• 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!

How Many Iraqis Died in the Iraq War?[W:496]

HOW MANY IRAQIS DIED?


  • Total voters
    45
  • Poll closed .
No...the region was not moving towards democracy. The region was stagnate and stale in its status quo while blaming America for their own culture's oppressions. There is no evidence of a movement towards democracy and simply stating it doesn't make it so. Low level democratic processes in Saudi Arabia began after Saddam Hussein was toppled and after their first elections due to population pressures in Saudi Arabia watching Iraqis vote. The pressure that came out of Iraq for the region's dictators was enormous. They began to crack down on their populations or they began to ease oppressions. However, after Iraqis voted in 2010 without international security and with success, a man in Tunisia set himself on fire and sparked the Arab Spring. Do you honestly think that Iraqi voters had nothing to do with this pressure?

By the way, Israel has Israel to show for it. Force is why Israel still exists. Theirs is a defense force. You seem to be convoluting the issues as if Israel has been trying to roll across the region. Put it into perspective.

History tells us many things. Unfortunately for the Middle East, their history has been written largely by Arab colonists and Europeans. Until their borders are re-drawn blood and slaughter will always be the theme whether they slaughter each other or send their children abroad to knock down New York buildings. So for those who try to use history to support minding our own business I offer up Al-Queda and hundreds of others that seek someone to blame. For those who use history to support thundering through the regions with weapons I offer up Iraq or Syria and the tribal freedom it releases. For those who actually understand this history, I offer up the lessons of Europe's World Wars, Yugoslavia and Sudan. Tribe matters and until we stop acting as if lines on a map are forever set in concrete we will continue to ignore history while using it to draw wrong conclusions.

Do you know why the tribes in Europe get along now? It's because their borders define them and going to war with another is an international act of war. The Middle East's tribal conflicts gets defined as something civil rather than what it is. Re-draw their lines and see how much less pressure these populations have.

Actually there were moves toward democracy in the region prior to invasion. Much was written on that at the time.

And, you are correct that prior imperialism efforts made a mess out of boarders. The thing that surprises me is that some thing all we need is more imperialism. This is for them to work out and not us. They don't need anymore imperialism.
 
Redrawing the boarders there has been all that successful in the past as I recall.

The Middle East as you see it today is a direct result of the post-World War I division of the Middle East by Britain and France. Russia was involved but lost their bid by quitting the war before Allied victory. Before World War I, the Ottoman Empire managed to hold their empire together because all the tribes throughout largely recognized the officiating of the Caliphate in Istanbul. The Ottoman Empire disappeared into history as a member of the Central Powers and left Britain and France to play with the Arabic world. Europeans created these Frankenstein's Monster states by slashing lines across maps from offices in Paris and London. They gave no regard to tribe nor to local demands for self determination. Only Turkey escaped this largely because of the threat of Russia to Britain and later because of General Ataturk who removed the Sultan in 1922 and installed democracy (at gun point), which was a long time dream of the Young Turks. This officially ended 1400 years of Caliphate rule for the Muslim people. The rest of the Middle East got wrecked, which was against Wilson's Fourteen Points at Versailles. Decades later after World II Arabs would try to install democracies through the military coups and all they got were dictator.

The biggest issue in the ME for Muslims was the Levant. Secret deals and covert handshakes during the War by the British, French and the Russians saw the introduction of the McMahon-Hussein correspondence, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the Belfour Declaration. All three sought support against the Central Powers whether they were enlisting Arab Muslims against Muslim Turks or enlisting Jews to do the same. All three contradicted each other and facilitated the clash between Zionist dreams of a national identity (future Israel) and the Palestinian Arab dreams of self-determination and independence. (Incidentally, we got involved in Vietnam post WWII largely over a colony issue...Truman disagreed with Roosevelt who spoke of self-determination in the third world. Truman supported the French via extortion until one day later another President starts a Draft in what would become our war).

Drawing these borders in the MENA have been horribly disastrous on many levels and the 9/11 attacks 90 years later was the ultimate response of a civilization that can no longer deal with the pressures of existing next to people they hate at gun point. So when you use the tag line "democracy at gun point" it insults the majority of Muslims in the region who have watched decade after decade the rest of the world grow while they lingered under the gun. Over 120 democracies created in the world since 1900 and none in the Arab MENA until 2003? And now an Arab Spring throughout the region calling for "democracy," not "caliphate?" Mixed in will be the radicals and the recently inspired radicals who can't handle the pressures of a changing world that "Allah" has been described as hating ever since Iran's Khomeini started preaching about "Foreign Devils."

The funny thing about this is that Muslim intellectuals only need this bit of the history to cry victim. They will ignore the fact that Ottomans ruled the Lavent for near 1,000 years and never considered a Palestine. They will ignore the fact that the original Arabs of the Rashidun exploded Islam out into the region, thereby colonizing the many tribes and made Jewish/Christian holy sites Islamic holy sites for which the Levant would hold meaning to them. But that goes back too far. Best we stick with the wicked West who for the first time in Levant history offered an international establishment of Palestine in 1947.


We've been imperialistic before, and with mixed results. We might be better off not playing ruler of the world.

I would disagree only because the world has seen twice what it will do without an America in isolation. Refusing to be involved and controlling the global mood is why we lost hundreds of thousands of lives. We were better off when we didn't have to make decisions to venture out and deal with what others started. I would agree that we need to do a better job.

Anyway, the answer is to re-draw the lines with the instructions of the Muslims. Anything else will merely sustain the mess as people argue that this, that, and everything else is wrong. The solution is quite simple actually if only our diplomats had the intellect and the nerve to suggest it. Rid the region of dictators and create healthy nations based on tribal sovereignty. Again...works everywhere else. Of course, Europe had to host two World Wars, but they got there. Perhaps we can get the MENA to the other side before nuclear involvements and future World Wars.
 
Actually there were moves toward democracy in the region prior to invasion. Much was written on that at the time.

Who? Where? The only reason anything may have been written at the time was to give war protestors intellectual credibility as they grabbed onto anything. Nothing was significant if it existed at all. There was no push for democracy in the region whatsoever. The closest thing to democracy was Iran, which is not the Sunni Arab mess of topic. I don't think protestors recognize the significance of this. When Iraqis voted, it marked the first time in Arab history. Soon after Saudi Arabia authorized low level elections and soon after that authorized women to drive, which was a first in history. The low level elections are insignificant and you won't find many men that will let their women drive, but the House of Saud response was to appease their own populations who were watching Iraq. This idea that democracy in the MENA was well on its way before Iraq's invasion is false. Hussein, King Abdullah, Gaddafi, Ben Ali, Bashir, al-Assad, etc. existed under the status quo of silenced populations who only knew the extremist as the way to voice opposition. The very moment our Washington leaders watched the 9/11 attacks they should have known that this region must change and that chasing down a handful of terrorists for a few weeks wasn't going to do it.



And, you are correct that prior imperialism efforts made a mess out of boarders. The thing that surprises me is that some thing all we need is more imperialism. This is for them to work out and not us. They don't need anymore imperialism.

Well they are welcome to make their own decisions. If only there was a system of government that would allow that.

We already practice less imperialism. Ours is a different kind of imperialism now from the Cold War. We have actually transitioned from the Cold War support of dictators to actually conducting ourselves with more responsibility. We just have bad leaders who spend more time criticizing each other in the hopes of getting elected only to wander around in the dark once they get there. Supporting Syrian rebels will only empower a tribe other than they Alawate and they will practice oppression, slaughter and mayhem in what they consider their country while all others are outsiders. We have this ridiculous obsession to call these fleeing tribes refugees. Refugees of what? A house in a homeland that all tribes compete for? The truth is that these people have no homeland. They are like Jews without an Israel.
 
The Middle East as you see it today is a direct result of the post-World War I division of the Middle East by Britain and France. Russia was involved but lost their bid by quitting the war before Allied victory. Before World War I, the Ottoman Empire managed to hold their empire together because all the tribes throughout largely recognized the officiating of the Caliphate in Istanbul. The Ottoman Empire disappeared into history as a member of the Central Powers and left Britain and France to play with the Arabic world. Europeans created these Frankenstein's Monster states by slashing lines across maps from offices in Paris and London. They gave no regard to tribe nor to local demands for self determination. Only Turkey escaped this largely because of the threat of Russia to Britain and later because of General Ataturk who removed the Sultan in 1922 and installed democracy (at gun point), which was a long time dream of the Young Turks. This officially ended 1400 years of Caliphate rule for the Muslim people. The rest of the Middle East got wrecked, which was against Wilson's Fourteen Points at Versailles. Decades later after World II Arabs would try to install democracies through the military coups and all they got were dictator.

The biggest issue in the ME for Muslims was the Levant. Secret deals and covert handshakes during the War by the British, French and the Russians saw the introduction of the McMahon-Hussein correspondence, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the Belfour Declaration. All three sought support against the Central Powers whether they were enlisting Arab Muslims against Muslim Turks or enlisting Jews to do the same. All three contradicted each other and facilitated the clash between Zionist dreams of a national identity (future Israel) and the Palestinian Arab dreams of self-determination and independence. (Incidentally, we got involved in Vietnam post WWII largely over a colony issue...Truman disagreed with Roosevelt who spoke of self-determination in the third world. Truman supported the French via extortion until one day later another President starts a Draft in what would become our war).

Drawing these borders in the MENA have been horribly disastrous on many levels and the 9/11 attacks 90 years later was the ultimate response of a civilization that can no longer deal with the pressures of existing next to people they hate at gun point. So when you use the tag line "democracy at gun point" it insults the majority of Muslims in the region who have watched decade after decade the rest of the world grow while they lingered under the gun. Over 120 democracies created in the world since 1900 and none in the Arab MENA until 2003? And now an Arab Spring throughout the region calling for "democracy," not "caliphate?" Mixed in will be the radicals and the recently inspired radicals who can't handle the pressures of a changing world that "Allah" has been described as hating ever since Iran's Khomeini started preaching about "Foreign Devils."

The funny thing about this is that Muslim intellectuals only need this bit of the history to cry victim. They will ignore the fact that Ottomans ruled the Lavent for near 1,000 years and never considered a Palestine. They will ignore the fact that the original Arabs of the Rashidun exploded Islam out into the region, thereby colonizing the many tribes and made Jewish/Christian holy sites Islamic holy sites for which the Levant would hold meaning to them. But that goes back too far. Best we stick with the wicked West who for the first time in Levant history offered an international establishment of Palestine in 1947.




I would disagree only because the world has seen twice what it will do without an America in isolation. Refusing to be involved and controlling the global mood is why we lost hundreds of thousands of lives. We were better off when we didn't have to make decisions to venture out and deal with what others started. I would agree that we need to do a better job.

Anyway, the answer is to re-draw the lines with the instructions of the Muslims. Anything else will merely sustain the mess as people argue that this, that, and everything else is wrong. The solution is quite simple actually if only our diplomats had the intellect and the nerve to suggest it. Rid the region of dictators and create healthy nations based on tribal sovereignty. Again...works everywhere else. Of course, Europe had to host two World Wars, but they got there. Perhaps we can get the MENA to the other side before nuclear involvements and future World Wars.

Ou do a nice job of laying it out. Nothing there is anything I didn't know, so most of it was not hat valuable for me. However, it is not a choice between isolation and imperialism. We can recognize their sovereign right to work out their own problems and be isolationistic.
 
Who? Where? The only reason anything may have been written at the time was to give war protestors intellectual credibility as they grabbed onto anything. Nothing was significant if it existed at all. There was no push for democracy in the region whatsoever. The closest thing to democracy was Iran, which is not the Sunni Arab mess of topic. I don't think protestors recognize the significance of this. When Iraqis voted, it marked the first time in Arab history. Soon after Saudi Arabia authorized low level elections and soon after that authorized women to drive, which was a first in history. The low level elections are insignificant and you won't find many men that will let their women drive, but the House of Saud response was to appease their own populations who were watching Iraq. This idea that democracy in the MENA was well on its way before Iraq's invasion is false. Hussein, King Abdullah, Gaddafi, Ben Ali, Bashir, al-Assad, etc. existed under the status quo of silenced populations who only knew the extremist as the way to voice opposition. The very moment our Washington leaders watched the 9/11 attacks they should have known that this region must change and that chasing down a handful of terrorists for a few weeks wasn't going to do it.





Well they are welcome to make their own decisions. If only there was a system of government that would allow that.

We already practice less imperialism. Ours is a different kind of imperialism now from the Cold War. We have actually transitioned from the Cold War support of dictators to actually conducting ourselves with more responsibility. We just have bad leaders who spend more time criticizing each other in the hopes of getting elected only to wander around in the dark once they get there. Supporting Syrian rebels will only empower a tribe other than they Alawate and they will practice oppression, slaughter and mayhem in what they consider their country while all others are outsiders. We have this ridiculous obsession to call these fleeing tribes refugees. Refugees of what? A house in a homeland that all tribes compete for? The truth is that these people have no homeland. They are like Jews without an Israel.

If you want me to look up the old articles again I will. Let me know.

But even to have democracy is their choice, something they fight for. Not something given.
 
Ou do a nice job of laying it out. Nothing there is anything I didn't know, so most of it was not hat valuable for me. However, it is not a choice between isolation and imperialism. We can recognize their sovereign right to work out their own problems and be isolationistic.

I'm guessing that there really isn't anything anybody can say on this site that would benefit you. It's a trend that most people here follow. They just log on to complain or to spout pre-conceived ideas of things without any prior study, forethought, or consideration. Then that opinion becomes set in brittle concrete.

You are right, however, about the emboldened. But you aren't recognizing that this is exactly what we are doing today. Europeans created this bad border mess and then simply walked away denying all responsibility. The reason they could walk away was that the technological time in history allowed it and they had another country that would be left holding the bag. Through the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviets propped up dictators in the name of stability and camp loyalty. After the Berlin Wall came down, both walked away and left the Middle East to fester under those dictators. By 2003, the Middle East was left without the option of sorting out any of their own problems. And unlike the Europeans, the U.S. doesn't have the convenience of passing the bag on to another to hold and to take the blame.

There is no isolationalism anymore. The world is too globalized. In fact, it is so globalized that a disease can cross borders, infect another country, and affect commerce and trade. Bad bank business can wreck the world into financial disaster for years and years. Dictators who have convinced their people that the true enemy lies across the ocean eventually give their population license to breed radicals and extremists until one day New York City blows up. Working out their own problems is exactly the opportunity we have offered. Removing Hussein kicked off the notion of Arab democracy and ended that UN mission that Osama Bin Laden used to justify 9/11. The Arab Spring represents Arab Muslims sorting out their own problems. However, we have to be vigilante of the "Syrias" that threaten trade partners and defense partners and stand to blow up beyond its borders.

Isolationalism = U.S.A. prior to WWI

Imperialism = U.S.A. after WWII until the end of the Cold War.

So what are we doing today when the result is a Muslim civilization getting the opportunity to "work out their own problems?" You state that its not a choice, but war protestors and supporters are constantly preaching exactly that.
 
I'm guessing that there really isn't anything anybody can say on this site that would benefit you. It's a trend that most people here follow. They just log on to complain or to spout pre-conceived ideas of things without any prior study, forethought, or consideration. Then that opinion becomes set in brittle concrete.

You are right, however, about the emboldened. But you aren't recognizing that this is exactly what we are doing today. Europeans created this bad border mess and then simply walked away denying all responsibility. The reason they could walk away was that the technological time in history allowed it and they had another country that would be left holding the bag. Through the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviets propped up dictators in the name of stability and camp loyalty. After the Berlin Wall came down, both walked away and left the Middle East to fester under those dictators. By 2003, the Middle East was left without the option of sorting out any of their own problems. And unlike the Europeans, the U.S. doesn't have the convenience of passing the bag on to another to hold and to take the blame.

There is no isolationalism anymore. The world is too globalized. In fact, it is so globalized that a disease can cross borders, infect another country, and affect commerce and trade. Bad bank business can wreck the world into financial disaster for years and years. Dictators who have convinced their people that the true enemy lies across the ocean eventually give their population license to breed radicals and extremists until one day New York City blows up. Working out their own problems is exactly the opportunity we have offered. Removing Hussein kicked off the notion of Arab democracy and ended that UN mission that Osama Bin Laden used to justify 9/11. The Arab Spring represents Arab Muslims sorting out their own problems. However, we have to be vigilante of the "Syrias" that threaten trade partners and defense partners and stand to blow up beyond its borders.

Isolationalism = U.S.A. prior to WWI

Imperialism = U.S.A. after WWII until the end of the Cold War.

So what are we doing today when the result is a Muslim civilization getting the opportunity to "work out their own problems?" You state that its not a choice, but war protestors and supporters are constantly preaching exactly that.

I'm open to information, but you have started with an assumption that I and others are ignorant of the history, and that if we learned, we'd change our minds. But as I and others are not ignorant of history, that approach likely falls flat.

And no, we still haven't learned our lessons in the ME. We've just maintained a status quo. Bush caused serious harm, and even if we made all the right moves, something unlikely, we'd still pay for this one beyond our life time.
 
If you want me to look up the old articles again I will. Let me know.

But even to have democracy is their choice, something they fight for. Not something given.

Any old articles you find will be insignificant and as desperate as they were when the authors wrote them. They were written to support the protests and held no evidence of a regional, much less a country, shift.

Well they are welcome to deny it to themselves and re-establish a dictator if its something that can't be given. Do you think Iraq is looking for another dictator? They have had years to reverse their gains and have still chosen to defy the radicals. Seems to me that they are fighting all the time for their democracy against Sunni radicals who want Baghdad back. The only difference between them and Germans is that Germans were of one tribe (especially after disposing of all those Jews.) We trusted and gave them back their democracy and they carried forward without internal civil disorder and tribal friction. You see Iraqis (mostly Shia and Kurds) making this choice everyday against Sunni zealots so what is your point when you act as if they are forced to have democracy in Iraq? Are you voicing for the Sunni radicals? If the Sunni were the majority in Iraq, you would see a lot less violence in Iraq.

As far as the rest of the region, the Arab Spring seems to be all about that democratic choice even as they bicker and kill amongst the tribes over how to develop it. Excuse their mistakes along the way. It's not like they've elected a Napoleon or a Hitler yet. In the end, they will either figure out how to get along or they will slaughter until lines are re-drawn. Most of the headlines will look for the slaughter.

Another point, remember Yugoslavia. The Slavic states were folded up within a single border and forced to behave under dictators after WWI. As soon as the Cold War ended the Soviets released its grip. The tribes spoke out, dissolved the one border, and commenced to cleanse their areas of the other tribes. Ethnic cleansing and genocide commenced until president Clinton involved the military and forced Europe to act. My point is that these Frankenstein's Monster nations don't fix themselves. It's a high stakes game that needs a referee. And in the age of nuclear ambition from religious tribes in the MENA, it's a game the world can't afford an absent U.S.

Here's another mention. Pakistan. A nuclear country that can't and won't deal with the festering tribal radicalism inside that constantly threatens India and now acts as a base for extremists who can't fathom an Afghanistan that is moving into the future. You think that Pakistan will sort itself out? How long until Iran gets the nuke, thereby, ensuring that the House of Saud will insist on getting theirs? Maybe Egypt next as a powerhouse in the region. And to protect against Sunni and Shia crazies, Turkey will need some. This region is not to be left alone when trying to sort itself out, especially after the West did everything possible to screw it up. We don't get to just walk away. Europeans do that. If we can get China involved for a couple decades maybe we can scoot out the door and leave it to them.
 
Any old articles you find will be insignificant and as desperate as they were when the authors wrote them. They were written to support the protests and held no evidence of a regional, much less a country, shift.

Well they are welcome to deny it to themselves and re-establish a dictator if its something that can't be given. Do you think Iraq is looking for another dictator? They have had years to reverse their gains and have still chosen to defy the radicals. Seems to me that they are fighting all the time for their democracy against Sunni radicals who want Baghdad back. The only difference between them and Germans is that Germans were of one tribe (especially after disposing of all those Jews.) We trusted and gave them back their democracy and they carried forward without internal civil disorder and tribal friction. You see Iraqis (mostly Shia and Kurds) making this choice everyday against Sunni zealots so what is your point when you act as if they are forced to have democracy in Iraq? Are you voicing for the Sunni radicals? If the Sunni were the majority in Iraq, you would see a lot less violence in Iraq.

As far as the rest of the region, the Arab Spring seems to be all about that democratic choice even as they bicker and kill amongst the tribes over how to develop it. Excuse their mistakes along the way. It's not like they've elected a Napoleon or a Hitler yet. In the end, they will either figure out how to get along or they will slaughter until lines are re-drawn. Most of the headlines will look for the slaughter.

Another point, remember Yugoslavia. The Slavic states were folded up within a single border and forced to behave under dictators after WWI. As soon as the Cold War ended the Soviets released its grip. The tribes spoke out, dissolved the one border, and commenced to cleanse their areas of the other tribes. Ethnic cleansing and genocide commenced until president Clinton involved the military and forced Europe to act. My point is that these Frankenstein's Monster nations don't fix themselves. It's a high stakes game that needs a referee. And in the age of nuclear ambition from religious tribes in the MENA, it's a game the world can't afford an absent U.S.

Here's another mention. Pakistan. A nuclear country that can't and won't deal with the festering tribal radicalism inside that constantly threatens India and now acts as a base for extremists who can't fathom an Afghanistan that is moving into the future. You think that Pakistan will sort itself out? How long until Iran gets the nuke, thereby, ensuring that the House of Saud will insist on getting theirs? Maybe Egypt next as a powerhouse in the region. And to protect against Sunni and Shia crazies, Turkey will need some. This region is not to be left alone when trying to sort itself out, especially after the West did everything possible to screw it up. We don't get to just walk away. Europeans do that. If we can get China involved for a couple decades maybe we can scoot out the door and leave it to them.

Odd that you complain of a closed mind and then exhibit one.

What Iraqis look for will be up to them. We've been too close and involved to know for sure yet what will happen there without us. But whatever happens is up to them, it us. That's the point.
 
I'm open to information, but you have started with an assumption that I and others are ignorant of the history, and that if we learned, we'd change our minds. But as I and others are not ignorant of history, that approach likely falls flat.

It's up to you to change your mind. I have not seen anything from people who protest that would suggest that their understanding comes from anything other than some temporary headlines and some general bumper sticker slogans. It's like watching somebody write about WMD and why we had to take him out. These opinions rely on old protests and supports that never had any credibility for what was actually going on.

And no, we still haven't learned our lessons in the ME. We've just maintained a status quo. Bush caused serious harm, and even if we made all the right moves, something unlikely, we'd still pay for this one beyond our life time.

The status quo was to support the dictators. That was the harm. The status quo was to support Hussein under UN baby sitting. That was the harm. Taking out the dictator only revealed the mess Muslims are solely responsible for today. That's the beauty of democracy. They can't blame us anymore.

Bush broke the status quo with Saddam Hussein. Obama, though shy and scared about it, allowed the dictators to fall one by one during the Arab Spring and no is confused about what is going on inside Syria. Syria is a mess because the West chose to go hands off instead of doing what they did in Libya. Today's status quo is to see Muslim Arabs emerge into the political 21st century with the rest of the world. The only mistake to be made is to deny legitimacy to any radical that gets elected and default to removing him. Given time, Muslims will remove him on their own in their democracies. So when you seek to ignore the Islamic culture that is responsible for all the Muslim deaths in Iraq (Syria, Tunisia, Egypt, etc.) you are merely suggesting that they were better off with Saddam Hussein...and we were better off with the UN mission....and Bin Laden was better off having his excuses.

Who really cares if they slaughter each other? Who cares if they have dictators? Truth be told, nobody really cared until 9/11 and even then plenty of people preferred the problem to be organized into a quick hit list of a few terrorists sitting in Afghanistan. This mess was a century in the making. A few terrorists on 9/11 barely scratches the mess. They were mere symptoms.
 
It's up to you to change your mind. I have not seen anything from people who protest that would suggest that their understanding comes from anything other than some temporary headlines and some general bumper sticker slogans. It's like watching somebody write about WMD and why we had to take him out. These opinions rely on old protests and supports that never had any credibility for what was actually going on.



The status quo was to support the dictators. That was the harm. The status quo was to support Hussein under UN baby sitting. That was the harm. Taking out the dictator only revealed the mess Muslims are solely responsible for today. That's the beauty of democracy. They can't blame us anymore.

Bush broke the status quo with Saddam Hussein. Obama, though shy and scared about it, allowed the dictators to fall one by one during the Arab Spring and no is confused about what is going on inside Syria. Syria is a mess because the West chose to go hands off instead of doing what they did in Libya. Today's status quo is to see Muslim Arabs emerge into the political 21st century with the rest of the world. The only mistake to be made is to deny legitimacy to any radical that gets elected and default to removing him. Given time, Muslims will remove him on their own in their democracies. So when you seek to ignore the Islamic culture that is responsible for all the Muslim deaths in Iraq (Syria, Tunisia, Egypt, etc.) you are merely suggesting that they were better off with Saddam Hussein...and we were better off with the UN mission....and Bin Laden was better off having his excuses.

Who really cares if they slaughter each other? Who cares if they have dictators? Truth be told, nobody really cared until 9/11 and even then plenty of people preferred the problem to be organized into a quick hit list of a few terrorists sitting in Afghanistan. This mess was a century in the making. A few terrorists on 9/11 barely scratches the mess. They were mere symptoms.

There is the possibility that your own bias blinds you. It's possible for all of us, but don't complain if you aren't going to at lest consider.

It's also not about caring or not caring. It has been argued that we merely added to their woes. Bring war is no walk in the park. And don't kid yourself, those who ordered the war had little to no concern about the people of Iraq. It is hubris to think we can make the world better by invading countries.
 
Odd that you complain of a closed mind and then exhibit one.

What do you mean? What of your statements have I closed my mind to? You said we forced democracy. I said they have not gone back to the dictator system so "forcing" is a radical term to support protest. In fact they had a much higher voter turn out last time without international security and relying on their own. The minute Iraqis declare their democracy over and throw a parade for their new dictator you will have an argument. Until then it's just protestor dribble.


What Iraqis look for will be up to them. We've been too close and involved to know for sure yet what will happen there without us. But whatever happens is up to them, it us. That's the point.

That has always been the point and they have been without us for years, save some stragglers. It was never about conquering or forcing anything. Installing another dictator would have been forcing. Our mission was to remove Hussein and the UN mission, provide opportunity for democracy, and leave. That's exactly what we did. The whole thing behind a democracy is to give them a choice. You see them struggle against Sunni radicals to develop their growing democracy everyday. They have chosen. This isn't 2005 anymore. The same old protests don't work to create a sound argument. You protestors have gone from "never" to "we don't know." Just stand back and assess the regional situation for yourself. When you and others state that "it can't be given," you are obviously wrong. If it ends in failure it will be their failure, not ours. But either way, democracy has been introduced everywhere. With over 120 democracies created since 1900, you think this entire region is simply going to reject it? This is exactly how we relieve ourselves of responsibility for them. If their culture can't figure out how to create a healthier environment for their stubborn tribes then they are unredeemable.

And by the way, every time a bomb goes off in Baghdad the media is sure to tell you and paint it as a national crisis, despite the fact that Muslim on Muslim murder is a regional pastime. It's only a matter of time before Egypt erupts against its "inferior" tribes. The minorities have already began scampering out of the cities. of course if we don't want to see this then we fall back on the handy dandy dictator who eventually dies and causes disruption in resource flow and the creation of hundreds of more radical groups seeking to blame anything but their own culture.
 
What do you mean? What of your statements have I closed my mind to? You said we forced democracy. I said they have not gone back to the dictator system so "forcing" is a radical term to support protest. In fact they had a much higher voter turn out last time without international security and relying on their own. The minute Iraqis declare their democracy over and throw a parade for their new dictator you will have an argument. Until then it's just protestor dribble.




That has always been the point and they have been without us for years, save some stragglers. It was never about conquering or forcing anything. Installing another dictator would have been forcing. Our mission was to remove Hussein and the UN mission, provide opportunity for democracy, and leave. That's exactly what we did. The whole thing behind a democracy is to give them a choice. You see them struggle against Sunni radicals to develop their growing democracy everyday. They have chosen. This isn't 2005 anymore. The same old protests don't work to create a sound argument. You protestors have gone from "never" to "we don't know." Just stand back and assess the regional situation for yourself. When you and others state that "it can't be given," you are obviously wrong. If it ends in failure it will be their failure, not ours. But either way, democracy has been introduced everywhere. With over 120 democracies created since 1900, you think this entire region is simply going to reject it? This is exactly how we relieve ourselves of responsibility for them. If their culture can't figure out how to create a healthier environment for their stubborn tribes then they are unredeemable.

And by the way, every time a bomb goes off in Baghdad the media is sure to tell you and paint it as a national crisis, despite the fact that Muslim on Muslim murder is a regional pastime. It's only a matter of time before Egypt erupts against its "inferior" tribes. The minorities have already began scampering out of the cities. of course if we don't want to see this then we fall back on the handy dandy dictator who eventually dies and causes disruption in resource flow and the creation of hundreds of more radical groups seeking to blame anything but their own culture.

You made a judgement about information on democracy moving in he region before Iraq without knowing anything about what might be offered.

And no, we've been too close for them to have been without us.
 
There is the possibility that your own bias blinds you. It's possible for all of us, but don't complain if you aren't going to at lest consider.

Consider what? I've read too many books on the Middle East and Islam to agree that Democracy won't work. I've seen too much over the years from this region to believe that everything I see is made up and not really happening. I've studied too much into the region to allow Democrats their ignorant whine about Iraqi democracy and Republicans their ignorant whine about the Arab Spring. And I've certainly studied too much to believe that Iraq had something to do with "WMD" or simple "oil." Protestors have looked for any reason imaginable to legitimize their own inadequacies to understanding this region. First they won't welcome us and they did. Then they won't vote and they did. Then they would erupt into civil war and they didn't. Then they won't vote without our security and they turned out in greater numbers. And now with every bomb that goes off in Baghdad it comes down to either "its over" or "we don't know."

Funny thing - The joke in Islam is that the Sunni tribe actually started democracy amongst the elders to decide leadership (Caliphate) after Muhammad. The Shia refused this and demanded a monarchical system based on Muhammad's blood line, in effect creating dictators. Today it is the Sunni tribe that is struggling with the Arab Spring after almost a century of dictators and it is the Shia in Iran that have been practicing a sort of democracy since 1980.


It's also not about caring or not caring. It has been argued that we merely added to their woes. Bring war is no walk in the park. And don't kid yourself, those who ordered the war had little to no concern about the people of Iraq. It is hubris to think we can make the world better by invading countries.

Depends on the country. And of course Bush and Co. had no idea what they were doing. The Rumsfeld Coven made sure of that when they threw out the CENTCOM plan in favor of their own "No Plan." But they did stumble into what needed to happen. They just did it very poorly and without an understanding of the region. Bush, however, did talk about democracy in the greater region as a result to he UN before the invasion. Whether he believed it or not or even knew what day it was, regional and cultural experts have long talked and wrote about it. Iraq was a good place to do it. Talk about closed minded. It was and still is in the White House.
 
You made a judgement about information on democracy moving in he region before Iraq without knowing anything about what might be offered.

I don't understand what you wrote here. I stated that there was no country or regional occurrences that was forming into a shift in governments. This is true. Egypt stands in front of the rest in terms of having some voices for liberal reform off and on, but this was never a threat to the dictators. When individuals became that threat they simply got jailed or exiled. But there was no democratic movement in the works prior to 2003 in any Arab nation. The first real regional move was in 2010 two months after Iraqis safely voted without international security.


And no, we've been too close for them to have been without us.
Sure. I realize that. But I also realize the historical implications of what Iraqis have done. This is why I won't jump to "failure" the moment perfection isn't realized or if they stumble along the way. Like I stated, Napoleon and Hitler are Europe's contribution to getting Democracy imperfect.
 
Consider what? I've read too many books on the Middle East and Islam to agree that Democracy won't work. I've seen too much over the years from this region to believe that everything I see is made up and not really happening. I've studied too much into the region to allow Democrats their ignorant whine about Iraqi democracy and Republicans their ignorant whine about the Arab Spring. And I've certainly studied too much to believe that Iraq had something to do with "WMD" or simple "oil." Protestors have looked for any reason imaginable to legitimize their own inadequacies to understanding this region. First they won't welcome us and they did. Then they won't vote and they did. Then they would erupt into civil war and they didn't. Then they won't vote without our security and they turned out in greater numbers. And now with every bomb that goes off in Baghdad it comes down to either "its over" or "we don't know."

Funny thing - The joke in Islam is that the Sunni tribe actually started democracy amongst the elders to decide leadership (Caliphate) after Muhammad. The Shia refused this and demanded a monarchical system based on Muhammad's blood line, in effect creating dictators. Today it is the Sunni tribe that is struggling with the Arab Spring after almost a century of dictators and it is the Shia in Iran that have been practicing a sort of democracy since 1980.




Depends on the country. And of course Bush and Co. had no idea what they were doing. The Rumsfeld Coven made sure of that when they threw out the CENTCOM plan in favor of their own "No Plan." But they did stumble into what needed to happen. They just did it very poorly and without an understanding of the region. Bush, however, did talk about democracy in the greater region as a result to he UN before the invasion. Whether he believed it or not or even knew what day it was, regional and cultural experts have long talked and wrote about it. Iraq was a good place to do it. Talk about closed minded. It was and still is in the White House.

I never argued democracy won't work. I argued it was moving that way prior to invasion, and that invasion may have slowed it down.

We don't disagree on the history, but the method. Any country that puts the self up as righteous invades, spreading anything, no matter how good, runs far afield of reason and morality. It's hubris. And leads to a fall of some kind.
 
I don't understand what you wrote here. I stated that there was no country or regional occurrences that was forming into a shift in governments. This is true. Egypt stands in front of the rest in terms of having some voices for liberal reform off and on, but this was never a threat to the dictators. When individuals became that threat they simply got jailed or exiled. But there was no democratic movement in the works prior to 2003 in any Arab nation. The first real regional move was in 2010 two months after Iraqis safely voted without international security.


Sure. I realize that. But I also realize the historical implications of what Iraqis have done. This is why I won't jump to "failure" the moment perfection isn't realized or if they stumble along the way. Like I stated, Napoleon and Hitler are Europe's contribution to getting Democracy imperfect.

The failure was invading in he first place; it showed us to be what they said we were. It helped Iran. It helped al Qaeda. It hurt us. It cost too much both in lives and money. Nothing that happens now changes any of this.
 
I never argued democracy won't work. I argued it was moving that way prior to invasion, and that invasion may have slowed it down.

And I've not read anything that legitimately suggests that Democracy was on its way and that it has been slowed down. If anything it pushed leaders elsewhere to ease oppressions and eventually lead to the Arab Spring. There is no way the most significant government altering event in Middle East recent history wasn't going to affect a Democratic change in a region that has in the past voiced for it in massive rallies. If there is one thing that is constant in the Middle East it is that Muslims, especially the Sunni, tend to follow each other. This is in keeping with Islamic Community or "Ummah." They all voiced for democracies in 1920~21? and they all got stuck with colonists. They all rallied behind military coups in the early 1950s and got stuck with dictators. It was only a matter of time before others in the Ummah followed Iraq down the new path.

And when it comes to anything else you cannot rely on "intel" reports for any assessing because they either forecast failure or merely produce the occurrence of the day. It's a military and civilian maxim. You probably know this. It covers their asses, while not really doing their job.

We don't disagree on the history, but the method. Any country that puts the self up as righteous invades, spreading anything, no matter how good, runs far afield of reason and morality. It's hubris. And leads to a fall of some kind.

See I don't fault the method, merely the way they did it. Nobody should invade a country with the bare minimum without a plan on how to occupy. But that's exactly what needed to happen to get Congress to OK it. Hubris has been a White House fault since Truman. Instead of the WMD falsehoods, it should have been talked up for greater reasons. They could have started with it being an excuse for Bin Laden and who knows who else to follow.
 
I never argued democracy won't work. I argued it was moving that way prior to invasion, and that invasion may have slowed it down.

We don't disagree on the history, but the method. Any country that puts the self up as righteous invades, spreading anything, no matter how good, runs far afield of reason and morality. It's hubris. And leads to a fall of some kind.

Really? How so?

Do you actually think Saddam Hussein would invite "democracy" into HIS country? :lamo That's actually funny!
 
And I've not read anything that legitimately suggests that Democracy was on its way and that it has been slowed down. If anything it pushed leaders elsewhere to ease oppressions and eventually lead to the Arab Spring. There is no way the most significant government altering event in Middle East recent history wasn't going to affect a Democratic change in a region that has in the past voiced for it in massive rallies. If there is one thing that is constant in the Middle East it is that Muslims, especially the Sunni, tend to follow each other. This is in keeping with Islamic Community or "Ummah." They all voiced for democracies in 1920~21? and they all got stuck with colonists. They all rallied behind military coups in the early 1950s and got stuck with dictators. It was only a matter of time before others in the Ummah followed Iraq down the new path.

And when it comes to anything else you cannot rely on "intel" reports for any assessing because they either forecast failure or merely produce the occurrence of the day. It's a military and civilian maxim. You probably know this. It covers their asses, while not really doing their job.



See I don't fault the method, merely the way they did it. Nobody should invade a country with the bare minimum without a plan on how to occupy. But that's exactly what needed to happen to get Congress to OK it. Hubris has been a White House fault since Truman. Instead of the WMD falsehoods, it should have been talked up for greater reasons. They could have started with it being an excuse for Bin Laden and who knows who else to follow.

It may have effected it for the worse on a couple of fronts. It entrenched hard liners in Iran and slowed down reform there. In other areas it may have sped up and destabilized, which may lead to even worse changes. We can't be sure. These actions can't be reliably predicted and as such, are risky.

No matter how long hubris ha been an side, it is still what it is. And yes, if Bush and his people had made an honest case, there would less sustain on my part. But it would still been the wrong move.
 
Really? How so?

Do you actually think Saddam Hussein would invite "democracy" into HIS country? :lamo That's actually funny!

I said the region, not Iraq. Iraq was merely degrading. Less and less capable of any threat each day.
 
It may have effected it for the worse on a couple of fronts. It entrenched hard liners in Iran and slowed down reform there. In other areas it may have sped up and destabilized, which may lead to even worse changes. We can't be sure. These actions can't be reliably predicted and as such, are risky.

No matter how long hubris ha been an side, it is still what it is. And yes, if Bush and his people had made an honest case, there would less sustain on my part. But it would still been the wrong move.

You're just trying to divert attention away from the fact that Obama is going to (or already has) be arming rebels in Syria that he really doesn't know anything about. That and the other "issues" surrounding this administration as of late. That must be why you keep crying about a war that is already done and over with, instead of worrying about what is happening right NOW.
 
You're just trying to divert attention away from the fact that Obama is going to (or already has) be arming rebels in Syria that he really doesn't know anything about. That and the other "issues" surrounding this administration as of late. That must be why you keep crying about a war that is already done and over with, instead of worrying about what is happening right NOW.

As this thread is about Iraq, aren't you the one diverting? And can you point to anywhere that I gave support for arming the rebels?
 
The failure was invading in the first place; it showed us to be what they said we were. It helped Iran. It helped al Qaeda. It hurt us. It cost too much both in lives and money. Nothing that happens now changes any of this.

You see, this is what I mean by the default protestor....

....failure was invading...

The failure was in 1991. 2003 was inevitable.

it showed us to be what they said we were

"They" said we were dictator supporters. What did we show "them" in 2003? What have we shown them since during the Arab Spring and even with Syria? "They" say a lot about America. It's what "they" do. It's the price we pay for being history's victor playing their rules while all others fell to the side. People think far less negative about Iraq these days, what with Muslims demonstrating how they behave without outside forces removing their dictators. By the way, we have been what "they" say we are ever since we agreed to cross the Atlantic to fight Germans. So what? Our goal should be more than that and to live up to our preach. Of course, when the Syrian rebels turn and slaughter "inferior" tribes "they" will say more. Incidentally, "they" were also saying a lot when we were riding the fence in regards to Libya. Don't worry about what the world's losers have to say about America. Until America carves the Third World up into a disastrous border mess, starts a couple World Wars, and starts a Cold War, "they" can't say much.

It helped Iran

Iran's been economically crippled for some time and its leaders used Iraq to oppress its people further, especially when they riot at elections. The nuclear program isn't new and has been around since the Shah. This too was inevitable.

It helped al Qaeda

Al-Queda is a crippled mess, afraid to show its head and relies on the many others who do in their name simply to be noticed. They have merely scooped up from the region what the mess in Iraq revealed. Or do you think the Sunni traveled to Iraq to slaughter Shia because they admired Saddam Hussein? Like I stated before, the more the world changes the more this civilization will produce radicals. And as they realize that Islam has failed as an organizing tool they will simply be what they were raised to be. Let them lash out regionally, die for Allah and Al-Queda. Future generations that grow up in democracies where they have healthy outlets to voice opposition will seek the "sword" far less than their recent ancestors. We get crazies even in our Democracy. The trick is to create an environment that doesn't breed violent extremist organizations.


Nothing that happens now changes any of this.

Nothing after any war changes the number of dead or the money spent. We aren't getting anybody back from Afghanistan. We aren't getting anybody back from Beirut. From Vietnam. From Korea. From World Wars. Complaining about this for wars we don't approve of is selective. "Nothing that happens now" is a protestors chant to cling to his protests no matter what. It's this attitude that brands the dead as being in vain.
 
It may have effected it for the worse on a couple of fronts. It entrenched hard liners in Iran and slowed down reform there. In other areas it may have sped up and destabilized, which may lead to even worse changes. We can't be sure. These actions can't be reliably predicted and as such, are risky.

Very true. I would concede that no expert could safely assume where things have been retarded or sped up. But some things are generally certain....

- The House of Saud was never going to release a little power to low level elections prior to the pressure it got emanating from Iraqi elections.

- If we can agree that radicals around the region were watching and thusly traveled to disrupt Iraqi democracy while killing Shia, then we should assume that moderates and reformers were also watching and emerged in their own countries.

- The reason neighboring countries to Iraq refused to seal their borders was that a Democratic Iraq is bad for Dictator business.

- The Arab Spring was not going to happen prior to Iraq.



....But it would still been the wrong move.

With so much of this region rising up against their dictators and demanding Democracy I don't understand this.
 
Back
Top Bottom