• 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!

ISIS seizes key Iraqi city of Ramadi as government forces pull back

In retrospect Saddam Hussein would have managed Iraq a million times better.

Saddam Hussein was an unstable megalomaniac and a constant threat to the whole region.
 
I think they do just enough to make it look like there is an effort put forth without destroying the organization. The "war of terror" is useful politically.
 
Saddam Hussein was an unstable megalomaniac and a constant threat to the whole region.

While true it is far less likely that ISIS, or someone like them, would organize under a ruler like Saddam. Again as we have discussed many times before, consider the aptitude of the people we are talking about here in adopting western governmental and social ideologies in concert with the various splinters of the same religion they all follow. I would argue well that the region is far more unstable today than it was then simply because of the small messes we have left all over the region from what we do best. Exchange one set of problematic governments for a new set of problematic governments. And do not discount that ISIS is a product of opportunity, not strength. If the Syrian government had been stronger and Saddam was still around, we would not be having this discussion. We would be talking about the impacts of brutal dictators in the region.
 
While true it is far less likely that ISIS, or someone like them, would organize under a ruler like Saddam. Again as we have discussed many times before, consider the aptitude of the people we are talking about here in adopting western governmental and social ideologies in concert with the various splinters of the same religion they all follow. I would argue well that the region is far more unstable today than it was then simply because of the small messes we have left all over the region from what we do best. Exchange one set of problematic governments for a new set of problematic governments. And do not discount that ISIS is a product of opportunity, not strength. If the Syrian government had been stronger and Saddam was still around, we would not be having this discussion. We would be talking about the impacts of brutal dictators in the region.

Jihadi terrorism long predates Saddam Hussein and developed independent of him. Saddam waged war on his neighbours and posed a continuing threat. In that he is very different from the Assad-regime in Syria. Assad and co are every bit as brutal as Saddam, but they are brutal domestically and cautious internationally.
 
Jihadi terrorism long predates Saddam Hussein and developed independent of him. Saddam waged war on his neighbours and posed a continuing threat. In that he is very different from the Assad-regime in Syria. Assad and co are every bit as brutal as Saddam, but they are brutal domestically and cautious internationally.

I'm not trying to say that Saddam was a good guy here, just pointing out the picture of Iraq then and now. Looking back it stands to reason that invading Iraq was not such a bright idea, the lasting effects will be something the next several Presidents will have to deal with. We are already up to 4 Presidents in a row to drop a bomb on Iraq for one reason or another, and as of late Iraq is in far worse shape today.
 
I'm not trying to say that Saddam was a good guy here, just pointing out the picture of Iraq then and now. Looking back it stands to reason that invading Iraq was not such a bright idea, the lasting effects will be something the next several Presidents will have to deal with. We are already up to 4 Presidents in a row to drop a bomb on Iraq for one reason or another, and as of late Iraq is in far worse shape today.

The alternative to removing Saddam Hussein was a couple of decades more of occasional bombing of Iraq and a continuing threat to the region. It would have been better if he could have been removed by an internal uprising and/or coup but this was tried and failed.
 
The alternative to removing Saddam Hussein was a couple of decades more of occasional bombing of Iraq and a continuing threat to the region. It would have been better if he could have been removed by an internal uprising and/or coup but this was tried and failed.

It still comes down to the next one in charge. In this case Iraq ended up in the hands of a very weak government over a weak enough military that a significant portion of the nation is no longer under their control in any sense. That is the point we have to evaluate, we have no choice. Ramadi is what, all of 60 miles away from Baghdad.

How can we ignore all the failures of the current Iraqi government?
 
It still comes down to the next one in charge. In this case Iraq ended up in the hands of a very weak government over a weak enough military that a significant portion of the nation is no longer under their control in any sense. That is the point we have to evaluate, we have no choice. Ramadi is what, all of 60 miles away from Baghdad.

How can we ignore all the failures of the current Iraqi government?

I certainly wouldn't say we should ignore the (many) failings of the current Iraqi government. Iraq has ceased to exist as a country and it is time to recognize this, for example by recognizing the right of the Kurds to form their own state (right now they are the most stable part of the country, another one of the benefits of the US intervention in Iraq).
 
I'm not trying to say that Saddam was a good guy here, just pointing out the picture of Iraq then and now. Looking back it stands to reason that invading Iraq was not such a bright idea, the lasting effects will be something the next several Presidents will have to deal with. We are already up to 4 Presidents in a row to drop a bomb on Iraq for one reason or another, and as of late Iraq is in far worse shape today.

The intelligence communities consensus 2006 NIE concluded that the invasion and occupation of Iraq caused an increase in global terrorism, and made America less safe. I doubt that by pointing that out that they were declaring that Saddam Hussein was a good guy.
 
I certainly wouldn't say we should ignore the (many) failings of the current Iraqi government. Iraq has ceased to exist as a country and it is time to recognize this, for example by recognizing the right of the Kurds to form their own state (right now they are the most stable part of the country, another one of the benefits of the US intervention in Iraq).

I am going to ask you to clarify, as it sounds like you may be saying the instability in Iraq is a problem but the benefit of the Kurds being closer to forming their own State makes this worthwhile.
 
The intelligence communities consensus 2006 NIE concluded that the invasion and occupation of Iraq caused an increase in global terrorism, and made America less safe. I doubt that by pointing that out that they were declaring that Saddam Hussein was a good guy.

That is not really what I was getting at, really look at what we are saying in this thread.
 
I am going to ask you to clarify, as it sounds like you may be saying the instability in Iraq is a problem but the benefit of the Kurds being closer to forming their own State makes this worthwhile.

No, that is not what I'm saying.
What i'm saying is that the current Iraqi government is a shambles and that it is a mistake to cling to Iraq as a single functioning state, because it isn't.
I am also saying that one of the conclusions to be drawn from this is that it is time to recognize the legitimate aspirations of the Kurds, who have established a functioning (but unrecognized) state inside Iraq.
And I am also saying that the fact that at least the Kurds were able to do this was one of the benefits of the US intervention in Iraq. (There were many others)
 
That is not really what I was getting at, really look at what we are saying in this thread.

He isn't interested in reading or understanding anything anybody else posts.
 
No, that is not what I'm saying.
What i'm saying is that the current Iraqi government is a shambles and that it is a mistake to cling to Iraq as a single functioning state, because it isn't.
I am also saying that one of the conclusions to be drawn from this is that it is time to recognize the legitimate aspirations of the Kurds, who have established a functioning (but unrecognized) state inside Iraq.
And I am also saying that the fact that at least the Kurds were able to do this was one of the benefits of the US intervention in Iraq. (There were many others)

Then my follow up question has to be what would be your policy suggestion for all of Iraq? Because at this point, regardless of Kurdish Independence, all that is left is to either watch the implosion eventually complete where the current Iraqi government completely fails, or agree to the "South Korea" model of permanent military occupation.
 
Then my follow up question has to be what would be your policy suggestion for all of Iraq? Because at this point, regardless of Kurdish Independence, all that is left is to either watch the implosion eventually complete where the current Iraqi government completely fails, or agree to the "South Korea" model of permanent military occupation.

Leaving apart the Kurdish region, a solution is not easy and a permanent solution can probably only be achieved in the framework of a wider reorganization of the Middle East. But currently the stars are not aligned for that, that will take a much wider regional war. In the absence of that the ideal scenario would be for the Jordanian Army to intervene in Western (i.e. Sunni) Iraq but I very much doubt the Jordanians have the appetite for that. So it will have to be a policy of muddling along.
In any event I would advocate a much more effective air campaign that relentlessly bombs IS wherever they can be found. Investing in the iraqi Army has proved to be wasted money.
 
Jihadi terrorism long predates Saddam Hussein and developed independent of him. Saddam waged war on his neighbours and posed a continuing threat. In that he is very different from the Assad-regime in Syria. Assad and co are every bit as brutal as Saddam, but they are brutal domestically and cautious internationally.
Seeing as how our inept federal government wants to overthrow both governments. I would say that it doesn't matter what type of government you are, if you're stable in the middle east chances are our government wants to topple you. Except Israel.
 
Iran is on the roster.
 
Yet another example of how terrible of an idea it was to go into Iraq in the first place back in 2003.

Yeah, if only we had known that the next President would be such a horrible CIC.
 
While true it is far less likely that ISIS, or someone like them, would organize under a ruler like Saddam. Again as we have discussed many times before, consider the aptitude of the people we are talking about here in adopting western governmental and social ideologies in concert with the various splinters of the same religion they all follow. I would argue well that the region is far more unstable today than it was then simply because of the small messes we have left all over the region from what we do best. Exchange one set of problematic governments for a new set of problematic governments. And do not discount that ISIS is a product of opportunity, not strength. If the Syrian government had been stronger and Saddam was still around, we would not be having this discussion. We would be talking about the impacts of brutal dictators in the region.

As bad as ISIS currently is, they have yet to reach the brutality of Saddam Hussein.

Wishing that Saddam was still in power to keep ISIS at bay is like wishing that you hadn't killed the man eating lion that was scaring off the man eating hyenas.
 
Yeah, if only we had known that the next President would be such a horrible CIC.

As ISIS is nothing but the new name for Al Qaeda in Iraq, a terrorist organization that started in Iraq after our invasion, it would not even exist today had we never went in.

Islamic State (ISIS) - Council on Foreign Relations

Moreover, the fact that the military of Iraq cannot defeat it, despite their outnumbering ISIS forces by over 10 to 1, is evidence of the shear incompetence of the country's government. Of course, I suppose had we continued to stay there, despite the fact the people of Iraq and its government wanted us out, at a cost of about 100 billion of month indefinitely, we could have possibly held the country together.
 
Back
Top Bottom