• 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

Grant said:
Then this might be a good time to demonstrate your knowledge of the subject.
Click to expand...

I did. I know enough that they don't compare. Germany and Japan were largely unified countries who fought as a country. Iraq d didn't bomb us or declare war on us. We invaded, fought various groups in an un unified country. They are divided, and largely have been. So, there is no valid comparison.
 
Boo Radley said:
I did. I know enough that they don't compare. Germany and Japan were largely unified countries who fought as a country. Iraq d didn't bomb us or declare war on us. We invaded, fought various groups in an un unified country. They are divided, and largely have been. So, there is no valid comparison.
Click to expand...

And of course they all used different languages.
 
Grant said:
And of course they all used different languages.
Click to expand...

The point is, it's not a valid comparison. The history, the events, the possibilities are very different.
 
Grant said:
That's when people went to war and they were serious about winning. If WWI or WWII was fought now would the people support them the way they did then? Or would they demand withdrawal when the first body bags arrived home?

The media and Hollywood also supported the American President and the troops. I feel safe in saying that they would be making the claim that "Not all Germans are Nazis" and "Not all Japanese are Imperialists".

Now they are just as likely to support Communism and Islamism as Democracy and human frights and freedoms.
Click to expand...

True during WW2 and WW1 we fought to win those wars and there was no doubt about why we were fighting those wars. That's a stark contrast to what happened with Iraq. Where the primary reason to go was for non-existent WMD's. Woodrow Wilson (D) led to crush his enemies. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D) fully intended to crush his opposition. That's that's what happens when Democrats start wars. Democrats are slow to go to war and fight to win. Republicans are saber rattlers and then cut n' run before the job is done. Bush started the Iraq war for nebulous reasons and then sign'ed the cut n' run treaty of surrender. And now you've got Republicans trying to saber rattle America into another war with Syria and Iran.
 
reinoe said:
True during WW2 and WW1 we fought to win those wars and there was no doubt about why we were fighting those wars. That's a stark contrast to what happened with Iraq. Where the primary reason to go was for non-existent WMD's. Woodrow Wilson (D) led to crush his enemies. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D) fully intended to crush his opposition. That's that's what happens when Democrats start wars. Democrats are slow to go to war and fight to win. Republicans are saber rattlers and then cut n' run before the job is done. Bush started the Iraq war for nebulous reasons and then sign'ed the cut n' run treaty of surrender. And now you've got Republicans trying to saber rattle America into another war with Syria and Iran.
Click to expand...

Your description of WWI and WWII is accurate, along with your characterizations of Wilson and Roosevelt. However those Dems were followed by Truman, who botched Korea where we had to be rescued by Eisenhower (R), and by LBJ who botched Vietnam where we had to be rescued by Nixon. Then came Jimmy Carter who was so inept and damaging to the US image that it took Reagan to get the world to take the US seriously again.

Bush41 participated in humanitarian relief efforts in Somalia, but resisted efforts to get involved in nation-building and was criticized for it. Clinton succumbed to the nation-building pitch, and gave us Black Hawk Down. Clinton followed up by responding to terrorist attacks with mostly useless missile strikes against aspirin factories and abandoned tent camps and generally presented the US as weak and indecisive, thereby setting us on The Path to 9/11.

Over the last 60 years it is the Democrats who have rushed war while demonstrating again and again that they do not have the attention span to finish what they start.
 
Anyone can point out the difference between different countries, etc. but the things are to learn is from the similarities of war, how to strategize, propagandize, etc.The points you tried to make are mundane and easily noted.
 
Grant said:
Anyone can point out the difference between different countries, etc. but the things are to learn is from the similarities of war, how to strategize, propagandize, etc.The points you tried to make are mundane and easily noted.
Click to expand...

All of which is different depending on those differences. We haven't learned that. Too many think they can do the same things under different circumstances.
 
reinoe said:
True during WW2 and WW1 we fought to win those wars and there was no doubt about why we were fighting those wars. That's a stark contrast to what happened with Iraq.
Click to expand...

Why was the US involved in WWI? What was the goal? Do you know without looking it up?

If people don't know why the Coalition was involved in Iraq then that's the fault of the individual. We must understand that there will be anti war propaganda from every quarter but all the propaganda was against the Coalition, with claims it was "all about oil", etc. Many, particularly on the left, were willing to side with a know despot and merciless dictator rather than their own country. And thing is is, they didn't even need propaganda from the terrorist camp.. The American and British people, again with a concentration from the left, did it against themselves.

Where the primary reason to go was for non-existent WMD's.
Click to expand...

There were many reasons but that was not the primary reason. You can look it up for yourself. Without doing your own research you'll easily become the victim of anti American propaganda.

Woodrow Wilson (D) led to crush his enemies. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D) fully intended to crush his opposition. That's that's what happens when Democrats start wars. Democrats are slow to go to war and fight to win. Republicans are saber rattlers and then cut n' run before the job is done. Bush started the Iraq war for nebulous reasons and then sign'ed the cut n' run treaty of surrender. And now you've got Republicans trying to saber rattle America into another war with Syria and Iran.
Click to expand...

When Americans were less divided they supported their presidents in time of war, Republican and Democrat alike. But that all changed with Vietnam (D) and the left turned on their leaders and the military. Nothing has changed since then.
 
iliveonramen said:
So morale of the story...don't get into wars unless you absolutely need to.
Click to expand...

Don't go into wars unless you intend to win. But Americans will never win another war in our lifetimes, at least not one that lasts over a week.
 
Grant said:
Don't go into wars unless you intend to win. But Americans will never win another war in our lifetimes, at least not one that lasts over a week.
Click to expand...

They kind of go hand and hand. When large swaths of the population are like "why the **** are we here again?" they probably aren't willing to spend trillions and lose thousands of lives in order stay until the end.
 
iliveonramen said:
They kind of go hand and hand. When large swaths of the population are like "why the **** are we here again?" they probably aren't willing to spend trillions and lose thousands of lives in order stay until the end.
Click to expand...

They may go to war but will not want anyone to get hurt when they do.

We can see in this thread, which began with terrorist bombings in Iraq, how quickly it evolved into anti-American propaganda. How can any country win when their citizenry is so divided that the enemy doesn't even need propaganda? The American people will do it to themselves, and the Islamists know it.
 
Grant said:
They may go to war but will not want anyone to get hurt when they do.

We can see in this thread, which began with terrorist bombings in Iraq, how quickly it evolved into anti-American propaganda. How can any country win when their citizenry is so divided that the enemy doesn't even need propaganda? The American people will do it to themselves, and the Islamists know it.
Click to expand...

We stayed in Afghanistan until Osama and his main guys have been killed. I think the message is pretty clear...if you plan an attack against the US you will be droned/killed by SEALs but the US will actually invade countries to kill your ass.

Islamist didn't control Iraq. Islamist weren't in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I'm not sure what they learned about Iraq other than sting the US hard enough and they'll bankrupt themselves chasing every boogeyman in the world.
 
Grant said:
Really? Who is this "they"?
Click to expand...

Those sending us to stupid wars like VN and Iraq. It's a rather long list of people, but so the plural pronoun is sufficient. ;)
 
Grant said:
Why was the US involved in WWI? What was the goal? Do you know without looking it up?

If people don't know why the Coalition was involved in Iraq then that's the fault of the individual. We must understand that there will be anti war propaganda from every quarter but all the propaganda was against the Coalition, with claims it was "all about oil", etc. Many, particularly on the left, were willing to side with a know despot and merciless dictator rather than their own country. And thing is is, they didn't even need propaganda from the terrorist camp.. The American and British people, again with a concentration from the left, did it against themselves.



There were many reasons but that was not the primary reason. You can look it up for yourself. Without doing your own research you'll easily become the victim of anti American propaganda.



When Americans were less divided they supported their presidents in time of war, Republican and Democrat alike. But that all changed with Vietnam (D) and the left turned on their leaders and the military. Nothing has changed since then.
Click to expand...
Actually the "Do you want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" was the primary reason. The whole "Saddam is a terrible despot/violated U.N. Declarations" is just revisionist history. WMD's was the primary reason being pushed by the Bush administration for going to war in IRAQ, and the apologists are now trying to backtrack. Despot or no despot, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Of course the American people will become divided about Iraq. The reasons we went there were nebulous and ultimately false in many instances.

You'll notice that that American people were completely united in going into Afganistan because the reason we went there were clear and decisive. Your attempt to blame liberals for not supporting the president in Iraq is noted. Supporting the president does not mean accepting everything the government tells you. If the goal was really to get rid of despot brutalizing their people then there are several other nations that should have been higher on the list for invasion than Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
They may go to war but will not want anyone to get hurt when they do.

We can see in this thread, which began with terrorist bombings in Iraq, how quickly it evolved into anti-American propaganda. How can any country win when their citizenry is so divided that the enemy doesn't even need propaganda? The American people will do it to themselves, and the Islamists know it.
Click to expand...
Questioning why we were in Iraq in the first place is not "anti-American propoganda. If the Iraq war was a war worth fighting then there wouldn't be muddled messaging and a divided populace.
 
reinoe said:
Questioning why we were in Iraq in the first place is not "anti-American propoganda. If the Iraq war was a war worth fighting then there wouldn't be muddled messaging and a divided populace.
Click to expand...

Like in US politics?
 
Bitch about Iraq all you want...there are still less deaths in Iraq than in the city of Chicago in any given year.
 
iliveonramen said:
They kind of go hand and hand. When large swaths of the population are like "why the **** are we here again?" they probably aren't willing to spend trillions and lose thousands of lives in order stay until the end.
Click to expand...

When large swathes of the population believe that it was "all about oil" or WMD then they are more ignorant than their enemies and doomed to fail. No foreign propagande is necessary if domestic propaganda is sufficient, and all the weaponry in the world is of little use. Propaganda has become the key.
 
reinoe said:
Actually the "Do you want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" was the primary reason.
Click to expand...

Who are you quoting here? I believe you've just made this up and are therefor a propagandist. Is that correct?

The whole "Saddam is a terrible despot/violated U.N. Declarations" is just revisionist history.
Click to expand...

That's a lie.
WMD's was the primary reason being pushed by the Bush administration for going to war in IRAQ,
Click to expand...

Another lie.
and the apologists are now trying to backtrack.
Click to expand...
Backtrack aaginst what?

Despot or no despot, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
Click to expand...

Who said he did?
Of course the American people will become divided about Iraq. The reasons we went there were nebulous and ultimately false in many instances.
Click to expand...

Only among the terminaly stupid, and they numbered in the thousands.
You'll notice that that American people were completely united in going into Afganistan because the reason we went there were clear and decisive.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the won Obama thought was important and from which he is now retreating.
Your attempt to blame liberals for not supporting the president in Iraq is noted.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Supporting the president does not mean accepting everything the government tells you.
Click to expand...
Granted. But it does not mean you lie against your leadership either, and support those who are killing American people.
If the goal was really to get rid of despot brutalizing their people then there are several other nations that should have been higher on the list for invasion than Iraq.
Click to expand...

Which one would you have America invade? Tibet?

The Middle East is the source of modern terror but if you can come up with a more dangerous area of the world then we can take a look at it.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
When large swathes of the population believe that it was "all about oil" or WMD then they are more ignorant than their enemies and doomed to fail. No foreign propagande is necessary if domestic propaganda is sufficient, and all the weaponry in the world is of little use. Propaganda has become the key.
Click to expand...

Wowzers...so the case made wasn't about WMD's? Do I have to post the gazillion youtube clips of Cheney/Powel/Rice/Bush using that as justification for war? The mushroom clouds over New York or the multiple other scenarios where the Iraq WMD program is given to terrorists and then used against the US? The whole "Hussein is a bad guy and we're liberating the people" became the justification AFTER! the administration couldn't find any WMD's....and believe me they tried. When I was there in 2004 one of my duties was to ride with US intelligence to try and track down this supposed arsenal of WMD's.
 
reinoe said:
Questioning why we were in Iraq in the first place is not "anti-American propoganda. If the Iraq war was a war worth fighting then there wouldn't be muddled messaging and a divided populace.
Click to expand...

The problem is that there is a muddled populace which forms the loudest part of the American public. You can tell that by their slogans, bumper stickers and obvious lack of research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom