• 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!

Is the Middle East better off since the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom began?

Is the Middle East better off since the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom began?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 7.0%
  • No

    Votes: 32 74.4%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • Mmmmmm...pizza.

    Votes: 2 4.7%

  • Total voters
    43
Isis may not make it to the weekend. Let alone 30 years. Just remember how the ussr looked in the 80s. Isis isn't going to thrive like pre 9/11 terrorists. America woke up to those idiots. We have a playbook for them now. And we haven't been the only ones using that playbook.

Terrorism is relatively new. And it thrived in a world where communists backed the anti capitalists. And the capitalists backed the anti communists. Now that America won...and the world has since realized the price of letting these people get trained and run amok...

Sorry. Rambling. Isis won't last. They will be done in for violating sun Tzu. They crossed their own people. We may be able to just blow on them, but they destabilized themselves.

You're assuming ISIS is the end of the terrorists line? I disagree. When/if ISIS is crippled another organization will pop up, then another, then another. Saddam was a despicable vicious dictator, I don't give a rats ass about him. But taking him out was a mistake and it left a huge vacuum in the Middle East that's going to last for decades. Again, the middle east isn't ready for western democracy. They don't want it, and they're not ready for it.
 
Ever play jenga?

Yes and I understand the point people are trying to make but no one has yet to tell me how EXACTLY did the Iraq war effect the region. This was unstable country that had invaded its neighbours, caused a major conflict ( gulf war), used chemical weapons on its own people and broke international law numerous times resulting in NATO bombing raids. Iraq was and remains unstable so to me other events in the region are not directly linked to the fall of Saddam.
 
You're assuming ISIS is the end of the terrorists line? I disagree. When/if ISIS is crippled another organization will pop up, then another, then another. Saddam was a despicable vicious dictator, I don't give a rats ass about him. But taking him out was a mistake and it left a huge vacuum in the Middle East that's going to last for decades. Again, the middle east isn't ready for western democracy. They don't want it, and they're not ready for it.

Ok? Well let's ask ourselves: WHO is going to kill Isis? That is the most important question.

And Arab spring?
 
Ok? Well let's ask ourselves: WHO is going to kill Isis? That is the most important question.

And Arab spring?

I'm not sure of what you are asking me. You are the one who said ISIS may not make it to the weekend. I'm saying it doesn't matter who defeats them. Because even if they are defeated, someone else will pop up. IMO We're stuck in the muck and mire mess we created for a long long time.

It was just a year or so ago all we heard about was the Taliban and AQ. Now? We hardly hear about them, now it's ISIS. who's next?
 
Last edited:
Yes and I understand the point people are trying to make but no one has yet to tell me how EXACTLY did the Iraq war effect the region.
The Coalition's invasion completely threw the region into chaos: the power vacuum led to the creation of ISIS which then spread into Syria (turning it into a civil war) and beyond, Iran's influence grew in the Shiite areas, Al Qaeda finally had a presence in an area formerly suppressed by Saddam Hussein, over 4 million refugees, hundreds of thousands dead, Kurdish secession and potential for a whole scale civil war in Turkey, etc. Do you want more?
 
Is the Middle East better off since the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom be...

I'm not sure of what you are asking me. You are the one who said ISIS may not make it to the weekend. I'm saying it doesn't matter who defeats them. Because even if they are defeated, someone else will pop up. IMO We're stuck in the muck and mire mess we created for a long long time.

It was just a year or so ago all we heard about was the Taliban and AQ. Now? We hardly hear about them, now it's ISIS. who's next?

So if the Arabs are the ones who kill Isis? Muslims who are tired of the radicals? You don't think that would pose a problem for OTHER radical Islamic groups? The world would become a lot less safe for them. Kind of like what happened to the world for left wing terror groups at the fall of the Soviet Union.

Isis isn't a threat and we really aren't stuck. We are dealing with the results of 85 years of involvement in the Middle East. And 70 years of political involvement. But we aren't "stuck." We could wash our hands and be done. And that is what is happening. We are going hands off.

And if the Arab Muslims kill the radicals, then the flower of democracy might start to take ahold.
 
The Coalition's invasion completely threw the region into chaos: the power vacuum led to the creation of ISIS which then spread into Syria (turning it into a civil war) and beyond, Iran's influence grew in the Shiite areas, Al Qaeda finally had a presence in an area formerly suppressed by Saddam Hussein, over 4 million refugees, hundreds of thousands dead, Kurdish secession and potential for a whole scale civil war in Turkey, etc. Do you want more?

ISIS were on the run and had been beaten back in Iraq, read up on "the awakening". What allowed them to spread and prosper in Syria was the West's inaction, if we had intervened earlier we could of stopped groups like ISIS from ever gaining any ground. Syria is an open wound which needed to be healed, instead we let it fester and the infection spread. Again this had little to do with the fall of Saddam.
 
Yes and I understand the point people are trying to make but no one has yet to tell me how EXACTLY did the Iraq war effect the region. This was unstable country that had invaded its neighbours, caused a major conflict ( gulf war), used chemical weapons on its own people and broke international law numerous times resulting in NATO bombing raids. Iraq was and remains unstable so to me other events in the region are not directly linked to the fall of Saddam.

I think it has been explained to you on numerous occasions, but I understand as a veteran of that war, your need and desire to defend it. Do you recall by the way that your own Downing Street noted that George Bush was massaging the intelligence coming out on Iraq to fit his predetermined policy of regime change? Do you realise that the necessity of a war with Iraq was sold to the American public on the merits that Saddam Hussein was connected with AQ and had a relationship with OBL. And was capable of producing a mushroom cloud over a US city? None of which was true? Not all of the unrest in the ME is due to the removal of Hussein. There's the US/NATO action in Libya that removed the stabilising leader there, too! You probably don't pay much attention to the mess that countries in now because it too is an embarrassment to Western interference.
 
I think it has been explained to you on numerous occasions, but I understand as a veteran of that war, your need and desire to defend it. Do you recall by the way that your own Downing Street noted that George Bush was massaging the intelligence coming out on Iraq to fit his predetermined policy of regime change? Do you realise that the necessity of a war with Iraq was sold to the American public on the merits that Saddam Hussein was connected with AQ and had a relationship with OBL. And was capable of producing a mushroom cloud over a US city? None of which was true? Not all of the unrest in the ME is due to the removal of Hussein. There's the US/NATO action in Libya that removed the stabilising leader there, too! You probably don't pay much attention to the mess that countries in now because it too is an embarrassment to Western interference.

Thats literally just a narrative , your narrative at that and has nothing to do with the question at hand.
Many posters have stated that the fall of Saddam is to blame for ISIS growing in numbers in Syria, this is just not accurate. As I pointed out before the fall of Syria many regions of Iraq including the famous 'anbar awakening" were successful at driving out extremists. These groups did not get a foothold in the region until the Syrian civil war which was ignited by the "Arab Spring". So I ask you how is the fall of Saddam responsible for this?
 
ISIS were on the run and had been beaten back in Iraq, read up on "the awakening". What allowed them to spread and prosper in Syria was the West's inaction, if we had intervened earlier we could of stopped groups like ISIS from ever gaining any ground. Syria is an open wound which needed to be healed, instead we let it fester and the infection spread. Again this had little to do with the fall of Saddam.

Yeah right. If we'd have only gone to war in another ME country, things would be so much better. Do you understand that Obama tried in Syria? Are you aware of the fact that he dispatched Hillary Clinton on three occasions to the UN to secure a resolution for the use of force in Syria. And that due to the West's abuse of UN1973 in Libya, that all three times Russia and China said NO!!!!!! Do you understand that hegemonic and failed Western policies in the ME (and now Eastern Europe) are pushing Russia and China closer together. Stop defending failure!
 
Thats literally just a narrative , your narrative at that and has nothing to do with the question at hand.
Many posters have stated that the fall of Saddam is to blame for ISIS growing in numbers in Syria, this is just not accurate. As I pointed out before the fall of Syria many regions of Iraq including the famous 'anbar awakening" were successful at driving out extremists. These groups did not get a foothold in the region until the Syrian civil war which was ignited by the "Arab Spring". So I ask you how is the fall of Saddam responsible for this?

Wtf do you mean narrative? I'm not the one that has blamed the growth of the Islamic State on the fall of Saddam. I blame it on the Western powers interference that has removed the forces of Saddam, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad for the instability of the region.
 
Wtf do you mean narrative? I'm not the one that has blamed the growth of the Islamic State on the fall of Saddam. I blame it on the Western powers interference that has removed the forces of Saddam, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad for the instability of the region.

Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad were toppled by their own people. Why should they have to live under the rule of dictators?
 
Wtf do you mean narrative? I'm not the one that has blamed the growth of the Islamic State on the fall of Saddam. I blame it on the Western powers interference that has removed the forces of Saddam, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad for the instability of the region.

Blame the West all you want and in the case of Iraq you’re right mistakes were made, however you can’t just simply pin everything that has happened since on the Iraq War as the region is just too complex. Due to work I have spent time in Iraq, Turkey, Egypt and a very short visit to Syria in the past 6 months. The biggest thing that stuck out to me is how much people want change in these regions and how westernised they are becoming. People don’t want dictators anymore, no oppressive regimes, women want more rights etc. 20 plus years ago these are the kind of things that people would never even whisper about and regardless they had no platform from which to discuss such ideas. As we saw from the Arab spring social media has changed everything, ideas spread faster, young people are exposed to different ideas, cultures etc. What we are seeing in countries like Egypt, Jordon, Saudi etc is young people who want to be more like the West, who want the same rights and opportunity that we do. They are moving on however the military and the dictators are not as we have seen in Syria.
 
Dictators come and go in the middle east as demonstrated in the past few years. Name me a country where this "power vacuum" emboldened people to seize power in their own country? Also worth pointing out we (the west) have been propping up/ toppling governments in the middle east since the fall of the Ottoman empire.

I can't name you a country off the top of my head where a "power vacuum" (Power vacuum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) has existed and I don't care enough about this tangent to look one up. if it is truly your position that removing a powerful dictator from power and dismantling his army does not have an impact on the surrounding region then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
I can't name you a country off the top of my head where a "power vacuum" (Power vacuum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) has existed and I don't care enough about this tangent to look one up. if it is truly your position that removing a powerful dictator from power and dismantling his army does not have an impact on the surrounding region then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

So you base your opinion on the fact the term " power vacum" exists. Fair enough, didnt really answer my question or explain exactly how the fall or Iraq led to the Syrian civil war but fair enough.
 
ISIS were on the run and had been beaten back in Iraq, read up on "the awakening". What allowed them to spread and prosper in Syria was the West's inaction, if we had intervened earlier we could of stopped groups like ISIS from ever gaining any ground. Syria is an open wound which needed to be healed, instead we let it fester and the infection spread. Again this had little to do with the fall of Saddam.

I disagree. I think. We didn't need to "intervene." We needed to let the wound be exposed to open air for a bit. Then maybe Assist in ending them.
 
It's difficult to tell because its a question that simply can't be answered. Better off for who? I certainly think the Iraqi's are better off. They were on the verge of civil war and in the shadow of Iran just licking its lips awaiting a weak Iraq so they could solve their decades long boarder dispute. After Iraq invaded Kuwait, it was only a matter of time before the entire region would erupt into war. Saying that, we could have done a much better job then we did. We did a horrendous job of securing the ME. Just take a look at it today and see how terrible our decisions were. Our decision not to remove Saddam the first time we were in Iraq. Our decision to not send in enough troops and support the 2nd time we went into Iraq which lead to civil war and infiltration of forign fighters. Our decision to withdraw WAY to early and leave Iraq vunerable both politically and militarily. Iraq had no chance. Just about every country around Iraq has their hands in the country trying to influence it. It's no wonder its falling apart at the seams. Iraq should have had a large US presence probably for 40-50 years. That is the minimum time it would probably take in order to allow Iraq to build a strong military and political base so that it could function on its own. But we listened to the liberals and the anti-war. Now, terrorism has spread across the ME and in a few years, will be nearly unstoppable without an all out war in the ME that will kill tens of millions. Good job liberals!
 
So you base your opinion on the fact the term " power vacum" exists. Fair enough, didnt really answer my question or explain exactly how the fall or Iraq led to the Syrian civil war but fair enough.

lol what? when did I say the fall of Iraq led to the Syrian civil war? I literally don't know what else to say.
 
So you base your opinion on the fact the term " power vacum" exists. Fair enough, didnt really answer my question or explain exactly how the fall or Iraq led to the Syrian civil war but fair enough.

you placed "power vacuum" in quotes as though you'd never heard the term before so I linked you the definition.
 
lol what? when did I say the fall of Iraq led to the Syrian civil war? I literally don't know what else to say.

Don't wiki quote "power vacum" and then shy away when someone asks you to explain in more detail how this power vacum directly affected the surrounding regions. If you dont want to debate about it don't post in the thread.
 
Don't wiki quote "power vacum" and then shy away when someone asks you to explain in more detail how this power vacum directly affected the surrounding regions. If you dont want to debate about it don't post in the thread.

well to be fair I did give you at least one example of how it affected the surrounding region but I wasn't really talking about any one specific event. I'm not shying away from a debate with you over the middle east. I just don't really have strong opinions about any specific event in the middle east. your initial post suggested that the Iraq war had no affect on the surrounding region ("what does the Iraq war have to do with the rest of the middle east" I think is what you asked. ANY time a country's regime changes significantly like that there will be effects in the surrounding region, both good and bad. that seems like an obvious point to me, so I'm not going to sit here and debate you on it.

I literally only quoted wiki because I thought you didn't know what the term meant. that's all.

here's a tip: try not to assume everyone has an agenda.
 
well to be fair I did give you at least one example of how it affected the surrounding region but I wasn't really talking about any one specific event. I'm not shying away from a debate with you over the middle east. I just don't really have strong opinions about any specific event in the middle east. your initial post suggested that the Iraq war had no affect on the surrounding region ("what does the Iraq war have to do with the rest of the middle east" I think is what you asked. ANY time a country's regime changes significantly like that there will be effects in the surrounding region, both good and bad. that seems like an obvious point to me, so I'm not going to sit here and debate you on it.

I literally only quoted wiki because I thought you didn't know what the term meant. that's all.

here's a tip: try not to assume everyone has an agenda.

Here's a tip for you mate, don't be so vague in the future. Term's and political models dont always fit for every specific case.
 
Here's a tip for you mate, don't be so vague in the future. Term's and political models dont always fit for every specific case.

dunno why i'm responding to this but I was never vague, you just assumed I was talking about something other than what I actually said. it's a fair enough mistake because everyone does it on the internet.
 
Re: Is the Middle East better off since the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom be...

So if the Arabs are the ones who kill Isis? Muslims who are tired of the radicals? You don't think that would pose a problem for OTHER radical Islamic groups? The world would become a lot less safe for them. Kind of like what happened to the world for left wing terror groups at the fall of the Soviet Union.

Isis isn't a threat and we really aren't stuck. We are dealing with the results of 85 years of involvement in the Middle East. And 70 years of political involvement. But we aren't "stuck." We could wash our hands and be done. And that is what is happening. We are going hands off.

And if the Arab Muslims kill the radicals, then the flower of democracy might start to take ahold.

The MIC and the Corps and Oil companies aren't going to allow us to 'wash our hands and be done with it'. I wish it was an option, but it's not. Not now.

And I don't see ANY indication that the Arabs are tired of the radicals, actually I see just the opposite. Muslims are signing up and joining terror groups from all over the world, not just the middle east. You seem to be looking for a reason to excuse the mess we made in 2003 invasion. That invasion and dismantling the Iraqi Army will go down as one of the biggest screw-ups in American history. It left a huge vacuum, there's no doubt.
 
Is the Middle East better off since the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom be...

The MIC and the Corps and Oil companies aren't going to allow us to 'wash our hands and be done with it'. I wish it was an option, but it's not. Not now.

How much history do you read? Compare what our current involvement will be to Cold War years. It won't be the same at all. Limited action. And we don't get oil from the Middle East. Europe does.

And I don't see ANY indication that the Arabs are tired of the radicals, actually I see just the opposite. Muslims are signing up and joining terror groups from all over the world, not just the middle east. You seem to be looking for a reason to excuse the mess we made in 2003 invasion. That invasion and dismantling the Iraqi Army will go down as one of the biggest screw-ups in American history. It left a huge vacuum, there's no doubt.

A huge vacuum that is being filled by people stronger than Isis. They are losing ground to Iraqis. Radical Islam is not as powerful as it was in the 70s and 80s. They are a regional problem that won't be able to thrive against a state who is being sponsored by wealth beyond their measure.

Terror has always had recruits from all over. You just didn't hear about it on the news. You should consider that a victory. Not a failure. If you hear it on the news...they were discovered.



Ps

I'm not justifying the war. That is your strawman. I'm a student of history. I know better than to shut the door to the impossible. USSR collapse. But feel free to construct a narrative 15 years before it is possible to judge the outcome of a war.
 
Back
Top Bottom