• 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
I seem to recall people claiming that the bombings and violence in Iraq only occurred because of the US troop presence, and thus the US was responsible. Well, now the US is gone, and the bombings continue. So much for that theory.

That theory was false from the very beginning. I think there are more folks who argue that the war simply unleashed the Iraqi Pandora's box of sectarian tension and violence.
 
I seem to recall people claiming that the bombings and violence in Iraq only occurred because of the US troop presence, and thus the US was responsible. Well, now the US is gone, and the bombings continue. So much for that theory.

And those people that thought that were wrong.

The other people who thought wrong were those thinking that hundreds of years of hatred and mistrust between the Shiite and Sunni were just going to go away in a few years and a peaceful democracy was going to happen.
 
Bush offered them democracy and Obama gave them nearly 3 years of his time. They'd rather blow each other up in true tribal form. Iraq is the problem of Iraqis now. Bring our boys and girls home.

Now.

I agree. Iraq is up to the Iraqis. No matter how long we stay or how fast we go, this was and will always be the case.
 
Yes, because the $50 billion per year wouldn't disappear into the sea of union payola when compared to this current thief -n- chiefs TRILLION plus vomitorium of frivolous spending for the past three years....GAWD you libs are just ridiculous with your knee jerk criticism sometimes.


j-mac

yes, this sort of thing is much better.

How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish

Special flights brought in tonnes of banknotes which disappeared into the war zone
 
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?

Maybe we should have taken the money that we used to subsidize Solyndra and bailout RFK Junior's failing green energy company and spent that on our, "crumbling", infrastructure?

Our country wasn't broken, before the Libbos took over.
 
It's past time we left Iraq, both because of previously established agreements and because we've done pretty much all we can do there.

The current violence isn't insurgents trying to unseat the government, it's sectarian violence. The Prime Minister (Shia) is trying to arrest the Vice President (Sunni). The VP, for his part, was out of the capital trying to mend fences between the Kurds and the PM when the warrant was announced -- and now the Kurds are protecting the VP.

It doesn't matter if we left today or tomorrow or next week or ten years from now -- this right here is the social fault lines of Iraq showing themselves. The government was structured to share power amongst the Shia, Sunni and Kurd, and they're still throwing punches at each other. It's either this, or another Saddam -- a secular dictator who crushes anybody who raises their fist.
 
It's past time we left Iraq, both because of previously established agreements and because we've done pretty much all we can do there.

The current violence isn't insurgents trying to unseat the government, it's sectarian violence. The Prime Minister (Shia) is trying to arrest the Vice President (Sunni). The VP, for his part, was out of the capital trying to mend fences between the Kurds and the PM when the warrant was announced -- and now the Kurds are protecting the VP.

It doesn't matter if we left today or tomorrow or next week or ten years from now -- this right here is the social fault lines of Iraq showing themselves. The government was structured to share power amongst the Shia, Sunni and Kurd, and they're still throwing punches at each other. It's either this, or another Saddam -- a secular dictator who crushes anybody who raises their fist.


So Iraq can't survive without a Saddam like character? So some dictators are ok right?


j-mac
 
Maybe we should have taken the money that we used to subsidize Solyndra and bailout RFK Junior's failing green energy company and spent that on our, "crumbling", infrastructure?

Our country wasn't broken, before the Libbos took over.

Increased government spending contributed to the increase of the deficits and the mounting national debt. After failing to win significant spending cuts from the Democratic-controlled Houses in his first term, Reagan largely abandoned the effort in his second. So domestic spending continued to grow, while the lower tax rates failed to provide enough revenue to compensate. The defense buildup also contributed to the deficits. The cost of financing the debt absorbed funds that the government might have used to modernize the nation's infrastructure, especially its transportation system. The ballooning national debt made the American government and economy more dependent on foreign investment. Foreign imports helped American consumers by lowering the cost of goods and keeping inflation down; the other side of this coin was a massive trade imbalance.

American President: Ronald Wilson Reagan: Domestic Affairs

That was under Reagan.

The ASCE has been releasing report cards on our nation's infrastructure every 4 years since 1998. The overall grade has consistently been a "D" and the estimated cost for getting us up to snuff nationwide continues to grow (they currently estumate $2.2T over the next 5 years).

Our country has had a long-standing infrastructure problem under the leadership of both parties.

TL;DR: STFU.
 
So Iraq can't survive without a Saddam like character? So some dictators are ok right?


j-mac


No, there's a third option -- break Iraq up into three countries, rather than force three distinct cultures to butt heads with one another within the artificially drawn borders of one nation. I didn't mention it because it'll never happen.
 
No, there's a third option -- break Iraq up into three countries, rather than force three distinct cultures to butt heads with one another within the artificially drawn borders of one nation. I didn't mention it because it'll never happen.


I believe that the Biden plan was roundly laughed off the planet was it not?


j-mac
 
The war was over before we got there. We had no reason to be there, no mission, no definable national will. It was a bull**** war for bull**** reasons. The Iraqi people did not ask the U.S. to invade them and destroy their infrastructure, commandeer their national resources or slay hundreds of thousands of their people.

There are no parallels between the establishment of the United States and cluster**** that we have given Iraq. Any idea that there are numerous and incredible similarities is an exercise in dumbassery.
 
What's your point?

That partitioning is not the answer. We are constantly chided for meddling in the affairs of the ME, so Obama instead of listening to the Generals on the ground chose to hold steadfast to the complete pull out, and throwing our lives spent there down the drain, so live with the consequence.


j-mac
 
That partitioning is not the answer. We are constantly chided for meddling in the affairs of the ME, so Obama instead of listening to the Generals on the ground chose to hold steadfast to the complete pull out, and throwing our lives spent there down the drain, so live with the consequence.

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.
 
The war was over before we got there. We had no reason to be there, no mission, no definable national will. It was a bull**** war for bull**** reasons.

Your opinion.

The Iraqi people did not ask the U.S. to invade them

Wrong

destroy their infrastructure

War is a bitch.

commandeer their national resources

Wrong, we didn't take one drop.

slay hundreds of thousands of their people

Interesting choice of words you have there RT. "slay" does that mean you think our troops are guilty of murder?

There are no parallels between the establishment of the United States and cluster**** that we have given Iraq. Any idea that there are numerous and incredible similarities is an exercise in dumbassery.

Straw argument....means nothing.

j-mac
 
Your opinion.

You disagree but can offer nothing.


Bring me up to speed on that. Tell me how the Iraq people asked for our invasion of their nation.

War is a bitch.

Been there, done that. It is especially a bitch when you didn't ask for it and your country is destroyed. Your response isn't germane.

Wrong, we didn't take one drop.

Don't kid yourself j-mac. Or then again, you can kid yourself if you want to. Don't kid me.

1. It was indeed the intent of the U.S. to take Iraqi oil resources. Tell me how that wasn't the intent.

2. Exxon has a service contract to develop oil fields in the south.

Interesting choice of words you have there RT. "slay" does that mean you think our troops are guilty of murder?

OK, if you want to play semantics. Let me rephrase it by saying "accidentally kill hundreds of thousands of Iraq civilians".

Straw argument....means nothing.

I completely agree.

Did you by chance read the posts above or did you just show up? I was responding to apst's comparison of the establishment of the U.S. and Iraq.
 
Wow. Who could have predicted in 2003 that pre-emptively invading a country that had no ability to harm us would lead to a shiit-sunni civil war, Al Qaeda would flood through unprotected borders in the chaos, Baathists would be murdered on sight, the Kurds would get frisky in the north, and Turkey would turn against us as the Kurdish threat to their own country intensifies?

Who could have predicted all that? Anyone with two sparking brain cells and a passing knowledge of world affairs, that's who. The last time we had a president who wasn't an empty head or an empty suit, I wore a size 4 and got wolf whistles at the mall. That's a long time ago, peeps. A very long time. :(
 
I voted no to the war being over...but I hope OUR war in iraq is over...
 
You disagree but can offer nothing.

You have your opinion I think it is wrong....What would you like? Surely you are not saying that reason, and discussion could sway you from your opinion are you? because that would be a first.

Bring me up to speed on that. Tell me how the Iraq people asked for our invasion of their nation.

They begged us to stay and finish the job when we left after gulf I, and instead we turned our backs as Saddam gassed, and murdered whole villages as we took off. Are you really saying that Iraqi's were happy under the murderous thumb of Saddam?

1. It was indeed the intent of the U.S. to take Iraqi oil resources. Tell me how that wasn't the intent.

One of the thoughts was to take Iraqi oil to help defray the cost of the war, and liberation from Saddam, however that never happened. The US doesn't pillage.

2. Exxon has a service contract to develop oil fields in the south.

For the Iraqi's.

OK, if you want to play semantics. Let me rephrase it by saying "accidentally kill hundreds of thousands of Iraq civilians".

Official numbers put civilian deaths at just over 100,000..."hundreds" no.

I completely agree.

Did you by chance read the posts above or did you just show up? I was responding to apst's comparison of the establishment of the U.S. and Iraq

I think you distort adpst's words.

j-mac
 
What aging infrastructure?

Protetstor? Oh, uou must mean the protestors that trash out public parks and demand more government handouts because they too stupid, or lazy to find a job.

While you're whining about government spending, you might want to get your boy in check, lest you appear the hypocirite. Solyndra ring a bell?

The average American understands that 4,000 casualties are better than 400,000.

I'm not whining about government spending in general, that's your shtick. I'm well aware that lots of tax dollars are spent profligately, but I'm at least assuaged by the thought that they are spent domestically where it percolates through the local economy. My gripe is that Iraq caused our money to be frittered away abroad, stimulating someone else's economy while wasting soldiers' lives to delay the inevitable with no net benefit for our investment.

I've got no problem at all risking money on local industries attempting to develop alternative energy technologies. I honestly believe that if oil lobbyists were driven out of Washington and we spent Iraq war levels of money on similar risks, we could be mostly off oil within a decade.



I find your poorly spelled accusations of hypocrisy amusing.
 
[my bold]
The Iraqi people did not ask the U.S. to invade them and destroy their infrastructure, commandeer their national resources or slay hundreds of thousands of their people.

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]
An October 20, 2003, study[68][69] by the Project on Defense Alternatives at Commonwealth Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, stated that for March 19, 2003, to April 30, 2003, "Based on the analysis that follows we estimate that the 2003 Iraq war produced between 7,600 and 10,800 Iraqi combatant fatalities."

The study also stated: "Our analysis of the evidence leads to the conclusion that between 10,800 and 15,100 Iraqis were killed in the war. Of these, between 3,200 and 4,300 were noncombatants – that is: civilians who did not take up arms."
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.
 
The NIC get their numbers from media reports, hospital, morgue and NGO figures. When you take into account the Islamic requirement that bodies be buried within 24 hours of death, i doubt that we will ever know how many died.
 
Troop withdrawal by December 31 of this year was a bilateral agreement signed in 2008. The war is over due to that agreement, not to an Obama fiat.

Of course, if Iraq remains peaceful, then the Republicans will point to that fact as an indication that it was a Republican CIC who brought a successful end to that conflict, while the Democrats will claim it was all Obama. If, on the other hand, Iran invades or the Taliban takes over, then the Republicans will blame Obama, while the Democrats point to the withdrawal agreement of 2008.

But, come what may, the fact is that the withdrawal was already agreed to before Obama became CIC.

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.
 
Last edited:
The NIC get their numbers from media reports, hospital, morgue and NGO figures. When you take into account the Islamic requirement that bodies be buried within 24 hours of death, i doubt that we will ever know how many died.


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
 
Back
Top Bottom