• 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!

Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement...

Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement

  • Total voters
    54
Paschendale said:
Most of our warmongering in the middle east has made the situation worse. This goes as far back to the 1970s, when we started this whole "arm various groups to fight the other groups we don't like" stuff started. And since then, nearly every time, the new powerful group starts with the violence and attacking US interests. The middle east will never be peaceful until it build peace itself.
Click to expand...

Try the 1950s: we were arming various groups to fight various others who did nothing more than ally with communists.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I imagine some prior to 9/11 said groups like al Qaida are not a threat to us here at home.
Click to expand...

And that means we need to jump at every boogeyman in the future?

DifferentDrummr said:
Try the 1950s: we were arming various groups to fight various others who did nothing more than ally with communists.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. I thought it really started in earnest later. But yeah, we screwed things up in the middle east for decades in order to have our dick measuring contest with the USSR, and a whole lot of people have suffered for it, including us.
 
radcen said:
Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement, given the recent events with ISIS and current status of Afghanistan, that you did before?

Think back to your opinion when Bush II first invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Think back to when Obama withdrew from Iraq. Think about the current alleged wind down in Afghanistan. Doesn't really matter what your opinion was, just ask yourself if you feel the same now as you did then. And why do you feel the same or differently.

Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

I feel mostly the same.

We need to bring Iraq back under the rule of an iron fist, only then is there order in that uncivilized region.
 
Luftwaffe said:
I feel mostly the same.

We need to bring Iraq back under the rule of an iron fist, only then is there order in that uncivilized region.
Click to expand...

That's why we put Saddam in charge in the first place. But then he renigged on the deal...he was only supposed to sell oil to others for USD. Tensions between us made him decide to push the envelope, and we killed him for it.

We'll find a new Saddam soon, IMO. And he'll be just as bad as the old...with one difference. He'll follow his marching orders from us.
 
Paschendale said:
And that means we need to jump at every boogeyman in the future?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. But if you think 9/11 was a boogeyman with 3,000 dead and millions who had their lives changed forever, I suggest we not put you in charge of national security. We didn't take Osama bin Laden seriously enough. And if we fail to know who our enemy is and fail to understand his intent and resolve to carry it out, we give him a huge advantage. Some might say we give him license to wreck whatever havoc he chooses.
 
radcen said:
Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement, given the recent events with ISIS and current status of Afghanistan, that you did before?


Think back to your opinion when Bush II first invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Think back to when Obama withdrew from Iraq. Think about the current alleged wind down in Afghanistan. Doesn't really matter what your opinion was, just ask yourself if you feel the same now as you did then. And why do you feel the same or differently.


Please elaborate.
Click to expand...


It's pretty much as I expected. Afghanistan has a new power sharing agreement in their democratic government and a democratic Iraq is fighting against genocide instead of a dictator committing it.




KevinKohler said:
That's why we put Saddam in charge in the first place. But then he renigged on the deal...he was only supposed to sell oil to others for USD. Tensions between us made him decide to push the envelope, and we killed him for it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he never did anything wrong.

:screwy
 
radcen said:
Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement, given the recent events with ISIS and current status of Afghanistan, that you did before?

Think back to your opinion when Bush II first invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Think back to when Obama withdrew from Iraq. Think about the current alleged wind down in Afghanistan. Doesn't really matter what your opinion was, just ask yourself if you feel the same now as you did then. And why do you feel the same or differently.

Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

It's complicated.

But just as an aside, I find it a little strange that Obama came into office touting a surge in Afghanistan, tens of thousands more combat boots on the ground, in a country where there virtually were a few hundred Taliban causing some trouble and Al Quida hiding in the hills, to protect a virtual wasteland. And yet, in highly populated areas, like Syria and Iraq, where just in a couple of days 130,000 people were driven from their homes over the border into Turkey, thousands being killed, beheaded, etc., it all can be handled by air strikes. That just seems upside down to me. If anywhere airstrikes would be appropriate, it seems to me it's Afghanistan - you could probably tell Karsai and/or whomever follows you've done enough, you're on your own, and we'll send some drones over the landscape periodically to keep the Taliban and terrorists from setting up shop again.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I didn't say that. But if you think 9/11 was a boogeyman with 3,000 dead and millions who had their lives changed forever, I suggest we not put you in charge of national security. We didn't take Osama bin Laden seriously enough. And if we fail to know who our enemy is and fail to understand his intent and resolve to carry it out, we give him a huge advantage. Some might say we give him license to wreck whatever havoc he chooses.
Click to expand...

We actually did take him seriously enough, until a policy change in early 2001 diverted most of our anti-terrorism focus towards Iraq. Then he was allowed to slip through because our executive branch was too busy looking for excuses to attack Saddam Hussein.

But since we agree that each threat should be evaluated on its own, what exactly makes this one so scary to you?
 
radcen said:
Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement, given the recent events with ISIS and current status of Afghanistan, that you did before?

Think back to your opinion when Bush II first invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Think back to when Obama withdrew from Iraq. Think about the current alleged wind down in Afghanistan. Doesn't really matter what your opinion was, just ask yourself if you feel the same now as you did then. And why do you feel the same or differently.

Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

I was vehemently against our incursion into Iraq in 2003, but now that we screwed things up then, we have a responsibility to fix it now (we broke it; we own in).

Though I believed in 2003 we were being sold a bill of goods (starting with the whole concept of "weapons of mass destruction", something designed to sound ominous just to scare people) until I heard this great NPR piece in February 2003 about the Cons belief that Iraq was ripe for democracy and once Iraq "fell" to democracy, we would have a tsunami of democracy in the middle east. The Bush legacy would be to solve the middle east once and for all. Then it all made sense, as being threatened by some two bit dictator sure did not. Of course, this tsunami of democracy would not sell; but "weapons of mass destruction" surely would scare the pants off an America just off 9/11. So, it was a bill of goods.

Then came is whole "coalition of the willing", which upon further review, given money and promises made, was really the coalition of the billing... and a roster of world powerhouses like Honduras behind it. Unlike Bush I, that actually had a coalition, this looked failed from the get-go. I figured if Iraq's arab neighbors did not see Saddam as a threat, he wasn't a threat... and, anything we did would just come off as US imperialism (over OIL --- in fact, wasn't an operation name Operation Iraqi Liberation, until they figured out the acromyn would not sell?)

That said, just as in 2003, if we do not have Arab nations (and now, specifically Sunni nations) committing a significant ground effort, everything will be for naught. Therefore, I am for military action only if we have legitimate Sunni partners, otherwise, we probably should do nothing as there is no point in doubling down on stupid.
 
Last edited:
I thought Afghanistan was the righteous war, until mission creep changed the war from AlQaeda to the Taliban and nation building. I thought the war in Iraq was a mistake but once the mistake was made supported the mission of our troops. I knew pulling out of Iraq completely was going to result in a power vacuum but I had no idea that it would result in the mess that it does today. I'm not certain that we should be involved at all in what's happening now.

Having said that, everything that Obama has done in the middle east has been wrong. He backed the wrong horse in Egypt, he is responsible for the mess which is Libya. He policy in Syria has been incoherent at best and down right stupid at worst. He has no idea what the purpose of a strong military is nor does he understand the purpose of military power is in keeping international peace. He believes that his personality can turn enemies into friends and is shocked when enemies take advantage of his perceived weakness. God help the world while they we try to survive his last two years in power.
 
Paschendale said:
We actually did take him seriously enough, until a policy change in early 2001 diverted most of our anti-terrorism focus towards Iraq. Then he was allowed to slip through because our executive branch was too busy looking for excuses to attack Saddam Hussein.

But since we agree that each threat should be evaluated on its own, what exactly makes this one so scary to you?
Click to expand...

"Scary' is subjective in this case and I doubt we would agree on a definition in this context. I would love to see your evidence that our anti-terrorism focus was on Iraq in early 2001, however.
 
AlbqOwl said:
"Scary' is subjective in this case and I doubt we would agree on a definition in this context. I would love to see your evidence that our anti-terrorism focus was on Iraq in early 2001, however.
Click to expand...

Read anything by Richard Clarke on the subject. He talks in detail about his time as the head of the country's counter terrorism activities and how his efforts to focus on Bin Laden were shoved aside by the Bush administration in favor of a focus on Iraq.

Meanwhile, you have no reason to suspect that ISIS is some kind of threat to us. We agree that not every potential foe merits drastic action, and there seems to be no reason why this one does. I think we're done here.
 
Paschendale said:
And that means we need to jump at every boogeyman in the future?.
Click to expand...

No...however that particular boogeyman had already attacked us numerous times before 9/11/01...including the first attempt to bring one of the World Trade Center Towers down in 1993, blowing up one of our embassies in Africa, blowing up a US troops barracks in Saudi Arabia, and blowing up one of our destroyers in Yemen. OBL/Al Qeuda was at war with us for several years before 9/11/01. However the president previous to Bush was too pig headed to work that out. He had several opportunities to either take OBL out or take custody of him. At one opportunity the CIA had OBL in it's gun sights. Clinton was too afraid of what possible collateral damage would do to his precious approval ratings.
 
Paschendale said:
Read anything by Richard Clarke on the subject. He talks in detail about his time as the head of the country's counter terrorism activities and how his efforts to focus on Bin Laden were shoved aside by the Bush administration in favor of a focus on Iraq..
Click to expand...

At the time, Clarke was attempting to hawk his book, so he sensationalized his interpretation of the facts. Condoleeza Rice quite ably corrected him and pointed out that nothing was set aside. And he was still holding a grudge against Rice.

CNN.com - Bush administration rejects Clarke charges - Mar 23, 2004

Meanwhile, you have no reason to suspect that ISIS is some kind of threat to us. We agree that not every potential foe merits drastic action, and there seems to be no reason why this one does. I think we're done here.
Click to expand...

Oh my! A terrorist group that is attempting to form a state the size of California...that beheads anyone who does not convert to Islam is not threat to us? I bet you thought Al Qeuda was no threat before 9/11/01.
 
I was very much a pro-Iraq GW invasion at the time. Now, I am much more for containment and basically letting the middle east get swept up into a civil war where shiite and sunni can kill themselves as much as they want; keeping their attention on each other instead of Western nations to bomb and create terrorism. Let them kill each other for the next 10 to 20 years - all the Western nations need to do is contain any of the terrorists groups from attacking the West. To me - this is a ME issue - they need to fight it out. I'd be find if ISIS invaded Saudi Arabia, Lebanon or whatever. Let Muslim fight Muslim - America and Europe can simply play defense and support these nations with medicine, food, etc...
 
KevinKohler said:
That's why we put Saddam in charge in the first place. But then he renigged on the deal...he was only supposed to sell oil to others for USD. Tensions between us made him decide to push the envelope, and we killed him for it.

We'll find a new Saddam soon, IMO. And he'll be just as bad as the old...with one difference. He'll follow his marching orders from us.
Click to expand...

Is the left still pushing that corny fantasy that the US/CIA installed Saddam in power in Iraq?
 
Paschendale said:
We actually did take him seriously enough, until a policy change in early 2001 diverted most of our anti-terrorism focus towards Iraq. Then he was allowed to slip through because our executive branch was too busy looking for excuses to attack Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...

What specific policy change in 2001 are you referring to? It was the Clinton administration that made regime change in Iraq official US policy. And you do know that Bush did not order an invasion of Iraq until 2003, don't you? You are making it up as you go along.
 
upsideguy said:
I was vehemently against our incursion into Iraq in 2003, but now that we screwed things up then, we have a responsibility to fix it now (we broke it; we own in).

Though I believed in 2003 we were being sold a bill of goods (starting with the whole concept of "weapons of mass destruction", something designed to sound ominous just to scare people) until I heard this great NPR piece in February 2003 about the Cons belief that Iraq was ripe for democracy and once Iraq "fell" to democracy, we would have a tsunami of democracy in the middle east. The Bush legacy would be to solve the middle east once and for all. Then it all made sense, as being threatened by some two bit dictator sure did not. Of course, this tsunami of democracy would not sell; but "weapons of mass destruction" surely would scare the pants off an America just off 9/11. So, it was a bill of goods.

Then came is whole "coalition of the willing", which upon further review, given money and promises made, was really the coalition of the billing... and a roster of world powerhouses like Honduras behind it. Unlike Bush I, that actually had a coalition, this looked failed from the get-go. I figured if Iraq's arab neighbors did not see Saddam as a threat, he wasn't a threat... and, anything we did would just come off as US imperialism (over OIL --- in fact, wasn't an operation name Operation Iraqi Liberation, until they figured out the acromyn would not sell?)

That said, just as in 2003, if we do not have Arab nations (and now, specifically Sunni nations) committing a significant ground effort, everything will be for naught. Therefore, I am for military action only if we have legitimate Sunni partners, otherwise, we probably should do nothing as there is no point in doubling down on stupid.
Click to expand...

It was not broken until we failed to leave a contingent of troops behind to guarantee the peace as we did in Germany and Japan. And again when Obama failed to stop ISIS in Syria.
 
radcen said:
Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement, given the recent events with ISIS and current status of Afghanistan, that you did before?

Think back to your opinion when Bush II first invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Think back to when Obama withdrew from Iraq. Think about the current alleged wind down in Afghanistan. Doesn't really matter what your opinion was, just ask yourself if you feel the same now as you did then. And why do you feel the same or differently.

Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

Yes of course. I was in thin company then and now. US foreign policy has produced most of the trouble in the ME. Sure, sure, the trible/religious conflicts are ancient. But what we have today is a result of US interference. But let's get our boots on and go make some more money.
 
Ockham said:
I was very much a pro-Iraq GW invasion at the time. Now, I am much more for containment and basically letting the middle east get swept up into a civil war where shiite and sunni can kill themselves as much as they want; keeping their attention on each other instead of Western nations to bomb and create terrorism. Let them kill each other for the next 10 to 20 years - all the Western nations need to do is contain any of the terrorists groups from attacking the West. To me - this is a ME issue - they need to fight it out. I'd be find if ISIS invaded Saudi Arabia, Lebanon or whatever. Let Muslim fight Muslim - America and Europe can simply play defense and support these nations with medicine, food, etc...
Click to expand...

The only problem with that scenario is that it would create another holocaust. Utter millions of innocents, Christians who happen to live in those areas, and even muslims who refuse to abide by harsh interpretations of sharia law will be slaughtered. sending medication and care packages is not going to mitigate that.
 
Montecresto said:
Yes of course. I was in thin company then and now. US foreign policy has produced most of the trouble in the ME. Sure, sure, the trible/religious conflicts are ancient. But what we have today is a result of US interference. But let's get our boots on and go make some more money.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily disagree, but I think you err in laying the blame primarily at the US's feet. Our involvement is only more recent, relatively. The problem has it's roots in European colonialism, primarily Britain and France.
 
ObamacareFail said:
The only problem with that scenario is that it would create another holocaust. Utter millions of innocents, Christians who happen to live in those areas, and even muslims who refuse to abide by harsh interpretations of sharia law will be slaughtered. sending medication and care packages is not going to mitigate that.
Click to expand...

Well, I can see the West stepping in to prevent any new holocaust for moral reasons but not intervene in the actual civil war. I would find that acceptable.
 
radcen said:
I don't necessarily disagree, but I think you err in laying the blame primarily at the US's feet. Our involvement is only more recent, relatively. The problem has it's roots in European colonialism, primarily Britain and France.
Click to expand...

Ok, then let's stay home and let them fix it. Oh, that's right.
 
radcen said:
Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement, given the recent events with ISIS and current status of Afghanistan, that you did before?

Think back to your opinion when Bush II first invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Think back to when Obama withdrew from Iraq. Think about the current alleged wind down in Afghanistan. Doesn't really matter what your opinion was, just ask yourself if you feel the same now as you did then. And why do you feel the same or differently.

Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

Hmm, the invasion of Iraq by Bush II I thought was a bad idea. I never like pre-emptive wars which makes the ones who pre-empt the aggressor. Afghanistan I was all for and I loved the way it was fought. A few SF and paramilitary on the ground along with our air power the soldiers of the Northern Alliance doing the fighting on the ground, ideal. It worked and the Taliban was driven out of Afghanistan. Then we made a mistake in my opinion, we began nation building and put in over a 100,000 troops. Better to have let the Afghani choose their own form of government, kept some SF and paramilitary in Afghanistan to call in more air strikes when the Taliban tried to return and continue to let the Afghani fight on the ground.

I think we should have let Libya and Syria alone, our national security was not threaten by Khadafy or Assad and if we let them put down their little rebellion we most likely wouldn’t be faced with the situation we have today. Khadafy had stopped his support of terrorism a long time ago, Assad never bothered us. Now Libya is complete chaos and turmoil with the different tribes and factions fighting each other and has become haven for some terrorist organization. ISIS in Syria and Iraq, nothing more needs to be said.

The total withdrawal from Iraq by President Obama, that is what the American people wanted and that is what he campaigned on. It was fine with me. No one, Obama or Bush II could have known or seen how Maliki would screw up Iraq and start to suppress the Sunni minority and leave Iraq open to ISIS and rebellion. This situation is more of Maliki’s making than either Bush II or Obama in my opinion.

There is one thing I will never understand, why we, the United States has to continue to stick our nose into every little country’s business. Why this dictator must go while those ten other dictators must remain. The world is a crazy place and so are we.
 
Perotista said:
Hmm, the invasion of Iraq by Bush II I thought was a bad idea. I never like pre-emptive wars which makes the ones who pre-empt the aggressor. Afghanistan I was all for and I loved the way it was fought. A few SF and paramilitary on the ground along with our air power the soldiers of the Northern Alliance doing the fighting on the ground, ideal. It worked and the Taliban was driven out of Afghanistan. Then we made a mistake in my opinion, we began nation building and put in over a 100,000 troops. Better to have let the Afghani choose their own form of government, kept some SF and paramilitary in Afghanistan to call in more air strikes when the Taliban tried to return and continue to let the Afghani fight on the ground.

I think we should have let Libya and Syria alone, our national security was not threaten by Khadafy or Assad and if we let them put down their little rebellion we most likely wouldn’t be faced with the situation we have today. Khadafy had stopped his support of terrorism a long time ago, Assad never bothered us. Now Libya is complete chaos and turmoil with the different tribes and factions fighting each other and has become haven for some terrorist organization. ISIS in Syria and Iraq, nothing more needs to be said.

The total withdrawal from Iraq by President Obama, that is what the American people wanted and that is what he campaigned on. It was fine with me. No one, Obama or Bush II could have known or seen how Maliki would screw up Iraq and start to suppress the Sunni minority and leave Iraq open to ISIS and rebellion. This situation is more of Maliki’s making than either Bush II or Obama in my opinion.

There is one thing I will never understand, why we, the United States has to continue to stick our nose into every little country’s business. Why this dictator must go while those ten other dictators must remain. The world is a crazy place and so are we.
Click to expand...

Spot on bro, no need for further debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom