• 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

pbrauer said:
Bush broke Iraq, if Saddam was still there, there would be no ISIS.
Click to expand...

Obama wanted the job and he got it. There is no excuse for poor leadership the Obama administration has provided by ignoring the known IS problem until it became unmanageable for him.

That's just one reason Dems were voted out of office overwhelmingly on Tuesday.
 
ecofarm said:
You don't need to agree with the invasion of Iraq to understand that 2 decades of genocide and institutionalized rape obliterates a nation's social capital and leaves a social power vacuum far more important than containing the inevitable meltdown with brutal oppression.
Click to expand...

Or it would be a lot different if we didnt proceed in "debaathification" of the entire state, and backed someone who rejected 37% of the countries population.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Destroy it then.
Click to expand...

Already done.
Screen-Shot-2013-10-24-at-6.57.37-AM.png
 
US Conservative said:
This is that dancing I was talking about. Its an intellectually lazy strawman. I didn't say there were no terrorists under bush (<---strawman), I said ISIS flourished under Obama.

Can you at least agree that ISIS has flourished under Obama?
Click to expand...

:lamo "Intellectually lazy" yet you deny that wars dont have lasting affects and only blame one side of the same problem because they have a "D" next to their name
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Or it would be a lot different if we didnt proceed in "debaathification" of the entire state, and backed someone who rejected 37% of the countries population.
Click to expand...

That's true to some extent, but the Baath party was merely cronies of Saddam that participated in the genocide and institutionalized rape.

The reason Iraq lacks leadership and social infrastructure (political and otherwise) today is Saddam. It will take a generation or two to regrow the social capital he obliterated.
 
US Conservative said:
ISIS has flourished under Obama, not Bush. Facts, Kobie-are stubborn things.
Click to expand...

ISIS couldn't flourish until the dictator who kept his bootheel on the sectarian violence was gone.

And while ISIS didn't particularly flourish under Bush (largely because it didn't ****ing exist before the invasion), its ideological predecessor, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, most certainly did. Facts, US Conservative, are stubborn things.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063956021 said:
Obama wanted the job and he got it. There is no excuse for poor leadership the Obama administration has provided by ignoring the known IS problem until it became unmanageable for him.

That's just one reason Dems were voted out of office overwhelmingly on Tuesday.
Click to expand...
Exactly. EVERY president inherits problems from his predecessor. Greatness of a president is determined by how he handles those problems. Obama apologists continuing to blame Bush six years into Obamas term, are simply acknowledging what anyone with a brain already knows--Obama is a failure. Simply put, if you inherit a mess and after 8 years it remains a mess or has even gotten worse, you have failed as president. Period.
 
Captain America said:
I would have done the same. Iraq refused to offer our troops immunity from their barbaric laws and let them just be American. They looked a gift-horse in the mouth so **** 'em.
Click to expand...

Maliki refused to go to the political risk that would entail because we refused to leave a force that was effective and because we didn't back a coalition government. We didn't give him a choice. :shrug:

America has to put a stop being the world's policemen putting down squables half way around the globe.
Click to expand...

That's a nice thought. Who do you suppose is going to take on that burden for us?

If we go in, we should go in hard with the full might of the mighty US military and annihilate the enemy with prejudice. Enough *****-footing around. 15k here, 2k there. Screw that. Go big or stay home.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Empires have tried that approach for a few millennia of recorded history, now. Examples of it's successes are... rare and exceedingly, nigh-genocidally bloody.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063956021 said:
Obama wanted the job and he got it. There is no excuse for poor leadership the Obama administration has provided by ignoring the known IS problem until it became unmanageable for him.

That's just one reason Dems were voted out of office overwhelmingly on Tuesday.
Click to expand...
It was President George W. Bush who signed the SOFA that all troops would be out of Iraq Dec 31, 2011. President Obama tried to extend it but al Maliki said if troops stayed they could possibly be prosecuted under Sharia Law. So we left.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:lamo "Intellectually lazy" yet you deny that wars dont have lasting affects and only blame one side of the same problem because they have a "D" next to their name
Click to expand...

Again, I dont deny that wars have lasting effects, but Im going to ask you straight up one more time... Can you at least agree that ISIS has flourished under Obama?
 
ecofarm said:
That's true to some extent, but the Baath party was merely cronies of Saddam that participated in the genocide and institutionalized rape.
Click to expand...
That is not true. Many positions in the public sphere of Iraq one must be a member of the Baath Party to be held. Many technocrats were dismissed from their position based not on actions but because they were simply a member of the party. Also its important to note that if you wanted to move up in social rank, or become a mid to high level public actor you basically had to be a member of the Baath party. One could compare it to the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. If you wanted privileges, or to become a mid to high level public worker you had to be a member of the party. And the majority of these people were technocrats not "participants in genocide and institutionalized rape".

The reason Iraq lacks leadership and social infrastructure (political and otherwise) today is Saddam. It will take a generation or two to regrow the social capital he obliterated.
Click to expand...
Could be or it could be that we cut off all the technocrats who have been working within the state and have experience of working with the state. And it could be that the government cut off 37% of the population from any political representation.
 
US Conservative said:
Again, I dont deny that wars have lasting effects, but Im going to ask you straight up one more time... Can you at least agree that ISIS has flourished under Obama?
Click to expand...

Did I ever deny that ISIS has flourished under Obama? The difference is I dont mereley just blame Obama because of ISIS becoming the power they are today. I blame 1.)the invasion of Iraq. 2.)the debaathification of Iraq. 3.)The Iraqi government not representing the Sunnis. 4.)the long and complicated US foreign policy in the middle east.
 
Kobie said:
ISIS couldn't flourish until the dictator who kept his bootheel on the sectarian violence was gone.
Click to expand...

:confused: Saddam massacred the Shia and bombed the Kurds. I think you are confusing "kept his boot heel on" with "made sure he was the main one committing".

And while ISIS didn't particularly flourish under Bush (largely because it didn't ****ing exist before the invasion), its ideological predecessor, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, most certainly did.
Click to expand...

AQI was destroyed by the Surge. When we left they were down to a few hundred dudes. Then, we left, and left a vacuum. Had we continued along the steps of counterinsurgency doctrine, this wouldn't be a problem. But we got in a hurry.
 
Hatuey said:
He followed the agreement established by the previous administration and the Iraqi government.
Click to expand...

Oh bull****!

Please post the details of that agreement and how, exactly, that agreement led to the convenient withdrawal in time for his re-election.

This is a lie, an outright lie.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Disagree with you there my brother. Iraq wanted us gone and got all they bargained for.
Click to expand...

:shrug: those who had visibility on the negotiations say different. Two separate SECDEFs and the Ambassador to Iraq under Obama have all come out and pretty much confirmed that it was the Administration that wanted us out, and were warned what that meant.

Iraq swore the western infidels were to blame for all their problems and we were doing nothing to help. I think they see that was a misguided train of thought.
Click to expand...

:shrug: that's not what I saw from the ground level, and it's not what is described by those who were at the higher level.

We made sure to burn all the bridges as we left, and are now surprised that they reacted accordingly.
 
pbrauer said:
It was President George W. Bush who signed the SOFA that all troops would be out of Iraq Dec 31, 2011. President Obama tried to extend it but al Maliki said if troops stayed they could possibly be prosecuted under Sharia Law. So we left.
Click to expand...

Same tired excuse. Whos at the wheel, Obama or Bush?
 
Fletch said:
Exactly. EVERY president inherits problems from his predecessor. Greatness of a president is determined by how he handles those problems. Obama apologists continuing to blame Bush six years into Obamas term, are simply acknowledging what anyone with a brain already knows--Obama is a failure. Simply put, if you inherit a mess and after 8 years it remains a mess or has even gotten worse, you have failed as president. Period.
Click to expand...

Not when your name is Barrack Hussein Obama and a few thousand liars are prepared to alter history.

THEN ...well...IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Did I ever deny that ISIS has flourished under Obama? The difference is I dont mereley just blame Obama because of ISIS becoming the power they are today. I blame 1.)the invasion of Iraq. 2.)the debaathification of Iraq. 3.)The Iraqi government not representing the Sunnis. 4.)the long and complicated US foreign policy in the middle east.
Click to expand...

Im glad both you and I can agree that ISIS has flourished under Obama.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Are they wearing running shoes?

Because the CIC promised no American boots on the ground.
Click to expand...

Every Promise made by Barack Obama comes with an expiration date.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Does anyone really doubt that in a matter of time there will be as many or more American and coalition troops on the ground in Iraq and the area than there would have been had President Obama not beaten a hasty retreat from Iraq shortly following his election. It's impossible to be certain, but had the American forces been stationed in Iraq all this time, since 2011, it's quite possible that the ISIL/ISIS/IS movement never would have ventured past the Syrian/Iraq border in the first place.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You can take the time to do something right the first time, or you can expend lots more time and effort to try to do it again, later.
 
Fletch said:
Exactly. EVERY president inherits problems from his predecessor. Greatness of a president is determined by how he handles those problems. Obama apologists continuing to blame Bush six years into Obamas term, are simply acknowledging what anyone with a brain already knows--Obama is a failure. Simply put, if you inherit a mess and after 8 years it remains a mess or has even gotten worse, you have failed as president. Period.
Click to expand...

Jesus ****ing Christ. Nobody is claiming that Obama doesn't bear his share of the responsibility for the current morass in Iraq. HOWEVER, certain folks around here are claiming that Obama is solely, 100% to blame for this mess, and he's NOT.

These folks are doing this with the obvious intent of absolving the Republican president for his share of the blame. And, of course, to use Obama as a cudgel to beat up left-leaning posters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom