree. Saddam was severely weakened after he was repelled from Kuwait. If you recall, two weapons inspections by the US showed that his military hardware had aged.
The WMD's were basically labeled,stored by the IAEA and eventually, aged beyond effectiveness as noted in US reports.
Saddam may have bluffed, but he didn't have the cards. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were under no threat.

 

[aaronleland]

I wish I could say it was a good idea, but Iraq was more peaceful with Saddam in power. It's almost as if the people in that region can only be ruled by tyrants. It's time we stop propping them up at taxpayer expense.

 

[irosie91]

Obviously removing Saddam from office opened up wounds between the Sunni and Shiites which eventually led to the emergence ISIS.
Saddam was a bad, bad man but as history shows his presence and his ability' kept peace between the Sunni and Shiites. Once he was disposed, that all changed. Even with US troops present, civil war broke our between the two factions. The fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki marginalized and harassed the Sunni eventually led to radical Sunni creating ISIS. This led to the instability that is present in the oil rich region of the ME.

nope-----the WOUND between sunnis and shiiites has been opened for some 1300 years. Saddam managed to "keep peace' by committing genocide against Shiites in Iraq. Stability by genocide does not create a lasting peace ----especially in view of the fact that a huge powerful country of Shiites exists just west of Iraq and that country has leaders even more ambitious than was Saddam

 

[BlindBoo]

Internationalizing Iraq's oil fields brought much needed technological know how and capital to that nation. I think they've doubled their output. If it was the right move or not depends on your business I guess. It also depend on if the Islamic split develops into a larger regional war too.

 

[U2Edge]

Obviously removing Saddam from office opened up wounds between the Sunni and Shiites which eventually led to the emergence ISIS.
Saddam was a bad, bad man but as history shows his presence and his ability' kept peace between the Sunni and Shiites. Once he was disposed, that all changed. Even with US troops present, civil war broke our between the two factions. The fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki marginalized and harassed the Sunni eventually led to radical Sunni creating ISIS. This led to the instability that is present in the oil rich region of the ME.

Saddam was not just a bad man, his regime invaded Kuwait and annexed it, the first time a leader of another country invaded another country and annexed the whole country since Adolf Hitler did it in the 1940s. He also invaded Iran, Saudi Arabia and launched Ballistic Missile Attacks against Israel. He also used Sarin Gas on Iranian Troops and Kurdish people living in Iraq. Saddam showed through his actions that he was the biggest threat to Persian Gulf Oil supply vital to the global economy, and the biggest destabilizer in the region through is invasions and attacks against other countries.

ISIS is led by members of Saddam's military and former regime. The appointed clerics are just for show. ISIS leadership is formed by remnants from SADDAM's regime. So the great Irony is that the threat you point to now is in fact part of SADDAM's regime.

 

[U2Edge]

I wish I could say it was a good idea, but Iraq was more peaceful with Saddam in power. It's almost as if the people in that region can only be ruled by tyrants. It's time we stop propping them up at taxpayer expense.

Tell that to the 1 million Iraqi's and Iranians killed in the Iran/Iraq war from 1980-1988. Tell the Kuwaitis that Saddam was a peaceful man. Their country was overrun, raped of everything of value, and then completely annexed and wiped off the map. Tell the Iraqi shia's who revolted against Saddam in 1991, and saw 300,000 of them murdered in fighting before the start of summer of 1991. Then the Kurds were pushed into the mountains in the Spring of 1991 with thousands dying. Far more people died under Saddam and because of Saddam from 1979 to 2003, than have died there since 2003.

 

[kiwiman127]

Obviously removing Saddam from office opened up wounds between the Sunni and Shiites which eventually led to the emergence ISIS.
Saddam was a bad, bad man but as history shows his presence and his ability' kept peace between the Sunni and Shiites. Once he was disposed, that all changed. Even with US troops present, civil war broke our between the two factions. The fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki marginalized and harassed the Sunni eventually led to radical Sunni creating ISIS. This led to the instability that is present in the oil rich region of the ME.

nope-----the WOUND between sunnis and shiiites has been opened for some 1300 years. Saddam managed to "keep peace' by committing genocide against Shiites in Iraq. Stability by genocide does not create a lasting peace ----especially in view of the fact that a huge powerful country of Shiites exists just west of Iraq and that country has leaders even more ambitious than was Saddam

And to a point, that would be true regarding Saddam and the Shiites.
But as I posted, a civil war developed even while US troops were present. That should of been a history lesson for Maliki, he should have allowed Shiite input and not harassed them. The US government called on him to recognize the Shiite population and to stop harassing them, but he refuse to listen. That is he refused to listen until the birth of ISIS. Then he changed his tune on quite a few things, including waiving the ban on amnesty on US troops regarding who tired them for any alleged crimes. The fact that the Iraqi government insisted on having US troops who are charged with an alleged crime be tried by the Iraqi justice system was the unacceptable to two presidents and all of Congress. Thus the troops completed their withdrawal based on a time table agreed upon in 2008.

 

[U2Edge]

Obviously removing Saddam from office opened up wounds between the Sunni and Shiites which eventually led to the emergence ISIS.
Saddam was a bad, bad man but as history shows his presence and his ability' kept peace between the Sunni and Shiites. Once he was disposed, that all changed. Even with US troops present, civil war broke our between the two factions. The fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki marginalized and harassed the Sunni eventually led to radical Sunni creating ISIS. This led to the instability that is present in the oil rich region of the ME.

nope-----the WOUND between sunnis and shiiites has been opened for some 1300 years. Saddam managed to "keep peace' by committing genocide against Shiites in Iraq. Stability by genocide does not create a lasting peace ----especially in view of the fact that a huge powerful country of Shiites exists just west of Iraq and that country has leaders even more ambitious than was Saddam

And to a point, that would be true regarding Saddam and the Shiites.
But as I posted, a civil war developed even while US troops were present. That should of been a history lesson for Maliki, he should have allowed Shiite input and not harassed them. The US government called on him to recognize the Shiite population and to stop harassing them, but he refuse to listen. That is he refused to listen until the birth of ISIS. Then he changed his tune on quite a few things, including waiving the ban on amnesty on US troops regarding who tired them for any alleged crimes. The fact that the Iraqi government insisted on having US troops who are charged with an alleged crime be tried by the Iraqi justice system was the unacceptable to two presidents and all of Congress. Thus the troops completed their withdrawal based on a time table agreed upon in 2008.

Having US troops tried in the Iraqi Justice system was never an issue before. There was certainly no agreement with Iraq before the United States invaded in 2003, so the idea that it was a major problem I false. US troops were rarely, if ever in situations where they would be captured by Iraqi Police and put in the Iraqi justice system. It was not a relevant reason for withdrawal which did unspeakable harm to Iraq and created a new threat to the United States.

 

[irosie91]

Obviously removing Saddam from office opened up wounds between the Sunni and Shiites which eventually led to the emergence ISIS.
Saddam was a bad, bad man but as history shows his presence and his ability' kept peace between the Sunni and Shiites. Once he was disposed, that all changed. Even with US troops present, civil war broke our between the two factions. The fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki marginalized and harassed the Sunni eventually led to radical Sunni creating ISIS. This led to the instability that is present in the oil rich region of the ME.

nope-----the WOUND between sunnis and shiiites has been opened for some 1300 years. Saddam managed to "keep peace' by committing genocide against Shiites in Iraq. Stability by genocide does not create a lasting peace ----especially in view of the fact that a huge powerful country of Shiites exists just west of Iraq and that country has leaders even more ambitious than was Saddam

And to a point, that would be true regarding Saddam and the Shiites.
But as I posted, a civil war developed even while US troops were present. That should of been a history lesson for Maliki, he should have allowed Shiite input and not harassed them. The US government called on him to recognize the Shiite population and to stop harassing them, but he refuse to listen. That is he refused to listen until the birth of ISIS. Then he changed his tune on quite a few things, including waiving the ban on amnesty on US troops regarding who tired them for any alleged crimes. The fact that the Iraqi government insisted on having US troops who are charged with an alleged crime be tried by the Iraqi justice system was the unacceptable to two presidents and all of Congress. Thus the troops completed their withdrawal based on a time table agreed upon in 2008.

Having US troops tried in the Iraqi Justice system was never an issue before. There was certainly no agreement with Iraq before the United States invaded in 2003, so the idea that it was a major problem I false. US troops were rarely, if ever in situations where they would be captured by Iraqi Police and put in the Iraqi justice system. It was not a relevant reason for withdrawal which did unspeakable harm to Iraq and created a new threat to the United States.

"UNSPEAKABLE HARM TO IRAQ"??? Iraq was already in trouble and the GEARS were already engaged insofar as the EMERGENCE OF THE CALIPHATE-----the position of Shiites ----vs Sunnis did not get worse because of Maliki----it simply stayed the same------Shiites have been an oppressed majority in Iraq -----forever ------the actual problem is the RISE OF IRANIAN IMPERIALISM (now open your mind and when you think Iran-----think
"SHIITE POWER")-------Shiite power is creating havoc in lots of places. and now for another chapter from ROSIE THE ORACLE AT USMB >>>> wherever there are Shiites----there will rise up SHIITE POWER ----and it won't be pretty------it will happen even in pakistan

 

[hangover]

Do you believe removing Saddam from power made Persian Gulf Oil supply safer and was the right move?

YES OR NO?

By taking out the Saddam Sunni government and installing the present Shiite government, it gave Iran an open road to supply Syria. Both Iran and Syria are Shiite. it also created the Sunni ISIS. So you really think that's safer....BWAH HA HA HA HA!

 

[dilloduck]

Our gas wouldn't be cheaper if our oil supply was in danger.

 

[aaronleland]

I wish I could say it was a good idea, but Iraq was more peaceful with Saddam in power. It's almost as if the people in that region can only be ruled by tyrants. It's time we stop propping them up at taxpayer expense.

Tell that to the 1 million Iraqi's and Iranians killed in the Iran/Iraq war from 1980-1988. Tell the Kuwaitis that Saddam was a peaceful man. Their country was overrun, raped of everything of value, and then completely annexed and wiped off the map. Tell the Iraqi shia's who revolted against Saddam in 1991, and saw 300,000 of them murdered in fighting before the start of summer of 1991. Then the Kurds were pushed into the mountains in the Spring of 1991 with thousands dying. Far more people died under Saddam and because of Saddam from 1979 to 2003, than have died there since 2003.

The Gulf War was our business only because Kuwait is an ally. The rest is none of our concern. What was our concern are the thousands of US soldiers killed in Iraq since 2003. All we accomplished was dead soldiers, and a power vacuum ripe for groups like ISIS to take advantage of.

 

[irosie91]

I believe that the sooner the world recognizes the SHIITE THREAT-----the better And now for my disclaimer>>>>>
Long ago------(like more than 45 years ago) I came into contact (very peripherally) with the Shiite/sunni rift. In
the course of encountering many many young muslims new
to the USA------I noticed that the Iranians hated -----arabs and
Pakistanis------INSTANTLY-----. I befriended many of the
young new-comers. I was told----about the "CRAZY PEOPLE"------to wit----Shiites. by some Pakistanis----the
people who beat themselves up and cut their heads. Naturally----being a flower child -----I decided that the Shiites---once I figured out who they are----were UNFAIRLY
targeted (once I learned that Pakistani sunnis like to kill
them)-------so in my mind the Shiites became the NICE
PEOPLE (since all the Iranians I knew were normal back
then----pre ayatoilet Khomeini) Over time---I did learn
that as aggressive are sunnis (damn aggressive) Shiites
are just as bad---(damn and even more aggressive----
except for some Iranians who stayed normal and STAYED
HERE) Right now -----the big problem in "the levant" ---
does consist of a GROWING PRESENCE of Hezbollah---
the death squad of Shiite-ville. It is as attractive to young
violence prone muslim kids as is ISIS-----but it is not a state------it is an INFECTION