• 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!

Is the Middle East better off since the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom began?

Is the Middle East better off since the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom began?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 7.0%
  • No

    Votes: 32 74.4%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • Mmmmmm...pizza.

    Votes: 2 4.7%

  • Total voters
    43

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Is the Middle East better off since the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom began?
 
In one word: No.
 
Is this a question, or do you just want to fight with someone.
 
Fairer question:
Is there a chance in hell these overpopulated, misapportioned, dictator lead, lands would be better off from 2000 to 2015 with or without anyone else's involvement?

There's babies galore, and No food or Jobs, just bigger tribes in fake borders.
Shi'ite was Going to happen.
 
Last edited:
Is the Middle East better off since the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom began?

No, and we sure could have used that 3 trillion dollars. Hell, for that much money we could have 1000 people living on the moon.
 
Absolutely not.
w0npsx.png

http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/
 
It's far worst off and so are we!
 
What your chart very clearly shows is that violence in the ME exploded following the Arab Spring. Take a look at the worlds response that both led to and fed that little fiasco.

What it shows, is that it exploded after the invasion, leveled out while continuing, then exploded again. Which brings me back to the conclusion, no its not better.
 
What your chart very clearly shows is that violence in the ME exploded following the Arab Spring. Take a look at the worlds response that both led to and fed that little fiasco.

What do you call the 'Arab Spring'?
 
God no.

It was crap before, but it was ordered crap for the most part.

Now, it's a bloody ruin.

An immense waste of money, American military lives, and Iraqi civilian lives.
 
OK who's the guy that watch's Fox News & voted yes?
 
Is the Middle East better off since the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom began?



Shia Iran is way better off now that their Shia brothers in Iraq are in charge there.

The rest of the Middle East isn't doing so good.
 
What it shows, is that it exploded after the invasion, leveled out while continuing, then exploded again. Which brings me back to the conclusion, no its not better.
I suppose we would all be better off with Saddam back in power...
 
I suppose we would all be better off with Saddam back in power...

Well the whole ****ing region wasnt destabilized.... We could play the would coulda shoulda game all we want. But one thing is for sure: Al-Qaeda/Radical Jihadis did not have the power to destabilize the whole ****ing region before 2003...
 
Well the whole ****ing region wasnt destabilized.... We could play the would coulda shoulda game all we want. But one thing is for sure: Al-Qaeda/Radical Jihadis did not have the power to destabilize the whole ****ing region before 2003...
Wasnt that the intent of the OP...to play the shoulda woulda coulda game?
There is no doubt things could have been handled better. There is no doubt things would have turned out better had both major political parties sold out the Soldiers in theater in the name of politics. There is no doubt our enemies would not be emboldened if they knew we were unified in kicking their ass.
 
Much better off. Now the scum is seeping out of the wood works and we/they now know who to smack. These previously "hidden" factions are more visible now and are being drawn into open conflict instead of a "secret" conflict. Open conflict is always better than terrorism and criminal type conflicts.

It would be even better for them in the future if we had real strong leadership instead of a dickless muslim dog.
 
Much better off. Now the scum is seeping out of the wood works and we/they now know who to smack. These previously "hidden" factions are more visible now and are being drawn into open conflict instead of a "secret" conflict. Open conflict is always better than terrorism and criminal type conflicts.

It would be even better for them in the future if we had real strong leadership instead of a dickless muslim dog.

So...open conflicts are always better - even though they almost always result in FAR more casualties?

Okaaaaaay...I certainly hope you never attain military/political power.
 
Is the Middle East better off since the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom began?

Interesting question. Nobody predicted the fall of the Soviet Union. Major changes often happen without much warning.

I'm thinking yes. Here is why. Sadam was CIA liability. We know this. The guy was a megalomaniac. He was a liability and had a history of invasion. In an area that unstable? Can you really have a guy invading everyone? Especially with oil in the area that could change prices and cripple the economies of Europe?

Now. To Isis. Yea. They are a problem. Short term. They are organizing and causing hell. They aren't using wmds to gas their own people though. That was Sadam. These guys aren't much more than well armed terrorists. They are killing their own people too. And they are pissing EVERYONE off while they do it.

So. Let's just watch. I'm betting Isis won't last and the world will benefit from not having a bag of cats running the world's third largest army in a major flashpoint.

Tl;dr points

1) Sadam was unpredictable
2) Third largest army
3) History of invasion
4) Cia liability
5) wmds used to gas own people
6) Isis is already experiencing infighting
7) Isis is "small" and will face death at the hands of Muslims. Not the west. They have killed too many innocents. They have killed their own. You can't violate consistently sun Tzu and survive.

Yes. The world is better off. But let's wait for it to get out of current events before we pass judgement hm?
 
So...open conflicts are always better - even though they almost always result in FAR more casualties?

Okaaaaaay...I certainly hope you never attain military/political power.

Sadam would likely have continued open conflict. He had already had invaded multiple nations and gased his own people. Imagine the chaos when he died? Plus he was an embodiment of cia/American intervention. Now he is gone and we are going hand off.
 
It was a good plan. Attack a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, completely dismantle the existing regime/military, stir up a centuries old religious conflict and gift-wrap the region to Iran.

It had to be done.
 
It was a good plan. Attack a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, completely dismantle the existing regime/military, stir up a centuries old religious conflict and gift-wrap the region to Iran.

It had to be done.

That wasn't the question was it? The question was: is the region better off?

Tell me. Do you think Sadam was safe person to have in power there? Historically speaking how many times did he engage in open warfare with surrounding nations? He could impact 14% of the oil supply to Europe. Potentially more when he was in power then.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2012/01/24/factbox-whose-oil-does-eu-buy

He had chemical weapons and he used it on the Kurds too. That is a fact.

Isis is bad. But Isis doesn't have the 3rd largest military with chances to impact the global economy. Not like SH. And depending on how it plays out and who decides to eliminate isis, which is inevitable, the Mid East and the world will be better off.

I also didn't think about something in a previous statement. Israel. Hussein had attacked Israel. He was no friend to them. He couldn't be trusted and anyone who openly attacks Israel could also destabilize the region.

Isis has been losing ground since January. They are pissing off Arabs and losing popular support. So. Is the world better off? Give it 10 years. Odds are YES. Why? One less dictator with a pension for destabilizing the area. We can handle terrorists. We already killed al Qaeda off. It won't take much to assist in the demise of Isis.
 
Is it better off after the obama administration removed every soldier from the country? Even though the us has left brigades in every place we have ever been permanently. Germany, japan, korea, kosovo, kuwait. But not iraq. Gotta surrender there
 
Back
Top Bottom