Did we win the war in Iraq?

[Voluntary]

Quote by: DJK Oil is the lifes blood of th industrialized nations...like it or not. To disrupt a societies oil supplies is as you say all the threat that is needed to provoke war.

But 1973 has come and passed. We didn't go to war over disruption of oil. In fact, many sources claim that the Iraq war lead to higher oil prices and that its production of oil is below the pre-war period.

Do you have any links to support your claim that we invaded Iraq over oil disruption?

couple that with other criminal threats and corruption against his own people....which I agree is not enough in of itself to intervene unlike disrupting a nations energy supplies and you now have many logical reasons to make War with a criminal government.

At least you are acknowledging that we made war and not the other way around. So, who is next on our hit list? Abdullah, Jong, Mugabe, Bashir, Khamenei?

If moral reasons caused us to go to war, then why did we arbitrarily pick Iraq compared to other atrocious dictators?

As for working with and using the criminal.(sadam) ..I would suggest that this is also a common and wise strategy used by police depts of the world to catch bigger fish and has an over all greater effect on crime reduction.....

Who is the bigger fish? OBL? Have we caught him yet, despite no evidence of a Saddam-OBL-9/11 link?

[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo They were under law before, Saddam's law which held the country together and prevented sectarian violence. The Baath party was simply a political party that gained control of the government.

Hitler also kept order and gained control of the government, but though Germany was very prosperous before and during WW2 except in the very end, that does not mean his country was any utopia. In fact, most people consider Germany under the Third Reich to be one of the worst and most oppressive regimes in history.

Life under Saddamn was very much comparable. On the outside, it was nice, and maybe some people could live their lives just as always. But underneath that farce was a tyrannical dictatorship that killed and arrested people during the night, gassed and bombed Kurds and Iranians prior to that, invaded its neighbor for oil, put down many of its people, repressed other political parties, and much more.

Now, that is order...but its not exactly the kind of order that any Western Democracy should allow to exist, or collaborate with. History should have taught us that. Some people cannot be reasoned with, no matter how many sanctions are enacted upon thier nation--if the people starve, it means nothing to the leader.

Where was all this terrorism before we invaded? Who was Al Sadr fighting? Why wasn't Al Qaeda a political force or any kind of force in Iraq before we invaded?

Because of order. Hitler kept the communists at bay in Europe too, and after he was defeated, they descended upon it. Any force of order can stop the groups it doesnt like. Either way, Al-Queda and terrorist cells already existed in Iraq under Saddam, they just didnt operate with the say-so of Saddam, and Saddam didnt try to stop them. Iraq was more of a crossroads than an actual base of operations.

Either way, the terrorists would attack us on any front, doesnt matter if it were Iraq, Iran, or Yemen. To say that we let them in is wrong, they simply surfaced when we arrived to sow chaos and undermine US support by killing innocents and causing secatarian violence.

Would you say that not foreseeing these things was a failing of our government?

Yes, it was. It is impossible to deny that. It was a failure of intelligence and other groups, but it was also a neccessary risk.

When deposing governments, even oppressive ones, there is often a period of lawlessness where the country must be promptly put back under order. During this period is when the worst usually occurs. In this case, it was magnified by the fact that terrorists and extremists took the opportunity to fight each other and kill innocents. It is good that these criminals were at least brought out in the open and destroyed, and that public opinion would see the true face of the "freedom fighters" like Al-Queda and the other Islamic militias, because public support has increasinly dropped off for them and now militant Islam is losing on all fronts.

Terrorism has increased since our "war on terror" began, how do you account for this and, how do we kill them all if our actions actually create more terrorists?

No, it actually hasnt. Terrorist acts have increased, but the numbers associated with terrorism are dwindling in reality. One terrorist can cause a massive terrorist attack and kill hundreds...so it is disproportionate. In Iraq, the violence has significants been reduced, the people are actively fight extremism and are not using as much violent means, and Al-Queda itself is barely existant in Iraq as a fighting force. Either way, the Iraqi Army is more than capable of handling what little resistance is left.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Taliban and other extremist groups there are nearly annihiliated. Pakistan pushes further into the mountains every day, and we push towards the South every day. Taliban and Al-Queda leadership has been all but wiped out save for a few top commanders like Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar (whether they are alive at all is still in question). The Taliban have few strongholds left in the region too, where other neighbors to Afghanistan have joined in the fight, cracking down on terrorists and other extremists.

In the Phillipines, the Moro army and Al-Queda is being eradicated, and they are all but disbanded.

Across the middle east, especially in Saudi Arabia, once havens for terrorists, governments are cracking down and imprisoning terrorists, and making tougher laws to combat such practices as honor killings.

In Africa, many nations have actively fought rebel and Islamic armies under pressure from the US and other governments. Not long ago, the Taliban in Nigeria were routed.

In Somalia even, Al-Queda and Al-Shabab are not doing all that well, every battle they fight in thins their ranks. They are so desperate they are even starting to call upon Americans to fly to Africa and fight for them.

Unsuccessful? My as*

I predict that militant Islam will be gone in 50 years or less thanks to what we are doing now. Thats a pretty major thing.

Where do you get the notion that we are responsible to do this? Is it in or nation's charter or motto or something? Since when did we become the worlds police force? I thought the UN was supposed to handle that?

Chuckle chuckle....the UN....

When has the UN done anything effectively without direct US help? Any besides that, how often has the UN done anything at all? Recently they have stepped up their pace on things, but they are a gathering body and forum, not a system of global justice. Not yet at least.

Anyways, when the UN wants something done, the US usually has to pick up tabs and do it anyways. I can think of few cases when this wasnt the case.

The UN would never make moves to get rid of dictatorships or fight totalitarianism. That is why we must do it. Its too bad we cant go into North Korea right now.

The fact that you are ignorant of the Bush family ties with oil, the Saudis, Cheney's relationship with no bid contracts... et al. shows your willingness to ignore the truth in favor of your desire. Or to be concise, you lack intellectual honesty on the matter.

The fact that you are unwilling to provide the basis and facts behind this shows you are simply jumping on the bandwagon and really cannot support this claim. Until then, it is only a conspiracy theory, and has no place in a formal debate.

[DJK]

Quote by: Voluntary But 1973 has come and passed. We didn't go to war over disruption of oil. In fact, many sources claim that the Iraq war lead to higher oil prices and that its production of oil is below the pre-war period. Do you have any links to support your claim that we invaded Iraq over oil disruption? We still need oil as much or more then in 1973...are you denying this.?..it was you that suggested that this was a war for oil and not a moral war...as if a war for oil is a bad thing...when I suggest that fighting against the sadam criminals was moral also then you ask me why havent we fought all the other criminal elements....well would that make you feel better? I agree we should wipe out and eliminate all of these criminals...except the US doesnt have the resources to take on everyone doing evil. So should we not do anything or should we try to focus on strategic areas...like Iraq that also happens to be very important because of its location and oil reserves! Id say this war gives us the greatest strategic bang for the buck. Again I refer too how police work is done in reference to organized crime. We cant stop all crime so do we just sit back and let the mafia run our cities...no we pick high strategic targets and we do the best we can with the limited resources we have At least you are acknowledging that we made war and not the other way around. So, who is next on our hit list? Abdullah, Jong, Mugabe, Bashir, Khamenei? As I said if we could we should! If moral reasons caused us to go to war, then why did we arbitrarily pick Iraq compared to other atrocious dictators? becausewe cant do it all magically....we must start some where...why not the place with great oil reserves...? Would it make more sense to focus resources on worthless 3rd world $hit holes that have less strategic value just because this may make us look better or make you feel better??? Who is the bigger fish? OBL? Have we caught him yet, despite no evidence of a Saddam-OBL-9/11 link?

The US isnt perfect and it is trying to get OBL but does that mean we dont take out targets like sadam that present them self as target rich. Again when fighting mafia type criminals do the police not go after smaller targets because we only want the top mafia don. We take them as they are presented and when the opportunity is best...unfortunately for us OBL has evaded justice but his day will come.

[Charlatan]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo For what purpose? What authority do we have to take military action against another nation? Who posed little to no threat to our nation?

In the hopes of world peace there needs to be some sacrifices made. If they didn't take action then Iraq would still be a despotism, and those are wrong, so much good has been done. That the people could not choose for themselves in evidence of a obscurity of justice, so, we have brought justice to Iraq.

I don't believe this was the stated purpose for invading Afghanistan which makes your premise incorrect.

Afghanistan is a hive of terrorist activity. The state there wants them gone too. Not that there was any bombings before the war, but now there is. There was no local bombings before the war, but it was inevitable as the state would not have gotten behind the militants, as if you look at Pakistan, there the militants also took offence that thier goals were not realised by the state.

Afghanistan is basically resourceless so what business could we boom will either country gain?

Commercial businesses, middelmen businesses, and busineeses where they set up businesses from the west.

[quote]Pleasant? What portion of killing people do you find pleasant?
So nobody orders the death of thousands of people for personal gain? Are you sure you want to stick with that? I'm giving you the opportunity to correct your mistake.[/qoute]

What can be the gains of the person if not the state?

People don't think like what anymore?

Like a bunchof world dominating despots. All eyes are on the states from around the world, they cannot afford to do anything wrong.

As evidenced by your entire post here, people who believe something are easily lead astray as long as they are reminded that the end result will be what they believe. As an example, it's OK to torture people in order to save other peoples lives.

Yes it is, but using subliminal interrogation negates the bad possibilites from a torture session.

Is it possible that those militants are militant because invaders are walking around their streets with guns?

They are there to fight the 'bad guys'.

You think you're pretty smart, eh? Kind of egotistical of you to assume that someone in one of our many intel agencies hasn't already thought of that.

Just checking, my pc says they haven't.

There you go again, stealing all the good ideas from those ignorant SOBs who have years of higher education and training...

I don't repeat anthing but quotes.

Are you talking about terrorist training camps? I think your childlike view is pretty comical. The Taliban spreads fear of invaders and religious war to coerce the simpletons (ignorant religious nuts are easily led into believing what you want them to) into taking up arms and in so doing they are promised eternal bliss.

Yes that is a problem.

Wow...

I am trying to get rid of bombings, that means getting rid of bombs and their components. I think I am doing pretty well too.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: DJK We still need oil as much or more then in 1973...are you denying this.?

No, but going to war with Iraq compromised our oil needs. Are you denying this? Oil prices went up as production went down.

it was you that suggested that this was a war for oil

I never suggested this and was just making a historical reference to your previous claim that Iraq posed a threat. Iraq was more of a threat in 1973 than they were before we last invaded them.

when I suggest that fighting against the sadam criminals was moral also then you ask me why havent we fought all the other criminal elements....well would that make you feel better?

No, we can't afford it and its none of our business.

So should we not do anything or should we try to focus on strategic areas...like Iraq that also happens to be very important because of its location and oil reserves! Id say this war gives us the greatest strategic bang for the buck. Again I refer too how police work is done in reference to organized crime. We cant stop all crime so do we just sit back and let the mafia run our cities...no we pick high strategic targets and we do the best we can with the limited resources we have

You do know that North Korea has nukes and doesn't like us? Plus, they are under the oppression of one of the world's worst dictators. They don't have oil, but at least we could find WMDs. Plus, it wouldn't create a costly and deadly vacuum.

This whole notion of going to war over morality is completely bunk. Our Presidents have no problem holding hands and bowing to one of the world's worst dictators: Abdullah.

Would it make more sense to focus resources on worthless 3rd world $hit holes that have less strategic value just because this may make us look better or make you feel better???

It would make me feel better if we got of this groove of perversity of pre-emptive war and taking out dictators that actually balance power in the area instead of creating a costly and deadly vacuum. If Saddam was still in power, we would have more money, more Americans would be alive, more civilians would still be alive, and they would balance the power with regards to Iran.

Plus, Iraq is far from a bastion of freedom. Tossing a shoe at someone will get you a three year sentence.

The US isnt perfect and it is trying to get OBL but does that mean we dont take out targets like sadam that present them self as target rich. Again when fighting mafia type criminals do the police not go after smaller targets because we only want the top mafia don. We take them as they are presented and when the opportunity is best...unfortunately for us OBL has evaded justice but his day will come.

Implied total cost: over $3 trillion
American lives lost: over 4,000
American wounded: Over 34,000 with higher estimates to 100,000+
Innocent civilians killed: Over 93,000 with higher estimates to 150,000+
WMDs found: 0
OBL dead: Unkown.

[The Free World]

Hi Everybody,

Just a small thing to keep in mind: would WE have enjoyed the prospect of the British or Spanish intervening in OUR civil war back in 1861-65? Would WE have liked for a foreign nation to forcably truncate OUR genocide against black people? I feel that the rest of the world gave us respect by letting US settle our own disputes, so why shouldn't we do the same to the rest of the sovereign Earth?

Another thing: when the United States, as wonderful and heroic of a nation as it may be, gets involved, things REALLY turn ugly. In the event that America tries to stop a civil war, like the one in Iraq which involved ethnic cleansing, we simply rush the process of human interaction: we force both sides to sit down at a table, issue ultimatums, and deploy troops, rather than allowing the combatants to settle their own problems. When a third party forces peace upon two belligerents, they have an uneasy ceasefire which could explode again and cost many deaths over a long period. However, when we let them fight one another, then they may eventually come to a long-lasting agreement that only they can come to with one another.

As for the victory issue, I feel that we have hurt Al-Qaeda substantially, but that we haven't hit the root of the problem hard enough. Afghanistan is the true stronghold that should have been targeted from day one, but Fmr. Pres. Bush decided to strike Iraq. Of course, Saddam was a horrible murderer, but how can we commit to spreading democracy in the Gulf when 10% of us are unemployed and another 47 million uninsured, all of these many people disenfranchised from political efficacy.

I don't mean to insult the troops or the government, but just to put forth an idea for the benefit of this forum. If anybody disagrees or agrees with me, I'd be happy to hear you out. No animosities- just sharing of concepts.

Until Next Time,
The Free World

[Gods_Mercenary]

Your entire post is kind of subjective. The south would have loved for European powers (which did not really include Spain) to intervene, as would the black people being lynched. When you're the aggressor, or have the higher hand, of course you don't want foreigners getting in the way of your murder, rape, hegemonizing etc., but ask a victim and you'll get a different answer.

[NoJingoLingo]

Charlatan, your views on this subject are naive and uninformed. You've been sold on war by the CCCP and you're willing to use whatever the current excuses are from the CCCP.

We were attacked by a group of terrorist on 9/11. We found that OBL was being provided sanctuary by the Taliban so we invaded Afghanistan to remove the Taliban and capture or kill OBL. We accomplished the first task but not the second, mostly because we pulled resources to invade Iraq. Iraq posed no imminent threat to the USA, hadn't attacked us, was considered neutered militarily and was not involved with OBL or Al Qaeda.

There are many despots in the world, it is not in our interest as a country to depose any or all of them without a clear and present military danger to our Nation. The United Nations was created SPECIFICALLY to deal with international conflicts and to avoid world wars. There have been no world wars since 1945 when the UN was created. Korea and Vietnam were "conflicts" thereby circumventing the UN charter.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Your entire post is kind of subjective. The south would have loved for European powers (which did not really include Spain) to intervene, as would the black people being lynched. When you're the aggressor, or have the higher hand, of course you don't want foreigners getting in the way of your murder, rape, hegemonizing etc., but ask a victim and you'll get a different answer.

The civil war had no predetermined outcome. One side didn't really have the upper hand at all. I highly doubt the south would have enjoyed European intervention until the waning days of the war when it was clear the south was going to lose.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Please, The Confederacy's entire strategy depended almost solely on goading Britain or maybe France into recognizing them and therefore de-facto taking sides. The South was at least partially strangled from Day one, and even as Lee acheived apparent brilliance in Virginia, Grant and Sherman were slowly marching from the west grinding up southern boys like a giant steamroller. I'd love to get into this debate, but lets leave it at that the only chance an agrarian, sparsely populated south filled with a hostile enslaved population had against the North was foreign intervention commercially and probably militarily.

[The Free World]

Yeah... but we kind of screwed around in Iran with the Shah and in Central America because the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS did not suit our wishes.

[DJK]

Quote by: Voluntary No, but going to war with Iraq compromised our oil needs. Are you denying this? Oil prices went up as production went down. short term maybe long term...nope! I never suggested this and was just making a historical reference to your previous claim that Iraq posed a threat. Iraq was more of a threat in 1973 than they were before we last invaded them. No, we can't afford it and its none of our business. thats why we must pick and choose and cant spread ourselves too thin. There should be a moral and a financial reason not just one but both! You do know that North Korea has nukes and doesn't like us? Plus, they are under the oppression of one of the world's worst dictators. They don't have oil, but at least we could find WMDs. Plus, it wouldn't create a costly and deadly vacuum. n. korea is pretty well contained...and closer to implosion...its people are starving! This whole notion of going to war over morality is completely bunk. Our Presidents have no problem holding hands and bowing to one of the world's worst dictators: Abdullah. you have to know when to choose your battle and know when to use your enemies..the world is not disneyland It would make me feel better if we got of this groove of perversity of pre-emptive war and taking out dictators that actually balance power in the area instead of creating a costly and deadly vacuum. If Saddam was still in power, we would have more money, more Americans would be alive, more civilians would still be alive, and they would balance the power with regards to Iran. debateable but better to fight small wars in arag then big ones on our shores Plus, Iraq is far from a bastion of freedom. Tossing a shoe at someone will get you a three year sentence. Its getting better in sadams day his ball would be crushed Implied total cost: over $3 trillion American lives lost: over 4,000 American wounded: Over 34,000 with higher estimates to 100,000+ Innocent civilians killed: Over 93,000 with higher estimates to 150,000+ WMDs found: 0 OBL dead: Unkown.

I dont know if I would have stuck around to rebuild and police the area...rather I may have let removed Sadam and waited for the vacuum to be refilled and bombed or removed again if need be....However I would be more aggressive and overtly placed in a US friendly ,pro business, decent Government if I did choose to stick around Id arm them to fend off Iran and would then revisit if need be...in hindsight this seems cheaper in US money and lives...but hell thats hindsight!

[DJK]

Not backing the Shaw in Iran was a major screw up...this is what allowed extremism to really get a foot hold in the region via the Ayatollas. We needed more intervention not less....in fact all of our intervention since in the area is due to our lack of agressive support for the Shaw. Talk about a costly mistake!

[DJK]

Quote by: The Free World Yeah... but we kind of screwed around in Iran with the Shah and in Central America because the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS did not suit our wishes.

Not backing the Shaw in Iran was a major screw up...this is what allowed extremism to really get a foot hold in the region via the Ayatollas. We needed more intervention not less....in fact all of our intervention since in the area is due to our lack of agressive support for the Shaw. Talk about a costly mistake!

[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: Voluntary Implied total cost: over $3 trillion American lives lost: over 4,000 American wounded: Over 34,000 with higher estimates to 100,000+ Innocent civilians killed: Over 93,000 with higher estimates to 150,000+ WMDs found: 0 OBL dead: Unkown.

Terrorists killed: 30,000+
Detainees of criminals and extremists: 20,000+
Turning people against extremism: Yes
Saddam Neutralized for his crimes: Yes
Democratic Government Set up: Yes
Freedom brought to Iraqi People: Yes
Getting old political rivals to accept the democratic process: Almost wholly, yes
Iraqi Army Modernized and Rebuilt: Yes, and strong now
Did not let the extremists win and let Iraq become a failed state: Yes

Quote by: The Free World Hi Everybody, Just a small thing to keep in mind: would WE have enjoyed the prospect of the British or Spanish intervening in OUR civil war back in 1861-65? Would WE have liked for a foreign nation to forcably truncate OUR genocide against black people? I feel that the rest of the world gave us respect by letting US settle our own disputes, so why shouldn't we do the same to the rest of the sovereign Earth?

Uh, there are absolutely no paralels between the American Civil War and the Sectarian Violence in Iraq. Secondly, there would have been little to no support to go and help either side by the European Powers. First of all, there was no "genocide against black people"---whereas what was being done in Iraq was genocide by extremists against innocent people in mass droves. We should do everything in our power to stop that, and stabilize the country, since we ousted Saddam after all--doesnt matter how much support we had from the Iraqis at the beginning, we still needed to stay there and finish the job.

Another thing: when the United States, as wonderful and heroic of a nation as it may be, gets involved, things REALLY turn ugly. In the event that America tries to stop a civil war, like the one in Iraq which involved ethnic cleansing, we simply rush the process of human interaction: we force both sides to sit down at a table, issue ultimatums, and deploy troops, rather than allowing the combatants to settle their own problems. When a third party forces peace upon two belligerents, they have an uneasy ceasefire which could explode again and cost many deaths over a long period. However, when we let them fight one another, then they may eventually come to a long-lasting agreement that only they can come to with one another.

Again, you know absolutely nothing about this conflict. There are hardly "two sides"--there are the mainstream political parties that support the government, and there are Sunni and Shiite extremist groups, as well as outside forces like Al-Queda. With this mix, there is not going to be a poltiical settlement, because the two sides are not defined, its just "Im a Sunni, you're a Shiite, I kill you" And this is the vast minority of the population, may I remind you. It is those that have been influenced by rebel leaders and terrorist organizations and think they are fighting for a good cause. Its not a civil war, it is war or terrorism against those who they think are unclean or different.



To think that this was a civil war is wrong. It has mostly gone away by now, with random attacks still occuring, but these groups have little influence anymore, and the Iraqi government controls the country again.



Had we not intervened and helped as peacekeepers and security, things would be far worse now. In fact, I would say our soldiers did a fine job.

As for the victory issue, I feel that we have hurt Al-Qaeda substantially, but that we haven't hit the root of the problem hard enough. Afghanistan is the true stronghold that should have been targeted from day one, but Fmr. Pres. Bush decided to strike Iraq. Of course, Saddam was a horrible murderer, but how can we commit to spreading democracy in the Gulf when 10% of us are unemployed and another 47 million uninsured, all of these many people disenfranchised from political efficacy.

A) We did go into Afghanistan first, however, we had basically won there by the time Iraq became a major problem. Only in 2006+ did the insurgency in Afghanistan rise again.

B) There was not 10% unemployment and an economic crisis when this began...in fact, we were doing pretty good at this time. It wasnt until 2007 that this really became a problem, the recession, I mean.

[DJK]

Quote by: The Black Ghost Terrorists killed: 30,000+ Detainees of criminals and extremists: 20,000+ Turning people against extremism: Yes Saddam Neutralized for his crimes: Yes Democratic Government Set up: Yes Freedom brought to Iraqi People: Yes Getting old political rivals to accept the democratic process: Almost wholly, yes Iraqi Army Modernized and Rebuilt: Yes, and strong now Did not let the extremists win and let Iraq become a failed state: Yes Uh, there are absolutely no paralels between the American Civil War and the Sectarian Violence in Iraq. Secondly, there would have been little to no support to go and help either side by the European Powers. First of all, there was no "genocide against black people"---whereas what was being done in Iraq was genocide by extremists against innocent people in mass droves. We should do everything in our power to stop that, and stabilize the country, since we ousted Saddam after all--doesnt matter how much support we had from the Iraqis at the beginning, we still needed to stay there and finish the job. Again, you know absolutely nothing about this conflict. There are hardly "two sides"--there are the mainstream political parties that support the government, and there are Sunni and Shiite extremist groups, as well as outside forces like Al-Queda. With this mix, there is not going to be a poltiical settlement, because the two sides are not defined, its just "Im a Sunni, you're a Shiite, I kill you" And this is the vast minority of the population, may I remind you. It is those that have been influenced by rebel leaders and terrorist organizations and think they are fighting for a good cause. Its not a civil war, it is war or terrorism against those who they think are unclean or different. To think that this was a civil war is wrong. It has mostly gone away by now, with random attacks still occuring, but these groups have little influence anymore, and the Iraqi government controls the country again. Had we not intervened and helped as peacekeepers and security, things would be far worse now. In fact, I would say our soldiers did a fine job. A) We did go into Afghanistan first, however, we had basically won there by the time Iraq became a major problem. Only in 2006+ did the insurgency in Afghanistan rise again. B) There was not 10% unemployment and an economic crisis when this began...in fact, we were doing pretty good at this time. It wasnt until 2007 that this really became a problem, the recession, I mean.

Black ghost makes excellent points...There was a price to pay for all these gains. Yet the price for doing nothing would have been huge as was learned from Carters failure to act and support the Shaw of Iran....which has lead to most of the unrest and violence since. Extreemism really never had a strong foothold or home untill the Iranian government became a base for expansion to the rest of the region....much of the extreem teachings leaking into Iraq, saudi arabia, and afganistan amoung many others have thier roots in The shaws take over. History shows that the so called peace of Americans not intervening has cost far more lives then the wars we have waged for justice and freedom. Peace in the cold war killled many of millions of people in the gulags of the soviet empire. There was many jews who didnt want war with hitler when he first started his reign. History repeats itself and inaction against bad people or criminal elements allows them to thrive, grow, refortify and cause much greater evil later. Inaction and cowardace is not an option. There is a time to fight. Otherwise nations wouldnt have police that carried guns. What gives us the right to intervene....the right to bring justice to the world, to defend those who are weak and oppressed. Sure we cant fight every battle at once...we have our limits so we must pick and choose...and heck if the evil tyrant happens to be sitting on a heap of oil then whats wrong with killing 2 birds with one stone.... Take out the evil and free up the oil. Win/Win!

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: The Black Ghost Hitler also kept order and gained control of the government, but though Germany was very prosperous before and during WW2 except in the very end, that does not mean his country was any utopia. In fact, most people consider Germany under the Third Reich to be one of the worst and most oppressive regimes in history.

You discredit yourself by using Hitler as a comparison because there is no evidence that Saddam had world domination on his list of things to do. There are many more differences than similarities between the two men.

Life under Saddamn was very much comparable. On the outside, it was nice, and maybe some people could live their lives just as always. But underneath that farce was a tyrannical dictatorship that killed and arrested people during the night, gassed and bombed Kurds and Iranians prior to that, invaded its neighbor for oil, put down many of its people, repressed other political parties, and much more.

This is no different than any country with a dictator. It's how you retain power, you get rid of your opponents and crack the whip to keep the general populace from getting too "uppity". But it should be noted that those things you listed didn't just happen out of the blue, there were circumstances which led Saddam to do such despicable things.

Now, that is order...but its not exactly the kind of order that any Western Democracy should allow to exist, or collaborate with.

Says who? Please quote the portion of the US Constitution or any US Presidents Foreign policy that outlines a mandate or policy of deposing the heads of state of countries who's government we do not approve of. Then you can go on to sourcing that for the rest of the Western Democracies.

History should have taught us that. Some people cannot be reasoned with, no matter how many sanctions are enacted upon thier nation--if the people starve, it means nothing to the leader. Because of order.

Unfortunately, the USA has no unilateral authority to take military action against those nations. Regardless of how we feel about how other countries are run, they are sovereign nations and we must respect their right to govern their people as they see fit or as the people will allow. I'm sure you wouldn't like China to invade the USA because they believe Communism to be a better system... After all, look how many people die every year under our democracy.

Hitler kept the communists at bay in Europe too, and after he was defeated, they descended upon it. Any force of order can stop the groups it doesnt like.

I'm not really sure what you mean by a "force of order". Is that like some kind of theological doctrine that I am unfamiliar with?

Either way, Al-Queda and terrorist cells already existed in Iraq under Saddam, they just didnt operate with the say-so of Saddam, and Saddam didnt try to stop them. Iraq was more of a crossroads than an actual base of operations.

Do you have some evidence of this? Please provide it if you do.

Either way, the terrorists would attack us on any front, doesnt matter if it were Iraq, Iran, or Yemen. To say that we let them in is wrong, they simply surfaced when we arrived to sow chaos and undermine US support by killing innocents and causing secatarian violence.

I liked your statement better the first time I read the underlined part. Because we did arrive and sow chaos.
But I don't understand your argument there. First you claim there were already terrorists in Iraq, even though before we invaded, no terrorist attacks had been linked to any group in Iraq, then you claim they showed up because we were there. So if we weren't there... Please don't try to convince me that all those "terrorists" or "insurgents" could have found the resources to travel about 11,000 miles, across the Ocean, to attack us here in the USA.

Yes, it was. It is impossible to deny that. It was a failure of intelligence and other groups, but it was also a neccessary risk.

Really? Why was it necessary?
Oh, and it really wasn't a failing of intelligence organizations because they had plenty of counter information but the Administration didn't want to hear any of that.

When deposing governments, even oppressive ones, there is often a period of lawlessness where the country must be promptly put back under order. During this period is when the worst usually occurs. In this case, it was magnified by the fact that terrorists and extremists took the opportunity to fight each other and kill innocents. It is good that these criminals were at least brought out in the open and destroyed, and that public opinion would see the true face of the "freedom fighters" like Al-Queda and the other Islamic militias, because public support has increasinly dropped off for them and now militant Islam is losing on all fronts.

Wow, did you write the manual for military action in deposing leaders and rebuilding governments? It sounds like you almost know what you are talking about. So enlighten us on how you come to this conclusion: "When deposing governments, even oppressive ones, there is often a period of lawlessness where the country must be promptly put back under order." I think you pulled it out of your ass based on what happened in Iraq... which is very different then what happened in Germany after WW2.

Now as a mental exercise, please imagine what would happen if Russia decided that they don't like our form of government or the way we interacted with the world and decided to invade Washington DC. Do you think they would call those of us who took up arms against them "terrorists, extremists, insurgents"? Don't you think we would call ourselves freedom fighters? And then suppose the hard line Catholics and Protestants decided to take the opportunity to whack each other as they have been doing in Ireland... Then consider your position again.

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

[NoJingoLingo]

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

No, it actually hasnt. Terrorist acts have increased, but the numbers associated with terrorism are dwindling in reality.

Yes actually is has. The number of terrorists sky rocketed after the invasion of Iraq, world wide and may or may not be dwindling to pre-Iraq invasion numbers. If you could provide a link to the statistics you failed to provide to back up your statement... and those statements below.

One terrorist can cause a massive terrorist attack and kill hundreds...so it is disproportionate

Says you, I'll wait to see your sources because as far as the above statement, one doesn't necessarily follow the other.

. In Iraq, the violence has significants been reduced, the people are actively fight extremism and are not using as much violent means, and Al-Queda itself is barely existant in Iraq as a fighting force. Either way, the Iraqi Army is more than capable of handling what little resistance is left.

Yes now that millions of Iraqis have been killed or displaced from their homes or the entire country. Also because the ethnic and sectarian cleansing is nearly complete. The Shia have cleaned the Sunnis out of their populace and vice versa on a city by city basis. And lastly, because we changed our strategy from going door to door pissing people off. Notice how the violence started to decline once we changed tactics in 2007?

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Taliban and other extremist groups there are nearly annihiliated. Pakistan pushes further into the mountains every day, and we push towards the South every day. Taliban and Al-Queda leadership has been all but wiped out save for a few top commanders like Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar (whether they are alive at all is still in question). The Taliban have few strongholds left in the region too, where other neighbors to Afghanistan have joined in the fight, cracking down on terrorists and other extremists.

Last month was the deadliest month for US troops in Afghanistan, the Taliban are resurging and we have been losing ground. You must be getting your info from Fantasy News.

In the Phillipines, the Moro army and Al-Queda is being eradicated, and they are all but disbanded.

Source please.

Across the middle east, especially in Saudi Arabia, once havens for terrorists, governments are cracking down and imprisoning terrorists, and making tougher laws to combat such practices as honor killings.

Not because of us, because terrorism is spreading to their own countries (more than it previously was).

In Africa, many nations have actively fought rebel and Islamic armies under pressure from the US and other governments. Not long ago, the Taliban in Nigeria were routed.

Source please. If true, great. That doesn't mean it's because of our 2 wars.

In Somalia even, Al-Queda and Al-Shabab are not doing all that well, every battle they fight in thins their ranks. They are so desperate they are even starting to call upon Americans to fly to Africa and fight for them.

Source please. If true, great. That doesn't mean it's because of our 2 wars.

I predict that militant Islam will be gone in 50 years or less thanks to what we are doing now. Thats a pretty major thing.

50 years? LOL... nice prediction, will you be alive in 50 years, assuming death from old age? Also define "militant islam" so we can distinguish it from "militant xianity" which shows little sign of decline in 2000 years.

Chuckle chuckle....the UN.... When has the UN done anything effectively without direct US help? Any besides that, how often has the UN done anything at all? Recently they have stepped up their pace on things, but they are a gathering body and forum, not a system of global justice. Not yet at least. Anyways, when the UN wants something done, the US usually has to pick up tabs and do it anyways. I can think of few cases when this wasnt the case. The UN would never make moves to get rid of dictatorships or fight totalitarianism. That is why we must do it. Its too bad we cant go into North Korea right now.

Oh, so you're not one of those, UN resolution guys who falls back on Saddam ignored UN Resolutions?
As for the USA picking up the tab to do what the UN won't, why do we do that and under UN authority?

The fact that you are unwilling to provide the basis and facts behind this shows you are simply jumping on the bandwagon and really cannot support this claim. Until then, it is only a conspiracy theory, and has no place in a formal debate.[/QUOTE]
You can't claim I'm unwilling to provide facts when you haven't asked for any. This makes your little rant there pretty humorous.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: DJK Not backing the Shaw in Iran was a major screw up...this is what allowed extremism to really get a foot hold in the region via the Ayatollas. We needed more intervention not less....in fact all of our intervention since in the area is due to our lack of agressive support for the Shaw. Talk about a costly mistake!

Not Backing the Shah wasn't the major screw up, deposing the democratically elected President of Iran and installing the Shaw, was.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: DJK Black ghost makes excellent points...There was a price to pay for all these gains.

Was the price worth the gains is the question... But let's have a look at the so called gains:

1) Terrorists killed: 30,000+ 2) Detainees of criminals and extremists: 20,000+ 3)Turning people against extremism: Yes 4)Saddam Neutralized for his crimes: Yes 5)Democratic Government Set up: Yes 6)Freedom brought to Iraqi People: Yes 7)Getting old political rivals to accept the democratic process: Almost wholly, yes 8)Iraqi Army Modernized and Rebuilt: Yes, and strong now 9)Did not let the extremists win and let Iraq become a failed state: Yes

1) Who decides who is a terrorist and who is a citizen protecting their country from invaders? What were those 30,000+ "terrorists" doing all these years?
2) Who decides who is a criminal or extremist and who is a citizen protecting their country from invaders? What were those 30,000+ "terrorists" doing all these years?
3) Actually, Islam has seen a world wide increase in extremism due to our military actions during the Bush years.
4) Neutralized? Why not just say killed.
5) But it's nothing like the democracy we were told would be there and it remains to be seen if it stays... it's pretty tenuous right now.
6) You mean the ones left, who are not free to walk the streets in relative safety as they were before we invaded... Families torn apart over sectarian lines... freedom eh? Freedom to do what, vote? The Iranians recently voted too... Do they have freedom?
7) hardly, at gun point or bag of cash mostly.
8) NO, the Iraqi army is still under-staffed, under-equipped, under-trained and in actual worse shape tactically than before we invaded.
9) Had we not invaded this would be moot. So we created the win/lose scenario.

Yet the price for doing nothing would have been huge as was learned from Carters failure to act and support the Shaw of Iran....which has lead to most of the unrest and violence since.

What price did we pay for Carters failure to support the Shah? Not Shaw.

Anyway, perhaps you should read this: Google Answers: Jimmy Carter's support for the Shah of Iran

Extreemism really never had a strong foothold or home untill the Iranian government became a base for expansion to the rest of the region....

Whoever you're copying your info from is not very bright. Iran has never expanded it's boarders through military action nor attacked any nation in the region.

much of the extreem teachings leaking into Iraq, saudi arabia, and afganistan amoung many others have thier roots in The shaws take over.

Again, your mentor is not too bright. Iranians are Persian and not Arab and do little to influence Arab states in the finer points of Islam...

History shows that the so called peace of Americans not intervening has cost far more lives then the wars we have waged for justice and freedom.

Source please

Peace in the cold war killled many of millions of people in the gulags of the soviet empire.

Relevance and source please.

There was many jews who didnt want war with hitler when he first started his reign.

Source please.

History repeats itself and inaction against bad people or criminal elements allows them to thrive, grow, refortify and cause much greater evil later. Inaction and cowardace is not an option. There is a time to fight.

So we should invade and over throw every nondemocratic government around the world to ensure that evil people don't gain power and cause trouble? If I were sitting in another country, that would sound a lot like Dick Cheney and the Bush admin.

Otherwise nations wouldnt have police that carried guns.

What a ridiculous comparison to make.

What gives us the right to intervene....the right to bring justice to the world, to defend those who are weak and oppressed.

Says who? Source please.

Sure we cant fight every battle at once...we have our limits so we must pick and choose...and heck if the evil tyrant happens to be sitting on a heap of oil then whats wrong with killing 2 birds with one stone.... Take out the evil and free up the oil. Win/Win!

Sure, let's just go around and take whatever we want right? After all, it's our right to have it... Umm... How much tax increase are you willing to have to pay for these wars? Won't we need a draft as well?