• 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!

So we're occupying Iraq?

Jay59 said:
There was evidence, which you should know. We found the storage facility years later. They had shipped everything across the border to Syria and scrubbed the site.

Looking back, invading was not disastrous. It was expensive but the situation was manageable. Leaving as we did was the disaster, especially because we left the weapons for ISIS to grab.
Click to expand...



Iraq developed BW in the 1980s and had missiles loaded with BW during the first Iraq war, but did not use them. However, there is no evidence Iraq had any BW or nuke at the time the US said they did as reason for pre-emptive invasion. Or, you can provide evidence to support you claim. Otherwise, what you say is unfounded and your assertion dismissed.

That a war is "manageable" does not justify the war. "Leaving" as we did, which we've not, pending expulsion by the Iraqi Parliament, and leaving weapons for ISIS/ISIL to grab is fruit from the poison tree that Bush2, the Republicans and idiots like Hillary, Biden and Trump supported. Sure, the US can "manage" $1T and almost 37,000 in military casualties. You roll with that.
 
bluesmoke said:
Iraq developed BW in the 1980s and had missiles loaded with BW during the first Iraq war, but did not use them. However, there is no evidence Iraq had any BW or nuke at the time the US said they did as reason for pre-emptive invasion. Or, you can provide evidence to support you claim. Otherwise, what you say is unfounded and your assertion dismissed.

That a war is "manageable" does not justify the war. "Leaving" as we did, which we've not, pending expulsion by the Iraqi Parliament, and leaving weapons for ISIS/ISIL to grab is fruit from the poison tree that Bush2, the Republicans and idiots like Hillary, Biden and Trump supported. Sure, the US can "manage" $1T and almost 37,000 in military casualties. You roll with that.
Click to expand...
This is after the fact revisionism. There was a great deal of evidence. Read President Clinton's comments, for example. The evidence had become dated and Saddam had chosen to close down and clean up, which I would not have guessed.

I said it was expensive and more expensive than expected. That does not make it a disaster. That took another President.
 
Jay59 said:
This is after the fact revisionism. There was a great deal of evidence. Read President Clinton's comments, for example. The evidence had become dated and Saddam had chosen to close down and clean up, which I would not have guessed.

I said it was expensive and more expensive than expected. That does not make it a disaster. That took another President.
Click to expand...



What I and others were observing at the time was real-time revisionism. What you say, that Saddam had BW or nuclear development at the time of and immediately preceding the invasion (if that's what you're saying) is not supported by evidence of any significance. Yellow cake uranium in Africa and aluminum tube are not significant evidence of anything. What evidence can you provide a link to?
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Trump administration refuses to heed Iraq’s call for troop withdrawal

Iraq, our "ally", asks us to leave. We say, "No." That's insane! What kind of country are we? We're behaving more like villains.

And Soulaimani's goal was to drive us out of Iraq and by killing him it looks like he'll get his wish. The U.N. would have to rule that this is an illegal occupation.
Click to expand...

That you must ask today "what kind of country are we?" suggests you have not been paying attention to what this country has been doing for the last 20 years.

We are a country that thumbs its nose at the international community including the international criminal court. We are a country that kidnaps individuals and takes them to torture sites. We elected a president who proudly claimed he would bring back waterboarding, if it ever vanished.

We are a country where private corporations write the rules that govern them, where some of those corporations compile data consisting of the personal and private information of citizens.

We are a country that has abandoned diplomacy in favor of intimidation, threats and military aggression.
 
bluesmoke said:
What I and others were observing at the time was real-time revisionism. What you say, that Saddam had BW or nuclear development at the time of and immediately preceding the invasion (if that's what you're saying) is not supported by evidence of any significance. Yellow cake uranium in Africa and aluminum tube are not significant evidence of anything. What evidence can you provide a link to?
Click to expand...
I did not say immediately and the evidence is very significant. Based on what was known at the time and later confirmed, Bush didn't lie about anything. It just turned out the information was incomplete and out of date. Accusations of lying are fake news. Unlike with Trump, the smear stuck.
 
Jay59 said:
I did not say immediately and the evidence is very significant. Based on what was known at the time and later confirmed, Bush didn't lie about anything. It just turned out the information was incomplete and out of date. Accusations of lying are fake news. Unlike with Trump, the smear stuck.
Click to expand...



But you can't support what you say with a ling to any "evidence that is very significant". So, your claim is unfounded and what you say dismissed for lack of evidence of fact. The burden of proof was on you, and you failed to provide that proof.
 
less right said:
We're energy independent now. We've obliterated the caliphate. What are our national interests in the middle east that require occupying Iraq?
Click to expand...

Nothing justifies "occupying" a country and threatening sanctions if Iraq follows through on its vote to toss us sure sounds like an occupation to me.

That said we still do have National Security Interests in the ME which DonDon has now frigged to high heaven. His abandonment of the Kurds in Syria thus pressuring Iraq to be a more significant base for US operations was STRIKE 1. The assassination of Soleimani on Iraqi soil plus the assassination of a popular Iraqi at the same time was STRIKE 2. So DonDon is simply blundering his way to a mess in the ME and he has been doing so since he ripped up the JCPOA.

We now have way way way too many troopers in the ME, far more than we had when DonDon took office. Smooth DonDon, real smooth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom