Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How long before the Iraqi Government Collapse

Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 11:50:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, it seemed the prison break last summer was not that bad by comparison. It won't be long before the government is overthrown at this rate.

Well, Mr. President, score another win for McGovernism.We just made a country much worse off then it was before we went there. What is next Afghanistan? It must be coincidental that the troops are scheduled to leave right near Obama the end of Obama's term in a couple of years. So the next president will take the blame for what happens to Afghanistan if the Taliban return from Pakistan.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 12:16:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 11:50:52 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:
Well, it seemed the prison break last summer was not that bad by comparison. It won't be long before the government is overthrown at this rate.

Well, Mr. President, score another win for McGovernism.We just made a country much worse off then it was before we went there. What is next Afghanistan? It must be coincidental that the troops are scheduled to leave right near Obama the end of Obama's term in a couple of years. So the next president will take the blame for what happens to Afghanistan if the Taliban return from Pakistan.



Definitely not worse off. The death ratio now (including the war) is a third that of when Hussein was in office (about a tenth if you ignored the first 3 years of war.)

It's not Al Qeada or the Taliban we should worry about. It's Iran or China. China entering the Middle east is literally half the reason we were in Afghanistan.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 12:25:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 11:50:52 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:
Well, it seemed the prison break last summer was not that bad by comparison. It won't be long before the government is overthrown at this rate.

Well, Mr. President, score another win for McGovernism.We just made a country much worse off then it was before we went there. What is next Afghanistan? It must be coincidental that the troops are scheduled to leave right near Obama the end of Obama's term in a couple of years. So the next president will take the blame for what happens to Afghanistan if the Taliban return from Pakistan.



Sorry. My first paragraph was in regards to Iraq. The death rate has, none-the-less, death dropped under US Occupation.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 12:46:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 12:16:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:

Definitely not worse off. The death ratio now (including the war) is a third that of when Hussein was in office (about a tenth if you ignored the first 3 years of war.)

It's not Al Qeada or the Taliban we should worry about. It's Iran or China. China entering the Middle east is literally half the reason we were in Afghanistan.

The Iraqis will be worse off if the Iraqi government collapses. There will be much less stability than ever under Saddam Hussein.

We should be worried about the Taliban and Al Qaeda other wise our efforts and resources spent in Afghanistan and Iraq were a waste.China is not a formal enemy more like a strategic enemy. They are a diferent type of threat altogether.

Iran is not too worrisome. Several of their neighbors have been attempting to undermine their plots for a variety of different reasons depending on who we are referring to(Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and a few others ). Iran's presence is a threat to the region, not a global threat like China.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 12:54:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 12:46:06 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 1/25/2014 12:16:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:

Definitely not worse off. The death ratio now (including the war) is a third that of when Hussein was in office (about a tenth if you ignored the first 3 years of war.)

It's not Al Qeada or the Taliban we should worry about. It's Iran or China. China entering the Middle east is literally half the reason we were in Afghanistan.

The Iraqis will be worse off if the Iraqi government collapses. There will be much less stability than ever under Saddam Hussein.

They will be. That's why the US shouldn't leave yet.

We should be worried about the Taliban and Al Qaeda other wise our efforts and resources spent in Afghanistan and Iraq were a waste.China is not a formal enemy more like a strategic enemy. They are a diferent type of threat altogether.

Yes, being a strategic (and potential) enemy is exactly why the US in the Afghanistan... To keep them out of the Middle East.

Iran is not too worrisome. Several of their neighbors have been attempting to undermine their plots for a variety of different reasons depending on who we are referring to(Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and a few others ). Iran's presence is a threat to the region, not a global threat like China.

Yes. But I was saying we'd have to worry about them taking over Iraq/Afghanistan.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 12:55:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Um... who cares?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 1:01:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 12:55:12 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Um... who cares?

People interested in $3-4 trillion not having been wasted in vain.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 1:07:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 1:01:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/25/2014 12:55:12 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Um... who cares?

People interested in $3-4 trillion not having been wasted in vain.

And this conversation is going to somehow change the fact that those resources (not to mention lives) were sacrificed? It sounds to me like useless justification. Kind of like cheating on your significant other and then calling her after it's over to insist it wasn't the wrong thing to do lol
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 1:07:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 12:54:27 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/25/2014 12:46:06 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 1/25/2014 12:16:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:

Definitely not worse off. The death ratio now (including the war) is a third that of when Hussein was in office (about a tenth if you ignored the first 3 years of war.)

It's not Al Qeada or the Taliban we should worry about. It's Iran or China. China entering the Middle east is literally half the reason we were in Afghanistan.

The Iraqis will be worse off if the Iraqi government collapses. There will be much less stability than ever under Saddam Hussein.

They will be. That's why the US shouldn't leave yet.

We should be worried about the Taliban and Al Qaeda other wise our efforts and resources spent in Afghanistan and Iraq were a waste.China is not a formal enemy more like a strategic enemy. They are a diferent type of threat altogether.

Yes, being a strategic (and potential) enemy is exactly why the US in the Afghanistan... To keep them out of the Middle East.

Iran is not too worrisome. Several of their neighbors have been attempting to undermine their plots for a variety of different reasons depending on who we are referring to(Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and a few others ). Iran's presence is a threat to the region, not a global threat like China.

Yes. But I was saying we'd have to worry about them taking over Iraq/Afghanistan.

Well, it seems we agree on everything in this case lol
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 1:11:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 1:07:17 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/25/2014 1:01:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/25/2014 12:55:12 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Um... who cares?

People interested in $3-4 trillion not having been wasted in vain.

And this conversation is going to somehow change the fact that those resources (not to mention lives) were sacrificed? It sounds to me like useless justification. Kind of like cheating on your significant other and then calling her after it's over to insist it wasn't the wrong thing to do lol

Dos any conversation on this site make a change in the world? No. But we talk about it anyways. Why even exist on DDO if you think like that?
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 1:16:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 1:11:35 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/25/2014 1:07:17 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/25/2014 1:01:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/25/2014 12:55:12 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Um... who cares?

People interested in $3-4 trillion not having been wasted in vain.

And this conversation is going to somehow change the fact that those resources (not to mention lives) were sacrificed? It sounds to me like useless justification. Kind of like cheating on your significant other and then calling her after it's over to insist it wasn't the wrong thing to do lol

Dos any conversation on this site make a change in the world? No. But we talk about it anyways. Why even exist on DDO if you think like that?

I'm not criticizing discussion itself. I simply don't understand the relevance of arguing over whether the Iraqi government falls. They had a government before we stepped in, and they'll have a government again if and when this government falls. We spent that money on WAR. It's not a business venture, to be discussed in economic terms. The idea of that is sickening.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 1:16:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 12:55:12 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Um... who cares?

People who have loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. People that fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the people who live in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course someone who has never been in combat would make such a trivial comment. I'm disgusted that it is even on this thread.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 1:26:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 1:16:07 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 1/25/2014 12:55:12 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Um... who cares?

People who have loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You're discussing power struggles on the macro-scale, not the well-being of your loved ones.

People that fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They got their money and benefits for their services, unjustified as those services were. What do they care who sits in the government after they're done? Does that wipe the blood off their hands?

And the people who live in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course someone who has never been in combat would make such a trivial comment. I'm disgusted that it is even on this thread.

Good, I like disgusting people. It means I'm bringing a POV that you have failed to consider.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 1:54:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 1:26:20 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:

You're discussing power struggles on the macro-scale, not the well-being of your loved ones.
The loved ones suffer from the effects from the decisions of their leaders.

They got their money and benefits for their services, unjustified as those services were. What do they care who sits in the government after they're done? Does that wipe the blood off their hands?
"Does that wipe the blood off their hands?" Take that garbage opinion to church or a synagogue or a mosque where it belongs. Maybe you should stay in your neighborhood and never leave it if your afraid to get blood on your hands. Because in many cases the only option is your life or theirs. That is why it is obvious you have no experience on a battlefield and are far too wealthy to even be near one.

Soldiers get PTSD, that is something some soldiers may never recover from.Did they ask for that? NO THEY DIDN'T. Did they ask to be in an environment where they might have to kill another person? That person may be a woman or child wielding a gun to take your life. Then you have the audacity to act as if everyone is receiving money and is happy. You don't know anything about this conflict aside from what the media allows you to hear.

I don't appreciate your sanctimonious disrespect for something that cost lives and people's sanity. While you just sat at home to slobber on your keyboard and nagged more than a housewife in an emasculated manner. This is my last reply to you because your quite insulting to the people that have died and I don't like it.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 2:26:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 1:16:00 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/25/2014 1:11:35 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/25/2014 1:07:17 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/25/2014 1:01:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/25/2014 12:55:12 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Um... who cares?

People interested in $3-4 trillion not having been wasted in vain.

And this conversation is going to somehow change the fact that those resources (not to mention lives) were sacrificed? It sounds to me like useless justification. Kind of like cheating on your significant other and then calling her after it's over to insist it wasn't the wrong thing to do lol

Dos any conversation on this site make a change in the world? No. But we talk about it anyways. Why even exist on DDO if you think like that?

I'm not criticizing discussion itself. I simply don't understand the relevance of arguing over whether the Iraqi government falls. They had a government before we stepped in, and they'll have a government again if and when this government falls. We spent that money on WAR. It's not a business venture, to be discussed in economic terms. The idea of that is sickening.

War is all about protecting and advocating for certain political interests. So, in this case, we have to ask ourselves exactly what political interests were forwarded by US policy in Iraq? I think the discussion between Top and DK highlight the worsening political position the US has in the region since Iraq, and I believe they are both asking about how our political fortunes can/should change.

I think DK is right that China is one significant overarching reason that compels the US to act in the region, the other being Russia - Iran and even Israel are small players in that conflict. China is now in Iraq. China is ramping up Iraqi economic development and using Iraqi oil for their ends. China won the Iraq war, even though they didn't have to spend a single penny fighting in it. Indeed, we even helped China fight their wars, i.e. the "war on terror" that the US help wage against Uighurs in Xinjiang. Talk about fvcked up foreign policy (all Bush II, BTW).
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 2:46:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Forecasting Iraq's government's collapse is premature and blaming Fallujah's fall on GWB is misguided. There were regional geopolitical and economic interests in Iraq (and the Middle East, broadly) which were at stake with Saddam Hussein's remaining in power -not to mention the fact that there was a very real possibility that his regime had VX and sarin nerve gas which could have been used against civilians. As it turned out, Saddam had used his stockpiles to wage genocide on the Kurds -an atrocity that Bush's predecessor had largely ignored.

So, not only was it justifiable to intervene in Iraq whether Saddam had nerve agents or not, it was necessary due to the fact that Saddam was threatening others and was causing a great deal of trouble for his people and for world petrochemical markets. When people complain about Bush post facto, they often forget how bad Saddam was, and only want to make comparison's to Vietnam. It is true that there is a lot of similarity between Iraq and Vietnam, and it is also true that the reason the US definitively lost both was not due to the fact that the mission could not be complete, but because the American people got tired of hearing about war on the news and then pulled out.

The idea that Bush's foreign policy is to blame for Fallujah is worse than a "bright shining lie" -it's radiant intransigence. The reason that Fallujah fell was because Barack Obama withdrew, because he was elected to do so on a mandate from the American people. I don't even hold him personally responsible. He was only fulfilling a campaign promise; executing the American people's will. And in withdrawing without a stable leadership infrastructure, Obama left Iraq's fledgling government exposed -and the results of that are self evident.

What that means, essentially, is that (1) American's weakness is the cause of America's failure in Iraq. If Bush were still in office, that would not have happened. I would even venture to say that Benghazi wouldn't have happened either, because of the imminent repercussions of what attacking an American diplomatic outpost would have meant (i.e. occupation). (2) It also means that Iraq is at a crossroads. There are people with the means to cause a tremendous amount of harm to the whole of Iraq, who are causing a tremendous amount of harm to a part of Iraq, and at present the first world is ambivalent. To the extent that America turns its back, Iraq is that much more likely to fall to terrorists -and Obama's foreign policy (which was demanded by the American people) is solely to blame for that.

It's the great moral tragedy of our time.
Tsar of DDO
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 2:54:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 2:46:14 PM, YYW wrote:
Forecasting Iraq's government's collapse is premature and blaming Fallujah's fall on GWB is misguided. There were regional geopolitical and economic interests in Iraq (and the Middle East, broadly) which were at stake with Saddam Hussein's remaining in power -not to mention the fact that there was a very real possibility that his regime had VX and sarin nerve gas which could have been used against civilians. As it turned out, Saddam had used his stockpiles to wage genocide on the Kurds -an atrocity that Bush's predecessor had largely ignored.

So, not only was it justifiable to intervene in Iraq whether Saddam had nerve agents or not, it was necessary due to the fact that Saddam was threatening others and was causing a great deal of trouble for his people and for world petrochemical markets. When people complain about Bush post facto, they often forget how bad Saddam was, and only want to make comparison's to Vietnam. It is true that there is a lot of similarity between Iraq and Vietnam, and it is also true that the reason the US definitively lost both was not due to the fact that the mission could not be complete, but because the American people got tired of hearing about war on the news and then pulled out.

The idea that Bush's foreign policy is to blame for Fallujah is worse than a "bright shining lie" -it's radiant intransigence. The reason that Fallujah fell was because Barack Obama withdrew, because he was elected to do so on a mandate from the American people. I don't even hold him personally responsible. He was only fulfilling a campaign promise; executing the American people's will. And in withdrawing without a stable leadership infrastructure, Obama left Iraq's fledgling government exposed -and the results of that are self evident.

What that means, essentially, is that (1) American's weakness is the cause of America's failure in Iraq. If Bush were still in office, that would not have happened. I would even venture to say that Benghazi wouldn't have happened either, because of the imminent repercussions of what attacking an American diplomatic outpost would have meant (i.e. occupation). (2) It also means that Iraq is at a crossroads. There are people with the means to cause a tremendous amount of harm to the whole of Iraq, who are causing a tremendous amount of harm to a part of Iraq, and at present the first world is ambivalent. To the extent that America turns its back, Iraq is that much more likely to fall to terrorists -and Obama's foreign policy (which was demanded by the American people) is solely to blame for that.

It's the great moral tragedy of our time.

Very well said. Just about sums up my opinion on the matter.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 3:39:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think it's important to ask exactly how Bush II's policy forwarded US interests in the region. Atrocities by Saddam take a second seat to such a position.

Did Bush II cause a worsening security situation in Iraq? Absolutely, this is undeniable, even before Obama was elected. Did Bush II's policies leave an Iraq more aligned with US interests? No, they are more aligned with China's interests currently. Did Bush II have a cohesive strategy to extend our occupation in Iraq? No, Bush II did not have a cohesive strategy to begin with.

To think that Bush II's negligence is a reason why we shouldn't blame Bush II for the tragedies that are befalling Iraq right now is, well, negligent. Such a position describes an absent-minded foreign policy bereft of any actual analysis of the situation. Obama actually attempted to extend the occupation, a prudent decision despite his given mandate, but was denied this opportunity by the Iraqis. This denial, again, stems from Bush II policy failures.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 3:42:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
China in Iraq:

http://www.voanews.com...

"PetroChina's anticipated purchase of a 25 percent share in Exxon Mobil's West Qurna-1 oilfield project will allow China's biggest energy firm to overtake Russia's Lukoil to become the biggest single foreign investor in Iraqi oil."

""The Chinese are part of our society. They are not strangers. Their presence here in Basra makes us feel that our city is secure," said Ali Sa'adi, the 34-year-old owner of a mobile phone shop."


Again, who won this war? It certainly was not Bush II.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 3:51:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As far as any talk about extending Bush II's tenure in office, this occurs often in presidential politics. Indeed, Bush I is a prime example of this - Reagan's VP extended many if not all of the foreign policy achievements that characterized Reagan's presidency. In this sense, to say that Bush II "didn't have a chance" to "finish what he started" is absolutely wrong-headed. He had to earn that chance like anyone else - he failed to do so (i.e. put in a successor) because he was a failure of a president. This is also undeniable.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 4:05:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 2:46:14 PM, YYW wrote:
Forecasting Iraq's government's collapse is premature and blaming Fallujah's fall on GWB is misguided. There were regional geopolitical and economic interests in Iraq (and the Middle East, broadly) which were at stake with Saddam Hussein's remaining in power -not to mention the fact that there was a very real possibility that his regime had VX and sarin nerve gas which could have been used against civilians. As it turned out, Saddam had used his stockpiles to wage genocide on the Kurds -an atrocity that Bush's predecessor had largely ignored.

So, not only was it justifiable to intervene in Iraq whether Saddam had nerve agents or not, it was necessary due to the fact that Saddam was threatening others and was causing a great deal of trouble for his people and for world petrochemical markets. When people complain about Bush post facto, they often forget how bad Saddam was, and only want to make comparison's to Vietnam. It is true that there is a lot of similarity between Iraq and Vietnam, and it is also true that the reason the US definitively lost both was not due to the fact that the mission could not be complete, but because the American people got tired of hearing about war on the news and then pulled out.

The idea that Bush's foreign policy is to blame for Fallujah is worse than a "bright shining lie" -it's radiant intransigence. The reason that Fallujah fell was because Barack Obama withdrew, because he was elected to do so on a mandate from the American people. I don't even hold him personally responsible. He was only fulfilling a campaign promise; executing the American people's will. And in withdrawing without a stable leadership infrastructure, Obama left Iraq's fledgling government exposed -and the results of that are self evident.

What that means, essentially, is that (1) American's weakness is the cause of America's failure in Iraq. If Bush were still in office, that would not have happened. I would even venture to say that Benghazi wouldn't have happened either, because of the imminent repercussions of what attacking an American diplomatic outpost would have meant (i.e. occupation). (2) It also means that Iraq is at a crossroads. There are people with the means to cause a tremendous amount of harm to the whole of Iraq, who are causing a tremendous amount of harm to a part of Iraq, and at present the first world is ambivalent. To the extent that America turns its back, Iraq is that much more likely to fall to terrorists -and Obama's foreign policy (which was demanded by the American people) is solely to blame for that.

It's the great moral tragedy of our time.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 5:17:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 3:42:59 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
China in Iraq:

http://www.voanews.com...

"PetroChina's anticipated purchase of a 25 percent share in Exxon Mobil's West Qurna-1 oilfield project will allow China's biggest energy firm to overtake Russia's Lukoil to become the biggest single foreign investor in Iraqi oil."

""The Chinese are part of our society. They are not strangers. Their presence here in Basra makes us feel that our city is secure," said Ali Sa'adi, the 34-year-old owner of a mobile phone shop."


Again, who won this war? It certainly was not Bush II.

I didn't know the Chinese were this involved in Iraq. I will check this out.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 5:20:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 2:46:14 PM, YYW wrote:
Forecasting Iraq's government's collapse is premature and blaming Fallujah's fall on GWB is misguided. There were regional geopolitical and economic interests in Iraq (and the Middle East, broadly) which were at stake with Saddam Hussein's remaining in power -not to mention the fact that there was a very real possibility that his regime had VX and sarin nerve gas which could have been used against civilians. As it turned out, Saddam had used his stockpiles to wage genocide on the Kurds -an atrocity that Bush's predecessor had largely ignored.

So, not only was it justifiable to intervene in Iraq whether Saddam had nerve agents or not, it was necessary due to the fact that Saddam was threatening others and was causing a great deal of trouble for his people and for world petrochemical markets. When people complain about Bush post facto, they often forget how bad Saddam was, and only want to make comparison's to Vietnam. It is true that there is a lot of similarity between Iraq and Vietnam, and it is also true that the reason the US definitively lost both was not due to the fact that the mission could not be complete, but because the American people got tired of hearing about war on the news and then pulled out.

The idea that Bush's foreign policy is to blame for Fallujah is worse than a "bright shining lie" -it's radiant intransigence. The reason that Fallujah fell was because Barack Obama withdrew, because he was elected to do so on a mandate from the American people. I don't even hold him personally responsible. He was only fulfilling a campaign promise; executing the American people's will. And in withdrawing without a stable leadership infrastructure, Obama left Iraq's fledgling government exposed -and the results of that are self evident.

What that means, essentially, is that (1) American's weakness is the cause of America's failure in Iraq. If Bush were still in office, that would not have happened. I would even venture to say that Benghazi wouldn't have happened either, because of the imminent repercussions of what attacking an American diplomatic outpost would have meant (i.e. occupation). (2) It also means that Iraq is at a crossroads. There are people with the means to cause a tremendous amount of harm to the whole of Iraq, who are causing a tremendous amount of harm to a part of Iraq, and at present the first world is ambivalent. To the extent that America turns its back, Iraq is that much more likely to fall to terrorists -and Obama's foreign policy (which was demanded by the American people) is solely to blame for that.

It's the great moral tragedy of our time.

If I were a Christian this would be the point where I said "Amen."
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 6:17:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 2:54:41 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
Very well said. Just about sums up my opinion on the matter.

At 1/25/2014 4:05:14 PM, donald.keller wrote:
[agreement]

At 1/25/2014 5:20:33 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
If I were a Christian this would be the point where I said "Amen."

I would be willing to debate any of you on (almost) any of the salient points in which you find reason to agree to the post that caused you to respond in such a manner.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 7:45:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 1:54:25 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 1/25/2014 1:26:20 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:

You're discussing power struggles on the macro-scale, not the well-being of your loved ones.
The loved ones suffer from the effects from the decisions of their leaders.

Yeah. That's what happens when greedy people decide to go to war. People get hurt.


They got their money and benefits for their services, unjustified as those services were. What do they care who sits in the government after they're done? Does that wipe the blood off their hands?
"Does that wipe the blood off their hands?" Take that garbage opinion to church or a synagogue or a mosque where it belongs. Maybe you should stay in your neighborhood and never leave it if your afraid to get blood on your hands. Because in many cases the only option is your life or theirs. That is why it is obvious you have no experience on a battlefield and are far too wealthy to even be near one.

Yeah it was really our lives or theirs in the Iraq war lol

Soldiers get PTSD, that is something some soldiers may never recover from.Did they ask for that? NO THEY DIDN'T. Did they ask to be in an environment where they might have to kill another person? That person may be a woman or child wielding a gun to take your life. Then you have the audacity to act as if everyone is receiving money and is happy. You don't know anything about this conflict aside from what the media allows you to hear.

Nobody forced them to go to war. They just didn't want to work in the private sector or go to college instead. It's a career choice. It comes with risks, but they understand those risks going in.

I don't appreciate your sanctimonious disrespect for something that cost lives and people's sanity. While you just sat at home to slobber on your keyboard and nagged more than a housewife in an emasculated manner. This is my last reply to you because your quite insulting to the people that have died and I don't like it.

Nothing like some emotional ad hominem combined with absolute closed-mindedness. It's not a surprise you're the type that would hold the opinions you have ;)
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 7:47:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 2:26:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I think DK is right that China is one significant overarching reason that compels the US to act in the region, the other being Russia - Iran and even Israel are small players in that conflict. China is now in Iraq. China is ramping up Iraqi economic development and using Iraqi oil for their ends. China won the Iraq war, even though they didn't have to spend a single penny fighting in it. Indeed, we even helped China fight their wars, i.e. the "war on terror" that the US help wage against Uighurs in Xinjiang. Talk about fvcked up foreign policy (all Bush II, BTW).

It's about time to attack China, isn't it?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 8:25:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 7:47:32 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/25/2014 2:26:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I think DK is right that China is one significant overarching reason that compels the US to act in the region, the other being Russia - Iran and even Israel are small players in that conflict. China is now in Iraq. China is ramping up Iraqi economic development and using Iraqi oil for their ends. China won the Iraq war, even though they didn't have to spend a single penny fighting in it. Indeed, we even helped China fight their wars, i.e. the "war on terror" that the US help wage against Uighurs in Xinjiang. Talk about fvcked up foreign policy (all Bush II, BTW).

It's about time to attack China, isn't it?

That's another way to describe Armageddon. It would be MAD.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 8:27:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 6:17:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/25/2014 2:54:41 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
Very well said. Just about sums up my opinion on the matter.

At 1/25/2014 4:05:14 PM, donald.keller wrote:
[agreement]

At 1/25/2014 5:20:33 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
If I were a Christian this would be the point where I said "Amen."

I would be willing to debate any of you on (almost) any of the salient points in which you find reason to agree to the post that caused you to respond in such a manner.

What point or points were you interested in debating from YYW's post? I am unfamiliar with China's interference in Iraq so I couldn't debate anything related to it if your thinking about that.

If your conduct is similar to another poster(who is interested in making jokes) in this thread I responded to; I am not interested in debating. I will say he is the first poster to ever provoke me on this site to get angry and then come close to cursing(luckily I caught myself). I have been annoyed at posts but anger is another matter altogether. When someone wants to say "who cares" to a war where people died and suffered while they sat behind their computer to utter nonsense; it really ticks me off. When I get angry, I don't go write or whine about it so it is best for me to avoid people who make me angry altogether.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 8:38:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 8:27:51 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 1/25/2014 6:17:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/25/2014 2:54:41 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
Very well said. Just about sums up my opinion on the matter.

At 1/25/2014 4:05:14 PM, donald.keller wrote:
[agreement]

At 1/25/2014 5:20:33 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
If I were a Christian this would be the point where I said "Amen."

I would be willing to debate any of you on (almost) any of the salient points in which you find reason to agree to the post that caused you to respond in such a manner.

What point or points were you interested in debating from YYW's post? I am unfamiliar with China's interference in Iraq so I couldn't debate anything related to it if your thinking about that.

If your conduct is similar to another poster(who is interested in making jokes) in this thread I responded to; I am not interested in debating. I will say he is the first poster to ever provoke me on this site to get angry and then come close to cursing(luckily I caught myself).

I disagree. Apparently your proclivity to get upset is a trend, as is your tendency to initiate personal insults. If anything, I'd say YOUR conduct is questionable.
http://www.debate.org...

I have been annoyed at posts but anger is another matter altogether. When someone wants to say "who cares" to a war where people died and suffered while they sat behind their computer to utter nonsense; it really ticks me off. When I get angry, I don't go write or whine about it so it is best for me to avoid people who make me angry altogether.

If you are going to continually interject rants and insults, then more than likely you're not going to be able to proffer reasonable arguments in a debate. I rescind my request to you specifically.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 8:40:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 8:25:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/25/2014 7:47:32 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/25/2014 2:26:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I think DK is right that China is one significant overarching reason that compels the US to act in the region, the other being Russia - Iran and even Israel are small players in that conflict. China is now in Iraq. China is ramping up Iraqi economic development and using Iraqi oil for their ends. China won the Iraq war, even though they didn't have to spend a single penny fighting in it. Indeed, we even helped China fight their wars, i.e. the "war on terror" that the US help wage against Uighurs in Xinjiang. Talk about fvcked up foreign policy (all Bush II, BTW).

It's about time to attack China, isn't it?

That's another way to describe Armageddon. It would be MAD.

MAD fun?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.