• 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!

Iraqis wary of decision on U.S. troops

I'm not arguing that fact. I'm saying if they ask us to stay longer based on a legitmate safety risk we need to weight our decision carefully. Not just cut tail and run 'cause "we never should have been there".

sounds like an old, trite argument. we're not cutting and running......what's left that they can't do themselves?
 
sounds like an old, trite argument. we're not cutting and running......what's left that they can't do themselves?

What? "we never should have been there?"

I agree wholeheartedly.
 
sounds like an old, trite argument. we're not cutting and running......what's left that they can't do themselves?

Well, we know the potential for imploding and falling back into a sectarian civil war is very real. I'm not sure how much such a scenario would directly impact US national security, but it's something to think about.
 
If we can pay to repair and rebuild and strengthen Germany after they started a war in which they got properly creamed, I see no justification for not making Iraq as safe as possible before we leave the land that we invaded.
 
I'm not arguing that fact. I'm saying if they ask us to stay longer based on a legitmate safety risk we need to weight our decision carefully. Not just cut tail and run 'cause "we never should have been there".

After almost a decade in a mistaken war that is bankrupting our country, it is not cutting and running to say we can't continue to be the world's policeman.
 
Well, we know the potential for imploding and falling back into a sectarian civil war is very real. I'm not sure how much such a scenario would directly impact US national security, but it's something to think about.

That is a likelihood whenever we leave. The only question is how long can we afford to stay. I've heard some talk of an unbearable national debt.
 
If we can pay to repair and rebuild and strengthen Germany after they started a war in which they got properly creamed, I see no justification for not making Iraq as safe as possible before we leave the land that we invaded.

It's not really an analogous situation.

Some thing's are just really hard to do. Building a nation that is based on a tribal culture, and is split among sectarian and ethnic lines, is kinda difficult.

Honestly though I agree, the whole situation is kind of like a "pick your poison" scenario.
 
After almost a decade in a mistaken war that is bankrupting our country, it is not cutting and running to say we can't continue to be the world's policeman.

The war is not the sole or primary source of "bankrupting" entitlements make up 33+% of the budget.
 
That is a likelihood whenever we leave. The only question is how long can we afford to stay. I've heard some talk of an unbearable national debt.

At this point it's not the Iraq War that's driving the debt, although I agree we should save wherever we can.

The issue is, what would be the potential cost of cutting our losses and leaving right now, with respect to national security, which is a cost that can't always be quantified in financial terms?

Basically none of the options at this point is very attractive. It's either bad, or worse - the key is to figure out which one is bad and which one is worse.
 
If we can pay to repair and rebuild and strengthen Germany after they started a war in which they got properly creamed, I see no justification for not making Iraq as safe as possible before we leave the land that we invaded.

Yes, the difference being Iraq didn't invade other countries, we invaded them. If the new corrupt regime we helped set up their can't stand against its own people after 8 years, it wasn't meant to be.
 
At this point it's not the Iraq War that's driving the debt, although I agree we should save wherever we can.

The issue is, what would be the potential cost of cutting our losses and leaving right now, with respect to national security, which is a cost that can't always be quantified in financial terms?

Basically none of the options at this point is very attractive. It's either bad, or worse - the key is to figure out which one is bad and which one is worse.

Stop saying things better than I am.
 
The liberal mentality:

  • Changes to welfare, healthcare? NO! We have an obligation! These people can't help themselves!
  • Staying in Iraq? Nah. If those people can't help themselves, then **** 'em.
 
Yes, the difference being Iraq didn't invade other countries, we invaded them. If the new corrupt regime we helped set up their can't stand against its own people after 8 years, it wasn't meant to be.

Right, we invaded them. If anything, we have a larger obligation to them than we did to Germany.
 
At this point it's not the Iraq War that's driving the debt, although I agree we should save wherever we can.

The issue is, what would be the potential cost of cutting our losses and leaving right now, with respect to national security, which is a cost that can't always be quantified in financial terms?

Basically none of the options at this point is very attractive. It's either bad, or worse - the key is to figure out which one is bad and which one is worse.


The Iraq war still cost us way more than the funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood that just had to be cut due to our budget woes. By national security do you mean the oil resource in Iraq that we invaded them to control?
 
The Iraq war still cost us way more than the funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood that just had to be cut due to our budget woes. By national security do you mean the oil resource in Iraq that we invaded them to control?

Except we don't. And the largest benefactors of Iraqi oil restructuring and modernizing were/are India and China. Doesn't benefit us at all for China to have access to cheaper methods of producing energy.
 
Right, we invaded them. If anything, we have a larger obligation to them than we did to Germany.

Well they released us from that obligation when they demanded we leave by Dec 31.
 
Well they released us from that obligation when they demanded we leave by Dec 31.

And if they don't ask us to extend our stay there is no debate. This whole argument hinges upon their recognition of a need and our acceptance of it.
 
Except we don't. And the largest benefactors of Iraqi oil restructuring and modernizing were/are India and China. Doesn't benefit us at all for China to have access to cheaper methods of producing energy.

Before our invasion and regime change in Iraq, Iraqi oil was Nationalized and Western oil was banned from investment in their oil. Now it is not. That is what it was all about. Under the new regime, and our military protection, Western oil is free and safe to help exploit Iraqi oil. :sun
 
Before our invasion and regime change in Iraq, Iraqi oil was Nationalized and Western oil was banned from investment in their oil. Now it is not. That is what it was all about. Under the new regime, and our military protection, Western oil is free and safe to help exploit Iraqi oil. :sun

And how exactly has that happened? Further, how does investment harm the Iraqi's? And what investments have been made, outside of infrastructure improvements? And what stake, if any, does the US own in Iraqi oil?
 
And if they don't ask us to extend our stay there is no debate. This whole argument hinges upon their recognition of a need and our acceptance of it.

That is correct. And right now, public sentiment in both countries appear to disfavor the presence of US troops in Iraq beyond the Dec 31 deadline.
 
Should have thought about that before we removed the government that was keeping Iraq's enemies at bay with bluffs. They've had 8 years to get their **** together. If they haven't done it by now, they never will, and we simply can't afford to keep protecting the government we set up from their own people.

We've been in Germany since 1945.
 
And how exactly has that happened? Further, how does investment harm the Iraqi's? And what investments have been made, outside of infrastructure improvements? And what stake, if any, does the US own in Iraqi oil?

The reasons for the war were laid out in Cheney's task force report on energy before we invaded. They said that Iraq could at anytime shut off or reduce oil output which left the West vulnerable to price spikes, and that they were intentionally underdeveloping their oil resources to keep world oil prices higher.

Our invasion/regime change and our continued military protection of the new corrupt regime solved that problem.
 
The reasons for the war were laid out in Cheney's task force report on energy before we invaded. They said that Iraq could at anytime shut off or reduce oil output which left the West vulnerable to price spikes, and that they were intentionally underdeveloping their oil resources to keep world oil prices higher.

Our invasion/regime change and our continued military protection of the new corrupt regime solved that problem.

So wait, we did something that HELPS the entire world economy and prevents price fixing?
 
The Iraq war still cost us way more than the funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood that just had to be cut due to our budget woes. By national security do you mean the oil resource in Iraq that we invaded them to control?

No, I mean the potential for Islamic terrorist elements that could potentially thrive on the potential political and social instability of a post-American occupation Iraq.
 
Back
Top Bottom