• 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!

Under Trump, Gains Against ISIS Have ‘Dramatically Accelerated'

Saddam created fertile ground for ISIS by killing everyone that opposed his power, leaving no legitimate civilian infrastructure. The reason ISIS and AlQ could rise in Iraq post-Saddam is his obliteration of social capital (leaders, free thinkers, independent professionals, independent scientists, etc). One way or another, one day or another, Saddam would lose power and we'd see what we see today. There was no avoiding it; it's his fault. He could not perpetually fill the void he intentionally created to sustain his tyranny.

Saddam did not create fertile ground for isis, the exact mentality of isis has existed as long as recorded history exists in that region, saddam just kept that mentality at bay.

Al quaeda rose in iraq because of a vacuum of power, much the same would happen in america if the govt failed or was overthrown you would see every radical forming militias to sieze power. This region of the world has always tried to fight one another, and has needed govt different from the west to keep peace and to prebvent genocide, saddam creating them through robbing social capital is one of the worst arguments I have ever heard, and is most likely made from someone who has never spent any time in that region of the world.

And it is not just the middle east, it is africa and eastern europe who need an iron fisted govt, one day they can make democracy work for them, but forcing western democracy and overthrowing govts that work over there has been the entire problem.
 
Saddam did not create fertile ground for isis, the exact mentality of isis has existed as long as recorded history exists in that region, saddam just kept that mentality at bay.

You misunderstand. Saddam obliterated the country's social capital. This is what created the void. The results today were entirely inevitable.

Al quaeda rose in iraq because of a vacuum of power, much the same would happen in america if the govt failed or was overthrown you would see every radical forming militias to sieze power. This region of the world has always tried to fight one another, and has needed govt different from the west to keep peace and to prebvent genocide, saddam creating them through robbing social capital is one of the worst arguments I have ever heard, and is most likely made from someone who has never spent any time in that region of the world.

If America loses its President, the country does not descend into warlords. Why? Because we have social capital.

And it is not just the middle east, it is africa and eastern europe who need an iron fisted govt, one day they can make democracy work for them, but forcing western democracy and overthrowing govts that work over there has been the entire problem.

Governments that commit genocide and kill everyone that disagrees with them "works"? That's absurd. The longer a tyrant is left in control of a country, the more social capital is destroyed. When social capital is gone, warlords are set to take over.

The vacuum you speak of was created by Saddam. Eventually Saddam would lose power and the results would be exactly what we see today. The vacuum is his fault and no one else.
 
You misunderstand. Saddam obliterated the country's social capital. This is what created the void. The results today were entirely inevitable.



If America loses its President, the country does not descend into warlords. Why? Because we have social capital.



Governments that commit genocide and kill everyone that disagrees with them "works"? That's absurd. The longer a tyrant is left in control of a country, the more social capital is destroyed. When social capital is gone, warlords are set to take over.

The vacuum you speak of was created by Saddam. Eventually Saddam would lose power and the results would be exactly what we see today. The vacuum is his fault and no one else.

For one your social capital argument is weak, and to further to that it can be argued that social capital formed isis through like minded individuals, I can not think of any sane reason your logic works here, if you would expand upon how social capital somehow caused it please do so but right now it is like watching a stubborn mule with no argument.

Govts that commit genocide, which ones? saddam did to an extent, mostly against his opposition, while syria and libya did no such genocide, and the only genocides occurred after destabilizing the region. You are confusing a dictator who kills large amount of opposition to maintain control vs groups of people who commit genocide to wipe out other groups of different skin color and religious beliefs. Heck while you are at it might as well argue lincoln created the kkk because he robbed social capital.
 
For one your social capital argument is weak, and to further to that it can be argued that social capital formed isis through like minded individuals, I can not think of any sane reason your logic works here, if you would expand upon how social capital somehow caused it please do so but right now it is like watching a stubborn mule with no argument.

You misunderstand. By social capital I am referring to independent thinkers, leaders, professionals and others that were not subjugated by Saddam. I mean people ready to take over leadership positions, with respect from communities and establishments. Almost no such people existed, thanks to Saddam. Without those people, there is a void. That void is exposed when the leader loses power by whatever circumstances. Thus, what we see today with ISIS was made inevitable by Saddam.

Govts that commit genocide, which ones? saddam did to an extent, mostly against his opposition, while syria and libya did no such genocide, and the only genocides occurred after destabilizing the region. You are confusing a dictator who kills large amount of opposition to maintain control vs groups of people who commit genocide to wipe out other groups of different skin color and religious beliefs.

Saddam committed genocide twice, the Kurds (200k) and Marsh Arabs (50k). The genocides illustrate Saddam's horrible tyranny. There are also dozens of mass graves. He killed anyone that opposed him. No free thinking was allowed. The nation was left in leadership and intellectual poverty. This is what allowed warlords to take over.

Heck while you are at it might as well argue lincoln created the kkk because he robbed social capital.

You clearly have no idea what I'm talking about.

I'll make it simple:

Saddam created the void. His leaving power exposed that void; that was inevitable because Saddam was not immortal.
 
You misunderstand. By social capital I am referring to independent thinkers, leaders, professionals and others that were not subjugated by Saddam. I mean people ready to take over leadership positions, with respect from communities and establishments. Almost no such people existed, thanks to Saddam. Without those people, there is a void. That void is exposed when the leader loses power by whatever circumstances. Thus, what we see today with ISIS was made inevitable by Saddam.



Saddam committed genocide twice, the Kurds (200k) and Marsh Arabs (50k). The genocides illustrate Saddam's horrible tyranny. There are also dozens of mass graves. He killed anyone that opposed him. No free thinking was allowed. The nation was left in leadership and intellectual poverty. This is what allowed warlords to take over.



You clearly have no idea what I'm talking about.

I'll make it simple:

Saddam created the void. His leaving power exposed that void; that was inevitable because Saddam was not immortal.

Idependant thinkers and professionals are not even close to the definition of social capital, social capital is the interconection of society and the belief society will always function through connections, you could have literally googled it. Also to note people ready to take over leadership positions there was not an easy task, as if the next leader who replaced him was not authoritarian, jihadists would have rose up anyways.

Saddam was not so much against free thought as he was against opposition, any group he knew was planning an uprising he dealt with, and then wiped out everything else just to be safe. He was the type of dictator where if 1k kurds were planning a rebellion, he would kill those 1k then kill a few more thousands just to be extra sure and to send a message to the others who wanted to try to overthrow him, that was dictatorship 101 and not much under the definition of genocide other than the facts his opposition were often ethnically related.


Saddam did not create a void, he filled a void that country has dealt with on and off since biblical times, had saddam never even existed they would still be killing eachother unless a strong armed govt stopped them.
 
If America loses its President, the country does not descend into warlords. Why? Because we have social capital.

Iraq didn't descend into chaos because Saddam Hussein was removed. The reasons they fell apart were;

1) Bremer's order to ostracize every one in Saddam's former government, including military, school teachers, everyone. So the Ba'athists that were immediately terminated armed themselves and had reason to bear a grudge against us.

2) Lack of communication with Iraqi citizens. Iraqis were used to emergency orders coming by way of radio broadcast, which told them what to do during a crisis. We didn't make any attempt at communicating a sense of security with the citizens.

3) Lack of planning for how to curb sectarian violence. Chalabi wasn't respected by the Iraqis, and Maliki was nearly as corrupt as Saddam Hussein. These men were our handpicked people to lead Iraq.
 
Iraq didn't descend into chaos because Saddam Hussein was removed. The reasons they fell apart were;

1) Bremer's order to ostracize every one in Saddam's former government, including military, school teachers, everyone. So the Ba'athists that were immediately terminated armed themselves and had reason to bear a grudge against us.

2) Lack of communication with Iraqi citizens. Iraqis were used to emergency orders coming by way of radio broadcast, which told them what to do during a crisis. We didn't make any attempt at communicating a sense of security with the citizens.

3) Lack of planning for how to curb sectarian violence. Chalabi wasn't respected by the Iraqis, and Maliki was nearly as corrupt as Saddam Hussein. These men were our handpicked people to lead Iraq.

Those things were only catastrophic because Saddam had wiped out human/social capital. With independent free thinking infrastructure there is no void. Saddam and his gangs were all of that capital, dissenters went to mass graves. That's the creation of the void. His loss of power merely revealed that void.
 
Those things were only catastrophic because Saddam had wiped out human/social capital. With independent free thinking infrastructure there is no void. Saddam and his gangs were all of that capital, dissenters went to mass graves. That's the creation of the void. His loss of power merely revealed that void.

It's been par for the course in that area of the world since the 1970's. But other similar instances have occurred throughout the world, where a dictator or an authoritarian government was removed without the chaos seen in Iraq. The 'freethinkers' you speak of were eliminated in these places too, such as;

• Germany, 1945
• USSR, 1991
• Imperialist Japan, 1945
• Chile, 1990
 
Well at least he finally did something right.
 
Under Trump, Gains Against ISIS Have ‘Dramatically Accelerated'

The same Trump who will betray the Syrian Kurds (YPG/YPJ) who have fought with US/SOF from Kobane in early 2015 to liberating the ISIS capitol city of Ar-Raqqa in the autumn of 2017.

Trump will betray these Kurds as a gift to Turkish dictator Erdogan who intends to ethnically cleanse the Syrian Kurd homeland of Rojava in northern Syria.
 
Under Trump, Gains Against ISIS Have ‘Dramatically Accelerated'

The same Trump who will betray the Syrian Kurds (YPG/YPJ) who have fought with US/SOF from Kobane in early 2015 to liberating the ISIS capitol city of Ar-Raqqa in the autumn of 2017.

Trump will betray these Kurds as a gift to Turkish dictator Erdogan who intends to ethnically cleanse the Syrian Kurd homeland of Rojava in northern Syria.

It would not be the first time we (and others) screwed the Kurds. They are admirable people.
 
Back
Top Bottom