• 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
They are never going to be better off, regardless of anything that we, or other nations-with-good-but-misguided-intentions, do, until they stop fighting amongst themselves, and figure out how to get along with each other. As far as I am concerned, we should never have gone there at all.

Still isn't the question. ;)

I agree. But I also think that is happening too.
 
Nope. We really screwed the pooch. The middle east wasn't Eden before the war, but it's really a mess now.

Bush's legacy will be the war and the mess it created.
 
Nope. We really screwed the pooch. The middle east wasn't Eden before the war, but it's really a mess now.

Bush's legacy will be the war and the mess it created.

Nah. You don't know that. What happens after Isis. How do they die?
 
I think we're in what amounts to a 30 year war now.

Only thirty years, huh?
You're an optimist.
As current "next Hitler" IS, is beaten down, as was former "next Hitler" Sadaam Hussein....a new, more evil "next Hitler" will arise and be beaten down....on and on it goes.
I think this repetitive cycle can go on forever....like a zombie.
 
I suppose we would all be better off with Saddam back in power...

Isn't that what Reagan and Rumsfeld felt in the 1980s when supplying Saddam with weapons ?
 
Wasnt that the intent of the OP...to play the shoulda woulda coulda game?
There is no doubt things could have been handled better. There is no doubt things would have turned out better had both major political parties sold out the Soldiers in theater in the name of politics. There is no doubt our enemies would not be emboldened if they knew we were unified in kicking their ass.

Don't Republicans keep claiming that Democratic Senators like Kerry and Clinton voted for the Iraqi War?
So you can flush the unified thing where it belongs.

What should concern you is Rumsfeld's claims about how short the war would be.
Not to mention how ill-prepared the Bush administration shorted the VA in handling the aftermath of this war .
 
Since you complain about these overpopulated lands and babies galore, how would you deal with this problem you have identified ?

Fairer question:
Is there a chance in hell these overpopulated, misapportioned, dictator lead, lands would be better off from 2000 to 2015 with or without anyone else's involvement?

There's babies galore, and No food or Jobs, just bigger tribes in fake borders.
Shi'ite was Going to happen.
 
The 1 good thing, probably thr only good thing about the 2nd Iraqi war was it might have finally beat into our thick heads that democracy isn't for everyone, that there are some parts of the world western democracy just isn't going to work. No matter how hard we try, no matter how much money we throw at them, it's not going to work everywhere.

I think even the neo-con war mongers realize this now. Not all of them, but enough to make sure we don't pull another ****-up like we pulled in Iraq.
 
I think even the neo-con war mongers realize this now. Not all of them, but enough to make sure we don't pull another ****-up like we pulled in Iraq.

Which is why 47 GOP Senators signed a letter penned by Cotton who openly calls for bombing Iran.

At least Se. Corker, chair of foreign relations, had the good sense not to.
Which is why his bill to approve the Iran agreement has as much Democratic support as it does--including mine.

But then we have Sen. McCain calling SoS out Kerry as delusional--and the President was spot on to call McCain out in Panama .
 
I agree with you here--we killed a problem we created .

Sadam would likely have continued open conflict. He had already had invaded multiple nations and gased his own people. Imagine the chaos when he died? Plus he was an embodiment of cia/American intervention. Now he is gone and we are going hand off.
 
Is it better off after the obama administration removed every soldier from the country?

Did you support Maliki having 'Sharia Law' over our soldiers?
Instead of 'Mission Accomplished', the Bush legacy is 'Unfinished Business' .
 
Once we left, there was a vacuum that no one filled, and ISIS came strolling in
 
Since the question is worded in that particular manner, one is left to wonder why Hillary supported it.

She had to go along with the lying and manipulated intel from Cheney and Co.
And she knew the GOP would play the 'Patriot' Card against her in future years.

And her support caused her to lose the 2008 nomination, as you know.
 
So since the invasion approved by Hillary and a majority of democrats, things are much worse, especially after Obama, where they are 1,000 times worse

Ignoring any role by the GOP in charge of the Commander-in-Chief's chair--how unsurprising .
 
Ignoring any role by the GOP in charge of the Commander-in-Chief's chair--how unsurprising .

What in the name of lying liberal are you talking about?

Please take a remedial reading course FFS

That isn't even a complete sentence, which I know to an Amerikcan liberal is ****ing genius, but try having a noun or something

and please try, for once, to stay on topic, which here is Hillary "I dodged sniper fire" Clinton
 
Which is why 47 GOP Senators signed a letter penned by Cotton who openly calls for bombing Iran.

I think a lot of that is because if Obama says the sky is blue the current GOP will sign a letter saying Obama's wrong and they believe it's green. I don't think any one has the stomach for an all out invasion type war anymore. Obviously some do. I think McCain will attack Canada. Bolton is a evil SOB, when he dies and goes to hell he'll give the devil a run for the top dog. But I think most realize all our military might and money means little in the middle east. Democracy just isn't going to work there anytime soon.
 
Don't Republicans keep claiming that Democratic Senators like Kerry and Clinton voted for the Iraqi War?
So you can flush the unified thing where it belongs.

What should concern you is Rumsfeld's claims about how short the war would be.
Not to mention how ill-prepared the Bush administration shorted the VA in handling the aftermath of this war .
Everyone voted on it and supported it...right up until the 2004 election cycle. You REALLY want to claim they were unified? You arent that stupid. You may be that dishonest but you arent that stupid.
 
Since you complain about these overpopulated lands and babies galore, how would you deal with this problem you have identified ?
I don't Have to Have a solution because I identified the Problem.
(which you kinda agreed with by asking, if not saying so)

But always glad to indulge, and have in the past, on This very topic.
I would first tell them THEIR problem Publicly. As blatantly/embarrassingly as possible, the UN, other address, etc.

I would suggest Birth Control/Family Planning, which obviously wouldn't be popular among Muslims societies of the M-E.
BUT then everyone would KNOW what the problem is.
People call (6-baby-per) Gaza an 'open air prison' but they live better than much of the Arab world, much better because of the USA/EU-funded UNRWA safety net (Food, healthcare, prescriptions)
While people whine about the above, just 200 Miles way Most Cairenes live worse and in slums.

THAT was why we had 'Arab Spring' and revolution will continue.
There are no jobs for the hoards of 4-6 baby moms offspring.
I said in the/my Jan 2011, 'Egyptian Riots' string, NO one can feed Egypt.
And Intel ain't coming to Libya, Tunisia, or Yemen.

OK:
I would stop giving ANY aid, taking ANY refugees, and subsidizing ANY countries fertility, by acting as their steam Valve/Nursery Annex if they do Not Implement family planning.
This goes for ALL countries whose main export is People. (Pakistan, Mexico, Haiti, etc)

KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS if you don't have the room or resources.
There's no right even within a country, much less without, for someone to subsidize your progeny.

Some of my previous OPs on this: (if more location specific, they are Universal)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/87298-ending-wests-proxy-war-against-israel.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123171179743471961
Stop funding a Palestinian youth bulge, and the fighting will stop too..
Gunnar Heinsohn
Wall Street Journal Europe/Jan 2009​

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/65725-demography-and-radicalism-martin-kramer.html
His view, "Superfluous sons" (4th, 5th, 6th, 55th) is the Biggest catalyst for radicalization/Islamization.
People with Nothing to do.
1997-2007 Gaza population grew by 40%. (even while being "Genocided")
At current rates, the bottom/young group will Double in population by 2030.
What will 20 million more Yemenis, 28 million more Afghanis, 80 million more Pakistanis do?
A Tolerable 6 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaJXFbH4McM&feature=player_embedded

Median age:

Germany... 44
UK........... 40
US .......... 37
Israel ...... 29
Turkey ..... 28
----
Iraq ......... 19
Afghanistan 17
Yemen ...... 17
Somalia .....17
Gaza ......... 17​
 
Last edited:
I think we're in what amounts to a 30 year war now.

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.
 
I agree with you here--we killed a problem we created .

Yep. And Isis Isn't a liability for America. They are a rabid dog. And it is best the people in that neighborhood put it down. And they will. As long as they see us as supporting them...that is all that matters.
 
Sadam would likely have continued open conflict. He had already had invaded multiple nations and gased his own people. Imagine the chaos when he died? Plus he was an embodiment of cia/American intervention. Now he is gone and we are going hand off.

The question isn't was "Iraq" a bad idea. It wasn't "is it justified." The question was "is the me better off?"

We know this:

Saddam DID have WMDs at one point. Chemical weapons are WMDs. Do you think that is a dangerous thing for someone like saddam to have had? Remember that he used them. He launched scud missiles at Israel. He invaded Kuwait. He started a war with Iran. As far as "potential impact" goes...saddam had a lot. I realize didn't state that before. I should have added "potential." 14% of European oil for a start. Israel too.

Isis isn't really gaining much support. They are dying. Wouldn't you agree? They certainly aren't the 3rd largest army in the world. Iraq was.

Iraq wasn't the 3rd largest army at the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The first Gulf War crippled Saddam's regime pretty well. He wasn't going to invade anyone. All of these events you are mentioning happened before Kuwait. The world was certainly better off after Desert Storm. There was no compelling reason to go in again, and it's pretty clear the second invasion had very little positive effects.
 
Last edited:
Are you really calling yer President a "dickless muslim dog" ?

Ain't my President. Proper terminology for socialist pigs is Premier, not President. Don't like it, you can guess which part of my anatomy you can apply lip service to.
 
Iraq wasn't the 3rd largest army at the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The first Gulf War crippled Saddam's regime pretty well. He wasn't going to invade anyone. All of these events you are mentioning happened before Kuwait. The world was certainly better off after Desert Storm. There was no compelling reason to go in again, and it's pretty clear the second invasion had very little positive effects.

And the First World War crippled Germany. Time heals ALL wounds.
 
Back
Top Bottom