• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Iraq Invasion

IndependentTexan

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
45
Reaction score
1
Location
Dallas, Texas
You know I was talking with some friends the other day and I thought of a great thing to relate Iraq to. Vietnam....when we leave Iraq the terrorists will just take over, and all those lives will be lost in vein
 

vandree

Member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
234
Reaction score
0
Location
Studio City, ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
walvaro said:
This is the list of political parties and coalitions with representation in the Congress or the Senate, for alphabetical order, in Spain

* Bloque Nacionalista Galego (BNG)
* Chunta Aragonesista (CHA)
* Coalición Canaria (CC)
* Convergència i Unió (CiU)
* Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (ERC)
* Eusko Alkartasuna EA
* Izquierda Unida (IU)
* Nafarroa Bai
* Partido Nacionalista Vasco (PNV-EAJ)
* Partido Popular (PP)
* Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE) <--- Now is in the government. Yes socialists.

And here, the political parties and present coalitions only in town halls or autonomic courts.

* Andecha Astur (AA) (Principado de Asturias)
* Bloc Nacionalista Valencià (BNV) (Comunidad Valenciana)
* Centro Democrático y Social (CDS)
* Euskal Herritarrok (EH): Nowadays prohibited by apology of the terrorism.
* Iniciativa per Catalunya - Verds (ICV)
* Iniciativa por La Orotava (IpO) (Canarias)
* Partido Andalucista (PA) (Andalucía)
* Partido Aragonés Regionalista (PAR) (Aragón)
* Partido Nacionalista Canario (PNC) (Canarias)
* Partido Regionalista de Cantabria (PRC) (Cantabria)
* Partit Socialista de Mallorca - Entesa Nacionalista (PSM-EN) (Islas Baleares)
* Tierra Comunera-Partido Nacionalista Castellano (TC-PNC) (Burgos)
* Unión del Pueblo Leonés (UPL) (León)
* Unión del Pueblo Navarro (UPN) (Navarra)


¿In USA, what number of parties there are in the congress or the senate?

...... That's still nothing compared to the Italian list! LOL
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
IndependentTexan said:
You know I was talking with some friends the other day and I thought of a great thing to relate Iraq to. Vietnam....when we leave Iraq the terrorists will just take over, and all those lives will be lost in vein
Wow, you made a tenuous, unsupportable connection that nobody except every other liberal in this country has made. Congratulations.
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,470
Reaction score
2,085
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
RightatNYU said:
Wow, you made a tenuous, unsupportable connection that nobody except every other liberal in this country has made. Congratulations.
That's not true.. I say we're never going to leave Iraq.. we never left Germany so why do people think we're going to pull out of Iraq?

Yeah IT (Independent Texan) is getting pretty renowned for his random, stupid, comments... (it's "vain" not "vein"... "vein" is in your body)
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
akyron said:
$2.16 was the national average this am(NPR). Where is all the oil?
A while back I saw an interview in which an "Oil Sheik", responding to a question, stated that the problem was not on the oil producer's end but on the oil refiner's end in the US. He cited the increased demand for gasoline caused by the explosion in the number of SUVs and the fact that US refining capacity has been declining. He said that if the US was buying as much crude oil as the demand required, it would be produced and the price per barrel would be much lower.

I just came across this:

"U.S. refining capacity, as measured by daily processing capacity of crude oil distillation units alone, has appeared relatively stable in recent years, at about 16 million barrels per day of operable capacity. While the level is a reduction from the capacity of twenty years ago, the first refineries that were shut down as demand fell in the early 1980's were those that had little downstream processing capability. Limited to simple distillation, these small facilities were only economically viable while receiving subsidies under the Federal price control system that ended in 1981. Some additional refineries were shut down in the late 1980's and during the 1990's, always, of course, those at the least profitable end of a company's asset portfolio."

Are we shooting ourself in the foot?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Arch Enemy said:
That's not true.. I say we're never going to leave Iraq.. we never left Germany so why do people think we're going to pull out of Iraq?
You and I agree. Was Germany like Vietnam? Not in the slightest.

We are going to be in Iraq for a long time, and soon, it will become a relatively stable place, much like Germany.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
You and I agree. Was Germany like Vietnam? Not in the slightest.

We are going to be in Iraq for a long time, and soon, it will become a relatively stable place, much like Germany.
You and Arch enemy raise a good point: why are we still in Germany?

Germany was not like Vietnam, well, atleast in WW2. WW1 made about as much sense as Vietnam and Iraq. We will one day pull out of Iraq, but we'll always, for as long as this country lasts, probably, maintain a sphere of influence, probably a bit more than that, in Iraq. I see it becoming a situation similar to the current disaster with Israel. But it will be the US that maintains the so-called democratic government in Iraq. And taking away the people's choice over their own government, expecially through means of force, is not a good idea. Someday we may see a scenario much like what happened in Allende's Chile, where the people choose a leader, but the US just doesn't approve of their decision.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
RightatNYU said:
You and I agree. Was Germany like Vietnam? Not in the slightest.

We are going to be in Iraq for a long time, and soon, it will become a relatively stable place, much like Germany.
Had we not bugged out of Viet Nam, it, too would have stabilized and several millions in Southeast Asia would still be alive, today.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
You and Arch enemy raise a good point: why are we still in Germany?

Germany was not like Vietnam, well, atleast in WW2. WW1 made about as much sense as Vietnam and Iraq. We will one day pull out of Iraq, but we'll always, for as long as this country lasts, probably, maintain a sphere of influence, probably a bit more than that, in Iraq. I see it becoming a situation similar to the current disaster with Israel. But it will be the US that maintains the so-called democratic government in Iraq. And taking away the people's choice over their own government, expecially through means of force, is not a good idea. Someday we may see a scenario much like what happened in Allende's Chile, where the people choose a leader, but the US just doesn't approve of their decision.
You toss in a comparison with Israel.

Since Israel was created as a result of UN mandates, do you think the UN should exert its power to insist that its mandates be honored by all of the Arab countries that oppose them?
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,380
Reaction score
8,537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
RightatNYU said:
We are going to be in Iraq for a long time, and soon, it will become a relatively stable place, much like Germany.
How soon is 'soon'?
 

teacher

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simple, to some of us at least. We will never be able to kill all the fanatics, they breed more and go on with the brain washing as children. We can't defend against someone willing to kill themselves. We have to change their entire culture. It will take generations. We do that by giving them freedom. The women can now read. And work. And vote. And teach and learn and run for office. If you ask me even without 9/11 liberating Iraq is worth it just for those poor women alone. Now the rest of the enslaved Arab countries look to Iraq and Afghanistan and see hope. It will take time. Just talk to a soldier over there and listen how they say the women and children love them. Of course the men are pissed and fighting. We freed there women and took away their savage dominance over half their own population. They will also think twice about attacking us again because they know we'll take over their whole country. Simple.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,178
Reaction score
6,283
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
teacher, Welcome to Debate Politics!

I think you are spot on. Freedom for the ladies in Iraq is key to the success of any true free nation IMO.
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The fanatics, terrorists, are bred by this war. There's no telling the consequence this war will have on the world. You can't undo hatred with war. These terrorists, people that can't even read, see the self-proclaimed Greatest Nation on Earth solving problems with war and violence, and then we wonder why terrorism is growing? This war will not stop terrorism. No war will.

The chain reaction of evil--wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
You and Arch enemy raise a good point: why are we still in Germany?

Germany was not like Vietnam, well, atleast in WW2. WW1 made about as much sense as Vietnam and Iraq. We will one day pull out of Iraq, but we'll always, for as long as this country lasts, probably, maintain a sphere of influence, probably a bit more than that, in Iraq. I see it becoming a situation similar to the current disaster with Israel. But it will be the US that maintains the so-called democratic government in Iraq. And taking away the people's choice over their own government, expecially through means of force, is not a good idea. Someday we may see a scenario much like what happened in Allende's Chile, where the people choose a leader, but the US just doesn't approve of their decision.
First off, WWI was not unnecessary.

Secondly, do we have an undue influence on Germany? Do we make their decisions for them? Is it a bad thing that we have troops there?

No, no, and no.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
How soon is 'soon'?
Exacly 5 years, 178 days, and 3 hours.

What do you expect? Nobody knows, and its completely up in the air.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Gandhi>Bush said:
The fanatics, terrorists, are bred by this war. There's no telling the consequence this war will have on the world. You can't undo hatred with war. These terrorists, people that can't even read, see the self-proclaimed Greatest Nation on Earth solving problems with war and violence, and then we wonder why terrorism is growing? This war will not stop terrorism. No war will.

The chain reaction of evil--wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
That's a rather one-sided view of the terrorist situation.

First: For decades, it has been "common knowledge" that poverty and ignorance creates terrorism. In fact, recent studies have shown that it is the level of political freedom which is most highly correlated with propensity toward terror.

Second: Nobody in their right mind can make the comparison of the actions of the US to that of any terrorist group. If when we had invaded Iraq, there had been no insurgency, we would have been out of there without any trouble. We're not there to kill, or destry, but rather to protect.
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
RightatNYU said:
We're not there to kill, or destry, but rather to protect.
Protect the Iraqi people from the terrorists and insurgents that arose when USA/UK soldiers took their first step in Iraq. We brought all the terrorists of the Islamic world to a single place where they can kill their sworn enemy. And as always in war the innocents suffer between the two sides.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
GarzaUK said:
Protect the Iraqi people from the terrorists and insurgents that arose when USA/UK soldiers took their first step in Iraq. We brought all the terrorists of the Islamic world to a single place where they can kill their sworn enemy. And as always in war the innocents suffer between the two sides.
The number of people being killed by insurgents in Iraq pales compared to the number that were being killed by the leaders of Iraq before we invaded.

Battles have to occur someplace. I don't think we could convince all the terrorists to come to Antartica with us to have a "fair fight" without civilian casualties.
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
RightatNYU said:
The number of people being killed by insurgents in Iraq pales compared to the number that were being killed by the leaders of Iraq before we invaded.

Battles have to occur someplace. I don't think we could convince all the terrorists to come to Antartica with us to have a "fair fight" without civilian casualties.
But you see that is what terrorism is about and always has been about, doing what they can to keep the war alive even if it means killing innocents.
The point being the Department of Defense did not great care to look at the possible situations after the fall of Saddam.
It's been two years since the fall of Saddam and terrorist attacks are not decreasing, in fact they have increased of late.

I'm still listening for this brilliant plan that Bush is going to pull out of his arse for actually winning this war. "Bring em on." doesn't constitute a plan with me.
But now they are saying "We will train the Iraqi security forces to defend themselves, then bugger off, leaving the mess to the Iraqis. How very noble.

I guess the Bush administration bit off more that it can chew and it can't swallow it and finish the meal.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
GarzaUK said:
But you see that is what terrorism is about and always has been about, doing what they can to keep the war alive even if it means killing innocents.
The point being the Department of Defense did not great care to look at the possible situations after the fall of Saddam.
It's been two years since the fall of Saddam and terrorist attacks are not decreasing, in fact they have increased of late.

I'm still listening for this brilliant plan that Bush is going to pull out of his arse for actually winning this war. "Bring em on." doesn't constitute a plan with me.
But now they are saying "We will train the Iraqi security forces to defend themselves, then bugger off, leaving the mess to the Iraqis. How very noble.

I guess the Bush administration bit off more that it can chew and it can't swallow it and finish the meal.
All else aside, the violence in Iraq is fanned by other Arab nations who, after seeing two of their neighbors replace their regimes with democratically elected governments, don't wish to follow suit.

They recall the infectuous desire for freedom that spread through the rest of the former sattelites of the USSR once the Poles gained theirs. It was unstoppable.

They want no part of that. So they will do what they can to keep Iraq destabilized. The mistake they make is to believe that the character of the Texas sheriff is the same as that of the Arkansas traveller who skedaddled the first time his nose got bloodied.
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
RightatNYU said:
Second: Nobody in their right mind can make the comparison of the actions of the US to that of any terrorist group.
I don't recall making such a comparison.

If when we had invaded Iraq, there had been no insurgency, we would have been out of there without any trouble. We're not there to kill, or destry, but rather to protect.
The fact remains that we are killing. We are destroying. And we're doing a lousy job of protecting.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
GarzaUK said:
But you see that is what terrorism is about and always has been about, doing what they can to keep the war alive even if it means killing innocents.
The point being the Department of Defense did not great care to look at the possible situations after the fall of Saddam.
It's been two years since the fall of Saddam and terrorist attacks are not decreasing, in fact they have increased of late.

I'm still listening for this brilliant plan that Bush is going to pull out of his arse for actually winning this war. "Bring em on." doesn't constitute a plan with me.
But now they are saying "We will train the Iraqi security forces to defend themselves, then bugger off, leaving the mess to the Iraqis. How very noble.

I guess the Bush administration bit off more that it can chew and it can't swallow it and finish the meal.
I think the DoD took a LOT of time planning this out, but the best laid plan of war goes out the window as soon as the first shot is fired.

Looking back, could things have been done better? Of course. Is it fair to say we should have known better? Not necessarily. Did they neglect planning on purpose? Of course not.

And we haven't bitten off more than we can chew. Nobody in their right minds doesn't think that if we wanted to, we could bring our full force to bear and settle this situation easily. It all comes down to the amount of opposition we get politically both domestically and internationally.

Think about the war that is being waged. The only main way they can attack is through suicide bombings. They've backed off of us military targets, and now mostly attack civilians, inflaming Iraqi passions against them. That doesnt sound like a winning strategy to me.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Fantasea said:
Please explain.
It was not unnecessary moreso than any other war, such as Korea, Gulf War I, or Spanish-American.

There were interests involved in all sides that led to the war, and such a thing was predicted decades before the actual war began.

Are you referring to the war in general or just US involvement.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Gandhi>Bush said:
I don't recall making such a comparison.
I wasn't referring to your statement.



The fact remains that we are killing (terrorists). We are destroying (the archaic system of government that oppressed 28 million people and led to mass murders). And we're doing a lousy job of protecting (if by that you mean we're making it more safe in Iraq than it has ever been).
 
Top Bottom