• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Creating Terrorists, Why do we continue to do it?

DeeJayH said:
so since we conquered Iraq, toppled its regime, put into power a puppet democracy ( I assume that is your POV) and yet we still do not have cheap gas or Oil in the US
Click to expand...

It was not about having cheap oil in the US. It was about having military control over the middle East oil reserves, the largest on the planet.

He who has military control of the Middle East oil reserves rules the oil based economy of the world.
 
DeeJayH said:
you see, if this were a war for OIL, nobody else, but American Companies would be able to take advantage of the Iraqi Oil
Click to expand...

We got our contracts before the auction. Without the invasion, that would not have been possible, as Saddam kicked US oil out of Iraq 35 years ago.
bush-mission574x315.jpg
 
ScummyD said:
I wouldn't put it like that. I see certain things that are a successes including but not limited to the following:

The removal of a mass murdering dictator.

Which only became an issue when he kicked US oil out of Iraq, before that we were the mass murdering dictator's ally.

saddam-rumsfeld.jpg


Next.

The implementation of a democratically oriented government.

The installment of a puppet government that still requires 100,000 troops to prop up.

Next.

Those are no small accomplishment when one considers the history of Iraq. To deny that is unreasonable and undermines your credibility as an honest commentator.
Click to expand...

You are proud of the fact that after 6 years we were able to beat back a defenseless country and make them submit to our occupation?

Whatever floats your boat!
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Which only became an issue when he kicked US oil out of Iraq, before that we were the mass murdering dictator's ally.
Click to expand...
Regardless. We removed a mass murdering dictator and that is a success.

You know, you have a real hard time staying on topic and dealing with the point at hand and a real hard time with logic. You routinely leap out into irrelevant issues that have nothing to do with the point at hand. It is a mark of poor education or low intelligence or dishonesty. In this case I believe it is dishonesty.

The installment of a puppet government that still requires 100,000 troops to prop up.
Click to expand...
Regardless. There still exists a democratically oriented government where none existed before and that is a success.

And yet again you resort to leaping into other issues that are irrelevant to the point at hand. It's like trying to carry on a discussion with a small child.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
You are proud of the fact that after 6 years we were able to beat back a defenseless country and make them submit to our occupation?
saddam-rumsfeld.jpg

Whatever floats your boat!
Click to expand...
I am aware of American history.

I'm not sure what point you think you are making.

And, furthermore, if you believe it was wrong to support a mass murdering dictator, then you should believe it was right not to support him. That is if you were honest, but you have proven yourself to be dishonest and rather childish to be frank.
 
ScummyD said:
Regardless. We removed a mass murdering dictator and that is a success.

A success for big oil. It was not a concern until he kicked us out of Iraq.

Regardless. There still exists a democratically oriented government where none existed before and that is a success.
Click to expand...

It will only be a success when it can stand on its own without a US military occupation. That has not yet transpired.
 
Catawba said:
A success for big oil.
Click to expand...
And the Iraqi people unless you believe they enjoyed living under a homicidal maniac that raped, tortured and murdered them at will for decades with absolutely no repercussions to him.

It will only be a success when it can stand on its own without a US military occupation. That has not yet transpired.[/COLOR]
Click to expand...
Yes, I am aware of your opinion.

It is, however, an illogical belief.
 
Last edited:
ScummyD said:
I am aware of American history.

I'm not sure what point you think you are making.

That oil, and not Saddam being a murderer, was the deciding factor in our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

And, furthermore, if you believe it was wrong to support a mass murdering dictator, then you should believe it was right not to support him.
Click to expand...

I think he should have been taken out with a snipers rifle 35 years ago back when he was committing the mass murders. You know, back when he was our ally instead.
 
Catawba said:

I think he should have been taken out with a snipers rifle 35 years ago back when he was committing the mass murders. You know, back when he was our ally instead.
Click to expand...
Your comments once more reflect a very superficial and naive understanding of the situation.

If we assassinated Saddam at that time then there would have been a power vacuum at a time when Iran was posing a serious problem and thereby creating an even more dangerous situation.

Your idea here is idiotic.
 
ScummyD said:
And the Iraqi people unless you believe they enjoyed living under a homicidal maniac that raped, tortured and murdered them at will for decades with absolutely no repercussions to him.

Most of Saddam's murdering occurred when we were his ally. And through both Gulf wars, we are responsible for almost as many Iraqi deaths. We merely traded our oppression for that of his.


Yes, I am aware of your opinion.

It is, however, an illogical belief.
Click to expand...

It is not just my opinion that we still have twice as many troops in Iraq to prop up the government there we helped set up as we do fighting the war on terrorism in Afghanistan.
 
ScummyD said:
If we assassinated Saddam at that time then there would have been a power vacuum at a time when Iran was posing a serious problem and thereby creating an even more dangerous situation.
Click to expand...

And that is now different if we pull our military out how?
 
Catawba said:
And that is now different if we pull our military out how?
Click to expand...
You are the one advocating we withdraw. :lol: And are therefore the one advocating an idiotic policy of retreat.
 
Catawba said:
Most of Saddam's murdering occurred when we were his ally.
Click to expand...
And this in your demented left-wing mind tells you that the Iraqis enjoyed still living under his iron fist? :rofl

And through both Gulf wars, we are responsible for almost as many Iraqi deaths.We merely traded our oppression for that of his.
Click to expand...
If you can't see the difference between intentionally targeting Iraqis for rape, torture and murder and that of collateral damage in liberating them then you are even more foolish than you have previously let on.

It is not just my opinion that we still have twice as many troops in Iraq to prop up the government there we helped set up as we do fighting the war on terrorism in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
I never said it was. I know its hard for you, but try to keep your mind focused on the topic at hand.
 
Last edited:
ScummyD said:
And this in your demented left-wing mind tells you that the Iraqis enjoyed still living under his iron fist?
Click to expand...

There are 23 million Iraqis. If they wished to remove him from power, they could have. The government we installed cannot stand against its own people without our military occupation. What does that tell you about its legitimacy?


If you can't see the difference between intentionally targeting Iraqis for rape, torture and murder and that of collateral damage in liberating them then you are even more foolish than you have previously let on.
Click to expand...

We intentionally targeted 100,000 innocent Iraqi citizens in Desert Storm.
Another hundred thousand civilians lost their lives due to our Enduring Freedom invasion and occupation.

If our puppet government there is so peachy keen, why can it not stand on its own against its own people?
 
Catawba said:
There are 23 million Iraqis. If they wished to remove him from power, they could have.
Click to expand...
That is just sheer idiocy to suggest.

They did not possess the means to fight his army and band of Baathist assassins and nor did they possess the mindset after decades of brutal oppression.

The government we installed cannot stand against its own people without our military occupation. What does that tell you about its legitimacy?
Click to expand...
Another idiotic claim. It was elected and is therefore legitimate. If the Iraqis were so opposed to the government they would not have granted it legitimacy through the electoral process.

We intentionally targeted 100,000 innocent Iraqi citizens in Desert Storm.
Click to expand...
A despicable lie.
 
ScummyD said:
You are the one advocating we withdraw.
Click to expand...

Because I understand that we cannot afford a permanent occupation that it will take to prop up our puppet government there.


And are therefore the one advocating an idiotic policy of retreat.
Click to expand...

If you wish to call it retreat, a retreat from our oppressive, immoral occupation.
 
Catawba said:
Because I understand that we cannot afford a permanent occupation that it will take to prop up our puppet government there.
Click to expand...
So you just admitted to being in favor of an idiotic policy of retreat. Well done. :lamo

If you wish to call it retreat, a retreat from our oppressive, immoral occupation.
Click to expand...

More left-wing BS.
 
ScummyD said:
They did not possess the means to fight his army and band of Baathist assassins and nor did they possess the mindset after decades of brutal oppression.
Click to expand...

Wrong, they did not possess the will to depose him.


It was elected and is therefore legitimate. If the Iraqis were so opposed to the government they would not have granted it legitimacy through the electoral process.
Click to expand...

An election during a foreign military occupation is not what I call legitimate.
And apparently, neither do the Iraqis, as we still have 100,000 troops there to protect the government we helped set up from its own people.


A despicable lie.
Click to expand...

Go back and check the link I provided previously in this thread to document this.
 
ScummyD said:
So you just admitted to being in favor of an idiotic policy of retreat. Well done.
Click to expand...


You almost have it right. A retreat from idiocy is what I was referring to.
 
Catawba said:
Wrong, they did not possess the will to depose him.
Click to expand...
Exactly. As I said, they did not possess the mindset. Not because they enjoyed life under a mass murdering dictator that had raped, tortured and murdered their families and friends for decades, but because of the oppressive abuse which warped their minds. Duh.

Your position on this is your most absurd view yet! :lamo

An election during a foreign military occupation is not what I call legitimate.
Click to expand...

They went to the polls to vote while being threatened with death from al-Qaeda and ex-Baathits and in the middle of raging combat. They would not risk life and limb to vote in such an atmosphere just for the fun of it but to grant legitimacy to the nascent regime.

And apparently, neither do the Iraqis, as we still have 100,000 troops there to protect the government we helped set up from its own people.
Click to expand...
To protect it from outside threats, ex-Baathists and radical Islamists.


Go back and check the link I provided previously in this thread to document this.
Click to expand...
You couldn't document it if your life depended on it because it is a blatant lie. A lie you have in fact already been called on and proven to have no proof and that you couldn't even comprehend that which you cited as a source and your own baseless claim. :lamo
 
Last edited:
ScummyD said:
Exactly. As I said, they did not possess the mindset.
Click to expand...

Glad there is something we could agree on.

They went to the polls to vote while being threatened with death from al-Qaeda and ex-Baathits and in the middle of raging combat. They would not risk life and limb to vote in such an atmosphere just for the fun of it but to grant legitimacy to the nascent regime.
Click to expand...

We will see if it is legitimate when our troops are no longer there to protect it from its own people.

You couldn't document it if your life depended on it because it is a blatant lie.
Click to expand...

"A key example of such dual-use targeting was the destruction of Iraqi electrical power facilities in Desert Storm. While crippling Iraq’s military command and control capability, destruction of these facilities shut down water purification and sewage treatment plants. As a result, epidemics of gastroenteritis, cholera, and typhoid broke out, leading to perhaps as many as 100,000 civilian deaths and a doubling of the infant mortality rate."
Bombing Dual-Use Targets: Legal, Ethical, and Doctrinal Perspectives
 
Catawba said:
"A key example of such dual-use targeting was the destruction of Iraqi electrical power facilities in Desert Storm. While crippling Iraq’s military command and control capability, destruction of these facilities shut down water purification and sewage treatment plants. As a result, epidemics of gastroenteritis, cholera, and typhoid broke out, leading to perhaps as many as 100,000 civilian deaths and a doubling of the infant mortality rate."
Bombing Dual-Use Targets: Legal, Ethical, and Doctrinal Perspectives
Click to expand...

Yeah, as I have explained twice now this doesn't even support your lie. :lamo

You claimed the US targeted innocent civilians and then provide information discussing the targeting of infrastructure in order to cripple Saddam's war making capacities.

You are totally confused and don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about. Total illogical BS. :lamo
 
ScummyD said:
You claimed the US targeted innocent civilians and then provide information discussing the targeting of infrastructure in order to cripple Saddam's war making capacities.
Click to expand...

Are you then making the claim that the Air Force did not know that knocking out these facilities would also affect innocent civilians?
 
Catawba said:
Are you then making the claim that the Air Force did not know that knocking out these facilities would also affect innocent civilians?
Click to expand...
More of your illogical tangents that have nothing to do with the point at hand.

Whether or not a military action would affect civilians is totally different than "intentionally targeting innocent civilians." Get a clue.

It is clear that you didn't lie about this. You just have such a poor grasp of the English language and basic logic you don't make any sense and don't know what you are even saying. :lamo
 
ScummyD said:
More of your illogical tangents that have nothing to do with the point at hand.

Whether or not a military action would affect civilians is totally different than "intentionally targeting innocent civilians." Get a clue.

It is clear that you didn't lie about this. You just have such a poor grasp of the English language and basic logic you don't make any sense and don't know what you are even saying. :lamo
Click to expand...

Since the AF knew the effect that it would have on the civilian population, logically speaking, that would be intentional.

They knowingly made the choice that the ends justified the means. No different than the terrorists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom