• 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.

Once again about War in Iraq

L

lotarJD

First Results of the War in Iraq

Well, the first three months of the year 2005 are over.
Many things have changed drastically in the world during this period of time. The regime has changed in Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, the situation has changed in the Middle East in Lebanon, Palestine and Israel. Palestine and Israel look like coming to terms and the 50-year long war will finally end up there. In Russia, the head of the Chechen gunmen has been headhunted at last.
However, the planet’s “headache” - the U.S. invasion into Iraq - will last for quite a long time. Anyway, this event will stay determinative for the present generation in the nearest decade.
OK, what about Iraq.
What are the positive signs?
Actually, there are none.
Oil prices have risen sixfold. Al-Quaida spread its influence all over the world. Iraq got looted (in the sense of global historical and cultural monuments). A whole nation has been cast in a state of chaos; the country is in ruin and two - or even three - generations of Iraqi people will be excluded from the global progress process - the educational system is destroyed, there is no medical maintenance, the economy of the state got disabled, environmental situation is in crisis…
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
lotarJD said:
What are the positive signs?
Actually, there are none.
You've got to be kidding.

Oil prices have risen sixfold.
Since 1930? You have no idea what you're talking about.

Al-Quaida spread its influence all over the world.
Really? Was that before or after they were cast into the sad state of disarray they're in now?

Iraq got looted (in the sense of global historical and cultural monuments)
By Iraqis.

A whole nation has been cast in a state of chaos; the country is in ruin and two - or even three - generations of Iraqi people will be excluded from the global progress process
They've been excluded from global progress? Funny, because I thought they had their first election in 6000 years. My mistake, I thought that was progress. Or that they were going to rule themselves now. Gosh, I'm so foolish.


the educational system is destroyed, there is no medical maintenance, the economy of the state got disabled, environmental situation is in crisis…
Really? As opposed to the incredibly advanced system they've had for the past 20 years?
 

jay123

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Location
Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
lotarJD said:
First Results of the War in Iraq

. In Russia, the head of the Chechen gunmen has been headhunted at last.
Yea, i agree basically agree with what the guy before me has written, that you're talking a load of rubbish.
The fact that the leader of the Chechen rebels doesn't mean that the war in Chechnia is over by a long shot. There's a full scale war going on over there, just they don't let reporters report on it - so nobody outside of the area and possibly Russia in general has much clue about the facts.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I believe this threads author is a bit misinformed, as NYU nicely points out. The real question now is whether this war has been worth its huge monetary cost and the human costs of nearly 20,000 Iraqi civilians and over 1500 American troops. I say no. And these numbers are bound to rise, as the only way a democratic Iraq can survive for long is with a lasting American military presence.
 

benganter

New member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Location
Dallas, Texas
Only a truely foolish person can say no progress has happened in the middle east since the war on terror began. Even Bill Mahr the king of fools has admitted that things have changed for the better!
 

benganter

New member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Location
Dallas, Texas
what educational system? what medical care? 60% unemployment rate before the war compared to a 40% unemployment rate after the war! Iraq has a way better chance to improve the lives of the average citizen now than they did before the war!
 

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:
Really? Was that before or after they were cast into the sad state of disarray they're in now?
NYU your did an easy job of bashing this fellow, which was defiantly needed, but you can't say for sure that you know AL Q is in a state of disarray, Yes we great-fully demolished them in Afghanistan but they are a guerrilla terrorist group, they know how to project stealthy attacks and keep a low-profile, they didn't know how to rule a country.. we caught them off guard on a war they couldn't have won even at full-strength.

I just hope one day we can finally catch Osama.. this is getting ridiculous.. America has lost track of the most-wanted terrorist TWICE.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Arch Enemy said:
NYU your did an easy job of bashing this fellow, which was defiantly needed, but you can't say for sure that you know AL Q is in a state of disarray, Yes we great-fully demolished them in Afghanistan but they are a guerrilla terrorist group, they know how to project stealthy attacks and keep a low-profile, they didn't know how to rule a country.. we caught them off guard on a war they couldn't have won even at full-strength.

I just hope one day we can finally catch Osama.. this is getting ridiculous.. America has lost track of the most-wanted terrorist TWICE.
I would say that they are in a state of disarray. With the 9/11 attacks, they were in their prime. They had had years to prepare themselves, were fresh off a success, and money and support was pouring in. Through the actions of the US and other nations, that is no longer the case. If it were, I am incredibly confident that there would have been another attack.

As it is, the insurgents in Iraq are looking for an "exit strategy."

Hearing that makes me happy.
 

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
I totally agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan it was by far the smartest course of action.

I'm still really confused on this... people talk of the insurgents as one organized Army who have one leader who tells them what to do and when to retreat. I've always pictured the Iraqi Insurgents as renegades (so to speak) more like Mercenaries who share a common enemy.. Their "exit plan" may not be the end of them, but I think once the Iraqi Police forces are able to take control of Iraq without US aid then the insurgents will stop their attacks due to the lack of morale of "fighting my own people"
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Arch Enemy said:
I'm still really confused on this... people talk of the insurgents as one organized Army who have one leader who tells them what to do and when to retreat. I've always pictured the Iraqi Insurgents as renegades (so to speak) more like Mercenaries who share a common enemy.. Their "exit plan" may not be the end of them, but I think once the Iraqi Police forces are able to take control of Iraq without US aid then the insurgents will stop their attacks due to the lack of morale of "fighting my own people"
While it is loosely organized, the insurgency is still run by a core group of fighters.

Also, I don't think the US leaving will decrease attacks at all. Right now, the majority of attacks are against the Iraqi police, not US coalition forces, because it is easier to kill the less trained Iraqi troops. In addition to this, they bomb civilians and hospitals. This doesnt imply to me that they have any reservations about killing their own people.
 

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
We've killed there people too. I don't think it's much different. Killing is killing. I think they're alot smarter than we give them credit for.

We never should have gone in the first place. This is a job for the UN, if it wasn't so corrupt, and the CIA, if it wasn't so useless.

A bomb falls from an American plane. It just happens to kill an innocent. I think we can all concede that this has happened, and not just to a couple of people. Every person has at least two people that are effected: Mother and Father. They may or may not have brothers and sisters, sons or daughters, countless friends, acquaitences, etc. No matter if you're for or against the occupation of your country, even the accidental death of an innocent loved one will spark a desire for revenge. When you've been raised in a religion that can be easily bent to fit your revenge combined with a not quite up to par education, you exact your revenge. But how does a such a small group fight the US? Roadside bombs, traps, etc. They fight dirty, and they still lose. From that one innocent's accidental death, hell is wrought.

ONE LIFE.

That's it.

The moral of my stupid little rant: Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Notice the preceding clause. It has no dependent clause. There are no buts, there is no unless, there is nothing other than a command. Don't kill.

I hate war.

I digress so much. I forgot any rational excuse of a point.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Gandhi>Bush said:
We've killed there people too. I don't think it's much different. Killing is killing. I think they're alot smarter than we give them credit for.

We never should have gone in the first place. This is a job for the UN, if it wasn't so corrupt, and the CIA, if it wasn't so useless.

A bomb falls from an American plane. It just happens to kill an innocent. I think we can all concede that this has happened, and not just to a couple of people. Every person has at least two people that are effected: Mother and Father. They may or may not have brothers and sisters, sons or daughters, countless friends, acquaitences, etc. No matter if you're for or against the occupation of your country, even the accidental death of an innocent loved one will spark a desire for revenge. When you've been raised in a religion that can be easily bent to fit your revenge combined with a not quite up to par education, you exact your revenge. But how does a such a small group fight the US? Roadside bombs, traps, etc. They fight dirty, and they still lose. From that one innocent's accidental death, hell is wrought.

ONE LIFE.

That's it.

The moral of my stupid little rant: Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Notice the preceding clause. It has no dependent clause. There are no buts, there is no unless, there is nothing other than a command. Don't kill.

I hate war.

I digress so much. I forgot any rational excuse of a point.
Well, that's all well and good, but it ignores the realities of life. If by killing one man, you can stop the killing of 2 others, do you do it? Yes.

By toppling Saddam and liberating Iraq, we've saved the lives of over 50,000 Iraqis, so far.

Not to mention given them a degree of freedom that was unimaginable. I know that it might be hard for you to fathom, but sometimes, life under dictatorships is not worth living.

You've painted a beautiful picture of the idealist utopia of life, but until it is tempered with realism, your argument carries no weight.
 

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
No it's will. Reality comes from ideas. It's easy to call nonviolence idealistic when you have a gun in your hand. 50,000 lives save at the cost of 20,000 others? and you call that a good trade? That's not realistic. It's disgusting.

But we're not here to argue philosphy, and i apologize from my previous rant that did so.

Don't you think the "toppling of Saddam" could have been achieved in a more "idealistic" way. I'm not saying we all hold hands and ask him to leave. I'm saying there are so many ways in this day and age to liberate 50,000 without killing 20,000.

The target of this war was WMDs. Oops.

The target of this war was Saddam Hussein being "toppled." Well 20,000 people dead and Saddam is still alive. The CIA could have handeled this. They've done stuff like this in the past, but that's really not the focus of the thread (that is the CIA as an alternative to this war).

And your idea of killing one to subvert killing two. That kind of ideology leads to the deaths of 20,000 for 50,000. Ohh wait...

But let me try to swing this back to topic before I let loose last night.

It took how many years between the first trade center bombing and 9/11? What makes you think they would have attacked again?

Also: As it has been, the US can't leave. We're stuck at this point. I completely agree with you on that.
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Gandhi>Bush said:
No it's will. Reality comes from ideas. It's easy to call nonviolence idealistic when you have a gun in your hand. 50,000 lives save at the cost of 20,000 others? and you call that a good trade? That's not realistic. It's disgusting.
No, that saves the lives of 30,000.


Don't you think the "toppling of Saddam" could have been achieved in a more "idealistic" way. I'm not saying we all hold hands and ask him to leave. I'm saying there are so many ways in this day and age to liberate 50,000 without killing 20,000.
No, I don't. Nothing else was working, or could have worked. As you yourself said, the UN was so corrupt, it wasnt going to do anything.


The target of this war was Saddam Hussein being "toppled." Well 20,000 people dead and Saddam is still alive. The CIA could have handeled this. They've done stuff like this in the past, but that's really not the focus of the thread (that is the CIA as an alternative to this war).
First off,if you don't count Saddam as toppled, I don't know what I can tell you. Secondly, you're proposing that rather than actually be up front about this war, take it before Congress, give Saddam an ultimatum, you would have preferred if the CIA had just secretly tried to kill Saddam? Doesn't matter. It wasn't the specific ruler, but the framework that needed to change.



And your idea of killing one to subvert killing two. That kind of ideology leads to the deaths of 20,000 for 50,000. Ohh wait...
Yes, and I wholeheartedly praise and accept that ideology.

It took how many years between the first trade center bombing and 9/11? What makes you think they would have attacked again?
Are we talking about Iraq or Al-Quaida?
 

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
I'm sorry was it Iraq that bombed the world trade center in... 1993(?).

You think US Congress giving a dictator an ultimatum will work? I thought I was the hippy...

The CIA has assassinated all kinds of people all for debateable reasons. The only one that comes to mind(I'm no expert) that we can't succeed in nuetralizing is Fidel Castro, and that's still beyond me.

Let say the CIA bumps off Saddam. Hell, they make it look like a roadside bomb that some "terrorist organization" set. Can you say Power Struggle? Uday and Qusay emerge from the rape rooms to fight for the seat and God knows who else. While things are amiss people start thinking, "you know what sucks? Communism." I think we've seen through the elections that they did want a change. It's hard to enforce sedition laws in the middle of a vie for power that I think Saddam's neutralization would cause, especially something that looked like a rebel group in the first place.

Worst(?) case scenario they say that one of Saddam's body doubles have been killed. People still see a rebellion. People start thinking. Bad people still wanting power.

Rebellion! The CIA funds it. They've done this in the past as well.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
RightatNYU said:
Really? Was that before or after they were cast into the sad state of disarray they're in now?
aQ came out hard against USA and many Muslims said, "Well the US are really assholes, but they're not that bad and they're NIMBY."But now they're saying, "Well, I guess UbL was right, they are that bad and they are IMBY."

Our erstwhile allies in Turkey have suddenly found more sympathy for aQ et al:
Extreme Anti-Americanism in Turkey
"It is difficult to detect the difference between what Osama bin Laden said in his 19 audio and videotapes since September 11, 2001, and what some Turkish journalists write. If anything, the Turks outvenom bin Laden.
This would be hilarious if not for the incontrovertible fact that it is believed not only by Islamist extremists but by countless millions of Muslim fundamentalists ...
Anti-Americanism is a relatively new phenomenon in Turkey. Throughout the 1990s in Turkey, 60 percent of the people had favorable views about the U.S. and its policies. The 2003 Iraq war closed many minds.​

In Many Turks' Eyes, U.S. Remains the Enemy
Hostility Bodes Ill For Efforts to Boost Americans' Image
The latest survey, gathered in February by the private Metropoll organization, found that four in 10 Turks regard the United States as their country's "biggest enemy." That is more than double the number who named Greece, the ancient rival Turkey has come to the brink of war with three times in the last half-century.​

Apparently, we're not seeing the results in our battle w/ extremist for the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims that one would hope for.

Take it up w/ Porter Goss:
http://cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2004/Goss_testimony_02162005.html
Testimony of Director of Central Intelligence
Porter J. Goss
Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
16 February 2005

Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-US jihadists.
These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups, and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries.​

Here's something to chew on for the moment:
http://www.foia.cia.gov/2020/2020.pdf

• Anti-globalization and opposition to
US policies could cement a greater
body of terrorist sympathizers,
financiers, and collaborators.
societies
.
• Iraq and other possible conflicts in
the future could provide recruitment,
training grounds, technical skills and
language proficiency for a new class
of terrorists who are “professionalized”
and for whom political
violence becomes an end in itself.
• Foreign jihadists—individuals ready
to fight anywhere they believe
Muslim lands are under attack by
what they see as “infidel invaders”—
enjoy a growing sense of support
from Muslims who are not
necessarily supporters of terrorism.

And, aQ now have the cooperation of the Iraqi Baathists who weren't willing to cooperate before.

benganter said:
what educational system? what medical care? 60% unemployment rate before the war compared to a 40% unemployment rate after the war!
Would you be so kind as to provide a citation for these numbers, please?

RightatNYU said:
While it is loosely organized, the insurgency is still run by a core group of fighters.
Would you be so kind as to provide a citation for this information, please?

RightatNYU said:
By toppling Saddam and liberating Iraq, we've saved the lives of over 50,000 Iraqis, so far.
Would you be so kind as to provide a citation for this number, please?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Gandhi>Bush said:
I'm sorry was it Iraq that bombed the world trade center in... 1993(?).
No, it wasn't, and Iraq didn't (specifically) precipitate 9/11 either. That's my point.

You think US Congress giving a dictator an ultimatum will work? I thought I was the hippy...
That's my point! I meant that congress gave Bush the right to go to war. Ultimatums dont do anything.

The CIA has assassinated all kinds of people all for debateable reasons. The only one that comes to mind(I'm no expert) that we can't succeed in nuetralizing is Fidel Castro, and that's still beyond me.
Are you suggesting that the CIA just assasinate those who we should instead pursue war against?

Let say the CIA bumps off Saddam. Hell, they make it look like a roadside bomb that some "terrorist organization" set. Can you say Power Struggle? Uday and Qusay emerge from the rape rooms to fight for the seat and God knows who else. While things are amiss people start thinking, "you know what sucks? Communism." I think we've seen through the elections that they did want a change. It's hard to enforce sedition laws in the middle of a vie for power that I think Saddam's neutralization would cause, especially something that looked like a rebel group in the first place.
Completely wrong. Even if we succeeded, all that would do is make Saddam a martyr, killed by the unbelievers. It would result in a crackdown, and any governmental power struggles would be limited in order to expand power. Civil war ensues, an even more hardline gov comes into power, and the WMD we were worried about are now even more dangerous. Bad idea.


Worst(?) case scenario they say that one of Saddam's body doubles have been killed. People still see a rebellion. People start thinking. Bad people still wanting power.

Rebellion! The CIA funds it. They've done this in the past as well.
And that doesn't mean they should do it now.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
aQ came out hard against USA and many Muslims said, "Well the US are really assholes, but they're not that bad and they're NIMBY."But now they're saying, "Well, I guess UbL was right, they are that bad and they are IMBY."

Our erstwhile allies in Turkey have suddenly found more sympathy for aQ et al:
Extreme Anti-Americanism in Turkey
"It is difficult to detect the difference between what Osama bin Laden said in his 19 audio and videotapes since September 11, 2001, and what some Turkish journalists write. If anything, the Turks outvenom bin Laden.
This would be hilarious if not for the incontrovertible fact that it is believed not only by Islamist extremists but by countless millions of Muslim fundamentalists ...
Anti-Americanism is a relatively new phenomenon in Turkey. Throughout the 1990s in Turkey, 60 percent of the people had favorable views about the U.S. and its policies. The 2003 Iraq war closed many minds.​
You're quoting newsmax, the incredibly biased, alarmist media stop.

If you want a better picture of the situation in Turkey, check out

www.nationalreview.com/tks/tks.asp for Jim Geraghty's comments. He's living there.

None of your other statements provide anything new. It doesnt surprise me at all that by invading Iraq, we've alienated many muslims. It's not a surprise that people see us as a threat. It's not a surprise that many terrorists hate us for doing so. Nothing new.

Would you be so kind as to provide a citation for this information, please?
I cited the article in a previous post, maybe in this thread. It's not a very controversial point. Basically, there is a core group of extremist fighters, msot foreign, and a periphery group of Iraqis who are fighting more half-heartedly. The half hearted fighters are the ones looking to negotiate for peace. Here's a place with some information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_resistance

Would you be so kind as to provide a citation for this number, please?
Saddam killed 600,000 civilians.
He was in power for 24 years, aka 288 months.
That is 2083 a month, or 25000 a year.
We've been in Iraq for 26 months.
According to the most inflated somewhat credible tally of civilian deaths, the tally is 21,000, although it's more like 17,000.
21,000 in 26 months is 807 a month.
2083 a month - 807 a month is 1276 a month differential.
1276 times 26 months is 33,176 lives saved.

Note that this is using a lowball estimate for saddam's death count (ignoring the Iran War), and a high estimare for the civilian deaths.

As well as completely ignoring the fact that the 20 million people in Iraq no longer live in a complete totalitarian regime.

How anyone can say that this action has not benefitted the average Iraqi is beyond me.
 

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:
No, it wasn't, and Iraq didn't (specifically) precipitate 9/11 either. That's my point.
I was being sarcastic and I suppose i wasn't clear enough about it. My apologies.

RightatNYU said:
That's my point! I meant that congress gave Bush the right to go to war. Ultimatums dont do anything.
They should still be issued, not that we're debating that.

RightatNYU said:
Are you suggesting that the CIA just assasinate those who we should instead pursue war against?
If one Saddam died as opposed to 20,000 Iraqi civiliians, yes.

RightatNYU said:
Completely wrong. Even if we succeeded, all that would do is make Saddam a martyr, killed by the unbelievers. It would result in a crackdown, and any governmental power struggles would be limited in order to expand power. Civil war ensues, an even more hardline gov comes into power, and the WMD we were worried about are now even more dangerous. Bad idea.
You don't think that the people would be able to do anything? You think that the old Iraq government was stable enough to just move on if Saddam's silly limo or... camel was blown up? I hear those camel bombs can be quite deadly... I could be wrong, I really could, but I don't think that these people would, without blinking, stablize. The civil war that enues is what we take advantage of. That's what the people take advatage.

I think it was 60% that voted in the election? I could be wrong. 60% are glad Saddam is gone. 60% are supporting democracy. Who knows how many of the unsung would have voted and supported democracy. I think that's enough for a revolution.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Gandhi>Bush said:
You don't think that the people would be able to do anything? You think that the old Iraq government was stable enough to just move on if Saddam's silly limo or... camel was blown up? I hear those camel bombs can be quite deadly... I could be wrong, I really could, but I don't think that these people would, without blinking, stablize. The civil war that enues is what we take advantage of. That's what the people take advatage.

I think it was 60% that voted in the election? I could be wrong. 60% are glad Saddam is gone. 60% are supporting democracy. Who knows how many of the unsung would have voted and supported democracy. I think that's enough for a revolution.
No, they emphatically would NOT have been able to do anything. The power vacuum would have been filled almost immediately, and nothing would have changed for the people, except that the new leader would have used saddams death as an excuse to tighten his hold.

The people would be completely unable to take advantage of the war. They didnt have guns, they didn't have power, they had nothing. The sunni minority had everything, and damned if they were going to share.

Yes, 60% voted, but only because we freed them to vote.

I don't think you'll find many scholars who would deny that without the US invasion, there would never have been the successes in advancement in freedom in Iraq that there are now.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
RightatNYU said:
You're quoting newsmax, the incredibly biased, alarmist media stop.
So, can you offer any evidence to refute the assertions? Or are you content with mere hand waving dismissal?
Note that I also quoted The Wa Po.

RightatNYU said:
If you want a better picture of the situation in Turkey, check out www.nationalreview.com/tks/tks.asp for Jim Geraghty's comments. He's living there.
Why would the anecdotal stories from "the incredibly biased, alarmist media stop" NRO present a better picture than a broad survey of Turks?

RightatNYU said:
None of your other statements provide anything new. It doesnt surprise me at all that by invading Iraq, we've alienated many muslims. It's not a surprise that people see us as a threat. It's not a surprise that many terrorists hate us for doing so. Nothing new.
While these things you mention are not new nor surprising, what was posted is that is that many moderates have taken to hating us. This is new.

You might not have noticed, but also cited is evidence that support for anti-American terrorists is growing as a result of the Iraq war. This refutes your erudite rebuttal to the OP's contention that, "Al-Quaida spread its influence all over the world."
The US intelligence community is in agreement with this general idea.
Can you cite a more reliable source that says otherwise?

RightatNYU said:
Basically, there is a core group of extremist fighters, msot foreign, and a periphery group of Iraqis who are fighting more half-heartedly.
Your citation disagrees with you:
"The Iraqi insurgency is composed of over a dozen major insurgency organizations and countless smaller cells. Due to its clandestine nature, the exact composition of the Iraqi insurgency is difficult to determine."​
And of the six groups mentioned, only one is foreigners. For one of six to equal 'most', as you say, requires an unusually creative definition of 'most.' Care to share your source for this definition of most?


RightatNYU said:
Saddam ... deaths.
This is a very clever piece of analysis. However, it's missing at least one crucial aspect- the reason to believe that past performance is indicative of future results. It would be helpful to your case if you could demonstrate that this killing would've continued apace. Your case could be bolstered by something as simple as a graph with time as one axis and number murdered as the other. However, IIRC, these instances of mass murder occurred sproadically in response to specific, idiosyncratic incidents rather than as a part of a general trend or in regular periodic intervals. It would greatly benefit your case if you could show that these specific idiosyncratic indicents were likely to repeat themselves and produce similar outcomes despite occurring in a different enviroment.
I'll wait patiently for this addendum.

RightatNYU said:
How anyone can say that this action has not benefitted the average Iraqi is beyond me.
(W/o addressing the issue of whether there has been a benefit [I assume you mean 'net benefit'] to the "average Iraqi,") I find this unsurprising.
 

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:
I don't think you'll find many scholars who would deny that without the US invasion, there would never have been the successes in advancement in freedom in Iraq that there are now.
Good Lord, what - Iraq has had democracy for about 3 months, everyone seems convinced that it is done, Iraq will always be free, nothing will stop democracy in the middle east. You people cannot be naive about this.

Democracy is a very frail thing, their have been lots of examples in the past where democracy has collasped. Western Europe succombed to it in the 1920's and 30's - the Rise of Facism.

Personally I think the Bush doctrine will fail, especially if it starts democracy about. Face it, the Middle East hates our guts - we have bombing their country, when they get a chance to vote they will vote for a radical party in order to stand up to the west - we seen this in Shia Iraq.
Democracy is a two ended sword, ironically democracy in the middle east will strengthen the power of the Islamic Radicals.

Saudi Arabia - had elections - except for women, although I haven't heard who or what these elections elect and whether they have any real power. In truth the big daddy king runs the show.

Eygpt - democracy for Eygpt would be a big mistake for the West. A radical Party would almost certainly take control - you would now have Islamic Fundalmentalists in control of the SUEZ CANAL!

Iraq - doesn't even have a constitution yet, mass corruption on par with Russia, keeps squabbling over petty things (like oil) lol while their country get bombed daily. The Kurds are using their new found power to p*ss off everyone.

Afganistan - the government has no real power outside Kabul, roaming warlords have complete control - UN forces their have to ask for their help. Opium production has quadrupled.

Lebanon - The political wing of an Palestinian terrorist group looks favourite to win the election (if there is one)

we support israel and meddle in affairs = hatred of the west - democracy - give the people the chance to express that hatred - Anti-west governments in control of middle east.

Isn't it funny how the most stable middle-eastern countries are governed by a king/dictator? (Turkey probably the exception - although they have a Religious Islamic Party in control)
 

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
I don't think the power vaccum would have been filled so quickly, but this is off topic. That wasn't my intention and I apologize.
 
Top Bottom