• 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!

CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

Papa bull said:
It's always a good idea to check your facts before other people check the facts for you and leave you looking like you make your own facts up as you go along. Iraq did kick the weapons inspectors out in 1998. Here you go. Iraq Weapons Inspections Fast Facts - CNN.com
Click to expand...

Good point. It is a good idea to check facts before posting. From your link:

September 16, 2002 - Iraq agrees unconditionally to the return of inspectors.
Click to expand...

which answers the question I asked earlier: If the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998, why did Bush have to warn them about the invasion in 2003? Now we know the rest of the story.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Good point. It is a good idea to check facts before posting. From your link:



which answers the question I asked earlier: If the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998, why did Bush have to warn them about the invasion in 2003? Now we know the rest of the story.
Click to expand...

There wasn't anything wrong with my facts. The inspectors were kicked out in 1998 and their subsequent return doesn't vindicate a fictitious claim that Saddam's didn't expel them.

And the fact that Bush warned them to evacuate in 2003 is only a splinteof the rest of the story. Saddam's non cooperation took many forms. You should read up on the history.
 
Last edited:
Papa bull said:
There wasn't anything wrong with my facts. The inspectors were kicked out in 1998 and their subsequent return doesn't vindicate a fictitious claim that Saddam's didn't expel them.

And the fact that Bush warned them to evacuate in 2003 is only a splinteof the rest of the story. Saddam's non cooperation took many forms. You should read up on the history.
Click to expand...

So, we invaded in order to get rid of an un cooperative dictator who nevertheless was no threat to the USA, and the result was exactly what should have been expected: Chaos.
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, we invaded in order to get rid of an un cooperative dictator who nevertheless was no threat to the USA, and the result was exactly what should have been expected: Chaos.
Click to expand...

That's one understandable take on it and since there aren't any false facts in that to quibble about, I see no reason to quibble. :)
 
That's if you look at issue being only Iraq instead of the Middle East.

Not sure why anyone would do that, though.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
That's if you look at issue being only Iraq instead of the Middle East.

Not sure why anyone would do that, though.
Click to expand...

In the issue of the Middle East, is it the role of the USA to go in and fix the problems that exist there?
 
Dittohead not! said:
In the issue of the Middle East, is it the role of the USA to go in and fix the problems that exist there?
Click to expand...

It is if the decision is made that it benefits US interests to such a degree that it's worthwhile. Doing some for humanitarian reasons? Of course not, that's stupid. But for geopolitical reasons? If the cost-benefit analysis works out, yes.

I'm just saying, looking at issues like in the Middle East through the prism of individual countries isn't going to be fruitful. That's the textbook definition of missing the forest for the trees- missing the holistic regional picture for the atomized, individual nation-states.
 
Leeburte said:
Very very bad example. First off we were attacked by Japan and Germany, we were never attacked by Iraq. Secondly, the implementation of democratic governments in those regions (west Germany and Japan) went very smoothly. In Iraq it started a civil war and actually created NEW and stronger terrorist organizations. Thirdly, we libertarians don't believe the U.S. Should still be in japan and Germany! It's a complete waste of my tax dollars and U.S. Resources! Socialist big spending republicans however want MORE troops over there. If it really makes you feel better having troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany and Japan, that's fine, but you have to pay for it. Don't be a socialist and force me to use my tax dollars for an international welfare cause I don't believe in.
Click to expand...

your first point is totally meaningless to the argument. because we weren't attacked we should pull out our troops and allow chaos to reign in Iraq. that makes no sense(not that it stopped Obama from doing it anyway).

on to your second point, you have proof that only a few years after WWII both Germany and Japan were humming like well oiled machines and didn't really need our help? then why the hell are we still there lee?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
It is if the decision is made that it benefits US interests to such a degree that it's worthwhile. Doing some for humanitarian reasons? Of course not, that's stupid. But for geopolitical reasons? If the cost-benefit analysis works out, yes.

I'm just saying, looking at issues like in the Middle East through the prism of individual countries isn't going to be fruitful. That's the textbook definition of missing the forest for the trees- missing the holistic regional picture for the atomized, individual nation-states.
Click to expand...

And getting back specifically to the invasion of Iraq, was that worthwhile from the perspective of benefiting US interests? Given the enormous cost in terms of both blood and treasure, I say no. The results of the invasion have not been positive, have not furthered US interests in the region, have been costly to the extreme.
 
JoeTrumps said:
your first point is totally meaningless to the argument. because we weren't attacked we should pull out our troops and allow chaos to reign in Iraq. that makes no sense(not that it stopped Obama from doing it anyway).

on to your second point, you have proof that only a few years after WWII both Germany and Japan were humming like well oiled machines and didn't really need our help? then why the hell are we still there lee?
Click to expand...

As to the first point, yes, policy differs based in circumstances. A world encompassing war initiated by two first world nation aggressors requires a completely different occupation strategy than a war with a third world non-aggressor nation, based on two primary reasons that were found to be completely false. And actually, the occupation of mainland Japan only lasted seven years, but the agreement allowed the US to maintain bases on islands like Okinawa.

As for the second point, the proof is called a history book. They made us read those to graduate college.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
In the issue of the Middle East, is it the role of the USA to go in and fix the problems that exist there?
Click to expand...
The problems in the Middle East will not remain in the Middle East. Now there is no control over what's going on there and containment becomes a more serious problem. Fifty thousand military remaining in the Middle East, as many advised.

Even the NYTimes had an article on it at the time. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/w...expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html?_r=0

So did Panetta. BBC News - Iraq will ask US troops to stay post-2011, says Panetta

And this on Iran's seeking more control over the Middle East. U.S. Eyes Covert Plan to Counter Iran in Iraq - WSJ
 
Dittohead not! said:
And getting back specifically to the invasion of Iraq, was that worthwhile from the perspective of benefiting US interests? Given the enormous cost in terms of both blood and treasure, I say no. The results of the invasion have not been positive, have not furthered US interests in the region, have been costly to the extreme.
Click to expand...

It could have been extremely advantageous, had it been executed correctly. After the situation was initially mishandled, policies were adjusted and strides were made. But between the antiwar/antiimperialist braying at home and the Shia politicians in Baghdad, that momentum couldn't be sustained.
 
I haven't seen any official details about these 1,500, but it seems likely they are mostly special forces of some type. If they are going to be coaching local troops, or designating targets for aircraft, many or most will have to get pretty close to the jihadists. And things will always go wrong--not least because some of the supposedly-friendly local troops are working with the enemy.

Am I the only one who wonders who will help any of our men who run into a larger force than expected, are ambushed or surrounded, or in some other way get into a desperate situation? Only if they are near Baghdad or Irbil will much help be available. In other places, without any forward bases from which strong forces supported by armed helicopters, etc. could rush to the rescue in an hour or two, some of these "advisers" are very likely to be captured or killed.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
It could have been extremely advantageous, had it been executed correctly. After the situation was initially mishandled, policies were adjusted and strides were made. But between the antiwar/antiimperialist braying at home and the Shia politicians in Baghdad, that momentum couldn't be sustained.
Click to expand...

The way to have executed it correctly would have been to just stay away. Saddam Hussain may not exactly have been a democratically elected leader, but he did keep Iraq stable and kept Al Qaeda out. That may not have b een great for the Iraqis, but it was in the interest of the United States.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The way to have executed it correctly would have been to just stay away. Saddam Hussain may not exactly have been a democratically elected leader, but he did keep Iraq stable and kept Al Qaeda out. That may not have b een great for the Iraqis, but it was in the interest of the United States.
Click to expand...

But having a more democratic Middle East is better for the US, in the long run. The issue with the Middle East is since the fall of the Ottoman Empire there has been precious little means for the common person to feel enfranchised. This only promotes revolutionary ideology and actions- which is all Muslim extremism is, as dictators typically restricted all opposing parties and any civic institutions that could defy them, but left the mosque alone, where dissent was naturally funneled into, but I digress.

As long as the only outlet for enfranchisement remained in revolutionary actions, the world was going to suffer violent Arab attacks globally- particularly with the general democratization of violence that we've seen with the rise of the internet and all that. With this in mind, the repeated violations of Saddam Hussein became an extremely attractive- and compared to any other area, a very easily sellable- opportunity for affecting that change and managing it. Of course it was going to be messy at first, but the bumbling done in 2003 made it that much harder to even institute a more open society, period, let alone manage its maturity. But by 2007 the security situation had stabilized and the next step could be initiated.

Except the folks I've mentioned in a previous post put the brakes on all that. So that was bad.

And keeping Saddam in power wouldn't have done anything but kick that can down the road a bit, hoping it'd go away. After 9/11, policy makers weren't in the mood to just hope it'd go away. Which I understand and appreciate, but they also weren't "in the mood" to execute the invasion correctly, which I don't.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
But having a more democratic Middle East is better for the US, in the long run. The issue with the Middle East is since the fall of the Ottoman Empire there has been precious little means for the common person to feel enfranchised. This only promotes revolutionary ideology and actions- which is all Muslim extremism is, as dictators typically restricted all opposing parties and any civic institutions that could defy them, but left the mosque alone, where dissent was naturally funneled into, but I digress.

As long as the only outlet for enfranchisement remained in revolutionary actions, the world was going to suffer violent Arab attacks globally- particularly with the general democratization of violence that we've seen with the rise of the internet and all that. With this in mind, the repeated violations of Saddam Hussein became an extremely attractive- and compared to any other area, a very easily sellable- opportunity for affecting that change and managing it. Of course it was going to be messy at first, but the bumbling done in 2003 made it that much harder to even institute a more open society, period, let alone manage its maturity. But by 2007 the security situation had stabilized and the next step could be initiated.

Except the folks I've mentioned in a previous post put the brakes on all that. So that was bad.

And keeping Saddam in power wouldn't have done anything but kick that can down the road a bit, hoping it'd go away. After 9/11, policy makers weren't in the mood to just hope it'd go away. Which I understand and appreciate, but they also weren't "in the mood" to execute the invasion correctly, which I don't.
Click to expand...
And part of not executing the invasion correctly was in conflating Saddam Hussain and his lack of compliance and supposed WMD with the attack on the WTC, which was Al Qaeda, which was not in Iraq until after the invasion.
 
Dittohead not! said:
And part of not executing the invasion correctly was in conflating Saddam Hussain and his lack of compliance and supposed WMD with the attack on the WTC, which was Al Qaeda, which was not in Iraq until after the invasion.
Click to expand...

No. Simply, no. There's no "conflating", it only looks like that you're not looking at the Middle East as a system in and of itself. It's like saying someone is "conflating" diabetes, a blood sugar deficiency, with someone losing their foot. On the surface it kinda looks unrelated. Unless you understand that, no, they are actually related. Or like the relationship between tooth plaque and heart disease. Someone telling you to brush better because it could affect your heart's health might sound stupid and like they're "conflating" two different issues...unless you know better.

Which I just explained, so I'm not sure why you just repeated yourself.
 
Dittohead not! said:
And getting back specifically to the invasion of Iraq, was that worthwhile from the perspective of benefiting US interests? Given the enormous cost in terms of both blood and treasure, I say no. The results of the invasion have not been positive, have not furthered US interests in the region, have been costly to the extreme.
Click to expand...
The results were positive until the forces were removed from Iraq. There were costs of blood and treasure and those costs and sacrifices should have been protected. Leaving meant throwing all those lives, treasure and gains away.
 
Dittohead not! said:
And part of not executing the invasion correctly was in conflating Saddam Hussain and his lack of compliance and supposed WMD with the attack on the WTC, which was Al Qaeda, which was not in Iraq until after the invasion.
Click to expand...

You keep confusing Saddam and Iraq with the entire Middle East. Recall that the terrorists came form the Middle East, the 'caliphate' is now in the Middle East, international terrorism has its roots in the Middle East. You can forget about the geographical lines imposed by the 'imperialists' and think about the area in its entirety.
 
Grant said:
You keep confusing Saddam and Iraq with the entire Middle East. Recall that the terrorists came form the Middle East, the 'caliphate' is now in the Middle East, international terrorism has its roots in the Middle East. You can forget about the geographical lines imposed by the 'imperialists' and think about the area in its entirety.
Click to expand...

Which is the only way you can possibly justify having attacked a secular state in the name of fighting Islamic Jihad.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Errr...that's why it happened.
Click to expand...

That's why the invasion happened? Or the Islamic Jihad?

The US didn't invade the Middle East. We invaded Iraq. The reason had nothing really to do with the attack on the WTC, or on Saddam Hussain's intransigence, or on the fear of WMD. No one in power really expected to be able to establish a western democracy in Iraq. The Neocons expected to be able to have a military presence in the Middle East indefinitely and to be able to impose a Pax Americana (their word, not mine) on the area. Unfortunately, the people of this country weren't on board with their plans, their philosophy, their goals. Had they been up front with the voters, no one would have been ready to go to war in the Middle East. Instead, they intimated that we were waging a war against the people who had attacked the US and were going to eliminate a threat in the form of WMD in the hands of a dictator.

Now, the Neocons are gone, but their war is still being waged and will be for the foreseeable future.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That's why the invasion happened? Or the Islamic Jihad?

The US didn't invade the Middle East. We invaded Iraq. The reason had nothing really to do with the attack on the WTC, or on Saddam Hussain's intransigence, or on the fear of WMD. No one in power really expected to be able to establish a western democracy in Iraq. The Neocons expected to be able to have a military presence in the Middle East indefinitely and to be able to impose a Pax Americana (their word, not mine) on the area. Unfortunately, the people of this country weren't on board with their plans, their philosophy, their goals. Had they been up front with the voters, no one would have been ready to go to war in the Middle East. Instead, they intimated that we were waging a war against the people who had attacked the US and were going to eliminate a threat in the form of WMD in the hands of a dictator.

Now, the Neocons are gone, but their war is still being waged and will be for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

I just told you why in my last few posts. This is neorealism on an international relations-level. It has nothing really to do with "neocons" or anything like that. What you're talking about is the cassus belli that was given to voters. Of course that's gonna be "rah rah threat" and "blah blah he could attack", because the average voter either isn't intelligent enough to understand complex geopolitics or doesn't bother to.

I told you why the invasion occurred. It wasn't because of lolwmds nor was it because anyone thought Saddam had a connection to al Qaeda any more than that governments like Saddam's had made it so organizations like al Qaeda were the only viable outlet for enfranchisement via revolutionary change. If you understand that, what do you think "Pax Americana" means? It was chess, not checkers, and the problem with democracy in general is that there's far too many checkers players to begin with.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
I just told you why in my last few posts. This is neorealism on an international relations-level. It has nothing really to do with "neocons" or anything like that. What you're talking about is the cassus belli that was given to voters. Of course that's gonna be "rah rah threat" and "blah blah he could attack", because the average voter either isn't intelligent enough to understand complex geopolitics or doesn't bother to.

I told you why the invasion occurred. It wasn't because of lolwmds nor was it because anyone thought Saddam had a connection to al Qaeda any more than that governments like Saddam's had made it so organizations like al Qaeda were the only viable outlet for enfranchisement via revolutionary change. If you understand that, what do you think "Pax Americana" means? It was chess, not checkers, and the problem with democracy in general is that there's far too many checkers players to begin with.
Click to expand...
It had everything to do with Neocons and the now defunct Project for a New American Century (PNAC) of which Cheney,
Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld were members. They're the ones who were calling for a Pax Americana, meaning that the US would impose order on the world through force or threat of force.

The PNAC is now on the dustbin of history, but the war lives on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom