• 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

TheDemSocialist said:
You claimed earlier that AQ left Iraq and "military experts" agreed with that opinion. However none of the "sources" you just provided backed that stance. Instead all it said was they were pushed out of Baghdad and were regrouping...


This source also just says many in AQ regrouped under a new leader and a new name in 2006...
Click to expand...




We will leave Iraq a better place - British general
Commander claims defeat of al-Qaida and dawn of democracy.....

American generals have said al-Qaida was strategically defeated in Iraq following the troop surge of late 2007.....

Cooper would not go that far, but said: "Al-Qaida had been here in significant numbers and hopefully their aims and objectives have been denied to them. The lesson that I draw from this is that an organisation like al-Qaida that purports to represent the people and then targets them will never take the people with them. They have suffered significant reverses and their ability to operate and target civilians has been diminished.

"Their organisational ability has been greatly reduced. Their ability to communicate through the internet has been taken from them and so has their ability to finance themselves. Effectively the size of their networks has been much reduced......snip~

We will leave Iraq a better place - British general | World news | The Guardian


Strategically defeated so says US Generals.....reduced says the Brit. Yeah like reduced to damn near nothing, thanks to the Sunni. Even with AQ admitting losing 90% of operational ability in Iraq.
 
The thing you people fail to understand is that there are SEVERAL rival groups in Iraq. All of which are fighting each other. They will not stop fighting each other until the other groups are completely gone, or their group is in power and suppressing the other groups. Its a civil war between different sects of Islam. You can get rid of AQ and you still have not solved the problem there.
 
MMC said:
We will leave Iraq a better place - British general
Commander claims defeat of al-Qaida and dawn of democracy.....

American generals have said al-Qaida was strategically defeated in Iraq following the troop surge of late 2007.....

Cooper would not go that far, but said: "Al-Qaida had been here in significant numbers and hopefully their aims and objectives have been denied to them. The lesson that I draw from this is that an organisation like al-Qaida that purports to represent the people and then targets them will never take the people with them. They have suffered significant reverses and their ability to operate and target civilians has been diminished.

"Their organisational ability has been greatly reduced. Their ability to communicate through the internet has been taken from them and so has their ability to finance themselves. Effectively the size of their networks has been much reduced......snip~

We will leave Iraq a better place - British general | World news | The Guardian


Strategically defeated so says US Generals.....reduced says the Brit. Yeah like reduced to damn near nothing, thanks to the Sunni. Even with AQ admitting losing 90% of operational ability in Iraq.
Click to expand...

"Cooper would not go that far,". Moral of the story is this, they were not drawn out of Iraq. Were they reduced? Yes. However in 2006 some left AQ and joined ISIL/ISIS/Whatever the **** they called themselves then. They regrouped, continued to attack during that time period. They were never drawn out of Iraq (which you claimed earlier).
 
TheDemSocialist said:
"Cooper would not go that far,". Moral of the story is this, they were not drawn out of Iraq. Were they reduced? Yes. However in 2006 some left AQ and joined ISIL/ISIS/Whatever the **** they called themselves then. They regrouped, continued to attack during that time period. They were never drawn out of Iraq (which you claimed earlier).
Click to expand...

Strategically defeated unable to operate. With AQ admitting having to leave areas. New Growth.....and before AQ Prime rejected ISIL. Shows it for what it is TDS.

I am sure some still lived there.....but then the Invisible Sheik did talk about their return. Which all that growth happened when, again? How did that happen again?

When did AQ increase in numbers? On who's watch? Who knew about the former Leader TDS of AQ, in Iraq?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Since most of the Sunnis in Iraq that had governing expierance were members of the Baathist regime, our options were next to nothing.
Click to expand...

Really, what happen to the Sunni leaders, Rafie al-Essawi, the former Iraqi Finance Minister, and Ahmed al-Alwani, a prominent Sunni leader and a former lawmaker.

Are you sure we wouldn't have wanted to back one of them?
 
MMC said:
Strategically defeated unable to operate. With AQ admitting having to leave areas. New Growth.....and before AQ Prime rejected ISIL. Shows it for what it is TDS.
Click to expand...
Unable to operate? Tell that to the 583 people who were killed by AQ attacks after this article was published. Tell that to over 1,000 people who were injured from AQ terrorist attacks after this article was published.
I also find it kind of ironic that the article you just posted was posted because all coalition forces were leaving Iraq soon, and they were calling it basically a victory, yet you have been on here saying coalition forces leaving Iraq was not a victory but was terrible and its all "BO"'s fault...
I am sure some still lived there.....but then the Invisible Sheik did talk about their return. Which all that growth happened when, again? How did that happen again?
Click to expand...
How did it happen? Regrouping, followed by the Syrian Civil War.

When did AQ increase in numbers?
Click to expand...
A great variety of reasons. No Sunni representation in the Iraqi government, radicalization because of the Syrian Civil War, failure of the Iraqi military, long term effects of destabilization in the region, and long term effects of the war in Iraq.

On who's watch? Who knew about the former Leader TDS of AQ, in Iraq?
Click to expand...
Malikis, the US, the UK's, the Iranians, the "coalition of the willing".

Again I posted this earlier in response to US Conservative's quote: "The problem with this is you and many people here are thinking I am analyzing this as a Obama and Republican issue. I am not. I am saying this (ISIS being created, and the extreme destabilization in the region) is the result of a combination of factors, not just one man..."
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Iraq was pretty stable in 2003 compared to now, same with Syria.
Click to expand...
No, it was not 'pretty stable' either. There was genocide, rape rooms, mass graves, invasions of neighboring countries, and so on. Now, of course, it is not stable but it was in 2011 until Obama, against all the generals advice, withdrew the troops.
1.)You just said it wasnt stable....2.)It really wasnt stable. Al-Qaeda was around, ISIS was being formed, other armed groups were still around.
Click to expand...
It was stable in 2011, even Barrack Obama said so, but then he pulled the troops and we have what we see now. Yes, Al Q was still around, which is why the troops should have remained.
The thing is, the troops didnt bring stability. They brought instability.
Click to expand...
What period are you referring to here? Iraq was 'stable' in 2011. There were 55 deaths al year and not all of those from terrorists. How does that compare with three years later?
The thing is it didnt bring peace..
Click to expand...
You are not familiar with the history of the area.
 
rocket88 said:
Do you think the US wasn't monitoring the election and making sure someone they like got elected? We both know that if someone the Bush admin couldn't live with got elected, it wouldn't have been allowed to stand.
Click to expand...
How do you know that? Why would that have mattered?
 
Grant said:
No, it was not 'pretty stable' eitheer. There was genocide, rape rooms, mass graves, invasions of neighboring countries, and so on. Now , of course, it is not stable but it was in 2011 until Obama, againsg all the generals advice, withdrew the troops.
Click to expand...
It wasnt stable? Last time I checked there wasnt a massive threat of terrorism in Iraq in 2002, last time I checked there wasnt a massive forces stating they have created their own state based on Salafi Islam in their state.

It was stablle in 2011, even Barrack Obama said so, but then he pulled the troops and we have what we see now. Yes, Al Q was still around, which is why the troops should have remained.
Click to expand...
There is no proof that Iraq would be more stable if we left troops behind. Afterall there were troops there and there was a civil war going on, there was succession movements, there was terrorist attacks.
What period are you referring to here? Iraq was 'stable' in 2011. There were 55 deaths al year and not all of those from terrorists. Hoow does that compare with three years later?
Click to expand...
That is not true. In 2011 AQ alone killed 133 people. Here is the rest: https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/ . Looks like to me over 4,000....
You are not familiar with the history of the area.
Click to expand...
Clearly you are not claiming there was only 55 deaths...
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Damned if he does damned if he doesn't. You Obama haters are so predictable.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with this decision. It's more right than not (he needs to do a bit more, imo). I just find the timing entertaining :)
 
TheDemSocialist said:
It wasnt stable? Last time I checked there wasnt a massive threat of terrorism in Iraq in 2002, last time I checked there wasnt a massive forces stating they have created their own state based on Salafi Islam in their state.
Click to expand...
Then maybe you should check again.
There is no proof that Iraq would be more stable if we left troops behind. Afterall there were troops there and there was a civil war going on, there was succession movements, there was terrorist attacks.
Click to expand...
No proof?? All the generals wanted the troops left behind, it was n election issue, and every knowledgeable person predicted what would happen.
That is not true. In 2011 AQ alone killed 133 people. Here is the rest: https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/ . Looks like to me over 4,000....
Click to expand...
I was referring to military deaths.
Clearly you are not claiming there was only 55 deaths...
Click to expand...
Military deaths! That site you linked to has been suspect since it was initiated, and if you read it you can see its slant, but even you can see that all deaths dropped by 2011.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Unable to operate? Tell that to the 583 people who were killed by AQ attacks after this article was published. Tell that to over 1,000 people who were injured from AQ terrorist attacks after this article was published.
I also find it kind of ironic that the article you just posted was posted because all coalition forces were leaving Iraq soon, and they were calling it basically a victory, yet you have been on here saying coalition forces leaving Iraq was not a victory but was terrible and its all "BO"'s fault...

How did it happen? Regrouping, followed by the Syrian Civil War.


A great variety of reasons. No Sunni representation in the Iraqi government, radicalization because of the Syrian Civil War, failure of the Iraqi military, long term effects of destabilization in the region, and long term effects of the war in Iraq.


Malikis, the US, the UK's, the Iranians, the "coalition of the willing".

Again I posted this earlier in response to US Conservative's quote: "The problem with this is you and many people here are thinking I am analyzing this as a Obama and Republican issue. I am not. I am saying this (ISIS being created, and the extreme destabilization in the region) is the result of a combination of factors, not just one man..."
Click to expand...


According to their stats, in late 2006, al Qaeda was responsible for 60 percent of the terrorist attacks, and nearly all the ones that involved killing a lot of civilians. The rest of the violence was carried out by Iraqi Sunni Arab groups, who were trying in vain to scare the Americans out of the country......snip~


Also how many were done by Shia?

10% of attacks still took place.....and you just pointed out HOW they were still doing so. Coming in from Syria where they were sending in 30 suicide bombers a week. The same place they ran and set themselves up while going after Assad. So yeah that's how they regrouped after being driven out of operating in Iraq.


I am not looking at this as any type of Party issue. Foreign policy is on BO and his Team now. Like it was on Junior's. A lot of Executive Orders dictate Foreign policy and a lot of them have been wrong. Thought of and implemented by BO and his team.
 
Grant said:
Then maybe you should check again.
Click to expand...
Gonna provide anything? Because clearly you know something I dont...

No proof?? All the generals wanted the troops left behind, it was n election issue, and every knowledgeable person predicted what would happen.
Click to expand...
Generals wanting something does not mean the historical and present consequences would not exist...

I was referring to military deaths. Military deaths! That site you linked to has been suspect since it was initiated, and if you read it you can see its slant, but even you can see that all deaths dropped by 2011.
Click to expand...
So just because there were less military deaths mean its stable? Only military deaths matter in stability? There were over 4,000 deaths total that year from attacks, including military, and civilian. How you claim that as stability is beyond me.
 
MMC said:
According to their stats, in late 2006, al Qaeda was responsible for 60 percent of the terrorist attacks, and nearly all the ones that involved killing a lot of civilians. The rest of the violence was carried out by Iraqi Sunni Arab groups, who were trying in vain to scare the Americans out of the country......snip~
Click to expand...
Uhh Ok???

Also how many were done by Shia?


10% of attacks still took place.....and you just pointed out HOW they were still doing so. Coming in from Syria where they were sending in 30 suicide bombers a week. The same place they ran and set themselves up while going after Assad. So yeah that's how they regrouped after being driven out of operating in Iraq.
Click to expand...
You to claim that AQ was defeated is ridiculous. Look at the body county, look at the attacks.

I am not looking at this as any type of Party issue. Foreign policy is on BO and his Team now. Like it was on Junior's. A lot of Executive Orders dictate Foreign policy and a lot of them have been wrong. Thought of and implemented by BO and his team.
Click to expand...
Well you seem to only wanna talk about one thing and one thing only, "ITS BO's fault!" while conventatly ignoring the rest of the major factors that got us here into the first place.

But quick question: What would you of done differently?
 
Capster78 said:
The thing you people fail to understand is that there are SEVERAL rival groups in Iraq. All of which are fighting each other. They will not stop fighting each other until the other groups are completely gone, or their group is in power and suppressing the other groups. Its a civil war between different sects of Islam. You can get rid of AQ and you still have not solved the problem there.
Click to expand...

Its NOT just sectarian, this week ISIS massacred many Sunni. MANY in ISIS aren't even Iraqi or Syrian. Its the same gang of cousin ****ers that spreads death and destruction wherever they go. They are fighting because of a power vacuum. In Syria because of the civil war, in Iraq because Obama left it wide open-and they TOOK it.

They need to be exposed to rapidly expanding gasses and shrapnel.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
It wasnt stable? Last time I checked there wasnt a massive threat of terrorism in Iraq in 2002, last time I checked there wasnt a massive forces stating they have created their own state based on Salafi Islam in their state.


There is no proof that Iraq would be more stable if we left troops behind. Afterall there were troops there and there was a civil war going on, there was succession movements, there was terrorist attacks.

That is not true. In 2011 AQ alone killed 133 people. Here is the rest: https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/ . Looks like to me over 4,000....

Clearly you are not claiming there was only 55 deaths...
Click to expand...

Stop dancing man. Iraq was largely pacified by Obama's first election. By the second we were withdrawing and now there is a freaking country, chalk full of terrorists too extreme for AQ. Thats on Obama. Own it.
 
US Conservative said:
Stop dancing man. Iraq was largely pacified by Obama's first election. By the second we were withdrawing and now there is a freaking country, chalk full of terrorists too extreme for AQ. Thats on Obama. Own it.
Click to expand...

Its not "dancing". Just because it doesnt fall within your narrative of "its ALL OBAMAS FAULT!", does not mean its "dancing". Reality proves otherwise. If numerous large AQ offenses/attacks, and over 4,000 people killed in one year is "pacified" then more power to you I guess.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Uhh Ok??? You to claim that AQ was defeated is ridiculous. Look at the body county, look at the attacks.
Since Assad was fighting the Syrian Rebel......who was taking out AQ in Syria?

Well you seem to only wanna talk about one thing and one thing only, "ITS BO's fault!" while conventatly ignoring the rest of the major factors that got us here into the first place.

But quick question: What would you of done differently?
Click to expand...


In answer to ah, okay.


Iraq has arrested at least 240 former members of Saddam Hussein's banned Baath Party and ex-military officers over what some senior officials described as a plot to seize power after U.S. troops withdraw at year's end. While several officials characterized the round-up which began this week as the foiling of a specific plot, others said it was a precautionary measure before the U.S. withdrawal, nearly nine years after the 2003 invasion that ousted Saddam.

Government officials have long expressed concern that Baathists would try to retake power when U.S. troops depart. "We have arrested a group belonging to the former Baath party that were planning to launch sabotage actions and revolt to topple the political process in the country after withdrawal of American forces," Lieutenant-General Hussein Kamal, Iraq's deputy interior minister for intelligence, told Reuters.

Iraq has passed legislation designed to partially reverse the U.S. decision in 2003 to purge the government of Baath Party members, but some accuse the Shi'ite-led government of stalling its implementation.....snip~

Iraq rounds up Baathists ahead of U.S. pullout | Reuters


Since Assad was fighting the Syrian Rebel......who was taking out AQ in Syria?

No one has ignored any of the major factors that got us here in the first place. Several people have brought out how the issues have played out. Then I have brought out how it has increased exponentially under BO and his Team.

I have answered that before and how I would go after terrorists. I would use all available means.
 
MMC said:
In answer to ah, okay.


Iraq has arrested at least 240 former members of Saddam Hussein's banned Baath Party and ex-military officers over what some senior officials described as a plot to seize power after U.S. troops withdraw at year's end. While several officials characterized the round-up which began this week as the foiling of a specific plot, others said it was a precautionary measure before the U.S. withdrawal, nearly nine years after the 2003 invasion that ousted Saddam.

Government officials have long expressed concern that Baathists would try to retake power when U.S. troops depart. "We have arrested a group belonging to the former Baath party that were planning to launch sabotage actions and revolt to topple the political process in the country after withdrawal of American forces," Lieutenant-General Hussein Kamal, Iraq's deputy interior minister for intelligence, told Reuters.

Iraq has passed legislation designed to partially reverse the U.S. decision in 2003 to purge the government of Baath Party members, but some accuse the Shi'ite-led government of stalling its implementation.....snip~

Iraq rounds up Baathists ahead of U.S. pullout | Reuters
Click to expand...
Whats your point? They passed to "partially reverse"... Not fully? And at the end point they still kept the majority of the ban in part...

Since Assad was fighting the Syrian Rebel......who was taking out AQ in Syria?
Click to expand...
Assad.


No one has ignored any of the major factors that got us here in the first place. Several people have brought out how the issues have played out. Then I have brought out how it has increased exponentially under BO and his Team.
Click to expand...
Really? "Several people"? As far as I can tell the only person doing that current has been myself, while the rest who have kept active on this thread you, US Con, Grant and others have been focused on "ITS ALL BO's FAULT!".


I have answered that before and how I would go after terrorists. I would use all available means.
Click to expand...
"All available means"? So, continuous, just about never ending occupation and war. Sounds like the military industrial complex is in for a big time $$$ maker.
 
US Conservative said:
Stop dancing man. Iraq was largely pacified by Obama's first election. By the second we were withdrawing and now there is a freaking country, chalk full of terrorists too extreme for AQ. Thats on Obama. Own it.
Click to expand...

That Iraq would be a freaking country chalk full of terrorists was a foregone conclusion the minute we invaded that nation.

You can blame it on Obama if you want, but there was no good solution once the invasion took place, not unless we were prepared to simply wipe the Iraqis from the face of the Earth and repopulate the country with someone else.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That Iraq would be a freaking country chalk full of terrorists was a foregone conclusion the minute we invaded that nation.

You can blame it on Obama if you want, but there was no good solution once the invasion took place, not unless we were prepared to simply wipe the Iraqis from the face of the Earth and repopulate the country with someone else.
Click to expand...

We pacified Iraq, Obama gave that up for votes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom