Page 39 of 64 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 638

Thread: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS[W:452]

  1. #381
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 07:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    so, what you're saying is that you support long term occupation of a big part of the Middle East. ok, let's discuss that idea. what does it look like? how many troops?
    The minimum was 10,000 but the recomendations went as high as 50,000. It seemed 30,000 was a realistic number, and of course that should have been made up of troops from many countries.

    60 years?
    Why is that number important, or any number? The point was to maintain order and long term peace. Leaving on a predetermined date without regard for the facts at hand is what has contributed to this mess, and consequent genocide.

    which half of the holy war that has lasted more than a thousand years should the US declare to be the winner?
    You spun out in some other sphere here. I have no idea what you're talking about.

    what will the occupying force do when the losing side doesn't just say "aw shucks, ok." what does the occupying force do when other Middle Eastern nations decide that the US picked winner might not be the winner, and how will they respond to our long term occupation? finally, what will this cost, and how much are you personally willing to pay in tax increases to support the occupation?
    This is mostly more gibberish but the cost and participation should be borne by all the democracies and a portion of the oil in Iraq, now in the hands of ISIS, should offset any tax increases.

  2. #382
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,332

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    The minimum was 10,000 but the recomendations went as high as 50,000. It seemed 30,000 was a realistic number, and of course that should have been made up of troops from many countries.

    Why is that number important, or any number? The point was to maintain order and long term peace. Leaving on a predetermined date without regard for the facts at hand is what has contributed to this mess, and consequent genocide.
    so, first, we retake the region, right? how much of the region? the US would have to take Syria this time, too. that's a lot of territory, and a good chunk of it is an absolute disaster. i assume you support rebuilding it. how much will that cost? how many years of occupation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    You spun out in some other sphere here. I have no idea what you're talking about.
    i know you don't, and neither does anyone else who would seriously promote occupation. read up.

    The Origins Of The Shiite-Sunni Split : Parallels : NPR

    Sectarian violence in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    This is mostly more gibberish but the cost and participation should be borne by all the democracies and a portion of the oil in Iraq, now in the hands of ISIS, should offset any tax increases.
    lol. so we occupy Iraq and Syria and take the oil? i'm sure they'll be just great with that. their neighbors will be ok with it, too, as will Russia and China.

  3. #383
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 07:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    so, first, we retake the region, right?
    Retaking the region was not mentioned, only that Iraq had been won and had been stabilized.
    How much of the region? the US would have to take Syria this time, too. that's a lot of territory, and a good chunk of it is an absolute disaster. i assume you support rebuilding it. how much will that cost? how many years of occupation?
    It's easier to discuss one issue at a time and drawing deadlines without understanding the future, as we have seen, is a fool's game.
    You've allowed yourself to get sidetracked.
    lol. so we occupy Iraq and Syria and take the oil? i'm sure they'll be just great with that. their neighbors will be ok with it, too, as will Russia and China.
    If you can't read just a couple of sentences on a recent post, how can you claim to have absorbed the history of religion in the Middle East?

  4. #384
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,332

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Retaking the region was not mentioned, only that Iraq had been won and had been stabilized.
    ok. and i posted an article that outlined the instability of the region during the time period which your are claiming that the region was stable.

    so, you're not for retaking and occupying the region? if that's the case, we agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    It's easier to discuss one issue at a time and drawing deadlines without understanding the future, as we have seen, is a fool's game.
    i was just curious to see if you had really thought about the details of these policies. if you are for more interventionism, then all of these issues are relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    You've allowed yourself to get sidetracked.
    incorrect. you posted :

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin
    You spun out in some other sphere here. I have no idea what you're talking about.
    after i posted :

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix
    which half of the holy war that has lasted more than a thousand years should the US declare to be the winner?
    i responded by providing links that would help you understand what i was talking about, and to give you a little background on the dynamics of the region.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin
    If you can't read just a couple of sentences on a recent post, how can you claim to have absorbed the history of religion in the Middle East?
    if you can't be bothered to read links and sources, then what is the point of this discussion?

    as for this particular point, though, i was pointing out how complicated it would be to occupy the region and pay for it by just taking their oil. i guess we can continue when you clarify whether or not you support occupying the region long term from this point forward. include Afghanistan, because US troops are already there. and if you do support this, i'd still like to know the specifics, and then we can hash out sectarian, tribal, and international factors that would make the endeavor nearly impossible and horrifyingly expensive.

  5. #385
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    18,293

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    The minimum was 10,000 but the recomendations went as high as 50,000. It seemed 30,000 was a realistic number, and of course that should have been made up of troops from many countries.

    Why is that number important, or any number? The point was to maintain order and long term peace. Leaving on a predetermined date without regard for the facts at hand is what has contributed to this mess, and consequent genocide.

    You spun out in some other sphere here. I have no idea what you're talking about.

    This is mostly more gibberish but the cost and participation should be borne by all the democracies and a portion of the oil in Iraq, now in the hands of ISIS, should offset any tax increases.
    So we can blame GW Bush for signing an agreement to withdraw all troops by 2011 then. That was his mistake because the Iraqi's held us to that agreement to the letter. They also wanted no part of paying for their own invasion but I guess what the Iraqi's want is not something you figure matters since we "won". International courts see things quite differently but they apparently don't matter to you either.

  6. #386
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 09:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    So Obama was lying at the time? Do you know what the casualty rate was at the time? That Iraq was actually 'stable' and that people had voted in an election? It was the removal of the troops which created what we see today.
    Obama was wrong. Hopeful, but wrong. The 2006 NIE concluded that the invasion and occupation of Iraq caused an increase in global terrorism and made America less safe. The majority of Americans now regret the Iraq war, and the GOP congress have admitted what a mistake it was. You're on the fringe with your undying support of America's biggest foreign policy failure in a century.

    In a Thursday panel at Cato on conservatism and war, U.S. Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) and John Duncan (R-Tenn.) revealed that the VAST majority of GOP members of Congress now think it was wrong for the U.S. to invade Iraq in 2003.

    The discussion was moderated by Grover Norquist, who asked the congressmen how many of their colleagues now think the war was a mistake.

    GOP Congressmen: Most Republicans Now Think Iraq War Was a Mistake | Cato @ Liberty
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  7. #387
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 09:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    So we can blame GW Bush for signing an agreement to withdraw all troops by 2011 then. That was his mistake because the Iraqi's held us to that agreement to the letter. They also wanted no part of paying for their own invasion but I guess what the Iraqi's want is not something you figure matters since we "won". International courts see things quite differently but they apparently don't matter to you either.
    That's right after we blame him for his gratuitous, pre-emptive war, prosecuted on trumped up charges to begin with. There's just no end in sight to the failures of the George Bush presidency, nor the price we are still paying for it.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  8. #388
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Last Seen
    07-19-15 @ 05:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    972

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Lol. Using the word of a democrat to prove something.
    You just revealed a depressing fact about your posting philosophy.

    Apparently, you care more about winning the argument than posting the truth.

    I would cite Adolph himself if what he said was the truth!

    You find it LOL-able that a Conservative would quote a Democrat to establish a fact?

    Tsk, tsk.

    Let it be known by all that you are thus afflicted.

  9. #389
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 09:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by Tazmanian Devil View Post
    You just revealed a depressing fact about your posting philosophy.

    Apparently, you care more about winning the argument than posting the truth.

    I would cite Adolph himself if what he said was the truth!

    You find it LOL-able that a Conservative would quote a Democrat to establish a fact?

    Tsk, tsk.

    Let it be known by all that you are thus afflicted.
    Afflicted?? You've not been around long so I'll let you off the hook for not recognizing it, But the hatred of Obama by the fringe right here is such that they wouldn't trust him if he told them what time it is. So quoting him once, as "truth" just because it can then be used to further beat him up is disingenuous!
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  10. #390
    Sage
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    7,880

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Nope, I was pointing out that in your accusation of exaggeration on my part you actually exaggerated.

    Al-anfal: 182,000 (from your source)

    Systemic starvation under Oil-for-Food abuses: 400,000-500,000

    Repression of 1991 uprising: up to 280,000

    Total: 962,000

    The only gross overstatement was made by you.
    Thank you for FINALLY defending your number. As weak as the defense was, the effort is duly noted.

    the Kurds reported 182,000 deaths in the Al-Anfal campaign. Most third party sources say the number is 50-100,000. So, just taking the Kurd report is erring on the side of exaggeration.

    The 1991 crackdown resulted in 80 to 230,000 deaths. You declaring this 280,000 is also airing on the side of exaggeration.

    Finally, and most egregious, you are calling the estimated 500,000 that died as a result of sanctions an act of overt brutality by Sadaam. That is a ridiculous stretch. The sanctions were put on Iraq by the US and others, designed to squeeze the economy. While he certainly is responsible, its not the same thing as overt brutality. Saddam did not KILL or order the deaths of the 500,000. Instead, his policies merely allowed that to happen. Frankly, the coalition nations are also culpable in these deaths.

    If you want to hold a leader responsible for deaths under their watch and call it an autrocity, then we could make a laundry list of deaths that resulted in negligence of US policy and declare every US president an oppressive tyrant, but that is a bit absurd, just like calling the deaths if Iraqi citizens under the period of sanction a murder by Saddam. Sorry, you don't get to add that to the ledger....

    So, all in, you have at least showed us you were not pulling numbers out of your A, you are just working with numbers that smell as if they were from the A.....

    So, lets get back to your original statement that I objected to....

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    We can cope with ISIS, we just choose not to. Don't mistake the barbarism you see in our absence with how things would be if US troops were still in Iraq.

    Saddam murdered an estimate of 1 million people in his 25 years in power. ISIS is small time compared to Saddam.
    Net, net.... telling us Saddam MURDERED 1 million of his people is indeed an exaggeration.... It appears that is off by somewhere between 2.5 and 5 fold (it looks like the number of 130,000 to 380,000 is much closer to the real number). If you said he was responsible for 1 million deaths, you might be on more solid ground.

    No question he was a tyrant and a bad guy. The discussion of whether his removal was worth between $2 and $6, the lives of 4,500 US soldiers (not to mention the forever altered lives of those that served, but did not die) and the lives of 100-200,000 Iraq citizens (nothing like killing 200,000 Iraq citizens to overthrow a guy that killed 200,000 Iraqi citizens), but that is another discussion...
    Last edited by upsideguy; 06-03-15 at 12:56 AM.

Page 39 of 64 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... 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
  •