• 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
AlbqOwl said:
There are times that military action is justified. Reagan gave fair warning to Gaddafy to leave America and Americans alone. So when Lybian terrorist's fire bombed a peaceful bar occupied by Americans, Reagan immediately sent our fighters to bomb the hell out of one of his strongholds in Lybia. This was pure, simple retaliation with no goal in mind other than swift, terrible, and very expensive/destructive retaliation. And it worked. We didn't hear a peep out of Gaddafy for decades after that.

It was necessary for us to react swiftly, terribly, and destructively to the attack on 9/11. We picked the right target and were extremely effective in taking out most of the enemy. Then with mission accomplished, we should have returned home. It would have been seen as just and appropriate retaliation by the rest of the world and would unlikely have encouraged other such attacks.

It was necessary for us to get rid of the albatross hung around our neck that Iraq had become. Ten years of sanctions had not only enormously enriched, emboldened, and made Saddam Hussein more vile and cruel, but it was funding his export of terrorist activities. Meanwhile most of the Iraqi people were suffering terribly. But we should have gone in with overwhelming force, done the inspections that Saddam had not allowed, destroyed all the chemical warfare making plants and war making machine, confiscated the weapons from Saddam's Republican Guard, taken out Hussein, and left.

If the attack on Lybia is a serious and deadly retaliation for capturing and murdering our people, so be it. If they know it will happen again if they do it again, it definitely could be a deterrence for that sort of thing. But if it is a wag the dog kind of thing in advance of the November election or is supposed to be seen as some kind of brave, noble thing with no idea of what victory will look like, then that's a bad thing.

I'm withholding my opinion about it until I know more about what they are actually doing.
Click to expand...

So you think we helped the Iraqi people? We helped 100,000 to die and made those that survived lives worse. We exchanged one oppressive sectarian Govt. for another. How did that help anything?
 
iguanaman said:
So you think we helped the Iraqi people? We helped 100,000 to die and made those that survived lives worse. We exchanged one oppressive sectarian Govt. for another. How did that help anything?
Click to expand...

You obviously have no understanding of the nature of the Saddam regime. Nor have you been to Iraq. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis would not trade what they have now for what they had then.
 
Montecresto said:
Oh yes of course the "elite" would still keep their kids away from the front lines, but the rest, those Americans that are so quick to jump on the band wagon in support of war, wouldn't. Therefore we might find less support. Last summer, 70% of Americans were opposed to any military action in Syria! this summer 70% support military action in Syria. Dear lord, it's cynical I know, but Americans never are going to learn what politicians really do. IMO, Jack taxes to the ceiling every time we roll out our military and pay for it in real time, and reinstate that damn draft and let's see how much Americans can be scared into conflict.
Click to expand...

there is no need to send kids off to die against their will. there are better ways to get Americans to demand a halt to a perpetual state of war.

way #1 : hit them in the pocketbook hard every time there is a US military action. we need to choose our fights very carefully, and that is the simplest way to ensure that we do.
 
iguanaman said:
So you think we helped the Iraqi people? We helped 100,000 to die and made those that survived lives worse. We exchanged one oppressive sectarian Govt. for another. How did that help anything?
Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:
You obviously have no understanding of the nature of the Saddam regime. Nor have you been to Iraq. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis would not trade what they have now for what they had then.
Click to expand...

Except that we are asking you to look at a much larger picture. I would agree with you that in some ways the Saddam regime was worse than current Iraq government, but would counter argue that current Iraq government allowed for another condition to materialize. That would be those that make up ISIS, and they were already there, to take advantage of a weak Iraq military we left behind. But more to the point we are seeing the aptitude of those in Iraq, a faction driven source of division with no real intention to get along with one another.

ISIS is not looking for more presence in the Iraq government, they are looking for an isolated independent state they completely and ideologically control that would span into parts of Syria (perhaps even other nations when all is said and done.) You do not have to visit Iraq to understand the history of the region and the dominant religion in play. There are enough splinters to suggest real understanding of the multiple way civil war in Syria without having to visit that nation either. Even if the "overwhelming majority of Iraqis would not trade what they have now for what they had then" that does not negate that what they do have now cannot control their nation without outside help, putting the US and others in a costly position going forward. So now we get a 4th President in a row to drop a bomb on the same nation.

In a way iguanaman was right, all we really did was exchange one ideology for another and put us in the fiscal position of having to crutch that exchanged ideology going forward (who also have no real interest in getting along with their ideological competition.) We are not going back into Iraq with airstrikes and "boots on the ground training" from a position of strength. Everything still hinges on the effectiveness of our ability to do what we failed at several times over, influence and educate a current Iraq government to be strong enough to control their nation.

Since we are doing little different this time too, I would question what is the expectation we will get different results? And keep in mind there is real expense with this lesson we refuse to acknowledge.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Except that we are asking you to look at a much larger picture. I would agree with you that in some ways the Saddam regime was worse than current Iraq government, but would counter argue that current Iraq government allowed for another condition to materialize. That would be those that make up ISIS, and they were already there, to take advantage of a weak Iraq military we left behind. But more to the point we are seeing the aptitude of those in Iraq, a faction driven source of division with no real intention to get along with one another.

ISIS is not looking for more presence in the Iraq government, they are looking for an isolated independent state they completely and ideologically control that would span into parts of Syria (perhaps even other nations when all is said and done.) You do not have to visit Iraq to understand the history of the region and the dominant religion in play. There are enough splinters to suggest real understanding of the multiple way civil war in Syria without having to visit that nation either. Even if the "overwhelming majority of Iraqis would not trade what they have now for what they had then" that does not negate that what they do have now cannot control their nation without outside help, putting the US and others in a costly position going forward. So now we get a 4th President in a row to drop a bomb on the same nation.

In a way iguanaman was right, all we really did was exchange one ideology for another and put us in the fiscal position of having to crutch that exchanged ideology going forward (who also have no real interest in getting along with their ideological competition.) We are not going back into Iraq with airstrikes and "boots on the ground training" from a position of strength. Everything still hinges on the effectiveness of our ability to do what we failed at several times over, influence and educate a current Iraq government to be strong enough to control their nation.

Since we are doing little different this time too, I would question what is the expectation we will get different results? And keep in mind there is real expense with this lesson we refuse to acknowledge.
Click to expand...

Iraq's military weakness is a result of the complete US withdrawal in 2011, something no responsible planner would have advocated. The growth of ISIS is a result of US hesitation in Syria. Given more thoughtful and courageous US leadership, the current crisis need never have occurred.
 
iacardsfan said:
Combating aggression with aggression is like combating the national debt by adding more debt
Click to expand...

Why of course it is! Combating aggression with aggression never solves anything. That's why the U.S. never should have overreacted like it did on December 7, 1941. Every time U.S. forces killed a Japanese, it just made more Japanese mad at us. If only we had tried to see things their way, I'm sure everything would have been fine.
 
Jack Hays said:
Iraq's military weakness is a result of the complete US withdrawal in 2011, something no responsible planner would have advocated. The growth of ISIS is a result of US hesitation in Syria. Given more thoughtful and courageous US leadership, the current crisis need never have occurred.
Click to expand...

So you say, but that would mean doing then what we are doing now... continued expense in dollars and potential lives to occupy of Iraq (in terms Bush 43 could not even negotiate for at the time,) and the occupation of Syria as well in an ongoing manner. The "line in the sand" nonsense from Obama was aimed at al-Assad, and if we had attacked and removed him we would be facing there what we face in Iraq now. A government of "moderates" dealing with various factions who do not agree. Again, those that make up ISIS have been there looking for opportunity to capitalize on. What you are suggesting is taking one of the longest conflicts the US has been engaged in and extending it outward with indefinite determination and including a 2nd nation to occupy as well in the exact same terms. So much for fiscal conservatism.

The harsh truth is there really is only two answers at this point. One is our participation in genocide, the other is sitting back and letting them engage in genocide against one another. I am questioning our participation in forcing by long term occupation a more peaceful coexistence between factions that clearly want anything but a peaceful coexistence. Again there is no aptitude among all these ideologies to get along, and we clearly have been unsuccessful and influencing that with Western governmental and sociological reasoning. Why do you think it would have worked with a long term occupation of both Iraq and Syria?
 
ObamacareFail said:
No.....I am not. And none are needed.
Click to expand...

So we are back to the argument of should haves with no political movement at the time to make them reality. In the mean time we are spending beyond means and I find it absurd that we need a military with such size and cost that outspends the next 8-10 nations combined (based on whatever source you would like.) Just as I find it absurd to need the social safety net spending we see today.

We are stuck with an unpleasant reality, we cannot fund all that we politically want and our ongoing without interruption Total Debt growth is more than enough evidence that we have a clear spending problem. You say social safety nets should be where cuts are, others say the military should be where cuts are. I say it is all on the table for discussion and I can see entire departments gone in the process. Division of state level activity and federal level activity in an effort to reduce our tax burden. But what I will not say is what got us into this mess in the first place, partisan spending protection while claiming opposition spending wants are the exclusive problem. They are all a problem getting us to another unpleasant reality. Our deficits, even in decline, suggest we need far more tax revenues or far less spending. I suggest far less spending targeting every single department excluding no one. Including our bloated we must police the entire planet military.
 
Helix said:
wrong, but thanks for at least being honest.
Click to expand...

We did not raise taxes for the 1991 war or the 2003 war. We are at war with ISIS now and we are not raising taxes....especially in an election year.
 
OrphanSlug said:
So you say, but that would mean doing then what we are doing now... continued expense in dollars and potential lives to occupy of Iraq (in terms Bush 43 could not even negotiate for at the time,) and the occupation of Syria as well in an ongoing manner. The "line in the sand" nonsense from Obama was aimed at al-Assad, and if we had attacked and removed him we would be facing there what we face in Iraq now. A government of "moderates" dealing with various factions who do not agree. Again, those that make up ISIS have been there looking for opportunity to capitalize on. What you are suggesting is taking one of the longest conflicts the US has been engaged in and extending it outward with indefinite determination and including a 2nd nation to occupy as well in the exact same terms. So much for fiscal conservatism.

The harsh truth is there really is only two answers at this point. One is our participation in genocide, the other is sitting back and letting them engage in genocide against one another. I am questioning our participation in forcing by long term occupation a more peaceful coexistence between factions that clearly want anything but a peaceful coexistence. Again there is no aptitude among all these ideologies to get along, and we clearly have been unsuccessful and influencing that with Western governmental and sociological reasoning. Why do you think it would have worked with a long term occupation of both Iraq and Syria?
Click to expand...

GWB's planners envisioned a long term US military presence in a stabilized Iraq (as it was in 2009). The SOFA was left to be renegotiated in 2011 so as not to tie his successor's hands. No one imagined BHO would withdraw altogether. In 2012 there was no need whatsoever for US forces in Syria. Local forces wanted only weapons to do their own fighting.
 
Helix said:
there is no need to send kids off to die against their will. there are better ways to get Americans to demand a halt to a perpetual state of war.

way #1 : hit them in the pocketbook hard every time there is a US military action. we need to choose our fights very carefully, and that is the simplest way to ensure that we do.
Click to expand...

We'll I already agreed heartily with you on point one, but point two that you are against is further insurance. There's too many people who already don't pay taxes. But let them all know that if they support another war that their kids will be suiting up for it, I think you'll see that as much a deterrent as financial.
 
ObamacareFail said:
We did not raise taxes for the 1991 war or the 2003 war. We are at war with ISIS now and we are not raising taxes....especially in an election year.
Click to expand...

we've been borrowing to pay for war for a long time. that doesn't make it good policy. i don't support continuing to do so.
 
OrphanSlug said:
So you say, but that would mean doing then what we are doing now... continued expense in dollars and potential lives to occupy of Iraq (in terms Bush 43 could not even negotiate for at the time,) and the occupation of Syria as well in an ongoing manner. The "line in the sand" nonsense from Obama was aimed at al-Assad, and if we had attacked and removed him we would be facing there what we face in Iraq now. A government of "moderates" dealing with various factions who do not agree. Again, those that make up ISIS have been there looking for opportunity to capitalize on. What you are suggesting is taking one of the longest conflicts the US has been engaged in and extending it outward with indefinite determination and including a 2nd nation to occupy as well in the exact same terms. So much for fiscal conservatism.

The harsh truth is there really is only two answers at this point. One is our participation in genocide, the other is sitting back and letting them engage in genocide against one another. I am questioning our participation in forcing by long term occupation a more peaceful coexistence between factions that clearly want anything but a peaceful coexistence. Again there is no aptitude among all these ideologies to get along, and we clearly have been unsuccessful and influencing that with Western governmental and sociological reasoning. Why do you think it would have worked with a long term occupation of both Iraq and Syria?
Click to expand...

Bush had FIVE YEARS to train the Iraqi military, if they're not ready, then they're NOT ready! Think about what's surrounding the Islamic State. A very capable Iranian army, Saudi Arabia with the worlds fourth largest military, the very capable military of Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey. Why in the hell are we even talking about intervening/interfering. Those regional powers can and should be forced to deal with their problem.
 
Helix said:
we've been borrowing to pay for war for a long time. that doesn't make it good policy. i don't support continuing to do so.
Click to expand...

Every war in US history has been paid for via deficit financing.
 
Helix said:
we've been borrowing to pay for war for a long time. that doesn't make it good policy. i don't support continuing to do so.
Click to expand...

We have been borrowing money to pay for everything for a long time. It is not wars that are breaking the bank. It is a runaway entitlement system. That's what we need to get control of.
 
Jack Hays said:
Iraq's military weakness is a result of the complete US withdrawal in 2011, something no responsible planner would have advocated. The growth of ISIS is a result of US hesitation in Syria. Given more thoughtful and courageous US leadership, the current crisis need never have occurred.
Click to expand...

Why did we spend 10 years and billion$ to train and equip their military then? How would propping up another sectarian regime like Saddams help stabilize the region? Did you think we would be there holding their hands forever? Then there's the fact that they wanted us out and we were taking casualties daily because of it. Is that the respect you have for our military? Make them be policemen in foreign land and let them keep be maimed and dying because we failed to make Iraq stabile? Is that what our military is for? To die for our mistakes?
 
ObamacareFail said:
We have been borrowing money to pay for everything for a long time. It is not wars that are breaking the bank. It is a runaway entitlement system. That's what we need to get control of.
Click to expand...

Social Security pays for itself by law. Are you saying we should do the same with the defense budget?
 
Jack Hays said:
You obviously have no understanding of the nature of the Saddam regime. Nor have you been to Iraq. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis would not trade what they have now for what they had then.
Click to expand...

You must be kidding.....they have had a constant war since we invaded. Nothing is worse than war.
 
iguanaman said:
Why did we spend 10 years and billion$ to train and equip their military then? How would propping up another sectarian regime like Saddams help stabilize the region? Did you think we would be there holding their hands forever? Then there's the fact that they wanted us out and we were taking casualties daily because of it. Is that the respect you have for our military? Make them be policemen in foreign land and let them keep be maimed and dying because we failed to make Iraq stabile?
Click to expand...

By 2009 Iraq was stabilized and on its way to normalization. The role envisioned for US forces was similar to that played by US forces in South Korea since 1953. Failure to follow through on that vision has contributed mightily to creating the problems today.
 
Jack Hays said:
GWB's planners envisioned a long term US military presence in a stabilized Iraq (as it was in 2009). The SOFA was left to be renegotiated in 2011 so as not to tie his successor's hands. No one imagined BHO would withdraw altogether. In 2012 there was no need whatsoever for US forces in Syria. Local forces wanted only weapons to do their own fighting.
Click to expand...

Several problems here. One, even Bush 43 did not obtain all that he wanted in negotiation to ensure long term occupation of Iraq into Obama's time. Especially when it came to immunity concerns. If it were otherwise then Bush 43 would have had plans to stay indefinite with a moderate force (at additional costs despite what Iraq wanted.) Two, Iraq was not all that stabilized the further we went with this weakend Iraq government who themselves excluded so many. They made this mess worse, just as our withdraw created opprotunity for others. Three, Obama campaigned on leaving Iraq so it would be odd to suggest it was likely that McCain would have stayed long term given point one. If Bush 43 could not negotiate for indefinite occupation, how could have McCain? Four, there is no rational way to group all of Al-Assad's opposition into one "local group." Those that make up ISIS are not quite the same as those that make up "moderates" in today's terms, else we would not be talking about arming any of them. Lastly, these "moderates" in Syria have no interest in engaging ISIS. They share a common enemy making our involvement there questionable in who benefits long term. Obama got punked with this whole "line in the sand" nonsense.
 
Jack Hays said:
By 2009 Iraq was stabilized and on its way to normalization. The role envisioned for US forces was similar to that played by US forces in South Korea since 1953. Failure to follow through on that vision has contributed mightily to creating the problems today.
Click to expand...

LOL There was nothing stabile about Maliki's tyrannical government. That is why you think we should have stayed against the Iraqi's will I bet. We went to Iraq to free them not put another tyrant in place. They are closer now to stability then when Maliki was anointed by Bush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom