View Poll Results: Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

Voters
48. You may not vote on this poll
  • Im a right leaning American, yes.

    15 31.25%
  • Im a left leaning American, yes.

    8 16.67%
  • Im not American, yes.

    2 4.17%
  • Im a right leaning American, no.

    11 22.92%
  • Im a left leaning American, no.

    10 20.83%
  • Im not American, no.

    2 4.17%
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 115

Thread: Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

  1. #91
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Maybe you are right, but the US pulling out of Iraq leaving a vacuum, and then an influx of sunni terrorists that Iran is already fighting invading unopposed-is essentially delivering Iraq to Iran.

    Frankly I'd rather they vote in the influence.
    Really you're wanting us to annex Iraq right? Because that's the only way for us to actually "stabilize" the region for any protracted period of time.

  2. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    Really you're wanting us to annex Iraq right? Because that's the only way for us to actually "stabilize" the region for any protracted period of time.
    No, thats a false choice. Did we annex south Korea or Germany?

  3. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ask the NSA
    Last Seen
    07-24-16 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    5,849
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    First off, it saying "Libertarian - Left", so I don't get the neutral part.

    Second, I doubt you're neutral and be interested to hear that reasoning.

    Third, if you answered this before, then sorry for bringing it up again.
    I wasn't "Libertarian-Left" when I made that post. I took a few tests and realized I'm not as neutral as I thought I was. So I changed my lean.

  4. #94
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    No, thats a false choice. Did we annex south Korea or Germany?
    We didn't have to. Neither of those countries were smack down in the center of the middle east and ruled by religion. Time and time again we've seen that when Arab populations are given a choice in the government, radicalism follows.

  5. #95
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    I only ask what I've asked before: How many Americans have to die for a place that either can't or won't get past sectarianism? I just don't see our interests at stake here if the Maliki government falls
    1. Intervening to stop wholesale slaughter of innocents is, in fact, in our interests. Once upon a time we intervened to save the Kurds, for example, and it was probably one of the best foreign policy decisions we ever made.

    2. The "Maliki Government" isn't going to fall because there isn't a "Maliki Government". Maliki is in the process of getting shoved aside by the Iranians, though reports differ on how much it is going to take to dig him out of there.

    3. A region-wide war in the middle east (which is what this is slowly but surely turning into) is indeed not much in our interests. It is not in our interests from an economic perspective, it is not in our interests from a geopolitical perspective, it is not in our interests from an IR/Alliance perspective, and it is not in our interests from a values perspective. ISIL & Co. need to be contained.

    4. Which is going to be hard as crap to do. ISIL has a stated intent and an internal requirement to strike at the West. They are also the wealthiest terrorist organization on earth, the best-armed terrorist organization on earth, the only terror organization on earth with a potential rudimentary WMD capability, and due to their recent successes they have become wildly popular with what I have dubbed "The Facebook Jihadi" generation - those who choose what groups to fight for based on what will look cool on their facebook page. AQ is the music that your parents and your way older brother listened to - ISIL is the New Sound.

  6. #96
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    We didn't have to. Neither of those countries were smack down in the center of the middle east and ruled by religion. Time and time again we've seen that when Arab populations are given a choice in the government, radicalism follows.
    We ruled both of those nations and then continued to influence heavily. Ditto with Japan. A US military presence and capacity to engage in wondrous destructive violence is an incredible piece of leverage for US diplomats to bring to the table.

    Worth remembering is that Maliki was always a pain - but he was't a self-destructive fitna-monster until after we left.

    And Islamism gained not a little from Fascism. Japan, too, was ruled by an absolutist ideology. Half of Korea went Communist on us.

  7. #97
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    We didn't have to. Neither of those countries were smack down in the center of the middle east and ruled by religion. Time and time again we've seen that when Arab populations are given a choice in the government, radicalism follows.
    The point was a small presence was there to keep the peace, and deter aggressive neighbors. Thats what we should do in Iraq, unless you would rather hand it over to Russia, Iran, and the terrorists.

  8. #98
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    We ruled both of those nations and then continued to influence heavily. Ditto with Japan. A US military presence and capacity to engage in wondrous destructive violence is an incredible piece of leverage for US diplomats to bring to the table.

    Worth remembering is that Maliki was always a pain - but he was't a self-destructive fitna-monster until after we left.

    And Islamism gained not a little from Fascism. Japan, too, was ruled by an absolutist ideology. Half of Korea went Communist on us.
    Okay, let's break this down properly then.

    First off, it's very important to remember that with all three of these countries, there was always an outside threat to keep in check. We never had to be a brute and threaten "wondrous destructive violence"; West Germany never would of survived without the Allies backing them (Soviets would of loved to finish them off), the South Koreans wouldn't be around today if the US hadn't kicked the North back across the 38th Parallel, and then you have Japan who low and behold are looking at a hostile China who they had just murdered 15 million people... so they could also use a little US made firepower. In Iraq, we never had this option because the greatest threat to the Iraqi people, were the Iraqi people.

    Also, it was only a matter of time until Maliki joined up with Iran and became the asshole we all knew he was capable of being. The US was never going to offer him the level of support that Iran was more than willing to make. Lest we forget where Maliki hid out for all those years *cough* Iran *cough*. Unless we were willing to use the forces in Iraq to enforce the peace, for example, deploying into Sunni areas to ensure that Iraqi government played fair, then it was never going to hold. And say what you want about Fascism, it isn't the same as the problem that Islam is today. Never underestimate the religious animosities that are at the route of these problems, and we never had to deal with anything like that. Well, I guess there was Japan but, one picture and we showed the Japanese who's the boss:



    There's one final piece to the puzzle that was in play in Japan and Germany that we never got with Iraq... they were never broken. After WW2, Germany was utterly shattered; they had last a second straight war, lost millions of people, their cities lay in complete ruin... they were a people that were tired of war. With Japan, we didn't have to break the will of the entire people, but that of only the one man that mattered. And after killing around 500,000 Japanese in two devastating attacks, not to mention a third earlier in the year that burned Tokyo to the ground, Hirohito had seen enough. In both these cases, there was no long the will the fight. The Iraqis have clearly demonstrated that even after 10 years of conflict, the thirst for blood hasn't been satiated.

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    The point was a small presence was there to keep the peace, and deter aggressive neighbors. Thats what we should do in Iraq, unless you would rather hand it over to Russia, Iran, and the terrorists.
    That small presence, would of have to of been substantial and you know it as well as I do. And they wouldn't of had the authority to curb the Iraqi Government's aggression against the sunnis because Maliki would of never of given it. Finally, it's not the aggressive neighbors that you have to worry about in this case (which was the case for the other three countries), but the crisis within. ISIS is a two bit player right now if Iraq was run by either Saddam or the US, because we wouldn't of let the Sunnis get the short end of the stick...

  9. #99
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    Okay, let's break this down properly then.
    Let us do so.

    First off, it's very important to remember that with all three of these countries, there was always an outside threat to keep in check.
    What was Okinawa, Japan keeping in check for us in the late 1940s?

    We never had to be a brute and threaten "wondrous destructive violence"
    Not only that, but in Korea we had to engage in it. However, if you think that the ability to bring destructive violence immediately makes one brutish (or that threats can never be implicit, or that the ability to bring violence to bear immediately constitutes a threat), then I would recommend to you Bing Wests' excellent book The Strongest Tribe.

    West Germany never would of survived without the Allies backing them (Soviets would of loved to finish them off), the South Koreans wouldn't be around today if the US hadn't kicked the North back across the 38th Parallel
    what year did the North Koreans invade?

    and then you have Japan who low and behold are looking at a hostile China
    China didn't flip until 1949, at which point the US occupation of Japan had been underway for some time. After 1949, China's seaborne power projection capability was approximately nil.

    In Iraq, we never had this option because the greatest threat to the Iraqi people, were the Iraqi people.
    Making it a situation similar to Korea, where the greatest threat to the Koreans were other Koreans.

    Also, it was only a matter of time until Maliki joined up with Iran and became the asshole we all knew he was capable of being.
    This is not true. Not least because Maliki would have been unlikely to be able to set himself up as a permanent ruler of Iraq (as he seems to want to do) with a heavy US presence. Maliki was a pain, but he was containable when we were there.

    The US was never going to offer him the level of support that Iran was more than willing to make. Lest we forget where Maliki hid out for all those years *cough* Iran *cough*. Unless we were willing to use the forces in Iraq to enforce the peace, for example, deploying into Sunni areas to ensure that Iraqi government played fair, then it was never going to hold.
    .....Um.... we did precisely that.

    And say what you want about Fascism, it isn't the same as the problem that Islam is today.
    depends on how you judge. We were much more serious (once we got started) about the threat of violent Fascism than we are about the threat of violent Islamism, and we were much more prone in those days to recognize that threats had to be answered, and could not safely be ignored. Now we are the attention-deficit-nation, who thinks that wars can be undeclared when one side just gets' bored and says they're gonna go home, now.

    Never underestimate the religious animosities that are at the route of these problems, and we never had to deal with anything like that.
    :raises eyebrow: the Japanese were using suicide bombers against us long before the Islamists were. Furthermore the civil war in Iraq had to be fomented by AMZ - prior to 2005, the Sunni/Shia split in Iraq wasn't anything like the problem it is today, where it's a deep cultural divide. Hell, lots of Iraqi families have sunni and shia branches. Iraq's Shia fought proudly and bravely for Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war.

    Don't underestimate Iraqi nationalism.

    Well, I guess there was Japan but, one picture and we showed the Japanese who's the boss:

    There's one final piece to the puzzle that was in play in Japan and Germany that we never got with Iraq... they were never broken. After WW2, Germany was utterly shattered; they had last a second straight war, lost millions of people, their cities lay in complete ruin... they were a people that were tired of war. With Japan, we didn't have to break the will of the entire people, but that of only the one man that mattered. And after killing around 500,000 Japanese in two devastating attacks, not to mention a third earlier in the year that burned Tokyo to the ground, Hirohito had seen enough. In both these cases, there was no long the will the fight. The Iraqis have clearly demonstrated that even after 10 years of conflict, the thirst for blood hasn't been satiated.
    ....ISIL has demonstrated that, certainly. However, you are wrong that they were never broken - in 2008/2009, they were. We simply allowed them to reconstitute.

    That small presence, would of have to of been substantial and you know it as well as I do
    The Iraqi government wanted 20,000 troops. The DOD said that the minimum that would be required to even be able to adequately force-protect while doing their mission was 10,000. A couple of months before the deadline, the White House came out and said that 5,000 was it's ceiling, effectively torpedoing the discussions.

  10. #100
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    Okay, let's break this down properly then.

    First off, it's very important to remember that with all three of these countries, there was always an outside threat to keep in check. We never had to be a brute and threaten "wondrous destructive violence"; West Germany never would of survived without the Allies backing them (Soviets would of loved to finish them off), the South Koreans wouldn't be around today if the US hadn't kicked the North back across the 38th Parallel, and then you have Japan who low and behold are looking at a hostile China who they had just murdered 15 million people... so they could also use a little US made firepower. In Iraq, we never had this option because the greatest threat to the Iraqi people, were the Iraqi people.

    Also, it was only a matter of time until Maliki joined up with Iran and became the asshole we all knew he was capable of being. The US was never going to offer him the level of support that Iran was more than willing to make. Lest we forget where Maliki hid out for all those years *cough* Iran *cough*. Unless we were willing to use the forces in Iraq to enforce the peace, for example, deploying into Sunni areas to ensure that Iraqi government played fair, then it was never going to hold. And say what you want about Fascism, it isn't the same as the problem that Islam is today. Never underestimate the religious animosities that are at the route of these problems, and we never had to deal with anything like that. Well, I guess there was Japan but, one picture and we showed the Japanese who's the boss:



    There's one final piece to the puzzle that was in play in Japan and Germany that we never got with Iraq... they were never broken. After WW2, Germany was utterly shattered; they had last a second straight war, lost millions of people, their cities lay in complete ruin... they were a people that were tired of war. With Japan, we didn't have to break the will of the entire people, but that of only the one man that mattered. And after killing around 500,000 Japanese in two devastating attacks, not to mention a third earlier in the year that burned Tokyo to the ground, Hirohito had seen enough. In both these cases, there was no long the will the fight. The Iraqis have clearly demonstrated that even after 10 years of conflict, the thirst for blood hasn't been satiated.



    That small presence, would of have to of been substantial and you know it as well as I do. And they wouldn't of had the authority to curb the Iraqi Government's aggression against the sunnis because Maliki would of never of given it. Finally, it's not the aggressive neighbors that you have to worry about in this case (which was the case for the other three countries), but the crisis within. ISIS is a two bit player right now if Iraq was run by either Saddam or the US, because we wouldn't of let the Sunnis get the short end of the stick...
    IF OBAMA HADN'T LEFT, WE WOULDNT BE IN THIS MESS. Combat ops were drawn down years ago. LEAVING Iraq to the wolves is what caused this.

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 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
  •