• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

is the iraq war over ??

  • yes

    Votes: 10 58.8%
  • no

    Votes: 7 41.2%

  • Total voters
    17
So, we'll have to wait and see what future historians have to say about the issue.

If you were an Iraqi, and one of your relatives were among the dead, how would you feel about the American invasion today?

I'd be pretty mad at Obama.


j-mac
 
Which is probably correct, and if it isn't, so what? Was over a hundred thousand dead, with all of the widows and orphans that implies, plus unknown thousands more injured, really worth it?

Probably correct? That;s just another way of saying we don't know.

We can ask ourselves who created all those widows and orphans. Was it the Coalition? I don't think so. And if we don't know the numbers, as is clear, then there is little point in discussing them unless we are trying to paint the Americans, or the Coalition troops, as the villains.. All we do know is that there were a lot of people killed, just as in most wars. Would there have been more killed without the Gulf War? Nobody knows that either, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.

There will be plenty more widows and orphans within the next few years, in the Middle East and elsewhere. Perhaps we can start counting them now.
 
by following through with Bush's plan to withdraw by 12/31/11?


That's fine, but you know as well as I do that when Bush was in office, he would take the advice of many, including his generals on the ground to make these decisions. And what did Obama do? heard the advice and dismissed it out of hand, and ordered this withdraw based on, I think, political reasons to satisfy his base. And that my friend is not a decision based on anything other than his own narcissistic, half baked notions about what will play in a campaign for re-election, certainly not with the blood of our fallen gave their lives for.


j-mac
 
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and walk you through what happened:



I think it's pretty plain that I was speaking specifically about the mess that is Iraq. You then responded thusly:



You, in your own mind, expanded my comment about Iraq to somehow include the whole of the Middle East.

Thus, you put words in my mouth.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.

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.

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.

That's nonsense. Iraq does not mean much positive for the ME. A free iraq helps Iran more than it hurts, and our actions did more to train and recruit terrorist than anything we could have done.
 
That's nonsense. Iraq does not mean much positive for the ME. A free iraq helps Iran more than it hurts, and our actions did more to train and recruit terrorist than anything we could have done.


That may be your opinion, but certainly not fact.


j-mac
 
That's nonsense. Iraq does not mean much positive for the ME. A free iraq helps Iran more than it hurts, and our actions did more to train and recruit terrorist than anything we could have done.

Do you seriously believe, now that the US troops have left, there is now going to be a "free Iraq"???
 
Do you seriously believe, now that the US troops have left, there is now going to be a "free Iraq"???

That, as always, is up to the Iraqis. It was never ours to say.
 
That, as always, is up to the Iraqis. It was never ours to say.

True, however our presence provided a basis for some semblance of stability, regardless of how minor.


j-mac
 
True, however our presence provided a basis for some semblance of stability, regardless of how minor.


j-mac

I actually doubt that. But regardless, if we're not occupiers, we have to leave it to them. They will forge their own way one way or another. We should have never been there to begin with.
 
Bush offered them democracy and Obama gave them nearly 3 years of his time. They'd rather blow each other up in true tribal form. Iraq is the problem of Iraqis now. Bring our boys and girls home.

Now.
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.

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.

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. :lol:
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :lol:

It was a question.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Back
Top Bottom