View Poll Results: A democratic Iraq means..........

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • More people standing up against tyranny, like we're seeing in Iran

    8 33.33%
  • Democracy will not last, dictatorship will inevitably return

    9 37.50%
  • Democracy will take hold, but the results will not be favorable for the US

    3 12.50%
  • I'm a malodorous hippie who believes Dick Cheney and George Bush eat arab babies for fuel

    4 16.67%
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 87

Thread: The Implications of a Democratic Iraq on the Middle East

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    12-20-10 @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    511

    Re: The Implications of a Democratic Iraq on the Middle East

    You must explain in detail exactly what our strategy in the ME is, why it is important to the US and why invading a sovereign and stable nation, destabilizing it and instituting a style government that is prone to upheaval every election cycle is beneficial to the US.
    Uhhh.....Did you just make the argument that Iraq was stable before our invasion? Sorry man, but if you believe that you need to cut back on the Michael Moore flicks and do some reading.

    To give a general and oversimplified answer to your question, though, democracies don't fight each other.
    Last edited by Libs_Luv_Weakness; 03-31-10 at 01:04 PM.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    12-20-10 @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    511

    Re: The Implications of a Democratic Iraq on the Middle East

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    This is why I have no confidence in the long-term Iraq strategy. I believe Rumsfeld lacked foresight and had too much of a hand in the strategy.
    So you're judging the merits of a venture based on the fact of someone's involvement? Seems like you never planned on giving it an honest chance.

  3. #53
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: The Implications of a Democratic Iraq on the Middle East

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    We are talking in circles. I addressed this with my comment below. It was not charity, it was in our strategic interest.
    We are talking in circles, but I feel it's primarily because of a fundamental difference regarding what qualifies as "strategically important" and why.

    I'll get into more detail below:

    I would say that the following are what makes it in the strategic interest:
    OK, let's look at each listed example:

    [*]oil reserves - the world relies on stable oil prices and the ME has the most proven reserves. This makes the region strategically important.
    How has the war in Iraq stabilized oil prices, though? Recent data suggests the opposite. Prices have been pretty unstable over the last 7 years.

    Are you saying that the ultimate outcome in Iraq will re-stabilize the oil prices somehow? If so, how?

    Plus, this goal seems very short-sighted to me considering that a better long-term goal is to decrease, if not totally eliminate, our dependence on foreign energy commodities altogether.

    [*]soft war between autocrats and islamists. The autocrats are restricting the populations. The populations are responding with radical Islamism. In some cases the autocrats are encouraging this - KSA. The way out of this is democratization.
    How does democratization offer a way out of radical Islamism, exactly?

    Also, was there a larger proportion of radical Islamism in Iraq before or after our intervention?

    I ask because all the data I've ever found on the matter suggests that Islamism has increased since the invasion, not decreased. Not just in Iraq either.

    [*]Iraq had 17 resolutions against it. Easy pickings.
    That makes it strategically important how, exactly?

    Specifically, how does that benefit the US?

    [*]Saddam subjugated his people. Humanitarian crisis.
    Why is this strategically important to the US? To me, that's just charity, and as such, should be funded privately.

    [*]Iraq is centrally located along fault lines: Kurdistan, Sunni v Shiite, Arab v Persian.
    OK, and what is the strategic importance of this exactly?

    What was the strategic benefit of invasion compared to the status quo?

    Where are the US gains, exactly?

    [*]Iraq's people are educated and capable of democracy.
    Are you saying they were educated before the invasion, and thus were capable of democracy, or that we've made them educated and capable of democracy?

    If it was a pre-existing condition, are they still as educated as they were after 7 years of war-torn strife?

    If it's an after the invasion development, can you show evidence of increased education directly resulting from the invasion?

    Also, this comes back to the same ultimate question, what specific benefit is for the US does this provide?

    There is a fundamental difference between identifying somewhere as strategically important and our strategy for dealing with it. I clarified why I think the ME and Iraq is strategically important above. Democracy has political upheavals, but is more stable than an autocracy. We invaded because of the justification of humanitarian intervention, IMHO - not WMDs.
    But the ultimate strategy must be clearly defined prior to designating something as "strategically important".

    And the strategy must have a clear benefit for the American people to warrant taxpayer-funding of the venture.


    Anything to break the stasis of the ME is an improvement.
    I flat out disagree with this.

    Would overthrowing Israel and putting in an Islamist regime be an improvement?

    Of course not. But it would certainly "break the stasis".

    I think that anything done to break the stasis absolutely has to consider long-term ramifications, with a primary interest in benefit for the American people.

    I simply don't agree that a change in the status quo in the Middle East always equals a benefit for the American people. I would require undeniable evidence evidence that any change will be a benefit to Americans before I would ever buy that argument.


    I don't think Al Qaeda's goal was to increase anti-americanism. It was to establish a caliphate. Iran will change as much as Iraq over time.
    My belief is that you have described Al Qaeda's long-term goal and that one of the immediate steps necessary to achieving that goal is increasing anti-American sentiment.

    Iran and Al Qaeda have lost this war.
    Personally, I don't think such claims can be made until the final outcomes are determined, and that those outcomes can't really be determined for at least 20-30 years.

    But my hope of hopes is that you are correct and I'm completely and totally incorrect.

    No one could predict the actions of the enemy.
    No one could predict them with 100% certainty, but many did predict them pretty accurately. Specifically McCain comes to mind, again.

    I think the insurgency was predictable, and the whole time Rumsfeld was saying no insurgency. Perhaps it was part of the plan, to create a honey pot. Bush was slow to go COIN, because of Rumsfeld I think, but once he did we went for it and it was a success.
    I don't actually disagree with this. I would say Rummy was the primary cause of what I view as the strategic errors in Iraq.

    While Bush is ultimately responsible for listening to him as CinC, he did do the right thing eventually and I would say that this action will help his legacy regardless of what the ultimate outcome in Iraq is.

    But Rumsfeld is a huge factor in my lack of confidence in the long-term planning of the decisions.

    But I don't doubt that the actions were taken by Bush because he felt they were in the best interests of the American people.

    I just don't agree that these actions will ultimately be in the best interests of the American people. This is based on fundamental differences I have regarding an interventionist military strategy, which I feel usually ends up having negative long-term effects in general.


    It is in the Iraqis hands.
    That is true. I hope that, as you said, Iran and Al Qaeda and radicalism have lost there.

    Thanks for the long message. I hope I addressed your points.
    You're welcome and thanks for the response. I think we have at least one fundamental difference in opinion that might not be rectifiable, specifically the view that "Anything to break the stasis of the ME is an improvement."

    I would also appreciate further clarification of the strategic importance arguments. Specifically, how the war in Iraq can and will create the correct environment to achieve the stated goals you have listed, and what, if any, benefit this will have for the US.

    Thanks.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #54
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: The Implications of a Democratic Iraq on the Middle East

    Quote Originally Posted by Libs_Luv_Weakness View Post
    So you're judging the merits of a venture based on the fact of someone's involvement? Seems like you never planned on giving it an honest chance.
    That's nonsense. I'm judging the primary planner's ability to have long-term foresight based on his horrendous track record of having a long-term foresight, specifically regarding the Middle East.

    I might be wrong. He might not have screwed the pooch this time, but assuming that he didn't in the face of the overwhelming evidence of his lack of foresight in past decisions is pure lunacy, IMO.

    As far as things go, it doesn't matter what I think since the situation (ie going into Iraq in the fist place) is already decided. My opinion ain't changing things.

    And I honestly do hope I'm wrong. That this turns out to be an out-of-character brilliant move by Rumsfeld in the ME.

    there's no reason why I should operate under the assumption he didn't **** up, especially knowing that at first, he very clearly did.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    12-20-10 @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    511

    Re: The Implications of a Democratic Iraq on the Middle East

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    That's nonsense. I'm judging the primary planner's ability to have long-term foresight based on his horrendous track record of having a long-term foresight, specifically regarding the Middle East.

    I might be wrong. He might not have screwed the pooch this time, but assuming that he didn't in the face of the overwhelming evidence of his lack of foresight in past decisions is pure lunacy, IMO.

    As far as things go, it doesn't matter what I think since the situation (ie going into Iraq in the fist place) is already decided. My opinion ain't changing things.

    And I honestly do hope I'm wrong. That this turns out to be an out-of-character brilliant move by Rumsfeld in the ME.

    there's no reason why I should operate under the assumption he didn't **** up, especially knowing that at first, he very clearly did.
    Why would we assume something based on Rumsfeld either way? Shouldn't your assessment of the strategy be based on your own logic and the facts as they are on the ground?

    And you do realize that he wasn't the primary planner, right? The SecDef is not head of military logistics. He does approve or disapprove of much of the central planning involved in warfighting, however there were many hands involved in the initial miscalculation of the troops needed to execute the mission.

    Of course, none of this speaks to the merits of the actual operation underway. The fact is we have achieved an impressive victory in Iraq. There were mistakes along the way, many of them due to the fact that we face an intelligent enemy that adapts to our tactics as we employ them.

    The mere fact of Rumsfeld's involvement, however, is not in itself an argument against the campaign as a whole.

  6. #56
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: The Implications of a Democratic Iraq on the Middle East

    Quote Originally Posted by Libs_Luv_Weakness View Post
    Uhhh.....Did you just make the argument that Iraq was stable before our invasion? Sorry man, but if you believe that you need to cut back on the Michael Moore flicks and do some reading.
    I've never watched a Michael Moore movie, but I have read lots of books. Probably more than most people.

    One of those books I've read was this one that is often called a "dictionary". These magical things give the "definitions" words such as "stable" which means firmly established and not changing or fluctuating.

    As anyone with a fourth grade education will realize, a government that went almost entirely unchanged for almost 24 years would definitely qualify as firmly establish and not changing or fluctuating.

    In fact, over that same time span, the government of Iraq was more stable than the government of the US, which underwent multiple fluctuations and changes.

    Not only that, but Iraq's government then was more resistant to change compared to how it is in a democracy.

    This is important because another definition for stable is resistant to change.


    Another great example of a stable dictatorship is Cuba. 50+ years of stability.

    Now, are you actually able to present evidence of instability in Iraq prior to our invasion, i.e. that it was prone to change or fluctuation or not firmly established, or were you just interested in making it abundantly clear that you did not actually have any clue of what "stable" means?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    12-20-10 @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    511

    Re: The Implications of a Democratic Iraq on the Middle East

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I've never watched a Michael Moore movie, but I have read lots of books. Probably more than most people.

    One of those books I've read was this one that is often called a "dictionary". These magical things give the "definitions" words such as "stable" which means firmly established and not changing or fluctuating.

    As anyone with a fourth grade education will realize, a government that went almost entirely unchanged for almost 24 years would definitely qualify as firmly establish and not changing or fluctuating.

    In fact, over that same time span, the government of Iraq was more stable than the government of the US, which underwent multiple fluctuations and changes.

    Not only that, but Iraq's government then was more resistant to change compared to how it is in a democracy.

    This is important because another definition for stable is resistant to change.


    Another great example of a stable dictatorship is Cuba. 50+ years of stability.

    Now, are you actually able to present evidence of instability in Iraq prior to our invasion, i.e. that it was prone to change or fluctuation or not firmly established, or were you just interested in making it abundantly clear that you did not actually have any clue of what "stable" means?
    You gotta love when debate devolves into condescension out of frustration.

    You got me, Tucker. Iraq was stable. They did not fluctuate at all in the last couple decades. Saddam was firmly established in his financial support of suicide bombers and his housing of the world's most wanted terrorist in an Iraqi goverment office.

    I should have clarified. I was referring to Iraq's "stability" as a destabilizing force in the ME.

    You can go on about technical definitions if you like, but the bottom line is you were using Iraq's stability as a selling point in an argument not to invade, as if being in any type of perpetual state inherently lends itself to peace.
    Last edited by Libs_Luv_Weakness; 03-31-10 at 02:15 PM.

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Implications of a Democratic Iraq on the Middle East

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I've never watched a Michael Moore movie, but I have read lots of books. Probably more than most people.

    One of those books I've read was this one that is often called a "dictionary". These magical things give the "definitions" words such as "stable" which means firmly established and not changing or fluctuating.

    As anyone with a fourth grade education will realize, a government that went almost entirely unchanged for almost 24 years would definitely qualify as firmly establish and not changing or fluctuating.

    In fact, over that same time span, the government of Iraq was more stable than the government of the US, which underwent multiple fluctuations and changes.

    Not only that, but Iraq's government then was more resistant to change compared to how it is in a democracy.

    This is important because another definition for stable is resistant to change.


    Another great example of a stable dictatorship is Cuba. 50+ years of stability.

    Now, are you actually able to present evidence of instability in Iraq prior to our invasion, i.e. that it was prone to change or fluctuation or not firmly established, or were you just interested in making it abundantly clear that you did not actually have any clue of what "stable" means?
    I agree with you, a dictatorship is more stable. It often preserves that stability through the subjugation of its people, a violation of human rights. Stability is not a desired feature. Smoothly changing instability is what is desired, so that the society can change over time. Ergo, democracy.

  9. #59
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: The Implications of a Democratic Iraq on the Middle East

    Quote Originally Posted by Libs_Luv_Weakness View Post
    Why would we assume something based on Rumsfeld either way? Shouldn't your assessment of the strategy be based on your own logic and the facts as they are on the ground?
    My assessment is based on my own logic and the facts as they exist. ALL of the facts. Not just the one's I choose to acknowledge. This includes historical facts regarding who implemented the strategies.

    Shouldn't yours?

    And you do realize that he wasn't the primary planner, right? The SecDef is not head of military logistics. He does approve or disapprove of much of the central planning involved in warfighting, however there were many hands involved in the initial miscalculation of the troops needed to execute the mission.
    He was one of the major reasons we went in with fewer troops than necessary. Original outlines for the invasion had far more in the way of boots on the ground. He was vocally critical of this plan on the basis that it had far too many troop in his estimation.

    Of course, none of this speaks to the merits of the actual operation underway. The fact is we have achieved an impressive victory in Iraq. There were mistakes along the way, many of them due to the fact that we face an intelligent enemy that adapts to our tactics as we employ them.
    First: Most of the mistakes were due to incompetent planning and bad intelligence. That's pretty clear by now. Rumsfeld was a big factor in the incompetent planning. All enemies adapt to the tactics employed. The mistake is not altering your tactics in response. That's incompetent leadership right there. Nothing more.

    Second: What did we win, exactly? Our military did an impressive job fulfilling their mission, especially in light of the incompetence displayed by leadership early on, and my hat is off to them.

    But what did we, the American People, win? I'm looking in my mailbox right now and I don't see an "Iraq prize". It's one thing to say we achieved" victory" when you are talking about the military fulfilling it';s mission, but it's another thing when you have to explain what benefits this ill-conceived venture has bestowed upon the American people. That won't be determined for decades.

    Like I've said, I might be wrong. This could somehow have a benefit for the American People. I'm just not sure how it will or if it can. Nor has anyone actually tried to give a legitimate explanation of how and why it will. Only guesses about untested hypotheses.

    It remains to be seen if this venture will ultimately strengthen or weaken our terrorist enemies in the long run, so declaring victory is absurd, IMO.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #60
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: The Implications of a Democratic Iraq on the Middle East

    Quote Originally Posted by Libs_Luv_Weakness View Post
    You gotta love when debate devolves into condescension out of frustration.
    So what exactly was causing your frustration that caused you to spew this condescending idiocy:

    Sorry man, but if you believe that you need to cut back on the Michael Moore flicks and do some reading.
    I'd love to know what it was, exactly, that caused your devolution there.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •