• 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
TacticalEvilDan said:
For me, it's not even a question of how our interests are best served. Sometimes you have to do a thing because it's the right thing, not because it's to your advantage. My concern is that every day we're there is a day we're fighting a battle that we're either losing or winning with significantly diminishing returns (depending on your perspective). I'd greatly prefer that we throw our shoulders into something we can actually hope to accomplish, and ending sectarian strife in Iraq ain't it.
Click to expand...

True that, but we do have to worry about our diplomats in the country. The US embassy in Iraq is our biggest in the world. With the SOFA set to expire at the end of the year, these people have plenty to worry about as far as security goes. The fact is, the outcome is not ideal. But the shia want us out, and IMO they have the strongest voice in iraq. I am saying, at least it is over and I am praying that the state department is up to the task.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
For me, it's not even a question of how our interests are best served. Sometimes you have to do a thing because it's the right thing, not because it's to your advantage. My concern is that every day we're there is a day we're fighting a battle that we're either losing or winning with significantly diminishing returns (depending on your perspective). I'd greatly prefer that we throw our shoulders into something we can actually hope to accomplish, and ending sectarian strife in Iraq ain't it.
Click to expand...

"Sectarian strife", in Iraq and elsewhere, is ever more inevitable now. Prepare yourself for cavity searches at the airports.
 
Grant said:
How many fundamentalists are there?

Look at how the west rolled over following the riots about the Mohammed cartoons. People are easily frightened and we have seen repeatedly throughout history how a small but fanatically determined group can overwhelm an entire country, and neighboring countries as well.


If it's always "their call", regarding threats to other countries, then it seems you are advancing an isolationist policy for the US. Is that your position?
Click to expand...
The great majority of Muslims are not violent extremist fundamentalists. Been there...more than a few times. The problem is that the many so readily allow the few to dominate them. And that is a choice...one they get to make. I have little sympathy for the Iraqi people if they, after all this, refuse to take a stand against the fundamentalists. The bombing that started this OP...that was the act of a few striking out against the many. If the many dont take a stand...then they get precisly what they deserve. That is my position.
 
Grant said:
I didn't pút any words in your mouth
Click to expand...

Yes, you absolutely did. I was talking about getting out of Iraq and you responded as if I was saying we needed to adopt an isolationist policy with respect to the Middle East. I even showed you where you did this. You're just refusing to see it.

Grant said:
In fact just the opposite was happening as you can tell from the casualty rate.
Click to expand...

The only official tally of casualties is that of US casualties. That tells us how many of ours were wounded or killed, it doesn't tell us how many of the enemy were killed, so you can't tell anything at all from the casualty rate.

Grant said:
I also don't buy the argument that the US Military, the strongest force in the world, is overly concerned abut '"aggrieved Iraqis" and "Militants".
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm quite sure that they were.

Grant said:
Yes, the Iraqis might be able to sort out there problems through democracy one day but that day has not yet arrived.
Click to expand...

We can't afford to wait around until that day comes.

Grant said:
It wold seem that the US President will only station troops where they are out of harms way. You can have the girl scouts do that.
Click to expand...

You obviously understand the purpose of the military bases we've got around the world even less than you understand the situation in Iraq, and that's saying something.

Grant said:
In fact they could leave when the country was firmly democratic and it became a tradition, just as has happened in Europe. Barrack Obama has made sure that those who died in Iraq, or who have suffered from injuries, will have done so in vain.
Click to expand...

Obama is smart enough to know that we can't afford to wait around until Iraq reaches that point.
 
drz-400 said:
True that, but we do have to worry about our diplomats in the country. The US embassy in Iraq is our biggest in the world. With the SOFA set to expire at the end of the year, these people have plenty to worry about as far as security goes. The fact is, the outcome is not ideal. But the shia want us out, and IMO they have the strongest voice in iraq. I am saying, at least it is over and I am praying that the state department is up to the task.
Click to expand...

If the Iraqis won't let us secure our own embassy, then we shouldn't have an embassy in Iraq.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If the Iraqis won't let us secure our own embassy, then we shouldn't have an embassy in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Well that would be the exact reason why pulling troops out right now is of some controversy. The state department has never really taken on something like this and with the potential for another ethnic conflict you can instantly see the problems that could arise. That is why I am hoping the state department is up to the task and we can foster a mutually beneficial relationship, similar to what we have with other countries. However, by just packing up shop completely and isolating ourselves from Iraq, you are guaranteeing failure.
 
drz-400 said:
Well that would be the exact reason why pulling troops out right now is of some controversy. The state department has never really taken on something like this and with the potential for another ethnic conflict you can instantly see the problems that could arise. That is why I am hoping the state department is up to the task and we can foster a mutually beneficial relationship, similar to what we have with other countries. However, by just packing up shop completely and isolating ourselves from Iraq, you are guaranteeing failure.
Click to expand...

I have a very hard time believing that the State Department is lacking experience in maintaining embassies in less-than-ideal circumstances. Besides, isn't this something the Marines normally help with?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I have a very hard time believing that the State Department is lacking experience in maintaining embassies in less-than-ideal circumstances. Besides, isn't this something the Marines normally help with?
Click to expand...

That is the entire point. The marines won't be helping, our troops are pulling out and leaving the state department to secure the largest diplomatic effort in US history. Managing the task without the help of the military is beyond their usual scope of work.
 
drz-400 said:
That is the entire point. The marines won't be helping, our troops are pulling out and leaving the state department to secure the largest diplomatic effort in US history. Managing the task without the help of the military is beyond their usual scope of work.
Click to expand...

If the following article is to be believed, they've got it in hand. In addition to the private security and CIA security on-site, there are military resources at the ready nearby:

Iraq withdrawal 2011
 
VanceMack said:
The great majority of Muslims are not violent extremist fundamentalists.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. Otherwise the WOT would be a lot easier. I think we can take it as a given that we are only referring to violent Islam, and those who support it.
The problem is that the many so readily allow the few to dominate them. And that is a choice...one they get to make.
Click to expand...

Most people, Muslims included, just want to get along with their lives and will frequently allow basic affronts to their customs, culture, laws and dignity if it means they can just be left at peace. Terrorist know this and will chip away in large and small ways to upset the equilibrium of a society or country. The Iraqis will no more be able to determine their own fates than any other Islamic country in the Middle East. We know that not all Muslims in Nigeria are terrorists but we can see what happened Christmas day and the consequences that will have for Nigeria. Just as in the cartoon situation, who will dare speak up?

Muslims are murdering Christians in ever greater proportion and yet the West talks of Islamophobia". It's getting crazier.

I have little sympathy for the Iraqi people if they, after all this, refuse to take a stand against the fundamentalists. The bombing that started this OP...that was the act of a few striking out against the many. If the many dont take a stand...then they get precisly what they deserve. That is my position.
Click to expand...

If thats the way it is then the US should never have gotten involved. But it did. This starting wars and never finishing them, while having dozens of stations in places like Germany, is very dangerous. What happened in Nigeria, Egypt, and elsewhere, is going to happen closer to home now.
 
Boo Radley said:
I actually doubt that. But regardless, if we're not occupiers, we have to leave it to them. They will forge their own way one way or another. We should have never been there to begin with.
Click to expand...

First of all, "occupiers" has some connotations that are not at all in line with how we handle ourselves, and you know that.

Secondly, We, as in all who voted to grant the power to GWB to go in should have taken Saddam out and we did. As a people we may have differing views as to what should have transpired after that, but at this point the country is still better off without Saddam.

j-mac
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If the following article is to be believed, they've got it in hand. In addition to the private security and CIA security on-site, there are military resources at the ready nearby:

Iraq withdrawal 2011
Click to expand...

There is some good detailed information on that site, thanks. As I said, I think the troop withdraw is less than ideal, it would have been better to leave a few thousand soldiers IMO, but we did not have much choice. That being said, given the circumstances I think we made the best decision we could have. There is nothing to say the state department won't do a good job, they just have never done something to this scale without the aid of the military.
 
j-mac said:
First of all, "occupiers" has some connotations that are not at all in line with how we handle ourselves, and you know that.

Secondly, We, as in all who voted to grant the power to GWB to go in should have taken Saddam out and we did. As a people we may have differing views as to what should have transpired after that, but at this point the country is still better off without Saddam.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Odd that you missread how I used the word occupiers. Not sure if you're having a sentence comprehension problem or just a knee jerk reaction. Try reading it again before I respond.

Saddam, regardless your we, was of little concern to the US. He was not worth one life, let alone thousands. Iraq lost at best 100 thousand lives, and that isn't even close to counting the displaced and those who died from the other consequences of war. Saddam in no way warrented that kind of cost, espeically years after we let him kill so many. That some can't see that is really sad. But cannot be undone. Nor should anyone lie or pretend that such reckless and destructive actions don't have consequences.
 
Boo Radley said:
Odd that you missread how I used the word occupiers. Not sure if you're having a sentence comprehension problem or just a knee jerk reaction. Try reading it again before I respond.
Click to expand...

Then learn to be clear.

Saddam, regardless your we, was of little concern to the US. He was not worth one life, let alone thousands. Iraq lost at best 100 thousand lives, and that isn't even close to counting the displaced and those who died from the other consequences of war. Saddam in no way warrented that kind of cost, espeically years after we let him kill so many. That some can't see that is really sad. But cannot be undone. Nor should anyone lie or pretend that such reckless and destructive actions don't have consequences.
Click to expand...


I see you support murderous, thug dictators as long as they are your murderous, thugs. Wonderful....Why do you have so little regard for the lives that Saddam tortured, and snuffed out?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I see you support murderous, thug dictators as long as they are your murderous, thugs. Wonderful....Why do you have so little regard for the lives that Saddam tortured, and snuffed out?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Not Wanting to sacrifice thousands of American lives to take out a dictator does not equate to supporting dictators.

Using YOUR logic, that means you would sacrifice hundreds of thousands of soldiers lives right now to take out all the dictators of the world, otherwise you support them. Your logic is completely stupid in that regard.
 
TheNextEra said:
Not Wanting to sacrifice thousands of American lives to take out a dictator does not equate to supporting dictators.

Using YOUR logic, that means you would sacrifice hundreds of thousands of soldiers lives right now to take out all the dictators of the world, otherwise you support them. Your logic is completely stupid in that regard.
Click to expand...

I guess if you want to use straw arguments to vomit all over the boards...


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I guess if you want to use straw arguments to vomit all over the boards...


j-mac
Click to expand...

No strawman, just using YOUR logic. You were trying to say that just because someone didn't support sacrificing thousands of American lives to take out a dictator, that they supported the dictator.

Sorry you hate the truth and that your partisan hackery has you completely blinded.
 
American said:
I hear it's up there with CNN.
Click to expand...

Yet the onion is still more truthful than Fox News commentators that you salivate over to give you your next talking point. Go figure
 
TheNextEra said:
Yet the onion is still more truthful than Fox News commentators that you salivate over to give you your next talking point. Go figure
Click to expand...

This is the topic at hand, not Fox News.

At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]
 
Grant said:
This is the topic at hand, not Fox News.

At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]
Click to expand...

Last I checked you were not a moderator, so go pound sand. Don't like what I type, don't read it or report it.

if you feel my post is offtopic, use the PROPER forum rules and report it. I noticed you had no problem with the offtopic remark of American.
 
Iraq was and is an integral part of the Middle East. We cannot view it in isolation from its neighbors and it is a serious mistake to think we can. Surely you must know that it wasn't all Iraqis fighting and creating terrorism in Iraq. It is one war but with many venues.
Click to expand...
Last i checked Iraq was falsely invaded because of the false pretense that they had WMD's, So the Iraq's fighting a foreign invader coming to their country to plunder their wealth and kill their fellow countrymen is terrorrism?
The decision to remove US troops was a bad one and will eventually cost many more lives. Barrack Obama has grasped defeat from the jaws of victory and this will be looked upon as one of the greatest blunders, and military defeats, in US history.
Click to expand...
If the U.S. troops were not there in the first place, this type of never ending bloodshed would not be occurring. Even when the Iraqi invasion first occurred under President George Bush There never was a plan to stay for an indefinite period of time. As far as Obama grasping defeat from the Jaws of victory, All i saw was American troops being killed/injured by the thousands, ofcourse Iraqi women and children dieing from violence created by secterian tensions between the various Iraqi sects that exploded after their original gvt collapsed, as well at the hands of the U.S. military, Billions of U.S. taxpayers money being wasted on a war that was based on a lie of WMD's, the loss of Respect from many countries of the world who see the U.S. as a war monger and invader of other people's countries. The American citizens at home gained nothing from the iraq war, while those big companies cashed in on Iraq's natural wealth, they wouldnt throw the American citizen's a crumb, not even cheaper gas prices.
Do not think for a moment that the enemies of America don't realize what has happened. Those who believe they can retreat and withdraw into isolation are foolishly mistaken.
Click to expand...
Enemy's of America is just false propaganda, no country in the mideast wants to fight the world's superpower as they know of bad consequences, The only one being Aggressive and threatening is the U.S., It is not the Iraqi's, Iranian's, or Syrian's who have ever threatened invading U.S. soil and plundering the land and killing the people.
 
24107 said:
Last i checked Iraq was falsely invaded because of the false pretense that they had WMD's, So the Iraq's fighting a foreign invader coming to their country to plunder their wealth and kill their fellow countrymen is terrorrism?
Click to expand...

Woah there big fella....'Last you checked' where?


j-mac
 
TheNextEra said:
Yet the onion is still more truthful than Fox News commentators that you salivate over to give you your next talking point. Go figure
Click to expand...

Hahahaha, I knew I'd get you to bite. Bwuahahahahahahaha, don't get your blood pressure up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom