• 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
SheWolf said:
Obama was trying to impress the warhawks, and that's the only reason he supported a surge in Afghanistan. The GOP ran a campaign against him and constantly challenged him to say a surge in Iraq worked, which it didn't. Iraq is still ****ed up, obviously. Both surges were nothing more than BS American politics.
Click to expand...

There were 257 terrorist attacks in Iraq in 2008, but the Bush apologists will have you to believe there was some sort of victory there.
 
Montecresto said:
There were 257 terrorist attacks in Iraq in 2008, but the Bush apologists will have you to believe there was some sort of victory there.
Click to expand...

That was a historically low number, and casualties were way down too. Iraq was a victory, thrown away by BHO.
 
Jack Hays said:
That was a historically low number, and casualties were way down too. Iraq was a victory, thrown away by BHO.
Click to expand...

The Iraq War was a mess, and remains a mess that America and most of Europe and the Middle East will have to deal with for generations.
 
SheWolf said:
Obama was trying to impress the warhawks, and that's the only reason he supported a surge in Afghanistan. The GOP ran a campaign against him and constantly challenged him to say a surge in Iraq worked, which it didn't. Iraq is still ****ed up, obviously. Both surges were nothing more than BS American politics.
Click to expand...

Terrorist attacks in Iraq didn't go down significantly until Obama became president with 76 in 2009 and 44 in 2010. But between 2003-2010 there were 2,000 such attacks. Want to know how many terrorist attacks there were in Iraq in the previous decade?
 
SheWolf said:
The Iraq War was a mess, and remains a mess that America and most of Europe and the Middle East will have to deal with for generations.
Click to expand...

I make no claim re the wisdom of going into Iraq. But by 2008 victory had been achieved and 2009 was the quietest year in a long time. That could have have been sustained. ISIS is a product of our hesitation in Syria and our abdication in Iraq.
 
Jack Hays said:
I make no claim re the wisdom of going into Iraq. But by 2008 victory had been achieved and 2009 was the quietest year in a long time. That could have have been sustained. ISIS is a product of our hesitation in Syria and our abdication in Iraq.
Click to expand...

It's our problem because of our past policies in the region. A combination of European colonialism and US nation building led to this being our concern, though our nation gets no actual benefit from constant intervention. The only people who wanted to go into Syria were the nation building warharwks. I guess you are one.
 
SheWolf said:
It's our problem because of our past policies in the region. A combination of European colonialism and US nation building led to this being our concern, though our nation gets no actual benefit from constant intervention. The only people who wanted to go into Syria were the nation building warharwks. I guess you are one.
Click to expand...

That, and Americans that had the **** scared out of them by rhetoric like, "do we have to wait for the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud over a US city"? Which was stated when it was apparent that even with the unprecedented access Hans Blix had, he could find no WMD.
 
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?

.
Click to expand...

This is the only time I have supported our going to the ME in a conflict or war effort. ISIS is a different animal than we have been dealing with previously. They are serious, and they are brutal savages. Much worse that AQ ever dreamed of being, from what I can tell. I say kill them all, and take no prisoners.
 
lizzie said:
This is the only time I have supported our going to the ME in a conflict or war effort. ISIS is a different animal than we have been dealing with previously. They are serious, and they are brutal savages. Much worse that AQ ever dreamed of being, from what I can tell. I say kill them all, and take no prisoners.
Click to expand...

Yes well, AQ lives. Why would you think that we could kill all of a group much worse then they could have dreamed of? Wouldn't it have been more prudent to leave in place those figures who contained such groups?
 
I have changed my position on this greatly, and consider this latest round of dealing with the ISIS something we were dared (perhaps better said, bullied) into.

What is happening is further conformation to me that our foreign policy is confusing, hypocritical, and ultimately a problem we make worse because of our attitudes about how another region of the world should exist.

What gets to me the most is ISIS did not show up yesterday, those that make up ISIS have been there a very long time and looked to opprotunity to capitalize on. This was true of the multiple way civil war in Syria, and the incredible weakness of the Iraq government (and military.)

Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President Obama is now the 4th President in a row to drop a bomb on Iraq and mean it, and now we are striking targets in Syria as well. As apart of a "coalition" that includes plenty of other nations we claim are friends but also exibit harsh treatment for those of competition religions, themselves show outward sexism and pedophilia, and other inequalities and less than acceptable social behavior. We claim we are helping "moderates" who seem to tave no real interest in engaging ISIS in Syria. As for Iraq, they have demostrated well their aptitude to drop their US issued weapons and run like hell to Baghdad (or other regions of Iraq ISIS does not seem to want... at least not today.) ISIS's view of state independence under such religious control is not unique but we are told via fear that we have to do something about them especially while overlooking others perhaps a notch down in extremism assuming the US gets something out of the deal.

I think we are making a monumental mistake. Between Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and now Obama we have a trail of nations from Libya, to Egypt, to Syria, to Iraq, to Somalia, to Afghanistan, to several others that have become long term disasters with a fiscal consequence only beaten out by the human lives lost, or forever changed, consequence. All one has to do is look at the overwhelmed VA to realize we really did a great disservice to those we put in harms way for what I history will tell was very little gain. We decide which tyrants are acceptable assuming there is something in it for us, while pointing the finger at others suggesting they are the problem.

ISIS does seem like a huge problem, one I would argue we greatly ensured would happen with decades of terrible foreign policy designed to ensure there would be plenty out there that did not like us very much. All evidence supporting. I think Obama got punked into dealing with this in the manner he has, and joined a long line of predicessors who seem to have caused more problems than they have solved over the years.
 
Montecresto said:
Yes well, AQ lives. Why would you think that we could kill all of a group much worse then they could have dreamed of? Wouldn't it have been more prudent to leave in place those figures who contained such groups?
Click to expand...

I didn't say I think we CAN. I said that is what I would do.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I have changed my position on this greatly, and consider this latest round of dealing with the ISIS something we were dared (perhaps better said, bullied) into.

What is happening is further conformation to me that our foreign policy is confusing, hypocritical, and ultimately a problem we make worse because of our attitudes about how another region of the world should exist.

What gets to me the most is ISIS did not show up yesterday, those that make up ISIS have been there a very long time and looked to opprotunity to capitalize on. This was true of the multiple way civil war in Syria, and the incredible weakness of the Iraq government (and military.)

Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President Obama is now the 4th President in a row to drop a bomb on Iraq and mean it, and now we are striking targets in Syria as well. As apart of a "coalition" that includes plenty of other nations we claim are friends but also exibit harsh treatment for those of competition religions, themselves show outward sexism and pedophilia, and other inequalities and less than acceptable social behavior. We claim we are helping "moderates" who seem to tave no real interest in engaging ISIS in Syria. As for Iraq, they have demostrated well their aptitude to drop their US issued weapons and run like hell to Baghdad (or other regions of Iraq ISIS does not seem to want... at least not today.) ISIS's view of state independence under such religious control is not unique but we are told via fear that we have to do something about them especially while overlooking others perhaps a notch down in extremism assuming the US gets something out of the deal.

I think we are making a monumental mistake. Between Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and now Obama we have a trail of nations from Libya, to Egypt, to Syria, to Iraq, to Somalia, to Afghanistan, to several others that have become long term disasters with a fiscal consequence only beaten out by the human lives lost, or forever changed, consequence. All one has to do is look at the overwhelmed VA to realize we really did a great disservice to those we put in harms way for what I history will tell was very little gain. We decide which tyrants are acceptable assuming there is something in it for us, while pointing the finger at others suggesting they are the problem.

ISIS does seem like a huge problem, one I would argue we greatly ensured would happen with decades of terrible foreign policy designed to ensure there would be plenty out there that did not like us very much. All evidence supporting. I think Obama got punked into dealing with this in the manner he has, and joined a long line of predicessors who seem to have caused more problems than they have solved over the years.
Click to expand...

Quite true, US policy in the ME for decades has been destabilization.
 
SheWolf said:
It's our problem because of our past policies in the region. A combination of European colonialism and US nation building led to this being our concern, though our nation gets no actual benefit from constant intervention. The only people who wanted to go into Syria were the nation building warharwks. I guess you are one.
Click to expand...

We would not have had to go into Syria. People who share our values were in the field and willing to fight for themselves. They wanted only the tools for the job. We did not provide them.
 
It's going to years and years to take out ISIS... if it's even possible, and I am being realistic when I say that I don't think it's possible...

We tried to rid the world of Al Qaida, and we did a lot of serious damage, but they would just reorganize, find another leader and figurehead, and now Al Qaida fighters can join up with ISIS...


lizzie said:
This is the only time I have supported our going to the ME in a conflict or war effort. ISIS is a different animal than we have been dealing with previously. They are serious, and they are brutal savages. Much worse that AQ ever dreamed of being, from what I can tell. I say kill them all, and take no prisoners.
Click to expand...
 
lizzie said:
I didn't say I think we CAN. I said that is what I would do.
Click to expand...

Well the pentagon, with its various branches of service lost 4,500 soldiers and spent 1-1/2 trillion dollars to fight AQ, yet AQ lives.
 
SheWolf said:
It's going to years and years to take out ISIS... if it's even possible, and I am being realistic when I say that I don't think it's possible...

We tried to rid the world of Al Qaida, and we did a lot of serious damage, but they would just reorganize, find another leader and figurehead, and now Al Qaida fighters can join up with ISIS...
Click to expand...

That is why smart officers, as early as 2002, began referring to "The Long War."
 
Montecresto said:
Well the pentagon, with its various branches of service lost 4,500 soldiers and spent 1-1/2 trillion dollars to fight AQ, yet AQ lives.
Click to expand...

It gets worse, besides Al-Qaeda we were also fighting the Taliban and a military tyrant in Iraq. In the end there is plenty of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban running around, and in Iraq the replacement was a weakend government over a terrible panic first, run second, and ask questions never military.
 
Fiddytree said:
I think it perfectly acceptable to be continuously challenged when considering foreign policy engagements. That's why I selected, "It's complicated." I, myself, had curiously moved back and forth between support and skepticism in engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've settled on being inherently uninterested in democratic nation building, but not against destroying terrorist cells. Whilst I'm continuing to be skeptical of the need for a significant war presently and am concerned with its lasting impact on America's bottom line, I am nevertheless torn on whether or not such sacrifices may be inherently necessary to prevent attacks on our soil or those of our choicest allies.
Click to expand...

"The United States failed in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but this time round may be different since the Islamic State is posing a serious danger to close U.S. allies in the region who cannot defend themselves on their own," al-Hashimi said. "The United States will be going in this time with the blessing of regional powers."

Read more: There's No End In Sight For America's Middle East War Duties - Business Insider
 
I was hardcore GOP until Dubya's invasion of Iraq and it was found out there was no WMDs, thats when I became Libertarian and now I completely believe in non-interventionism. The chaos of the Middle East can be traced directly to Western imperialism.
 
PoS said:
I was hardcore GOP until Dubya's invasion of Iraq and it was found out there was no WMDs, thats when I became Libertarian and now I completely believe in non-interventionism. The chaos of the Middle East can be traced directly to Western imperialism.
Click to expand...

It's funny how this is both obvious and yet opaque to so many at the same time.
 
The middle east has always been chaotic. There has always been war. Even before the Crusades.


The only reason we give a **** is because they're drowning in oil. No oil? We go back to ignoring them, like we had been doing for the last 300 years prior to the demand for oil.

Think about it. Most of the middle east ascribes to a religion that places very little value on human life. It is, as a culture, antiquated to the extreme, BY DESIGN. Think of them as almost being violent Amish. When you way of life dictated by tenants that are a thousand years expired, and your leaders are indoctrinated and compelled to INDOCTRINATE those very same tenants upon their populace, this is what happens.

Imagine what THIS country would look like if each individual interpretation of Christianity had the added belief that all the OTHERS were infidels who cannot be suffered to live...at least not in the same vicinity as themselves.
 
KevinKohler said:
Tell you what. Name the historical site, whatever the hell that means, and I'll look into it.


Since the NY Times isn't historical, now Wikipedia, nor UPI, lol.


Failed debate tactic is failing.
Click to expand...

As if you were a qualified judge. Wikipedia can be edited by the reader...the New York times is a joke. And the UPI correspondent posted a story off the rumor mill. Post it from a mainstream US news source and I will take it seriously. I don't doubt that the CIA had connections to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. I just do not buy the fantasy that the CIA groomed Saddam or the Baath Party into power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom