• 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!

Joe Biden update: Iraq one of Obama's 'great achievements'

This is the problem with people that opposed this war. To them, there will never be anything that will ever be considered successful. Thats why I am grateful that Obama has the integrity to seemingly see this thing through to a point where it is stable, rather than simply appeasing fools who believe an immediate pullout is favorable for all.

What would have to happen in order for you--or others--to consider Iraq a success (or, as some like to put it, a win)? Is it who is defeated? Freedom of the people? What to you, would be considered a win?
 
What would have to happen in order for you--or others--to consider Iraq a success (or, as some like to put it, a win)? Is it who is defeated? Freedom of the people? What to you, would be considered a win?

It is already a success. We established a democracy.
 
So what was it with Iraq? Sure, Saddam was an asshole, but that was just a cover for the real reason, which was thought of by the Neocon think tank "Project for the New American Century". PNAC was put together as a result of a paper, written by Dick Cheney, called "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which detailed invading Middle East Nations and installing American-like governments in them. The Middle East has always been one of the most strategic places in the world in which to project power. Eventually, the plan was to overthrow seven nations in five years, starting with Iraq.

I didn't read the whole document. I read the introduction, and scanned most of the chapters and searched for Iraq, which had a lot of discussion around the no-fly zones. I was unable to find any mention of invading 7 nations in five years, starting with Iraq. They had concerns over a number of ME nations: Iraq, Syria, Iran, who were looking into building nuclear capability.

The thing is, they didn't invade 7 nations in 5 years. Aside from Afghanistan, they invaded one nation, Iraq. Instead of making Iraq a satellite nation of the US, we took the time and resources to transform it into a Democracy. That's off script. They aren't necessarily pro-American. But it is the best thing for them. I am proud that Bush made the decision to install a democracy.
 
I didn't read the whole document. I read the introduction, and scanned most of the chapters and searched for Iraq, which had a lot of discussion around the no-fly zones. I was unable to find any mention of invading 7 nations in five years, starting with Iraq. They had concerns over a number of ME nations: Iraq, Syria, Iran, who were looking into building nuclear capability.

The thing is, they didn't invade 7 nations in 5 years. Aside from Afghanistan, they invaded one nation, Iraq. Instead of making Iraq a satellite nation of the US, we took the time and resources to transform it into a Democracy. That's off script. They aren't necessarily pro-American. But it is the best thing for them. I am proud that Bush made the decision to install a democracy.

Don't let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. Especially not one that involves the evil Dick Cheney.
 
I don't think so - I think the good he's done will be overshadowed by the problems that came from the effort (the recession, etc).
How is the recession tied to the war in Iraq?
 
Every Soldier that died for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield's lies died in vain.

I would to watch you say to a soldier's face, who lost one of his best friend on the battlefield. It would be quite entertaining to watch that troop kick the **** out of you.
 
And you think this democracy is stable enough to grow and flourish when the troops pull out?

Not yet, which is why we need to stay until it is. We'll pull out combat troops and keep 50,000 troops there for years. Just like we did in Germany and Japan.
 
Last edited:
Not yet, which is why we need to stay until it is. We'll pull out combat troops and keep 50,000 troops there for years. Just like we did in Germany and Japan.

That is what must happen for it to succeed, especially when looking at history. But I'd change years to decades.
 
What would have to happen in order for you--or others--to consider Iraq a success (or, as some like to put it, a win)? Is it who is defeated? Freedom of the people? What to you, would be considered a win?

As long as Iraq remains a functioning democracy we can consider it a success in my book, regardless of whether or not we leave troops there for years or decades. I imagine we will maintain a permanent peace-time presence in Iraq as we do in Japan and Europe. Which is fine by me.

I'm not interested in a "win" as in we all come home and circle jerk each other. I consider that in the long term, the Iraqi people live freer and elect their representatives to be more successful than leaving them under the control of a murderous dictator.
 
As long as Iraq remains a functioning democracy we can consider it a success in my book, regardless of whether or not we leave troops there for years or decades. I imagine we will maintain a permanent peace-time presence in Iraq as we do in Japan and Europe. Which is fine by me.

I'm not interested in a "win" as in we all come home and circle jerk each other. I consider that in the long term, the Iraqi people live freer and elect their representatives to be more successful than leaving them under the control of a murderous dictator.

And in the process, become more like Turkey than Iran or Palestine. How many Turkish terrorists have you heard of?
 
I'm not interested in a "win" as in we all come home and circle jerk each other. I consider that in the long term, the Iraqi people live freer and elect their representatives to be more successful than leaving them under the control of a murderous dictator.

Yet Rwanda remained mostly ignored, where the situation was about as dire as it gets. What happened there made Saddam look like a ***** cat. So why was Iraq "chosen"? Great that Iraq has rid itself of Saddam, but is it worth it to the American people who have funded all of this and lost many lives in the process? And that it will be a responsibility to the US for many many year to come?
 
There are some families that would disagree with you.

I agree. No soldier should ever be sent into harm's way, except as a last resort. However, having said that, I will give Bush the credit for the troop surge. He broke Iraq with his original invasion, and the surge did a lot to clean up the mess we created over there. You can't just break a nation and then leave. On taking a step that really helped to clean up the mess that was created, hats off to Bush.
 
Yet Rwanda remained mostly ignored, where the situation was about as dire as it gets. What happened there made Saddam look like a ***** cat. So why was Iraq "chosen"? Great that Iraq has rid itself of Saddam, but is it worth it to the American people who have funded all of this and lost many lives in the process? And that it will be a responsibility to the US for many many year to come?




simple.


The Iraq Oil-for-food Scandal
 
I strongly disagree with you. If we are going to be the world's policeman, then why don't we go to Rwanda? The leaders there make Saddam look like a boy scout. Why don't we invade ALL the places in the world where torture and mass murder run rampant? We just don't. Why? We don't have the resources.

So what was it with Iraq? Sure, Saddam was an asshole, but that was just a cover for the real reason, which was thought of by the Neocon think tank "Project for the New American Century". PNAC was put together as a result of a paper, written by Dick Cheney, called "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which detailed invading Middle East Nations and installing American-like governments in them. The Middle East has always been one of the most strategic places in the world in which to project power. Eventually, the plan was to overthrow seven nations in five years, starting with Iraq.

When 911 happened, Afghanistan was moved to the top of the list because we had to take out the Taliban for what they did. Before 911, the Taliban were actually close friends of the Administration. Hell, they were right here in Houston in the spring of 2001, meeting with Bush administration figures. 911 changed all these negotiations, because the Taliban wouldn't give bin Laden up, and decided to provide him with safe haven. Afghanistan had to be invaded, and I totally supported Bush on that.

However, Iraq was still the main objective. as the first nation to take down and westernize, according to PNAC philosophy. Syria, Iran, and others were also on the list, but Iraq was the starting point. Afghanistan was abandoned so that the Neocon plan could move forward.

This had nothing to do with Saddam being a bad guy. It also had nothing to do with oil, as many of the Liberals claim. It all had to do with cementing America as the lone superpower in the world, after the fall of Russia. Once accomplished, according to PNAC documents, America would be the world's ONLY power for a whole century, hence the name "Project for the New American Century".

The Iraq War was fought for ideology, nothing more. It was fought for a hairbrained ideology that was so full of holes it had no real chance to succeed. Did our leaders actually lie in their attempt to implement their radical ideas? Not exactly, but they did cherry pick their intel to justify going into Iraq, using forged documents and a contact known as "Curveball", who was known for stretching the truth, and rejected the mountains of information that showed Saddam has NO weapons of mass destruction, and no nuclear weapons program - Not even "under the rose bushes". While you can't exactly say they lied, they DID use the concept of "Noble Lies", taught by Neocon Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago, and which was one of the pillars of Neocon ideology. It's the same thing, but only worded differently.

"Noble Lies" is not a new concept. It originated with Plato, developed by Machiavelli, used by both Marx and Engels in their writings, and was also a pillar of Communist thought. Essentially, the concept is that a lie is not really a lie if it is done for a good cause. If the population would not normally go along with what the leaders considered a good plan, then the leaders have a responsibilty to twist the truth, so that the population would follow them. "Noble Lies" was a cornerstone of Neocon ideology. While you can make a case that the administraiton did not technically lie to get us into Iraq, the cherry picking of information, that is, picking the bad info and rejecting the good info, amounts to the same thing.

No, Iraq was not fought for oil, nor because Saddam was a bad guy. It wasn't even fought because Saddam wanted to kill Bush's father. It was fought over a hair brained ideology espoused by a group that was madder than hatters.

Having said all that, this does not reflect badly on the military, which is in place to keep America safe. Misuse of the military by the leaders does not make the military bad. It only makes those who misuse the military bad, and those who fought in Iraq are just as honorable as those who have fought in any other war. They bleed and die for the rest of us.

Thank you for your service.
If I were you I'd write my congressman and suggest we attack Rwanda. :)
 
Yet Rwanda remained mostly ignored, where the situation was about as dire as it gets. What happened there made Saddam look like a ***** cat. So why was Iraq "chosen"? Great that Iraq has rid itself of Saddam, but is it worth it to the American people who have funded all of this and lost many lives in the process? And that it will be a responsibility to the US for many many year to come?
So when is the Canadian military going to spring into action and take care of that mess?
 
Screw rwanda. It's my understanding there have been 7 million casualties incurred in the ongoing civil war in the congo. Any of you people willing to send american troops into that mess?..................Anybody?
 
Yet Rwanda remained mostly ignored, where the situation was about as dire as it gets. What happened there made Saddam look like a ***** cat. So why was Iraq "chosen"? Great that Iraq has rid itself of Saddam, but is it worth it to the American people who have funded all of this and lost many lives in the process? And that it will be a responsibility to the US for many many year to come?

"Yet Rwanda"...and if we were in Rwanda it would be "Yet ________". :roll:
If you cannot morally support a war against Saddam, who can you support one against? How many of his own citizens does a dictator needs to kill before you believe its ok to move in. You must have a number in mind, since Rwandan deaths are more important than Iraqi ones.

Iraq simply provides more opportunities for progress in the ME, than does Rwanda progressing the continent of Africa. We already had bases staged in the area from the first gulf war. Logistically, Iraq made a ton of sense as far as staging for the war as well as geo-political influence. Besides, there are plenty of European countries sitting around not doing anything of value with regards to human rights outside their own borders. Where is your ire for their non-activity in Rwanda, Darfur, Myannmar, etc.... Or are your criticisms only for whenever the US acts, or doesn't?

At least we do something, which is more than the rest of the piggybackers can claim.
 
The Obama administration is going to oversee the entire withdrawal. If anything goes wrong with it then I'm quite sure the Republicans are going to be blaming it on Obama, so if his administration are the ones overseeing it and all goes smoothly, they also get the credit for it. It's how it works.

Bush gets credit for the surge and it's effectiveness, even though I never thought from the beginning that we belonged there. But Obama gets the credit if everything goes alright with the withdrawal. It requires alot more than just bussing home a bunch of soldiers. People don't seem to be thinking of the difficulties of bringing home that many troops safely, and if they do it successfully, then he should be able to brag on it all he pleases.
 
The Obama administration is going to oversee the entire withdrawal. If anything goes wrong with it then I'm quite sure the Republicans are going to be blaming it on Obama, so if his administration are the ones overseeing it and all goes smoothly, they also get the credit for it. It's how it works.

Bush gets credit for the surge and it's effectiveness, even though I never thought from the beginning that we belonged there. But Obama gets the credit if everything goes alright with the withdrawal. It requires alot more than just bussing home a bunch of soldiers. People don't seem to be thinking of the difficulties of bringing home that many troops safely, and if they do it successfully, then he should be able to brag on it all he pleases.

If obama continues the phased withdrawal he's following bush's original plan, not his.

source

Obama calls for the immediate withdrawal of US combat troops from IraqLast updated at 15:16 12 September 2007

Barack Obama has called for the immediate withdrawal of all US combat brigades from Iraq
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has called for the immediate withdrawal of all US combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.
"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was," said Obama.
"The best way to protect our security
 
The Obama administration is going to oversee the entire withdrawal. If anything goes wrong with it then I'm quite sure the Republicans are going to be blaming it on Obama, so if his administration are the ones overseeing it and all goes smoothly, they also get the credit for it. It's how it works.
Ironic, giving The Obama credit for something he opposed at every juncture, and 'succeeded' only in not screwing up what GWB had in place when he left office.

Even MORE ironic in that the above is a "Great achievement".

All of this points at how desperate The Obamanation is for grood news.
 
The Obama administration is going to oversee the entire withdrawal. If anything goes wrong with it then I'm quite sure the Republicans are going to be blaming it on Obama, so if his administration are the ones overseeing it and all goes smoothly, they also get the credit for it. It's how it works.

Bush gets credit for the surge and it's effectiveness, even though I never thought from the beginning that we belonged there. But Obama gets the credit if everything goes alright with the withdrawal. It requires alot more than just bussing home a bunch of soldiers. People don't seem to be thinking of the difficulties of bringing home that many troops safely, and if they do it successfully, then he should be able to brag on it all he pleases.

But do you not realize that the withdrawal was planned and initiated by Bush? I would agree that if something went wrong, and Obama made some kind of change to the plan that improved it, he would deserve credit for that. But so far he has not. When military advisors recommended a surge strategy in Afghanistan, he only partially implemented it. I don't think he deserves much credit for that either.
 
Back
Top Bottom