• 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!

Syria vs. Iraq

Where did you support intervention?


  • Total voters
    24
Death, destruction, chaos and mayhem are already at their nation. We're helping potential victims (and the rebels) be safe from a chemical attack.


I haven't seen one shred of "proof" that Assad used CW. I've seen numerous reasonable links that show it was the rebels that used the gas. Bomb the rebels. The rebels crossed the red line.
 
I did not so much as support war with Iraq but was resigned to it given that Iraq seemed likely to have chemical weapons and Saddam tried to kill "Daddy".
And I oppose attacking military targets in Syria without a solid direct US interest in doing so.
 
Wish I knew. I've been waiting on Star Trek for a while.

So...war without end. Without any reason to suspect end, without any plan to end....that didn't serve us well last time and it won't serve us well this time.

Perhaps if you can come up with a reasoned, intelligent, rational, and logical argument for continued aggression in our over decade long war that has killed thousands of Americans, we can continue.
 
So...war without end. Without any reason to suspect end, without any plan to end....that didn't serve us well last time and it won't serve us well this time.

What "last time?"
 
I hope you're right about Syria - although, I do fail to understand how the US bombing of a few strategic facilities and weapons installations in Syria is going to bring an end to the civil war, leave alone bring a viable democracy.
I think we should do more than bomb chemical weapons facilities. I also think we should establish no-fly zones to put an end to Assad's well-known tactic of bombing populated areas, and arm and train secular rebels to both help them defeat Assad but also to marginalize the Islamist and Salafist groups.

It's taken a decade in Iraq, over $1 trillion in American currency, thousands of American lives, countless Iraqi lives, and even now Iraq has the most fragile of democracies and certainly lingering civil-war like tensions between factions. The Iraqi people, like Syrians, are well educated, intelligent, and generally sectarian in their outlook to government and governance, and still religious tensions spoil the mix for those who just want to survive and thrive. Clearly, Syria is far better poised to recover than Afghanistan ever will be, but still, I don't see any great improvement there for a couple of decades at best.

Are Americans prepared to own Syria for a couple of decades too?

I don't think that kind of comparison can be made between Iraq and Syria. Saddam killed most of the intelligentsia and ruthlessly suppressed all opposition, so there wasn't a strong force that could replace him like there is in Syria. We won't have to nation build in Syria, because the rebels should do that for us.
 
I was young, dumb, and stupid, and I rode the "Let's go bomb Saddam!" bandwagon a decade ago. Christ, to think that the anti-war liberals turned out to be right all along...
 
I was young, dumb, and stupid, and I rode the "Let's go bomb Saddam!" bandwagon a decade ago. Christ, to think that the anti-war liberals turned out to be right all along...

To be fair, most of us didn't think it would be such a disaster. We were just morally opposed to it. We assumed that we'd kick their asses and take what we wanted. When Bush declared combat over in May 2003 I was like, "Yeah, no s***." It was people like Colin Powell that thought it would be a strategic disaster, but he just kind of gave up after a while.
 
I'm interested in who supported the intervention in one instance, but not the other. I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.

I was too young to support or oppose intervention in Iraq. I don't think I can give a fair answer to that with the benefit of hindsight. For Syria, I think it is in the United States' best interest to strike in Syria to show that the cost of using chemical weapons does not outweigh the benefits. I'd only agree to that though, if I was sure the regime used the weapons, which I'm not. I wouldn't support any further intervention than that, and I'm concerned that a punitive strike would turn into more.
 
I'm interested in who supported the intervention in one instance, but not the other. I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.
Its not inconsistent because they are two different situations. In one case, WMD's were used as an excuse to justify a war for other geopolitical reasons with no precipitating events taking place. In the other case chemical weapons are actually being used and are reported to have killed about 1,000 people.
 
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/w...ose-dilemma-in-west.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp

While the jihadis claim to be superior fighters, and have collaborated with secular Syrian rebels, some analysts and diplomats also note that they can appear less focused on toppling President Bashar al-Assad. Instead, they said, they focus more on establishing a zone of influence spanning Iraq’s Anbar Province and the desert eastern areas of Syria, and eventually establishing an Islamic territory under their administration.

Other areas are under more secular control, including the suburbs of Damascus. In East Ghouta, for example, the suburbs east of the capital where the chemical attack took place, jihadis are not dominant, according to people who live and work there.


This seems to undercut the argument that bombing the regime is tantamount to supporting al Qaeda. The people that Assad gassed were not terrorists, they were civilians.

Besides, Hezbollah is fighting on his side and they're considered an even more powerful terrorist organization than al Qaeda. So whichever side you choose is associated with terrorists, unless you just support everyone wiping each other out.
 
It's not only hindsight that says Iraq was wrong. Many knew it was wrong at the time. The leaders had been warned about it. Lots of Americans were against it. Plenty of people the world over thought we should wait for UN authorization and the inspections to be finished.
 
The rebels? You know that Al Qaeda is mixed in with the rebels?
 
I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.
If someone were in favor of full scale invasion and subsequent nation building but opposed to lobbing some missiles they're "ideologically inconsistent"?

If someone were opposed to full scale invasion and subsequent nation building but in favor of lobbing some missiles they're "ideologically inconsistent"?

also for the bonus
Does making decisions about war / military ventures based on practical concerns instead of on ideological concerns make one wishy-washy?
 
Last edited:
I'm interested in who supported the intervention in one instance, but not the other. I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.

I consider framing any decision on intervention as 'ideological' extremely worrying.

But I will add, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

Paul
 
I'm interested in who supported the intervention in one instance, but not the other. I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.

There are clear differences.

Iraq was in violation of a cease-fire agreement with the US and its allies. Syria is not.
Saddam Hussein followed a very aggressive foreign policy forming a threat to the region. Assad is mainly concerned with Syria itself (and to a lesser extent Lebanon).
Iraq tried to assassinate a former US President. Syria didn't.
I could go on ...
 
Back
Top Bottom