• 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!

Riots erupt in Egypt as protesters demand end to Mubarak regime

Getting pretty quiet in Egypt. Has the "revolution" already lost its steam? Will Mubarak remain?

Perhaps we should have kept our mouths shut and let this play out first.
 
The United States played the major role in removing the worst dictator in the Middle East and received nothing more than public criticism from both their former Allies as well as other Middle East countries. Let them work it out themselves and then, if they cause any problem to the American people, hit them very bloody hard.

We can take the criticism; our skin is thick. The primary criticism was the act of invading a Middle Eastern country to spread democracy. Arabs were pissed because they thought they should be able to do it themselves. Europeans were pissed because we hurt their business interests.

In the case of Egypt, no recommendation for invasion has been made. The Egyptians are protesting of their own accord. What we can do is more firmly and unequivocally support the goals of the protesters.

We need to make it crystal clear to the ME that we promote democratization.
 
Nonsense. You are wrong as usual. As has been pointed out, we still have troops in Germany 65 years after the end of World War II. Just like in Iraq, these troops stick to their bases and assigned exercise areas and are not involved at all in in local security of the population or enabling the authority of the German government. The presence of foreign troops does not in any way limit the sovereignty of the Iraqi government.

You are ignoring that Germany was an actual threat to its neighbors. The Pentagon/CIA determined that Iraq was not a threat to its neighbors since 1992.
 
Ordinary Iraqi people don't go around setting off car bombs in market squares.

Civil wars are not usually bloodless. Look at our own civil war.
 
I don't believe this is a fair characterization. Over time, the U.S. presence in Western Europe became strictly about assisting with national security (against the U.S.S.R. and its allies)/the global balance of power, not about helping maintain law/order/internal stability. In Iraq, the diminishing U.S. presence is still largely focused on the latter.

In Iraq, we are not focussed on maintaining law/order/internal security, at all. We have 2 missions:

1) train and advise the Army
2) Counterterrorism in partnership with the Iraqi Commandos.

Neither of these relates to general security of the population or interference in the political machine.

Therefore, the analogy to Germany is apt.
 
You are ignoring that Germany was an actual threat to its neighbors. The Pentagon/CIA determined that Iraq was not a threat to its neighbors since 1992.

In the case of both Germany and Iraqi, the issue of maintaining troops is more an issue of preventing neighboring countries from invading, not controlling the politics of said countries.
 
I have to disagree. You are citing what is described as the missions, in theory. However, in practice, U.S. troops continue to actively assist with security operations. For example, today's edition of The Washington Post reported:

In a protective inner ring, soldiers representing both those forces as well as local Turkmen police have paired with U.S. platoons for roaming patrols.

American and Iraqi soldiers also staff joint checkpoints on all roads leading into town. Within the city limits, only Kirkuk police - a sometimes-volatile mix of Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen - are allowed to operate.
 
In the case of both Germany and Iraqi, the issue of maintaining troops is more an issue of preventing neighboring countries from invading, not controlling the politics of said countries.

I would also have to disagree. My son just returned from a 4 month tour in Iraq and the base he was on received 35 mortar rounds that made it inside the base. These attacks were by Iraqis, not neighboring countries, and they were dealt with not by Iraqi forces but by American forces.

The Iraqis have said they do not want us there, so apparently they are not worried about invasion from neighboring countries. So, why is it again that we remain there?
 
I would also have to disagree. My son just returned from a 4 month tour in Iraq and the base he was on received 35 mortar rounds that made it inside the base. These attacks were by Iraqis, not neighboring countries, and they were dealt with not by Iraqi forces but by American forces.

The Iraqis have said they do not want us there, so apparently they are not worried about invasion from neighboring countries. So, why is it again that we remain there?

If we left right now, they would freak out. The vast majority of Iraqis want us there, I'm sure. They're not ready yet by a long shot.
 
The radical mormon? lol what the......j-mac



I guess you didn't notice this at the beginning of the report: "LONDON (AFP)"
 
When I see a poll, I always wonder, who'd they ask?

Somehow, I'd guess taking a "poll" in Iraq is less than easy these days.

If we left, how long until Iran tried to take over?


Its a little late to be thinking of that just now isn't it? Iran was not attacking Iraq before our war. If the Iraqis are not worried about Iran attacking them, then neither am I.
 
I have to disagree. You are citing what is described as the missions, in theory. However, in practice, U.S. troops continue to actively assist with security operations. For example, today's edition of The Washington Post reported:

In a protective inner ring, soldiers representing both those forces as well as local Turkmen police have paired with U.S. platoons for roaming patrols.

American and Iraqi soldiers also staff joint checkpoints on all roads leading into town. Within the city limits, only Kirkuk police - a sometimes-volatile mix of Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen - are allowed to operate.

I would also have to disagree. My son just returned from a 4 month tour in Iraq and the base he was on received 35 mortar rounds that made it inside the base. These attacks were by Iraqis, not neighboring countries, and they were dealt with not by Iraqi forces but by American forces.

The Iraqis have said they do not want us there, so apparently they are not worried about invasion from neighboring countries. So, why is it again that we remain there?

My bad. I did not think we were still so postured.

Unless plans change, we are out by the end of the year.

Regardless of what happens, we did build a democracy that influences the region.
 
I guess you didn't notice this at the beginning of the report: "LONDON (AFP)"

No worries man, I am just laughing at where you get your news from....And a radical Chomsky follower sounds about right.....lol


j-mac
 
No worries man, I am just laughing at where you get your news from....And a radical Chomsky follower sounds about right.....lol


j-mac

What is your problem with London (APF)? That is the source of the news story?
 
My bad. I did not think we were still so postured.

Unless plans change, we are out by the end of the year.

Regardless of what happens, we did build a democracy that influences the region.

We won't know that until Iraq can stand on it own. Right now all we have is a successful invasion and military occupation by the most powerful military on the planet.
 
We won't know that until Iraq can stand on it own. Right now all we have is a successful invasion and military occupation by the most powerful military on the planet.

We also have a democracy formed and run by the Iraqis. It may not last. But at the moment it is an example to the ME.
 
We also have a democracy formed and run by the Iraqis.

It is not a democracy when it cannot stand against its own people without our military occupation.

Egypt also had a democracy, on paper, just like in Iraq. And it is not going to stand against its people for much longer either it appears.
 
It is not a democracy when it cannot stand against its own people without our military occupation.

Sure it is.

Egypt also had a democracy, on paper, just like in Iraq. And it is not going to stand against its people for much longer either it appears.

No, Egypt has a dictatorship. President for life man. Hopefully it will not stand.
 
Sure it is.

You have a right to your opinion. :sun

No, Egypt has a dictatorship.

Effectively, yes, the elections were rigged, just like in claims about the corrupt Iraqi government.

But, Egypt has elections: "The President of the Republic is elected for a six-year term by popular vote. This election mechanism has been in place since a May 2005 amendment to the Egyptian Constitution. Previously, the president was nominated by the People's Assembly and the nomination was confirmed by popular referendum."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Egypt

Hopefully it will not stand.

Agreed.
 
Last edited:
Sunni and Shi'a are different factions but they are both ordinary Iraqi people. They were in conflict long before our military occupation and they will, more likely than not, resume their conflict once we remove our 35,000 combat ready troops.

"Ordinary people" do not detonate people in grocery stores, restaurants and bus stops. Only the most twisted of human beings can ever do that.

While you might believe that the Iraqi people are all demented religious fanatics with no hope whatsoever for their future, others certainly disagree.
 
I don't believe this is a fair characterization. Over time, the U.S. presence in Western Europe became strictly about assisting with national security (against the U.S.S.R. and its allies)/the global balance of power, not about helping maintain law/order/internal stability. In Iraq, the diminishing U.S. presence is still largely focused on the latter.

While we can rationalize the for troops on foreign soil the fact is that they are still troops on foreign soil.

And from the American point of view, the 'War To End All Wars' continued another couple of decades later and they wanted no further problems with aggressive European powers. It was cheaper and cost fewer lives to just keep the troops there.

Keeping the Communists in check and out of Western Europe did maintain the stability in the region, otherwise the Western Europeans would have been in the same situation as their Eastern counterparts.

Of course the Western Europeans have always been grateful for the sacrifices and treasure the American people have spent on their defense.

Just kidding!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom