• 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!

Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS[W:452]

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

It had nothing much to do with the history running up to Iraq either given the 9/11 retribution messages chalked often on bombs destined for Baghdad. Lets just say Americans were not being 'discouraged' to believe Iraq was somehow culpable
Cheney told us that it was "pretty well confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague just prior to 9/11.

But Cheney forgot that he said that (on tape) and later denied having said it.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Unfortunately, BushCo's never going to answer that.

Why should they? Nobody could seriously ask the question.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Cheney told us that it was "pretty well confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague just prior to 9/11.

But Cheney forgot that he said that (on tape) and later denied having said it.

I may be wrong, is always a good attitude.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Why should they? Nobody could seriously ask the question.

Why is that then if the attackers were all Saudi yet Iraq was chosen for retribution ? Using such logic it would be a bit like Britain attacking Italy for the crimes of the IRA because it too was Catholic and had been at war with Britain once before :lol:
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Unfortunately, BushCo's never going to answer that.

Don't just blame them. The bulk US citizenry clearly can't (or won't) differentiate between Muslim nations preferring to tar them all with the same brush. The vengeful post 9/11 electorate demanded a large pile of dead Muslims in retribution and Bush duly delivered. Nobody stateside really cared that it was the wrong Muslims being killed and Bush knew this too. He got his second term from 'liberating the hell' out of the wrong country for the TV screens at home and so for his administration it really was 'mission accomplished'. The simple truth is that nobody really cared what happened in Iraq after that :(
 
Last edited:
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

I may be wrong, is always a good attitude.
I thought I was wrong once; however, I was mistaken.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Nobody stateside really cared that it was the wrong Muslims being killed and Bush knew this too.
By "nobody" you mean "not enough people who give enough money to the politicians in power at the time"
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

I'm all for letting them kill each other if that's their solution - like they have been doing for over 1300 years! :shock:
Ok then... What would you do if your government forced you to fight against local militants? The OP is about men who lose the will to fight, real living men.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Why should they? Nobody could seriously ask the question.

Oh but you've been on vacation, many a person have dead seriously question why Iraq was falsely tied to 9/11 when 3/4 ths of the attackers, and wealthy Saudi money was in fact involved in the attacks.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Don't just blame them. The bulk US citizenry clearly can't (or won't) differentiate between Muslim nations preferring to tar them all with the same brush. The vengeful post 9/11 electorate demanded a large pile of dead Muslims in retribution and Bush duly delivered. Nobody stateside really cared that it was the wrong Muslims being killed and Bush knew this too. He got his second term from 'liberating the hell' out of the wrong country for the TV screens at home and so for his administration it really was 'mission accomplished'. The simple truth is that nobody really cared what happened in Iraq after that :(

Oh I don't just blame them, you've never noticed that there's a handful of DP posters that label those of us that blame both parties, anti-American?? I have little patience for the 80% of Americans that tagged right along! nor the similar numbers of democratic legislators that tagged along.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Why is that then if the attackers were all Saudi yet Iraq was chosen for retribution ? Using such logic it would be a bit like Britain attacking Italy for the crimes of the IRA because it too was Catholic and had been at war with Britain once before :lol:

But the Iraq thing wasn't primarily about terrorists. It was because Saddam was resisting the Security Council Resolution. Much better reason than the nationality or place of residence of the hit men.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Carter saying Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' sparks more criticism, concern about Obama plan | Fox News

Here we go again with our desperate attempts to train those who will shoot at our backs once they will be left alone.

They say you can take a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink. Bush Jr. invaded the wrong country (as if he could invade the right one). Iraqis understand they will die from ISIS attacks, but many of them got addicted to ISIS propaganda. So both facts are against US there - the fact Iraqis are muslims makes them sympathize isis and they never stopped treating us as invaders so I'm not surprised they don't want to fight.

It seems Pentagon's idea was to create non-US troops to fight ISIS and to oppose terrorists without getting involved to a direct confrontation.

So, does it mean we spend money on training future terrorists?

Malaki decimated the Iraqi army by putting his cronies in charge of everything. I'm not there and I can't assess the will to fight but it's pretty evident they have no leadership.

They have no leadership and we have no strategy. The whole situation is one SNAFU.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Oh but you've been on vacation, many a person have dead seriously question why Iraq was falsely tied to 9/11 when 3/4 ths of the attackers, and wealthy Saudi money was in fact involved in the attacks.

Anyone that tied it to 9/11 in any but a cursory way was not paying much attention.
And sure. Everyone knows that the bin Ladens and their kids' friends are Saudi. So?
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

But the Iraq thing wasn't primarily about terrorists. It was because Saddam was resisting the Security Council Resolution. Much better reason than the nationality or place of residence of the hit men.

So why were your armed forces not informed ? They clearly viewed the whole Iraq operation as retribution for 9/11 judging by the chalked messages on their bombs and shells as did the vast majority of your civilians. This deception was deliberately fostered by the Bush administration in order to facilitate the conflict

https://sgadaria.expressions.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Iraq-article_Gershkoff_Kushner.pdf

Very soon after 9/11 it was established that the attackers were in fact Saudi and were financed by Saudi's. Where has been the subsequent US response to this ?
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

But the Iraq thing wasn't primarily about terrorists. It was because Saddam was resisting the Security Council Resolution. Much better reason than the nationality or place of residence of the hit men.

The problem joG is that the earliest Bush administration claims were in fact about terrorists, terrorism, WMD's, connections between Saddam Hussein and OBL and al Qaeda, which nicely wove Saddam Hussein into the 9/11 attacks for which he had no connection whatsoever. It was only after failure to immediately harness the support they wanted for an invasion of Iraq, that other issues, unrelated to 9/11, but easier to demonstrate as true, such as gassing the Kurds, UN resolution violations and other human rights violations, were brought into the fray. But the accusations of Saddam's connections to AQ/OBL and terrorism were never dropped, and hyperbolic rhetoric continued to flow from the WH. Things like "do we have to wait for the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud over a US city" continued to pour out, despite the fact that Saddam Hussein had neither the inclination, nor the means to produce such an event.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Anyone that tied it to 9/11 in any but a cursory way was not paying much attention.
And sure. Everyone knows that the bin Ladens and their kids' friends are Saudi. So?

Which means that the entire Bush administration was not paying attention.

The war that began March 19, 2003, was justified to the country by alarming claims that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and connections to al-Qaida terrorists.

How the Bush administration sold the Iraq war | MSNBC
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

So why were your armed forces not informed ? They clearly viewed the whole Iraq operation as retribution for 9/11 judging by the chalked messages on their bombs and shells as did the vast majority of your civilians. This deception was deliberately fostered by the Bush administration in order to facilitate the conflict

https://sgadaria.expressions.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Iraq-article_Gershkoff_Kushner.pdf

Very soon after 9/11 it was established that the attackers were in fact Saudi and were financed by Saudi's. Where has been the subsequent US response to this ?

You don't think the soldiers read decent newspapers?
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

You don't think the soldiers read decent newspapers?

So are you inferring your own armed forces were actually too dumb to understand why they were fighting Iraqis instead of Saudis then ? :lol:
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

The problem joG is that the earliest Bush administration claims were in fact about terrorists, terrorism, WMD's, connections between Saddam Hussein and OBL and al Qaeda, which nicely wove Saddam Hussein into the 9/11 attacks for which he had no connection whatsoever. It was only after failure to immediately harness the support they wanted for an invasion of Iraq, that other issues, unrelated to 9/11, but easier to demonstrate as true, such as gassing the Kurds, UN resolution violations and other human rights violations, were brought into the fray. But the accusations of Saddam's connections to AQ/OBL and terrorism were never dropped, and hyperbolic rhetoric continued to flow from the WH. Things like "do we have to wait for the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud over a US city" continued to pour out, despite the fact that Saddam Hussein had neither the inclination, nor the means to produce such an event.

There were vague suppositions and speculation. But that was never official opinion or named as casus belli and anyway let drop, when it turned out to be incorrect. I can remember the discussion quite well.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Which means that the entire Bush administration was not paying attention.

The war that began March 19, 2003, was justified to the country by alarming claims that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and connections to al-Qaida terrorists.

How the Bush administration sold the Iraq war | MSNBC

I can remember well before the invasion that the connection to al Qaeda was dropped as there was no evidence and because logic spoke against it. It may be that people could have missed that, if they were not interested and did not follow things. But anyone with an iota of interest knew the government had dropped that idea months earlier.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

There were vague suppositions and speculation.

It was a darned sight more than that !

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.

Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship (washingtonpost.com)

But that was never official opinion or named as casus belli and anyway let drop, when it turned out to be incorrect.

So you disbelieve your own presidents words from 2004 ?

I can remember the discussion quite well.

Nonsense. The US armed forces were sent into combat on the basis of a known lie tying AQ with Iraq
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

It was a darned sight more than that !

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.

Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship (washingtonpost.com)



So you disbelieve your own presidents words from 2004 ?



Nonsense. The US armed forces were sent into combat on the basis of a known lie tying AQ with Iraq

Actually, there were a number of meetings at relatively high levels and at least one high level al Qaeda officer -I forget his name of hand- was treated in Bagdad. But that was all, though true, too vague to stick. So yes, at the beginning there was speculation, but it ebbed. I cannot remember that 9/11 was an issue in Bush's speech to the General Assembly or at all at that stage of developments. So, yes there were contacts. But no they were not the casus belli.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Actually, there were a number of meetings at relatively high levels and at least one high level al Qaeda officer -I forget his name of hand- was treated in Bagdad.

Nonsense AQ and the Hussein regime were in fact the bitterest of enemies and never had any such ties. These stories were fabrications

But that was all, though true, too vague to stick. So yes, at the beginning there was speculation, but it ebbed. I cannot remember that 9/11 was an issue in Bush's speech to the General Assembly or at all at that stage of developments. So, yes there were contacts. But no they were not the casus belli.

Given no evidence of such contacts has ever emerged in the subsequent decade I think we can put these down to the Whitehouse disinformation machine and the Pentagon was subsequently forced to agree

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/
 
Back
Top Bottom