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 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 115

Thread: Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

  1. #101
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Obama has already had Special Forces in Iraq for months, and now in light of massacres of civilians we are scaling up our presence-including airstrikes against military targets. Obama has suggested this could go on for some time.

    Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

    It is without question the right decision my only criticism is that his support should be broader and linked to a more coherent strategy. We should be supporting our allies against the threat that these Islamist savages pose.

  2. #102
    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?

    Agreed. I wish instead of vacationing Obama would tell the nation what his plans are.

  3. #103
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Agreed. I wish instead of vacationing Obama would tell the nation what his plans are.
    I wish he had plans. I think our current efforts in Iraq are in large part owed to the tremendous pressure heaped on the President from within his cabinet, the media, and from voices in foreign capitals. I do not think he wants to be involved but felt like he had to show he was willing to do something. It's why our response has been so oddly explained (to 'defend' our consulate in Erbil *eyeroll*) and so anemic in application.

  4. #104
    Black Is Smart
    Van Basten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The New New Frontier
    Last Seen
    11-06-17 @ 07:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    4,661

    Re: Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Islamism, in the modern world surely is.
    Islamism, the heck?

    Islamic extremism is the phrase you're looking for. And comparing these backwater clowns to the Nazis is a joke, you can't be that paranoid.
    "We have more responsibility than power, I think. The newspaper can create great controversies, stir up arguments within the community or discussion, can throw light on injustices....just as it can do the opposite. It can hide things and be a great power for evil." -- Rupert Murdoch, 1968

  5. #105
    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 Van Basten View Post
    Islamism, the heck?

    Islamic extremism is the phrase you're looking for. And comparing these backwater clowns to the Nazis is a joke, you can't be that paranoid.
    No. Islamism. Even the terms you continue to insist on betray your lack of knowledge on the issue. There are plenty of books on this matter, I recommend hitting them up.

  6. #106
    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
    Let us do so.
    I hate tit for tats, but since you are wrong so many times, I'll bite...

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    ....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.
    I love that book. Seriously, for anyone who wants to true story of what happened during the Iraq War, this book does such an amazing job. The stories that he tells of the immediate aftermath of the incompetence, nay naivety, on the part of American Military Leadership following the fall of Iraq is absolutely mind-boggling and shows precisely where we failed. but at the same time, it taught me just how important the Sunni Awakening (in combination with the Surge), was in the successful conclusion of the Iraq War.

    All that said, the book has nothing to contribute to that argument. If you are referring to the ability of the US Military backing up the Sunnis during the Awakening, I would remind you that at that time, they had the authorization from the government to do so. And this is where the Republicans argument that troops being in the country falls flat on it's face:

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    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....

    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.
    You really want to know what would of happened in your scenario, and why it would of failed? Any SOF agreement that we sign with the Iraqi Government would of put us at the behest of them. And why shouldn't it? At this point, they hold all the cards. So when the time came to try and become militarily involved to act as arbitraters between the Sunnis and the Shia, our troops would of had their hands tied by ridiculous Rules of Engagement that would of prevented us from assisting the Sunnis and us standing by the Shia Government and watch as they persecuted them. They might of helped when ISIS began pouring across the border, but the problem with ISIS in Iraq is far more than just some foreign fighters that came from Syria. The larger issue is the Sunnis that have joined with ISIS. In all likelihood, all you would of ended up having was a another Khe Sanh.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    What year did the North Koreans invade?
    Why is Korea being discussed? We never conquered it; Korea was liberated after Japan's surrender. It's like trying to compare the Iraq situation with Poland after the fall of the Soviet Union.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Making it a situation similar to Korea, where the greatest threat to the Koreans were other Koreans.
    And this is why the analogy fails. It might of been the North Koreans that ultimately declared war, but they never would of done so without the explicit permission from both Moscow and Beijing. Had Kim Il-Sung been able to, he would of invaded in 1949, when he believed the South Koreans would welcome the North Koreans after the events of the previous year (Jeju Uprising and Yeosu–Suncheon Rebellion). On the other hand, in Iraq, the current problems are largely coming from a Shia government oppressing it's Sunni minority and the Sunnis are fighting back. We're not calling it such now, but we are seeing the beginnings of a second Iraqi Civil War.


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    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.

    :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.

    ....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.
    And finally, there are so many things wrong with the above, I decided to clump them together and knock them down through bullet points:

    * While the Japanese military and it's people did have a religious mindset, there is one crucial difference between the two that either you don't realize or are choosing to ignore: Japan had a god who was human, and one that fortunately didn't want to see his people suffer. We don't have that in Iraq, now do we?

    * Are you really attempting to downplay the issues between Iraq's Sunni and Shia? Refresher then:

    Quote Originally Posted by Shia Treatment During the Iran-Iraq War
    Around the time of the Iranian revolution in 1979, thousands of Shias in Iraq were accused of belonging to al-Da'wa, the largest underground Shia political organisation. Shias were targeted, some were killed, and many were expelled to Iran. In the 1980s as Saddam waged an eight-year war against Iran, he also targeted Iraq's Shia population by accusing them of having connections with Iran and not being patriotic. The Grand Ayatollah Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei refused to lend his support to the war and many of his allies were arrested.
    *ISIL wasn't around during the time of the Awakening. That and the people that are currently involved, the Sunnis, won the conflict in any event.

    * And finally, this statement: we were much more prone in those days to recognize that threats had to be answered, and could not safely be ignored. Never have I seen a better example of wishful history, the idea of a person imposing his worldview on history, regardless of the facts. Perhaps you forgot that as the Japanese were attacking Pearl Harbor, the American First movement were holding a rally in Pittsburg against any intervention. Or did you somehow forget about this:



    Now that I've clearly demonstrated how Iraq is different from either Germany, Japan, or Korea, it is evident that my point that not only would a token force of failed to bring any peace, but that the only way a lasting peace would come is through annexing Iraq. The Iraqis can't govern themselves, and any SOF agreement would of made sure that we kept our noses out of their incompetence.

  7. #107
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,067

    Re: Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    I love that book. Seriously, for anyone who wants to true story of what happened during the Iraq War, this book does such an amazing job. The stories that he tells of the immediate aftermath of the incompetence, nay naivety, on the part of American Military Leadership following the fall of Iraq is absolutely mind-boggling and shows precisely where we failed. but at the same time, it taught me just how important the Sunni Awakening (in combination with the Surge), was in the successful conclusion of the Iraq War.

    All that said, the book has nothing to contribute to that argument. If you are referring to the ability of the US Military backing up the Sunnis during the Awakening, I would remind you that at that time, they had the authorization from the government to do so. And this is where the Republicans argument that troops being in the country falls flat on it's face
    ...is it your opinion that US operations in Iraq today are not authorized by the Government of Iraq? Or is it your argument that had we maintained (as the Iraqi's wanted) a 20,000 strong force in Iraq years ago, that that would have not been authorized by the GoI?

    You really want to know what would of happened in your scenario, and why it would of failed? Any SOF agreement that we sign with the Iraqi Government would of put us at the behest of them.
    I'm not sure what you mean by "at the behest". We get blessing for ops, and then we decide which actual ops we want to undertake. We don't take orders from the Iraqi Govt, they simply authorize us to operate.

    If by "at the behest" you mean "because they want us there", well, duh. The situation is the same for South Korea and Japan.

    And why shouldn't it? At this point, they hold all the cards
    yeah. Because when I look at Maliki today I think to myself "man, there is a guy who holds all the cards".

    You are incorrect. We have the cards because we can decide when and when not to employ our assets in the salvation of the crumbling Iraqi state.

    So when the time came to try and become militarily involved to act as arbitraters between the Sunnis and the Shia, our troops would of had their hands tied by ridiculous Rules of Engagement that would of prevented us from assisting the Sunnis and us standing by the Shia Government and watch as they persecuted them
    This is false, demonstrated little better than the fact that when this claim was put to the test, it failed.

    They might of helped when ISIS began pouring across the border, but the problem with ISIS in Iraq is far more than just some foreign fighters that came from Syria. The larger issue is the Sunnis that have joined with ISIS. In all likelihood, all you would of ended up having was a another Khe Sanh.


    The Sunni Tribes weren't joining with ISIS until we left and Maliki was left to run nuts. The Sunni Tribes helped kick ISIS' a-- when we were there.

    And this is why the analogy fails. It might of been the North Koreans that ultimately declared war, but they never would of done so without the explicit permission from both Moscow and Beijing. Had Kim Il-Sung been able to, he would of invaded in 1949, when he believed the South Koreans would welcome the North Koreans after the events of the previous year (Jeju Uprising and Yeosu–Suncheon Rebellion). On the other hand, in Iraq, the current problems are largely coming from a Shia government oppressing it's Sunni minority and the Sunnis are fighting back. We're not calling it such now, but we are seeing the beginnings of a second Iraqi Civil War.
    Not improbable.

    And finally, there are so many things wrong with the above, I decided to clump them together and knock them down through bullet points:

    * While the Japanese military and it's people did have a religious mindset, there is one crucial difference between the two that either you don't realize or are choosing to ignore: Japan had a god who was human, and one that fortunately didn't want to see his people suffer. We don't have that in Iraq, now do we?
    No we do not. Not sure how that invalidates the fact that we have been successful in the past at exporting ideological assumptions and guiding the formation of acceptable governance on foreign soil.

    Are you really attempting to downplay the issues between Iraq's Sunni and Shia?
    No, I am putting it in its correct context, which is to point out that the Fitna in Iraq as it is expressed today (or is in a civil war between the two sides) was not endogenous. It had to be fomented, and was, by ISIL, with some good success, which was then tamped down by US forces, who then left, at which point ISIL was able to reconstitute.

    *ISIL wasn't around during the time of the Awakening.
    You do know that ISIL is just the new name for AQI? The Islamic State in the Land of the Two Rivers? Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's old gang?

    That and the people that are currently involved, the Sunnis, won the conflict in any event.
    True and they made a deal with the devil after we abandoned them.

    * And finally, this statement: we were much more prone in those days to recognize that threats had to be answered, and could not safely be ignored. Never have I seen a better example of wishful history, the idea of a person imposing his worldview on history, regardless of the facts. Perhaps you forgot that as the Japanese were attacking Pearl Harbor, the American First movement were holding a rally in Pittsburg against any intervention.
    Indeed. And once threat had been demonstrated, we were willing to destroy it. As we are not today.

    Now that I've clearly demonstrated how Iraq is different from either Germany, Japan, or Korea, it is evident that my point that not only would a token force of failed to bring any peace
    20,000 troops is not a token. The 5,000 that Obama wanted to leave likely would have been, which is why that demand destroyed the talks.

    but that the only way a lasting peace would come is through annexing Iraq
    That is false, although continuing to heavily influence Iraq would have been necessary. Hells bells, ISIL was just about toast when we left. All we would have had to do would have been to maintain hard-won gains (which we instead pissed away).

  8. #108
    Advisor
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Last Seen
    11-25-15 @ 05:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    531

    Re: Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post


    Oh, for goodness sakes...come on now.

    Roughly 10,000 ISIS troops are the greatest threat to mankind since the U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany?

    So the Khmer Rouge murdering millions of Cambodians was less of a threat?

    So 800,000+ Rwandans hacked to death was less of a threat?

    The Nigerian Civil War. Over 1 million and less of a threat to humanity then roughly 7-10,000 ISIS fighters?

    North Korea could obliterate South Korea with nukes if it wanted to. India and Pakistan could do the same to each other.

    All of these are less of a threat to humanity then roughly 10,000 ISIS troops running around in pickup trucks with a little artillery and ZERO airpower?


    No offense, but your statement is totally ridiculous.


    And as for Obama's moron plan of getting involved again...

    even Reagan knew better then to get involved in the Middle East

    'Lest we forget, after America's first encounter with jihadist violence in 1983 – when 241 US military personnel were killed – Reagan, to use the disparaging lingo of the neocons, chose to "cut and run". Every single soldier was pulled out of Lebanon within four months. "Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle," Reagan later wrote in his memoir, adding: "The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there … If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position ... those 241 marines would be alive today."'

    Ronald Reagan was no hawk
    Did any of those others you mentioned ever proclaim to fly their flag over the White House? They are the biggest threat in the world right now to ALL who are not Muslim. Read, research and question and then come back.

  9. #109
    Guru
    celticwar17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,877

    Re: Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Understood, but the problem isn't lack of armament or experience-the kurds know how to fight-what they DONT know how to do is stand up against a constant stream of islamists. We need to commit to expelling ISIS, or not go in at all.
    I agree.... I'm not sure what the best thing to do is... but if you do go in, commit, go all out, make it quick, and utterly destroy them.... or not at all.

  10. #110
    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 celticwar17 View Post
    I agree.... I'm not sure what the best thing to do is... but if you do go in, commit, go all out, make it quick, and utterly destroy them.... or not at all.
    I think we should go in and kick em out-but Obama does not have the political stones to do this. One thing is for sure-ignoring it will not only make it worse-it will impact us here as well.

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 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
  •