• 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

Why wouldn't they want freedom and a better government? Would you have wanted to live under Saddam?

Of course I wouldn't have, but I'm not Iraqi, I'm Irish.

Wherever I might be living, I would much prefer a place with electricity, water and sewer, some of the things Iraq had under Saddam.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Of course I wouldn't have, but I'm not Iraqi, I'm Irish.

Wherever I might be living, I would much prefer a place with electricity, water and sewer, some of the things Iraq had under Saddam.

Did African Americans have it great after the Emancipation Proclamation? Should Lincoln not have done it then?

We don't know exactly how things will turn out yet in Iraq, even though it doesn't look good now. Who would think that they wouldn't value democracy, certainly not Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and most other members of Congress at the time.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Did African Americans have it great after the Emancipation Proclamation? Should Lincoln not have done it then?

We don't know exactly how things will turn out yet in Iraq, even though it doesn't look good now. Who would think that they wouldn't value democracy, certainly not Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and most other members of Congress at the time.

Have it great???

You mean having electricity and running water is having it great, in 2003?

The point was and is that Iraq posed no threat to the US in 2003, so why did we need to invade it? And how fooking stupid is it to destroy the infrastructure in the process?
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Have it great???

You mean having electricity and running water is having it great, in 2003?

The point was and is that Iraq posed no threat to the US in 2003, so why did we need to invade it? And how fooking stupid is it to destroy the infrastructure in the process?

Why did you know that we didn't need to invade but most in Congress including Hillary, Biden, and Kerry didn't? The Middle East has been causing problems for years and we had a chance to take out it's worst dictator and turn it into a democracy. It hasn't taken like we would've hoped so far but my point is there are other cases in history where it's taken time, including a really long time for African Americans, to reap the benefits that those who shed their blood fought for. I'm not willing to call Iraq a total loss yet.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

The Iraqi forces as reconstituted may never have had the will to fight anyone, only to make a corrupt career move.

" ...The dismantling of Saddam’s Ba’ath army by the coalition forces in 2003 saw the end of Iraq’s previously organised and professional army unit. Its passing left not so much a vacuum but a gap for showing off governmental incompetence and cronyism. Iraq is a country split along sectarian lines and when the Americans withdrew, Nouri al-Maliki, the then prime minister of Iraq – and a Shia – ostracised Sunnis from the military and security forces. Their response was to either opt for alternative careers away from the front lines or join fellow Sunni brothers in arms – Islamic State.

The lack of inclusiveness is only half the story here: experienced, battle-hardened, professional soldiers were replaced by commanders and troops whose interests and motivations were more akin to opportunistic business men. Joining the Iraqi army has become more of a career development-style investment opportunity, a bit like a student doing an MBA who hopes that his tuition fees will result in fame and fortune in some blue-chip commercial nirvana. The prospect of fighting off extremist insurgents is not what they signed up for – and it shows.... "

https://theconversation.com/corrupt...rces-in-the-fight-against-islamic-state-41418
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Why did you know that we didn't need to invade but most in Congress including Hillary, Biden, and Kerry didn't? The Middle East has been causing problems for years and we had a chance to take out it's worst dictator and turn it into a democracy. It hasn't taken like we would've hoped so far but my point is there are other cases in history where it's taken time, including a really long time for African Americans, to reap the benefits that those who shed their blood fought for. I'm not willing to call Iraq a total loss yet.

What have we gained by invading? How famous for their wisdom are members of congress?

What have we lost by invading?

We were deceived.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

What have we gained by invading? How famous for their wisdom are members of congress?

What have we lost by invading?

We were deceived.

Who deceived us?

And we gained the right for citizens of Iraq to vote, maybe they'll eventually get their act together, even though it's not looking good now.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

So we should have continued spending our blood and ($10B worth monthly of) treasure to keep propping up the regime there? Even if the whole Middle East melts down, does that really affect us? Remember, we're now the world's largest producer of oil and gas.

What's sad is that there's a whole swath of Americans - conservatives - who seem to think that sending in our troops is the solution to everything, as if that would somehow make differences in religious dogma go away.

After leading in the region for so many years, sure a stumble to allow ISIS to raise, wouldn't it be the height of irresponsibility to now just walk away?

After all Pottery Barn rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, true?

How much harsher the judgement and distrustful the allies if the US just walks away? Can we really afford that?
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Who deceived us?

And we gained the right for citizens of Iraq to vote, maybe they'll eventually get their act together, even though it's not looking good now.

The citizens of Iran vote, even the women, which you can't say about Saudi Arabia. Does that make Iran a vibrant democracy, hmm?
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

After leading in the region for so many years, sure a stumble to allow ISIS to raise, wouldn't it be the height of irresponsibility to now just walk away?

After all Pottery Barn rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, true?

How much harsher the judgement and distrustful the allies if the US just walks away? Can we really afford that?

You didn't walk away, you were asked to leave.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

The citizens of Iran vote, even the women, which you can't say about Saudi Arabia. Does that make Iran a vibrant democracy, hmm?

And the voting is fair in Iran too, in case you didn't know.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

And the voting is fair in Iran too, in case you didn't know.

The point being neither Iraq nor Iran are thriving democracies.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

You didn't walk away, you were asked to leave.

Even so, abandoning the leadership in the region is by far not the way to improve the situation.
 
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?

This is why we should have taken care of it ourselves instead of paying to train someone else to do it.

First mistake was that we disbanded their military when we initially invaded.

Second mistake was that we did not prepare for the ensuing civil conflict once Saddam's government was defeated. We did not send in enough troops to secure Iraq. We should have had at a minimum 250k boots on the ground.

Third mistake was that we did not stay long enough to allow the people time to choose what kind of government they wanted in power. We put in a provisional government temporarily, and should have stayed long enough (for several voting cycles) in order for the people to get the government they way they wanted it. Now that we are gone, the people have no control over the government because the concept of a government voted in by the people is not a concept that has been around long enough there to set in. So now we are going to see a very corrupt and directionless government which will eventually revert back to a dictatorship. We should still be in Iraq right now with a large amount of forces. Would it have costed a lot of money, sure. But I think, in the long run, it would have been cheaper then doing what we are doing now and playing this whole war of attrition game with the insurgency. Which is a war we can not possibly win. It costs us several million $ to put a warhead on a forehead and kill a few guys. It costs them a few $'s to blow a truck bomb up in the middle of a market, police station or military checkpoint. A war of attrition, is a war they will win. We would have needed to stay in Iraq for at least 20-30 years. Of course, we would be slowly drawing down the whole time just like we did in Japan and S.Korea after WW2 and the Korean war. If we had followed the blueprint of WW2 in Asia and how we handled building successful governments there, Iraq would be on its way to becoming the South Korea, or Japan of the Middle East.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Yep yep, you break it you own it.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

This is why we should have taken care of it ourselves instead of paying to train someone else to do it.

First mistake was that we disbanded their military when we initially invaded.

Second mistake was that we did not prepare for the ensuing civil conflict once Saddam's government was defeated. We did not send in enough troops to secure Iraq. We should have had at a minimum 250k boots on the ground.

Third mistake was that we did not stay long enough to allow the people time to choose what kind of government they wanted in power. We put in a provisional government temporarily, and should have stayed long enough (for several voting cycles) in order for the people to get the government they way they wanted it. Now that we are gone, the people have no control over the government because the concept of a government voted in by the people is not a concept that has been around long enough there to set in. So now we are going to see a very corrupt and directionless government which will eventually revert back to a dictatorship. We should still be in Iraq right now with a large amount of forces. Would it have costed a lot of money, sure. But I think, in the long run, it would have been cheaper then doing what we are doing now and playing this whole war of attrition game with the insurgency. Which is a war we can not possibly win. It costs us several million $ to put a warhead on a forehead and kill a few guys. It costs them a few $'s to blow a truck bomb up in the middle of a market, police station or military checkpoint. A war of attrition, is a war they will win. We would have needed to stay in Iraq for at least 20-30 years. Of course, we would be slowly drawing down the whole time just like we did in Japan and S.Korea after WW2 and the Korean war. If we had followed the blueprint of WW2 in Asia and how we handled building successful governments there, Iraq would be on its way to becoming the South Korea, or Japan of the Middle East.

Do you think it would've helped if we kept large military bases there like we did in Japan and Germany?
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Do you think it would've helped if we kept large military bases there like we did in Japan and Germany?

Yes, the only way to secure a country in the middle of a civil war and keep all sides at bay would have been to have a large presence there until they learn to direct their fighting onto the political stage instead of on the streets. Just like we did in Japan and South Korea. We had a large footprint there for many years as a deterent force that would immediately be re-enforced by a large force if Japan, China, Korea or N.Korea had tried to get even with one of their neighbors after WW2. It was the deterent of US forces and the deterent of military action that has kept Asia peaceful for so long. It has been peace in Asia that has also caused the world economy to explode over the last 60 years.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Even so, abandoning the leadership in the region is by far not the way to improve the situation.

How could you stay? By occupying a sovereign nation that had told you to leave?
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

How could you stay? By occupying a sovereign nation that had told you to leave?

Iraq had lost its sovereignty when it invaded Kuwait by international law.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Iraq had lost its sovereignty when it invaded Kuwait by international law.

Whoa whoa whoa, if we"re going to drag IL into this........................
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Whoa whoa whoa, if we"re going to drag IL into this........................

There are 4 conditions a country can loose its sovereignty, lets take a look at them...

1. Development of WMD's in violation of the non-proliferation act.

Iraq was known to have chemical weapons and used them against Iran, and the Kurdish people of Iraq. And chemicals / materials were found in munition dumps around Iraq during the invasion.

2. Invading another sovereign nation.

Their invasion of Kuwait, as well as the firing of scud missiles into neighboring countries qualifies.

3. Genocide.

Saddam routinely attacked the kurds up nort, even dropping chemical weapons on them a few times. He also ran a series of torture camps in order to punish political prisoners. His sons were even worse, raping and killing women all over the country in order to satisfy their sadistic fantasies.

4. Hosting or aiding terrorists.

It is well known that Saddam hosted many terrorist factions within his country and used them to take out political rivals as well as to intimidate its neighbors. He supported terrorists fighting in Turkey, in Iran and supported hard line Palestinian terrorists groups as well.

So in essence, the invasion of Iraq, in terms of legality on the international stage, was completely legal.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

How could you stay? By occupying a sovereign nation that had told you to leave?

Is the Middle East comprised of only a single sovereign nation? Not the last time I checked.

Isn't Jordan begging for resupply? I'd grant it, with an ask for a base to help support, supply, logistical support, intelligence and advisers, say 10-20K troops.

In fact, I'd make this offer, discreetly, to pretty much all of the ME nations that would grant the US ambassador an audience.
The idea being, surrounding ISIS is probably the best way to continually squeeze them down until they have next no territory left

Probably by the 3 country deployed, you'd have ISIS's attention in a serious way.

Once squeezed down, then the final ground raid to eliminate the problem permanently.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Do you think it would've helped if we kept large military bases there like we did in Japan and Germany?
We have the world's largest and most expensive embassy there. That should be enough.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

There are 4 conditions a country can loose its sovereignty, lets take a look at them...

1. Development of WMD's in violation of the non-proliferation act.

Iraq was known to have chemical weapons and used them against Iran, and the Kurdish people of Iraq. And chemicals / materials were found in munition dumps around Iraq during the invasion.

2. Invading another sovereign nation.

Their invasion of Kuwait, as well as the firing of scud missiles into neighboring countries qualifies.

3. Genocide.

Saddam routinely attacked the kurds up nort, even dropping chemical weapons on them a few times. He also ran a series of torture camps in order to punish political prisoners. His sons were even worse, raping and killing women all over the country in order to satisfy their sadistic fantasies.

4. Hosting or aiding terrorists.

It is well known that Saddam hosted many terrorist factions within his country and used them to take out political rivals as well as to intimidate its neighbors. He supported terrorists fighting in Turkey, in Iran and supported hard line Palestinian terrorists groups as well.

So in essence, the invasion of Iraq, in terms of legality on the international stage, was completely legal.

We'll then, I don't know where you found your list at but by points two and four, the US has no sovereignty. Along with quite a few other countries you likely still consider sovereign, lol.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Is the Middle East comprised of only a single sovereign nation? Not the last time I checked.

Isn't Jordan begging for resupply? I'd grant it, with an ask for a base to help support, supply, logistical support, intelligence and advisers, say 10-20K troops.

In fact, I'd make this offer, discreetly, to pretty much all of the ME nations that would grant the US ambassador an audience.
The idea being, surrounding ISIS is probably the best way to continually squeeze them down until they have next no territory left

Probably by the 3 country deployed, you'd have ISIS's attention in a serious way.

Once squeezed down, then the final ground raid to eliminate the problem permanently.

You started fighting al Qaeda in A-Stan back in 2001. Today they're bigger, cover a vastly larger area and are menacing the region like never before, lol, you can't "eliminate" the "problem" permanently. The US military may have its uses, this is obviously not one of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom