• 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!

CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Who presided over the withdrawal of troops in Iraq, and the subsequent rise of ISIS in Iraq?

Thats who's at the wheel. Own it.

Why do the Iraqi people hate the US?

The Iraqi people hated the US before the Allies left, and many Iraqis still hate the US.

It is stupid to help people who hate you, any more than necessary.

It would have been stupid to stay in Iraq, because that would have built up more hatred.

Now the Iraqis are in trouble, and they are welcoming back the US, in a limited manner.



BO was right to leave Iraq, and BO is right to come back in a limited manner.


"Every cornerstone of what one would consider to be basic rights in a free society, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to fair judicial process, right to be secure from unlawful searches and seizures in one's home, have been abolished in Iraq. The occupation makes the regime of Saddam Hussein look like post-revolution America.

This is why the Iraqis hate us.

I guess the Iraqi children should feel lucky in that they got their retaliation in first by throwing rocks, many are simply arrested, hooded and taken to the torture camp for refusing to show ID at checkpoints. It's good to see that the authorities are not hypocrites and that the same kind of law enforcement techniques are practiced here at home, as Mostafa Tabatabainejad can attest to, the student was tortured for refusing to show his ID to UCLA police in a campus library.


This Is Why The Iraqis Hate Us

The Iraqi people speak out about the US war against their nation | TIME.com


"90 Percent Of Iraqis Hate Us And The Other 10 Percent Have Left Iraq ."

90 Percent Of Iraqis Hate Us And The Other 10 Percent Have Left Iraq

"Iraqis, overall, feel that their country is “worse off” because of the U.S.-led war there — perhaps, for example, because Baghdad recently ranked as the worst place on the planet to live — with strong divergences across ethnic groups. Likewise, in the U.S., respondents were split between political affiliations about whether they thought Iraq was better or worse off. This chart breaks down the various responses to the survey:"

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/12/20/393290/poll-iraq-war-iran/






//
 
Last edited:
The one thing I have a problem with is, all using the excuse that Maliki was weak. Yet here was a weak leader and a weak government, with weak Armed Forces.....and yet we couldn't get them to agree to our terms for a SOFA. Here BO and his team couldn't find a way to use all their Elite liberal mannerisms and get this weak Leader and Weak government to come to terms with a deal.

Yet it was BO's own people who said that BO and Team didn't like Maliki......that he didn't care for Maliki like he didn't care for Karzi.

Now you know, there was a model that BO could have followed. I believe the Sicilians perfected it with those they don't like. Note: it was called Strictly Business.

th



KnowWhatImean! ;)
Maliki should never have been a factor in America's, or the world's, long term global interests. Guys like him come and go and they should not determine whether US or Coalition troops remain or stay, any more than Coalition troops should decide on Iraqi domestic policies, given that they are legal and follow human human rights.

After the trillions spent, the thousands of lives lost and destroyed, US troops should leave because of a punk like Maliki? It just doesn't make any sense.
 
BO was right to leave Iraq, and BO is right to come back in a limited manner.

I truly do not understand this. If he was right to leave knowing it was going to blow up, why allow it to happen?
And if this response is "right", even if its just symbolic and not substantive, what could be wrong?

If we are resolute-we should stay until the job is done. If we are to go to war, we should actually FIGHT that war, otherwise whats the point?
 
Who is the head of the US govt?

On the other hand we should give credit to the leftists for finally admitting it was George Bush who ended the war in Iraq, not Nouri al-Maliki or Barrack Obama. Obama should do the honest thing also and admit he was just following orders.
 
On the other hand we should give credit to the leftists for finally admitting it was George Bush who ended the war in Iraq, not Nouri al-Maliki or Barrack Obama. Obama should do the honest thing also and admit he was just following orders.

That makes perfect sense. :lol: These guys never think their arguments through.
 
I truly do not understand this. If he was right to leave knowing it was going to blow up, why allow it to happen?
And if this response is "right", even if its just symbolic and not substantive, what could be wrong?

If we are resolute-we should stay until the job is done. If we are to go to war, we should actually FIGHT that war, otherwise whats the point?

Obama's policy is to avoid doing more than has to be done. To intervene in another country's affairs, wait as long as possible, to let them work it out. When it is clear to many people in the country, that US interference would be helpful, then go in with the least risk to US personnel.

Why do wars have to be Finished? They just need to simmer down.



//
 
Iraq invasion will go down in history as the single biggest, US fustercluck of ALL time.
It was the second time the US had won a war militarily and lost it politically. The anti American propaganda is an incredibly powerful force.
 
Obama's policy is to avoid doing more than has to be done. To intervene in another country's affairs, wait as long as possible, to let them work it out. When it is clear to many people in the country, that US interference would be helpful, then go in with the least risk to US personnel.

Why do wars have to be Finished? They just need to simmer down.



//

You are describing appeasement, and it does not pacify your enemy, it emboldens him.
 
I truly do not understand this. If he was right to leave knowing it was going to blow up, why allow it to happen?
And if this response is "right", even if its just symbolic and not substantive, what could be wrong?

If we are resolute-we should stay until the job is done. If we are to go to war, we should actually FIGHT that war, otherwise whats the point?

Iraq blowing up was a foregone conclusion as soon as we invaded. That it happened under a Democratic POTUS was just serendipity for the Republicans.
 
Iraq blowing up was a foregone conclusion as soon as we invaded. That it happened under a Democratic POTUS was just serendipity for the Republicans.

Republicans aren't happy, and you and I both know they are going to have to clean up the mess. For now, the left is content with badly trying to ignore it.
 
Republicans aren't happy, and you and I both know they are going to have to clean up the mess. For now, the left is content with badly trying to ignore it.

Oh, I think the Republicans are ecstatic that a Republican doesn't inhabit the White House to take the blame for Iraq. Not that they're happy that the POTUS has a D after his name currently, but certainly that they can point fingers at the other party. That's what our elected representatives do best, you know, point fingers at the other side.

Had Romney won, he'd be fending off Democrats saying that he's to blame for the mess. Personally, I don't blame either Bush or Obama, but the gentlemen from the PNAC, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, the real architects of the the invasion of Iraq, but that's just me. Those four are now in obscurity, leaving the Democrats to blame Bush and the Republicans to blame Obama.

The invasion of Iraq was a cluster(bleep!) from the start.
 
Oh, I think the Republicans are ecstatic that a Republican doesn't inhabit the White House to take the blame for Iraq. Not that they're happy that the POTUS has a D after his name currently, but certainly that they can point fingers at the other party. That's what our elected representatives do best, you know, point fingers at the other side.

Had Romney won, he'd be fending off Democrats saying that he's to blame for the mess. Personally, I don't blame either Bush or Obama, but the gentlemen from the PNAC, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, the real architects of the the invasion of Iraq, but that's just me. Those four are now in obscurity, leaving the Democrats to blame Bush and the Republicans to blame Obama.

The invasion of Iraq was a cluster(bleep!) from the start.

I dont think Romney would have left Iraq to the wolves like Obama did. We will never know though.
 
We should have learned our lesson from Viet Nam. We engaged in mission creep there as well. Then we managed the mission from Washington. No good came from it.
 
I dont think Romney would have left Iraq to the wolves like Obama did. We will never know though.

It's hard to say what Romney would have done. Unfortunately, the election was what it was. I think a lot of things would have gone better, but Iraq would still have been in chaos.

Just my opinion, of course. There is no way to know what if.
 
It was the second time the US had won a war militarily and lost it politically. The anti American propaganda is an incredibly powerful force.

We haven't used enough force to decisively win anything since the Gulf War. As long as the Iraq situation keeps morphing into new enemies, we'll have to call it an open ended mess.
 
We haven't used enough force to decisively win anything since the Gulf War. As long as the Iraq situation keeps morphing into new enemies, we'll have to call it an open ended mess.
It seems that US forces, apart from Shock and Awe and the Surges, have been too soft on their enemies. Every war should be Shock and Awe and a constant Surge otherwise the problems will just continue, as we have seen. If the aim isn't to win then it's best to just let it alone.

Now the country has three retreats from war zones (Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq) with nothing to show for it and the enemies know it. The enemy, despite being terrorist thugs, can also win propaganda wars. That a US President would actually release terrorist leaders would not have been imagined all that long ago.
 
It's hard to say what Romney would have done. Unfortunately, the election was what it was. I think a lot of things would have gone better, but Iraq would still have been in chaos.

Just my opinion, of course. There is no way to know what if.
Iraq was not in chaos when Bush left office and Obama took over. That occurred only after Obama pulled the troops.
 
It seems that US forces, apart from Shock and Awe and the Surges, have been too soft on their enemies. Every war should be Shock and Awe and a constant Surge otherwise the problems will just continue, as we have seen. If the aim isn't to win then it's best to just let it alone.

Now the country has three retreats from war zones (Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq) with nothing to show for it and the enemies know it. The enemy, despite being terrorist thugs, can also win propaganda wars. That a US President would actually release terrorist leaders would not have been imagined all that long ago.

This PR/political approach of looking like liberators, and fighting with one hand behind our back does not work. Leadership is so afraid of initial costs, global opinion, collateral damage and other factors that they cause the very things they're worrying about.

Our supporting of the Arab Spring is one of the stupidest things, besides invading Iraq that we've done. By taking out stable leaders, infrastructure and controls, we've opened up many surrounding countries to terrorism. The world was much better off with those areas contained.
 
This PR/political approach of looking like liberators, and fighting with one hand behind our back does not work. Leadership is so afraid of initial costs, global opinion, collateral damage and other factors that they cause the very things they're worrying about.

Our supporting of the Arab Spring is one of the stupidest things, besides invading Iraq that we've done. By taking out stable leaders, infrastructure and controls, we've opened up many surrounding countries to terrorism. The world was much better off with those areas contained.
Yes, there is no clear policy for the middle east, certainly none has been articulated, and there are no strong leaders on th side of the democracies. Our hardest fought battles are against those who would dare be politically incorrect.

Terrorists can rape, sell schoolchildren, murder entire families and behead anyone they choose yet something like Abu Ghraib, where no one was even injured, will stay in the headlines for years. It seems that celebrities, not adults, are running the country.
 
We haven't used enough force to decisively win anything since the Gulf War. As long as the Iraq situation keeps morphing into new enemies, we'll have to call it an open ended mess.

And thats another aspect of this, its getting worse, and fast.
 
It seems that US forces, apart from Shock and Awe and the Surges, have been too soft on their enemies. Every war should be Shock and Awe and a constant Surge otherwise the problems will just continue, as we have seen. If the aim isn't to win then it's best to just let it alone.

Now the country has three retreats from war zones (Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq) with nothing to show for it and the enemies know it. The enemy, despite being terrorist thugs, can also win propaganda wars. That a US President would actually release terrorist leaders would not have been imagined all that long ago.

Exactly, we ALWAYS fight with one hand tied behind our back. And while we may not be a weak nation, even if we do withdraw-that isn't what matters-what MATTERS is what our enemy thinks-and they think we will cut and run-announcing the pull out date no less.
 
Dems want to give my money to lazy welfare recipients and Repubs want to send my money to the Middle East to fix their third world problems which are unfixable. God bless America.
 
Dems want to give my money to lazy welfare recipients and Repubs want to send my money to the Middle East to fix their third world problems which are unfixable. God bless America.

That isn't an accurate statement. Repubs don't give a damn about fixing third world. We want to make money off of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom