• 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!

White House Promises to Bomb Ramadi Until City Retaken From ISIS

iguanaman said:
The "you break it ,you bought it" analogy has some validity but only if we can do things that won't make the situation worse. Going back with 100's of 1000's of troops will not fix the middle east.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it will. If I were Commander-in-Chief, I'd be hesitant to give the order to go back in (with Congressional approval, of course). It's just a bitter feeling from the failure. It bothers me as we see the regional threat grow exponentially day by day.

I'm not saying "Rev-up the A-10s, let's get to work!", but it's disheartening to see the progress we were making burst into flames. I'm not sure our withdrawal made the countries involved safer, in fact I think it's had the opposite effect. Drone strikes/air campaigns likely aren't going to be enough to put an end to their reign of terror, but I'm stumped and can't think of a proper solution.
 
Trojan said:
I'm not saying it will. If I were Commander-in-Chief, I'd be hesitant to give the order to go back in (with Congressional approval, of course). It's just a bitter feeling from the failure. It bothers me as we see the regional threat grow exponentially day by day.

I'm not saying "Rev-up the A-10s, let's get to work!", but it's disheartening to see the progress we were making burst into flames. I'm not sure our withdrawal made the countries involved safer, in fact I think it's had the opposite effect. Drone strikes/air campaigns likely aren't going to be enough to put an end to their reign of terror, but I'm stumped and can't think of a proper solution.
Click to expand...

And it bothers you here in America because....? I hope it is not because you supported the war and are now worried it was a mistake. Lot's of people were fooled by the rhetoric at the time. Don't blame yourself. The Govt. that was installed after Saddam was doomed to fail from the start, if it wasn't ISIS it would have been some other Sunni group that would have taken the Sunni areas unopposed. The Iraqi army has been purged of Sunnis and the Shia's that are left will not fight for Sunni territory. You can't install a sectarian "democracy" and expect it to work. Believe it or not Sunnis and Shia's lived in the same neighborhoods under Saddam, that was not possible after he was deposed.
 
Born Free said:
Seems we're loosing that battle too. As for creating a mess, Libya is also a mess, I still don't know whey we took Gaddafi out.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Hillary will respond to that should she ever decide to start answering questions. I can't see that happening any time soon, if ever.
 
iguanaman said:
And it bothers you here in America because....? I hope it is not because you supported the war and are now worried it was a mistake. Lot's of people were fooled by the rhetoric at the time. Don't blame yourself. The Govt. that was installed after Saddam was doomed to fail from the start, if it wasn't ISIS it would have been some other Sunni group that would have taken the Sunni areas unopposed. The Iraqi army has been purged of Sunnis and the Shia's that are left will not fight for Sunni territory. You can't install a sectarian "democracy" and expect it to work. Believe it or not Sunnis and Shia's lived in the same neighborhoods under Saddam, that was not possible after he was deposed.
Click to expand...
It certainly was possible, and it was demonstrated. FLASHBACK
 
Grant said:
No, it doesn't. Iraq was "stable" at one time and there was no 'brutal dictatorship' involved.FLASHBACK
Click to expand...

You don't believe anything Obama says. Why this, because it floats Bush's colossal failure, lol. How truly transparent.
 
Grant said:
Do you believe Obama when he said this? FLASHBACK

Or Biden when he said this? Biden Once Called Iraq One of Obama's 'Great Achievements' | The Weekly Standard
Click to expand...

Of course not.

In warning the president about invading Iraq unprovoked, he (Powell) said, “if you break it, you own it,” meaning that the United States would be responsible for the future of Iraq if it took down a treacherous yet stable Hussein government.

Powell’s comments also recognize a sad fact of international diplomacy. There are lots of bad guys out there, and sometimes bad leaders are needed to keep peace and stability in countries where both peace and stability are rare.

He (Hussein) also served as a consistent leader in a region of the world where stability is rare. Under his rule, Iraq was relatively peaceful and safe.

Now you know when Iraq was under relative peace and stability according to Powell.

http://m.thefiscaltimes.com/all/articles-2013-08-26-how-saddam-hussein-made-the-middle-east-stable#1
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
So you didn't believe either Obama or Biden when they said Iraq was stable and sovereign, self-reliant, and a 'great achievement? Why do you suppose they were lying?
Click to expand...

Whether they were lying, wishful thinking, or just throwing Bush a bone, I don't know. But it was wrong nevertheless. I see you ignored Powell's comments on Iraq under the leadership of Hussein.
 
Born Free said:
But now Obama has gone back in to bomb the crap out of the palace and that is not working. Obama pulled out all the troops then started sending them back in, plus a bunch of planes. If we're not the worlds police what the hell is he doing going back into Iraq. Why did he go into Libya.
Click to expand...

Because he sees us as the world's police. I don't. Which puts conservative hawks in such a mental quagmire in that they want what Obama's doing but can't actually allow themselves to agree with Obama on anything at the same time.
 
Grant said:
No, it doesn't. Iraq was "stable" at one time and there was no 'brutal dictatorship' involved.FLASHBACK
Click to expand...

Sure, when we had 150,000 troops there the country was relatively stable. I guess you wanted the United States to maintain that kind of troop presence in Iraq indefinitely.
 
Trojan said:
You're drastically inflating your numbers, unless you have a source that says otherwise.

March 2003 to December 2011 is 104 months. 100 billion per month would be > ten trillion dollars, even though estimates say that the Iraq War cost us $2.19 trillion, or 6 trillion over four decades. CBO estimates placed the cost of "temporary occupation" at $1-$4 billion per month. More than the $210-$300 million it costs us to perform air operations in Syria and Iraq against ISIL each month now, but not nearly as astronomical as you're claiming. If we double the high-end ($4 billion), and spread that over a period of 5 years (60 months), that would be 59% of one year's total defense spending - $480 billion dollars.
Click to expand...

You are right, somehow I had conflated the costs per year with the costs per month. The direct costs per year of our being in Iraq was around 100 billion a year or so.
 
Grant said:
So you didn't believe either Obama or Biden when they said Iraq was stable and sovereign, self-reliant, and a 'great achievement? Why do you suppose they were lying?
Click to expand...

I've told you before, the achievement was the withdrawal of our troops from that hellhole not to mention fulfilling the treaty the GW Bush signed. Are you saying Bush lied when he said the same things as Obama about Iraq? If Obama lied then it was only to cover for Bush's lies. Presidents do that.
 
Montecresto said:
Whether they were lying, wishful thinking, or just throwing Bush a bone, I don't know. But it was wrong nevertheless. I see you ignored Powell's comments on Iraq under the leadership of Hussein.
Click to expand...
Bush was out of it by then as these staments took place after his Presidency. Did you realize that terrorist groups would take over Iraq and other areas of the world once Obama , against all Military advice, pulled the troops?

Powell wasn't relevant to the conversation as this occurred before the Obama Presidency as well..
 
iguanaman said:
I've told you before, the achievement was the withdrawal of our troops from that hellhole not to mention fulfilling the treaty the GW Bush signed. Are you saying Bush lied when he said the same things as Obama about Iraq? If Obama lied then it was only to cover for Bush's lies. Presidents do that.
Click to expand...
In fact it is a hellhole now but wasn't when the troops were withdrawn. And you also said "Whether they were lying, wishful thinking, or just throwing Bush a bone, I don't know". If any of this is true how can it be 'an achievement'? Do you understand about the rise of international Islamism throughout the Middle East and Africa?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Sure, when we had 150,000 troops there the country was relatively stable. I guess you wanted the United States to maintain that kind of troop presence in Iraq indefinitely.
Click to expand...
Is it your understanding that the military advised that 150,000 troops remain in Iraq? Also, is it your understanding that other international forces wouldn't be involved in maintaining order there? You must have heard about US Troops being involved in maintaining peace in Europe, South Korea, and elsewhere, and with great success.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You are right, somehow I had conflated the costs per year with the costs per month. The direct costs per year of our being in Iraq was around 100 billion a year or so.
Click to expand...
Can you think of any way in which these costs may have been recovered?
 
poweRob said:
Because he sees us as the world's police. I don't. Which puts conservative hawks in such a mental quagmire in that they want what Obama's doing but can't actually allow themselves to agree with Obama on anything at the same time.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with being "The World's Police". The American people committed themselves to a war, lost many good people, spent billions of dollars, eliminated an insanely murderous dictator, introduced democracy to the country for the first time in its history and then made an ignoble retreat by throwing it all away.

That has absolutely nothing to do with being the "World's Police", something Congress never approved anyway.
 
Grant said:
Is it your understanding that the military advised that 150,000 troops remain in Iraq? Also, is it your understanding that other international forces wouldn't be involved in maintaining order there? You must have heard about US Troops being involved in maintaining peace in Europe, South Korea, and elsewhere, and with great success.
Click to expand...

How many Islamic Extremists are there in Germany, South Korea or Japan? Do you happen to have any more absurd comparisons?

Moreover, if international forces would not be responsible for maintaining order, what would the be the point of having them there? The Iraqi military has over 270,000 active duty members, yet they can't maintain order and safety in their own country. We would have to fill that roll if we were there.
 
Grant said:
Bush was out of it by then as these staments took place after his Presidency. Did you realize that terrorist groups would take over Iraq and other areas of the world once Obama , against all Military advice, pulled the troops?

Powell wasn't relevant to the conversation as this occurred before the Obama Presidency as well..
Click to expand...

You're still failing to address the fact that Powell's comments on Iraq and yours as well as other apologists for Bush's gratuitous war are at odds with each other. That being that you folks refuse to admit that Hussein brought a level of peace and stability to Iraq (as Powell pointed out) that the US will be required to maintain if we break that. We broke it, and we now see that what Powell meant by, "if you break it you own it", you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. Without a strong arm dictator in place, countries like Syria, Libya and Iraq look, well, just like they look today. So it's either leave the dictator there, or leave a perpetual and viable (not token) military force in place, the later, to your chagrin, Americans aren't willing to do. Perhaps you'd have more luck convincing your own countrymen.
 
Grant said:
This has nothing to do with being "The World's Police". The American people committed themselves to a war, lost many good people, spent billions of dollars, eliminated an insanely murderous dictator, introduced democracy to the country for the first time in its history and then made an ignoble retreat by throwing it all away.

That has absolutely nothing to do with being the "World's Police", something Congress never approved anyway.
Click to expand...

Sorry, democracy was NOT introduced. That was a facade of democracy. The US, nor a combination of the coalition of the willing, waved a magic wand, and suddenly Iraq was a democracy. And we spent trillions, and eliminated in Powell's words a leader that provided relative peace and stability.

On the Democracy Index, Iraq ranks poorly. Of the 167 countries ranked for 2013, Iraq was classified as a “hybrid regime” (between a “flawed democracy” and an “authoritarian regime”) and came in at a ranking of 113. In 2013, according to Transparency International, Iraq ranked among the eight most corrupt nations and territories in the world* (with corruption defined as “abuse of entrusted power for private gain”). Freedom House simply says: "Iraq is not an electoral democracy. Although it has conducted meaningful elections, political participation and decision-making in the country remain seriously impaired by sectarian and insurgent violence, widespread corruption, and the influence of foreign powers." Freedom House has also noted that hundreds of professors were killed and many fled the country during the height of the sectarian fighting, a blow to academic freedom; the judiciary's independence is threatened by political pressure, and sectarian violence continues to threaten religious freedom.

http://costsofwar.org/article/did-wars-bring-democracy-afghanistan-and-iraq
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom