• 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!

Jail break at Abu Ghraib

sangha said:
Your question is not an answer to my question
Click to expand...

Your question is based on a false premise. All the criminals at Abu Ghraib were indicted. Your claim that others did such things and were not indicted is based on your personal fantasy.
 
ecofarm said:
Your question is based on a false premise. All the criminals at Abu Ghraib were indicted. Your claim that others did such things and were not indicted is based on your personal fantasy.
Click to expand...

Since you claim that no one else did the things the convicted did, then please name the things that no one else did
 
sangha said:
Since you claim that no one else did the things the convicted did, then please name the things that no one else did
Click to expand...

That's stupid. Provide evidence that others did such things at Abu Ghraib and were not indicted, or admit you made it up.
 
sangha said:
AFAIK, the commander wasn't removed and punished for the orders given, but I could be wrong about that
Click to expand...
Brigadier General Karpinski was relieved of her command and demoted to Colonel. She was then retired very shortly afterward.

It's wrong to lump this as an Army thing. A great deal of us, active and veteran, were disgusted by this disgrace.
 
Surtr said:
Brigadier General Karpinski was relieved of her command and demoted to Colonel. She was then retired very shortly afterward.

It's wrong to lump this as an Army thing. A great deal of us, active and veteran, were disgusted by this disgrace.
Click to expand...

I never lumped it as an Army thing.
 
sangha said:
If you don't like the word "prediction", use another word. It's still another right wing FAIL
Click to expand...

I didn't use the word, you did. I was referring to something that could have happened had things not occurred as they did. What I said is impossible to prove or disprove (and is in no way a "prediction,") but it's fairly obvious that civil war would have happened regardless of our interference.

Do you think that if Saddam fell without US involvement, Iraq wouldn't have degraded into sectarianism and civil war?
 
MadLib said:
I didn't use the word, you did.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did use it. Have any more obvious observations worth noting.

I was referring to something that could have happened had things not occurred as they did. What I said is impossible to prove or disprove (and is in no way a "prediction,") but it's fairly obvious that civil war would have happened regardless of our interference.

Do you think that if Saddam fell without US involvement, Iraq wouldn't have degraded into sectarianism and civil war?
Click to expand...

I think you're consistently failing with your posts
 
shrubnose said:
Looks like Iraq may still have some problems.

I vote that we let the Iraqis sort them out.

I'm sure that Iran will be glad to jump in, if necessary.
Click to expand...

Hah. Yeah. The basic problem with us vis-a-vis the Middle East is that activity creates problems (e.g. the recent wars, CIA activity in the 70s, etc), but inactivity may not be all that useful either. It's a **** situation, all around.
 
sangha said:
Have any more obvious observations worth noting.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm not a right winger. Also, you should have ended your sentence with a question mark.


I think you're consistently failing with your posts
Click to expand...

I'll ask you again. Do you think that if Saddam fell without US involvement, Iraq wouldn't have degraded into sectarianism and civil war?
 
MadLib said:
Yes, I'm not a right winger. Also, you should have ended your sentence with a question mark.




I'll ask you again. Do you think that if Saddam fell without US involvement, Iraq wouldn't have degraded into sectarianism and civil war?
Click to expand...

This thread is about the breakout at Abu Ghraib, not grammar or your speculative nonsense
 
sangha said:
This thread is about the breakout at Abu Ghraib, not grammar or your speculative nonsense
Click to expand...

It also wasn't about "right-wing predictions" that turned out to be "epic FAILs." Whoop-dee-do.
 
Now can anyone actually give an honest, direct response to this question:

Do you think that if Saddam fell without US involvement, Iraq wouldn't have degraded into sectarianism and civil war?
 
MadLib said:
Now can anyone actually give an honest, direct response to this question:
Do you think that if Saddam fell without US involvement, Iraq wouldn't have degraded into sectarianism and civil war?
Click to expand...
An honest answer is that we will never know. There are examples in history of all sorts of things. Egypt is not experiencing the same level of chaos and disaster that Iraq has gone through. Maybe Iraq would have been like Egypt. Maybe Iraq would have been like Libya, which has also managed to avoid a decade of destruction violence. Maybe Iraq would have been like Syria--full of bloodshed with no end in sight.

Until I see the official calibration results of your crystal ball, I am willing to believe that you have mostly just your bias to guide your assertion.
But barring the calibration results of your crystal ball, you could make an attempt to gather and present relevant data to bolster your case.

So far, though, all you have done is make assertion backed by rhetorical questions. Which, imho, isn't a convincing argument--not really an argument at all afaict. Ymmv.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
An honest answer is that we will never know. There are examples in history of all sorts of things. Egypt is not experiencing the same level of chaos and disaster that Iraq has gone through. Maybe Iraq would have been like Egypt. Maybe Iraq would have been like Libya, which has also managed to avoid a decade of destruction violence. Maybe Iraq would have been like Syria--full of bloodshed with no end in sight.

Until I see the official calibration results of your crystal ball, I am willing to believe that you have mostly just your bias to guide your assertion.
But barring the calibration results of your crystal ball, you could make an attempt to gather and present relevant data to bolster your case.

So far, though, all you have done is make assertion backed by rhetorical questions. Which, imho, isn't a convincing argument--not really an argument at all afaict. Ymmv.
Click to expand...

Judging by the context, it probably would have ended up more like Syria. Like Syria, a member of a minority religion ruled autocratically over the majority. Saddam managed to brutalize his population into submission in a way that Assad never could, but it would only be a matter of time before he died or before Iraq's Shia majority grew unrestful - the Arab Spring would be a good catalyst for the latter. One would hope for a recurrence of what happened in Egypt or even in Libya, but Saddam and Assad were/are much more tyrannical than Mubarak, and the sectarian issues that plague Iraq and Syria do not exist in Libya.

Once that point in time came, we'd likely see another Syrian civil war: Saddam's regime or what's left of it (under his son Uday?) would be fighting a rebel movement that would probably have a mix of Western-esque liberals and Shia Islamists, supported by Iran. The Baathists would probably be aligned with Sunni jihadists judging by what happened in Iraq, although it wouldn't be impossible for al-Qaeda affiliates to present a separate faction. The Kurds, like in Syria, would place their safety and autonomy above everything else, and so would be independent of the other belligerents.

Really, the only differences between Iraq and Syria are that the majority vs. ruling religions have been switched, and that Saddam had a greater stranglehold over Iraq than Assad has over Syria. However, since we invaded we were able to separate Shia Islamism from the liberal elements, and marginalize the former. We also managed to put the Kurds on the side of the liberal government, although this relationship is strenuous at times.

I just don't really believe that we were the magical ingredient that made everything in Iraq turned to ****, and that if we didn't intervene then everything would be fine and dandy once Saddam fell.
 
Aderleth said:
Hah. Yeah. The basic problem with us vis-a-vis the Middle East is that activity creates problems (e.g. the recent wars, CIA activity in the 70s, etc), but inactivity may not be all that useful either. It's a **** situation, all around.
Click to expand...




We're damned if we do damned if we don't.
 
With the jail break can I say the 10 years and trillions spent on wars to tackle terrorism came to noughts?
 
MadLib said:
Now can anyone actually give an honest, direct response to this question:

Do you think that if Saddam fell without US involvement, Iraq wouldn't have degraded into sectarianism and civil war?
Click to expand...

I think a majority of the Kurds and Shiites would be murdered. Even though the Sunnis are small, they have the money and power.
 
RDS said:
With the jail break can I say the 10 years and trillions spent on wars to tackle terrorism came to noughts?
Click to expand...

When we lost our commitment we lost the war.

We should have left in 2004 and I feel we would have the same results that we have today.
 
MadLib said:
Now can anyone actually give an honest, direct response to this question:

Do you think that if Saddam fell without US involvement, Iraq wouldn't have degraded into sectarianism and civil war?
Click to expand...

Probably not. Despite his obvious flaws, Saddam governed in a style they seemed to like. At least he kept the electricity and water running.

The US has a long established history of interfering in the business of other countries, and thereby causing mayhem and violence. Looks like we're going to do it again in Syria.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom