Continue The War In Iraq?

[WinePusher]

Iraq, along with the rest of the Middle East, has been the attention of much media coverage the past few months. It seems that the big three concerns are regarding 1) The Syrian Revolution 2) The Destabilization of Iraq and 3) Iran Gaining Nuclear Weaponry.

The most important issue to many is the destabilization of Iraq. Considering the fact that we fought a decade long war in Iraq, lost thousands of brave men and women and spent trillions of dollars it would be very demoralizing to see the country drift back into Islamic tyranny. However, those on the left have brought up valid points regarding the deep religious tensions and conflicts in the region that have caused centuries of warfare and turmoil. So, according to them, it seems to be foolish to think that the United States could resolve such as deep rooted conflict.

Questions for debate:

1) What (if anything) can be done to bring peace to the Middle East?

2) Should the United States abandon Iraq or re-enter Iraq and try to stabilize the situation using military force?

[micatala]

Questions for debate:

1) What (if anything) can be done to bring peace to the Middle East?

2) Should the United States abandon Iraq or re-enter Iraq and try to stabilize the situation using military force?

The failure of Iraq was set in stone back in the 1916 when the British and French created the country with no regards for history, traditional boundaries, or ethnic identities. The people of Iraq will eventually find equilibrium and the US should not be in the business of supporting one group over the other.

This is a point that needs uber-emphasis. U.S. policy, and even more so public opinion, suffers from a lack of acknowledgement of long-term historical realities. This is certainly true in Iraq, as you note here. It is also true in many other countries and regions, including another country relevant to the current crisis, Iran.


Every time some politician bemoans the fact the Iran seems to hate us, they should be reminded that we helped cause that hatred by helping (with the Brits and the oil companies) overthrow a democratically elected government led by Mossadequ (sp?) in the 1950's. Iran got a not quite as brutal as Saddam autocrat in the Shah of Iran, who, among other things, oppressed segments of the Islamic culture.

No one should have been surprised at what happened in 1979 when the Shah fell and Khomeini came to power. No one should be surprised that Iranians remember this history.

What you don't seem to include is the context of the US support for the coup and the Shah. This was during the heydays of the cold war. Communism and Soviet influence were spreading like wildfire. Mao in China and countries falling under Soviet influence left and right. Far from this just being about oil for oils sake, it was also part and parcel of the Cold War.

The Ayatollahs and the Iranian regime use the US support of the coup and Shah as propaganda. To point fingers, stir up nationalism, and distract from domestic problems just as China today does the same with the Japanese. Good ol' finger pointing propaganda never goes out of style, even when its 70 years old.

I agree, the context of the coup included the Cold War in addition to the issue of Mossadeq's nationalization of oil resources.

Does that justify what we did?

And whether or not the action was justified, that does not change the fact that we did it and that the event and how it influenced the history of Iran play a huge role in their current attitude and actions towards the west.

Now, do politicians today in Iran practice finger-pointing propaganda? Sure. But that propaganda is effective primarily, I think, because it is reality based.

So, your points are valid, but they do nothing to refute the case that I made above. We misdiagnose the reason for what is happening because we do not take history into account, and the Iranians do.

These are all fair points. I think the main thing I would add is that we have to take the long view. Nothing we do in the short term, particularly military intervention, is likely to do much good, either in the short term or the long term. Military intervention would, I think, make long term solutions even more difficult. I know the gut reaction will be to "do something" to prevent ISIS and other terrorist groups from becoming stronger through a weakened Iraq. I hate to be fatalistic, but that is short-sighted and we are simply going to have to come up with better, longer term strategies for dealing with terrorism.

Sometimes there isn't always a good solution. Sometimes its choosing the least-bad solution. For example, deploying troops in Afghanistan and attempting to dismantle the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Military intervention isn't a very useful tool for the US because we aren't willing to slaughter, oppress, and do otherwise terrible things to maintain order and control like North Korea, the Chinese, and the Japanese (during WW2).

Yes, sometimes there is no good solution. That is certainly the case in a number of current conflicts, including Syria and Iraq.

One could ask if, back in 1953, we had better options than overthrowing Mossadeq and getting the Shah installed. I am not saying that is an easy question to answer, and arguing on the effects of alternative actions is a highly speculative enterprise. However, I would say simply letting the Mossadeq policies play out would have been a completely legitimate strategy. We could have also, for example, addressed the oil situation and the Cold War implications separately. We could have told M we would negotiate the nationalization issue peacefully, as long as we received assurances Iran would not ally itself with Russia. I fully accept there would have been risks with that strategy and it would come with its own list of potential bad side effects. But I think there is a good possibility those side effects would not have been as bad as what we are currently experiencing.

We should keep in mind that large numbers of Middle-easterners are even more frustrated with terrorism than we are. They, after all, are the ones who are suffering the brunt of the damage and death. We need to assist them in addressing the problem, rather than push them aside or step on them as if we are the only aggrieved parties.

The problem is see is that they are despots and wanna-be dictators all around. Which Pre-Saddam, Pre-Gaddafi, or warlord do you propose we support against the others? Or just turn a blind-eye?

I fully accept it may be hard to pick which horse to back. I do not accept all the choices are equally onerous. In addition, while we have to deal with the situation as it exists, this reality again points to what might be characterized as past failures, although it is certainly not fair to say all of the problems in the region are our fault.

[Nickman]

Iraq, along with the rest of the Middle East, has been the attention of much media coverage the past few months. It seems that the big three concerns are regarding 1) The Syrian Revolution 2) The Destabilization of Iraq and 3) Iran Gaining Nuclear Weaponry.

The most important issue to many is the destabilization of Iraq. Considering the fact that we fought a decade long war in Iraq, lost thousands of brave men and women and spent trillions of dollars it would be very demoralizing to see the country drift back into Islamic tyranny. However, those on the left have brought up valid points regarding the deep religious tensions and conflicts in the region that have caused centuries of warfare and turmoil. So, according to them, it seems to be foolish to think that the United States could resolve such as deep rooted conflict.

Questions for debate:

1) What (if anything) can be done to bring peace to the Middle East?

2) Should the United States abandon Iraq or re-enter Iraq and try to stabilize the situation using military force?

1) Remove American and globalized presence from Arab territories. The only reason there is no peace there is because we have hundreds of bases and outposts there guarding them, and for security reason. Also, if we held Israel accountable for the occupation and pursuance of removing Arabs from the land that they hold deeds to in Palestine, that would stop the problem.

2) Let the created state of Iraq do it's own thing. The only reason we are there is because of oil, and as a threat to Iran, who is not a threat to us other than oil trade.

[WinePusher]

Remove American and globalized presence from Arab territories. The only reason there is no peace there is because we have hundreds of bases and outposts there guarding them, and for security reason. Also, if we held Israel accountable for the occupation and pursuance of removing Arabs from the land that they hold deeds to in Palestine, that would stop the problem.

Nick, you do realize that the Middle East has been plagued by conflict, turmoil and war long before America even existed, right? Therefore, your claim that America is the reason why there is no peace over there makes no sense. You can, and you probably should, argue that America's military presence in the Middle East has only exacerbated the problem but still, that is highly debatable.

2) Let the created state of Iraq do it's own thing. The only reason we are there is because of oil, and as a threat to Iran, who is not a threat to us other than oil trade.

So you'd let Iraq fall into the hands of ISIS if that's what it came down to? And yea, I don't deny that oil is a major reason why 'we are there.' Liberals won't allow domestic drilling, or something as harmless as the Keystone pipeline, so we're forced to import much of our oil from the Middle East. If you guys keep fighting these energy initiatives then you have no right to complain about us being 'over there' just for the oil.

[Nickman]

Nick, you do realize that the Middle East has been plagued by conflict, turmoil and war long before America even existed, right? Therefore, your claim that America is the reason why there is no peace over there makes no sense. You can, and you probably should, argue that America's military presence in the Middle East has only exacerbated the problem but still, that is highly debatable.

America and Israel are the cause of the current strife. The Israeli occupation of Palestine, and the American backing of 3 billion a year is reason. Add to that the dollar and our demand that every country adhere to its policy. Just like any country that tries to dictate in that area in the past. When no one messes with another country, there is no problem. When they do, people fight back. We happen to label those that fight back against oppression...terrorists.

So you'd let Iraq fall into the hands of ISIS if that's what it came down to?

Into anyone's hands that it falls into. I would get back to America and take care of us and get back to what our founding fathers said: "And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. -John Locke

And yea, I don't deny that oil is a major reason why 'we are there.' Liberals won't allow domestic drilling, or something as harmless as the Keystone pipeline, so we're forced to import much of our oil from the Middle East.

First, the Keystone pipeline originates in Canada. Second, if the oil stayed in the US, I would be in favor of it. The problem is that the blueprints show us that it bypasses the US and makes its way to the Gulf of Mexico for exportation. The only jobs created will be temporary until it is finished. Nothing long-term is in the plan. There would be a slight rise in economic growth for a few states, then leave people in debt after their paychecks go to zero. Construction jobs are only as good as there is a need for construction. All that would be left are a few maintenance jobs. It is a small growth that will not be sustained. It would maybe last a year or two at the most. The pipeline would stretch across property that people own, and they would have to give up their property rights against their will at a fraction of compensation that their property is worth (imminent domain). They would have no choice to stay. It would stretch across crop land. People's basic rights would be violated in the name of corporations.

If you guys keep fighting these energy initiatives then you have no right to complain about us being 'over there' just for the oil.

Sure I do, I fought over there. I have every right. Energy is no means for war when energy is at out disposal in America, not Canada. Lets make peace with Iran, Iraq and get oil trades going, instead of invading to get it.

[Nickman]

[Nickman]

[Nickman]

[Nickman]

ISIS is not a threat Bro, These red squares are our operational bases in Iraq...media strikes again

[WinePusher]

America and Israel are the cause of the current strife. The Israeli occupation of Palestine, and the American backing of 3 billion a year is reason. Add to that the dollar and our demand that every country adhere to its policy. Just like any country that tries to dictate in that area in the past. When no one messes with another country, there is no problem. When they do, people fight back. We happen to label those that fight back against oppression...terrorists.

Nick, Israel has repeatedly recognized the legitimacy of a sovereign Palestinian state. It is Hamas that has declared that it's intention is to murder every single Israeli, and the current conflict between Israel and Hamas is solely Hamas' fault. If Hamas was in the position of Israel and if Israel were in the position of Hamas, Hamas would have already obliterated Israel off the face of the world because that is what their charter explicitly calls for.

So, as you can see the problem is not with Israel, a nation who has recognized the legitimacy of the Palestinian state and a nation who has made multiple attempts back in 2000 to reach a peace treaty with Palestine. The problem is with Palestine, a nation that is governed by people who 'love death' and who want to murder all Israeli's. Sorry, but your opinions are not informed by actual facts.

So you'd let Iraq fall into the hands of ISIS if that's what it came down to?

Into anyone's hands that it falls into.

Right, and if Iraq falls into the hands of Islamic terrorists who behead innocent people on a consistent basis you wouldn't have a problem with that. Got it.

I would get back to America and take care of us and get back to what our founding fathers said: "And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. -John Locke

Um, first of all John Locke wasn't a founding father of America. Second of all, I am not in favor of another war in the Middle East. But, what I am absolutely against is this absurd idea that the problems of the Middle East are caused and perpetuated by America and Israel. I understand that that is what liberals believe nowadays, but it has no factual support whatsoever.

And yea, I don't deny that oil is a major reason why 'we are there.' Liberals won't allow domestic drilling, or something as harmless as the Keystone pipeline, so we're forced to import much of our oil from the Middle East.

First, the Keystone pipeline originates in Canada. Second, if the oil stayed in the US, I would be in favor of it. The problem is that the blueprints show us that it bypasses the US and makes its way to the Gulf of Mexico for exportation. The only jobs created will be temporary until it is finished. Nothing long-term is in the plan. There would be a slight rise in economic growth for a few states, then leave people in debt after their paychecks go to zero. Construction jobs are only as good as there is a need for construction. All that would be left are a few maintenance jobs.

I wasn't even talking about the employment aspect of the pipeline, I was talking about the energy it will provide to the nation. I actually agree with you, government funded projects will only create temporary, inefficient jobs that will eventually go away and this is exactly why Obama's stimulus package was a failure, because labor isn't fungible (meaning that jobs cannot be substituted for one another).

[Nickman]

Nick, Israel has repeatedly recognized the legitimacy of a sovereign Palestinian state. It is Hamas that has declared that it's intention is to murder every single Israeli, and the current conflict between Israel and Hamas is solely Hamas' fault. If Hamas was in the position of Israel and if Israel were in the position of Hamas, Hamas would have already obliterated Israel off the face of the world because that is what their charter explicitly calls for.

It is Israel's fault. They came over to a land that was not theirs under Zionism. This is no different from colonialism. In 1917 and prior, the land of Palestine was 90% Arab and 10% Jewish. These two cultures got along just fine. It wasn't until Israel started to fight the Palestinians and take their land under Zionism, did we see turmoil. Have you studied the Zionist movement? When Herzl (believed origin of quote) came over to Israel to find a land for persecuted Jews, he went back to Europe and said: "The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man." They came over by force to steal the land and property from Palestinians.

So, as you can see the problem is not with Israel, a nation who has recognized the legitimacy of the Palestinian state and a nation who has made multiple attempts back in 2000 to reach a peace treaty with Palestine. The problem is with Palestine, a nation that is governed by people who 'love death' and who want to murder all Israeli's. Sorry, but your opinions are not informed by actual facts.

It is Israel that is the terrorist here. They came to a land that they did not own, and forced the Palestinians off of the land that they held/hold property deeds to and turned that land into Israeli settlements. If you wouldn't fight back for your own property, I feel sorry. If you feel that fighting back for your property is the cause of the problem, then we could never see eye to eye. You say that Palestine is a nation that "loves death," yet there was no such thing prior to Israel's occupation. History is against you my friend. Four hundred years Jews and Palestinians lived in harmony. That changed with one event and one motive; The Zionist colonization, and their desire to take over Palestine at the disposal of the current inhabitants.

Right, and if Iraq falls into the hands of Islamic terrorists who behead innocent people on a consistent basis you wouldn't have a problem with that. Got it.

All they want is for America and Israel to leave them be. In the same way that if someone tried to dictate your life, you would fight back...I hope. I spoke with a man in Iraq along MSR 151 route at a refueling station. He said: "You know that the only reason we fight back is because America started to invade us for no reason?"

Um, first of all John Locke wasn't a founding father of America. Second of all, I am not in favor of another war in the Middle East. But, what I am absolutely against is this absurd idea that the problems of the Middle East are caused and perpetuated by America and Israel. I understand that that is what liberals believe nowadays, but it has no factual support whatsoever.

John Locke: His arguments concerning liberty and the social contract later influenced the written works of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers of the United States.

I am not a liberal, but that's ok. My political affiliation means nothing to the words I say. America and Israel have spent billions to the purpose of Zionism. This infuriates Arabs all over the Middle East as it would if the same thing happened to our fellow Americans. There is injustice of taking another person's land and forcing them into an open air prison.

I wasn't even talking about the employment aspect of the pipeline, I was talking about the energy it will provide to the nation. I actually agree with you, government funded projects will only create temporary, inefficient jobs that will eventually go away and this is exactly why Obama's stimulus package was a failure, because labor isn't fungible (meaning that jobs cannot be substituted for one another).

The pipeline's purpose is not for American energy. The pipeline already terminates in America in two places where it is distributed to Americans. The plans for the Keystone pipeline will terminate in the Gulf of Mexico at a port that exports this oil to other countries. You want the energy that is already pumped into the US to be routed out.