Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?

!

THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia. Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions. New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting

No

We lose dozens of troops a month, there are bombings every day, over 60,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, a brutal dictator has been replaced by fantatical warring factions, and nothing seems to be changing (we've lost a higher percentace of US troops in 2007 than in any other year since the invasion (www.icasualties.org)). The rebuilding of the infastructure has failed, the US military is stretched to the limits, and it's unpopular at home (www.pollingreport.com). I say bring the boys (and girls) home! Czolgolz 11:45, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It was never going to be a successful war. I doubt even calling it a war. The US is a utter failure when it comes to nation building. Always remember that a government never goes to war for the reasons that they state. "Liberating the people of Iraq" is just a philanthropy. There are more real reasons to go to war with Iraq. A US controlled Iraq provides a stable source of oil for the US and more importantly, can act as a valuable staging point for a bigger war with Iran. Its much easier to keep the supply lines from Iraq to Iran than from the US to Iran.--Elamdri 12:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Rebiu's response has been removed because it was an attack on certian people group. We must remember to exhibit tolerance in all situations. If Rebiu would like to offer logical examples to prove a point, then he should feel welcome to do so. Ruchki

Here it is again Ruchki and with the logical examples. The entire "War on Terror" is a farce meant to advance the conservative agenda and enrich the political leaders who started it.Rebiu 22:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Gladly Ruchki Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock rose 3,281 percent last year. That is aproximately $7,750,000.Rebiu 21:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)Rebiu 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Oil companies that supported Bush make obscene profits.Rebiu 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Saidi Arabia has close economic ties to the Bush family has economy saved.Rebiu 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

"The approved production-sharing agreements (PSAs) favor investing foreign oil companies with 70 percent of oil revenue to recoup their initial outlay, then companies can reap 20 percent of the profit without any tax or other restrictions on their transfers abroad."Iraqi deal unusualy generous to oil companiesRebiu 22:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Being conservative does not mean blindly supporting the current administrationRebiu 22:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Apparently, some conservatives disagree with you. OBEY. CONSUME. REMAIN SILENT. --BDobbs 23:46, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

No: American troops are dying at a rate of 900 per year. Monthly expeditures have risen from $4.4 billion to $8.4 billion without a corresponding decrease in the overall rate of violence (even if there are temporary local successes following tactical shifts in emphasis). Cities that are pacified to much fanfare must be retaken, sometimes several times. The Bush Administration has resorted to a policy of "kill the messenger", sacking any general who admits we cannot win another country's civil war and putting in place the lone general who thinks we can win this civil war, General Petraeus. One by one, our allies in the "Coalition of the Willing" have dropped out, and we are even witnessing the gradual departure of the United Kingdom from the southern theater. Bush got congressional authority to wage war on Iraq by certifying that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and posed an existential threat to the United States, yet the WMDs were revealed to be a chimera and the only existential threat is to the Republican Party itself, as more and more Americans grow weary of the war. Teresita 09:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

No: It's not a question that the stated objective of the invasion was to find and destroy WMD's, which we were positive existed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of WMD's found in Iraq is exactly...0. IN that sense, we failed miserably. --Hojimachong^talk 18:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

That is twisted liberal thought. The fact that no WMD was found is irrelevent. The only reason it is relevent is because it was used as final justification for invasion. Like icing on the cake. All we ended up with is cake, no icing. Saddam has a long history of playing games with inspectors. If Saddam had never used WMD in the past, then it was all a mistake. To wait until he acquired again, then use it, then decide to invade is just backwards logic. --jp 01:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Saddam would have never used WMD's, even if he had them. He was too smart to do that.--Elamdri 02:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Iran Iraq war, Saddam gassed (poison WMD) thousands of innocent Kurdish men women and children. Saddam was a dumb ass, a tyrant, a miscalculating butcher.--jp 10:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, Saddam would have never been dumb enough to use WMD's against powerful Western Nations. To put it frankly, Saddam's actions in Iraq helps to keep Iran in check by destabilizing the region. Now that he's gone, we see possibilities of Arab coalitions and the like, which bodes bad for us.--Elamdri 12:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes

Well, it's not going to be easy - but we've got rid of a dictator.--bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

There are worse things than a dictator as this war has shownRebiu 15:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

One dictator down...and...what? two or three dozen to go? Czolgolz 23:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

You have to start somewhere. If you don't begin you can never finish.--bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 05:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

At this rate America and with this leadership I doubt America could survive to the finishRebiu 09:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Its not a matter of surviving so much as it is finishing. America's attitude breeds dictators in the periphery, and then we have to go in and remove them, and it all starts over again.--Elamdri 08:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Eternal War for Eternal Peace! (Thank you, George Orwell.) --BDobbs 18:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

To truly stop war in the Middle East and in other Third World nations, requires a twofold solution. You basically need to solve the 2 parts of the problems. First, and foremost, the advanced industrialized nations of the world need to move away from an economic strategy that exploits the resources, labor, and markets of the Third World nations. Current economics relies on conditions in the lesser developed countries staying the same. If the Third World is allowed to develop, we will see a decrease in the standards of living in the US and other First World countries. Secondly, we need to see development in the Third World. Part of what makes the dictator's life so easy is that the nations are politically and economically in their infancy. The economic conditions breed discontent and instability. The weak governments are unable to control the populous, so dictators rise to power and force stability through marshal law. By improving the political structure and economic system, the need for dictators lessens. Finally, we need to actually find a way to physically remove the current dictators from power. This can be accomplished by either a coup by the people or a military action by another country. However, military action by another country has to be careful to not make the same mistakes the US has made in nation building.--Elamdri 18:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

You have completely lost me on the finishing not surviving notion. Do you know what not surviving means?Rebiu 15:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

That is a good analysis, but it stops two step short of naming the human problem. An unamed human problem is the core of the difficulty and people are refusing to look at it. We are all human beings, we are all motivated by the same urges and (broadly) feelings. The West has exploited the Mideast. The West grew strong and remains strong because, in general, people earn their own way. In the west, people contribute to other people, through daily work, through creation, through new inventions, and so forth. This isn't what goes on in the Mideast where the population is supported by the mineral wealth pooled beneath their feet. There, people don't have the need to earn their daily bread as in the West. People of the Mideast can, therefore, hang on to those historical ways that worked in the past because there is a vast pool of mineral wealth beneath their feet. Given nothing to do, people don't develop pride. And that is the human value the West's exploitation has undermined in the Mideast. Terryeo 23:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

What I mean is that the survivability of the US is not at question here. In the modern states period, nations do not "Die." They may loose power, but "Wiping a nation off the planet" just doesn't happen that often anymore. What is a problem, is that the US has officially declared itself in a fight with an enemy that is formless and diverse. Normal wars are fought between states, with flags, and rules, and uniforms, and borders and a clear notion of goals. This war has none of those. We have no state to fight, no rules of conduct, no uniform to identify the enemy, and no clear idea of when victory will be achieved, outside of total destruction of the enemy. But the enemy is an ideal, not a state or person. You cannot "kill" an idea. Does that help?--Elamdri 15:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I must disagree with the above statement. First, a state does not fight a war by itself. The inhabitants of a state fight a war. Iraq has inhabitants, does it not? So we do, in fact, have a state to fight. Rules of conduct also exist in modern warfare. The military of the United States adheres to human rights policies in accordance with the United Nations Human Rights protocol. So now that we know there is most definitely a state to fight, and there are rules of conduct, let's address the issue of enemy uniforms. Hussein's military were required to wear uniforms. However, now that Hussein is out of power we are not fighting a dictator and his military. While the US armed forces are stabilizing Iraq, they are being confronted by various islamic terrorist groups. In past wars and conflicts soldiers have been trained to treat everybody that is not an allied soldier or citizen as a possible enemy. The military is doing a wonderful job at this, and will continue to do so. The majority of allied deaths in Iraq are not caused by direct contact with enemy personnel anyway. The victory will be achieved when Iraq is stable enough for US troops to leave. Who determines that? How about President Bush, the Commander in Chief. And by the way, Iraq does have a flag. =P Ruchki

Your argument is propped up on one big fallacy. "Iraq is NOT the enemy." The enemy is any insurgent who would try to harm the US or it's allies. Yes, a state does not fight a war by itself, it uses a regular army. But we are NOT fighting the Iraqi regular army. We are fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The inhabitants of a state do not fight the war, the army does, there is a difference. To suggest that the inhabitants of a state fight a war is to suggest I, sitting in my dorm room or my political science classes, am fighting in the Iraqi war. That is not true, my STATE is fighting the war, but not ME. I am a non-combatant in this war, as are Iraqi citizens. Yes, the United States military, for the most part, adheres to the United Nations Human Rights protocol and the Geneva Convention on Warfare, but do insurgents? Of course not, they do not fight under colors, and they do not openly display arms in combat zones; they don't even follows the rules set down under the Geneva Convention concerning guerrilla warfare. As for the uniforms, yes Hussein's army fought under color, but now a US soldier walking down a street in Baghdad has no clue whether the man who is approaching him is going to pull a gun from under his clothes or is going to pass him and buy fruit at the market. Insurgents, at the very least, to obtain lawful combatant status, have to bear their arms at all times, even if they do not wear colors, under the rules of the Geneva Convention. Thus, they are in violation of their combatant status every time they draw arms on US soldiers. As for victory, I was under the impression, as I believe most of the nation is, that is a war against teror, terrorist, and those who would threaten the peace. Now, even if Iraq is "Stabilized," we will still have a terrorist presence in the Middle East and around the world. And yes, Iraq has a flag, but as I stated, we are not fighting Iraq, we are fighting IN Iraq. Iraq is the field of battle and the spoils, not the enemy.--Elamdri 16:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Is the Iraq War a success? The perception presented to us is biased. Mission accompished? YES YES YES. Saddam was defeated, his military defeated. End of combat operations? Ah, not quite. If you listen to the lamestream media, the bias is incredible toward declaring defeat. Much of this perception is not to give Bush credit. I heard Rupert Murdoch say that history will show that this was just a blip on the radar. While every soldiers death is a tragedy, 3,000 plus killed is nothing in the scheme of things. America lost 3,000 soldiers in one week in Imo Jima during WWII. It's how it is perceived. The left wants to compare Iraq to Vietnam. There is no comparison. Disagree? I'll compare it then- Ho Chi Mihn has been captured and executed for crimes against humanity. The communist Vietnam government has been replaced by a democratic government. The war we fight now, the Iraq war, has become an insurgent campaign against Democracy. There is no way America and Iraq can lose to 25,000 bandits. If we stick it out, eventually the Iraqi army will be powerful enough to take over. How long have we been in Korea? Do you think if we left there after 4 years they would still be a Democracy? America, 9/11 was a warning which our President understood, which many Americans do not want to believe or have been misled. We can debate the past like Democrats want or we can stand and fight FOR Democracy.--jp 21:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

WHAT? Ho Chi Minh died of heart failure, not an American GI. --Hojimachong^talk 18:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

You mean fight FOR Democracy right? ;) --Elamdri 21:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT) Thank you, corrected!

Jpatt--Said democratic government in Iraq will probably be demoted to "lamp-post ornaments" about 48 hours after the US troops leave, and then Turkey will invade the north and slaughter the Kurds (making the SECOND time an American named Bush has left them twisting in the wind) while the Sunnis and Shi'ites blow each other to Heaven on clouds of Semtex smoke. As other people here have pointed out, declaring war on an abstract noun like "terrorism" does not work too well (unless you have Abhorrent Weaponry and the will to use it). Or we can stay there forever. After all, there's a fixed number of Terrorists, and everyone we defeat means one less forever, since no more people will ever sign up, right? --BDobbs 23:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, Bush Senior's decision to not invade Iraq after expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait was a good decision on his part. Bush Sr. was, unlike his son, a master statesman and knew that by entering into Iraq would go beyond the scope of the UN mission (Sound familiar Georgie?) and would make the US into an international pariah (Again, George, next time listen to Daddy). He also knew that taking the fight from the desert of Kuwait to the streets of Baghdad would result in the death of US troops and unpopularity for the war. After all, the US is fantastic at open ground combat as we have the most advanced weapons on the planet. However, those weapons can't help our soldiers trying to purge buildings of insurgents. Take the US's destruction of the Hammurabi Division on Highway 80 during the end of the Gulf War. It was literally an absolute turkey shoot. You have old Russian tanks and convoy trucks retreating while being pounded from miles away by Apaches and Abrams. However, now, you take the soldier out of the safe tank or assault chopper, and put him in front of a door, and he doesn't know when he opens that door, if there will be no one on the other side, or 12 armed men. And people wonder why the war is unpopular.--Elamdri 02:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, Saddam Hussein acted as a buffer between the US, and the regions bigger threat, Iran. Now that buffer is gone...--Elamdri 02:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Well LDobbs, you can make the case for falure if we leave and you can make the case if we stay. All hell to break when we leave, maybe. If we don't stand up wherever they are, then its 1996 all over again. The USA too busy and too enept to confront terror. You sound like you favor the Democrats in the House that want to change the wording of 'war on terror'. Let's put aside the fact that the USA is still in Korea after 50 years. Let's talk Iraq and Afghanistan as a launching point against Iran. If there are war moves by Iran, would you rather be launching attacks from America or from the region? 25,000 bandits in Iraq is not a fixed number or one less per each jihadist death. If Iraq is tranformed into the image of South Korea, the region will be a stronger ally of the USA.

Elamdri, Bush Sr. failed America by working through the corrupt UN. The main reason he did not finish the job, besides the mandate, they knew that we couldn't hope for a better leader to emerge that would replace Saddam, Democracy would be hard to establish, formerly occupied by the British, would not welcome English aligned armies. Bush 41 hoped the Iraqis themselves would take control of their leadership. After 9/11, Bush 43 realized that Saddam was part of the problem America had to confront. That Saddam was the last straw of credibility the UN blew away. That Saddam would not be replaced by his people. Bush 43 sought to increase nation states to democracy in the fight against extreme rogue states and their supporters- jihadists. Will it work? Time will tell.--jp 17:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I doubt that. Honestly, the Grand Coalition was probably the greatest success the UN has every had. In reality, Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone but his own people. He helps keep Iran in check, and then people started to blow his power out of proportion after 9/11.--Elamdri 18:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I doubt your view as well. Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone but his own people??? How about the Iranians, how about the Israelis, how about the Kuwaitis? Invasion of Iran, Invasion of Kuwait, 25,000 dollars to suicide bombers families who kill Israelis. I am no expert, can you admitt it?--jp 18:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me rephrase, Saddam wasn't a threat to the western world as the Bush Administration tried to make us believe. Should he have been removed? Probably, but right now? Probably not.--Elamdri 22:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

So when do we removed him - when he becomes a threat? When he has already blown up a tower or two? Why do we have to wait for these things to happen? Secondly, he was a threat to his own people as you have stated. Do you believe it was an unjust cause to go in and liberate the Iraqis, or should America just focus on pleasing its own free people who have never known oppression? That was a long string of questions - forgive me please - but I would like to hear your opinion. As for me, I believe strongly that overthrowing Saddam was the best thing for America and the rest of the free world. --<<-David R->> 23:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Its not so much removing him as it is using him to stage proxy wars.--Elamdri 02:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)