• 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

Probably not. Despite his obvious flaws, Saddam governed in a style they seemed to like. At least he kept the electricity and water running.
They didn't like him, more than anything they feared him. Imagine the United States being run by the Mafia. That was pretty much Iraq under Saddam's crime family, the Tikriti.
The US has a long established history of interfering in the business of other countries, and thereby causing mayhem and violence. Looks like we're going to do it again in Syria.

There was already mayhem and violence in Syria. Iraq is similar enough to Syria for a similar course of events to have occurred, just with the religions switched. The difference is that we didn't sit by and watch, we turned things to our liking, if only by an inch.
 
With the jail break can I say the 10 years and trillions spent on wars to tackle terrorism came to noughts?

You think the Iraq War was about terrorism?
 
Does anyone honestly think this wouldn't have happened if we didn't invade? It would be only a matter of time before Saddam fell, and after that terrorism, sectarianism and civil war would have occurred anyway. The difference is that we didn't sit by and watch it happen.

No, instead we spent hundreds of billions of dollars and killed off a few thousand soldiers helping it happen.
 
You did it in Japan and Germany after you carpet bombed the crap out of them for years... and starved the population. So yes there is a difference.

Say what?
 
You think the Iraq War was about terrorism?
Did our Fearless Leaders have a secret agenda that was the real reason why we went to Iraq?
Cause the case in public dealt quite a bit with the threat of terrorism. Pretty sure that the threat from terrorism came up more than once in the run up to the war as a reason that we should go to war.
 
Did our Fearless Leaders have a secret agenda that was the real reason why we went to Iraq?

Cause the case in public dealt quite a bit with the threat of terrorism. Pretty sure that the threat from terrorism came up more than once in the run up to the war as a reason that we should go to war.

1. WMD program (it turned out Saddam was faking it).
2. Violation of 17 Ch7 UNSCRs
3. Put an end to Saddam's genocidal reign.
4. Stabilize the region by ending Saddam's aggressive wars.
5. Liberate the people of Iraq.

2, 3, 4 and 5 were the only important reasons for me.
 
1. WMD program (it turned out Saddam was faking it).
2. Violation of 17 Ch7 UNSCRs
3. Put an end to Saddam's genocidal reign.
4. Stabilize the region by ending Saddam's aggressive wars.
5. Liberate the people of Iraq.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,​
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are​
known to be in Iraq;
.
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the​
lives and safety of United States citizens;
.
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,​
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition​
of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist​
organizations;
.
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use​
weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi​
regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise​
attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide​
them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme​
magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and​
its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by​
the United States to defend itself;​


2, 3, 4 and 5 were the only important reasons for me.
If you don't find a reason for invading Iraq to be important, does that reason actually exist?
 
If you don't find a reason for invading Iraq to be important, does that reason actually exist?

It seems you've lost the conversation. RDS claimed it was all about terrorism, in reference to Iraq (Abu Ghraib).


With the jail break can I say the 10 years and trillions spent on wars to tackle terrorism came to noughts?

That's clearly BS.
 
1. WMD program (it turned out Saddam was faking it).
2. Violation of 17 Ch7 UNSCRs
3. Put an end to Saddam's genocidal reign.
4. Stabilize the region by ending Saddam's aggressive wars.
5. Liberate the people of Iraq.

2, 3, 4 and 5 were the only important reasons for me.
6. Send a strong message to the Saudis that playing both ends of the field was no longer going to be tolerated.
 
It seems you've lost the conversation. RDS claimed it was all about terrorism, in reference to Iraq (Abu Ghraib).
That's clearly BS.
There's no indication of "all" afaict.

also
Iirc, Wolfowitz said that when they were brainstorming about how to sell the war to the American electorate. And the threat of WMD attacks was cited as a necessary requirement to get the public on board.
Terrorist attack is a quintessential reason why we decided to go. Without that threat, the electorate would not have been as likely to have backed the war.

It's not an inaccurate claim that the US went into Iraq to fight terrorism.
 
6. Send a strong message to the Saudis that playing both ends of the field was no longer going to be tolerated.

There were a lot of reasons and a lot of accomplishments. Pretending it was all about terrorism and that a jail break means nothing was accomplished is clearly ridiculous, intellectually dishonest and detrimental to ones credibility.
 
There's no indication of "all" afaict.

Of course there is:

With the jail break can I say the 10 years and trillions spent on wars to tackle terrorism came to noughts?

That's an absolute (bold) based on the premise (underlined). Would you like a link to an English class?
 
Of course there is:
That's an absolute (bold) based on the premise (underlined).
That's not accurate. First, we didn't spend trillions. So obviously, that's a generalization, hyperbole, or some other rhetorical device.
Spending money to fight terrorism does not exclude being able to spend money on other things. Therefore, saying that we spent money to fight terrorism does not exclude spending money to do something else.
Would you like a link to an English class?
Yes, please. I would like 17 links, please. Only .edu sites though.
 
That's not accurate. First, we didn't spend trillions. So obviously, that's a generalization, hyperbole, or some other rhetorical device.
Spending money to fight terrorism does not exclude being able to spend money on other things. Therefore, saying that we spent money to fight terrorism does not exclude spending money to do something else.


He meant trillions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
Not obviously "a generalization, hyperbole, or some other rhetorical device." So, now your premise is false.

Do you propose that the "10 years" was also "a generalization, hyperbole or other rhetorical device"?


"to tackle terrorism" is an exclusive premise.
"came to noughts" is an absolute excluding other objectives.

He's clearly claiming that the jail break means nothing was accomplished, based on the false premise that it was all about terrorism.
 
Last edited:
"to tackle terrorism" is an exclusive premise.
You should prob'ly explain how fighting terrorism excludes the possibility of having other goals. That is not exactly clear.

He's clearly claiming that the jail break means nothing was accomplished, based on the false premise that it was all about terrorism.
I can't really speak to what the thoughts of RDS are.
But the text presented ties the "trillions" which "came to naught" to fighting terrorism. There's nothing textually which excludes the possibility that other objectives were concurrently pursued.


...

And, still, the threat of terrorist attack originating in Iraq was the indispensable reason why Americans decided it was acceptable to go to war. Iirc, the Bush Admin even sought to conflate the concepts of pre-emptive and preventive war to help sell the war. We, as a nation, went to war with Iraq to protect and defend ourselves from WMD attack.
 
I can't really speak to what the thoughts of RDS are.

That's not necessary, his words are simple and easily interpreted.


But the text presented ties the "trillions" which "came to naught" to fighting terrorism. There's nothing textually which excludes the possibility that other objectives were concurrently pursued.

The 10 years and trillions is attributed to "tackling terrorism" at the omission of other objectives and the absolute of "came to noughts" clearly excludes other objectives.
 
That's not necessary, his words are simple and easily interpreted.
If they're so easily interpreted, why are you getting it wrong? ; )

...the absolute of "came to noughts" clearly excludes other objectives.
Inigo Montoya has a message for you.
Came to naught just means that the money was wasted. It doesn't speak to any exclusivity.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Cam...t&aqs=chrome.0.69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


Obviously, ymmv.
 
Came to naught just means that the money was wasted. It doesn't speak to any exclusivity.

It means that the time and money came to nothing. If the time and money came to nothing, there can be no other objective.
 
Now can anyone actually give an honest, direct response to this question:

Do you think that if Saddam fell without US involvement, Iraq wouldn't have degraded into sectarianism and civil war?




Since the USA was involved in Saddam Hussein's downfall and demise how do you suggest that we grade the answers to your what if question?




"If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there." ` Lewis Carroll
 
It means that the time and money came to nothing. If the time and money came to nothing, there can be no other objective.
That is, if you remove it from the original statement, remove it from the context.

The context was terrorism in Iraq. Apparently it was for nothing since terrorism is greater now than in 2003 in Iraq.....and worse still....there was no organized AQ elements operating in Iraq prior to the US's illegal invasion.
 
It means that the time and money came to nothing. If the time and money came to nothing, there can be no other objective.
To the un-initiated, it seems that one could have multiple projects and have some of the efforts come to naught but other efforts come to successful fruition.

Please explain how if I say that one of my projects failed, came to naught, that means that I had no other projects ongoing. I look forward to your response.
 
That is, if you remove it from the original statement, remove it from the context.

The context was terrorism in Iraq. Apparently it was for nothing since terrorism is greater now than in 2003 in Iraq.....and worse still....there was no organized AQ elements operating in Iraq prior to the US's illegal invasion.

You cannot ignore the claim that 10 years and trillions of dollars came to nothing because of the jail break.
 
Back
Top Bottom