• 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!

Panetta unloads on White House for pulling US forces out of Iraq

Unitedwestand13 said:
if the bush administration had kept the bathast party in power and only removed saddam and his family from power, maybe ISIS would not have found such a large group of willing Collaborators.
Click to expand...

If and maybe and perhaps. But withdrawing the troops from the area and not protecting the incredible gains made by US and Coalition forces is probably the greatest catastrophe in US Military history. The consequences of this action have yet to be fully realized.
 
Jack Hays said:
Clinton, Gates, Panetta. I'll take their word over yours.
Click to expand...
If you think I am asking to you take my word about anything then you clearly don't understand our conversation or even debate for that matter... which may be why you are willing to take the word of others (debate is not a battle of opinions). Personally I would recommend against taking the word of anyone, unless they have supporting facts/documentation -- which can often be obtained independently, rendering any 'word' at all unnecessary.

But based on your apparent interpretation of our interaction here it would seem that, rather than 'taking word' you are simply not listening. Given my experience in debating conservatives this would explain a lot of the seemingly aimless, disconnected replies I receive.
 
Karl said:
If you think I am asking to you take my word about anything then you clearly don't understand our conversation or even debate for that matter... which may be why you are willing to take the word of others. Personally I would recommend against taking the word of anyone, unless they have supporting facts/documentation -- which can often be obtained independently, rendering any 'word' at all unnecessary.

Based on your apparent interpretation of our interaction here it would seem that, rather than 'taking word' you are simply not listening. Given my experience in debating conservatives this would explain a lot of the seemingly aimless, disconnected replies I receive.
Click to expand...

Since I'm not a conservative your experience is not useful. In a discussion like this I believe in evidence. First person accounts are credible. In my experience lefties tend to create and believe their own mythology when they are passionate. That's why they dislike evidence.
 
Grant said:
If and maybe and perhaps. But withdrawing the troops from the area and not protecting the incredible gains made by US and Coalition forces is probably the greatest catastrophe in US Military history. The consequences of this action have yet to be fully realized.
Click to expand...

what gains were made on behalf of the Iraqi People? we invaded their country, we toppled their government, we forced them to adopt a new system of government suitable to our expectations, we brought secratarian violence to their country, we dismantled their army, and we have became a occupying force.
 
Jack Hays said:
Because they were all complicit in crimes. Why did we remove all Nazis in Germany?
Click to expand...

And the Godwin rule rears its ugly head again in irrelevant fashion as it usually is.
 
poweRob said:
And the Godwin rule rears its ugly head again in irrelevant fashion as it usually is.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was fully in context, and was the historic precedent cited to explain removal of the Baathists. It's not a Godwin example if it's part of the historical record.
 
Jack Hays said:
Actually, it was fully in context, and was the historic precedent cited to explain removal of the Baathists. It's not a Godwin example if it's part of the historical record.
Click to expand...

Nazi's kept records too. Just like you are claiming here... OH NOES!

Get over yourself and your stupid nazi comparisons.
 
poweRob said:
Nazi's kept records too. Just like you are claiming here... OH NOES!

Get over yourself and your stupid nazi comparisons.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who brought it up. I was asked why we removed all Baathists from government in Iraq. I answered.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm not the one who brought it up. I was asked why we removed all Baathists from government in Iraq. I answered.
Click to expand...

Because the NAZI'S!!!111!!!!!!!11

Bathists didn't create instability in their country. WWII and the Iraq war... really? I mean... REALLY? Your Godwin comparisons aren't even close to accurate.

Get over yourself and your stupid nazi comparisons.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
what gains were made on behalf of the Iraqi People? we invaded their country, we toppled their government, we forced them to adopt a new system of government suitable to our expectations, we brought secratarian violence to their country, we dismantled their army, and we have became a occupying force.
Click to expand...

iraq_vote_purple_finger.jpg
 
poweRob said:
Because the NAZI'S!
Click to expand...

No. Because they were complicit in massive crimes against their own populace and against Humanity. Your focus on the fact that they were similar in that regard (and subsequent need) yes, to the Nazis, is an attempt to create a strawman argument.
 
Jack Hays said:
We removed the Baathists for the same reasons we removed the Nazis, and said so at the time.
Click to expand...

Ohhhh... because Bush said so. I see. :lamo
 
cpwill said:
No. Because they were complicit in massive crimes against their own populace and against Humanity. Your focus on the fact that they were similar in that regard (and subsequent need) yes, to the Nazis, is an attempt to create a strawman argument.
Click to expand...

Not even close. I'm no fan of the entire stupid ME region over there and their religious zealotry... but Bathists were not Nazi's. They were not doing race purifications and anything close to what the nazi's did. Comparisons are ridiculous. Bathists were in power and did whatever they thought they had to do to maintain their power. Not to create a third reich.
 
cpwill said:
No. Because they were complicit in massive crimes against their own populace and against Humanity. Your focus on the fact that they were similar in that regard (and subsequent need) yes, to the Nazis, is an attempt to create a strawman argument.
Click to expand...

Did we have to remove everyone who was a bathast at the local levels of government?
 
cpwill said:
iraq_vote_purple_finger.jpg
Click to expand...

Greetings, cpwill. :2wave:

I well remember the pictures showing how proud they were to vote! :thumbs: It's a shame that some people here don't even bother ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom