Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Withdrawing from Iraq may embolden terrorists, but the war itself emboldens them

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 03:13, 17 April 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Current revision (13:20, 7 June 2010) (edit)
Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs)
(Parent debate)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
==Parent debate== ==Parent debate==
-*[[Debate:Iraq, withdrawal from]]+*[[Debate: Withdrawing from Iraq]]
- +
==Supporting quotes== ==Supporting quotes==
*[http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/wallerstein150208.html Immanuel Wallerstein. "Walking Away: The Least Bad Option". MRZine. February 15, 2008] - "A second reason is that it would mean the takeover by Al-Qaeda-like jihadists in Iraq. This is a remote possibility, although it is not too plausible. In any case, it is the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq that has provided the main basis for recruitment of Iraqis into such organizations. They weren't there at all in the days of Saddam Hussein. The U.S. invasion led to their emergence within Iraq. As for Afghanistan, the Taliban were indeed there before U.S. troops came in. They lost power in the central government as a result of the invasion. But they seem to be in the process of regaining it now, despite the presence of U.S. and NATO troops in some number. Furthermore, how long the NATO troops will be willing to stay is most uncertain." *[http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/wallerstein150208.html Immanuel Wallerstein. "Walking Away: The Least Bad Option". MRZine. February 15, 2008] - "A second reason is that it would mean the takeover by Al-Qaeda-like jihadists in Iraq. This is a remote possibility, although it is not too plausible. In any case, it is the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq that has provided the main basis for recruitment of Iraqis into such organizations. They weren't there at all in the days of Saddam Hussein. The U.S. invasion led to their emergence within Iraq. As for Afghanistan, the Taliban were indeed there before U.S. troops came in. They lost power in the central government as a result of the invasion. But they seem to be in the process of regaining it now, despite the presence of U.S. and NATO troops in some number. Furthermore, how long the NATO troops will be willing to stay is most uncertain."

Current revision

Parent debate

Supporting quotes

  • Immanuel Wallerstein. "Walking Away: The Least Bad Option". MRZine. February 15, 2008 - "A second reason is that it would mean the takeover by Al-Qaeda-like jihadists in Iraq. This is a remote possibility, although it is not too plausible. In any case, it is the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq that has provided the main basis for recruitment of Iraqis into such organizations. They weren't there at all in the days of Saddam Hussein. The U.S. invasion led to their emergence within Iraq. As for Afghanistan, the Taliban were indeed there before U.S. troops came in. They lost power in the central government as a result of the invasion. But they seem to be in the process of regaining it now, despite the presence of U.S. and NATO troops in some number. Furthermore, how long the NATO troops will be willing to stay is most uncertain."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.