• 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!

US provides aid to Syrian rebels

Libya is no success, and not even if you can compare it to Iraq. The TNC is there in name only. The Berbers will not accept rule by the MB. Also Right now Libya is the Wild Wild West with whats happening there. Which is why the most have pulled their Ambassadors out of the Country. Which doesn't even count AQ resurging like they are all around Africa. As for Iraq.....that's why Kerry is over there warning them to not allow the Iranians to use their Air Space.....huh? Plus the sectarian killing hasn't stopped. The Whole issue with the Kurds has not been dealt with. Plus Maliki is purging the Sunni Arabs any chance he can get and take.

Also there is no reason to make any excuses for the Sunni Arab Rebels no matter what Countries that Are being given to them by those in the West.

Yes both Libya and Iraq have internal problems, I don't deny that, but if you look at what was achieved in Libya as far as removing a dictator, setting up a new government, etc, its about as far along as Iraq was but far quicker, far cheaper, far less American death, and far less post war violence.
 
The Iranians, and by extension, the Syrian Loyalist forces, receive most of their military backing from Russia. Other than bodies for the meat grinder, Iraq isn't really in any shape to provide much of anything of value to the Iranians.

Most of Shia militias we fought during the war were being actively supplied by the Iranians, as a matter of fact.


I honestly don't really think he has much say in the matter either way. The militias do as they please and always have. Maliki hardly has them on a leash.



I wouldn't be quite so sure about that. If he were to openly throw in his lot with the Iranians, he might very well open up the possibility of renewed civil war in his own country between the Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds. His power over the nation is hardly absolute, after all, and his primary interest has always seemed to be stability.

He would also make his regime a prime target for Sunni extremist groups like Al Qaeda.

I think he'd continue to turn a blind eye to the various Shia militias which would flock to Iran's cause, but I doubt his support would really go much beyond that. He honestly doesn't have all that much to offer the Iranians in the first place.

Well AQ is already back there. Moreover he has been purging the government of the Sunni. Plus he did tell the Kurds to give up the VP. Which the Kurds told him the VP he needs to vacate the premises.

Moreover the fate of Syria has already been decided as to what will take place there after Assad falls or is driven out of Office.....evidenced.

Jabhat Al-Nursa's plans for a new Syria under sharia

Jabhat Al Nusra has emerged as the most powerful fighting group amidst the Syrian rebel opposition. The Islamist group has outlined its plans to impose sharia law once President Assad is ousted.

Sheikh Abu Ahmed, military commander of Jabhat Al Nusra, spoke with a reporter from the National. The Salafist leader said: "Our first goal is to get rid of Assad. Then we want a state where the Quran is the only source of law. Sharia is the right path for all humanity - all other laws make people unhappy."
His vision of Syria under sharia is sure to make the populace happy, with alcohol, tobacco, cinema and immoral television shows banned. Ahmed claimed the people "will get used to it eventually."
Al Qaeda has endorsed Al Nursa as the purest Islamic group in Syria.

Read more: Jabhat Al-Nursa's plans for a new Syria under sharia

Course they say the 1.8 million Christians will have nothing to fear at all. :roll:
 
really? How many American Ambassadors got murdered in Iraq?

In fact Iraq become a failure when the majority of the troops pulled out, Afghanistan, which Obama claimed was the important war, is also a failure. The US is in retreat and the world knows it.

Libya will go Islamic, like Egypt, as will Syria. Iraq will go nuclear and so will all those other Islamic States with whom it becomes aligned.

This is what happens when people elect a know-nothing President whose opinions are better suited to the faculty lounge at a local high school than in the real world.


It's a failed policy. What does it matter it its an expensive failed policy or a cheap failed policy?

Good people with good intentions died, and are still dying, while American leaders cut, obfuscate, and run. You can now ask yourself what they died for and whether good men and women would ever defend their country again when such political betrayals consistently await them..

Yes an American Ambassador being killed is a tragic event, but again compared to the thousands of dead and tens of thousands wounded from Iraq its clear which has cost us less blood overall.

Iraq told US troops to get out, it was not a policy decision by the Bush or the Obama administration. The Iraqis told the USA that our troops will no longer have immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts so we respectfully left. And lastly its bizarre you call Libya a failure of policy because an ambassador was killed but say nothing of the thousands of dead Americans in Iraq. You only say that Iraq was a failure when we left and Americans stopped dying, how can you hold both positions to be true? Do the value of the lives lost in Iraq not mean as much?

Libya may fail, so may Iraq, its quite possible, however going on what we know today and what the situation is in both countries today, there's no denying that America got more for its blood and money out of Libya than Iraq.
 
Well AQ is already back there. Moreover he has been purging the government of the Sunni. Plus he did tell the Kurds to give up the VP. Which the Kurds told him the VP he needs to vacate the premises.

Moreover the fate of Syria has already been decided as to what will take place there after Assad falls or is driven out of Office.....evidenced.

Jabhat Al-Nursa's plans for a new Syria under sharia

Jabhat Al Nusra has emerged as the most powerful fighting group amidst the Syrian rebel opposition. The Islamist group has outlined its plans to impose sharia law once President Assad is ousted.

Sheikh Abu Ahmed, military commander of Jabhat Al Nusra, spoke with a reporter from the National. The Salafist leader said: "Our first goal is to get rid of Assad. Then we want a state where the Quran is the only source of law. Sharia is the right path for all humanity - all other laws make people unhappy."
His vision of Syria under sharia is sure to make the populace happy, with alcohol, tobacco, cinema and immoral television shows banned. Ahmed claimed the people "will get used to it eventually."
Al Qaeda has endorsed Al Nursa as the purest Islamic group in Syria.

Read more: Jabhat Al-Nursa's plans for a new Syria under sharia

Course they say the 1.8 million Christians will have nothing to fear at all. :roll:

This is why Obama is working to fund the secular and moderate opposition so the Jihadists won't take over, something that you have criticized the President for. Tell us how you would help ensure the radicals don't take over the country?
 
Well AQ is already back there. Moreover he has been purging the government of the Sunni. Plus he did tell the Kurds to give up the VP. Which the Kurds told him the VP he needs to vacate the premises.

Moreover the fate of Syria has already been decided as to what will take place there after Assad falls or is driven out of Office.....evidenced.

Jabhat Al-Nursa's plans for a new Syria under sharia

Jabhat Al Nusra has emerged as the most powerful fighting group amidst the Syrian rebel opposition. The Islamist group has outlined its plans to impose sharia law once President Assad is ousted.

Sheikh Abu Ahmed, military commander of Jabhat Al Nusra, spoke with a reporter from the National. The Salafist leader said: "Our first goal is to get rid of Assad. Then we want a state where the Quran is the only source of law. Sharia is the right path for all humanity - all other laws make people unhappy."
His vision of Syria under sharia is sure to make the populace happy, with alcohol, tobacco, cinema and immoral television shows banned. Ahmed claimed the people "will get used to it eventually."
Al Qaeda has endorsed Al Nursa as the purest Islamic group in Syria.

Read more: Jabhat Al-Nursa's plans for a new Syria under sharia

Course they say the 1.8 million Christians will have nothing to fear at all. :roll:

They've got to win first. The way things are going now, that could take a while. :lol:

A lot could potentially change between now and then. Even then, Jabhat Al-Nursa does not speak for the entirety of the opposition movement.

I've got to say though, I am honestly kind of curious as to how the Israelis would respond to something like that. I imagine that the Mossad would have quite a lot of work on their hands.
 
Yes both Libya and Iraq have internal problems, I don't deny that, but if you look at what was achieved in Libya as far as removing a dictator, setting up a new government, etc, its about as far along as Iraq was but far quicker, far cheaper, far less American death, and far less post war violence.

Well, you must not be keeping up on the news inside Libya then as the post war Violence hasn't stopped. Moreover Libya didn't have to contend with 3 different ethnicities. Moreover Libya was a gateway between East and West. Iraq wasn't and isn't. Course now neither is Libya anymore. Moreover the Rebels that were fighting in Mali are coming thru Libya.

Our CIA has been compromised in Libya. Sources, Networks, Safehouses, can't say the same for Iraq.
 
This is why Obama is working to fund the secular and moderate opposition so the Jihadists won't take over, something that you have criticized the President for. Tell us how you would help ensure the radicals don't take over the country?

Yeah, and what don't you get about 29 Opposition groups that have taken a Pledge and will defy the US? Despite what Obama has to say and who he will fund.
 
Well, you must not be keeping up on the news inside Libya then as the post war Violence hasn't stopped. Moreover Libya didn't have to contend with 3 different ethnicities. Moreover Libya was a gateway between East and West. Iraq wasn't and isn't. Course now neither is Libya anymore. Moreover the Rebels that were fighting in Mali are coming thru Libya.

Our CIA has been compromised in Libya. Sources, Networks, Safehouses, can't say the same for Iraq.

I didn't say it had stopped, are you even reading my posts? And Libya has its own internal divisions as well which are not unlike Iraq. Also Iraq doesn't have three different ethnic groups, there are the Sunni and Shia Arabs who have religious differences but are both Arab, which is their ethnic group, and the Kurds in the North which are of a different ethnic group.

I fail to see what you mean by Libya being a gateway between East and West, could you elaborate some more?

Lastly, no most rebels in Mali are not coming through Libya, Libya and Mali don't even border each other, most Mali fighters are coming from neighboring Algeria or Niger. What is coming from Libya though are weapons, that fell out of the hands of the government and rebels during the civil war in Libya and were taken or sold to Mali fighters of various groups. That is a 2nd order effect of a government once capable of securing its arms falling apart.

Can you source your claim about the CIA being compromised?

Yeah, and what don't you get about 29 Opposition groups that have taken a Pledge and will defy the US? Despite what Obama has to say and who he will fund.

Source? And I know many groups won't work with the US, and frankly they don't have to, if they are moderate and not radicals we should be supporting them in their fight to both replace Assad and not be overcome by the radicals.
 
I didn't say it had stopped, are you even reading my posts? And Libya has its own internal divisions as well which are not unlike Iraq. Also Iraq doesn't have three different ethnic groups, there are the Sunni and Shia Arabs who have religious differences but are both Arab, which is their ethnic group, and the Kurds in the North which are of a different ethnic group.

I fail to see what you mean by Libya being a gateway between East and West, could you elaborate some more?

Lastly, no most rebels in Mali are not coming through Libya, Libya and Mali don't even border each other, most Mali fighters are coming from neighboring Algeria or Niger. What is coming from Libya though are weapons, that fell out of the hands of the government and rebels during the civil war in Libya and were taken or sold to Mali fighters of various groups. That is a 2nd order effect of a government once capable of securing its arms falling apart.

Can you source your claim about the CIA being compromised?



Source? And I know many groups won't work with the US, and frankly they don't have to, if they are moderate and not radicals we should be supporting them in their fight to both replace Assad and not be overcome by the radicals.

Uhm yes some of the Rebels fighting In Mali came thru Libya. Also the Marlboro-man created the incident with Algeria just recently remember. Are you saying they were not AQ affiliated.

Also Did you forget about the US Consulate being attacked and the safe house as well as the CIA annex holding weapons was compromised.

Source on Syria Opposition groups.....NP, evidenced.

Syrian rebels defy US and pledge allegiance to jihadi group......

Rebel groups across Syria are defying the United States by pledging their allegiance to a group that Washington will designate today a terrorist organization for its alleged links to al-Qaeda.

SYRIA-CONFLICT-201_2423945b.jpg


A total of 29 opposition groups, including fighting "brigades" and civilian committees, have signed a petition calling for mass demonstrations in support of Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist group which the White House believes is an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The petition is promoting the slogan "No to American intervention, for we are all Jabhat al-Nusra" and urges supporters to "raise the Jabhat al-Nusra flag" as a "thank you".

Although Jabhat al-Nusra remains separate from the Free Syrian Army, many FSA leaders now recognise its strength and order their forces to cooperate with it.

Even mainstream opposition activists expressed anger at what they claimed was America's last-minute attempt to "muscle in on their revolution".

"It is terrible timing on the part of the United States," said Mulham Jundi, who works with the opposition charity Watan Syria. "By calling Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists, the US is legitimising the Syrian regime's bombardment of cities like Aleppo. Now the government can say it is attacking terrorists."

The West attempted to rectify this at the weekend by backing the formation of a new FSA command structure at a meeting in Turkey. Its new leadership, which sidelines former commanders such as Gen Mustafa al-Sheikh and Col Riad al-Assad, includes senior figures without a regime background. Many are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood or even more radical Salafi movements, but are thought to be men with whom the West "can do business".

Opposition fighters inside Syria told The Daily Telegraph that the US announcement was too little too late, and that any attempts by the West to intervene in Syria would be rejected. "We don't support the new FSA military command," said Ous al-Arabi, a spokesman of the Deir al-Zour Revolutionary council.

"The people are not going to accept intervention by the West now. You were watching us die, and now that we close to victory you want to intervene? You are not welcome."

Syrian rebels defy US and pledge allegiance to jihadi group - Telegraph

So much for what we or any in the West have to say.....huh?
 
Uhm yes some of the Rebels fighting In Mali came thru Libya. Also the Marlboro-man created the incident with Algeria just recently remember. Are you saying they were not AQ affiliated.

Also Did you forget about the US Consulate being attacked and the safe house as well as the CIA annex holding weapons was compromised.

Source on Syria Opposition groups.....NP, evidenced.

Syrian rebels defy US and pledge allegiance to jihadi group......

Rebel groups across Syria are defying the United States by pledging their allegiance to a group that Washington will designate today a terrorist organization for its alleged links to al-Qaeda.

SYRIA-CONFLICT-201_2423945b.jpg


A total of 29 opposition groups, including fighting "brigades" and civilian committees, have signed a petition calling for mass demonstrations in support of Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist group which the White House believes is an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The petition is promoting the slogan "No to American intervention, for we are all Jabhat al-Nusra" and urges supporters to "raise the Jabhat al-Nusra flag" as a "thank you".

Although Jabhat al-Nusra remains separate from the Free Syrian Army, many FSA leaders now recognise its strength and order their forces to cooperate with it.

Even mainstream opposition activists expressed anger at what they claimed was America's last-minute attempt to "muscle in on their revolution".

"It is terrible timing on the part of the United States," said Mulham Jundi, who works with the opposition charity Watan Syria. "By calling Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists, the US is legitimising the Syrian regime's bombardment of cities like Aleppo. Now the government can say it is attacking terrorists."

The West attempted to rectify this at the weekend by backing the formation of a new FSA command structure at a meeting in Turkey. Its new leadership, which sidelines former commanders such as Gen Mustafa al-Sheikh and Col Riad al-Assad, includes senior figures without a regime background. Many are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood or even more radical Salafi movements, but are thought to be men with whom the West "can do business".

Opposition fighters inside Syria told The Daily Telegraph that the US announcement was too little too late, and that any attempts by the West to intervene in Syria would be rejected. "We don't support the new FSA military command," said Ous al-Arabi, a spokesman of the Deir al-Zour Revolutionary council.

"The people are not going to accept intervention by the West now. You were watching us die, and now that we close to victory you want to intervene? You are not welcome."

Syrian rebels defy US and pledge allegiance to jihadi group - Telegraph

So much for what we or any in the West have to say.....huh?

All the more reason to support the moderates then.

I think one of the biggest reasons Libya turned out better quicker than Iraq was it had a government in place almost from the very beginning, and it was one completely locally created without overt foreign intervention which gave it a lot more legitimacy with the people. Overt foreign intervention came later in the form of air strikes and no fly zones, but no one perceived the new Libyan government as being an extension of any other government.

In Iraq it took us almost two years to even hold elections and begin creating a government, during that time the Iraqis had only the American lead Provisional Authority for a government. The problem was that many Iraqis didn't view it with any legitimacy because it was basically the occupation government of a foreign power, and especially lacking in that occupation government was a means of running a court system to resolve issues that people had. As a result people turned to their religious and tribal leaders for local government, this lead to their loyalties drifting away from the state and more towards these sectarian factions, add in a massive influx of arms to the country since the US military dissolved the Iraqi Army immediately and couldn't secure all its weapons and mutations, and you had a recipe for disaster.

If we can possible avoid that by helping to create a new Syria government now, and again one if not based on our values at least not radical Islamists, then maybe we can avoid a lot of the problems that we faced in Iraq.
 
I didn't say it had stopped, are you even reading my posts? And Libya has its own internal divisions as well which are not unlike Iraq. Also Iraq doesn't have three different ethnic groups, there are the Sunni and Shia Arabs who have religious differences but are both Arab, which is their ethnic group, and the Kurds in the North which are of a different ethnic group.

I fail to see what you mean by Libya being a gateway between East and West, could you elaborate some more?

Lastly, no most rebels in Mali are not coming through Libya, Libya and Mali don't even border each other, most Mali fighters are coming from neighboring Algeria or Niger. What is coming from Libya though are weapons, that fell out of the hands of the government and rebels during the civil war in Libya and were taken or sold to Mali fighters of various groups. That is a 2nd order effect of a government once capable of securing its arms falling apart.

Can you source your claim about the CIA being compromised?



Source? And I know many groups won't work with the US, and frankly they don't have to, if they are moderate and not radicals we should be supporting them in their fight to both replace Assad and not be overcome by the radicals.

US Intelligence Suffers Major Compromise in Libya
Wednesday, March 27, 2013

benghazi-consulate.jpg


The sheer incompetence of our State Department and the Obama administration is once again being trotted out for the world to see.

The tip of the iceberg was exposed last week when CNN reported on the journal of slain US Ambassador Christopher Stevens that one of its news crews had recovered from the smoking rubble of the former US consulate in Benghazi. One had to wonder what possessed a US ambassador to carry a paper journal outside the US embassy in this day and age and how in the name of heaven such a document was left unattended after the attack on the consulate.

Now it appears that the “safe house” where Stevens and others were supposed to find security during the attack was a treasure trove of CIA and State Department information on efforts to recover MANPADS and the identities of local nationals who were working on our behalf.

From the tenor of interview, it seems that not only does Mr. Reines have a problem keeping his hands to himself but there is a much larger compromise of intelligence than is currently been reported. In the midst of a slanging match over State’s unprecedented attack on CNN’s reporting, we get this gem:

I do agree that the media has lots of responsibilities, and CNN fulfilled its responsibility by returning the diary while still managing to inform the American public of newsworthy information. So it’s unfortunate that you are trying to make a scapegoat out of CNN. That State was forced to flee Benghazi–again, because of such inadequate security, leaving behind all sorts of sensitive information–tells us more about DoS than CNN.

This lies and dissimulation of this administration in the aftermath of 9/11/12 have been stunning in both their scope and amateurishness. It paints the picture of an incompetent and insular regime only now confronting the first actual questions by the previously stump-trained media and failing miserably in the process......snip~

US Intelligence Suffers Major Compromise in Libya | RedState

So much for the CIA not being Compromised.....huh?
 
US Intelligence Suffers Major Compromise in Libya
Wednesday, March 27, 2013

benghazi-consulate.jpg


The sheer incompetence of our State Department and the Obama administration is once again being trotted out for the world to see.

The tip of the iceberg was exposed last week when CNN reported on the journal of slain US Ambassador Christopher Stevens that one of its news crews had recovered from the smoking rubble of the former US consulate in Benghazi. One had to wonder what possessed a US ambassador to carry a paper journal outside the US embassy in this day and age and how in the name of heaven such a document was left unattended after the attack on the consulate.

Now it appears that the “safe house” where Stevens and others were supposed to find security during the attack was a treasure trove of CIA and State Department information on efforts to recover MANPADS and the identities of local nationals who were working on our behalf.

From the tenor of interview, it seems that not only does Mr. Reines have a problem keeping his hands to himself but there is a much larger compromise of intelligence than is currently been reported. In the midst of a slanging match over State’s unprecedented attack on CNN’s reporting, we get this gem:

I do agree that the media has lots of responsibilities, and CNN fulfilled its responsibility by returning the diary while still managing to inform the American public of newsworthy information. So it’s unfortunate that you are trying to make a scapegoat out of CNN. That State was forced to flee Benghazi–again, because of such inadequate security, leaving behind all sorts of sensitive information–tells us more about DoS than CNN.

This lies and dissimulation of this administration in the aftermath of 9/11/12 have been stunning in both their scope and amateurishness. It paints the picture of an incompetent and insular regime only now confronting the first actual questions by the previously stump-trained media and failing miserably in the process......snip~

US Intelligence Suffers Major Compromise in Libya | RedState

So much for the CIA not being Compromised.....huh?

That's not a source, its a right wing blog.

Anyway, if you were referring to Benghazi as the CIA being compromised that's fine, but its not really the topic at hand.
 
Yes an American Ambassador being killed is a tragic event, but again compared to the thousands of dead and tens of thousands wounded from Iraq its clear which has cost us less blood overall.
The difference is that there was a war going on in Iraq but not in Libya. In fact the Libyan government could have stopped the seige but didn't. Their loyalty is clear enough. And of course the subsequent cover-up by the Obama Administration should not inspire confidence.

Iraq told US troops to get out, it was not a policy decision by the Bush or the Obama administration. The Iraqis told the USA that our troops will no longer have immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts so we respectfully left.

There was no permission to enter, why is permission necessary to stay?

And lastly its bizarre you call Libya a failure of policy because an ambassador was killed but say nothing of the thousands of dead Americans in Iraq.

The difference is war. The two are not comparable.
You only say that Iraq was a failure when we left and Americans stopped dying, how can you hold both positions to be true?

Iraq will move in the direction of other Mid East Islamic countries, so why did all these Americans die? To what end? Again, since Vietnam, Americans have started wars but stay around too long and are unable to win wars. They quickly become politicized and the enemy is often hailed as the good guys.

Do the value of the lives lost in Iraq not mean as much?

They obviously mean more to me than the American government, or those on the left who attacked their leadership rather than those of the enemy.
Libya may fail, so may Iraq, its quite possible, however going on what we know today and what the situation is in both countries today, there's no denying that America got more for its blood and money out of Libya than Iraq.

They got nothing out of either. Not even the oil the Leftists claimed was the reason for being there.
 
That's not a source, its a right wing blog.

Anyway, if you were referring to Benghazi as the CIA being compromised that's fine, but its not really the topic at hand.

They are referenced out while crying about a Right Wing Blog.....so once again that is neither here nor there, and yes the CIA is In Libya.

Which still changes nothing about those Syrians and their Civil war.....which we need to stay out of.
 
The article claims the trainees are secular. Of course, you can invent whatever ya like.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/w...play-key-role-in-war.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You seem to have forgotten that one...

At the very least, you are looking at the us supporting alquaidas allies in the name of toppling another country...

So, I ask you again: what makes the Syrian "regime" so evil that we are effectively giving aid to enemies that we are at war with elsewhere??
 
They are referenced out while crying about a Right Wing Blog.....so once again that is neither here nor there, and yes the CIA is In Libya.

Which still changes nothing about those Syrians and their Civil war.....which we need to stay out of.

I didn't say the CIA wasn't in Libya.
 
The difference is that there was a war going on in Iraq but not in Libya. In fact the Libyan government could have stopped the seige but didn't. Their loyalty is clear enough. And of course the subsequent cover-up by the Obama Administration should not inspire confidence.



There was no permission to enter, why is permission necessary to stay?



The difference is war. The two are not comparable.


Iraq will move in the direction of other Mid East Islamic countries, so why did all these Americans die? To what end? Again, since Vietnam, Americans have started wars but stay around too long and are unable to win wars. They quickly become politicized and the enemy is often hailed as the good guys.



They obviously mean more to me than the American government, or those on the left who attacked their leadership rather than those of the enemy.


They got nothing out of either. Not even the oil the Leftists claimed was the reason for being there.

Aren't you the same guy saying that Iraq only became a failure once US troops left? How does that fit into your argument here that we should have never been there in the first place?

Anyway, the two are comparable as they are both examples of the US trying to exert its interests overseas, in one example we invaded and attempt to set up a government and in the other we let a locally created government have authority and backed them up without troops on the ground.

And if you want to set up a soverign government, like we did in Iraq, then we have to treat them as a soverign government which means we should leave when they tell us to if we are in their country.
 
Aren't you the same guy saying that Iraq only became a failure once US troops left? How does that fit into your argument here that we should have never been there in the first place?

I never said that they should never have been there in the first place. I feel the Coalition should have left after Saddam was gone or they should have stayed to see the job through. Instead it was a mix of both. As political pressures mounted, with the American people eventually turning on themselves and political opportunists turning their back on their promises and countrymen, it slowly lurched toward failure.

Anyway, the two are comparable as they are both examples of the US trying to exert its interests overseas, in one example we invaded and attempt to set up a government and in the other we let a locally created government have authority and backed them up without troops on the ground.

Every country tries to exert pressure overseas, but that doesn't mean they are at war. Britain pulled out of Libya and the the US should have done the same. The late Ambassador Stevens knew what was going on but was ignored. Even the Red Cross knew better than the US Secretary of State.

And if you want to set up a soverign government, like we did in Iraq, then we have to treat them as a soverign government which means we should leave when they tell us to if we are in their country.

I'm not sure that the Iraqi government even told the forces to leave, despite what was said politically. It doesn't make any sense. I see that as a weak excuse to pull out, just as Obama said he would. There is something very strange going on in the Middle East with former leaders, along with Allies and known quantities, being replaced willy nilly.
 
This is absurd. A main rebel leader just left precisely because there is no clear vision or authority structure amongst the rebels. So, we will support amorphous groups of rebels and just hope that they will be better than Assad. Clearly this is a matter for Turkey to address. We are broke, no money to spend on these sort of military excursions.
 
I never said that they should never have been there in the first place. I feel the Coalition should have left after Saddam was gone or they should have stayed to see the job through. Instead it was a mix of both. As political pressures mounted, with the American people eventually turning on themselves and political opportunists turning their back on their promises and countrymen, it slowly lurched toward failure.

Every country tries to exert pressure overseas, but that doesn't mean they are at war. Britain pulled out of Libya and the the US should have done the same. The late Ambassador Stevens knew what was going on but was ignored. Even the Red Cross knew better than the US Secretary of State.

I'm not sure that the Iraqi government even told the forces to leave, despite what was said politically. It doesn't make any sense. I see that as a weak excuse to pull out, just as Obama said he would. There is something very strange going on in the Middle East with former leaders, along with Allies and known quantities, being replaced willy nilly.

What do you mean you aren't sure? That's exactly what happened, its history, its a simple fact, what is there to not be sure about?

I know Libya and Iraq aren't comparable from the perspective of a war, because we were at war in Iraq and were not at war in Libya, I'm not trying to compare them as wars. I'm comparing them as actions the US took to remove a dictator and support a new government in a country, and how one turned out better than the other for the United States.
 
What do you mean you aren't sure? That's exactly what happened, its history, its a simple fact, what is there to not be sure about?

I know what they said but I'm not buying it. That's the difference.

They also said Benghazi was the result of an Internet video. Did you buy that and say it was history, that it was a simple fact??

I know Libya and Iraq aren't comparable from the perspective of a war, because we were at war in Iraq and were not at war in Libya, I'm not trying to compare them as wars. I'm comparing them as actions the US took to remove a dictator and support a new government in a country, and how one turned out better than the other for the United States.

But you are still comparing them even though even though one involved an actual war and the other was an attack on American citizens and their Ambassador. . And we don't yet know how it turned out. It's still in transition and we won't know the consequences for a few years. History is on the move in the Middle East like it never was before, and its rather early to say it's all done and dusted.
 
I know what they said but I'm not buying it. That's the difference.

They also said Benghazi was the result of an Internet video. Did you buy that and say it was history, that it was a simple fact??



But you are still comparing them even though even though one involved an actual war and the other was an attack on American citizens and their Ambassador. . And we don't yet know how it turned out. It's still in transition and we won't know the consequences for a few years. History is on the move in the Middle East like it never was before, and its rather early to say it's all done and dusted.

So what evidence or information do you have to support your theory that the reason we didn't leave Iraq was because they asked us to?
 
So what evidence or information do you have to support your theory that the reason we didn't leave Iraq was because they asked us to?

I don't have a theory. As I said, I just don't believe that they would pull out for the reason they gave. You can believe it of course, and you apparently do, but I don't. We'll learn more over the next few years.
 
I don't have a theory. As I said, I just don't believe that they would pull out for the reason they gave. You can believe it of course, and you apparently do, but I don't. We'll learn more over the next few years.

Ok but believing something without anything to support it is pretty much a conspiracy theory. I do agree both Libya and Iraq will be judged better in the future as things continue to develop.
 
Back
Top Bottom