• 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!

How Do We End The War on Terror?

What Should We Do To End The Terror War?

  • The West is doing the right thing.

    Votes: 4 7.5%

  • We need more WAAAUGH! We need to bomb more! Boots on the ground!

    Votes: 6 11.3%

  • The West needs to change their foreign policy. Stop meddling in other countries.

    Votes: 30 56.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 13 24.5%
  • Total voters
    53
Hard Truth said:
He was bad, but he wasn't worse than many other dictators in power in 2003 and it was, and is, impractical and futile to get rid of every evil dictator.
Click to expand...

Is your position that of promoting pro-dictatorship?
 
Hard Truth said:
He was bad, but he wasn't worse than many other dictators in power in 2003 and it was, and is, impractical and futile to get rid of every evil dictator.
Click to expand...

True. And his removal has unleashed something far more threatening then Saddam was. I can't think of anybody that has stated "Saddam was not so bad", that's a straw man. I heard a one time ardent supporter of the Iraq war, Michael Smerconish state a couple wekas ago that if he could magically put Saddam Hussein back in Iraq, he would. And of course, polling indicates a growing number of Americans who now believe that the Iraq war and his removal was a mistake. Supporting the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt was also a mistake as well as using Al Qaeda to help topple Gaddafi, as clearly evidenced by the chaos and loss of productivity in Libya. And then there's the equally foolish policy, that predates Obama btw, of regime change in Syria, with support of the MB, AQ, al Nusra infested FSA, which has so weakened president Assad as to create an atmosphere beneficial to all manor of militant Islamists and namely the rise of the Islamic State. Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad, all far less than ideal leaders, did a far better job at containment of militant Islamic groups then any US policy has done, as only the blind, or patronizing of US policy would fail to recognize.
 
DDD said:
Is your position that of promoting pro-dictatorship?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't use the word promoting, that would be something the US government has done the world over throughout the last century, when that was in favor of "US INTERESTS"

Over the last century, the United States government has often provided, and continues to provide today, financial assistance, arms, and technical support to numerous authoritarian regimes across the world. A variety of reasons have been provided to justify the apparent contradictions between support for dictators and the democratic ideals expressed in the American constitution.[1]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_of_authoritarian_regimes

And, there was a time, not too distant now, when Saddam Hussein himself was one such beneficiary!! Then, when it was no longer in the US's interest to do so, then suddenly the handwringing began over Saddam's humanitarian failures and it was time to demonize him, exploit his both real and imagined crimes and threats, and to even fabricate lies about him (such as his ability to create mushroom clouds over US cities, viles of anthrax, and mobile WMD delivery systems) so as to frighten and gain support of the American people for a war that they now recognize as a mistake.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161399/10th-anniversary-iraq-war-mistake.aspx
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
I wouldn't use the word promoting, that would be something the US government has done the world over throughout the last century, when that was in favor of "US INTERESTS"

Over the last century, the United States government has often provided, and continues to provide today, financial assistance, arms, and technical support to numerous authoritarian regimes across the world. A variety of reasons have been provided to justify the apparent contradictions between support for dictators and the democratic ideals expressed in the American constitution.[1]

United States support of authoritarian regimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, there was a time, not too distant now, when Saddam Hussein himself was one such beneficiary!! Then, when it was no longer in the US's interest to do so, then suddenly the handwringing began over Saddam's humanitarian failures and it was time to demonize him, exploit his both real and imagined crimes and threats, and to even fabricate lies about him (such as his ability to create mushroom clouds over US cities, viles of anthrax, and mobile WMD delivery systems) so as to frighten and gain support of the American people for a war that they now recognize as a mistake.

On 10th Anniversary, 53% in U.S. See Iraq War as Mistake
Click to expand...

Message of the story: Dictators never win. Do not become one.

Also, Weaky-pedia? Please, add some respect to our conversations.
 
DDD said:
Message of the story: Dictators never win. Do not become one.

Also, Weaky-pedia? Please, add some respect to our conversations.
Click to expand...

OMG, DDD talking about respect!! So really, REALLY, are you denying that the US has and does prop up dictators when it suits "US interests"?????

What other dictators does the U.S. support?
Aside from Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, here are the other most controversial leaders propped up by the U.S.
http://www.salon.com/2011/02/02/american_allies_dictators/

5 dictators the U.S. still supports
http://theweek.com/article/index/211722/5-dictators-the-us-still-supports

Exporting Tyranny through Foreign Aid
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/exporting-tyranny-through-foreign-aid/

US: Support for Latin American dictators
http://wais.stanford.edu/USA/us_supportforladictators8303.html

Apartheid and Genocide: US Supports Kagame Dictatorship and Political Oppression in Rwanda
http://www.globalresearch.ca/aparth...ip-and-political-oppression-in-rwanda/5397331

The U.S. is supporting oppression in Egypt
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...a4c8fc-8f66-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html

Accusations and criticisms of cheap labor, resource exploitation and democracy stifling have been directed at outsiders such as the United States for various reasons, including:

Support for dictators in recent decades;
Hostility towards the (former) democratically elected president;
Various interests of big U.S. companies.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/141/haiti

Control of Resources; Supporting Dictators, Rise of Terrorism
http://www.globalissues.org/article/260/control-of-resources-supporting-dictators-rise-of-terrorism

A Reminder: Mubarak Isn't the Only U.S.-Backed Dictator
http://www.thewire.com/global/2011/02/a-reminder-mubarak-isn-t-the-only-u-s-backed-dictator/21262/

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82588

Rethinking U.S. Relations With Dictators
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-calingaert/rethinking-us-relations-w_b_1952077.html
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
OMG, DDD talking about respect!! So really, REALLY, are you denying that the US has and does prop up dictators when it suits "US interests"?????

What other dictators does the U.S. support?
Aside from Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, here are the other most controversial leaders propped up by the U.S.
What other dictators does the U.S. support? - Salon.com

5 dictators the U.S. still supports
5 dictators the U.S. still supports - The Week

Exporting Tyranny through Foreign Aid
Exporting Tyranny through Foreign Aid | The American Conservative

US: Support for Latin American dictators
US: Support for Latin American dictators

Apartheid and Genocide: US Supports Kagame Dictatorship and Political Oppression in Rwanda
Apartheid and Genocide: US Supports Kagame Dictatorship and Political Oppression in Rwanda | Global Research

The U.S. is supporting oppression in Egypt
The U.S. is supporting oppression in Egypt - The Washington Post

Accusations and criticisms of cheap labor, resource exploitation and democracy stifling have been directed at outsiders such as the United States for various reasons, including:

Support for dictators in recent decades;
Hostility towards the (former) democratically elected president;
Various interests of big U.S. companies.
Haiti

Control of Resources; Supporting Dictators, Rise of Terrorism
Control of Resources; Supporting Dictators, Rise of Terrorism

A Reminder: Mubarak Isn't the Only U.S.-Backed Dictator
A Reminder: Mubarak Isn't the Only U.S.-Backed Dictator - The Wire

CIA Admits Involvement in Chile - ABC News

Rethinking U.S. Relations With Dictators
Rethinking U.S. Relations With Dictators | Daniel Calingaert
Click to expand...

Thank you Monte,

I think that the tight dictating power of a dictator mirrors the tight foreign power enforced upon them. The more the people distance themselves from the dictator the less the dictator has their support to counter such forceful influences. Eventually the majority may want the dictator gone.

At such point we as "heroes" step in and eliminate the cruel dictator. Hence, being a dictator never pays off. It is a lose or eventually lose situation.
 
DDD said:
Thank you Monte,

I think that the tight dictating power of a dictator mirrors the tight foreign power enforced upon them. The more the people distance themselves from the dictator the less the dictator has their support to counter such forceful influences. Eventually the majority may want the dictator gone.

At such point we as "heroes" step in and eliminate the cruel dictator. Hence, being a dictator never pays off. It is a lose or eventually lose situation.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense to me whatsoever DDD! Except the part that people (presumably those living under a dictator) would like the dictator to be gone. But none of that speaks to my point that "US interests" (which is primarily business) drives foreign policy and not the facades of humanitarianism, international law/norms or sovereign borders. The US has and is, at the expense of citizens living under them supported dictatorships because it was beneficial to US business or other interests. Only on the occasions that those interests were/are better served by said dictator being removed, do we have the government begin talking about how horrible they are and ginning up support for regime change.
 
Montecresto said:
That makes no sense to me whatsoever DDD!
Click to expand...

Ask me questions then?

Montecresto said:
Except the part that people (presumably those living under a dictator) would like the dictator to be gone. But none of that speaks to my point that "US interests" (which is primarily business) drives foreign policy and not the facades of humanitarianism, international law/norms or sovereign borders. The US has and is, at the expense of citizens living under them supported dictatorships because it was beneficial to US business or other interests. Only on the occasions that those interests were/are better served by said dictator being removed, do we have the government begin talking about how horrible they are and ginning up support for regime change.
Click to expand...

It is not how it appears from here. The US foreign interest are about cooperation. The US supports any government as long as it has no extreme ideology (i.e., Nazism, Religious State, etc).

Among various leaders in the political spectrum a dictator in some countries rises and the US supports them too. Whenever the public has had it with them and they start a full blown attack against the dictator then the US kicks those down (assuming again that they are not extremes).

Whichever the leader the foreign policy assures cooperation. But for the sake of both the people and the dictator, it had better be not be a dictatorship.
 
PoS said:
Endless war is never easy. In fact its downright impossible to win it...
Click to expand...

That's why unleash hell on the enemy and destroy them.
 
apdst said:
That's why unleash hell on the enemy and destroy them.
Click to expand...

Bush tried that with Al Qaeda, and they're as strong as ever, arguably stronger.
 
DDD said:
Is your position that of promoting pro-dictatorship?
Click to expand...

No I'm saying that the USA should not try to take down every evil dictator in the world. Saddam's cruelty as a dictator is now being used, after the fact, to justify the bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq beginning in 2003, but that was not a an important reason used to sell us the war in 2002-2003, it was about a false connection with Al Qaeda and non-existent WMDs.
 
Hard Truth said:
No I'm saying that the USA should not try to take down every evil dictator in the world. Saddam's cruelty as a dictator is now being used, after the fact, to justify the bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq beginning in 2003, but that was not a an important reason used to sell us the war in 2002-2003, it was about a false connection with Al Qaeda and non-existent WMDs.
Click to expand...

Well I think your President made the right choice in liberating Iraqi's from Saddam. If he had to lie to you guys on the real reasons why he had to do it just to back him up, then I think the ends justify the means.
 
DDD said:
Well I think your President made the right choice in liberating Iraqi's from Saddam. If he had to lie to you guys on the real reasons why he had to do it just to back him up, then I think the ends justify the means.
Click to expand...

To tell you the truth,I do not think he lied.
 
DDD said:
Depends on why you think the war was really about.
Click to expand...

There was a relatively wide and deep discussion in the policy media at the time and pretty much all angles were thoroughly vetted. I suspect that Powell distrusted the nuclear and mobile weapons systems stories, but that would be the extent of it. And everyone that was serious about wanting to knew that the crux was the red line Bush had drawn, when he said the UN should solve the problem or it would be irrelevant. Saddam had not corresponded to the SC Resolution and the UN was not willing or capable of making him. Everything else was immaterial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom