• 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
Re: Is the Middle East better off since the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom be...

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.



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.

Stop with the comparisons to the fall of the USSR. It's apples and oranges.

And if you think radical Islam was more powerful in the 70's you are NOT a student of history.

And we don't get oil from the Middle East.

Ummmm. What? I'm lost, I have no idea where you are going with this. And after you I read that you believe we get no oil from the M.E. I've lost interest. We get almost 12-15% of our oil from Saudi Arabia alone.
 
Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad were toppled by their own people. Why should they have to live under the rule of dictators?

The US, at least, supported the toppling of Mubarak and the MB. The US and NATO did the work necessary to topple Gaddafi, and the US was supporting the Syrian opposition with arms confiscated from Gaddafi's army and smuggled out of the Benghazi annex into Turkey for distribution amongst them.
 
Last edited:
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.

I won't disagree with you on that. I don't want dictators or oppressive regimes either, who does, other than governments who have propped them up when it's been to the advantage of their "interests" to do so. The point is that the West cannot fix that, and the fruits of our interference has born that out. Just look at the mess there.
 
Is the Middle East better off since the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom be...

Stop with the comparisons to the fall of the USSR. It's apples and oranges.

And if you think radical Islam was more powerful in the 70's you are NOT a student of history.



Ummmm. What? I'm lost, I have no idea where you are going with this. And after you I read that you believe we get no oil from the M.E. I've lost interest. We get almost 12-15% of our oil from Saudi Arabia alone.

1) The fall of the Soviet Union isn't an "apples to oranges" comparison. Not the way I am using it. Here is why:

Did anyone predict the fall? Would it even have been conceivable? No. Not at all. Maybe a few academics who got REALLY lucky, but that is about it. So how then does this matter? You are predicting the future. Your argument is that the ME is worse off now and that Isis and all of these terror groups will be a never ending cycle of destruction. The Soviet Union wasn't going to fall either ;). That is my point.

Additionally. There has always been war in the ME. It has been the crossroads of empires. The question is how much. And will the world be better because of "Iraqi freedom." Time will tell.

2) Soviet afghan war? Terror events leading up to 9/11?

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/isec.2006.31.1.7

Try it on. Islamic terror will die by the sword. It will be phased out by Muslims. And the biggest clue to this is Isis. They are already losing ground. And you know it.

3) I believe I did make a typo. We don't get "much" from the ME.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6

Declining use of their oil. And a majority of our oil is not from the ME. The majority is in our own hemisphere.


Ps

Your name is curious and amusing. Any reason to it?
 
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.

We were asked, "do we have to wait for the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud over a US city". Something that Saddam was never capable of delivering, but was useful in scaring Americans into support. Along with Powell's little vial of salt at the UN. LOL
 
Last edited:
We were asked, "do we have to wait for the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud over a US city". Something that Saddam was never capable of delivering, but was useful in scaring Americans into support. Along with Powell's little vial of salt at the UN. LOL

That wasn't the OPQ. It was "is it better off." We don't know yet. Writing history before history had occurred is a bad habit.
 

Is the ME better off? How can we tell? History hasn't played out yet. Why do people insist on making these calls before they occur?

Is it better off? It depends on what happens with Isis. Just a few short months ago Isis was dying out. Now they have had a resurgence. Any attempt to predict the outcomes is just pissing in the wind. The ME is complicated. There will always be conflict there. At least if history can be used as a predictor. But then again...history doesn't really set precedent. It just gives us an indication of what MIGHT happen.

So you tell me. Are you able to predict the bag of cats outcome potential that is the ME?
 
Is the ME better off? How can we tell? History hasn't played out yet. Why do people insist on making these calls before they occur?

Is it better off? It depends on what happens with Isis. Just a few short months ago Isis was dying out. Now they have had a resurgence. Any attempt to predict the outcomes is just pissing in the wind. The ME is complicated. There will always be conflict there. At least if history can be used as a predictor. But then again...history doesn't really set precedent. It just gives us an indication of what MIGHT happen.

So you tell me. Are you able to predict the bag of cats outcome potential that is the ME?

The Middle East is not better off, and perhaps you're not acknowledging reality. And US policies are the biggest cause of this.
 
Is the Middle East better off since the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom be...

The Middle East is not better off, and perhaps you're not acknowledging reality. And US policies are the biggest cause of this.

The Middle East is "not better off." You are basing this on what? 12 years of information after the invasion? How many years since U.S. Exit from Iraq?

Now. I agree we have had a negative impact IF you measure from BEFORE 2003. Starting from what? The 30s? Sure. But you are essentially trying to determine if the ME is better in a scale of measure that makes no logical sense. Have you read any history books on this region?

1) Wars have always occurred in the ME.
2) Has our involvement fundamentally changed #1?
3) How do you know?
4) How has it changed it?
5) Finally...have you even given it enough time to determine if our involvement destroyed the ME?

Seriously. History isn't measure by years. It is measured by Decades at best. You have no clue if what we have done has fundamentally changed the equation in the ME for better or worse. Hell. My vote is for neither. The most likely is that it didn't change anything. There will always be war there. That is the historical precedent, but that only counts for so much.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is the Middle East better off since the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom be...

The Middle East is "not better off." You are basing this on what? 12 years of information after the invasion? How many years since U.S. Exit from Iraq?

Now. I agree we have had a negative impact IF you measure from BEFORE 2003. Starting from what? The 30s? Sure. But you are essentially trying to determine if the ME is better in a scale of measure that makes no logical sense. Have you read any history books on this region?

1) Wars have always occurred in the ME.
2) Has our involvement fundamentally changed #1?
3) How do you know?
4) How has it changed it?
5) Finally...have you even given it enough time to determine if our involvement destroyed the ME?

Seriously. History isn't measure by years. It is measured by Decades at best. You have no clue if what we have done has fundamentally changed the equation in the ME for better or worse. Hell. My vote is for neither. The most likely is that it didn't change anything. There will always be war there. That is the historical precedent, but that only counts for so much.

Oh I'm most certainly going back before 2003. But let me first point out that it's not the US's role to make better or worse conditions in the Middle East. But if we're going to stick our noses in and interfere, then we absolutely have a level of responsibility for conditions along the way, you know, the pottery barn rule that nobody likes to follow. I'm having a hard time understanding how the condition of Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria and now Yemen, can be seen as anything other than diminished by US policy. Also, I'd point out that people are fleeing these countries and suffering in makeshift refugee camps, dying on ferries or other boats, getting caught in the cross fire between the Islamic State fighters, the Iraqi forces along with Iranian fighters and proxies, AQ fighters, Saudi forces, Houthi fighters, have I left any out. Ask the people suffering, dying, driven from homes and lives, ask them how things are today.
 
Is the Middle East better off since the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom began?

NO! That's a no-brainer.
One must consider what the Trillion dollar price tag on this continuing chaos, death, destruction and mayhem, and look closely at the profit streams the were and are continuing. Hugely profitable for the Military Industrial CORPORATE Complex, its' K Street lobbyists, and the first fruits of War, the OIL Industry. Wars run on energy and that means, gas, deisel, kerosene and all the other Petro Products, and if the War and death can get you more of your core product, you can probably get a blessing from any right wing evangelist for a small charitable contribution. Cold, uncomfortable reality.
 
Can't overlook the Arab Spring.. although we screwed the pooch in Libya, and Hillary's "Friends of Syria" meddling didn't help there
this isn't all because of the US/west..at least not Syria..but then again without Iraq would ISIL be so powerful
or would they just be an insurgency like they were with AQI?
 
Re: Is the Middle East better off since the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom be...

Oh I'm most certainly going back before 2003. But let me first point out that it's not the US's role to make better or worse conditions in the Middle East. But if we're going to stick our noses in and interfere, then we absolutely have a level of responsibility for conditions along the way, you know, the pottery barn rule that nobody likes to follow. I'm having a hard time understanding how the condition of Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria and now Yemen, can be seen as anything other than diminished by US policy. Also, I'd point out that people are fleeing these countries and suffering in makeshift refugee camps, dying on ferries or other boats, getting caught in the cross fire between the Islamic State fighters, the Iraqi forces along with Iranian fighters and proxies, AQ fighters, Saudi forces, Houthi fighters, have I left any out. Ask the people suffering, dying, driven from homes and lives, ask them how things are today.

Let me ask you a very simple, perhaps cynical and cruel, question:

Is that any different than the past 4000 years?

As I said. I'm aware of our screw ups. Sure we have a responsibility to tread lightly. But let's be realistic. Did we make it any worse or different than the last 4000 years? It is the crossroads of 3 continents. Crossroads are always battlegrounds. So did we change it?

I don't know. It hasn't been long enough to say. There is still war there. That isn't new. But Arab spring was interesting. The question is will the people tolerate another dictatorship?
 
Can't overlook the Arab Spring.. although we screwed the pooch in Libya, and Hillary's "Friends of Syria" meddling didn't help there
this isn't all because of the US/west..at least not Syria..but then again without Iraq would ISIL be so powerful
or would they just be an insurgency like they were with AQI?

Good question. Interesting pontification. Could they have brought down Sadam?
 
Re: Is the Middle East better off since the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom be...

Let me ask you a very simple, perhaps cynical and cruel, question:

Is that any different than the past 4000 years?

As I said. I'm aware of our screw ups. Sure we have a responsibility to tread lightly. But let's be realistic. Did we make it any worse or different than the last 4000 years? It is the crossroads of 3 continents. Crossroads are always battlegrounds. So did we change it?

I don't know. It hasn't been long enough to say. There is still war there. That isn't new. But Arab spring was interesting. The question is will the people tolerate another dictatorship?

:shrug: I mean America is a snot nosed kid in those terms, a few hundred years old. As an American, I'm concerned with the way our policies affect others. And in the Middle East, near a century of interference hasn't delivered a vibrant healthy region. Your argument is that it's always been that way, and mine is that for all the blood and treasure that the US has spent, we haven't improved a thing. And I'd prefer that we didn't have our fingerprints on it.
 
Re: Is the Middle East better off since the day before Operation Iraqi Freedom be...

:shrug: I mean America is a snot nosed kid in those terms, a few hundred years old. As an American, I'm concerned with the way our policies affect others. And in the Middle East, near a century of interference hasn't delivered a vibrant healthy region. Your argument is that it's always been that way, and mine is that for all the blood and treasure that the US has spent, we haven't improved a thing. And I'd prefer that we didn't have our fingerprints on it.

A few points.

1) I am concerned as well. I have a degree in history. I've taken classes on foreign policy. We do not have a good track record at all. That is for sure. I have always had a point of contention here that I feel is overlooked. Our foreign policy from 1945 until 1989 had one objective: anti-communism at all costs. That screwed us, our diplomatic relations, and the people involved many times. We tried and still are defining our role as the "only super power." Which may or may not be the best terminology, I'm not sure. I have a stake in that as much as any other American.

So

2) Has our role as the "world's only super power" been effective? That reaches beyond the ME. North Korea? Africa? Europe and the Balkans? It doesn't look like it. BUT...we are really just now starting to understand our hideous mistakes of the Cold War.

So my argument is not really that we haven't changed anything. My argument is that we don't know. That is a scary thought to me. It means our politicians, short sighted, short termed, and egotistical, will be trying to make history by making mistakes based on assumptions of things yet to be understood even by our top historians.

I know I am a republican. But that is more about how I usually vote. I'm a student of history before that.
 
Back
Top Bottom