• 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!

Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement...

Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement


  • Total voters
    54
Is the left still pushing that corny fantasy that the US/CIA installed Saddam in power in Iraq?

We helped the Ba'ath Party rise to power, out of which came Saddam. We also had a chance to stop Iraq's invasion of Kuwait with diplomacy, but political appointments left an idiot as ambassador to Iraq.
 
It was not broken until we failed to leave a contingent of troops behind to guarantee the peace as we did in Germany and Japan. And again when Obama failed to stop ISIS in Syria.

Maybe if we declare war, we can think about "leaving a contingent of troops behind", but also thinking that the cohesive populations of Germany and Japan can be likened to the fractured populations of ethnicities and religious sects in Iraq; then you are sorely mistaken.
 
Well, not blind. And not hyper. But you keep making wrong assumptions, OK.

Blind and hyper both, yes. But you keep being blind to the world around you, OK.
 
Well, I can see the West stepping in to prevent any new holocaust for moral reasons but not intervene in the actual civil war. I would find that acceptable.

That is basically what we are doing in Iraq now.
 
We helped the Ba'ath Party rise to power, out of which came Saddam. We also had a chance to stop Iraq's invasion of Kuwait with diplomacy, but political appointments left an idiot as ambassador to Iraq.

No...actually we did not....but feel free to attempt to back up your assertion that we did.
 
Maybe if we declare war, we can think about "leaving a contingent of troops behind", but also thinking that the cohesive populations of Germany and Japan can be likened to the fractured populations of ethnicities and religious sects in Iraq; then you are sorely mistaken.

That's the point. When we go to war, we should declare war.
 
Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement, given the recent events with ISIS and current status of Afghanistan, that you did before?

Think back to your opinion when Bush II first invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Think back to when Obama withdrew from Iraq. Think about the current alleged wind down in Afghanistan. Doesn't really matter what your opinion was, just ask yourself if you feel the same now as you did then. And why do you feel the same or differently.

Please elaborate.

I'm of the same view from the war in Iraq forward. A significant number of people there are deeply anti-American, dangerous and are willing to do anything including commit suicide if it means they get to kill Americans in the process. We need to wash our hands of them and to quote Newt Gingrich:

“We’re not going to fix Afghanistan [I'll expand it to the entire region]. It’s not possible. These are people who have spent several thousand years hating foreigners." “There’s some problems where what you have to do is say ‘You know, you’re going to have to figure out how to live your own miserable life because I’m not here, you clearly don’t want to hear from me how to be un miserable,”


Unfortunately we can't right now because America is addicted to petroleum and many cannot muster up the faith in American ingenuity improving once we get behind it just like HDTVs, cell phones, digital cameras and PCs did or can agree to cooperate with their fellow Americans in advancing electric cars because to them an environmentalist is a worse enemy of American than a Jihadist. It seems they'd much rather fire off $1.5 million each cruise missiles on the terrorists as the exclusive solution than to also bankrupt them as well by giving Americans a $7,500 tax-credit for a car that doesn't need oil and fight the War on Terror on all fronts, including economically.
 
At the time, Clarke was attempting to hawk his book, so he sensationalized his interpretation of the facts. Condoleeza Rice quite ably corrected him and pointed out that nothing was set aside. And he was still holding a grudge against Rice.

CNN.com - Bush administration rejects*Clarke charges - Mar 23, 2004

I'm well aware of the Bush administration's attempts to discredit Clarke. Everyone who isn't a fanatical partisan knows that those attempts were lies. Other witnesses came forward and corroborated Clarke's claims shortly after the administration denied them. It was a very embarrassing situation for Rice and the rest of the administration. Again, everyone who knows anything about the situation and isn't a rabid partisan knows this.

Oh my! A terrorist group that is attempting to form a state the size of California...that beheads anyone who does not convert to Islam is not threat to us? I bet you thought Al Qeuda was no threat before 9/11/01.

A lot of people say a lot of things. Kim Jong Il threatened to nuke us. Other Jihadist groups have made similar threats against the US in the last decade. Why does this one frighten you so much more than the others?
 
Read anything by Richard Clarke on the subject. He talks in detail about his time as the head of the country's counter terrorism activities and how his efforts to focus on Bin Laden were shoved aside by the Bush administration in favor of a focus on Iraq.

Meanwhile, you have no reason to suspect that ISIS is some kind of threat to us. We agree that not every potential foe merits drastic action, and there seems to be no reason why this one does. I think we're done here.

Yes I've read about all that and also read most of Clarke's book. But the thing is that nobody else in GWB's White House will concur that Clarke is telling it like it is. There is always a lot of arm chair quarterbacking after the fact in these things. I am about as non-partisan as a poltically-minded person can get and have no problem acknowledging mistakes made by the Bush White House. But I am always suspicious of those who never say a word until AFTER the fact and after it is politically or financially profitable to do so. Clarke never said a word, never uttered a peep about any of this, until he was passed over for a high level Homeland Security appointment he coveted and then quit and became a disgruntled former employee. He never uttered a peep about any of this until his own self-serving book came out.

Things are not always as they seem, most especially when people have self-serving motives to exaggerate or distort the truth.
 
Yes I've read about all that and also read most of Clarke's book. But the thing is that nobody else in GWB's White House will concur that Clarke is telling it like it is. There is always a lot of arm chair quarterbacking after the fact in these things. I am about as non-partisan as a poltically-minded person can get and have no problem acknowledging mistakes made by the Bush White House. But I am always suspicious of those who never say a word until AFTER the fact and after it is politically or financially profitable to do so. Clarke never said a word, never uttered a peep about any of this, until he was passed over for a high level Homeland Security appointment he coveted and then quit and became a disgruntled former employee. He never uttered a peep about any of this until his own self-serving book came out.

Things are not always as they seem, most especially when people have self-serving motives to exaggerate or distort the truth.

I like how every response to my question is about trying to vindicate Bush, rather than actually address why ISIS is somehow a threat to us here in the US.
 
I like how every response to my question is about trying to vindicate Bush, rather than actually address why ISIS is somehow a threat to us here in the US.

I don't see anything in my post that vindicates Bush in any way. But if I'm going to verbally convict somebody, I rather insist that he or she is convicted for a crime they actually committed. You WANTING to believe Clarke over and above those who have openly said he didn't get it right is insufficient reason to convict Bush on that particular issue.
 
I'm well aware of the Bush administration's attempts to discredit Clarke. Everyone who isn't a fanatical partisan knows that those attempts were lies. Other witnesses came forward and corroborated Clarke's claims shortly after the administration denied them. It was a very embarrassing situation for Rice and the rest of the administration. Again, everyone who knows anything about the situation and isn't a rabid partisan knows this.

Actually it is only rabid partisans take your point of view. You are pretty much making it up as you go along. Condoleeza Rice quite ably shot down Clarke's line of bull.

Condoleezza Rice Answers Richard Clark | Etalkinghead

Clarke was attempting to hawk a book and he at the time held a grudge that he did not get a promotion. And as the article points out, at that point in time, the national security team was hold overs from the Clinton administration. It is kind of small minded to blame Bush for not stopping something in eight months that Clinton could not stop in eight years.



A lot of people say a lot of things. Kim Jong Il threatened to nuke us. Other Jihadist groups have made similar threats against the US in the last decade. Why does this one frighten you so much more than the others?

It does not frighten me, son. I am merely making the point that ISIS is a threat that must be dealt with.
 
I don't see anything in my post that vindicates Bush in any way. But if I'm going to verbally convict somebody, I rather insist that he or she is convicted for a crime they actually committed. You WANTING to believe Clarke over and above those who have openly said he didn't get it right is insufficient reason to convict Bush on that particular issue.

You do know that the white house retracted its attacks on Clarke after numerous people came forth and corroborated his statements, don't you? Wanting has nothing to do with it. These are the facts.

And I again return to my original question. The fearmongers have described ISIS as some kind of huge danger. Lindsey Graham is basically crapping his pants over them. Why should we be so afraid of them?
 
I like how every response to my question is about trying to vindicate Bush, rather than actually address why ISIS is somehow a threat to us here in the US.

It's difficult to teach someone who does not want to learn. I would start by asking if you agree that Al Queda was a threat before 9/11/01. Would you have laughed them off as well? They managed to kill over 3000 innocent people in the US in the space of just a few hours using 19 hijackers. ISIS is a much nastier off-shoot of Al Queda. Obama attempted to laugh them off and they now control more then half of Iraq. And they have already beheaded two innocent Americans.
 
You do know that the white house retracted its attacks on Clarke after numerous people came forth and corroborated his statements, don't you? Wanting has nothing to do with it. These are the facts.

Do name those numerous people. Let me guess....they are partisan democrats, right? And the Bush White House did not attack Clarke other then to point out that he was full of bull in his accusations. It was Clarke that attacked the Bush administration. It is corny that you look at self defense as an attack.

And I again return to my original question. The fearmongers have described ISIS as some kind of huge danger. Lindsey Graham is basically crapping his pants over them. Why should we be so afraid of them?

I am not a big fan of RINO Lindsey Graham however I do not see the panic you describe. You are basically pulling it out of your hat.
 
It's pretty much as I expected. Afghanistan has a new power sharing agreement in their democratic government and a democratic Iraq is fighting against genocide instead of a dictator committing it.






Yeah, he never did anything wrong.

:screwy

And the crap he was doing, he HAD been doing for years. We were fine with it until he reniged on the deal.
 
Is the left still pushing that corny fantasy that the US/CIA installed Saddam in power in Iraq?

The CIA was instrumental in putting the Baath party in power. Saddam clawed his way to head of the Baath power. In his day, when he was taking power, he was hailed by the US, and iconed here as a progressive, someone who would modernize Iraq. And at the time, their living standards WERE going up. Of course, no one REPORTED on his other doings...that didn't start till YEARS later, when we decided that we no longer liked him, because he outfitted his people with Russian gear. Then, in the early 90s, dessert storm erra, we gave him a scare, he got back in line, so we left him in power. The rest, as they say, is history.
 
It's difficult to teach someone who does not want to learn. I would start by asking if you agree that Al Queda was a threat before 9/11/01. Would you have laughed them off as well? They managed to kill over 3000 innocent people in the US in the space of just a few hours using 19 hijackers. ISIS is a much nastier off-shoot of Al Queda. Obama attempted to laugh them off and they now control more then half of Iraq. And they have already beheaded two innocent Americans.

So again, the only answer is "ISIS is scary because 9/11 happened." So should we jump at every single group of Jihadists because we're afraid of another 9/11? Congratulations, the terrorists have succeeded in terrorizing you. You are making counterproductive choices based on your fear of them.
 
i also have come to understand that we are doing Saudi Arabia's job for them, and we are doing it for free. also, we can't afford it, and we are unwilling to raise taxes to pay for it. not to mention that ****head Assad is actually benefiting from our involvement. there is no good side to take here.
This is absolutely true.
However, when we Americans see refugees on a mountain, multiple beheadings et al, we tend to want to kill the perpetrators.
ISIS seems to be a particularly nasty group and if we can undermine them, maybe--a big MAYBE here--the next gang will be less brutal.
As you say, not a lot of good choices.
 
The CIA was instrumental in putting the Baath party in power. Saddam clawed his way to head of the Baath power. In his day, when he was taking power, he was hailed by the US, and iconed here as a progressive, someone who would modernize Iraq. And at the time, their living standards WERE going up. Of course, no one REPORTED on his other doings...that didn't start till YEARS later, when we decided that we no longer liked him, because he outfitted his people with Russian gear. Then, in the early 90s, dessert storm erra, we gave him a scare, he got back in line, so we left him in power. The rest, as they say, is history.

Back that up with links if you can, Kevin. And with real history....not something from democratunderground.
 
And the crap he was doing, he HAD been doing for years. We were fine with it until he reniged on the deal.

False.

After the invasion of Iran, costing upwards of half a million Iraqis and the chemical genocide of the Kurds to the tune of 200k, the UN and the Western world began sanctions against Saddam. After the invasion of Kuwait, will you claim the West did not respond? After the genocide of the Marsh Arabs (50k), did the West not respond? The no-fly zones were in place to prevent further genocide, Saddam fired on them. When Saddam institutionalized rape, the West responded with additional sanctions. Food-for-oil was an attempt to see revenue go to the people of Iraq, it failed; Saddam sold 400k dead children worth of food.

17 unscr violations later, there was nothing for the West to do but nation build; unfortunately, it was so late; Saddam had annihilated Iraq's social capital.
 
This is absolutely true.
However, when we Americans see refugees on a mountain, multiple beheadings et al, we tend to want to kill the perpetrators.
ISIS seems to be a particularly nasty group and if we can undermine them, maybe--a big MAYBE here--the next gang will be less brutal.
As you say, not a lot of good choices.

yep, it's ****ing awful.

i don't believe that it can be fixed via eternal military force. it has to be rejected by the region. and i see no evidence that continued involvement in the region will lead to a reduction in the militancy of new groups. history indicates the opposite.
 
Back
Top Bottom