• 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!

Car bombs kill nearly 80 in Iraq, target Eid festivities

It is also true that not all Germans were Nazis. But because their leaders were Nazis, there was heavy collateral damage among the non-Nazis. As long as the Islamists hide behind the innocent, those innocents are at extreme risk - unless, of course, you lack the moral courage to do the right thing and eliminate the bad guys; in that case, the bad guys win.

It is very hard to separate the good people from the bad if the good people protect and make excuses for the bad.
 
Can't undo going there. But, we should have made sure things were going to remain stable, before we left.

You assume that was possible. As one trooper said some years ago, "we could stay here a year,or fifty years, the result will be they same." It has and will always be up to the Iraqis. Once we destabilized the country, the out come was beyond our control.
 
It's a good thing we left, but we never should have been there in the first place.
 
Yeah they were REAL FREAKIN' stable while we were there! :roll:

Look at any stats/graphs on civilians deaths and you see using 2008 as measure, the first half was high, a sudden drop off in the last half and roughly 1/3 the number since. So those who lament a lack of 'leadership' under President Obama have not done their homework.

Those who use such vague words like 'stable' just quibble. The death toll is stable, the government is stable, the borders stable, and oil production stable.

None of which means much, just the killing continues at a lower rate than the first half of '08, the government hasn't dissolved, the borders are still there and as 'secure' as when we were there, and oil flows but not like the predictions of those who assured the American Public we would be greeted with flowers and candies... :roll:

We didn't fix much or stablize anything, simply changed the face of fear from a few to many.

Hence the reason we shouldnt have just up and hauled ass. How long did it take to stabilize Japan and Germany?
 
Hence the reason we shouldnt have just up and hauled ass. How long did it take to stabilize Japan and Germany?

We must have had different history classes in school... I don't recall reading about German or Japanese 'dead-enders' killing thousands of American soldiers after VE/VJ day, nor reading anything about the civilians of either nation killing thousands of their own every month for the years we occupied both nations. I also don't remember either nation being an artificial series of lines on a map combining ethnic/religious groups with a long hatred for each other into a nation state like most of the Middle East.

I did read where we spent years and thousands of American lives beating both WWII enemy countries into piles of rubble that left little doubt both nations, who either attacked us directly of attempted world domination, got one hellova beat down and were very defeated nations.

We gave massive aid to both nations- something BushII's neocons haughtily refused to do at first helping set in motion much of the violence in Iraq. Hungry men with automatic weapons and tons of munitions left lying around because we didn't secure them...

FYI, no yardstick a con can bring to the debate can EVER compare the stabilization we affected in German and Japanese after WWII to anything BushII's team affected in Iraq. (That is what you attempted to claim at first)
 
We must have had different history classes in school... I don't recall reading about German or Japanese 'dead-enders' killing thousands of American soldiers after VE/VJ day, nor reading anything about the civilians of either nation killing thousands of their own every month for the years we occupied both nations. I also don't remember either nation being an artificial series of lines on a map combining ethnic/religious groups with a long hatred for each other into a nation state like most of the Middle East.

I did read where we spent years and thousands of American lives beating both WWII enemy countries into piles of rubble that left little doubt both nations, who either attacked us directly of attempted world domination, got one hellova beat down and were very defeated nations.

We gave massive aid to both nations- something BushII's neocons haughtily refused to do at first helping set in motion much of the violence in Iraq. Hungry men with automatic weapons and tons of munitions left lying around because we didn't secure them...

FYI, no yardstick a con can bring to the debate can EVER compare the stabilization we affected in German and Japanese after WWII to anything BushII's team affected in Iraq. (That is what you attempted to claim at first)

I think they know just enough about history to get it wrong. They too often miss very important differences.
 
Any act of terrorism which endangers or takes innocent human lives is disgusting.

R.I.P. to innocent victims caught up in the Sunni-Shiite violence which has escalated to the point that July alone, we saw the highest death toll in Iraq since 2008.

Not good news at all for the Iraqis. Iraq's political leaders need to do more to take action to stop the madness.
 
We must have had different history classes in school... I don't recall reading about German or Japanese 'dead-enders' killing thousands of American soldiers after VE/VJ day, nor reading anything about the civilians of either nation killing thousands of their own every month for the years we occupied both nations. I also don't remember either nation being an artificial series of lines on a map combining ethnic/religious groups with a long hatred for each other into a nation state like most of the Middle East.

I did read where we spent years and thousands of American lives beating both WWII enemy countries into piles of rubble that left little doubt both nations, who either attacked us directly of attempted world domination, got one hellova beat down and were very defeated nations.

We gave massive aid to both nations- something BushII's neocons haughtily refused to do at first helping set in motion much of the violence in Iraq. Hungry men with automatic weapons and tons of munitions left lying around because we didn't secure them...

FYI, no yardstick a con can bring to the debate can EVER compare the stabilization we affected in German and Japanese after WWII to anything BushII's team affected in Iraq. (That is what you attempted to claim at first)

You're comparison only reinforces the fact that it was far too early to leave.
 
I think they know just enough about history to get it wrong. They too often miss very important differences.

You see how long it took to stabilize Japan and Germany and we didn't face near the challenges we faced in Iraq. That was my point when I mentioned the post-WW2 occupation

Do you see the difference?
 
You're comparison only reinforces the fact that it was far too early to leave.

No Sir, it reinforces the lesson forgotten in Vietnam, we could stay until cows learn calculus and Iraq will still have car bombs and groups of men found with hands tied and a single gunshot to the head- the only thing they would have in common is religious sect.

Iraq wasn't stable when the Great Cowboy BushII ran the show, but it is far less violent now than back when he was CiC. The only difference if we stayed to 'stabilize' Iraq would be an average of 2 dozen more dead American soldiers per month if our people were out in the street attempting to curb the violence.

My comparison reinforces the simple fact you never get between two cousins armed with knives hell bent on killing each other- you will get cut by both as they try and get at each other.
 
Yes, fortunately nothing bad happened there and nobody was killed under Saddam Hussein.

No, but they had a civil engineering plan, internal security, an education system, and were not at war with either themselves or anyone else.
They were for the most part a dirt speck on the earth.
 
No, but they had a civil engineering plan, internal security, an education system, and were not at war with either themselves or anyone else.
They were for the most part a dirt speck on the earth.

Their internal security system consisted of large-scale massacres, compared to which the current death-toll is pretty small.

And they were at war with most of their neighbours and a continuing threat to the other countries in the region.
 
Their internal security system consisted of large-scale massacres, compared to which the current death-toll is pretty small.

And they were at war with most of their neighbours and a continuing threat to the other countries in the region.
We kicked them out of Kuwait and the Iran Iraq war was over.
And at this rate, how long before the "large scale massacres" pale in comparison.
And you didnt answer my question. Was it worth it?
Our investment in lives and money have helped almost break OUR nation.
 
We kicked them out of Kuwait and the Iran Iraq war was over.
And at this rate, who long before the "large scale massacres" pale in comparison.
And you didnt answer my question. Was it worth it?
Our investment in lives and money have helped almost break OUR nation.

They continued to violate the terms of the cease-fire, tried to blow up a US ex-President, kept threatening their neighbours.
You also seem to forget that the US and its allies kept bombing Iraq throughout the 1990's. Would you have preferred to keep doing that for a couple of decades longer?
The number of dead from the current attacks would have to rise 100fold for it to approach the bloodletting under Saddam.
Whether it was worth it is much too soon to tell. There isn't sufficient historical perspective yet.
 
They continued to violate the terms of the cease-fire, tried to blow up a US ex-President, kept threatening their neighbours.
You also seem to forget that the US and its allies kept bombing Iraq throughout the 1990's. Would you have preferred to keep doing that for a couple of decades longer?
The number of dead from the current attacks would have to rise 100fold for it to approach the bloodletting under Saddam.
Whether it was worth it is much too soon to tell. There isn't sufficient historical perspective yet.

They continued to violate the terms of a cease fire and no fly zone.
Use air power to destroy their war machine.
Their neighbors need to start investing in their own defense.
It would have been cheaper to continue a bombing campaign then to waste how many American lives.
It will never been worth it. Just like Viet Nam.
 
They continued to violate the terms of a cease fire and no fly zone.
Use air power to destroy their war machine.
Their neighbors need to start investing in their own defense.
It would have been cheaper to continue a bombing campaign then to waste how many American lives.
It will never been worth it. Just like Viet Nam.

One can only achieve so much with air power.
Saying it was "just like Vietnam" is short for "I can't be bothered to think about it rationally".
 
One can only achieve so much with air power.
Saying it was "just like Vietnam" is short for "I can't be bothered to think about it rationally".

Show me the difference. We bailed on Iraq, we bailed on Viet Nam.
We could have taken down every air plane Iraq had with air power. Not just warn them about the no fly zone.
How am I not being rational? Because I dont agree with you? You have some inside info we dont know about.
How many of your family is buried at Arlington over a worthless war?
 
Can't undo going there. But, we should have made sure things were going to remain stable, before we left.

That is impossible to do with a foreign, occupying force and a divided people. We could not bring them democracy or stability, that should have been recognized beforehand. You can't force freedom.
 
Their internal security system consisted of large-scale massacres, compared to which the current death-toll is pretty small.

And they were at war with most of their neighbours and a continuing threat to the other countries in the region.

The large scale massacres I know of are part and parcel of the wars Iraq fought. Marsh Arabs and Kurds who sided with Iran. After Gulf WarI when Bush the Elder incited the Kurds to rise again and then gave them no backing. The official police round-ups and mass imprisonment may be down a notch, but the killings along religious lines make up for that.

Now the wars- we backed the Iraqis in the Iran/Iraq war to include intel on Iranian troop concentrations to make gas attacks more 'productive'. Only when public outcry at home over expanded use of gas weapons did Reagan's crew withdraw support.

Only when Saddam decided to reincorporate Kuwait back into traditional boundaries did we smell skunk. I doubt Saudi Arabia felt a military threat but a combined oil production of Iraq and returned province of Kuwait would RIVAL Saudi's lead in Gulf oil production.

I think many would opine that now Shiite Iran has far more power in the region and a rather sympathetic ally in Iraq. Remember Iraq refused to ban Iranian overflights bound for Syria hauling Iranian support to the Assad Regime?

While I doubt Iraq will merge with Iran, if we are fearmongering- Saudi Arabia can't be too happy a Shiite controlled nation sits on it's rather defenseless northern border. As Iraq has proven, religious differences matter far more than political ones.
 
Saudi Arabia can't be too happy a Shiite controlled nation sits on it's rather defenseless northern border. As Iraq has proven, religious differences matter far more than political ones.
Then Saudi Arabia can spend some of its trillions to defend and fight from now on.
They break it off in our back sides, then need us to defend the very product they gouge us on. Can we get any more stupid in this nation.
 
Back
Top Bottom