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?

[Nickman]

This is the wall that surrounds Gaza from the Israeli side. It is a prison. What Israel has done is to crush Palestinians and put them in "their place." A people who once lived in peace alongside Jews just 100 years ago. If you were in the same position, would you just bow down, or fight back? And would you be a terrorist for fighting back against oppression? Or a patriot?

[WinePusher]

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.

Here is a very simple analogy that should help you understand how absurd your argument is. Much of what we now call the United States was once inhabited and owned by Native Americans. European settlers and colonialists confiscated the land from the Native Americans, and as time went on the United States was born. Now, using your warped logic Native Americans should begin bombing the United States. According to you, it's perfectly ok for Native Americans to bomb the United States because, historically, all this land belongs to them. On the other hand I, and everybody else who doesn't listen to liberal propaganda, would see these as acts of terrorism.

And still, my argument implicitly concedes your assumption that the Arabs have some historical claim to this land when in fact your assumption is flat out wrong. If you want to talk about history, the Jews have far more of a historical right to this land than the Arabs do but that is besides the point. The state of Israel exists, just as the United States exists. In the case of the United States, much of this land was taken forcibly from the Native Americans. That does not somehow justify acts of terrorism on the part of the Native Americans and the same holds true for the Israeli-Gaza conflict.

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.

Uh, Obama already pulled out from Iraq. We 'left them be' and what happened? Islamic militants began terrorizing the state even though America already pulled out.

In the same way that if someone tried to dictate your life, you would fight back...I hope.

Really? We're trying to dictate their lives? How? The Middle East is the most repressed region in the world right now (excluding North Korea). Women, gays and minorities are treated horribly over there with the exception of a few states. This repression and these atrocities are not tolerable in the 21st century, and so yea, let's say your right. Let's say that we are trying to 'dictate their lives' by forbidding these Islamic extremists from stoning women, gays and minorities? Is that something you're against?

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?"

And you actually agree with him? How about the fact that Saddam Hussein used WMD's against the Kurds? Was that reason enough? Or when he annexed Kuwait, or when he violated more than a dozen UN security resolutions, or how about the fact that Saddam Hussein sponsored and endorsed the terrorists behind 9/11? Yup, we invaded them for no reason.

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.

The overwhelming net benefits of the Keystone pipeline are well known, which is why the project has even received bipartisan support in Congress. And in terms of cost benefit analysis the pipeline is harmless. It seems the only people who oppose this project are the religious environmentalists who prefer to cling to their discredited beliefs rather than look at the actual facts which is that the pipeline has many net benefits which override its miniscule costs.

[Nickman]

Here is a very simple analogy that should help you understand how absurd your argument is. Much of what we now call the United States was once inhabited and owned by Native Americans. European settlers and colonialists confiscated the land from the Native Americans, and as time went on the United States was born. Now, using your warped logic Native Americans should begin bombing the United States. According to you, it's perfectly ok for Native Americans to bomb the United States because, historically, all this land belongs to them. On the other hand I, and everybody else who doesn't listen to liberal propaganda, would see these as acts of terrorism.

Yes this land belongs to the Native Americans. I wouldn't be opposed to them fighting back. You are creating a fallacy of Common Practice.

And still, my argument implicitly concedes your assumption that the Arabs have some historical claim to this land when in fact your assumption is flat out wrong. If you want to talk about history, the Jews have far more of a historical right to this land than the Arabs do but that is besides the point. The state of Israel exists, just as the United States exists. In the case of the United States, much of this land was taken forcibly from the Native Americans. That does not somehow justify acts of terrorism on the part of the Native Americans and the same holds true for the Israeli-Gaza conflict.

None of the Jews that now live in Palestine ever had property rights to it. That is the facts. If we follow your logic, I can go back to the home that my grandparents lived in and demand that the current residents now leave. You are basing your argument on nothing more than an old book.

Uh, Obama already pulled out from Iraq. We 'left them be' and what happened? Islamic militants began terrorizing the state even though America already pulled out.

First, Obama only followed the treaty called US and Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement that demanded that we leave by 31 December 2011. This was signed by Bush, long before Obama became president. When you destroy a head of state (Hussein) and leave a vacuum, people will fill that gap. It is expected, but they were never a threat to us. Tell me how a group of radicals that have no Air Force, No Navy, No WMD's can do anything to us?

Really? We're trying to dictate their lives? How? The Middle East is the most repressed region in the world right now (excluding North Korea). Women, gays and minorities are treated horribly over there with the exception of a few states. This repression and these atrocities are not tolerable in the 21st century, and so yea, let's say your right. Let's say that we are trying to 'dictate their lives' by forbidding these Islamic extremists from stoning women, gays and minorities? Is that something you're against?

Yes we are. We tell them who can be elected, what they can do, where they can go. I was there. Iraq can do what they want as long as they do nothing towards the US. They never have. The Gulf War started from US. The Iraq War started from us. Our founding fathers were against interventionism.

And you actually agree with him? How about the fact that Saddam Hussein used WMD's against the Kurds? Was that reason enough? Or when he annexed Kuwait, or when he violated more than a dozen UN security resolutions, or how about the fact that Saddam Hussein sponsored and endorsed the terrorists behind 9/11? Yup, we invaded them for no reason.

Iraq never had anything to do with 9/11. Here is Bush admitting that they had no WMD's, and nothing to do with 9/11.
[youtube][/youtube]

The overwhelming net benefits of the Keystone pipeline are well known, which is why the project has even received bipartisan support in Congress.

What benefits? Explain????????

And in terms of cost benefit analysis the pipeline is harmless. It seems the only people who oppose this project are the religious environmentalists who prefer to cling to their discredited beliefs rather than look at the actual facts which is that the pipeline has many net benefits which override its miniscule costs.

The majority of people who oppose the Keystone XL are Republican citizens in the red states that it will affect, who have property that will be taken away under imminent domain laws. You still have not shown a single benefit for this pipeline. The only people who benefit are corporations who are not people. You also seem to disregard basic human property rights.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 23 by Nickman]

I could not agree more, what most people don't realize that a peaceful middle east comprises of rulers like Sadam Hussein( who included sunnis,shites, and kurds) The current Iraqi government oppresses the Sunnis so it is no wonder they flocked to ISIS when they came around.

Iraq was only ever peaceful while we occupied it when we were bribing them. I don't know it seems to be that bribing a country to stay peaceful is idiotic and bad foreign policy.

I mean I remember back when we were getting ready to invade Iraq Saddam begging Bush not to invade. Bush Sr. had the foresight not to push into Iraq and of all the Bush children we get the dumbest one to run for president and commit all the costly mistakes his father managed to avoid.

ISIS wasn't even a threat to the US it was a threat to the people in the region. We made ISIS our problem just like we made Iraq our problem.

The people I feel for the most are our Soldiers like Nickman who were forced to serve in a war under false pretenses. I can't imagine what you had to go through Nick.

[WinePusher]

Here is a very simple analogy that should help you understand how absurd your argument is. Much of what we now call the United States was once inhabited and owned by Native Americans. European settlers and colonialists confiscated the land from the Native Americans, and as time went on the United States was born. Now, using your warped logic Native Americans should begin bombing the United States. According to you, it's perfectly ok for Native Americans to bomb the United States because, historically, all this land belongs to them. On the other hand I, and everybody else who doesn't listen to liberal propaganda, would see these as acts of terrorism.

Yes this land belongs to the Native Americans. I wouldn't be opposed to them fighting back. You are creating a fallacy of Common Practice.

Got it. You wouldn't be opposed to Native Americans bombing the United States. Enough said.

And still, my argument implicitly concedes your assumption that the Arabs have some historical claim to this land when in fact your assumption is flat out wrong. If you want to talk about history, the Jews have far more of a historical right to this land than the Arabs do but that is besides the point. The state of Israel exists, just as the United States exists. In the case of the United States, much of this land was taken forcibly from the Native Americans. That does not somehow justify acts of terrorism on the part of the Native Americans and the same holds true for the Israeli-Gaza conflict.

None of the Jews that now live in Palestine ever had property rights to it. That is the facts. If we follow your logic, I can go back to the home that my grandparents lived in and demand that the current residents now leave. You are basing your argument on nothing more than an old book.

No, I have repeatedly said that the issue of historical property rights is immaterial. The only feasible solution to this conflict is a two state solution which will probably never be achieved because of people like you who do not recognize Israel's sovereignty.

Uh, Obama already pulled out from Iraq. We 'left them be' and what happened? Islamic militants began terrorizing the state even though America already pulled out.

First, Obama only followed the treaty called US and Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement that demanded that we leave by 31 December 2011. This was signed by Bush, long before Obama became president. When you destroy a head of state (Hussein) and leave a vacuum, people will fill that gap. It is expected, but they were never a threat to us. Tell me how a group of radicals that have no Air Force, No Navy, No WMD's can do anything to us?

This doesn't address anything I wrote. I said that America left Iraq, something which you also acknowledge, and even though America left terrorism ensued afterwards which completely debunks your argument that 'all they want is for America to leave them be.'

Really? We're trying to dictate their lives? How? The Middle East is the most repressed region in the world right now (excluding North Korea). Women, gays and minorities are treated horribly over there with the exception of a few states. This repression and these atrocities are not tolerable in the 21st century, and so yea, let's say your right. Let's say that we are trying to 'dictate their lives' by forbidding these Islamic extremists from stoning women, gays and minorities? Is that something you're against?

Yes we are. We tell them who can be elected, what they can do, where they can go. I was there. Iraq can do what they want as long as they do nothing towards the US. They never have. The Gulf War started from US. The Iraq War started from us. Our founding fathers were against interventionism.

Taken from another post I wrote a while back:

Whenever discussing the Iraq war it seems that many people often forget and ignore how dangerous and awful the Saddam Hussein dictatorship was. Imagine that you yourself were the President of the United States and were tasked with protecting the American people and maintaining national security. Two planes suddenly fly into two major American buildings in a major American city causing thousands of people to die. How is it reasonable, under these circumstances, to continue following a policy of noninterventionism? How is it illegitimate to want to protect the country by taking the fight over to the Middle East instead of allowing organized, state sponsored terrorists to bring the conflict over to our soil. So, whenever discussing the Iraq war, it's important to keep in mind the following facts:

1. Saddam Hussein violated over a dozen United Nations security resolutions
2. Saddam Hussein invaded and attempted to annex a membership state of the UN, that being Kuwait.
3. Saddam Hussein used WMD's on his own people
4. Saddam Hussein was actively pursuing and developing weapons of mass destruction
5. Saddam Hussein constantly engaged in acts of military aggression by shooting at NATO aircraft.
6. The Saddam Hussein regime sponsored and endorsed terrorists that were responsible for 9/11.

As the leader of a country who was attacked by Islamic terrorists, how is it even possible to consider sitting idly by allowing the Saddam Hussein regime to continue to acts in whatever it wants. How is it illegitimate to unilaterally decide to invade Iraq with strong intelligence that suggests the unstable, apocalyptic, aggressive, genocidal Iraqi government has stockpiles of WMD's? Any leader who would have chosen NOT to invade Iraq in light of all these facts would have been completely foolish and irresponsible.

The overwhelming net benefits of the Keystone pipeline are well known, which is why the project has even received bipartisan support in Congress.

What benefits? Explain????????

Looking only at the energy benefits and excluding the jobs that will be created (because we seem to agree that government created jobs are inefficient) the pipeline will connect the United States with oil reserves in Canada and the gulf which increases oil supply. That is the benefit, and the whole reason why I brought this up is that you kept complaining about American oil interests abroad but, at the same time, you're opposed to initiatives to extract oil domestically. Please make up your mind, either we import oil or we extract it domestically and you appear to be opposed to both.

The majority of people who oppose the Keystone XL are Republican citizens in the red states that it will affect, who have property that will be taken away under imminent domain laws.

That is a good point. I take it that you're opposed to the Kelo decision right?

You also seem to disregard basic human property rights.

I haven't decided where I come down on the issue of eminent domain. I certainly don't agree with the Kelo decision because the land was not being taken for public use, but in the cases of eminent domain where the land is being taken for public use (such as the keystone pipeline) then I don't think there's any problem.

[Nickman]

Got it. You wouldn't be opposed to Native Americans bombing the United States. Enough said.

I would fight back for my life, but would understand why they are fighting back and not call them terrorists because they do.

No, I have repeatedly said that the issue of historical property rights is immaterial. The only feasible solution to this conflict is a two state solution which will probably never be achieved because of people like you who do not recognize Israel's sovereignty.

Again, you try to put words and ideologies in my mouth. I will recognize Israel's sovereignty when they stop the oppression they are committing against the Palestinians and give them back their percentage of land that was granted to them. Israel has disobeyed every resolution made by the UN to create peace and to afford Palestinians their land. They have suppressed them to two tiny areas of land that is locked and controlled by Israel. They don't even have the rights of free travel.

This doesn't address anything I wrote. I said that America left Iraq, something which you also acknowledge, and even though America left terrorism ensued afterwards which completely debunks your argument that 'all they want is for America to leave them be.'

When you realize that it is not only Iraq, but almost every Arab country that we have bases in. If you will read the US and Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement, Iraq's demands are: That any US Troops left in Iraq at Midnight on 31 Dec 2011 would face charges for War Crimes committed against the Iraqi people. Any contractor that was not part of combat would be given immunity. They wanted us off of their land and that is the cold hard truth.

When you go to someone's land and invade them, kill their Fathers, Mothers, and Children. Torture them and hold them in military prisons without cause, you create hatred. This hatred manifests in retaliation. You call it terrorism, I call it what it truly is, retaliation. You would do the same if someone invade your home and subjected you to the atrocities that they went through, and for nothing.

Taken from another post I wrote a while back:

Whenever discussing the Iraq war it seems that many people often forget and ignore how dangerous and awful the Saddam Hussein dictatorship was. Imagine that you yourself were the President of the United States and were tasked with protecting the American people and maintaining national security. Two planes suddenly fly into two major American buildings in a major American city causing thousands of people to die. How is it reasonable, under these circumstances, to continue following a policy of noninterventionism? How is it illegitimate to want to protect the country by taking the fight over to the Middle East instead of allowing organized, state sponsored terrorists to bring the conflict over to our soil. So, whenever discussing the Iraq war, it's important to keep in mind the following facts:

Saddam was our ally which we used for many operations that you even list below, but don't realize that we funded them. He also held the three tribes at bay that reside in the made up state of Iraq. We then turned around and made him our enemy when he didn't do as we say.

1. Saddam Hussein violated over a dozen United Nations security resolutions

Which ones? Please list the severity of said resolutions violated. Israel has violated many resolutions made for the welfare of Israel and Palestine, but you don't seem to care about that. They get a free pass. Consistency my friend, Consistency.

2. Saddam Hussein invaded and attempted to annex a membership state of the UN, that being Kuwait.

Do you know why there was a conflict between Iraq and Kuwait? Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq's oil wells. Not only that, but in the Iraq-Iran war, Iraq fought Iran and was aided by Kuwait. After the war Iraq was in such bad shape that they couldn't pay the debt back and asked for debt forgiveness. Kuwait said NO, even though Iraq depleted its war reserves to help both Kuwait and Iraq against Iranian rule.

3. Saddam Hussein used WMD's on his own people

So does the United States. Tear gas is illegal in War but every policeman is allowed to use it in crowd dispersal.

4. Saddam Hussein was actively pursuing and developing weapons of mass destruction

Proof please.

5. Saddam Hussein constantly engaged in acts of military aggression by shooting at NATO aircraft.

That flew over his airspace in the same way we do when unidentified aircraft fly over ours.

6. The Saddam Hussein regime sponsored and endorsed terrorists that were responsible for 9/11.

Again, proof please. I already showed you from Bush's own lips that he had nothing to do with it and that the Administration was wrong. Please provide evidence of money transfers, weapons trading, etc.

As the leader of a country who was attacked by Islamic terrorists, how is it even possible to consider sitting idly by allowing the Saddam Hussein regime to continue to acts in whatever it wants. How is it illegitimate to unilaterally decide to invade Iraq with strong intelligence that suggests the unstable, apocalyptic, aggressive, genocidal Iraqi government has stockpiles of WMD's? Any leader who would have chosen NOT to invade Iraq in light of all these facts would have been completely foolish and irresponsible.

Which turned out to be completely false. He never had stockpiles of WMD's as has been established in this forum.

Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda, 9/11 Panel Says Wednesday, June 16, 2004; 1:32 PM
There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Although Osama bin Laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with Iraq in the mid-1990s, the terrorist leader was hostile to Hussein's secular government, and Iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons, the panel found in the first of two reports issued today.

Looking only at the energy benefits and excluding the jobs that will be created (because we seem to agree that government created jobs are inefficient) the pipeline will connect the United States with oil reserves in Canada and the gulf which increases oil supply. That is the benefit, and the whole reason why I brought this up is that you kept complaining about American oil interests abroad but, at the same time, you're opposed to initiatives to extract oil domestically. Please make up your mind, either we import oil or we extract it domestically and you appear to be opposed to both.

I am gonna bypass this for a thread that is devoted to the issue.

The majority of people who oppose the Keystone XL are Republican citizens in the red states that it will affect, who have property that will be taken away under imminent domain laws.

That is a good point. I take it that you're opposed to the Kelo decision right?

Yes, because my property is my property and no one else has a right to it. Or do you dismiss the Bill of Rights in favor of a Democracy? This is not a Democracy it is a Republic, or used to be. In a Democracy, if I own land that other people covet and they vote a majority against me, my land can be taken from me. In a Republic, whats mine is mine and whats your's is your's and that's it. Don't touch my stuff and I won't touch yours. Corporations do not get to benefit from my land in the interest of the "public good." I am sorry you have bought into this nonsense.

I haven't decided where I come down on the issue of eminent domain. I certainly don't agree with the Kelo decision because the land was not being taken for public use, but in the cases of eminent domain where the land is being taken for public use (such as the keystone pipeline) then I don't think there's any problem.

It all falls back on what our founders fought for, and that is basic rights that are neither given or taken away. If I work hard to acquire a piece of property to farm or do whatever on, that is my right and my business. No person or corporation has a claim to my land or property, not even the government.

[SailingCyclops]

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.

Let me preface this post with my opinion that we have absolutely no business interfering in the affairs of other nations.

As to your 3 points above:

1) Let the Syrians deal with their issues. It's their country, not ours --not our business.
2) Since we were the ones who destabilized Iraq, we have the smallest chance of fixing what we broke. Stay away, and allow the local population to sort things out in their own way.
3) I grew up during the cold war. During that time we were dealing with massive nuclear threats from the Soviet Union and China. Not a single nuclear bomb was detonated in anger --the threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD) prevented the use of any nuclear strike. Iran, IF they even wanted a nuclear weapon (and all indications are they do not), could never use it! The most damaging event would be if Iran actually used a Nuke. Iran would cease to exist, as a couple hundred US Nukes fell on their major cities. It would be totally insane and irrational for them to do something as self-destructive as that. If they did? Well, Iran is no more --problem solved.

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?

How is "peace in the Middle East" or a "stable Iraq" even our problem? Why should we continue to flush treasure and money down that particular toilet?

[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.

Let me preface this post with my opinion that we have absolutely no business interfering in the affairs of other nations.

As to your 3 points above:

1) Let the Syrians deal with their issues. It's their country, not ours --not our business.

I agree that we should not interfere in the Syrian civil war, but my reasons are probably different than yours. If the Syrian rebels were actually pro democratic, non radicalized moderate Muslims then I would absolutely be in favor of arming and training them. However, since it doesn't appear that they are the west shouldn't interfere.

2) Since we were the ones who destabilized Iraq, we have the smallest chance of fixing what we broke. Stay away, and allow the local population to sort things out in their own way.

Wait, so Iraq wasn't destabilized under Saddam Hussein? Using WMD's on the kurds, exporting and endorsing terrorism, waging war against neighboring countries, well that's all ok according to you. Iraq only started to go down the drain once America interfered. I hope you do realize that by all accounts the surge was enormously successful, so the narrative you're trying to push is flawed.

3) I grew up during the cold war. During that time we were dealing with massive nuclear threats from the Soviet Union and China. Not a single nuclear bomb was detonated in anger --the threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD) prevented the use of any nuclear strike. Iran, IF they even wanted a nuclear weapon (and all indications are they do not), could never use it! The most damaging event would be if Iran actually used a Nuke. Iran would cease to exist, as a couple hundred US Nukes fell on their major cities. It would be totally insane and irrational for them to do something as self-destructive as that. If they did? Well, Iran is no more --problem solved.

Yes, you're right. What prevented the use of nuclear weapons during the cold war was the threat of mutually assured destruction. The problem is that we're not dealing with a secular government as we were in the cold war. What we're dealing with is a radicalized Islamic theocracy that seems to more than apathetic when it comes to the threat of mutually assured destruction.

And yes, you're right again. If Iran did indeed use a nuke they'd cease to exist. The problem is that you think this is enough to dissuade them pursuing and using nuclear weapons, while others of us believe that this is an irrational, radical regime that doesn't care about the consequences.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 28 by WinePusher]

Wait, so Iraq wasn't destabilized under Saddam Hussein?

Yes Iraq was not destabilized under Saddam Hussein, it was a stable country much more so than it is now. Saddam had the Sunni's Shia and Kurds working within his party. The means on how he kept his country stable were not great and as you mentioned atrocities occurred. Saddam was an evil person his sons were probably worse. However, we did destabilize their country. Now the Shia mostly have power and have oppressed the Sunni's since we removed Saddam. This has led to the current conflict within Iraq. We cannot fix this. This is something they have to do. Do you honestly want to have Americans dying to defend a country its own people won't defend?

Please let's not start with the WMD's again. By the time we were getting ready to invade history has shown the WMD program was dismantled there were no WMD's when we got there. whatever stockpiles were found had been located at disposal sites and had long since been dismantled.

We did not stabalize Iraq and we cannot do that for them.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 28 by WinePusher]

What we're dealing with is a radicalized Islamic theocracy that seems to more than apathetic when it comes to the threat of mutually assured destruction.

And yes, you're right again. If Iran did indeed use a nuke they'd cease to exist. The problem is that you think this is enough to dissuade them pursuing and using nuclear weapons, while others of us believe that this is an irrational, radical regime that doesn't care about the consequences.

This makes me think you don't really know much about Iran at all. Yes it is a theocracy but MAD still applies. They are not apathetic to dying or they would just charge straight ahead into Israel today. They are a proud people and not as suicidal as you might think. This is not an army or government akin to the vietcong or Japan(in WWII) or indeed the suicide bombings found in other middle eastern countries or in Ireland.

The reason for our poor relations with Iran has a lot to do with what we did to destabilize and radicalize their country.

Yes we radicalized Iran. We overthrew a democratically elected moderate government in Iran and replaced it with the Shah to help the British exploit the oil reserves and maintain a strategic foothold in the cold war. You could imagine how Iranians might feel....

We have never offered a public apology for this event.

You said earlier you would support a moderate democratically elected movement. In Iran we did the opposite. That is the crux of the issue between Iran and The US today. We were the bad guys and we have not made ammends for our transgressions. Now it is obviously more complicated than that and things have further been compounded with Israel. The point is though Iran would not be an issue if it wasn't for our intervention. We are paying for the crimes our forebears wrought.

It really seems like nothing we do in the middle east helps.

1. We helped establish the Taliban
2. We radicalized Iran
3. We destabilized Iraq
4. We destabilized Afgahnistan

In fact I can't really think of anything we did in the middle east that hasn't ended in tragedy. maybe we should stop messing things up for a change. [/quote]