• 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!

At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

is the iraq war over ??

  • yes

    Votes: 10 58.8%

  • no

    Votes: 7 41.2%
  • Total voters
    17
Grant said:
This is an interesting new twist in modern warfare. Signing an agreement that a war will only continue to a predetermined date and then one side, the side of the Democracies, will withdraw.

The strategy behind this is political, not military, and by doing so the American government consigned some of their best people to die in a useless cause.

Iraq will now go the way of Egypt, Libya, Syria and Iran. Nixon was absolutely right about the Vietnam syndrome and what it would mean to American respect around the world. Now the Americans, like all their Allies, want to fight a war where no one gets hurt and a withdrawal date is decided upon well in advance.

While it may be a spat between the Democrats and Republicans domestically, and the American people will argue back and forth about that, it means a hell of a lot internationally. It really doesnt matter what the Americans think anymore in fact, as its all blather. They have become European and will suffer the similar consequences.
Click to expand...

Of course it was political.

We shouldn't get involved in a war unless we're ready to see it through to the end and let the chips fall where they may. If we're going to war, then let's go for total victory, total defeat of the enemy, and the entire nation at war, not just the professional military.

Iraq is one we should have skipped entirely.
 
EagleAye said:
[my bold]


It always bugs me when people throw around HUGE numbers of civilian casualties. I've heard people claiming millions of Iraqis dead, but this wasn't RT. Still, I wanted to give a better number than "hundreds of thousands." This comes from NIC, a group of peace activists keeping tally.
Iraq Body Count
Total civilian deaths: 104,308 – 113,962 (so just over 100,000 NOT "hundreds of thousands." - singular not plural). Now lets look at civilian deaths during the invasion in 2003.

Just in the invasion alone we get this from Wiki:[my bold]

So as many 4300 civilians were killed during the invasion.

While Coalition forces were responsible for more civilian deaths in the coming years, the lion's share of the killing was committed by domestic and foreign insurgents (gee thanks Iran) and domestic criminal activity (Iraqis killing Iraqis). At least the US can claim it was trying to get insurgents when civilians were accidentally killed. Insurgents were targeting civilians to foment violence between Sunnis and Shiites. Unfortunately it worked. Iraqis have only themselves to blame for accepting this obvious bait.

While this is not meant to belittle the civilian deaths. Any civilian death is a tragedy. The record should be set straight.
Click to expand...

Gosh, only a little over a hundred thousand dead Iraqis as a result of the decision to go to a half way war in that country. Why, the buggers should be grateful that we fought for their freedom for such a small price. Now, if a hundred thousand Americans had died, that would be another matter, but a hundred thousand foreigners who don't even speak English? That's such a small matter, than no one should be upset by it.





(sarcasm off.. for now)
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
There were no options on the table that would've allowed us to leave without throwing the lives spent there down the drain. The entire war was a waste of lives -- not because the cause wasn't noble, but because there's never been a viable plan for success. Sticking around would have done nothing but waste more lives.

Getting out now was the right thing to do for the US, the Iraqis can sort out the rest on their own.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that the US can divorce itself from events in the Middle East and go on with business as usual?

I guess that means the airport gropings can stop now.
 
lpast said:
I voted no to the war being over...but I hope OUR war in iraq is over...
Click to expand...

Don't you know there are at least two sides in any war?

Just because you prefer to think its over and want to quit doesn't mean a thing unless your enemies also say it's over.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Of course it was political.

We shouldn't get involved in a war unless we're ready to see it through to the end and let the chips fall where they may. If we're going to war, then let's go for total victory, total defeat of the enemy, and the entire nation at war, not just the professional military.

Iraq is one we should have skipped entirely.
Click to expand...

Yes, the US has forgotten how to win a war and that has become common knowledge. They are the weak horse, as has been charged, and all the weaponry in the world won't change that.

Iraq gave the US and its Allies an opportunity to station their troops in the Middle East, just as they did in Western Europe following WWII. Now that chance has largely gone and this appeasement will once again encourage the inevitable, just as happened following WWI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_with_Germany
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
Oh please, are you kidding me? Do a simple google search on "America's aging infrastructure" and you will see that roads, bridges, water/sewer lines, electric grid, etc are all sub par and are in need of repair and upgrade.

How about we fix OUR country before we try nation building ok?
Click to expand...

Aren't those all local requirements?
 
washamericom said:
yesterday it was, today it isn't...

in the wake of today's bombing, president obama ostensibly can't just wave a confident hand and say the war is over.

if he could he would have wished saddam into the cornfield as a senator and fixed syria today.

joe biden's dream of three iraqs is coming to fruition, and we're apparently buds with the taliban. why would the west point generals know more about war and peace than a community organiser ??



BBC News - At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks
Click to expand...
Hell yes it's over, invading Iraq was one of the stupidest things our country has ever done. Just think of all the American lives that were snuffed out and the thousands of life altering injuries our troops have suffered! The broken families... Homes... jobs... divorces. And for what? The worlds largest embassy in Baghdad?
 
pbrauer said:
Hell yes it's over, invading Iraq was one of the stupidest things our country has ever done. Just think of all the American lives that were snuffed out and the thousands of life altering injuries our troops have suffered! The broken families... Homes... jobs... divorces. And for what? The worlds largest embassy in Baghdad?
Click to expand...

Just think of all the American lives that were saved and the life altering injuries that were avoided, by taking on the problem, now, vice 10 years from now.
 
Grant said:
Do you really believe that the US can divorce itself from events in the Middle East and go on with business as usual?

I guess that means the airport gropings can stop now.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I must have been out sick when my geography teacher explained that Iraq and the Middle East are one and the same.

Or was it the day that my global studies teacher explained that Islam and the Middle East are one and the same?
 
pbrauer said:
Hell yes it's over, invading Iraq was one of the stupidest things our country has ever done. Just think of all the American lives that were snuffed out and the thousands of life altering injuries our troops have suffered! The broken families... Homes... jobs... divorces. And for what? The worlds largest embassy in Baghdad?
Click to expand...

Don't underestimate the importance of that Embassy. It gives ears and eyes to almost everything going on n the Middle East. But there should have been troops stationed there, in conjunction with American Allies, to maintain some control. This was done following WWII and there is little reason why we should trust the Arabs any more than we trust the Europeans.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Sorry, I must have been out sick when my geography teacher explained that Iraq and the Middle East are one and the same.

Or was it the day that my global studies teacher explained that Islam and the Middle East are one and the same?
Click to expand...

It's all rather complicated. Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable on another thread.
 
Grant said:
It's all rather complicated. Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable on another thread.
Click to expand...

It's not complicated at all -- you put words in other people's mouths, then respond to those words, then call that an argument and label yourself the victor.

Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable doing that with someone else.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Sorry, I must have been out sick when my geography teacher explained that Iraq and the Middle East are one and the same.

Or was it the day that my global studies teacher explained that Islam and the Middle East are one and the same?
Click to expand...

Currently, the threat from Islamist terrorists is based in the Middle East. Or, perhaps Southwest Asia would be more PC.
 
j-mac said:
Lancet will forever be bogus no matter how many anti war proponents during those years want it to be true. The bottom line is that most people that get out there and use language like 'hundreds of thousands', or troops 'slaying' civilians are IMHO just over the top mouth foamers that can't bring themselves to discuss Iraq reasonably largely because of their blind hate toward George W. Bush.


j-mac
Click to expand...

You don't need lancet to know too many people died in Iraq. Fact is the number is larger than counts show because no one counted. Still, IBC gives a 100K. Isn't that enough to know the cost was high? And IBC admits they did not count much early on and that much was missed. Nor does it account for deaths due to things war brings other than by bullets and bombs. Nor does it count those displaced.

So, at what number do you stop making excuses and admit a hell of a lot of people died and suffered? Where's the cut off at?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
It's not complicated at all -- you put words in other people's mouths, then respond to those words, then call that an argument and label yourself the victor.

Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable doing that with someone else.
Click to expand...

I don't want this to be one of those "you started it" arguments but when you tell me what your teacher told you, in reference to nothing, that Iraq and the Middle East are not the same, then the whole thing unwinds.

Nowhere did I make the claim that Iraq and the Middle East was one and the same. Nowhere. And I would never do so. Also nowhere did I say that Islam and the Middle East are one and the same. I would never do that either.

Now you are making the ridiculous claim that I am the one putting words in your mouth. Maybe you should ask for clarification from that teacher of yours.
 
Grant said:
Another Boo "Fact".
Click to expand...

Which is probably correct, and if it isn't, so what? Was over a hundred thousand dead, with all of the widows and orphans that implies, plus unknown thousands more injured, really worth it?
 
Boo Radley said:
You don't need lancet to know too many people died in Iraq. Fact is the number is larger than counts show because no one counted. Still, IBC gives a 100K. Isn't that enough to know the cost was high? And IBC admits they did not count much early on and that much was missed. Nor does it account for deaths due to things war brings other than by bullets and bombs. Nor does it count those displaced.

So, at what number do you stop making excuses and admit a hell of a lot of people died and suffered? Where's the cut off at?
Click to expand...

Why is it that a discussion on something like this I should just take your word of what ever number you'd like to pull out of thin air to justify your meme, but in a discussion concerning something else I must provide multitudes of sourcing that you approve of documenting my assertions?

Seems a little lopsided does it not?


j-mac
 
Dittohead not! said:
Which is probably correct, and if it isn't, so what? Was over a hundred thousand dead, with all of the widows and orphans that implies, plus unknown thousands more injured, really worth it?
Click to expand...

Depends on what happens going forward. History will be the judge. That is not set in stone by the word of those whom have any agenda for, or against. And it is not determined within the time frame of current events.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Depends on what happens going forward. History will be the judge. That is not set in stone by the word of those whom have any agenda for, or against. And it is not determined within the time frame of current events.


j-mac
Click to expand...

So, we'll have to wait and see what future historians have to say about the issue.

If you were an Iraqi, and one of your relatives were among the dead, how would you feel about the American invasion today?
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, we'll have to wait and see what future historians have to say about the issue.

If you were an Iraqi, and one of your relatives were among the dead, how would you feel about the American invasion today?
Click to expand...

about the same as one whos relatives were killed by SH. Also may depend on who killed them, terrorist or American/Nato troops.
 
Grant said:
Another Boo "Fact".
Click to expand...

If by Boo fact, you mean real fact, yes. Ask IBC. They admit freely they have not counted all of the deaths. I do, however, notice you once again ignore the point and didn't answer the question. Helps doesn't it? :coffeepap
 
j-mac said:
Why is it that a discussion on something like this I should just take your word of what ever number you'd like to pull out of thin air to justify your meme, but in a discussion concerning something else I must provide multitudes of sourcing that you approve of documenting my assertions?

Seems a little lopsided does it not?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Nothing is pulled out of the air j. IBC did eventually get around around to counting. They admittedly have a low count, but their count, double verified (meaning each death reported at least twice), comes to over 100K. Nothing is pulled out of the air. It is clearly osurced, and so often that it should be common knowledge now to anyone who has paid even a passing bit of attention. If you need a link to IBC, I can give it to you or you can get it yourself, or merely remember the few thousand times it's been linked for you before. You see j, mine really is supported, as you never really is. :coffeepap
 
Grant said:
I don't want this to be one of those "you started it" arguments but when you tell me what your teacher told you, in reference to nothing, that Iraq and the Middle East are not the same, then the whole thing unwinds.

Nowhere did I make the claim that Iraq and the Middle East was one and the same. Nowhere. And I would never do so. Also nowhere did I say that Islam and the Middle East are one and the same. I would never do that either.

Now you are making the ridiculous claim that I am the one putting words in your mouth. Maybe you should ask for clarification from that teacher of yours.
Click to expand...

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and walk you through what happened:

TacticalEvilDan said:
There were no options on the table that would've allowed us to leave without throwing the lives spent there down the drain. The entire war was a waste of lives -- not because the cause wasn't noble, but because there's never been a viable plan for success. Sticking around would have done nothing but waste more lives.

Getting out now was the right thing to do for the US, the Iraqis can sort out the rest on their own.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty plain that I was speaking specifically about the mess that is Iraq. You then responded thusly:

Grant said:
Do you really believe that the US can divorce itself from events in the Middle East and go on with business as usual?

I guess that means the airport gropings can stop now.
Click to expand...

You, in your own mind, expanded my comment about Iraq to somehow include the whole of the Middle East.

Thus, you put words in my mouth.
 
mike2810 said:
about the same as one whos relatives were killed by SH. Also may depend on who killed them, terrorist or American/Nato troops.
Click to expand...

I see. So, the Iraqis feel the same about America as about Saddam Hussain. Now, that's worth celebrating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom