• 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!

Jail break at Abu Ghraib

English class? English is not my native language but I can speak and write impeccable English - better than most americans.

Americans
 
That the "minimum" of ethnic strife involves hundreds of thousands of people fleeing for their lives.

You're connecting two loosely related things and implying that one caused the other. There were Syrian refugees before we decided to get involved. Do you think that the Iraqi refugees were fleeing from the evil tentacles of American imperialism, or from the inevitable civil war that had only a marginal relationship with the US invasion of Iraq?
 
You're connecting two loosely related things and implying that one caused the other.
You said that we had kept ethnic strife in Iraq to a minimum.
I pointed out that the "minimum" involved at least hundreds of thousands of people fleeing for their lives.
What causation are you talking about?
 
You said that we had kept ethnic strife in Iraq to a minimum.
I pointed out that the "minimum" involved at least hundreds of thousands of people fleeing for their lives.
What causation are you talking about?

The "causation" is that our invasion is what motivated a mass exodus from Iraq, not the subsequent civil war. The minimum doesn't involve anyone fleeing from anything, the invasion and the refugees are only loosely related.
 
The "causation" is that our invasion is what motivated a mass exodus from Iraq, not the subsequent civil war. The minimum doesn't involve anyone fleeing from anything, the invasion and the refugees are only loosely related.
Was the civil war another example of the "minimum" ethnic strife?
 
Was the civil war another example of the "minimum" ethnic strife?

That was my point. The ethnic strife in Syria is far greater than it was in post-invasion Iraq. It likely would have been a lot worse without our intervention.
 
Freedom cannot be brought by foreigners with a gun.

I think that is an incorrect statement in that generality and has amply bin falsified. But people here and abroad like it, because it seems to justify their irresposibility and/or cowardice.
 
Yes, we did.
Not me personally.

But, I think that the vast majority of people who were telling me about Iraq being the "first domino" of freedom and democracy in the Arab world held their beliefs with sincerity. I suspect that some non-insignificant number of them have feelings consternation about the state of affairs in Iraq today.

Actually, Iraq was the first domino of freedom and democracy. If you look at the middle east prior to the invasion of Iraq and then look at it today, you have to agree there have been some remarkable changes. Saying this however, has to come with a degree of caution because the reality is that there are still groups in the middle east that want to drag the entire region back to the 14th century. I don't think any military action will ever totally irradicate that, but it can at least wrestle power from a group that has a stranglehold on an entire country and force it to only be a thorn in its side.
 
I think that is an incorrect statement in that generality and has amply bin falsified. But people here and abroad like it, because it seems to justify their irresposibility and/or cowardice.

It's not an incorrect statement. If the People do not resolve themselves to fight and keep freedom, you can never bring them freedom. Any gain will be but temporary and without the outside pressure, the full of it would fall apart. Freedom requires the hearts and minds of the People. It cannot be delivered, it cannot be bought, it cannot be gifted. It must be earned by those whom wish to wield it, and they must resolve themselves to keep it.
 
It's not an incorrect statement. If the People do not resolve themselves to fight and keep freedom, you can never bring them freedom. Any gain will be but temporary and without the outside pressure, the full of it would fall apart. Freedom requires the hearts and minds of the People. It cannot be delivered, it cannot be bought, it cannot be gifted. It must be earned by those whom wish to wield it, and they must resolve themselves to keep it.

That is much closer to the truth, though, still a little off and demands totally different policies than the earlier statement. What it means, you see, is that outsiders can bring the possibility of freedom and can do things to help. In the one case it would be stupid to intervene. In the other in can make sense and every situation has to be dealt with on its own merits.
 
That is much closer to the truth, though, still a little off and demands totally different policies than the earlier statement. What it means, you see, is that outsiders can bring the possibility of freedom and can do things to help. In the one case it would be stupid to intervene. In the other in can make sense and every situation has to be dealt with on its own merits.

It cannot be brought with foreigners with guns. Foreigners with guns may be able to help a united and resolved People; but there is two fold problem. First it takes the united and resolved People, without that there is no hope. The other is that foreigners with guns have no proper right or say in the affairs and governments of others. Government derives its legitimacy through the consent of the governed. If you are not part of the governed, you have no proper say.
 
Actually, Iraq was the first domino of freedom and democracy.
So you say.
post hoc ergo propter hoc
It takes more than one thing occurring after another to decide that the first thing caused the second.

It's quite possible that the invasion of Iraq slowed down the Arab Spring
 
So you say.
post hoc ergo propter hoc
It takes more than one thing occurring after another to decide that the first thing caused the second.

It's quite possible that the invasion of Iraq slowed down the Arab Spring

There was little to no such thought as an arab spring until after the US committed itself to the region. The imagery of Iraqi's going to polls and actively engaging in the fate of their country I think put hope in many middle eastern countries citizens that if they rose up that they would receive aid from the international community. And with the help of social media to spur on international support, they finally had the courage to rise up. I don't think that would have occurred if we had not gotten involved in Iraq.
 
There was little to no such thought as an arab spring until after the US committed itself to the region.
Just after WWII and during the cold war. Yes Arab Spring came after the US decided to "commit itself" to the region.

I also came after the formulation of Germ Theory and after the invention of the automobile.

The imagery of Iraqi's going to polls and actively engaging in the fate of their country I think put hope in many middle eastern countries citizens that if they rose up that they would receive aid from the international community. ... I don't think that would have occurred if we had not gotten involved in Iraq.
You're welcome to believe that.
Did you decide to believe that based on reliable data which reflect the opinions of people living in the Arab World who participated in the Arab Spring?
Or merely based on an anecdote?
Or just because of "common sense"?

And with the help of social media...
The role of social media has been well documented. It allowed people to coordinate, motivate, and demonstrate in ways which they could not previously.

...they finally had the courage to rise up.
The Arab World lacked courage previously?
 
Just after WWII and during the cold war. Yes Arab Spring came after the US decided to "commit itself" to the region.

I also came after the formulation of Germ Theory and after the invention of the automobile.

You're welcome to believe that.

I do believe that. I believe that all humans want to live in a society where they are not in fear of expressing their true selves. Unless you believe that only americans have the ability to do this, then you have to agree that everyone has the ability and want to do this. The Middle East has historically been a place where you could not express your views openly unless they conformed to the strict religious / political ideologies of those in power. It was not until recently that the idea that it could be possible to change this has crawled into the minds of people in the middle east. Once it takes root, there is no way it can be stopped. The governments in the middle east have done such a good job subjugating its people in strict religious doctorine and fear that they have not been able to even think about the idea of expressing themselves. Once America and it's allies came to the ME it brought hope that it may be possible to attain the freedom that americans have enjoyed. When I say, enjoy freedom that americans have enjoyed, I dont mean it strictly in an american sense. I would not want to see an americanized middle east. What I mean by freedom, is a middle eastern type of freedom that fits and progresses without destroying their culture.

Did you decide to believe that based on reliable data which reflect the opinions of people living in the Arab World who participated in the Arab Spring?

Based on observation..

The Arab World lacked courage previously?
Yes. If you look around the ME the status quo seemed to be one of religious rigidity. Where as now, we are beginning to see more a sense that secularism and democracy are at least becoming more favorable than ever before in the history of the middle east.
 
It cannot be brought with foreigners with guns. Foreigners with guns may be able to help a united and resolved People; but there is two fold problem. First it takes the united and resolved People, without that there is no hope. The other is that foreigners with guns have no proper right or say in the affairs and governments of others. Government derives its legitimacy through the consent of the governed. If you are not part of the governed, you have no proper say.

So Germany, Japan, and the United States were never freed? They never could have developed democracies as we know them today without "foreigners with guns."
 
So Germany and Japan were never freed?

The demographics and culture of Germany and Japan are a bit different from modern day Iraq, but if we ignore the apples to oranges comparison Germany and Japan were conquered.
 
The demographics and culture of Germany and Japan are a bit different from modern day Iraq, but if we ignore the apples to oranges comparison Germany and Japan were conquered.

Conquered in only the loosest definition of the word. We did not attempt to integrate Germany and Japan into the United States but instead allowed their people to set up their governments.

Also, I guess you missed my edit. The United States would not exist today if it weren't for "foreigners with guns," and it was never liberated according to your definition of liberation.
 
Conquered in only the loosest definition of the word. We did not attempt to integrate Germany and Japan into the United States but instead allowed their people to set up their governments.

Also, I guess you missed my edit. The United States would not exist today if it weren't for "foreigners with guns," and it was never liberated according to your definition of liberation.

No the German and Japanese people were conquered, defeated, and told what to do afterwards. We made sure they set up governments more favorable to us.

Again apples to oranges because the Japanese and Germans were a united people, where as Iraq is fractured into competing entities. Same with the US when it started. If we spent our time fighting ourselves continually and on large scale instead of the British, no number of French guns could have led to a functioning and sustained American government.
 
No the German and Japanese people were conquered, defeated, and told what to do afterwards. We made sure they set up governments more favorable to us.
Alright, for argument's sake let's stick with your definition of "conquered." Does that preclude them having been freed?

Again apples to oranges because the Japanese and Germans were a united people, where as Iraq is fractured into competing entities. Same with the US when it started. If we spent our time fighting ourselves continually and on large scale instead of the British, no number of French guns could have led to a functioning and sustained American government.

That has little relevance. It's up to people what they do with their freedom, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom