• 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!

Iraq revisited

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,228
Reaction score
14,230
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
iraq was a massive failure and a complete wast of money.

imagine what good could have been done if we spent that money on the poor in our nation.

but instead we have to spend it all to kill for oil :doh
 

bhkad

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
10,742
Reaction score
1,753
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We have a burgeoning democracy in the Middle East where there was once an enemy causing trouble.

It was money and lives well spent that 15 million Iraqis are now free.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
We have a burgeoning democracy in the Middle East where there was once an enemy causing trouble.

It was money and lives well spent that 15 million Iraqis are now free.
Of course some 100,000 are death. Millions displaced. Corruption rather rampant. Abuses still common. Still a couple hundred killed a month. I wonder if they would be as cavalier about the spending of their lives without their consent as you are?
 

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
The Middle East now has an example of a functioning democracy balancing Sunni/Shiite issues and Kurd/Arab issues. The loss of life during the war is the lowest in recorded history for the US. At $95 billion a year it is a bargain considering what has been accomplished. This is money well spent and lives put at risk for good purpose.
 

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
You left out these numbers:

Coalition fatalities:

Jan: 5
Feb: 5
March: 7
Apr: 8
May: 2
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Middle East now has an example of a functioning democracy balancing Sunni/Shiite issues and Kurd/Arab issues. The loss of life during the war is the lowest in recorded history for the US. At $95 billion a year it is a bargain considering what has been accomplished. This is money well spent and lives put at risk for good purpose.
Hardly. Again, awful arrogant to tell others what is worth it. And second, we did very little. Iran now has stronger ties with Iraq, and are stronger for it. Our enemies are not the least bit hurt by it. Nothing about a democracy hinders terrorism. In fact, it allows freer travel and ability to gather together. It was an absolute waste of money and lives.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,503
Reaction score
51,372
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I disagreed with the Iraq war at the start. I felt it was sidetracking the mission of importance in the middle east, which is fighting terrorism. I still think this is the case. It was a mistake.

Do I think some good came from it? Yes, I think Iraq will be a better place for our involvement. However, I do not think it was worth the cost in American lives, in the stresses it put on our military(overdeployment is very bad), and in taking our attention away from Afghanistan.

With that said, the US casualty numbers being way down is very good news to me, and I am glad I was apparently wrong about the surge being effective.
 

bhkad

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
10,742
Reaction score
1,753
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Of course some 100,000 are death. Millions displaced. Corruption rather rampant. Abuses still common. Still a couple hundred killed a month. I wonder if they would be as cavalier about the spending of their lives without their consent as you are?
How many hundreds of thousands did Sadam kill per year?
 

Moon

Why so serious?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
9,944
Reaction score
5,116
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How many hundreds of thousands did Sadam kill per year?
Saddam was Bush's enemy. Remember the old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? I think that helps to explain some of the myopia when it comes to remembering the good ol' days of Saddam & Sons.
 

Zoetrope

New member
Joined
May 17, 2010
Messages
29
Reaction score
11
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't believe Iraq was worth it even if it does become a successful Democracy because it was never a threat to us to begin with.

At the same time though I always get a kick out of these people on the far left who back in 2007 were almost jubilantly predicting a US defeat and they STILL can't bring themselves to acknowledge the reality that Iraq isn't chaotic anymore and that the country isn't going to degenerate into full scale civil war.


-
 

pragmatic

"Pawn in game of life"
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
2,221
Reaction score
1,031
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
.

Tough question. Can't un-ring the bell so we have to deal with what we now have.

Believe a cornerstone to measuring the value (or not) of deposing Hussein is projecting what that theater would be like now if he had been left in power. Am aware that many love to just dismiss him as an insignificant paper tiger, but I can imagine the scenario where he could/would have been a resurfacing problem/threat to the region.

At the time the Coalition forces went in: Hussein was rebuilding his wealth. The world view was turning into Iraq becoming a sympathetic victim. ("the starving babies") And Saddam was still the same loose cannon. (with sons/heirs in the wings). He was never going to be a likely threat from the perspective of a strong army. But it is not hard to imagine he would become the natural sanctuary for al qaeda and or similar groups. An enabler. With recognized borders.

And there is at least a fair chance that if we had not gone in when we did we would have needed to go in eventually. At a later time when the task would have potentially been more difficult.

Just speculating....


.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
How many hundreds of thousands did Sadam kill per year?
If I have to look it up again, I can link why human rights groups weren't with the invasion despite being against Saddam. We waited until Saddam had already finished killing his enemies. There was no active killing of significance going on when we invaded. Hadn't been for years.

So here's what happened, we let him kill until he was finished, punished the people with sanctions, and then after all that suffering, we brought war and death for no real reason. So, we added injury to injury. No matter how it turns out, we did those people no favors, our arrogance aside.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
60
Reaction score
6
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
How many hundreds of thousands did Sadam kill per year?
If you want to use that "logic" as justification for the Iraq war, answer me this. According to the very conservative Heritage Foundation, Saddam "killed over half a million of his own countrymen." Saddam Hussein Adjudged Serial Mass Murder | The Heritage Foundation

Why didn't we go into Rwanda, where over 800,000 men, women and children lost their lives?
BBC NEWS | Africa | Rwanda: How the genocide happened

Why didn't we invade Cambodia and stop the Khmer Rouge before almost $2 million people lost were killed?
Cambodian Genocide Program | Yale University

Why did President Bush choose not to use military force in the Bosnia-Herzegovina civil war, and stood idly by while 200,000 civilians were brutally murdered?
"The response of the international community was limited. The U.S. under President George Bush chose not to get involved militarily, but instead recognized the independence of both Slovenia and Croatia." http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/bosnia.htm

Your argument, as I understand it (that we should be in Iraq because he was a dictator and killed his own people), makes no sense due to the obvious discrepancies in history. There is genocide going on now (think Darfur); if we went into Iraq to stop Saddam's genocide (which had already ended), how could we possibly justify ignoring the genocide in Darfur? That argument was debunked long ago, my friend.
 
Last edited:

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
If you want to use that "logic" as justification for the Iraq war, answer me this. According to the very conservative Heritage Foundation, Saddam "killed over half a million of his own countrymen." Saddam Hussein Adjudged Serial Mass Murder | The Heritage Foundation

Why didn't we go into Rwanda, where over 800,000 men, women and children lost their lives?
BBC NEWS | Africa | Rwanda: How the genocide happened

Why didn't we invade Cambodia and stop the Khmer Rouge before almost $2 million people lost were killed?
Cambodian Genocide Program | Yale University

Why did President Bush choose not to use military force in the Bosnia-Herzegovina civil war, and stood idly by while 200,000 civilians were brutally murdered?
"The response of the international community was limited. The U.S. under President George Bush chose not to get involved militarily, but instead recognized the independence of both Slovenia and Croatia." The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Bosnia-Herzegovina 1992-95

Your argument, as I understand it (that we should be in Iraq because he was a dictator and killed his own people), makes no sense due to the obvious discrepancies in history. There is genocide going on now (think Darfur); if we went into Iraq to stop Saddam's genocide (which had already ended), how could we possibly justify ignoring the genocide in Darfur? That argument was debunked long ago, my friend.
Iraq is in our national interest, the others were not.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Iraq is in our national interest, the others were not.
Not sure we helped our national interests with the invasion. Note we helped Iran a good deal with it, so that may well have been counter productive.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If I have to look it up again, I can link why human rights groups weren't with the invasion despite being against Saddam. We waited until Saddam had already finished killing his enemies. There was no active killing of significance going on when we invaded. Hadn't been for years.

So here's what happened, we let him kill until he was finished, punished the people with sanctions, and then after all that suffering, we brought war and death for no real reason. So, we added injury to injury. No matter how it turns out, we did those people no favors, our arrogance aside.
I had a little more time, so I thought I'd throw this out again:

The Level of Killing

In considering the criteria that would justify humanitarian intervention, the most important, as noted, is the level of killing: was genocide or comparable mass slaughter underway or imminent? Brutal as Saddam Hussein’s reign had been, the scope of the Iraqi government’s killing in March 2003 was not of the exceptional and dire magnitude that would justify humanitarian intervention. We have no illusions about Saddam Hussein’s vicious inhumanity. Having devoted extensive time and effort to documenting his atrocities, we estimate that in the last twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule the Iraqi government murdered or “disappeared” some quarter of a million Iraqis, if not more. In addition, one must consider such abuses as Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers. However, by the time of the March 2003 invasion, Saddam Hussein’s killing had ebbed.

(snip)

Conclusion

In sum, the invasion of Iraq failed to meet the test for a humanitarian intervention. Most important, the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention. In addition, intervention was not the last reasonable option to stop Iraqi atrocities. Intervention was not motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns. It was not conducted in a way that maximized compliance with international humanitarian law. It was not approved by the Security Council. And while at the time it was launched it was reasonable to believe that the Iraqi people would be better off, it was not designed or carried out with the needs of Iraqis foremost in mind.

Human Rights Watch World Report 2004: War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention
 
Top Bottom