• 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!

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

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

Vietnamization didn't work. it also didn't work in Iraq, and it won't work in Afghanistan.

it's past time to get our troops out of there and to let the regional powers handle their own problems.
You're using a word, "Vietnamization" that really has no meaning and one you apparently want to apply wherever the American military is involved. Perhaps you should also investigate words such as the "Koreanization", the Japaneseification' or 'Germanification', and so on. You're being sold a bill of goods and should ignore it.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

The "word" of no president "proves" anything.
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.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Your article was written in 2008, and obviously proved wrong later. Obama made the claim, and it was legitimate, in 2011.

the byline :

By Dan Murphy, Staff writer JANUARY 10, 2014
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

You're using a word, "Vietnamization" that really has no meaning and one you apparently want to apply wherever the American military is involved. Perhaps you should also investigate words such as the "Koreanization", the Japaneseification' or 'Germanification', and so on. You're being sold a bill of goods and should ignore it.

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? 60 years? which half of the holy war that has lasted more than a thousand years should the US declare to be the winner? 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?

you guys do not think these things through. the interventionist policies have failed time and again. no more ****ing war.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

the byline :
You're right about the date and my apologies. Nonetheless the well trod points he made has been debated many times and have proven to be lightweight excuses that just don't wash. You can try to make a case on any of the points he has made, if you choose.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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.

You've allowed yourself to get sidetracked.

incorrect. you posted :

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

after i posted :

Helix said:
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.

ludin said:
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.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

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

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

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

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

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

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....

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

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....



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...


That is a lot of wording to admit you are wrong. Your claim that I exaggerated by a factor of 10 was an exaggeration on your part, and your revised claim is really no better.

It isn't an exaggeration to go by numbers that have been claimed by reasonable sources. You have no idea if the numbers your are relying on are any more accurate than mine are, so trying to quantify what you see as an "exaggeration" is simply foolish.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

That is a lot of wording to admit you are wrong. Your claim that I exaggerated by a factor of 10 was an exaggeration on your part, and your revised claim is really no better.

It isn't an exaggeration to go by numbers that have been claimed by reasonable sources. You have no idea if the numbers your are relying on are any more accurate than mine are, so trying to quantify what you see as an "exaggeration" is simply foolish.

Still, you take the high numbers when pointing to casualties of Hussein's and the low numbers when pointing at the casualties inflicted by the U.S. ;)
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Still, you take the high numbers when pointing to casualties of Hussein's and the low numbers when pointing at the casualties inflicted by the U.S. ;)

Where have I quoted US casualties?
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

[citation needed]

Why not hash the numbers out again now, it's quicker. Upsideguy already smacked you around with them. It's a wash. I love how you conservatives get all twisted into knots over casualties, that is until it's the U.S. racking them up, then suddenly it's the cost of business, got to break a few eggs to make an omelet, and the other squirrelly things you all say to diminish its effects.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Why not hash the numbers out again now, it's quicker. Upsideguy already smacked you around with them. It's a wash. I love how you conservatives get all twisted into knots over casualties, that is until it's the U.S. racking them up, then suddenly it's the cost of business, got to break a few eggs to make an omelet, and the other squirrelly things you all say to diminish its effects.

You keep making unfounded claims about what I do and do not believe. If you have evidence to back up your claim the post it, otherwise you are just a liar talking out of your ass.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

A secular leader that had zero tolerance for the religious fighting between Islamic extremists, As opposed to the Islamic State, HELL YES, not you?
So Saddam Hussein has now been re-invented as a good and benevolent leader responsive to all versions of Islam?
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

You keep making unfounded claims about what I do and do not believe. If you have evidence to back up your claim the post it, otherwise you are just a liar talking out of your ass.

Let's settle it.

Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion.

Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

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!

Your characterization and appraisal of Conservatives or those you call, "the fringe right" is incorrect.

And your entire premise rests on that flawed foundation.

We would absolutely trust Obama when he says things which we use our God given senses to know he is being truthful about.

Your mental processes are on display.
 
Back
Top Bottom