View Poll Results: is the iraq war over ??

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    10 58.82%
  • no

    7 41.18%
Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 161

Thread: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

  1. #91
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    That, as always, is up to the Iraqis. It was never ours to say.
    It was you who mentioned a "free Iraq". Do you really believe the people of Iraq will now be free?

    And do you feel the Iraqi people are now free to choose their own destiny? Is that what you genuinely believe?

  2. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    The only problem with the troops coming home now is that it is about 4 years too late. You are precisely correct...all we could EVER do there is give them the OPPORTUNITY of choice. Bush's greatest failing in Iraq was that he didnt express that message loud and clear and give them a very specific deadline. We should have been out of Iraq a loooong long time ago. If the Iraqi people refuse to create for themselves a peaceful country and instead embrace fundamentalism, then they deserve their fate and all we have been doing is prolonging it.
    It's not that the Iraqi people will embrace Islamic fundamentalism, it is that they will have it thrust upon them. Thats what will happen, and is happening, throughout the Middle East.

    There is no "Arab Spring". It is an Islamic Spring.

  3. #93
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    To answer the question no. The Civil War is still going on (thanks to us. YAYY!!!). We came in. Strengthened terrorism. Sepertated the country. And started a civil war!


  4. #94
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Iraq was and is an integral part of the Middle East. We cannot view it in isolation from its neighbors and it is a serious mistake to think we can. Surely you must know that it wasn't all Iraqis fighting and creating terrorism in Iraq. It is one war but with many venues.
    Well, I'm glad you realized you put words in my mouth. Nevertheless, I believe the decision to withdraw was made with the bigger picture in mind.

    The longer we stayed there, the more foreign insurgents got involved, and the more aggrieved Iraqis the militants were able to recruit internally. The only viable long-term solution is for the Iraqis to sort out their differences on their own. While I'm sure you'd argue we should stay there and train their military up further and try to broker an agreement, the result will be exactly the same whenever we leave -- sectarian violence -- and we sure as hell can't stay there forever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    The decision to remove US troops was a bad one and will eventually cost many more lives. Barrack Obama has grasped defeat from the jaws of victory and this will be looked upon as one of the greatest blunders, and military defeats, in US history.
    There was never going to be a good time to get us out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Do not think for a moment that the enemies of America don't realize what has happened. Those who believe they can retreat and withdraw into isolation are foolishly mistaken.
    Well, if that's what I was arguing then I suppose you'd have a point.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  5. #95
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    It was you who mentioned a "free Iraq". Do you really believe the people of Iraq will now be free?

    And do you feel the Iraqi people are now free to choose their own destiny? Is that what you genuinely believe?
    I have no idea. But our staying or going will not and never would be the deciding factor. Freedom can't be given. It must be earned. Many war supporters (who ignore our actual actions) arrogantly think we can give Iraqis freedom, even when that never was in any way our purpose for invading. If Iraqis are ever free, it will be because they chose to be.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #96
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    It's past time we left Iraq, both because of previously established agreements and because we've done pretty much all we can do there.

    The current violence isn't insurgents trying to unseat the government, it's sectarian violence. The Prime Minister (Shia) is trying to arrest the Vice President (Sunni). The VP, for his part, was out of the capital trying to mend fences between the Kurds and the PM when the warrant was announced -- and now the Kurds are protecting the VP.

    It doesn't matter if we left today or tomorrow or next week or ten years from now -- this right here is the social fault lines of Iraq showing themselves. The government was structured to share power amongst the Shia, Sunni and Kurd, and they're still throwing punches at each other. It's either this, or another Saddam -- a secular dictator who crushes anybody who raises their fist.
    Good post. The question we need to ask ourselves is, are there any US interests being served by American troops remaining in Iraq? IMO, the US is not serving its own interests trying to prevent sectarianism from spilling into the streets in Iraq. Sunni politicians stand to lose the most with the withdrawl of US troops. The Kurds may actaully lose some appeal with the larger economic interests of the country lying in Turkey. Shia politicians seem to be gaining the upper hand, and they want us to leave. What US interest is being served?

  7. #97
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,639

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    It's not that the Iraqi people will embrace Islamic fundamentalism, it is that they will have it thrust upon them. Thats what will happen, and is happening, throughout the Middle East.

    There is no "Arab Spring". It is an Islamic Spring.
    There arent enough fundamentalists to have it 'thrust' on them. They can either roll over and accept it or oust them. Others have and do. Or they can just take it. Either way...its their call...always was.

  8. #98
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Good post. The question we need to ask ourselves is, are there any US interests being served by American troops remaining in Iraq? IMO, the US is not serving its own interests trying to prevent sectarianism from spilling into the streets in Iraq. Sunni politicians stand to lose the most with the withdrawl of US troops. The Kurds may actaully lose some appeal with the larger economic interests of the country lying in Turkey. Shia politicians seem to be gaining the upper hand, and they want us to leave. What US interest is being served?
    For me, it's not even a question of how our interests are best served. Sometimes you have to do a thing because it's the right thing, not because it's to your advantage. My concern is that every day we're there is a day we're fighting a battle that we're either losing or winning with significantly diminishing returns (depending on your perspective). I'd greatly prefer that we throw our shoulders into something we can actually hope to accomplish, and ending sectarian strife in Iraq ain't it.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  9. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Well, I'm glad you realized you put words in my mouth. Nevertheless, I believe the decision to withdraw was made with the bigger picture in mind.
    I didn't pút any words in your mouth and never said so. Why not just read the post without interpreting it?

    What's "The Big Picture"?

    The longer we stayed there, the more foreign insurgents got involved, and the more aggrieved Iraqis the militants were able to recruit internally.
    In fact just the opposite was happening as you can tell from the casualty rate. I also don't buy the argument that the US Military, the strongest force in the world, is overly concerned abut '"aggrieved Iraqis" and "Militants".

    The only viable long-term solution is for the Iraqis to sort out their differences on their own. While I'm sure you'd argue we should stay there and train their military up further and try to broker an agreement, the result will be exactly the same whenever we leave -- sectarian violence -- and we sure as hell can't stay there forever.
    Yes, the Iraqis might be able to sort out there problems through democracy one day but that day has not yet arrived. And as to "forever", no one would claim or want that. But there have been US trooped in Europe for decades and their is little threat at the moment to their democracies, or attacks from each other. It wold seem that the US President will only station troops where they are out of harms way. You can have the girl scouts do that.

    There was never going to be a good time to get us out.
    In fact they could leave when the country was firmly democratic and it became a tradition, just as has happened in Europe. Barrack Obama has made sure that those who died in Iraq, or who have suffered from injuries, will have done so in vain.


    Well, if that's what I was arguing then I suppose you'd have a point.
    It was a question.
    Last edited by Grant; 12-26-11 at 06:54 PM.

  10. #100
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    There arent enough fundamentalists to have it 'thrust' on them. They can either roll over and accept it or oust them. Others have and do. Or they can just take it. Either way...its their call...always was.
    How many fundamentalists are there?

    Look at how the west rolled over following the riots about the Mohammed cartoons. People are easily frightened and we have seen repeatedly throughout history how a small but fanatically determined group can overwhelm an entire country, and neighboring countries as well.


    If it's always "their call", regarding threats to other countries, then it seems you are advancing an isolationist policy for the US. Is that your position?

Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •