• 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!

Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threat?

Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threat?

  • Total voters
    67
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Hard Truth said:
I'm tired of the WWII situation being applied to every subsequent war. The political, cultural and military factors in every war are different. We didn't appease Saddam Hussein and now the region is in a worse situation than if we did nothing.
Click to expand...


The fact is we did not finish the job in Iraq..We should have at least left a residual force there.A SOFA agreement could have been worked out............Obama was just to fast to cut and run.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

46-17 in favor of not sending troops in. That does not surprise me considering DP is a left leaning forum.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threat?
Click to expand...

I need a president I can trust to tell me why it's a necessary thing first. As it stands, with the fellow we have, no.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Navy Pride said:
The fact is we did not finish the job in Iraq..We should have at least left a residual force there.A SOFA agreement could have been worked out............Obama was just to fast to cut and run.
Click to expand...

"...With the collapse of discussions about extending the stay of U.S. troops,[32][33] President Obama announced the full withdrawal of troops from Iraq, as previously scheduled, on 21 October 2011.The U.S. retained an embassy in Baghdad[33] with some 17,000 personnel,[34] consulates in Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk, which have been allocated more than 1,000 staff each,[34] and between 4,000 to 5,000 defense contractors.[33] President Obama and al-Maliki outlined a broad agenda for post-war cooperation without American troops in Iraq during a joint press conference on 12 December 2011 at the White House. This agenda included cooperation on energy, trade and education as well as cooperation in security, counter-terrorism, economic development and strengthening Iraq's institutions. Both leaders said their countries would maintain strong security, diplomatic and economic ties after the last U.S. combat forces withdraw..."
Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"...The US embassy – the largest and most expensive in the world – is in a green zone of its own in Baghdad, supplied by armed convoys and generating its own water and electricity, and treating its own sewage. At 104 acres, the embassy is almost the same size as Vatican City. It is here that the US is transforming its military-led approach into one of muscular diplomacy.

State department figures show that some 17,000 personnel will be under the jurisdiction of the US ambassador. In addition, there are also consulates in Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk, which have been allocated more than 1,000 staff each. Crucially, all these US staff, including military and security contractors, will have diplomatic immunity. Essentially, the Obama administration is reaping the political capital of withdrawing US troops while hedging the impact of the withdrawal with an increase in private security contractors working for a diplomatic mission unlike any other on the planet....

There are an estimated 400 arms deals between Baghdad and Washington, worth $10bn, with an additional 110 deals, worth $900m, reportedly pending. Many of these, as part of the deal, require US trainers, who would be working through the Office of Security Co-operation in the embassy. Bloomberg news reported that this "newly established office will have a core staff of 160 civilians and uniformed military alongside 750 civilian contractors overseeing Pentagon assistance programmes, including military training. They will be guarded, fed and housed by 3,500 additional contract personnel", working in 10 offices around the country .
Tuesday 25 October 2011
The US departure from Iraq is an illusion | James Denselow | Comment is free | theguardian.com
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

I voted no. Time for America to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries. Finish the job we started some say. What job and who started it? It's always been about oil companies and their profits I say. When I see the Bush Cheney Baker Kissinger crowd involved, I know it's not about what's good for America.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

I consider this forum mostly right leaning. But then I consider Obama a centrist to right leaning democrat for the most part . Maybe I'm wrong, but I judge him by his actions on the economic front.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Navy Pride said:
46-17 in favor of not sending troops in. That does not surprise me considering DP is a left leaning forum.
Click to expand...

I am as right as they come, and I don't support going back. Go back for what? At what cost?
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

PoS said:
Fighting a war you cant win is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

Your platitude does not change the idiocy of asking "why not everything at the same time!" like a child.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Hard Truth said:
When and where has that worked when fighting guerillas?
Click to expand...

In both post-surge Iraq, and in afghanistan. We got damn good at ending them. Ive posted numbers further back in the thread.

The real problem here is people dont understand what a sustained low-intensity counter insurgency operation entails-it means time. Thanks to our tech, it also means a minimal presence. But there is no substitute for troops on the ground.

Our enemies believe we dont have the stomach for staying and playing-and laugh at the idea of a withdrawal deadline. This is actually just the date they restart their jihad on schoolgirls. We need to stay until the fighting is done-not until Obama can no longer benefit from something politically.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

This article is a good explanation of the causes of the current fighting. It suggests to me that it would not have helped if the USA remained and continued to support al-Maliki. It also suggests that fighting off ISIS will not resolve the ongoing Shiite-Sunni conflict, an inclusive government that ends discrimination is requried.

"...The groundwork for today's problems began almost as soon as that last American convoy left in 2011. Sunni lawmakers protested the rounding up of many of their aides and security guards, and the country's vice president -- top Sunni leader Tariq al-Hashimi -- faced arrest and later fled the country.

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was supposed to usher in a political era of inclusion and reconciliation. His critics say those first days after the American departure were a signal of opposite intentions that have continued to this day.

The Sunni minority that had ruled Iraq via the iron fist of Saddam Hussein was at the political and social mercy of al-Maliki's Shia-dominated government. Today, they say, "inclusiveness" never materialized, Sunnis have been marginalized and resentment has festered in a divide-and-conquer political climate. As one local put it, "It's like if you're against us, you're a terrorist and we'll arrest you."

Why Iraq is in turmoil

This resentment, aided by the violent government shutdown of Sunni protest camps, provided an opening for the al Qaeda-linked Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to move into the Sunni heartland of Anbar Province in force. Al Qaeda is a beast that feasts on discontent and in Anbar there is no shortage of sustenance....

In 2006 the Americans convinced -- and paid -- Sunni tribal and religious leaders to fight the hardliners, with great success. But Sunni grievances never went away and some in Anbar see ISIS as comrades-in-arms against an al-Maliki government viewed as an oppressor of Sunnis. Other Sunnis see al-Maliki as the lesser of two evils -- they don't like how they're treated, but like even less the ISIS brand of hard-line, brutal "governance".

Al-Maliki has more than once termed the various fights and stand-offs in Ramadi and Fallujah as a fight against "al Qaeda", but it's not that simple.

The Sunni sense of being under the heel of a sectarian government, of being cut out of the running of their country, failing to share in growing oil revenues, has nothing to do with al Qaeda and won't evaporate once ISIS is forced from Ramadi and Fallujah.

The Americans aren't coming back to help out with boots on the ground, but they are giving other support -- offering drones, missiles, aircraft and other assistance.

But this isn't a battle to be won militarily. Sunnis -- many of whom have yet to get used to no longer running the country -- say they want to be part of the system that was meant to be "inclusive" but has, they feel, been anything but..........."
Inside Iraq: Two years after U.S. withdrawal, are things worse than ever? - CNN.com
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

US Conservative said:
In both post-surge Iraq, and in afghanistan. We got damn good at ending them. Ive posted numbers further back in the thread..../QUOTE]

We never ended the attacks and fighting.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Say we go back, with a force of 20 to 30 thousand troops. Get it back under control, stomp out most of ISIS and bring calm to the region again.
Say it takes a year. Then we spend another few years training up local forces, again, to defend their homeland. But they fail, again.
This is called endless war. No winners, lots of losers.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Hard Truth said:
This article is a good explanation of the causes of the current fighting. It suggests to me that it would not have helped if the USA remained and continued to support al-Maliki. It also suggests that fighting off ISIS will not resolve the ongoing Shiite-Sunni conflict, an inclusive government that ends discrimination is requried.

"...The groundwork for today's problems began almost as soon as that last American convoy left in 2011. Sunni lawmakers protested the rounding up of many of their aides and security guards, and the country's vice president -- top Sunni leader Tariq al-Hashimi -- faced arrest and later fled the country.

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was supposed to usher in a political era of inclusion and reconciliation. His critics say those first days after the American departure were a signal of opposite intentions that have continued to this day.

The Sunni minority that had ruled Iraq via the iron fist of Saddam Hussein was at the political and social mercy of al-Maliki's Shia-dominated government. Today, they say, "inclusiveness" never materialized, Sunnis have been marginalized and resentment has festered in a divide-and-conquer political climate. As one local put it, "It's like if you're against us, you're a terrorist and we'll arrest you."

Why Iraq is in turmoil

This resentment, aided by the violent government shutdown of Sunni protest camps, provided an opening for the al Qaeda-linked Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to move into the Sunni heartland of Anbar Province in force. Al Qaeda is a beast that feasts on discontent and in Anbar there is no shortage of sustenance....

In 2006 the Americans convinced -- and paid -- Sunni tribal and religious leaders to fight the hardliners, with great success. But Sunni grievances never went away and some in Anbar see ISIS as comrades-in-arms against an al-Maliki government viewed as an oppressor of Sunnis. Other Sunnis see al-Maliki as the lesser of two evils -- they don't like how they're treated, but like even less the ISIS brand of hard-line, brutal "governance".

Al-Maliki has more than once termed the various fights and stand-offs in Ramadi and Fallujah as a fight against "al Qaeda", but it's not that simple.

The Sunni sense of being under the heel of a sectarian government, of being cut out of the running of their country, failing to share in growing oil revenues, has nothing to do with al Qaeda and won't evaporate once ISIS is forced from Ramadi and Fallujah.

The Americans aren't coming back to help out with boots on the ground, but they are giving other support -- offering drones, missiles, aircraft and other assistance.

But this isn't a battle to be won militarily. Sunnis -- many of whom have yet to get used to no longer running the country -- say they want to be part of the system that was meant to be "inclusive" but has, they feel, been anything but..........."
Inside Iraq: Two years after U.S. withdrawal, are things worse than ever? - CNN.com
Click to expand...

We already have boots on the ground.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

CRUE CAB said:
Are we debating history or what we are doing NOW?
Click to expand...

You said that it is not true that neo-cons support all US wars. Prove it with an example.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Hard Truth said:
You said that it is not true that neo-cons support all US wars. Prove it with an example.
Click to expand...

Plenty of conservatives did not support the war in Iraq. Almost none support going back.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Navy Pride said:
46-17 in favor of not sending troops in. That does not surprise me considering DP is a left leaning forum.
Click to expand...

That's because you consider anyone who disagrees with you a leftist, even if their positions are substantially more to the right than yours.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

US Conservative said:
In both post-surge Iraq, and in afghanistan. We got damn good at ending them. Ive posted numbers further back in the thread.
Click to expand...

Actually attacks in Afghanistan are picking up. The only time they actually go down is during the winter.

And areas formerly quiet are turning hot.

Furthermore, it wasn't us who stopped the attacks in Iraq. It was the Sunnis. Unless you're willing to kill every last man, woman and child, COIN operations will not work until you separate the fish from the water. It appears you don't understand what happened in Iraq at all from 2003-2011.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

obvious Child said:
Actually attacks in Afghanistan are picking up. The only time they actually go down is during the winter.

And areas formerly quiet are turning hot.

Furthermore, it wasn't us who stopped the attacks in Iraq. It was the Sunnis. Unless you're willing to kill every last man, woman and child, COIN operations will not work until you separate the fish from the water. It appears you don't understand what happened in Iraq at all from 2003-2011.
Click to expand...

Because we have a chump president who announces withdrawal dates and does not fight wars to win them.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

US Conservative said:
Because we have a chump president who announces withdrawal dates and does not fight wars to win them.
Click to expand...

Which ignores that the cyclical nature of Afghanistan violence was the same under Bush. Furthermore, how can you even remotely claim to be conservative if you are pushing for what amounts to a blank check to the Afghans? Where is your notion of personal responsibility (or perhaps, you aren't conservative at all, but merely a Republican partisan)?

Furthermore, the US does not control the Afghanistan government. Much of the failings there are due to their government. Tell me, do you think the US should have done a puppet state from the beginning? (Or are you just going to run from this question as you run from them all?)

Bush signed the agreement with Iraq that gave a time table for removal of all US troops. Yet you never criticize him on that.

I get that you don't understand coin. I get that you don't understand anything that happened in Iraq from 2003-2011. I get that you're solely here to bash Obama and that you have no solutions yourself.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

CRUE CAB said:
Plenty of conservatives did not support the war in Iraq. Almost none support going back.
Click to expand...

I don't recall any conservatives publicly opposing the war except for a few near the end of the Bush II presidency, after the media and the public also opposed the war. Some libertarian conservatives opposed the war, but they were not very visible in the early years of the war.

I think you are not familiar with the term neo-con.

"Neoconservatism is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s. Many of its adherents rose to political fame during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Neoconservatives peaked in influence during the presidency of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the invasion of Iraq.[1] Prominent neoconservatives in the Bush administration included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer.
..... Neoconservatives frequently advocate the "assertive" promotion of democracy and promotion of "American national interest" in international affairs including by means of military force....."
Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Hard Truth said:
Yet we still didn't obtain a real victory in Afghanistan or Iraq because we made new enemies faster than we could kill them.
Click to expand...

That is silly reactionist thought. The Taliban and Al Queda were our enemies when we invaded....and they are our enemies now. That has not changed. Terrorists can always find fanatical morons to join their cause. And to be fair, we did obtain a real victory in Afghanistan. You do notice that the Afghan government is no longer run by the Taliban, don't you? They were tossed out of power in fairly short order. What we have not won is the peace after the victory. To do that, we are going to have to allow the US military to fight without having one hand tied behind their backs(in effect). The rules of engagement are far too restrictive. We should have learned that lesson in Vietnam.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

PoS said:
Really? If we're such do-gooders why havent we intervened in Africa, China or North Korea then? America is not the policeman of the world. We've been fighting this war on terror for over a decade now, its longer than Vietnam or WW2 and there's no end in sight. Guess what, we aren't winning.
Click to expand...

We were warned from the beginning that the war on terror was not going to be a quick victory. Bush was winning. Obama certainly is not. Obama stupidly assumed the war on terror was over the minute the US Navy Seals killed Osama Bin Laden. At that point his rhetoric became: We got Bin Laden, Al Queda is on the run. That's how his administration got into scandal trouble in Benghazi. He did not want to admit that the attacks that killed our ambassador were organized and planned. That's why they pushed the "Duheee...it was the video!" farce for over two weeks. It's also why Obama has been slow to react to ISIS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom