• 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 Wilson to Hillary Clinton in 2010: Baghdad “Has Been Bled to Death”

joG said:
Making excuses for the Iraqis' failure by ranting against the us? You sound like RT or those Putibots paid to bad mouth and disinform.
Click to expand...

:doh Can you not respond with anything of substance. Or are you simply saying, "hey! You being critical of the US government and their actions, thats not right!"?
 
joG said:
When I looked at a number of statistical reports by NGO, US and UN researchers a number years after the invasion it appeared that the numbers dying were about the same in the years before and after. The persons dying were probably from other groups. The country was in a poor state and only had been held together by brute force, torture like that you can see documented by Ceasar for Assad's regime next door and other methods of coercion. Such country's are only in an intermediate state of "dictatorial calm" and not in a steady state of peace and the nice life. It is historically rather normal, that the transitions from one autocrat to the next are messy. And the tranquility that tourists and other outside viewers remark on is a thin varnish hiding rather an unpleasant truth that the spectator for one reason or the other wants to ignore. So, while you might be right that we spent too much to achieve too little, the other arguments are lastly invalid and probably self serving.

As for the "normal" state of international security, you have almost all of history to look through for one example after the other. Continuous small and intermittent large wars are the norm in multipolar security structures. And we are now on a travers to a multipolar system. You see, the problem is not that the Pax Americana was not worth it. It is more that it is coming to an end and that we need a stable substitute.
Click to expand...

"Continuous small and intermittent large wars" have been the norm throughout human history. Neither the Pax Romana nor the Pax Americana changed that. I expect that will be the norm for the foreseeable future as well.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:doh Can you not respond with anything of substance. Or are you simply saying, "hey! You being critical of the US government and their actions, thats not right!"?
Click to expand...

Being critical of individual measures or policies is fine, where the criticism is well argued. When continuous and undifferentiating? That isn't criticism but propaganda.
 
Dittohead not! said:
"Continuous small and intermittent large wars" have been the norm throughout human history. Neither the Pax Romana nor the Pax Americana changed that. I expect that will be the norm for the foreseeable future as well.
Click to expand...

The international Pax is like domestic civil peace. There are acts of violence, but that is not civil war.
 
joG said:
Being critical of individual measures or policies is fine, where the criticism is well argued.
Click to expand...
The argument Ive made isnt "well argued"? Care to explain how its not "well argued"? My posts have been sited...

When continuous and undifferentiating? That isn't criticism but propaganda.
Click to expand...
What?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom