Page 5 of 64 FirstFirst ... 345671555 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 638

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

  1. #41
    Sage
    JC Callender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,007

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    This is why we should have taken care of it ourselves instead of paying to train someone else to do it.

    First mistake was that we disbanded their military when we initially invaded.

    Second mistake was that we did not prepare for the ensuing civil conflict once Saddam's government was defeated. We did not send in enough troops to secure Iraq. We should have had at a minimum 250k boots on the ground.

    Third mistake was that we did not stay long enough to allow the people time to choose what kind of government they wanted in power. We put in a provisional government temporarily, and should have stayed long enough (for several voting cycles) in order for the people to get the government they way they wanted it. Now that we are gone, the people have no control over the government because the concept of a government voted in by the people is not a concept that has been around long enough there to set in. So now we are going to see a very corrupt and directionless government which will eventually revert back to a dictatorship. We should still be in Iraq right now with a large amount of forces. Would it have costed a lot of money, sure. But I think, in the long run, it would have been cheaper then doing what we are doing now and playing this whole war of attrition game with the insurgency. Which is a war we can not possibly win. It costs us several million $ to put a warhead on a forehead and kill a few guys. It costs them a few $'s to blow a truck bomb up in the middle of a market, police station or military checkpoint. A war of attrition, is a war they will win. We would have needed to stay in Iraq for at least 20-30 years. Of course, we would be slowly drawing down the whole time just like we did in Japan and S.Korea after WW2 and the Korean war. If we had followed the blueprint of WW2 in Asia and how we handled building successful governments there, Iraq would be on its way to becoming the South Korea, or Japan of the Middle East.
    Do you think it would've helped if we kept large military bases there like we did in Japan and Germany?

  2. #42
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JC Callender View Post
    Do you think it would've helped if we kept large military bases there like we did in Japan and Germany?
    Yes, the only way to secure a country in the middle of a civil war and keep all sides at bay would have been to have a large presence there until they learn to direct their fighting onto the political stage instead of on the streets. Just like we did in Japan and South Korea. We had a large footprint there for many years as a deterent force that would immediately be re-enforced by a large force if Japan, China, Korea or N.Korea had tried to get even with one of their neighbors after WW2. It was the deterent of US forces and the deterent of military action that has kept Asia peaceful for so long. It has been peace in Asia that has also caused the world economy to explode over the last 60 years.
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  3. #43
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    19,024

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

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    Even so, abandoning the leadership in the region is by far not the way to improve the situation.
    How could you stay? By occupying a sovereign nation that had told you to leave?
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that comes in a bucket.

  4. #44
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
    How could you stay? By occupying a sovereign nation that had told you to leave?
    Iraq had lost its sovereignty when it invaded Kuwait by international law.
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  5. #45
    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 Capster78 View Post
    Iraq had lost its sovereignty when it invaded Kuwait by international law.
    Whoa whoa whoa, if we"re going to drag IL into this........................
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  6. #46
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Whoa whoa whoa, if we"re going to drag IL into this........................
    There are 4 conditions a country can loose its sovereignty, lets take a look at them...

    1. Development of WMD's in violation of the non-proliferation act.

    Iraq was known to have chemical weapons and used them against Iran, and the Kurdish people of Iraq. And chemicals / materials were found in munition dumps around Iraq during the invasion.

    2. Invading another sovereign nation.

    Their invasion of Kuwait, as well as the firing of scud missiles into neighboring countries qualifies.

    3. Genocide.

    Saddam routinely attacked the kurds up nort, even dropping chemical weapons on them a few times. He also ran a series of torture camps in order to punish political prisoners. His sons were even worse, raping and killing women all over the country in order to satisfy their sadistic fantasies.

    4. Hosting or aiding terrorists.

    It is well known that Saddam hosted many terrorist factions within his country and used them to take out political rivals as well as to intimidate its neighbors. He supported terrorists fighting in Turkey, in Iran and supported hard line Palestinian terrorists groups as well.

    So in essence, the invasion of Iraq, in terms of legality on the international stage, was completely legal.
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  7. #47
    #NeverHillary
    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,752
    Blog Entries
    11

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
    How could you stay? By occupying a sovereign nation that had told you to leave?
    Is the Middle East comprised of only a single sovereign nation? Not the last time I checked.

    Isn't Jordan begging for resupply? I'd grant it, with an ask for a base to help support, supply, logistical support, intelligence and advisers, say 10-20K troops.

    In fact, I'd make this offer, discreetly, to pretty much all of the ME nations that would grant the US ambassador an audience.
    The idea being, surrounding ISIS is probably the best way to continually squeeze them down until they have next no territory left

    Probably by the 3 country deployed, you'd have ISIS's attention in a serious way.

    Once squeezed down, then the final ground raid to eliminate the problem permanently.
    Nancy Pelosi said: “We have to pass it, to find out what’s in it.” A Doctor called to a radio show & said: "That's the definition of a stool sample"
    "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Barack Obama January 2008

  8. #48
    Sage
    reinoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Out West
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    9,935
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JC Callender View Post
    Do you think it would've helped if we kept large military bases there like we did in Japan and Germany?
    We have the world's largest and most expensive embassy there. That should be enough.
    Quote Originally Posted by reinoe View Post
    Blacks aren't committing more crime. That's the point. They use drugs at similar rates yet they get harsher sentences and more convictions.
    Quote Originally Posted by CalGun View Post
    I disagree. Just because their drug usage may be no different does not mean their propensity to commit crime is the same or equal.

  9. #49
    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 Capster78 View Post
    There are 4 conditions a country can loose its sovereignty, lets take a look at them...

    1. Development of WMD's in violation of the non-proliferation act.

    Iraq was known to have chemical weapons and used them against Iran, and the Kurdish people of Iraq. And chemicals / materials were found in munition dumps around Iraq during the invasion.

    2. Invading another sovereign nation.

    Their invasion of Kuwait, as well as the firing of scud missiles into neighboring countries qualifies.

    3. Genocide.

    Saddam routinely attacked the kurds up nort, even dropping chemical weapons on them a few times. He also ran a series of torture camps in order to punish political prisoners. His sons were even worse, raping and killing women all over the country in order to satisfy their sadistic fantasies.

    4. Hosting or aiding terrorists.

    It is well known that Saddam hosted many terrorist factions within his country and used them to take out political rivals as well as to intimidate its neighbors. He supported terrorists fighting in Turkey, in Iran and supported hard line Palestinian terrorists groups as well.

    So in essence, the invasion of Iraq, in terms of legality on the international stage, was completely legal.
    We'll then, I don't know where you found your list at but by points two and four, the US has no sovereignty. Along with quite a few other countries you likely still consider sovereign, lol.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  10. #50
    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 eohrnberger View Post
    Is the Middle East comprised of only a single sovereign nation? Not the last time I checked.

    Isn't Jordan begging for resupply? I'd grant it, with an ask for a base to help support, supply, logistical support, intelligence and advisers, say 10-20K troops.

    In fact, I'd make this offer, discreetly, to pretty much all of the ME nations that would grant the US ambassador an audience.
    The idea being, surrounding ISIS is probably the best way to continually squeeze them down until they have next no territory left

    Probably by the 3 country deployed, you'd have ISIS's attention in a serious way.

    Once squeezed down, then the final ground raid to eliminate the problem permanently.
    You started fighting al Qaeda in A-Stan back in 2001. Today they're bigger, cover a vastly larger area and are menacing the region like never before, lol, you can't "eliminate" the "problem" permanently. The US military may have its uses, this is obviously not one of them.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

Page 5 of 64 FirstFirst ... 345671555 ... 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
  •