• 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!

CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

What a terrible business investment. And your investment is already drowned in trillions of dollars of debt. I thought Republicans were supposed to be business savvy. When do you expect to see returns on that investment.

We are. I take it you don't own stock in military related companies?
 
Your assertion is false. I won't speculate about your motive for misstating such a simple matter of historical fact. I'll just note that it's silly to do it, because anyone can check for himself.

"Iraq accused UNSCOM of spying for the United States, barred American employees of UNSCOM from the country, and declared off-limits a growing number of 'presidential sites'--a category not recognized in the U.N.-Iraq inspections accords. After negotiating with the Iraqis, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan exempted the sprawling presidential sites from inspections. Nevertheless, in October 1998, Iraq said it would no longer cooperate with UNSCOM. That refusal triggered several days of U.S. and British air strikes, known as Operation Desert Fox, in December 1998. UNSCOM withdrew its inspectors before the air strikes began, and they never returned to Iraq." (emphasis added)

IRAQ: Weapons Inspections: 1991-1998 - Council on Foreign Relations



You don't know any of that. And no amount of asserting your quasi-religious belief about the matter will establish it as fact.

Bin Laden and most of his henchmen were Saudis.
Al Qaeda was behind the attack on the WTC.
There was no Al Qaeda Iraq before the invasion.
Bush warned the weapons inspectors to leave Iraq before the US invaded.

Facts. No "quasi religious" scripture required to see why the invasion was a bad idea. Trying to support the war does take some faith, however.
 
It wasn't an excuse, so much as it was the best option in an effort to actually take seriously the reconstruction and reshaping on the Middle East. Something that wasn't taken seriously before 9/11, was improperly executed in 2003, and then not taken seriously again after the surge.

There could've been major progress made, but the American public doesn't have the stomach for it. More's the pity, but a short attention span is to be expected in this era of tweets and soundbites,

Attributing the Iraq exit strategy, after almost a decade of being there and trillions of dollars spent, to a short culture attention span is grossly obtuse.
 
Can any conservatives admit that their supposed ideologies of fiscal responsibility, limited government and self reliance are completely thrown out of the window when it comes foreign policy/military? Everything they supposedly stand for in domestic policy is never applied overseas, and they act like big government progressives when it comes to dealing with international conflicts. They support spending reckless amounts of money, the creation of a larger military (which is just more government and more money), and they try to save oppressed peoples of the Middle East with our own military resources, rather than let those people be self reliant or give those people the resources to help themselves. I've never heard a conservative truly admit that they act like socialist overseas. Are they completely aware of this but just don't like to admit to save face? Are they in denial, and actually think they've applied ideals of fiscal responsibility, small government and self reliance to policies in Iraq and Afghanistan?
 
Attributing the Iraq exit strategy, after almost a decade of being there and trillions of dollars spent, to a short culture attention span is grossly obtuse.
It's absolutely part of it. That and obstinate Shia politicians.
 
It's absolutely part of it. That and obstinate Shia politicians.

If a business gives up on a failed marketing strategy or new product after almost a decade of trying to make that venture successful, that's just smart business practice (actually, smart would have been giving up in it years earlier), because obviously their objective wasn't manifesting and likely never would. Would you say Blockbuster Video execs have a short attention span because they decided to finally close up shop after years of no success in the new digital video market? Like I've said before, conservatives who pride themselves in business acumen and fiscal responsibility throw all of that out the window when it comes to foreign policy.
 
...why do you assume I'm a conservative? I always find it odd that political partisans, when someone disagrees with them, assume that the other person is someone of the opposite political side. Very strange.

I don't think Iraq and Blockbuster are very similar, as far as business models. Do you?
 
They still did not kick the inspectors out in 1998, as you asserted they did.

And Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on the WTC. Everyone knew that they had nothing to do with the attack of 2011. The attack was simply a convenient excuse to carry out a war that the PNAC had wanted to start for years.

It's always a good idea to check your facts before other people check the facts for you and leave you looking like you make your own facts up as you go along. Iraq did kick the weapons inspectors out in 1998. Here you go. Iraq Weapons Inspections Fast Facts - CNN.com
 
It wasn't an excuse, so much as it was the best option in an effort to actually take seriously the reconstruction and reshaping on the Middle East.
That was it exactly and should have been understood by everyone. Things would be a great deal different with a US base in the center of the ME, and of course other countries should have contributed as well.
Something that wasn't taken seriously before 9/11, was improperly executed in 2003, and then not taken seriously again after the surge. There could've been major progress made, but the American public doesn't have the stomach for it. More's the pity, but a short attention span is to be expected in this era of tweets and soundbites,
You nailed it again.
 
If a business gives up on a failed marketing strategy or new product after almost a decade of trying to make that venture successful, that's just smart business practice (actually, smart would have been giving up in it years earlier), because obviously their objective wasn't manifesting and likely never would. Would you say Blockbuster Video execs have a short attention span because they decided to finally close up shop after years of no success in the new digital video market?

to bad you weren't making policy right after WWII. I'm sure your "blockbuster video" theory would have been gangbusters.
I don't want to give a history lesson but you do realize we STILL have troops in Japan and Germany. They didn't say "hey lets give this a few years to work and then do a TOTAL withdrawal." That would have been a disaster(like you are currently seeing thanks to the decisions of the current administration).

Maybe you have a Hollywood Video theory to rebut...
 
Bin Laden and most of his henchmen were Saudis.
Al Qaeda was behind the attack on the WTC.
There was no Al Qaeda Iraq before the invasion.
Bush warned the weapons inspectors to leave Iraq before the US invaded. Facts. No "quasi religious" scripture required to see why the invasion was a bad idea. Trying to support the war does take some faith, however.
If you looked at the turmoil as a Middle East problem rather than just an Iraqi problem then you'd get closer to the reality of what was happening. The idea was to have a strong Coalition presence in the ME, in Iraq, along with the "Super Embassy", in order to help control events there. Saddam Hussein supplied the opportunity for coalition troops to enter, and remain. Now there is little control anywhere.

What good does it do in simply taking out a leader without considering the consequences? That happened recently in Egypt and Libya and we see what happened. We see it in Iraq too, of course, after pulling the troops.
 
to bad you weren't making policy right after WWII. I'm sure your "blockbuster video" theory would have been gangbusters.
I don't want to give a history lesson but you do realize we STILL have troops in Japan and Germany. They didn't say "hey lets give this a few years to work and then do a TOTAL withdrawal." That would have been a disaster(like you are currently seeing thanks to the decisions of the current administration).

Maybe you have a Hollywood Video theory to rebut...

Very very bad example. First off we were attacked by Japan and Germany, we were never attacked by Iraq. Secondly, the implementation of democratic governments in those regions (west Germany and Japan) went very smoothly. In Iraq it started a civil war and actually created NEW and stronger terrorist organizations. Thirdly, we libertarians don't believe the U.S. Should still be in japan and Germany! It's a complete waste of my tax dollars and U.S. Resources! Socialist big spending republicans however want MORE troops over there. If it really makes you feel better having troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany and Japan, that's fine, but you have to pay for it. Don't be a socialist and force me to use my tax dollars for an international welfare cause I don't believe in.
 
Last edited:
...why do you assume I'm a conservative? I always find it odd that political partisans, when someone disagrees with them, assume that the other person is someone of the opposite political side. Very strange.

I don't think Iraq and Blockbuster are very similar, as far as business models. Do you?

Iraq and Blockbuster aren't similar but the premise is. It's well know that Japanese business tycoons of the 1980s were using strategies from The Art of War and translating them into business moves. The premise is, if a policy or strategy is consistently failing to meet results, it must be significantly altered or abandoned, or it will do more harm than good for the company/government. The strategy had been altered a few times, with limited results, so it was obviously time to abandon the mission. Not to mention, the American public, nor congress, ever agreed to a 50 year occupation of Iraq because of supposed WMDs and ties to Al Qaeda (which all turned out to be fabrications anyway). It's not fair for the American tax payer to pay several more trillion dollars simply for "Iraqi Freedom". That's the biggest case of welfare fraud in world history.
 
Iraq and Blockbuster aren't similar but the premise is. It's well know that Japanese business tycoons of the 1980s were using strategies from The Art of War and translating them into business moves. The premise is, if a policy or strategy is consistently failing to meet results, it must be significantly altered or abandoned, or it will do more harm than good for the company/government. The strategy had been altered a few times, with limited results, so it was obviously time to abandon the mission. Not to mention, the American public, nor congress, ever agreed to a 50 year occupation of Iraq because of supposed WMDs and ties to Al Qaeda (which all turned out to be fabrications anyway). It's not fair for the American tax payer to pay several more trillion dollars simply for "Iraqi Freedom". That's the biggest case of welfare fraud in world history.
Yeah, the idea is in geopolitics, five years really isn't that long. This isn't a mom and pop restaurant.
 
Yeah, the idea is in geopolitics, five years really isn't that long. This isn't a mom and pop restaurant.

It's hard to justify being there much longer than that when the two main reasons for going were found to be completely false. Very few Americans would have supported invading Iraq just clear the world of another dictator, in a country where extremism continually festers anyway. Americans were primarily scared by WMDs and Hussein funding Al Qaeda. When those were found to be complete b.s., even a lot of Republicans wanted to stop paying for it. It had nothing to do with "short attention span"
 
It's hard to justify being there much longer than that when the two main reasons for going were found to be completely false. Very few Americans would have supported invading Iraq just clear the world of another dictator, in a country where extremism continually festers anyway. Americans were primarily scared by WMDs and Hussein funding Al Qaeda. When those were found to be complete b.s., even a lot of Republicans wanted to stop paying for it. It had nothing to do with "short attention span"

Sure it does. The opportunity to confront the Middle East holistically was present, and instead of seizing the opportunity, the country decided to stop after a few short years. It's either a short attention span or shortsightedness in general.
 
If you looked at the turmoil as a Middle East problem rather than just an Iraqi problem

Exactly. States in the Middle East aren't the same as they are in many other places. Less than 100 years ago, virtually none of the countries there existed. Approaching things as if a Syrian is vastly different from an Iraqi who is vastly different from a Saudi Arabian is failing before you start. And it's not even like, say Armenia or Bosnia or something, where maybe the nation state didn't exist but the nation, as a cultural identity, did. There was no such thing as an "Iraqi" in 1914, and a "Syrian" in 1914 wasn't even the same people who ended up actually ruling Syria. A "Saudi" in 1914 was just someone who was part of the Saud family.

So flashforward 80-90 years when the US starts to slowly start to focus on the Middle East after the Cold War ended (and especially after 9/11) and it's hilarious for me to see people say "The hijackers weren't even Iraqi!" like they think they're sharing some awesome insight that regional experts, think tanks, and policy makers somehow overlooked. "GOTCHA! THEY WEREN'T EVEN IRAQI!" It's like "Yes, Einstein, everyone knows that, these regional experts and whatnot are working on a different level than you are, clearly, because you're still focusing on nationality when that's not really the issue at all." Nothing is sillier than, in classic Dumb and Dumber style, someone thinks they're making some massive revelation and outsmarting someone when in reality it's only exhibiting their own ignorance, like Jim Carrey from the movie.
 
Sure it does. The opportunity to confront the Middle East holistically was present, and instead of seizing the opportunity, the country decided to stop after a few short years. It's either a short attention span or shortsightedness in general.

The Iraq war resolution mentioned nothing about "confronting the Middle East," so your statement is completely irrelevant. If Bush received approval from congress to wage war with the entire Middle East and to establish indefinite occupation based on a premise of (insert here, because I'm not even sure what the benefit of this would be) we could discuss that. But that's not what took place in congress and that's not what our public officials agreed to. The premise was false and occupation wasn't even part of the original plan and developed when the country spiraled into a civil war. It's like buying a car, realizing you were lied to, the car is falling apart and you realize the money and time to get this car working right is WAY above your original intended budget. To bail on that is not short attention span, it's common sense.

If you are so convicted that continuous war and occupation in the Middle East would make your personal life better, use your own money and resources to pay for it. Just stop reaching into my bank account for tax dollars to fund it, or you might get a war right here at home.
 
The Iraq war resolution mentioned nothing about "confronting the Middle East," so your statement is completely irrelevant. If Bush received approval from congress to wage war with the entire Middle East and to establish indefinite occupation based on a premise of (insert here, because I'm not even sure what the benefit of this would be) we could discuss that. But that's not what took place in congress and that's not what our public officials agreed to. The premise was false and occupation wasn't even part of the original plan and developed when the country spiraled into a civil war. It's like buying a car, realizing you were lied to, the car is falling apart and you realize the money and time to get this car working right is WAY above your original intended budget. To bail on that is not short attention span, it's common sense.

If you are so convicted that continuous war and occupation in the Middle East would make your personal life better, use your own money and resources to pay for it. Just stop reaching into my bank account for tax dollars to fund it, or you might get a war right here at home.
That was extremely melodramatic of you. Are you threatening to revolt or something?
 
Very very bad example. First off we were attacked by Japan and Germany, we were never attacked by Iraq.
The USA was attacked by Islamic terrorists and the greatest source of Islamic terrorism is the Middle East. That's why it was so important to have a presence there.
Secondly, the implementation of democratic governments in those regions (west Germany and Japan) went very smoothly. In Iraq it started a civil war and actually created NEW and stronger terrorist organizations.
What 'civil war' are you referring to? In regard to Japan, it was said at the time that the Japanese people could never hhandle a democracy, that it has never been part of their tradition. You probably heard the same arguments regarding Iraq.
Thirdly, we libertarians don't believe the U.S. Should still be in japan and Germany! It's a complete waste of my tax dollars and U.S. Resources! Socialist big spending republicans however want MORE troops over there. If it really makes you feel better having troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany and Japan, that's fine, but you have to pay for it. Don't be a socialist and force me to use my tax dollars for an international welfare cause I don't believe in.
International security is not related to welfare, nor is saving lives.
 
The Iraq war resolution mentioned nothing about "confronting the Middle East," so your statement is completely irrelevant.
George Bush could never have publicly admitted he was looking for an entry into the Middle East, though the leaders there probably understood that quite well. It would have been handy for those people in Libya to have some ready help a little closer to the action.
If Bush received approval from congress to wage war with the entire Middle East and to establish indefinite occupation based on a premise of (insert here, because I'm not even sure what the benefit of this would be) we could discuss that. But that's not what took place in congress and that's not what our public officials agreed to. The premise was false and occupation wasn't even part of the original plan and developed when the country spiraled into a civil war.
No one wanted war with the entire ME. You're missing the point. A 'presence' was wanted in the ME and we can now see what a great advantage that would have been.
 
Very very bad example. First off we were attacked by Japan and Germany, we were never attacked by Iraq.
The USA was attacked by Islamic terrorists and the greatest source of Islamic terrorism is the Middle East. That's why it was so important to have a presence there. What 'civil war' are you referring to? In regard to Japan, it was said at the time that the Japanese people could never hhandle a democracy, that it has never been part of their tradition. You probably heard the same arguments regarding Iraq.
International security is not related to welfare, nor is saving lives.

I'm not trying to be insulting but I don't think you're educated enough to debate this issue if you don't know about the civil war in Iraq and if you think the hotbed of terrorism pre-2003 was Iraq.

And FYI, a study was done by national security officials a few years ago where they sent undercover officers to the same airports that hijackers boarded planes for 9/11, and the officers had dummy bombs, firearms and other weapons. Most of the officers got through security easily. The best strategy for preventing terrorism is establishing a near impenetrable homeland security in our airports, other public transportation and public buildings and areas, and by increasing security intelligence (the Boston bomber was on the FBI watch list but the agency is so over whelmed they didn't monitor him thoroughly). This would cost a fraction of what the Iraq war cost and would be much more effective for safety. The Iraq war has literally created new terrorist groups and increased middle eastern hostility towards are country, and homeland security has been thoroughly neglected. If you can't admit the failed policy in that, I have nothing else to say.
 
I'm not trying to be insulting but I don't think you're educated enough to debate this issue if you don't know about the civil war in Iraq and if you think the hotbed of terrorism pre-2003 was Iraq.
I'm wanting clarification from you as to what you're referring to as a 'civil war'. Just name the participants to be certain. Shouldn't take long. Again, you're confusing all of the Middle East with Iraq.
And FYI, a study was done by national security officials a few years ago where they sent undercover officers to the same airports that hijackers boarded planes for 9/11, and the officers had dummy bombs, firearms and other weapons. Most of the officers got through security easily. The best strategy for preventing terrorism is establishing a near impenetrable homeland security in our airports, other public transportation and public buildings and areas, and by increasing security intelligence (the Boston bomber was on the FBI watch list but the agency is so over whelmed they didn't monitor him thoroughly). This would cost a fraction of what the Iraq war cost and would be much more effective for safety. The Iraq war has literally created new terrorist groups and increased middle eastern hostility towards are country, and homeland security has been thoroughly neglected. If you can't admit the failed policy in that, I have nothing else to say.
So you are a "Fortress America" buff thinking that America can somehow make itself impenetrable. How's that working out so far? You got a lot of other 'libertarians' climbing on to that particular bandwagon?
 
I'm wanting clarification from you as to what you're referring to as a 'civil war'. Just name the participants to be certain. Shouldn't take long. Again, you're confusing all of the Middle East with Iraq.
So you are a "Fortress America" buff thinking that America can somehow make itself impenetrable. How's that working out so far? You got a lot of other 'libertarians' climbing on to that particular bandwagon?

If someone breaks into your house you don't go roaming through the neighborhood on the other side of the tracks trying to root out all thieves to prevent future break ins. Why? It is costly and there will always be new thieves popping up to replace them. What you do is secure your own house so they can't break in. If you want to keep roaming through the Middle East trying to do the impossible task of root out all terrorist, go ahead, just don't use my tax dollar to pay for it.
 
If someone breaks into your house you don't go roaming through the neighborhood on the other side of the tracks trying to root out all thieves to prevent future break ins. Why? It is costly and there will always be new thieves popping up to replace them. What you do is secure your own house so they can't break in. If you want to keep roaming through the Middle East trying to do the impossible task of root out all terrorist, go ahead, just don't use my tax dollar to pay for it.
...why do you insist on seeing things as far as nation states when they don't?
 
Back
Top Bottom