Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Was the USA right to invade Iraq in 2003?

beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 1:37:17 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Personally I think it was a mistake partially due to the stronger interventionist movement following 9/11 and partially due to a dislike of sadam Hussein and his crazy son. The weapons of mass destruction claims were proven to be no more then wild speculation. Despite Hussein imposing harsh conditions on his citizens at least he controlled religious extremism and terrorism and his government had full control of the countries territory. The hasty rushed invasion had no long term goals or exit strategy and the campaign ultimately took considerable time, money and lives to complete. It could potentislly have been justified it a prosperous, secular and democratic Iraq emerged from the intervention but unfortunately it is now in a state of chaos with religious extremists and terrorists controlling vast swathes of its territory.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 2:20:46 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
It was an unprovoked invasion, based on a faultyaccusation whicheck achieved nothing but countless deaths and years of instability to come.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 3:00:39 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Sadam was a monster but the country was stable. There were no weapons of mass destruction and there was a lot of money made by the Bushes, Chaney, Rumsfelt and many of their cronies on the unnecessary deaths of multitudes of Iraqis and American soldiers.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 3:25:53 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 1:37:17 PM, beng100 wrote:
Personally I think it was a mistake partially due to the stronger interventionist movement following 9/11 and partially due to a dislike of sadam Hussein and his crazy son. The weapons of mass destruction claims were proven to be no more then wild speculation. Despite Hussein imposing harsh conditions on his citizens at least he controlled religious extremism and terrorism and his government had full control of the countries territory. The hasty rushed invasion had no long term goals or exit strategy and the campaign ultimately took considerable time, money and lives to complete. It could potentislly have been justified it a prosperous, secular and democratic Iraq emerged from the intervention but unfortunately it is now in a state of chaos with religious extremists and terrorists controlling vast swathes of its territory.

No, it was one of the worst decisions our government took in it's history. Taking out Saddam just destabilized the region, and made made groups like ISIS even more powerful.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 3:50:13 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 1:37:17 PM, beng100 wrote:
Personally I think it was a mistake partially due to the stronger interventionist movement following 9/11 and partially due to a dislike of Saddam Hussein and his crazy son.

This was not strongly regarding a dislike of the Hussein family, nor was it strongly due to the so-called "stronger interventionist movement" post 9/11/2001. The reason the invasion of Iraq, 2003 occurred was multifaceted.

1) Saddam's continual military overreach into territories in the region he had no claim to nor any reason to invade using military force including the invasion of Kuwait and instigating the Iraq war by attacking random oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, his use of indiscriminate ballistic missiles, and extensive use of chemical weapons
2) Saddam's multi-decade spree of taking every opportunity available to "cheap shot" the U.S. and U.K.
3) Saddam's use of weapons of mass destruction including poison gas against BOTH military personnel and civilians across multiple nations; this violated U.N. regulations
4) Further points like WMD data to be delivered below

The weapons of mass destruction claims were proven to be no more then wild speculation.

1) Let's take your comment at face value for a second...great hind-sight...nothing more, nothing less. However, that is very close-minded thinking as you will see below
2) Saddam was, for decades at that point, notorious for utilizing WMDs in the form of chemical warfare. When he wasn't using them, he was threatening everyone that he would use chemical weapons for no reason and on ANYONE; nerve agents, poison gas, acidic agents, biological agents, etc. In Desert Storm, U.S. troops were all supplied chemical warfare protective gear as Saddam's potential to use these weapons was high
3) All reports through the 1980's & 1990's showed Saddam was developing and stockpiling chemical weapons
4) MOST importantly, while the U.S. troops were combating Al Qaeda, the U.S. was fearful of Saddam (who remember, did everything he could to spite the U.S., the U.K. and the U.N.) selling these chemical weapons to the terrorists to use against our troops or even our civilians back home
5) For the reasons stated in Item #4 above, the U.N. increased the demands it was sending to Saddam throughout the 1990's, to divulge the status of his chemical weapon stockpiles as he was directed by U.N. resolution to destroy these stockpiles and provide evidence this was accomplished. This was a violation of the U.N. resolution as would be the continuing production and/or storage of such weapons. Saddam continually refused to follow the U.N. resolution.

Despite Hussein imposing harsh conditions on his citizens at least he controlled religious extremism and terrorism and his government had full control of the countries territory.

Agreed, but do you know how this was done? It was done by Saddam sending his military forces out to random villages, the soldiers would walk down the street and pick a random house, breakdown the door, rob the family blind, and drag the family out into the middle of the street or town square. They would then make a bunch of noise to get the villager's attention, then force the man (or men) of the house as well as the villagers to watch as each of the soldiers raped the wife and daughters. After this, they would force the women of the house to watch as they executed the men of the house, leave the dead bodies where they lie, and left; they would then either move to another village or come back the next day for another house and family.

Do you think this is acceptable to allow to continue? Would you like the world to turn a blind eye if the government of your nation was ordering this to be done in your town, never knowing if your house and family would be chosen tomorrow?

The hasty rushed invasion had no long term goals or exit strategy and the campaign ultimately took considerable time, money and lives to complete.

Incorrect.

1) Goals of Iraq Invasion 2003: To kill or capture Saddam, forcing him to stand trial in an Iraqi, Shia court for his crimes against their people. To install the foundations of a democratic government to start a change in the Middle East from murderous dictators and terrorist groups ruling to a government by the people for the people, one that their citizens could trust not to kill them. To have Iraq become the model for the future of the Middle East, start the path to choking out all safe haven nations and regions for any and all terrorist groups to reside, train or organize any and all terror plots moving forward, among a few other goals.
2) Exit strategy: To help initialize a democratic government, with the U.S. military providing protection for the citizens and political candidates during the first cycle. U.S. troops to begin to form and train a centralized Iraqi military force capable of self-sufficiency in order to avoid the same mistake as was made in the 1990's; pulling out early, leaving the Iraqi citizens with no protection and no hope for growth or a future. Once a stable government and strong, standing military capable of defending it's lands was established, U.S. troops would begin to return home -- timeline estimated was 15-20 years with offensive combat operations ceasing after three years. Don't forget the rebuilding of the Iraqi infrastructure including schools, running water, housing, etc.; as the U.S. is notorious for post military occupation/invasion.
3) Time and money taken, yes, a lot. Live? No. From start in 2003 to Saddam's capture in late 2003, the total U.S. death toll was 486 men; this is obscenely low when discussing the military invasion of a foreign nation, the complete destruction of the enemy forces and all military capabilities, the capture of the leader of the enemy nation, and the overthrow of the sitting "government"

It could potentially have been justified it a prosperous, secular and democratic Iraq emerged from the intervention but unfortunately it is now in a state of chaos with religious extremists and terrorists controlling vast swathes of its territory.

Would that be George W. Bush's fault? No, absolutely not. At the time of his departure from office, G.W. Bush had Iraq AND Afghanistan pretty much on stable footing, ready to move forward. The terrorists were in hiding and on the run, democratic governments in place, the remaining resistance was sparse, weak, and dwindling fast, their supplies almost completely dry; schools, running water, housing, etc. were being completed at a rapidly growing pace; and the Iraqi military was finally forming nicely. There were only three small areas in the region still giving substantial problems, but shrinking.

Then came Obama, the apology tour, the public announcement of immediate withdrawals, the change in tactics, change in policy, the abandonment of the region, the newly formed and vulnerable government, the military, the civilians, etc.

Sorry for the length, I could have expanded this MUCH more, but I don't have the space.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 3:51:55 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
*EDIT*

Top of the post:

1) Saddam's continual military overreach into territories in the region he had no claim to nor any reason to invade using military force including the invasion of Kuwait and instigating the Iraq war

Iraq war should be "Iraq-Iran war"
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 3:53:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Now listen to me before you attack what I say. I think while the reason we gave was dumb the invasion was justified. This is due to the countless amount of crimes aginst humanity, and war crimes. He preformed mass genocides on the Kurds forcing them to flee. We went in thinking we would be welcomed with open arms, we where not. But we where succeeding at first the goverment was taking out in a couple months. The terrorist attacks where going down before we started the pull our troops out. In 2011 Isis rose to power, they had always been there, but at first just a small group and where part of other terrorist cells. Then they saw the Syrian civil war brakeout and Isis rose to even greater power. The Syrian civil war is what really gave them power.
slo1
Posts: 4,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 3:58:24 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 3:53:36 PM, stargate wrote:
Now listen to me before you attack what I say. I think while the reason we gave was dumb the invasion was justified. This is due to the countless amount of crimes aginst humanity, and war crimes. He preformed mass genocides on the Kurds forcing them to flee. We went in thinking we would be welcomed with open arms, we where not. But we where succeeding at first the goverment was taking out in a couple months. The terrorist attacks where going down before we started the pull our troops out. In 2011 Isis rose to power, they had always been there, but at first just a small group and where part of other terrorist cells. Then they saw the Syrian civil war brakeout and Isis rose to even greater power. The Syrian civil war is what really gave them power.

Yes and no. ISIS arose from AQ in Iraq which arose from the Iraqi invasion and the ridiculous attempt to bring democracy to Iraq.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 4:44:35 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 3:58:24 PM, slo1 wrote:

Yes and no. ISIS arose from AQ in Iraq which arose from the Iraqi invasion and the ridiculous attempt to bring democracy to Iraq.

Well yeah, and so did every other offshoot of Al Qaeda. When Bush employed the surge in the Middle East tactic close to the end of his second term, he did so in order to breakup Al Qaeda into separate groups in order to keep them from planning, coordinating and operating from a centralized point. A centralized and organized force is deadly, a fractured force is weak and unable to operate. This was part of the plan.

The was a successful tactic and proved to weaken the terrorists, placing them not just on their heels, but on their backs. Our troops began pushing out from their OPs and establishing additional OPs, fortifications, and continuously maned bases including FOBs. They gained 95% control of the region by the time Bush left office.

Then Obama came in and instead of finishing the plan and operation to completion, he instead decided to get on his knees and began groveling for forgiveness from everyone on the planet that hates the U.S., including a fully tail between the legs retreat. THIS is what formed ISIS as what we know today...not the broad umbrella of "The Iraq Invasion" and what you so eloquently suggest in your opinion was a "ridiculous attempt to bring democracy to Iraq".

Democracy doesn't happen overnight, the U.S. needed to be Iraq's stabilizing force for a few years until they could sustain themselves. Instead, our weak, spineless, castrated, sorry excuse for an American man President turned the most powerful nation on the planet into the laughing stock of the world.
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 5:28:54 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 3:58:24 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 3:53:36 PM, stargate wrote:
Now listen to me before you attack what I say. I think while the reason we gave was dumb the invasion was justified. This is due to the countless amount of crimes aginst humanity, and war crimes. He preformed mass genocides on the Kurds forcing them to flee. We went in thinking we would be welcomed with open arms, we where not. But we where succeeding at first the goverment was taking out in a couple months. The terrorist attacks where going down before we started the pull our troops out. In 2011 Isis rose to power, they had always been there, but at first just a small group and where part of other terrorist cells. Then they saw the Syrian civil war brakeout and Isis rose to even greater power. The Syrian civil war is what really gave them power.

Yes and no. ISIS arose from AQ in Iraq which arose from the Iraqi invasion and the ridiculous attempt to bring democracy to Iraq.

I was right though the reason they rose to where there are today is due to us pulling out way to soon. If we had stayed just for at least 5 to 6 more years the world could be very different from what it is now.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 6:10:22 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 3:51:55 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
*EDIT*

Top of the post:

1) Saddam continual military overreach into territories in the region he had no claim to nor any reason to invade using military force including the invasion of Kuwait and instigating the Iraq war

Iraq war should be "Iraq-Iran war"

I agree the reasons you listed were key to the decision to invade iraq. I just stated a dislike of Saddam to quickly describe the hate for him the various actions undertaken by him while in power created in the west. I agree he was a barbaric dictator but in hindsight the decision to invade has proven a mistake due to the fact a democratic government is not in full control of the country, the military is dysfunctional, demotivated and appallingly led and a barbaric terrorist organization controls vast swathes of territory inside Iraq. I agree pulling out early is the key reason for the current situation. Once you commit to something you need to follow it through. Despite in hindsight thinking the invasion of Iraq was an error I think the USA now needs to go back into Iraq eliminate the terrorists and increase military support for Iraq over the long term. After spending so much money there allowing terrorists to overrun the place is similar to what happened in Vietnam. The key thing is public opinion in the west is against further intervention in Iraq do governments are worried about vegative reactions from voters intervening in Iraq will receive. Obama's policies were popular so won him support so it helped him get in power despite his strategies clearly bring militarily inept. The Bush administration should have learned from Vietnam and realised a sustained expensive foreign military campaign with regular although small us soldier casualties would soon become unpopular and inevitably public pressure would lead to the election of a democratic president who would take advantage of public opinion, leave to early and leave the country vulnerable to enemies and insurgents.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 8:08:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 6:10:22 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 3:51:55 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
*EDIT*

Top of the post:

1) Saddam continual military overreach into territories in the region he had no claim to nor any reason to invade using military force including the invasion of Kuwait and instigating the Iraq war

Iraq war should be "Iraq-Iran war"

I just stated a dislike of Saddam to quickly describe the hate for him the various actions undertaken by him while in power created in the west.

It wasn't just the west, the entire world hated him. He had no allies even in the middle east. The only ones that were standing by him were the mass terrorists of the world including Kim Jong, and those were simply mutual hatreds of the west.

Despite in hindsight thinking the invasion of Iraq was an error

Understanding the reasoning and facts I have outlined previously, when you look back (hindsight), why do you feel it was a bad choice to invade Iraq? I mean in short, we HAD to go deal with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda; however, Saddam, as previously pointed out, was a MASSIVE threat to not only our troops, but our citizens domestically. I am just curious to your thought process here.

After spending so much money there allowing terrorists to overrun the place is similar to what happened in Vietnam.

This is in no way similar to Vietnam. Vietnam ended with a mutual agreement to cease fire and an agreement on border between North and South along with a DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) acting as a buffer between the two parties. In order for Vietnam to be similar, no agreement would have been signed, the U.S. still would have left with an apology; finally North Korea would have joined forces with China, changed their name, then began a military campaign to forcefully takeover all of Eastern Asia while sending gorilla parties to the west to perform hit and run attacks.

The key thing is public opinion in the west is against further intervention in Iraq do governments are worried about negative reactions from voters intervening in Iraq will receive.

This is where Obama failed. A great leader would suck up their pride, accept that their vision was currently unattainable, put his own desires on the back burner, and convince the people of necessity using events that have occurred. Obama is a GREAT public face and motivational speaker, VERY charismatic; he is NOT a leader in any form.

Obama's policies were popular so won him support so it helped him get in power despite his strategies clearly bring militarily inept.

Let's be honest, they aren't just militarily inept...they are EVERYTHING inept; the guy needs to just put his pride away and start listening to all of his advisers instead of being such a stubborn control freak, demanding everything be done exactly his way or he will throw a fit like a child.

The Bush administration should have learned from Vietnam and realized a sustained expensive foreign military campaign with regular although small us soldier casualties would soon become unpopular and inevitably public pressure would lead to the election of a democratic president who would take advantage of public opinion, leave to early and leave the country vulnerable to enemies and insurgents.

This I put 100% on the shoulders of our modern day, HEAVILY biased media outlets. Reporters are supposed to report the facts as they stand, not ONLY the facts they want people to know while hiding the other half of the story from the public in order to slide public opinion in a specific political direction. I mean you turn on the news toward the end of the G.W. Bush era and you would swear that our military was getting annihilated, thousands of American deaths daily.

In reality, there were literally 3 small, very specific and confined areas who were pretty much cutoff from supply lines that were causing problems. The reason those three areas were problems was because the native population was backing the terrorists, helping them hide and stash. The rest of the middle east was most populated with Corps of Engineers and contractors that were building infrastructure, with small security forces patrolling like police and protecting the civilian contractors from the handful of enemy combatants that were taking pot shots at them from a mile out or firing a sniper rifle at the FOBs from over a mile out a morning a week or so.

IDK...I just find it disgusting that politicians and now reporters and media outlets are so selfish these days that they would rather terrify the public and truly endanger civilians to get ratings and get what they want politically, rather than be a voice of encouragement and hope for the nation and support the men and women overseas fighting to protect us....just my opinion.
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 9:13:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
We had every right to invade them, they had attacked other nations just for land and tried to occupy them. He killed his own civilians and forced Kurds out of there lands. The war was justified, maybe our reason that we put out was flawed but the war was just. We could have one, Iraq could have been an star to look at in the middle east. Instead the people here started to fear what was happening, and people like Obama dead of the fear like insects. The war was a success, the only part that failed was America staying and making Iraq great. Instead we left there goverment and army in disarray. There military was pushed back very quickly, the problem was we pulled out instead of staying and fixing the problem. Yet there are still those who want us to pull out on a global scale. America is a global superpower, one of the last. Many relay on us for protection from other nations. If we pull out on a global scale from every nation and defense pact, then you will see more wars, more deaths. China would attack nations that are near them that relayed on us so would Russia. The only wrong thing we did in Iraq in terms of stragey is pulling out to soon.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 12:03:44 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 9:13:42 PM, stargate wrote:
We had every right to invade them, they had attacked other nations just for land and tried to occupy them. He killed his own civilians and forced Kurds out of there lands. The war was justified, maybe our reason that we put out was flawed but the war was just. We could have one, Iraq could have been an star to look at in the middle east. Instead the people here started to fear what was happening, and people like Obama dead of the fear like insects. The war was a success, the only part that failed was America staying and making Iraq great. Instead we left there goverment and army in disarray. There military was pushed back very quickly, the problem was we pulled out instead of staying and fixing the problem. Yet there are still those who want us to pull out on a global scale. America is a global superpower, one of the last. Many relay on us for protection from other nations. If we pull out on a global scale from every nation and defense pact, then you will see more wars, more deaths. China would attack nations that are near them that relayed on us so would Russia. The only wrong thing we did in Iraq in terms of stragey is pulling out to soon.

If i was Bush in 2003 I would not have invaded Iraq. Its not as if Iraq was the only barbaric dictatorship at the time. Surely if you supported that military action you would like to see North Korea, Iran, Lebanon, The Gaza strip, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Mali invaded right now and dictators/ terrorists overthrown? I've probably forgotten many countries but this list shows that Iraq was nothing unique. Many countries are ruled by extremists, dictators and militias who are also a threat to the world. In my view a key down side if the invasion was fueling further hatred of the west in the middle east. However if I was Obama in 2009 I would not have pulled out. The job was started. Pulling out was idiotic and as you point out lead to today's chaos.
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 12:16:34 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 9:13:42 PM, stargate wrote:
We had every right to invade them, they had attacked other nations just for land and tried to occupy them. He killed his own civilians and forced Kurds out of there lands. The war was justified, maybe our reason that we put out was flawed but the war was just. We could have one, Iraq could have been an star to look at in the middle east. Instead the people here started to fear what was happening, and people like Obama dead of the fear like insects. The war was a success, the only part that failed was America staying and making Iraq great. Instead we left there goverment and army in disarray. There military was pushed back very quickly, the problem was we pulled out instead of staying and fixing the problem. Yet there are still those who want us to pull out on a global scale. America is a global superpower, one of the last. Many relay on us for protection from other nations. If we pull out on a global scale from every nation and defense pact, then you will see more wars, more deaths. China would attack nations that are near them that relayed on us so would Russia. The only wrong thing we did in Iraq in terms of stragey is pulling out to soon.

The United States does not have the right to unilaterally attack any nation it sees fit without repercussions. Its being attacking countries for decades. I like the States but sometimes you make it difficult. You depose leaders and set up a new one and then turn on them. I'm not sure that you don't do more harm than good in this world at this point in time. Let's face it, rightly or wrongly the U.S. is one of the most disliked countries in the world do to its foreign policy. Now, I do believe Obama is weak and never should have bowed to the Saudi King.
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 12:55:24 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Strategically there was no other way. We had to eliminate Sadam's million man army. Had we attacked Iran or Afghanistan without first eliminating Sadam, we would have had the west flank of our army completely wiped out by Sadam's army. If you know anything about war strategy you'll see that we had to take his army out of the playing deck of cards.
But there was more to it than strategy. The international community hated Sadam. He was an evil, brutal man. He wreaked havoc in the Middle East for nearly thirty years. Surrounding nations slept shakily as long as Sadam was in power. I fully support what we did, though it did not turn out like it was supposed to, but wars never do.
Our attempt at introducing Iraqi's to Democracy and freedom was a mistake. We didn't understand that they follow tyranny because they love tyranny, and because it is embedded in their hearts and minds....the king, he is of utmost importance because he is the Islam pope, so to speak. He is the vessel of Allah, even though he's brutal.
Iraqi's still don't understand Democracy, and probably never will. If they do, it will be a long time coming.
We made big enemies with these tyrannical, Islamists. We really thought that we could convert them to our way, but it didn't work. We likely will be fighting them for many years to come.
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 1:05:05 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 12:03:44 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 9:13:42 PM, stargate wrote:
We had every right to invade them, they had attacked other nations just for land and tried to occupy them. He killed his own civilians and forced Kurds out of there lands. The war was justified, maybe our reason that we put out was flawed but the war was just. We could have one, Iraq could have been an star to look at in the middle east. Instead the people here started to fear what was happening, and people like Obama dead of the fear like insects. The war was a success, the only part that failed was America staying and making Iraq great. Instead we left there goverment and army in disarray. There military was pushed back very quickly, the problem was we pulled out instead of staying and fixing the problem. Yet there are still those who want us to pull out on a global scale. America is a global superpower, one of the last. Many relay on us for protection from other nations. If we pull out on a global scale from every nation and defense pact, then you will see more wars, more deaths. China would attack nations that are near them that relayed on us so would Russia. The only wrong thing we did in Iraq in terms of stragey is pulling out to soon.

If i was Bush in 2003 I would not have invaded Iraq. Its not as if Iraq was the only barbaric dictatorship at the time. Surely if you supported that military action you would like to see North Korea, Iran, Lebanon, The Gaza strip, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Mali invaded right now and dictators/ terrorists overthrown? I've probably forgotten many countries but this list shows that Iraq was nothing unique. Many countries are ruled by extremists, dictators and militias who are also a threat to the world. In my view a key down side if the invasion was fueling further hatred of the west in the middle east. However if I was Obama in 2009 I would not have pulled out. The job was started. Pulling out was idiotic and as you point out lead to today's chaos.

I would support any us military action in those nations, as long as we have a plan then will ensure the goverment there would be taken out and threats there taken out. You know why, because in nations like north Korea the goverment is highly corrupt, they have awful prisons, do human experiments, make bio weapons. These nations have insaine rulers who make sure the people can not be heard. It is our duty to bring hope, and freedom to land with none. It does not matter if the nation is all the way around the world, it does not matter if we must use military force. Because if we need to use our military then so be it. We can send troops, economic aid. It might look like it will not work at first, but if we stay I. Those nations we send our troops into then let's make sure we do it right. It might take years for those nations to become stable to go on the path of becoming a great nation. But once they do the world will be a better safer place. We must be willing to use force to achieve our goals, of the cause is good enough. We must be willing to fight, we must be willing to stand with our allies and stand by those who need us and cry out for us yet no one comes. We must take these dictorships out, we must fight terrorism, and we must ensure the lives of every civilian here at home is safe.
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 1:12:00 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 12:16:34 AM, lotsoffun wrote:
At 12/13/2015 9:13:42 PM, stargate wrote:
We had every right to invade them, they had attacked other nations just for land and tried to occupy them. He killed his own civilians and forced Kurds out of there lands. The war was justified, maybe our reason that we put out was flawed but the war was just. We could have one, Iraq could have been an star to look at in the middle east. Instead the people here started to fear what was happening, and people like Obama dead of the fear like insects. The war was a success, the only part that failed was America staying and making Iraq great. Instead we left there goverment and army in disarray. There military was pushed back very quickly, the problem was we pulled out instead of staying and fixing the problem. Yet there are still those who want us to pull out on a global scale. America is a global superpower, one of the last. Many relay on us for protection from other nations. If we pull out on a global scale from every nation and defense pact, then you will see more wars, more deaths. China would attack nations that are near them that relayed on us so would Russia. The only wrong thing we did in Iraq in terms of stragey is pulling out to soon.

The United States does not have the right to unilaterally attack any nation it sees fit without repercussions. Its being attacking countries for decades. I like the States but sometimes you make it difficult. You depose leaders and set up a new one and then turn on them. I'm not sure that you don't do more harm than good in this world at this point in time. Let's face it, rightly or wrongly the U.S. is one of the most disliked countries in the world do to its foreign policy. Now, I do believe Obama is weak and never should have bowed to the Saudi King.

I completely disagree, mind you if weds nothing then the allies would have lost ww1, mind you if we did nothing the allies would have lost ww2. Here is a great example after ww1 France wanted the USA to ensure them if Germany would try to retake its former land us troops would be ready to back France up in case of war. We backed out of the agreement. After a couple years Germany started to retake its ,ost land and got a massive military buildup. France feared them Britain feared them, they would have must likly taken an stand if we backed them up yet we didn't. Germany just kept on getting more powerful, when Germany finally invaded Poland Britain and France attacked. It was simply to late, if they attacked before hand with the us backing them up millions of lives wouldn't have been lost due to some insane crackpot going on a war rampage and murdering his own people. Like it or not the USA should make sure the would is safe, if that is war with some crackpot of in the middle east then so be it.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 1:36:33 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 1:05:05 AM, stargate wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:03:44 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 9:13:42 PM, stargate wrote:
We had every right to invade them, they had attacked other nations just for land and tried to occupy them. He killed his own civilians and forced Kurds out of there lands. The war was justified, maybe our reason that we put out was flawed but the war was just. We could have one, Iraq could have been an star to look at in the middle east. Instead the people here started to fear what was happening, and people like Obama dead of the fear like insects. The war was a success, the only part that failed was America staying and making Iraq great. Instead we left there goverment and army in disarray. There military was pushed back very quickly, the problem was we pulled out instead of staying and fixing the problem. Yet there are still those who want us to pull out on a global scale. America is a global superpower, one of the last. Many relay on us for protection from other nations. If we pull out on a global scale from every nation and defense pact, then you will see more wars, more deaths. China would attack nations that are near them that relayed on us so would Russia. The only wrong thing we did in Iraq in terms of stragey is pulling out to soon.

If i was Bush in 2003 I would not have invaded Iraq. Its not as if Iraq was the only barbaric dictatorship at the time. Surely if you supported that military action you would like to see North Korea, Iran, Lebanon, The Gaza strip, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Mali invaded right now and dictators/ terrorists overthrown? I've probably forgotten many countries but this list shows that Iraq was nothing unique. Many countries are ruled by extremists, dictators and militias who are also a threat to the world. In my view a key down side if the invasion was fueling further hatred of the west in the middle east. However if I was Obama in 2009 I would not have pulled out. The job was started. Pulling out was idiotic and as you point out lead to today's chaos.

I would support any us military action in those nations, as long as we have a plan then will ensure the goverment there would be taken out and threats there taken out. You know why, because in nations like north Korea the goverment is highly corrupt, they have awful prisons, do human experiments, make bio weapons. These nations have insaine rulers who make sure the people can not be heard. It is our duty to bring hope, and freedom to land with none. It does not matter if the nation is all the way around the world, it does not matter if we must use military force. Because if we need to use our military then so be it. We can send troops, economic aid. It might look like it will not work at first, but if we stay I. Those nations we send our troops into then let's make sure we do it right. It might take years for those nations to become stable to go on the path of becoming a great nation. But once they do the world will be a better safer place. We must be willing to use force to achieve our goals, of the cause is good enough. We must be willing to fight, we must be willing to stand with our allies and stand by those who need us and cry out for us yet no one comes. We must take these dictorships out, we must fight terrorism, and we must ensure the lives of every civilian here at home is safe.

Personally I think engaging in numerous wars with a huge range of enemies may be a disaster for the USA. Theoretically world war 3 could result if all these rogue states aligned they could potentially actually cripple the US economy, overstretch it's military and massively increase the threat to the safety of American civilians. I hate terrorists and dictators but in some cases you have to seriously think- If we eradicate these idiots will what follows actually be an improvement? In some cases military action is justified such as the need to eradicate Islamic state currently. However being the world's policeman on ensuring countries have good governments is an unattainable aim.
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 2:03:49 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 1:36:33 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 1:05:05 AM, stargate wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:03:44 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 9:13:42 PM, stargate wrote:
We had every right to invade them, they had attacked other nations just for land and tried to occupy them. He killed his own civilians and forced Kurds out of there lands. The war was justified, maybe our reason that we put out was flawed but the war was just. We could have one, Iraq could have been an star to look at in the middle east. Instead the people here started to fear what was happening, and people like Obama dead of the fear like insects. The war was a success, the only part that failed was America staying and making Iraq great. Instead we left there goverment and army in disarray. There military was pushed back very quickly, the problem was we pulled out instead of staying and fixing the problem. Yet there are still those who want us to pull out on a global scale. America is a global superpower, one of the last. Many relay on us for protection from other nations. If we pull out on a global scale from every nation and defense pact, then you will see more wars, more deaths. China would attack nations that are near them that relayed on us so would Russia. The only wrong thing we did in Iraq in terms of stragey is pulling out to soon.

If i was Bush in 2003 I would not have invaded Iraq. Its not as if Iraq was the only barbaric dictatorship at the time. Surely if you supported that military action you would like to see North Korea, Iran, Lebanon, The Gaza strip, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Mali invaded right now and dictators/ terrorists overthrown? I've probably forgotten many countries but this list shows that Iraq was nothing unique. Many countries are ruled by extremists, dictators and militias who are also a threat to the world. In my view a key down side if the invasion was fueling further hatred of the west in the middle east. However if I was Obama in 2009 I would not have pulled out. The job was started. Pulling out was idiotic and as you point out lead to today's chaos.

I would support any us military action in those nations, as long as we have a plan then will ensure the goverment there would be taken out and threats there taken out. You know why, because in nations like north Korea the goverment is highly corrupt, they have awful prisons, do human experiments, make bio weapons. These nations have insaine rulers who make sure the people can not be heard. It is our duty to bring hope, and freedom to land with none. It does not matter if the nation is all the way around the world, it does not matter if we must use military force. Because if we need to use our military then so be it. We can send troops, economic aid. It might look like it will not work at first, but if we stay I. Those nations we send our troops into then let's make sure we do it right. It might take years for those nations to become stable to go on the path of becoming a great nation. But once they do the world will be a better safer place. We must be willing to use force to achieve our goals, of the cause is good enough. We must be willing to fight, we must be willing to stand with our allies and stand by those who need us and cry out for us yet no one comes. We must take these dictorships out, we must fight terrorism, and we must ensure the lives of every civilian here at home is safe.

Personally I think engaging in numerous wars with a huge range of enemies may be a disaster for the USA. Theoretically world war 3 could result if all these rogue states aligned they could potentially actually cripple the US economy, overstretch it's military and massively increase the threat to the safety of American civilians. I hate terrorists and dictators but in some cases you have to seriously think- If we eradicate these idiots will what follows actually be an improvement? In some cases military action is justified such as the need to eradicate Islamic state currently. However being the world's policeman on ensuring countries have good governments is an unattainable aim.

Maybe, but I believe we should. Maybe not all, but take out a few to prove we will stand against these dictirships. Evn if they unite we would have NATO witch is 70% of all goal military spending. I do not see any form of a untied rouge alliance as a threat to the us's safety.
slo1
Posts: 4,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 2:20:24 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 4:44:35 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 12/13/2015 3:58:24 PM, slo1 wrote:

Yes and no. ISIS arose from AQ in Iraq which arose from the Iraqi invasion and the ridiculous attempt to bring democracy to Iraq.

Well yeah, and so did every other offshoot of Al Qaeda. When Bush employed the surge in the Middle East tactic close to the end of his second term, he did so in order to breakup Al Qaeda into separate groups in order to keep them from planning, coordinating and operating from a centralized point. A centralized and organized force is deadly, a fractured force is weak and unable to operate. This was part of the plan.

Well the plan didn't work because all the cockroaches came back together and gave themselves a new name, ISIL.

The was a successful tactic and proved to weaken the terrorists, placing them not just on their heels, but on their backs. Our troops began pushing out from their OPs and establishing additional OPs, fortifications, and continuously maned bases including FOBs. They gained 95% control of the region by the time Bush left office.

Then Obama came in and instead of finishing the plan and operation to completion, he instead decided to get on his knees and began groveling for forgiveness from everyone on the planet that hates the U.S., including a fully tail between the legs retreat. THIS is what formed ISIS as what we know today...not the broad umbrella of "The Iraq Invasion" and what you so eloquently suggest in your opinion was a "ridiculous attempt to bring democracy to Iraq".

Very nice rewrite of history. Bush laid out an exit plan from Iraq before he left office which included training the Iraqi army to be competent. Obama merely followed that plan along with following the Iraqi democratically elected legislative branch which only authorized American troops in country until X date.

The biggest oversight of Obama's following Bush's and Iraqi's plan of the American troop exit was that he did not pressure the democratically elected leaders of Iraq to incorporate Sunni elements into the government, so that group of Iraqi's which ISIL is involved rose to take power. To add to the isolation of Sunni Iraqi's George Bush completely disbanned the Iraqi army which transformed into a Shia military.

They might as well handed the country to Iran. A cluster F of bad decisions is what gave arise to ISIL and the first one was to invade the country on false premises.

Democracy doesn't happen overnight, the U.S. needed to be Iraq's stabilizing force for a few years until they could sustain themselves. Instead, our weak, spineless, castrated, sorry excuse for an American man President turned the most powerful nation on the planet into the laughing stock of the world.

It surely does not happen in 13 years. The problem is that you and others would love to "sacrifice" our men and women in the military for the next 50 years trying to bring peace and democracy to the middle east. I guess you can get at least some good movies about american heroes shooting up the bad guys while ignoring all those who come back broken mentally and physically.

It makes me sick to think about all those who to this day don't either know or tell about the truth and want to lay it on the opposition party so their party looks better.
slo1
Posts: 4,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 2:26:46 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 5:28:54 PM, stargate wrote:
At 12/13/2015 3:58:24 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 3:53:36 PM, stargate wrote:
Now listen to me before you attack what I say. I think while the reason we gave was dumb the invasion was justified. This is due to the countless amount of crimes aginst humanity, and war crimes. He preformed mass genocides on the Kurds forcing them to flee. We went in thinking we would be welcomed with open arms, we where not. But we where succeeding at first the goverment was taking out in a couple months. The terrorist attacks where going down before we started the pull our troops out. In 2011 Isis rose to power, they had always been there, but at first just a small group and where part of other terrorist cells. Then they saw the Syrian civil war brakeout and Isis rose to even greater power. The Syrian civil war is what really gave them power.

Yes and no. ISIS arose from AQ in Iraq which arose from the Iraqi invasion and the ridiculous attempt to bring democracy to Iraq.

I was right though the reason they rose to where there are today is due to us pulling out way to soon. If we had stayed just for at least 5 to 6 more years the world could be very different from what it is now.

I agree, but there comes a point when you occupy a country you have to leave it especially when they pass a law requiring you to exit the country. The democratically elected Shia government did that. I do disagree that 5 to 6 years would have done it. In 5 to 6 years the government would still be Shia and there would still be Sunni elements trying to regain power. This Sunni versus Shia battle for control of the various countries and between countries is a huge driver of conflict in the middle east.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 2:40:35 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 2:26:46 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 5:28:54 PM, stargate wrote:
At 12/13/2015 3:58:24 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 3:53:36 PM, stargate wrote:
Now listen to me before you attack what I say. I think while the reason we gave was dumb the invasion was justified. This is due to the countless amount of crimes aginst humanity, and war crimes. He preformed mass genocides on the Kurds forcing them to flee. We went in thinking we would be welcomed with open arms, we where not. But we where succeeding at first the goverment was taking out in a couple months. The terrorist attacks where going down before we started the pull our troops out. In 2011 Isis rose to power, they had always been there, but at first just a small group and where part of other terrorist cells. Then they saw the Syrian civil war brakeout and Isis rose to even greater power. The Syrian civil war is what really gave them power.

Yes and no. ISIS arose from AQ in Iraq which arose from the Iraqi invasion and the ridiculous attempt to bring democracy to Iraq.

I was right though the reason they rose to where there are today is due to us pulling out way to soon. If we had stayed just for at least 5 to 6 more years the world could be very different from what it is now.

I agree, but there comes a point when you occupy a country you have to leave it especially when they pass a law requiring you to exit the country. The democratically elected Shia government did that.

I'll get a bit more in depth on this a little later, but this singular point is very misleading. Yes, the Iraqi government requested the U.S. forces leave; as any respectable nation-state would have. However, the job of President Obama in that situation was to be a leader, a negotiator, a charismatic personality, a convincing and honest voice of compassion to come to an agreement and understanding between the parties for a REALISTIC hand off which would ensure the best possible chance of Iraqi success.

Problem is, Obama heard the Iraqi government say they wanted us out and he threw his hands up and said "OK, anything you want sir." and left. He did EXACTLY what he said he was going to do during his election campaign and retreated our troops.from the region as quickly as he logistically could.
slo1
Posts: 4,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 2:41:42 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 2:40:35 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 12/14/2015 2:26:46 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 5:28:54 PM, stargate wrote:
At 12/13/2015 3:58:24 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 3:53:36 PM, stargate wrote:
Now listen to me before you attack what I say. I think while the reason we gave was dumb the invasion was justified. This is due to the countless amount of crimes aginst humanity, and war crimes. He preformed mass genocides on the Kurds forcing them to flee. We went in thinking we would be welcomed with open arms, we where not. But we where succeeding at first the goverment was taking out in a couple months. The terrorist attacks where going down before we started the pull our troops out. In 2011 Isis rose to power, they had always been there, but at first just a small group and where part of other terrorist cells. Then they saw the Syrian civil war brakeout and Isis rose to even greater power. The Syrian civil war is what really gave them power.

Yes and no. ISIS arose from AQ in Iraq which arose from the Iraqi invasion and the ridiculous attempt to bring democracy to Iraq.

I was right though the reason they rose to where there are today is due to us pulling out way to soon. If we had stayed just for at least 5 to 6 more years the world could be very different from what it is now.

I agree, but there comes a point when you occupy a country you have to leave it especially when they pass a law requiring you to exit the country. The democratically elected Shia government did that.

I'll get a bit more in depth on this a little later, but this singular point is very misleading. Yes, the Iraqi government requested the U.S. forces leave; as any respectable nation-state would have. However, the job of President Obama in that situation was to be a leader, a negotiator, a charismatic personality, a convincing and honest voice of compassion to come to an agreement and understanding between the parties for a REALISTIC hand off which would ensure the best possible chance of Iraqi success.

Problem is, Obama heard the Iraqi government say they wanted us out and he threw his hands up and said "OK, anything you want sir." and left. He did EXACTLY what he said he was going to do during his election campaign and retreated our troops.from the region as quickly as he logistically could.

Not exactly, the timing of it mirrored Bush's exit plan.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 2:49:26 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 2:41:42 AM, slo1 wrote:

Not exactly, the timing of it mirrored Bush's exit plan.

Exit plans throughout conflict are like estimates from a contractor; they are designed around initial agreements and almost never prove true. Bush signed an initial Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq, which comes with a start date and an end date. A military and political strategy is negotiated and agreed upon to fit within these parameters.

Once the agreement approaches its end date, the two parties sit back down, review the goals in the agreement, review status of situation on the ground, then renegotiate a new status of forces agreement with new goals and time lines which correspond with the now present situation.

Wars change daily, the agreements and plans set out for a war say today, will look completely different from the situation we will be facing in 6 months right? Now think along the span of a 3-5 year plan of action.
slo1
Posts: 4,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 2:52:13 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 2:49:26 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 12/14/2015 2:41:42 AM, slo1 wrote:

Not exactly, the timing of it mirrored Bush's exit plan.

Exit plans throughout conflict are like estimates from a contractor; they are designed around initial agreements and almost never prove true. Bush signed an initial Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq, which comes with a start date and an end date. A military and political strategy is negotiated and agreed upon to fit within these parameters.

Once the agreement approaches its end date, the two parties sit back down, review the goals in the agreement, review status of situation on the ground, then renegotiate a new status of forces agreement with new goals and time lines which correspond with the now present situation.

Wars change daily, the agreements and plans set out for a war say today, will look completely different from the situation we will be facing in 6 months right? Now think along the span of a 3-5 year plan of action.

Maybe you didn't see this part of that agreement, "This agreement respects the sovereignty and the authority of Iraq's democracy. " That was straight from Bush's mouth.
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 2:58:21 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 1:05:05 AM, stargate wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:03:44 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 9:13:42 PM, stargate wrote:
We had every right to invade them, they had attacked other nations just for land and tried to occupy them. He killed his own civilians and forced Kurds out of there lands. The war was justified, maybe our reason that we put out was flawed but the war was just. We could have one, Iraq could have been an star to look at in the middle east. Instead the people here started to fear what was happening, and people like Obama dead of the fear like insects. The war was a success, the only part that failed was America staying and making Iraq great. Instead we left there goverment and army in disarray. There military was pushed back very quickly, the problem was we pulled out instead of staying and fixing the problem. Yet there are still those who want us to pull out on a global scale. America is a global superpower, one of the last. Many relay on us for protection from other nations. If we pull out on a global scale from every nation and defense pact, then you will see more wars, more deaths. China would attack nations that are near them that relayed on us so would Russia. The only wrong thing we did in Iraq in terms of stragey is pulling out to soon.

If i was Bush in 2003 I would not have invaded Iraq. Its not as if Iraq was the only barbaric dictatorship at the time. Surely if you supported that military action you would like to see North Korea, Iran, Lebanon, The Gaza strip, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Mali invaded right now and dictators/ terrorists overthrown? I've probably forgotten many countries but this list shows that Iraq was nothing unique. Many countries are ruled by extremists, dictators and militias who are also a threat to the world. In my view a key down side if the invasion was fueling further hatred of the west in the middle east. However if I was Obama in 2009 I would not have pulled out. The job was started. Pulling out was idiotic and as you point out lead to today's chaos.

I would support any us military action in those nations, as long as we have a plan then will ensure the goverment there would be taken out and threats there taken out. You know why, because in nations like north Korea the goverment is highly corrupt, they have awful prisons, do human experiments, make bio weapons. These nations have insaine rulers who make sure the people can not be heard. It is our duty to bring hope, and freedom to land with none. It does not matter if the nation is all the way around the world, it does not matter if we must use military force. Because if we need to use our military then so be it. We can send troops, economic aid. It might look like it will not work at first, but if we stay I. Those nations we send our troops into then let's make sure we do it right. It might take years for those nations to become stable to go on the path of becoming a great nation. But once they do the world will be a better safer place. We must be willing to use force to achieve our goals, of the cause is good enough. We must be willing to fight, we must be willing to stand with our allies and stand by those who need us and cry out for us yet no one comes. We must take these dictorships out, we must fight terrorism, and we must ensure the lives of every civilian here at home is safe.

You really need to look at your own country. It is fast becoming a police state. Your President is chosen by the world bankers who are your real government. Wake up. Also, you can't impose democracy on any nation you want. History has shown it doesn't work. Yes it worked with the Japanese. That is the real American success story. Other than Korea, with the help of other nations, there have been no foreign policy successes since. It's time to get real.
slo1
Posts: 4,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 2:58:23 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
From the agreement directly.

3. The temporary presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is at the request and invitation
of the sovereign Government of Iraq and with full respect for the sovereignty
of Iraq.

http://www.state.gov...

Obama surely should have reneged on that agreement and re-invaded Iraq. Lol, this just goes to show how one can not and should not believe any of the mainstream historical rewrites that conservatives give on how the Iraq exit went. No offense to anyone on this forum, but offense to people on Fox news contributors who lie about the entire matter.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 3:35:33 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 2:52:13 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 2:49:26 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 12/14/2015 2:41:42 AM, slo1 wrote:

Not exactly, the timing of it mirrored Bush's exit plan.

Exit plans throughout conflict are like estimates from a contractor; they are designed around initial agreements and almost never prove true. Bush signed an initial Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq, which comes with a start date and an end date. A military and political strategy is negotiated and agreed upon to fit within these parameters.

Once the agreement approaches its end date, the two parties sit back down, review the goals in the agreement, review status of situation on the ground, then renegotiate a new status of forces agreement with new goals and time lines which correspond with the now present situation.

Wars change daily, the agreements and plans set out for a war say today, will look completely different from the situation we will be facing in 6 months right? Now think along the span of a 3-5 year plan of action.

Maybe you didn't see this part of that agreement, "This agreement respects the sovereignty and the authority of Iraq's democracy. " That was straight from Bush's mouth.

Correct, which simply means that the U.S. was in essence, guests of the new Iraqi government. This simply meant that we were an accepted presence, not an invading force, also giving final say and approvals to the Iraq government with the American military and parties in charge of the American forces both militarily and politically; being an ally of the native forces and political party, the American presence was in all official capacities, an advisory and assisting presence.

The line you cite in no way means take everything the Iraqi government says without question or negotiation, follow their orders 100%. It simply means we advise and negotiate, they sign off and oversee their population and lands. This is the same as the French assisting the American Colonials during the Revolutionary war; we had our ideas of what should be done, they kicked us in the backside when it was stupid or too quick to the punch, they then negotiated with us and came to an agreement that was best for the overall status and expected outcomes.

So again...negotiation.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 3:49:00 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 2:58:21 AM, lotsoffun wrote:

You really need to look at your own country. It is fast becoming a police state.

Police state? Really? What on Earth are you talking about? Could you elaborate on that with details please?

Your President is chosen by the world bankers who are your real government.

Do you also believe that the moon isn't real? Or maybe that Humans never set foot on the moon? Wait...you believe Hitler escaped American forces in WWII by using Alien, time travel technology right? No, no, no; I got it this time...the dinosaurs helped to build the ancient Egyptian pyramids.

Wake up. Also, you can't impose democracy on any nation you want.

Impose Democracy? No, we didn't IMPOSE Democracy on Iraq. See, problem is, this in itself would be a complete contradiction; Democracy is dependent on the citizens of the acting society, here it would be Iraqi citizens. IMPOSING or FORCING rule and change upon a population would be more along the lines of a Dictatorship as it would oppose the will of the people.

History has shown it doesn't work. Yes it worked with the Japanese. That is the real American success story. Other than Korea, with the help of other nations, there have been no foreign policy successes since. It's time to get real.

When was the last time you picked up a World History book, 1958?