• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

U.S. Marines, Iraqi Troops Finish 'Quick Strike' Operation

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
The U.S. has never and never will be a democracy..we're a democratic-republic. There's a difference.
1) We're a constitutional republic
2) I had an asterisk that explained that
3) Iraq and Turkey are both republic forms of government as well.
4) Your point re: women has thusly been negated.
 
"Iraq's Sunni Arabs need to master a simple equation: If you support those who kill Americans, there are penalties. If you cooperate to build a better Iraq, there are rewards. We need contrasts in Iraq between how we treat the deserving and the murderous. If the populace continues to harbor our enemies and the enemies of a healthy Iraqi state, we need to impose strict martial law. Curfew in cities like Fallujah and Baghdad should be set. We should restrict access to the cities and control electricity and water as a punitive tool. Unfair to the innocent? The current situation is unfair to our troops and to the tens of millions of Iraqis who want to build a secure, better future. As long as the Sunni Arabs refuse to be part of the solution, we need to recognize that they're the problem - and treat them appropriately."

Agreed! That is the fundamental issue. The problem lies along the lines of how exactly to treat them. Considering all Sunnis as hostile/untrustworthy/enemies/whatever... may lead to the elimination or at least decline of the threat the insurgents pose. However, that is walking a tightrope under which hangs the net of genocide. It is a frustrating and often fruitless situation, and sometimes the code of good conduct in war must be breached, but it is imperative that some consideration must be made for the aforementioned "innocent". Just as politics is often operated under compromise, so should the Iraq engagement. Well put argument by the way.
 
saveChief said:
"Iraq's Sunni Arabs need to master a simple equation: If you support those who kill Americans, there are penalties. If you cooperate to build a better Iraq, there are rewards. We need contrasts in Iraq between how we treat the deserving and the murderous. If the populace continues to harbor our enemies and the enemies of a healthy Iraqi state, we need to impose strict martial law. Curfew in cities like Fallujah and Baghdad should be set. We should restrict access to the cities and control electricity and water as a punitive tool. Unfair to the innocent? The current situation is unfair to our troops and to the tens of millions of Iraqis who want to build a secure, better future. As long as the Sunni Arabs refuse to be part of the solution, we need to recognize that they're the problem - and treat them appropriately."

Agreed! That is the fundamental issue. The problem lies along the lines of how exactly to treat them. Considering all Sunnis as hostile/untrustworthy/enemies/whatever... may lead to the elimination or at least decline of the threat the insurgents pose. However, that is walking a tightrope under which hangs the net of genocide. It is a frustrating and often fruitless situation, and sometimes the code of good conduct in war must be breached, but it is imperative that some consideration must be made for the aforementioned "innocent". Just as politics is often operated under compromise, so should the Iraq engagement. Well put argument by the way.

Isn't that something the Iraqi government should be doing? Btw..the Sunni's are the majority and they do not want a democracy..it's their country.
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Isn't that something the Iraqi government should be doing? Btw..the Sunni's are the majority and they do not want a democracy..it's their country.

Sunni are far from the majority "Sunni + Kurd > Shiite"

Demographics
Main article: Demographics of Iraq

Almost 66% of Iraq's population consists of Arabic speakers (mainly Iraqi but some Hejazi); the other major ethnic group are the Kurds (25%), who live in the north and north-east of the country. The Kurds differ from Arabs in many ways including culture, history, clothing, and language.Other distinct groups are Assyrians, Persians, Lurs, Armenians and Yezidis (possible descendants of the ancient Mesopotamian culture). About 2,500 Jews and 20,000 - 50,000 Marsh Arabs live in Iraq.

Arabic and Kurdish are official languages and English is the most commonly spoken Western language. Assyrian is also used by the country's Assyrian population.

There are more Arab Iraqi Muslims members of the Shiite sect than there are Arab Iraqi Muslims of the Sunni sect, but there is a large Sunni population as well, made up of mostly Arabs, Kurds. (Shiite 60% of total population made up of mostly Arabs, Kurds. Small communities of Christians, Baha'is, Mandaeans, Shabaks, and Yezidis also exist. Most Kurds are Sunni Muslims.

Demographic information from the 2004 edition of the CIA's The World Factbook:

Ethnic groups: Arab 66%, Kurdish 25%,Assyrian or other 4%
Religions: Muslim 93-95% (Shi'ite 60%, Sunni 40%), Christian,Yezidi or other 5-7%


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq
 
Last edited:
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Did you not see the statistic I gave?

Just did...no link or source...:roll:
 
cnredd said:
Just did...no link or source...:roll:


Sure, during the 1980s it was assumed that the Sunni's constituted 46% of the population. They could very well have been and could be the majority since Saddam never conducted a census and since most of the information leading the US to come to this conclusion came from non-Iraqi sources and since the CIA doctored the numbers on more than one occassion no one really knows. I do believe that the Sunni's are the majority especially considering the fact that a large number of Shiites fled to neighboring countries, namely Jordon, before and after the war and have yet to return.

Heres a Link: http://www.saag.org/papers7/paper667.html
 
Napoleon the answer is simple, everything we have told you we have direct evidence and links to. Your info however, is a bunch of liberalistic regime mumbo jumbo with no credible links or real provations.

Now its my turn to just sit back and say yeah what cnredd, gysgt, shuamort, and navy pride said, lol.
 
Well since the sunis were the most outspoken of the Iraqis poplation, I am sure sadaam had fun experimenting with his chemical gas weapons of mass destruction, which kiled over 100,000 of them. So I think after those conflicts the sunis were no longer the majority due to the prevelent onslaught of exterminating them. O hey theres your answer he did have WMD's casue he used them on his own people, hey what a concept.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Now its my turn to just sit back and say yeah what cnredd, gysgt, shuamort, and navy pride said, lol.

The new "Axis of Evil"?:twisted:
 
SKILMATIC said:
Well since the sunis were the most outspoken of the Iraqis poplation, I am sure sadaam had fun experimenting with his chemical gas weapons of mass destruction, which kiled over 100,000 of them. So I think after those conflicts the sunis were no longer the majority due to the prevelent onslaught of exterminating them. O hey theres your answer he did have WMD's casue he used them on his own people, hey what a concept.

Quick correction...The Shiites, not the Sunnis....Saddam is a Sunni...

And yes, even if his sources were true, you have to think it is partly due to the death of hundreds of thousands of Shiites killed directly or indirectly by the Baath Party.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Well since the sunis were the most outspoken of the Iraqis poplation, I am sure sadaam had fun experimenting with his chemical gas weapons of mass destruction, which kiled over 100,000 of them. So I think after those conflicts the sunis were no longer the majority due to the prevelent onslaught of exterminating them. O hey theres your answer he did have WMD's casue he used them on his own people, hey what a concept.

Get your facts straight..he gassed the kurds not the sunnis. And I would remind you that the majority of scientists agree that Saddams WMDs had a short shelf-life. Remember when Clinton bombed those hangars which were supposedly full of WMDs? After it was over it was oops they're empty. No one had proof that Saddam had any WMDs at anytime after the kurds were gassed. Iraq is not our country, they're not our people, what goes on within it's borders is none of our business. The ONLY reason we EVER had an interest in going to war with Iraq is because the US was afraid Saddam might eventually invade Saudi Arabia and/or disrupt their oil production which would be bad news for us. The U.S. has always defended the Saudis especially from political backlash. Do you remember the doccuments about Saudi Arabia's possible involvement in 9/11 which were given to the 9/11 commission. 99% of that report was blacked out. And I will remind cnred that it doesn't matter if or when anyone was killed. The Sunnis are the majority now which makes them in charge.
 
Yes I know that I was typing too fast to notice my mistake. Sowy guys:(
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Get your facts straight..he gassed the kurds not the sunnis.
[nitpick]The majority of Kurds are Sunnis.[/nitpick]
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
No one had proof that Saddam had any WMDs at anytime after the kurds were gassed.

I love that quote....

"He destroyed hundreds of thousands of people, but, hey! That was YEARS ago, so there's no reason to think he'd do it again."
 
" Iraq is not our country, they're not our people, what goes on within it's borders is none of our business."

Oh no? I guess it was okay then that everyone else ignored the Hutus and the Tutsis massacring each other. Maybe no one should have helped stop Milosevic? I beg to differ. Maybe there were alternative motives to help galvanize Bush et al but there is no denying Saddam Hussein deserved what he got.
 
cnredd said:
I love that quote....

"He destroyed hundreds of thousands of people, but, hey! That was YEARS ago, so there's no reason to think he'd do it again."

:roll: Thats a gross exageration. They're his people anyway..it's none of our business. Besides, the vast majority of Americans do not agree with this war anymore hence why Bush's approval ratings are down to about 38%
 
Look, that whole theory of iraq invading Saudi is possible, but highly unlikely casue Sadaam may be a mean guy but hes not stupid. Last time he invaded a little country known as kuwait the great american military muscle crushed him in his path. So i think sadaam had enough sense not to try such a rediculous move.

So knowing that. That theory would never happen so that wasnt the actual reason for going to war.

AND EVEN IF HE DID INVADE IT WOULDNT HURT US THAT MUCH SINCE WE GET THE MAJORITY OF OUR OIL FROM THE MEXICANS AND NIGERIA.

It would however hurt almost every nation in the world. And it would eventually hurt us indirectly.
 
saveChief said:
" Iraq is not our country, they're not our people, what goes on within it's borders is none of our business."

Oh no? I guess it was okay then that everyone else ignored the Hutus and the Tutsis massacring each other. Maybe no one should have helped stop Milosevic? I beg to differ. Maybe there were alternative motives to help galvanize Bush et al but there is no denying Saddam Hussein deserved what he got.

Yes, ignoring the happenings within someone elses border is not a bad thing. The world is certainly more dangerous now that we've taken over Iraq. Where is Osama Bin Laden?? If Bush really feels the need to stomp all over the soveirngty of a foreign nation then he should have finished the job he started in Afghanistan. And now what do we get? Afghanistan is carved up by drug lords, Bin Laden is MIA, and Iraq is in shambles. Maybe in your opinion he deserverd it but Iraq was a soveirgn nation. The U.S. doesn't like other nations meddling in our affairs so why should we do it?
 
O well while were at it we miles well just have never entered WW1 or WW2 either. Hey it wasnt our people that were at war so why is it our problem. O Japan didnt mean any real harm when they bombed pearl it was not that bad. Hey the jews extermination isnt our problem either. We should just let them be.

Who are you? Are you like Hitler reincarnated? Im serious begining to beleive this. Sorry for being rash but it is appauling to me to know that you truly beleive that genocides like these that are hapening is no ones problem.
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Besides, the vast majority of Americans do not agree with this war anymore hence why Bush's approval ratings are down to about 38%

And who's to blame? I'll go with A)The media...B)We live in a remote control world where everything must be done in 20 minutes or it's not worth it.

If we had these two factors in 1776, we'd still be taxed by England for tea.


Here's an interesting peice about Vietnam...a war in which EVERY major battle was won by the US, but we lost the war due to the lack of resolve within our own borders...I saved it about a year ago from another site, but I can't find the source.:(

The protesters’ myth is really interesting. With every
passing year one gets the impression that virtually all
Sixties types were at antiwar protests. (They were all at
Woodstock, too.) It has become unassailable gospel that
the protests were noble and effective. They may have been
nobly intended, but there is nothing but aging egos and pure
wind to sustain the notion that they were effective in stopping
or shortening the war. There is evidence, however, that the
protests lengthened the war and that more people were killed
on account of them.

How so? Political scientists talk about the phenomenon of a
“negative follower group,” which is defined basically as any
group that ticks others off to the point that they become the
friend of that group’s enemy. All the data we have from the time,
and since, show that the obscenity, illegality, and raging
anti-patriotism of the antiwar protesters made them the most
hated group in America during the late 1960s and early 1970s.
When police beat up protesters in the park across from the Democratic
National Convention in Chicago in 1968, most people who were
watching on television sympathized with the police.

The backlash had significant repercussions on the national political
scene. Without the antiwar protests, which were associated in the
minds of the “silent majority” with a militarized black power movement
that had somehow metastasized from the civil rights movement, George
Wallace could never have become a national political figure, if only
for a while. Nor would Richard Nixon have won the White House in 1968.
Furthermore, the antiwar movement undermined the Democratic Party and
hurt Hubert Humphrey’s bid for the presidency in a very tight election.)
The political reaction to the radical antiwar protests aided both the
Johnson and Nixon administrations’ efforts to manage growing public
disquiet over the war. More Americans would have opposed the war sooner
had they not been put off by radical protest tactics.

The truth is that the antiwar movement actually helped elect Richard
Nixon to the presidency not just once, but twice. By 1972, the movement
had gained enough power in the disheveled Democratic Party to see that
George McGovern was nominated instead of a more mainstream candidate
who might have kept the party’s labor and middle-class constituency intact.
And who believes that a Humphrey administration or a Humphrey-like
Democratic administration that would have begun in 1969 or 1973 would
have fought the war in Vietnam with the intensity that the Nixon
administration did, looking for a “peace with honor” that fell to
ashes on April 30, 1975?
 
Napoleon: blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah.

Stop listening to CNN and reading the LA Times. Its garbage. Iraq is in a better state then its ever been if you dont beleive me then you can ask all the service men and women who have been there. You can ask my friends who are Iraqis who also have several relatives who still reside there.

How do you know all of which you are stating where have you gotten all this info from?
 
SKILMATIC said:
Look, that whole theory of iraq invading Saudi is possible, but highly unlikely casue Sadaam may be a mean guy but hes not stupid. Last time he invaded a little country known as kuwait the great american military muscle crushed him in his path. So i think sadaam had enough sense not to try such a rediculous move.

So knowing that. That theory would never happen so that wasnt the actual reason for going to war.

AND EVEN IF HE DID INVADE IT WOULDNT HURT US THAT MUCH SINCE WE GET THE MAJORITY OF OUR OIL FROM THE MEXICANS AND NIGERIA.

It would however hurt almost every nation in the world. And it would eventually hurt us indirectly.

At first the U.S. did not interfere until the threat of some forces poking around the Saudi Border became too great a risk. Aside from the fact that eventually they thought that just maybe he would use wmds. Of course Saddam would have tried to sabotage oil production..Saudi Arabia is a competator and he doesn't like the Saudi's. He'd have a change to halt competition, damage the west, cause OPEC to jack up oil prices, and all while he increases production. Besides, why do you think we have a base in Saudi Arabia? For the heck of it? The Saudi government is weak and has a lot of enemies within it's own country. There's one group in the north...I forget what it's called..that could very easily topple the regime. The reason that base is there is to serve as a warning to protect the established government and our oil interests. Talk about supporting terrorism ;) most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and do you have any idea the kinds of things the Saudi government does???
 
Napoleon, you dont know anything becasue you have never been there and its obvious to me you have never held a conversations with some one who is iraqi who has lived there. If you want I can get my friends number for you and you can speak to him directly.
I want you to get off this concocted view that things in iraq are so bad.
 
Yes, ignoring the happenings within someone elses border is not a bad thing. The world is certainly more dangerous now that we've taken over Iraq. Where is Osama Bin Laden?? If Bush really feels the need to stomp all over the soveirngty of a foreign nation then he should have finished the job he started in Afghanistan. And now what do we get? Afghanistan is carved up by drug lords, Bin Laden is MIA, and Iraq is in shambles. Maybe in your opinion he deserverd it but Iraq was a soveirgn nation. The U.S. doesn't like other nations meddling in our affairs so why should we do it?

When inhumane atrocities are going on, I think it is noble of the US to intervene. But we went into Iraq under the premise of a war on terror. I think there are countries that deserved the invasion far more than Iraq, and were also guilty of inhumane acts. Iraq may have been a good thing, but it was misguided, and ultimately futile in our initial reason for a war on terror.
 
Back
Top Bottom