• 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!

CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

US Conservative said:
The Iraq of 2008 was much different than what we see today. And Obama has known and done nothing about ISIS for years.
Click to expand...

Lmao, you keep making it up as you go. It's not helping you. No no, you said there was peace in Iraq and Obama lost it. That is demonstrably false. Almost 1,000 police officers were killed in the country as well as 8,000 civilians. Hell, even by conservative estimates 2008 was as violent as 2003 (the year the war began). So again - WHERE WAS THIS PEACE?

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/surge-2008/

Deaths are unchangeable facts of history whose number can only be cumulative. For as long as conflict related deadly violence persists in Iraq, more lives and more families will be added to its toll of victims. Thus, “fewer victims than in 2007” is an abstraction imposed by a frame of measurement: the stark reality is that some 9,000 more Iraqi civilians have had their lives violently cut short since the end of 2007, most of them anonymously and with little public recognition.
Click to expand...

IBC is a conservative estimate of the death toll. Hell, even the media has compared 2014 to 2008 in terms of violence:

Iraq suffers its deadliest year since 2008 | World news | The Guardian

The UN said 7,818 civilians died last year. The total including members of the Iraqi security forces surged to 8,868, with 759 people killed in December alone.
Click to expand...

You made a claim, now you're struggling to back it up. Stop it. There hasn't been any tangible sense of peace in Iraq in 12 years. Please stop making up claims that can be proven false with a little research?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
How soon some forget history..
Remember Al-Maliki calling for us to get out of his country? Remember the Iraqi Parliament vote? Also ISIS (formally known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq) was formed in 2004.
Click to expand...


Then there was Maliki returning in 2013 requesting aid and also informing BO as to ISIL in Iraq and Syria. Also you forgot to mention that BO and Team wanted Iraq to shut down what the Iranians were shipping out to Assad and Hezbollah. Which it wasn't just Maliki that wanted to take no part of that. Sistani and Al Sadr dominated over that move with the Shia and the Iranians.
 
US Conservative said:
You just blamed this on Bush. Tell us more about propaganda.
Click to expand...

Nope. I blamed the rise of ISIS on our foreign policy. Blame lies on many peoples shoulders, not just one. I however rest the "blame" for the pull out to how it happened.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
probably when it was likely that an islamic caliphate marauding through syria and iraq would be difficult to fathom. instead we supported the arab spring.... and got the troops out, giving the islamic fascists exactly what they wanted, and had planned for since 9/11
Click to expand...

I suggest the point is that it should NOT have been so difficult to fathom.

It was though, by an administration that wanted to believe it's own press, that Arab Spring was a good thing, and that Islam now loved America because a Nobel Prize winner had said "we're sorry" with practiced sincerity. Iraq was nowhere stable, but Obama pinned his re-election on the still promise of Obamacare, which he knew as defective, and his appeasement of Islam was working.

Clearly it wasn't and now more people have to die.
 
MMC said:
Then there was Maliki returning in 2013 requesting aid and also informing BO as to ISIL in Iraq and Syria.
Click to expand...
Ok... So?

Also you forgot to mention that BO and Team wanted Iraq to shut down what the Iranians were shipping out to Assad and Hezbollah. Which it wasn't just Maliki that wanted to take no part of that. Sistani and Al Sadr dominated over that move with the Shia and the Iranians.
Click to expand...

What?
 
Libertie76 said:
When is the job done in Korea Japan Germany and Italy?
Click to expand...

When it suits us. But these weren't the same type of enemy (ideological yes, but not as fanatical and not willing to continue the fight covertly) and even after WW2 we had the cold war to fight.

Frankly a limited military presence around the world, which keeps our interests protected (as well as the worlds, we "mow the grass") is a good thing. Look at the size of our military, we aren't geared up like we were.
 
cpwill said:
Huh. Odd how that decision came just after the election, eh?
Click to expand...

In an unprecedented move the Democrats attempt to minimize political damage on themselves.
 
pbrauer said:
Bush broke Iraq, if Saddam was still there, there would be no ISIS.
Click to expand...
Interesting that you know history that never happened, but I will play.
If Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait, and then repeatedly violated the terms of the ceasefire, his second cervical vertebrae wouldn't have been fractured. :2wave:
 
US Conservative said:
There are numerous factors here, but the short answer is we should have stayed as long as it takes, a small force for 20 years+, in light of the realities there. We still have a presence in Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea.

Frankly many of the issues are generational and not likely to subside overnight. You stay until the job is done, not until a date you announce to your enemies.

These terrorists think we dont have the resolve and that if they out wait us, or bloody our nose that we will leave-and have said as much. Note that this isn't different from what the left wants to do.
Click to expand...

The key difference to US military bases in those other nations is the mission - we do not patrol their cities/countryside or zap folks using drones, snipers or special OPs teams - even if the "host nation" should request it since we are not at war there. The failure/victory in Iraq has nothing to do with US bases and everything to do with the US mission. We do not have the resolve to eliminate the threat of terror gangs, groups or acts using serious (and effective) military force; only to mark time until someone else (the Iraqi "security forces"?) finds a way to do so - which is likely to be never.
 
Hatuey said:
Lmao, you keep making it up as you go. It's not helping you. No no, you said there was peace in Iraq and Obama lost it. That is demonstrably false. Almost 1,000 police officers were killed in the country as well as 8,000 civilians. Hell, even by conservative estimates 2008 was as violent as 2003 (the year the war began). So again - WHERE WAS THIS PEACE?

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/surge-2008/



IBC is a conservative estimate of the death toll. Hell, even the media has compared 2014 to 2008 in terms of violence:

Iraq suffers its deadliest year since 2008 | World news | The Guardian



You made a claim, now you're struggling to back it up. Stop it. There hasn't been any tangible sense of peace in Iraq in 12 years. Please stop making up claims that can be proven false with a little research?
Click to expand...

See if you can find it. And lets not forget Obama also opposed the surge in Iraq. BTW, its very hard to obtain numbers of dead from ISIS but guess how they are now...
byman%20testimony%20resurgence%20al%20qaeda%20iraq%20image%201.jpg
 
US Conservative said:
ISIS exists in Iraq today because president chump left Iraq to the wolves. We left, they filled the vacuum, and as a result many more have been and will be killed. Obama lost the peace in Iraq.
Click to expand...

They wanted us to leave. You cannot claim Iraq was stable before Obama left if the mere act of us leaving made everything fall apart. That's like holding onto a failed Jenga tower with your hands and claiming you haven't lost the game yet.
 
Fearandloathing said:
I suggest the point is that it should NOT have been so difficult to fathom.

It was though, by an administration that wanted to believe it's own press, that Arab Spring was a good thing, and that Islam now loved America because a Nobel Prize winner had said "we're sorry" with practiced sincerity. Iraq was nowhere stable, but Obama pinned his re-election on the still promise of Obamacare, which he knew as defective, and his appeasement of Islam was working.

Clearly it wasn't and now more people have to die.
Click to expand...



The ****ed up thing, is the islamic fascists spelled it out for us. Scary how accurate this is so many years later:

The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants - SPIEGEL ONLINE
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Ok... So?



What?
Click to expand...


Okay so.....Bo knew from his own Ambassador what was taking place in Iraq over ISIL and with Maliki in Feb of 2013. Then in the summer. You didn't miss what he came out saying on how BO handled the issue, did you? That was BO's Ambassador to Iraq on PBS with a documentary.
 
US Conservative said:
Interesting that you know history that never happened, but I will play.
If Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait, and then repeatedly violated the terms of the ceasefire, his second cervical vertebrae wouldn't have been fractured. :2wave:
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is worth the lives of almost 5000 of our troops and thousands severely wounded?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
probably when it was likely that an islamic caliphate marauding through syria and iraq would be difficult to fathom. instead we supported the arab spring.... and got the troops out, giving the islamic fascists exactly what they wanted, and had planned for since 9/11
Click to expand...
You didn't really address the question. You just recited hindsight.


US Conservative said:
There are numerous factors here, but the short answer is we should have stayed as long as it takes, a small force for 20 years+, in light of the realities there. We still have a presence in Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea.

Frankly many of the issues are generational and not likely to subside overnight. You stay until the job is done, not until a date you announce to your enemies.

These terrorists think we dont have the resolve and that if they out wait us, or bloody our nose that we will leave-and have said as much. Note that this isn't different from what the left wants to do.
Click to expand...
Good answer. Don't agree with all of it, but it's a good answer. A couple points...

1) Yes, we still have a presence in those countries, but none of them have openly hostile populations that seek to fight us literally on a daily basis. In essence, the wars in those countries are over. Not really an apples-to-apples comparison.

2) We don't have the resolve. To fight any war, IMO. Maybe if we got into a nation vs nation war like WW2 with a clear and defined enemy we might pull up the resolve, but barring that...
 
MMC said:
Okay so.....Bo knew from his own Ambassador what was taking place in Iraq over ISIL and with Maliki in Feb of 2013. Then in the summer. You didn't miss what he came out saying on how BO handled the issue, did you? That was BO's Ambassador to Iraq on PBS with a documentary.
Click to expand...

Ok. And you dont remember us boosting aid to Iraq in 2013?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Nope. I blamed the rise of ISIS on our foreign policy. Blame lies on many peoples shoulders, not just one. I however rest the "blame" for the pull out to how it happened.
Click to expand...

Obama has been at the wheel for 6 years. One only need to look to tuesday to see what Americans think of his policies. If you'd like to continue the shuck and jive, please do-but nobody is buying it.
 
US Conservative said:
When it suits us. But these weren't the same type of enemy (ideological yes, but not as fanatical and not willing to continue the fight covertly) and even after WW2 we had the cold war to fight.

Frankly a limited military presence around the world, which keeps our interests protected (as well as the worlds, we "mow the grass") is a good thing. Look at the size of our military, we aren't geared up like we were.
Click to expand...

“In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today"- Ronald Reagan "cut and run" policy on middle east

a limited military around the world, at the cost of 90% of the tax payers dollar? 400 bases in 130 countries is a limited presence? are you serious? Aren't you tired of war, the trillions and trillions of tax payer dollars being spent isnt tiring for you?
 
US Conservative said:
See if you can find it.
Click to expand...

Find... what? Where you made a claim that was erroneous? Bringing down violence to 2003 levels does not equate to your claim that "Obama lost the peace in Iraq". There wasn't peace. Hell, your own graph demonstrates that even after the troop surge, there was violence similar to those seen in 2003. The best part is that you've shown a graph which proves your original claim wrong. Obama couldn't have lost a peace that didn't exist. :lol:

I don't know if I should thank you for proving yourself wrong or not.
 
US Conservative said:
Obama has been at the wheel for 6 years. One only need to look to tuesday to see what Americans think of his policies. If you'd like to continue the shuck and jive, please do-but nobody is buying it.
Click to expand...

Its not a "shuck and jive". That is literally how we pulled out of Iraq. I get it, you have to dumb down a message to simplicity, "ITS OBAMAS FAULT!"
 
Anomalism said:
In an unprecedented move the Democrats attempt to minimize political damage on themselves.
Click to expand...

The Obama mission (using the term loosely) is to have a global war on terror without actually fighting a war against any nation. Essentially, just try to pretend that the US military is a global police force and that terrorism is really just crime with its "root cause" outside of our borders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom