• 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!

What should we do about Iraq?

What should we do about Iraq?


  • Total voters
    59
it was a stupid idea to remove every government official in sad dams regime, because they were the only ones with actual governing experience.

we kept nazis in power as mayors and other positions of power because there was no obvious replacement with adequate experience in government that was not a nazi.

Sure.

No disagreement there.
 
Sure.

No disagreement there.

you will probably disagree with my next opinion. i think we should sit back and wait and see if ISIS can hold itself together if they ever do topple the current iraqi government, or will the Sunni tribes and former baathists collaborating with ISIS start squabbling amongst themselves.
 
Those red lies seem to already to be causing confusion.

What do you expect, when the most powerful man in the world points senselesly in every whivh way ande makes such a fudge of things.
 
What do you expect, when the most powerful man in the world points senselesly in every whivh way ande makes such a fudge of things.

The President isnt really that powerful as if he had real unchecked power. So what is Congress doing? Oh yea thats right they are are trying hard to make the other side look bad.

But if you are going to criticize a president you could at least use spell check or some **** to make you look better.
 
At this point I don't know if anything constructive can be done. The United States should fully assert whatever force is necessary, however, to make sure that no threats to our nation or our allies takes place. We do not need to use nation-building any longer as a point of policy.
 
One definition of insanity is repeating the same actions over and over and expecting a different result each time.
 
here is an idea: suppose we let ISIS take down the al-maliki regime? perhaps ISIS's allies will stop supporting ISIS and start breaking up into factions?


I was watching the News on this tonight and what a mess. We once supported Saddam against Iran, then we or he turned on us. Now we support the Shiites against the Sunni ISIL but we're for the ones that fight against Syria and Assad. We're not doing anything because we don't know if we should fart or fall down.
 
I was watching the News on this tonight and what a mess. We once supported Saddam against Iran, then we or he turned on us. Now we support the Shiites against the Sunni ISIL but we're for the ones that fight against Syria and Assad. We're not doing anything because we don't know if we should fart or fall down.

ISIS's success has been due to collaboration with ex-baathist officials and sunni tribesmen, i do not think isis can sustain that alliance long if it does conquer the Maliki regime.
 
ISIS's success has been due to collaboration with ex-baathist officials and sunni tribesmen, i do not think isis can sustain that alliance long if it does conquer the Maliki regime.


They're talking about seriously removing Maliki anyway. It appears that ISIS might hold their territory for awhile, but you maybe right about their future success being tied into more land grabbing for resources and gov't type control.
 
They're talking about seriously removing Maliki anyway. It appears that ISIS might hold their territory for awhile, but you maybe right about their future success being tied into more land grabbing for resources and gov't type control.

maybe congress can satisfy the war-mongers by issuing a letter of marque against the ISIS.
 
maybe congress can satisfy the war-mongers by issuing a letter of marque against the ISIS.

It seems we're in a holding pattern, though there's definitely going to be 'mission creep' over time. Our Congress, Intel Agencies and Military just can't help themselves, it's what they do.
 
I see most agree the US should stay out of Iraq. Thank God; now we can keep the partisan bickering in the good old USA.
:thumbs:
 
I am so torn between the two options. All I can say is thanks to everyone for such great posts. Needed to be said.
 
Not only this but what if ISIS takes over Baghdad and the southern oil fields, and drives oil prices above $150 a barrel? What if the whole region blows up into a multinational conflict, involving Saudi Arabia and restricting oil thru the Persian Gulf? We will look back then as we pay $10+ a gallon at the pump and say, "gee, guess we should've done something."

I'm afraid we have to finish what WE started. We wanted to remove all the dictators (Saddam, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad) and spread democracy, now we have the results of our nation building.
Fair question. But, the next logical question is: Can we finish what we started?

IMO, no, I don't think we can. I don't think we ever could. I have heard some say that if we don't get involved then the soldiers who have died thus far died in vain. I think they died in vain anyway, and adding another 1000 deaths would only increase the vainness*.

*-Is that a word? I looked it up, but it still doesn't sound right. ( Vainness - definition of Vainness by The Free Dictionary )
 
The President isnt really that powerful as if he had real unchecked power. So what is Congress doing? Oh yea thats right they are are trying hard to make the other side look bad.

But if you are going to criticize a president you could at least use spell check or some **** to make you look better.

True enough. But the world watches the man grabbing the spotlight.
 
Fair question. But, the next logical question is: Can we finish what we started?

IMO, no, I don't think we can. I don't think we ever could. I have heard some say that if we don't get involved then the soldiers who have died thus far died in vain. I think they died in vain anyway, and adding another 1000 deaths would only increase the vainness*.

*-Is that a word? I looked it up, but it still doesn't sound right. ( Vainness - definition of Vainness by The Free Dictionary )


I'm not sure if we can either, because we can't even identify who we need to fight or remove. Vanity is the word you're looking for and we sure do suffer it.

Though if oil markets get too far out of control because of regional conflict and instability, we may feel compelled to act. Whether it does any good, only time would tell and how they approach it the second go round.
 
I am so torn between the two options. All I can say is thanks to everyone for such great posts. Needed to be said.

I'm a fan of sarcasm. So :thumbs:
 
We can never overcome Obama's incompetency but I believe we should help the Iraqis every way we can short of boots on the ground. That includes armed and un armed drones, air strikes, and bombing the terrorists supply lines.

We can never overcome BushII's incompetency and insufferable ignorance/arrogance in the ME. He kicked over an ant mound and is amazed so many ants have crawled out across the region to fight and bite everything instead of a parade of children throwing candy and flowers... :doh

He expected secularists to take over, guiding the people toward a western style democracy, and instead got tribal people who revert back to their centuries old blood/religious feuds.

BushII expected his dear family friends, the House of Saud, to support democratic reform across the ME, but instead got brutal repression and support funneled to terrorists around the ME.

BushII sat for YEARS allowing Iraq to fall apart before doing what his generals had advised from the beginning... high troop numbers and financial support for the out of work Sunnis. Thousands of Americans paid with their lives and limbs for this gross incompetency.

Now Iran is the major player in the region, their support of Maliki keeps any real reform in the central Iraqi government a pipe dream. Iraq is no longer the buffer state between Shi'ites and Sunnis but now the battleground that can spread to the Shi'ite dominated Saudi oil regions along the Persian gulf.

BushII so screwed the pooch on this that no one can unscrew it. BushII, even as his Generals warned him if he breaks Iraq he will own it, he still opened the ME Pandora's box and released all manner of E-Vile across the region.

But let's blame Obama.... :doh
 
Back
Top Bottom