• 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!

Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

Winning means there is no doubt who the victor is.

Not having a decisive victory means the war will continue indefinitely.

It's amazing that this still has to be explained, but perhaps that's just the age in which we live.

Kind of like saying winning is winning. Really doesn't explain much. When will you know we've won? What will be the critieria? The metrics?
 
Winning means there is no doubt who the victor is.

Not having a decisive victory means the war will continue indefinitely.

It's amazing that this still has to be explained, but perhaps that's just the age in which we live.

You have a very floppy definition of winning. Also, this is why we have Declaration of Wars, it makes it oh so much easier. Declare war, go in, someone signs a surrender treaty, end.

It's a lot better when we follow the Constitution instead of just play lip service to it while allowing the government to do anything it wants.
 
QUOTE=Boo Radley;1059919443]I repost this for you Grant.

Thank you.

This is indeed what I said.

The American people were very much against involving themselves in WWII just 20 years after "The War To End All Wars" but that proved impossible. Since then there has been Communism with its 100 million plus victims and now Islamic terrorism. This goes well beyond trade and diplomatic relations and there is really nothing anyone can do about it except to meet the challenges the bad guys are always creating. That's just the way of the world.

To make the claim that this involved the Iraq war is either disingenuous or dishonest. Why should i have to defend statements from you regarding something I never said, intimidated or intended to day.

It goes well beyond "subtle", to use your word, into an area that I wasn't debating at all. From that you could mention the Boxer Rebellion or Mao's Little Red Book and be equally subtle.. I was making a singular point about a specific area and not mentioning the Iraq War at all, as you suggested. If you read things into what I post and debate that, rather than reading the post itself, then it turns whatever worthwhile debate their might have been into sludge.
 
Thank you.

This is indeed what I said.



To make the claim that this involved the Iraq war is either disingenuous or dishonest. Why should i have to defend statements from you regarding something I never said, intimidated or intended to day.

It goes well beyond "subtle", to use your word, into an area that I wasn't debating at all. From that you could mention the Boxer Rebellion or Mao's Little Red Book and be equally subtle.. I was making a singular point about a specific area and not mentioning the Iraq War at all, as you suggested. If you read things into what I post and debate that, rather than reading the post itself, then it turns whatever worthwhile debate their might have been into sludge.

So, we're not in Iraq for any of the things you mention? So why are we there?
 
You have a very floppy definition of winning. Also, this is why we have Declaration of Wars, it makes it oh so much easier. Declare war, go in, someone signs a surrender treaty, end.

It's a lot better when we follow the Constitution instead of just play lip service to it while allowing the government to do anything it wants.

Oh I agree the Constitution should be followed, though that was not the case in Libya or now in Central Africa. This does not contribute to winning a war, when in fact the definition of what that war is all about has never been fully explained.

What is it about winning decisively do you find "floppy".
 
So, we're not in Iraq for any of the things you mention? So why are we there?

Ostensibly to nail Saddam Hussein, which was quite legitimate (and made more sense than Gadaffi at this point) but I feel it also allowed the United States and its Allies to gain a foothold in the Middle East to have an insight, literally and figuratively, about what's going on there.

Massive U.S. Embassy In Iraq Will Expand Further As Soldiers Leave

If that Embassy is ever attacked then it is my hope that NATO forces respond very quickly and very aggressively.
 
Ostensibly to nail Saddam Hussein, which was quite legitimate (and made more sense than Gadaffi at this point) but I feel it also allowed the United States and its Allies to gain a foothold in the Middle East to have an insight, literally and figuratively, about what's going on there.

Massive U.S. Embassy In Iraq Will Expand Further As Soldiers Leave

If that Embassy is ever attacked then it is my hope that NATO forces respond very quickly and very aggressively.

No, Saddam was a noboody and a limited threat. He was contained, and not growing, had a crumbling infrastructure and no way to even house wmds. nothing has been more reckless than invading Iraq.

Unlike Iraq, Obama did not on his own push to invade Lybia.

As for the embassy, a huge expense that assures we will always be there, thus under risk, seems kind of foolish to me. To stay where we're not wanted, to subject ourselves to being in harms way for speciulative reasons, seems rather like a bad investment to me.
 
Kind of like saying winning is winning. Really doesn't explain much. When will you know we've won? What will be the critieria? The metrics?

In WWI they called it a draw and the Germans were back 20 years later and even greater carnage resulted. They did not allow the same thing to happen in WWII. Both Japan and Germany were beaten to the point where, 65 years later, they still don't want to go near a weapon.

That has to happen with anyone who does harm against the United States or any of its Allies. It is over quickly and those on the receiving end get peaceful for a long while after the very clear point is made.
 
No, Saddam was a noboody and a limited threat. He was contained, and not growing, had a crumbling infrastructure and no way to even house wmds. nothing has been more reckless than invading Iraq.

That's what is called "historical revisionism".

Unlike Iraq, Obama did not on his own push to invade Lybia.

Really? Who did the pushing?

As for the embassy, a huge expense that assures we will always be there, thus under risk, seems kind of foolish to me. To stay where we're not wanted, to subject ourselves to being in harms way for speciulative reasons, seems rather like a bad investment to me.

In fact it is an excellent investment and makes full use use of the US advantage of high technology.
 
In WWI they called it a draw and the Germans were back 20 years later and even greater carnage resulted. They did not allow the same thing to happen in WWII. Both Japan and Germany were beaten to the point where, 65 years later, they still don't want to go near a weapon.

That has to happen with anyone who does harm against the United States or any of its Allies. It is over quickly and those on the receiving end get peaceful for a long while after the very clear point is made.

And this means what? Comparing what? Germany is a country, quite capable of surrendering. Islamofascism is not. There is no one to surrender. No one to invade. The ilitary is simply limited in what it can do to fight such a conflict. in fact, it is too large, too cumbersome, too blunt an insturment to be effective.

Again, I ask as related to this conflict what does winning look like? What are the metrics?
 
That's what is called "historical revisionism".

No, it's called truth.

Really? Who did the pushing?

First the rebals, the Lybian people. Then I think the french were the ones pushing for intervention. Do you need a link?

In fact it is an excellent investment and makes full use use of the US advantage of high technology.

Explain. What technology? For what purpose?
 
No, it's called truth.

We'll call it your truth, okay?

First the rebals, the Lybian people. Then I think the french were the ones pushing for intervention. Do you need a link?

Barrack Obama takes his orders from the French and the Libyan people? When did that start? Wasn;' Congress supposed to get involved in these decisions also?
Explain. What technology? For what purpose?

Did you know that the United States has enemies in the Middle East?
 
And this means what? Comparing what? Germany is a country, quite capable of surrendering. Islamofascism is not. There is no one to surrender. No one to invade. The ilitary is simply limited in what it can do to fight such a conflict. in fact, it is too large, too cumbersome, too blunt an insturment to be effective.

Again, I ask as related to this conflict what does winning look like? What are the metrics?

The terrorists have to live somewhere and if any government harbors terrorists out to murder Americans or their Allies then they become enemies of the United States and will suffer accordingly. In fact it was George Bush, shortly after 9/11, who first articulated that idea.
 
We'll call it your truth, okay?

No, the truth. There is really no serious debate about it.

Barrack Obama takes his orders from the French and the Libyan people? When did that start? Wasn;' Congress supposed to get involved in these decisions also?

No one said that at all. Try again.

I prefer congress declare war, but congress did sign agreements with the UN, so the question is does the president need approval each time they keep the agreement iwht the UN? I for one would like the president to, but I'm not sure there isn't a legal point that that says it isn't needed. however, for OUR purpose, I don't argue that Obama shouldn't have had to go before congress. i prefer a declaration of war before we start killing folks.

Did you know that the United States has enemies in the Middle East?

Yep, but that doesn't answer what I asked you. Are you trying to divert away frm the question?
 
In theory I agree, but "winning" isn't the same concept that it was only 50 years ago.

Besides, we don't have the guts to do what it takes to win anymore, anyway.

Relate it to what we're doing and define winning for me. ;coffeepap
 
In theory I agree, but "winning" isn't the same concept that it was only 50 years ago.

Besides, we don't have the guts to do what it takes to win anymore, anyway.

It's your second statement that is spot on. Now Americans are more worried about someone getting hurt, a concern that doesn't bother your enemies.
 
That's another problem for too many Americans. They need 'winning' defined for them.

I know what winning is in a football game. Most things have winning clearly defined. I suspect many who support iraq only know the word, but not what it means. If they did, this would be an easy question.
 
It's your second statement that is spot on. Now Americans are more worried about someone getting hurt, a concern that doesn't bother your enemies.

Nonsense. I don't want to spend lives for nothing, something not worth spending a life on, but if the need is real, I'd spend my own. I think more should treat the spending of other people's livess more like it was their own.
 
I prefer congress declare war, but congress did sign agreements with the UN, so the question is does the president need approval each time they keep the agreement iwht the UN? I for one would like the president to, but I'm not sure there isn't a legal point that that says it isn't needed. however, for OUR purpose, I don't argue that Obama shouldn't have had to go before congress. i prefer a declaration of war before we start killing folks.

Yes, that would be the usual route but now he is killing people in a more whimsical fashion and without a glance to the future


Yep, but that doesn't answer what I asked you. Are you trying to divert away frm the question?

If you know you have enemies in the area, why do you ask the question?

Perhaps its to keep up on what they are saying and doing? Spying for example? Why does this have to be explained?
 
Yes, that would be the usual route but now he is killing people in a more whimsical fashion and without a glance to the future

That's just your partisanship talking. Again, there is a timeline of events. nothing whimiscal about it.


If you know you have enemies in the area, why do you ask the question?

Perhaps its to keep up on what they are saying and doing? Spying for example? Why does this have to be explained?

You can read the question can't you? You do see it linked to your comment, right?

Now spying would be an answer, but is that what we're doing there? Can you support that? Spying on Iran? Pakistan? SA? All the above? Would you say that makes the thousands of deaths worth losing?
 
That's just your partisanship talking. Again, there is a timeline of events. nothing whimiscal about it.

A timeline is not a reason, nor is it an explanation for taking out the legitimate leader of a UN Member, nor should he be get his permission to attack another country from France. And now he has troops in Central Africa, murdering more people. Where is the US government in any of this?



You can read the question can't you? You do see it linked to your comment, right?

Now spying would be an answer, but is that what we're doing there? Can you support that? Spying on Iran? Pakistan? SA? All the above? Would you say that makes the thousands of deaths worth losing?


Of course that's what's happening there! I cannot take your questions seriously because I have no idea whether you are joking or serious or what. Why not read about that Iraqi Embassy before you start asking silly questions?

I think its very useful to be there because it makes it more difficult for ME terrorists. Do you feel otherwise? Do you trust the Middle Eastern leaders and feel everyone should pack up their troubles in their old kit bag?
 
A timeline is not a reason, nor is it an explanation for taking out the legitimate leader of a UN Member, nor should he be get his permission to attack another country from France. And now he has troops in Central Africa, murdering more people. Where is the US government in any of this?

It gives you a good idea what happened. We did not take him out either. And france didn't give permission. Again you frame it dishonestly.




Of course that's what's happening there! I cannot take your questions seriously because I have no idea whether you are joking or serious or what. Why not read about that Iraqi Embassy before you start asking silly questions?

I think its very useful to be there because it makes it more difficult for ME terrorists. Do you feel otherwise? Do you trust the Middle Eastern leaders and feel everyone should pack up their troubles in their old kit bag?

I wish you would take your answers seriously. We did not need to invade Iraq to spy on anyone. Our technology is good enough that killing thousands for a base should not be acceptable. And I don't have to trust anyone to believe we should not be in the business of agression without actual justification, without following rule of law, and without being honest about why we're putting Aemricans in ahrms way.
 
It gives you a good idea what happened. We did not take him out either. And france didn't give permission. Again you frame it dishonestly.

The US was involved in taking him out, Read the reports. So Barrack Obama led from the rear for several months, with France pushing somehow, and all without anyone's approval, even that of the US Congress. Just his own whimsical idea, huh?

I wish you would take your answers seriously. We did not need to invade Iraq to spy on anyone
.

You've forgetten the quote system already. Where did I say the US had to invade Iraq to spy on anyone?

Our technology is good enough that killing thousands for a base should not be acceptable. And I don't have to trust anyone to believe we should not be in the business of agression without actual justification, without following rule of law, and without being honest about why we're putting Aemricans in ahrms way.

Good for you.
 
Back
Top Bottom