• 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.

Should nations opposing the Iraq war send troops at this point?

Send troops?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 5 100.0%

  • Total voters
    5

Chris

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario, Canada
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Most citizens in countries such as France, Germany, Russia, Canada, etc overwhelmingly opposed the war, therefore from a public relations stand point it would be unwise for the govn'ts of any of these countries to associate with the Bush administration. At the same time no reasonable person wants to see Iraq disintegrate into civil war or come under another authoritarian dictatorship.

My question is whether or not it would be a wise idea for nations that opposed the US lead invasion of Iraq to assist in securing the country by deploying troops at this point?
 

Deathhound

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Location
Southeast Missouri
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I don't know if it would matter either way. I think the promblem lies more in trying to build up and train Iraq's army more than it does with the current manpower goes.

If it were to actaully help Iraq, I don't see a promblem with countries that opposed Bush's decision to go into Iraq, going in to help the effort in securing it. It wouldn't be contridictory at all, though it may seem that way to others.
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I voted no because I agree with Jack Murtha that the military has acchieved victory already. The longer we stay against the wishes of the great majority of Iraqis, the more the insurgency will be fueled. While there are valid security concerns, the organized Iraqi forces should, at this point, be able to sustain the fight against the disorganized and poorly equipped insurgents on their own. The insurgency will likely die out once American forces are withdrawn from their country and the people there realize that their government is their own and not a puppet government of the US invasion force.
 

Chris

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario, Canada
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I have to say no. Not that I don't think additional troops to lessen the drain on the US army would be a good thing, but that so many people would oppose it domestically within those countries that it would not be worth the benefit.

Helping in the rebuilding effort by allowing foreign contractors into Iraq is probably the best balance of interests. In this way govn't can still respect the interests of their people in opposing unilateral US foreign policy, while contributing to the reconstruction effort in Iraq.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
161
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No way!

The Bush administration has engineered this whole war, from carrying out a terrorist attack on the citizens of America to produce cause for war, to carpet bombing innocent muslims and their property so Halliburton is needed to go in and rebuild the infrastructure therefore putting Iraq in Debt to the IMF, World Bank, etc...

Tony Blair has sold his soul and sent our troops over there, now we are paying the price by being affiliated with America, IMO this is Bush's war and every country un-involved with it deserves to be happy and prosper.

Now the coalition has sufficiantly ruined Iraq infrastructure there is a reason for them to stay on service, i agree with those who say civil war in that country is just around the corner and i wonder if that's what Bush means when he talks about victory??

I think we should get all trooops out of there, not more in!
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
More troops will simply present more targets at this point. It is time to leave Iraq.....to the Iraqis.
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why on earth should France Germany and Russia send their men to die and spend their resources on a mistaken war they thought was unnecessary (at least at the time the US rushed to invasion) when our leader told them to stick it.

To help the US maintain a puppet government so that Halliburton and US oil companies can garner multi-billion dollar oil contracts?
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No, of course not. Why should they be expected to clean up George Bush's mess? Most wars will have disastrous consequences for withdrawal. If these countries were to send troops now, they'd be sending the message to the Bush Administration (and any future American administration) that they'll unconditionally support any future war - no matter how idiotic - simply because the consequences of an American failure would be dire.
 
Top Bottom