• 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!

Egypt's Mubarak resigns as leader

So what? It was still moral to invade, overthrow the government, stop the humanitarian disaster, and build a democracy.

Actuallty we created a bigger humanitarian disaster. We killed thousands of Iraqis.
 
Actuallty we created a bigger humanitarian disaster. We killed thousands of Iraqis.

99% of whom were attacking us. It was the insurgents who killed innocent Iraqis by the thousands, not the US.
 
So what? It was still moral to invade, (1) overthrow the government, (2) stop the humanitarian disaster, and (3) build a democracy.

Can't count? It was 4 out of 4, senor.

Overthrowing an old man with a shotgun is the the only thing I've seen that we have accomplished.
 
99% of whom were attacking us. It was the insurgents who killed innocent Iraqis by the thousands, not the US.

"Wikileaks' revelations via classified documents about the nearly nine-year-old conflict in Afghanistan also reveals interesting information about the war in Iraq. Some 90,000 documents were released, and one of the periodicals to which these documents were given, The Guardian (London), ferreted out the relevant bits of "after action" reports. One particularly telling aspect was how routinely the U.S. military describes those killed -in-action as Taliban, when in fact many if not most are civilians. "U.S. and allied commanders frequently deny allegations of mass civilian casualties, claiming they are Taliban propaganda or ploys to get compensation, which are contradicted by facts known to the military," says one of its reports. "But the logs demonstrate how much of the contemporaneous US internal reporting of air strikes is simply false" (July 25, 2010). The extent of civilian casualties caused by U.S. actions and previously unreported in the news media likely reaches well into the hundreds and possibly thousands. Precisely the same dynamic was at work in Iraq, though at a much higher scale, according to former soldiers and marines who testified at the "Winter Soldier" hearings in 2008 and 2009."
The Human Cost of the War in Iraq
 
So what? It was still moral to (1) invade, (2) overthrow the government, (3) stop the humanitarian disaster, and (4) build a democracy.
Overthrowing an old man with a shotgun is the the only thing I've seen that we have accomplished.

4 out of 4. We invaded. We overthrew the minority Sunni power structure. We stopped the systematic abuse of the civilian population. We helped build a democracy. 4 out of 4.
 
reefedjib said:
99% of whom were attacking us. It was the insurgents who killed innocent Iraqis by the thousands, not the US.
"Wikileaks' revelations via classified documents about the nearly nine-year-old conflict in Afghanistan also reveals interesting information about the war in Iraq. Some 90,000 documents were released, and one of the periodicals to which these documents were given, The Guardian (London), ferreted out the relevant bits of "after action" reports. One particularly telling aspect was how routinely the U.S. military describes those killed -in-action as Taliban, when in fact many if not most are civilians. "U.S. and allied commanders frequently deny allegations of mass civilian casualties, claiming they are Taliban propaganda or ploys to get compensation, which are contradicted by facts known to the military," says one of its reports. "But the logs demonstrate how much of the contemporaneous US internal reporting of air strikes is simply false" (July 25, 2010). The extent of civilian casualties caused by U.S. actions and previously unreported in the news media likely reaches well into the hundreds and possibly thousands. Precisely the same dynamic was at work in Iraq, though at a much higher scale, according to former soldiers and marines who testified at the "Winter Soldier" hearings in 2008 and 2009."
The Human Cost of the War in Iraq

I would believe civilian casualties caused by US action reaching into the hundreds and possibly thousands.

Iraqi War Logs says:
The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 'civilians'; 23,984 'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents); 15,196 'host nation' (Iraqi government forces) and 3,771 'friendly' (coalition forces).

Those civilian deaths are primarily at the hands of foreign terrorists of fellow Iraqis.

Lets' say 2000 civilian deaths caused by US action. Versus 23,984 'enemy' killed. That's 91.7%. At 800 civilian deaths, that's 96.7%. I can live with a range of 96.7% to 91.7% civilian deaths caused by US action. I think that is a reasonable rate. War is a terrible thing. An insurgency makes the risk to civilians, especially when the enemy hides among civilians, much, much greater. It is a cost, that does not rise to a level to discredit what we set out to accomplish.

I'll note that 109,032 deaths in Iraq is much, much different than the Lancet figures of 600,000 being harped about for years.

iCasualties: Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom Casualties estimates 4754 coalition forces gave up their lives in Iraq, 2003-2011. This matches closely with the Iraqi War Logs estimate of 3771 'friendly' deaths, from 2004-2009. The Iraqi War Logs is missing 580 from 2003 and 60 from 2010 and 6 from 2011. That would be a total of 4417 by comparison. Pretty close, which does give me confidence in the Iraqi War Logs numbers (and the icasualties.org numbers too). 60 coalition deaths last year, demonstrates that very few of the 35,000 US troops, remaining in country, are in direct contact with the enemy. The Iraqis provide the vast majority of their own security and we are not propping up their government. Your claim is false.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the lack of any kind of threat from Iraq. Germany was attacking its neighbors. Iraq hasn't had the capacity to do that since before the Gulf war.

The genie wasn't going to stay in the bottle forever.

What the potential for Islamist takeovers of several mid-eastern countries, of late, it's obvious that taking out Saddam will work in our favor.
 
Last edited:
Actuallty we created a bigger humanitarian disaster. We killed thousands of Iraqis.

Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
 
4 out of 4. We invaded. We overthrew the minority Sunni power structure. We stopped the systematic abuse of the civilian population. We helped build a democracy. 4 out of 4.

If you wish to pretend that the most powerful country on the planet invading one of the weakest was some kind of accomplishment, have at it. We replaced the government that was keeping the factions in Iraq from civil war and keeping the Iranians at bay and replaced it with one that cannot do either without our indefinite military occupation and trillions of dollars of National debt. I would not call a corrupt government with reports of rigged elections Democratic anymore than I would call Egypt's government of the last 30 years Democratic. The abuse of the Iraqi people continues by a different corrupt regime.

Now you only have one out four. You've lost ground.
 
Last edited:
If you wish to pretend that the most powerful country on the planet invading one of the weakest was some kind of accomplishment, have at it. We replaced the government that was keeping the factions in Iraq from civil war and keeping the Iranians at bay and replaced it with one that cannot do either without our indefinite military occupation and trillions of dollars of National debt. I would not call a corrupt government with reports of rigged elections Democratic anymore than I would call Egypt's government of the last 30 years Democratic. The abuse of the Iraqi people continues by a different corrupt regime.

Now you only have one out four. You've lost ground.

That's you opinion and you are entitled to it. But you are wrong. The government of Iraq is stable, has the respect of the people, is helping Iraq grow, is not at the behest of the Iranians. Iraq does not need, nor is it using the US military to be propped up. It is sharing power.

You are just a typical old, crusty anti-war protester from the Vietnam era who thinks this is another opportunity to rail against the supposed "imperialism" of the US. You have no integrity. You have an objection against the use of force to spread democracy, when the past 60 years have shown peaceful transition to democracy to be the exception to the rule. Freedom requires blood. We didn't just free Iraq, we set in motion freedom throughout the ME. Just watch Egypt, its not over yet, there will be more blood. Sour puss.
 
we set in motion freedom throughout the ME. Just watch Egypt, its not over yet, there will be more blood. Sour puss.

The brave souls on the streets of Tunis did.

Not you.

I wanna be on your side about this Reefe, but Iraq has little to do with it.
 
That's you opinion and you are entitled to it. But you are wrong. The government of Iraq is stable, has the respect of the people, is helping Iraq grow, is not at the behest of the Iranians. Iraq does not need, nor is it using the US military to be propped up. It is sharing power.
.
You must be kidding. The current Iraqi government is just as corrupt as the old one.

Stable? http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/15/iraq.protests/
The demonstrations are the latest in a series across Iraq, as protesters are inspired by uprisings in the Middle East. On Sunday, hundreds demonstrated in Ramadi, about 100 kilometers (62 miles) west of Baghdad.

In Falluja, hundreds of protesters walked toward the city council building and the mayor's office, demanding the resignation of the mayor and the head of the city council because of corruption and their inability to provide basic services to the people.

Some demonstrators shouted, "Down with al-Maliki," referring to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Others carried banners saying, "No for dividing Iraq, yes for its unity" and "No for sectarianism, yes for unity, down with al-Maliki's government." Still others said, "No restriction on freedom of expression, no for random detentions and raids, no for corrupted (politicians) and thieves," and "We demand better basic services -- electricity, oil and improving the food rations."

Iraqi security forces from the police and army carried machine guns as they surrounded the demonstrators
 
Last edited:
More on Egypt...

Today's edition of The New York Times has an article that highlights one of the barriers that could limit the Muslim Brotherhood's prospects of gaining power in the near-term. The article states[/i]:

Egypt’s revolution is far from decided, and the Muslim Brotherhood remains the most popular and best-organized opposition forces in the country, poised to play a crucial role in the transition and its aftermath. But in a neighborhood once ceded to militant Islamists, who declared their own state within a state in the early 1990s, sentiments here are most remarkable for how little religion inflects them. Be it complaints about a police force that long resembled an army of occupation, smoldering class resentment or even youthful demands for frivolity, a growing consciousness has taken hold in a sign of what awaits the rest of the Arab world after President Hosni Mubarak’s fall on Friday...

Residents say some of the most ardent Islamists here had the best connections with the police, who sought to cultivate them as informants. But in streets suffused with trash, occasionally drawing flocks of sheep, a common refrain is that political Islam, as practiced by the Muslim Brotherhood, does not offer the kind of solutions that may decide an election.


This is one neighborhood. Nonetheless, if one combines a desire for effective public services (something the Muslim Brotherhood failed to provide in one area in which it had de facto control), Egypt's secular nationalist base, and the strong role traditionally played by Egypt's military that is likely to continue well into the future, the barriers to the Muslim Brotherhood's actually gaining near-term power are steep. Much more likely is an outcome where the Muslim Brotherhood plays a role, but does not dominate the governance process. Already, almost certainly recognizing that the political landscape is not hospitable to Muslim Brotherhood dominance, that organization has scaled back its aspirations to political "participation" and has stated (thought that could still be subject to change) that it will not run a Presidential candidate in the upcoming election.
 
You are just a typical old, crusty anti-war protester from the Vietnam era .......

You have no integrity.

Sour puss.

Someone get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? Just because you have nothing to substaniate your case does not mean you have to stoop to name calling.

If you get yourself calmed down to the point where you can discuss without insults, let me know.
 
The brave souls on the streets of Tunis did.

Not you.

I wanna be on your side about this Reefe, but Iraq has little to do with it.

Jet,

Tunisians and Egyptians and other secular youths on the internet throughout the region have been planning this for 3-4 years. They have been demonstrating on April 6th in Egypt the last 3 years. This did not come out of the blue.

The Arab world watched events unfold in Iraq over Al'Jazeera for years, since 2003. They saw the progression to ratifying a constitution, 3 national elections, provincial elections... The Arab world watched Iraqis demonstrate and criticize their government. They watched the exercise of human and political rights. This all did not go unnoticed! Iraq had a lot to do with encouraging democracy. It's a fact.
 
I notice the army and police did not stop the demonstrations or shoot at the Iraqis. They were criticizing their own mayor.
And the prime minister. Demonstrations are growing all over Iraq. They are figuring out that the US won't let the government shoot protesters now. Egyptian revolution sparks protest movement in democratic Iraq
Do you think the US government is not corrupt???
Yes, it is. The billions wasted in Iraq and the Goldman Sachs fiasco were evidence of that.
 
And the prime minister. Demonstrations are growing all over Iraq. They are figuring out that the US won't let the government shoot protesters now. Egyptian revolution sparks protest movement in democratic Iraq
Yes, it is. The billions wasted in Iraq and the Goldman Sachs fiasco were evidence of that.

The US has nothing to do with it anymore. It is all the Iraqi security forces, and they are their to PROTECT THE POPULATION, rather than PROTECT THE REGIME! The Arab world knows this is the case in Iraq and they want the same conditions in their own countries.

PS. I am thrilled the Iraqis are protesting against their government.
 
Someone get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? Just because you have nothing to substaniate your case does not mean you have to stoop to name calling.

If you get yourself calmed down to the point where you can discuss without insults, let me know.

Heh, I have plenty to substantiate my case, but you don't listen. You are so locked into your worldview that there is no hope of changing your mind. We have been over this many times before, so there is no use continuing. YOU ARE WRONG.
 
PS. I am thrilled the Iraqis are protesting against their government.

The government that cost us a trillion dollars and thousands of lives to install? You are thrilled that the Iraqis don't embrace it?
 
The US has nothing to do with it anymore.

Except the 35,000 combat ready troops that remain with the full force of the most powerful military on the planet backing them up.
 
The government that cost us a trillion dollars and thousands of lives to install? You are thrilled that the Iraqis don't embrace it?

A) we didn't install the government, the Iraqis voted for it.
B) It is Sunnis and Shiites protesting, although not in the thousands
C) the Sunnis are protesting against fellow Sunnis in power in Fallujah
D) Shiites are protesting against the Shiite federal government

Dozens of small-scale demonstrations have taken place across the country over the past two weeks, most of them protesting poor services, particularly the lack of electricity - a perennial complaint that has spurred Iraqis to take to the streets many times before.

But a new movement seems to be emerging, too, among students and young professionals clearly inspired by the events in Egypt and also by their own disappointments with Iraq's democratic experiment.

Multiple groups are springing up on Facebook calling for protests to demand reforms, among them No to Silence, Baghdad Won't Be Kandahar, the Blue Revolution and one simply called Join US Soon for the Biggest Ever Youth Sit-In in Baghdad, which initiated the small protest Friday in Tahrir Square.

Another is planned for Monday, but the biggest buzz is building around what has been billed on various Web sites as a "Revolution of Iraqi Rage" scheduled for Feb. 25 in the same square, the city's most prominent public space, just across the Tigris River from the fortified Green Zone.

The groups say their goal is not to overthrow the government - which is still not fully formed after elections nearly a year ago, another source of frustration - but to demand change on multiple fronts, from specifics such as the provision of electricity and jobs to more general issues such as good governance and accountability.

Seems they like their FORM of government, just that they don't like the way it is performing.
 
Back
Top Bottom