• 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!

U.S. Defense Secretary Blames Iraqi Forces for ISIS Victory in Ramadi

PoS said:
We invaded Iraq under false pretenses, inadvertently created more terror groups like ISIS as a consequence and now our puppets refuse to fight for us. This isnt anything new when it comes to US foreign policy... this happened before with Vietnam, Iran, etc.
Click to expand...

I do not follow your logic at all. First there were no "false pretense" in going into Iraq. Maybe it was too expensive and maybe we do not have the stomach for cleaning up after eliminating a crook, but the standpoint was clean and honest, as far as I have been able to discern after thousands of pages of reading and many, many discussions with people of other persuasion in many countries over the years.
But you are right, that you will have inadvertent or anticipated impact of later events. We fought a Cold War for 50 years with a Man we did a lot to keep in place and win against Hitler. You will always have that happen and never quite know, what will be the consequences of action. We did not start the fire and we certainly took responsibility in trying to put it out here and there. But to fault that is absurd.

That does not mean we should not be putting more energy into explaining to the world that we do not want to do it for us all much longer and that the world community must find a communal way to keep the peace. That is what people here and all over the place should be discussing and not whether this or that action was humane, wrong or sensible.
 
VanceMack said:
Its all really great examples of BDS...but you simply cannot get away from this....



Joe...Barrack...they declared victory...remember? They touted the strength and stability of the nation. They crowed about the decimation of Al Qaeda. They joked about how inept the "JV team" was.
Click to expand...


Yep, and they were totally wrong, point?
 
joG said:
I do not follow your logic at all. First there were no "false pretense" in going into Iraq. Maybe it was too expensive and maybe we do not have the stomach for cleaning up after eliminating a crook, but the standpoint was clean and honest, as far as I have been able to discern after thousands of pages of reading and many, many discussions with people of other persuasion in many countries over the years.
But you are right, that you will have inadvertent or anticipated impact of later events. We fought a Cold War for 50 years with a Man we did a lot to keep in place and win against Hitler. You will always have that happen and never quite know, what will be the consequences of action. We did not start the fire and we certainly took responsibility in trying to put it out here and there. But to fault that is absurd.

That does not mean we should not be putting more energy into explaining to the world that we do not want to do it for us all much longer and that the world community must find a communal way to keep the peace. That is what people here and all over the place should be discussing and not whether this or that action was humane, wrong or sensible.
Click to expand...

No, the world has pondered, and Bush's war was gratuitous, profited nothing, created a bigger night mare in way of global terrorism, and has left a huge dilemma. We do not need to expend more energy justifying this folly to the world, but we certainly need to make room for others to take the lead in the region having failed so miserably.
 
Montecresto said:
I totally agree.
Click to expand...

I would be the last to say that Bush looked brilliant. But to assume that he did not understand the situation down there is somewhat presumptuous, less because he went to two Ivy League schools. It would be more because he grew up in a family, where these things were discussed over lunch and he got to meet the budding leaders and old hands from all around the world even before he started high school. And don't forget that the Republicans "could not fix in seven years what" FDR screwed up by supporting Uncle Joe. That blooper cost us 50.
 
joG said:
I would be the last to say that Bush looked brilliant. But to assume that he did not understand the situation down there is somewhat presumptuous, less because he went to two Ivy League schools. It would be more because he grew up in a family, where these things were discussed over lunch and he got to meet the budding leaders and old hands from all around the world even before he started high school. And don't forget that the Republicans "could not fix in seven years what" FDR screwed up by supporting Uncle Joe. That blooper cost us 50.
Click to expand...

I didn't speak to Bush's IQ in that post, and really don't know why you didn't comment on what you quoted but rather made unrelated points. I have a high regard for FDR's domestic policies, but he gets a big "F" concerning his foreign policy/the war.
 
Montecresto said:
No, the world has pondered, and Bush's war was gratuitous, profited nothing, created a bigger night mare in way of global terrorism, and has left a huge dilemma. We do not need to expend more energy justifying this folly to the world, but we certainly need to make room for others to take the lead in the region having failed so miserably.
Click to expand...

I think that that attitude is not only wrong and wrong headed, but will be responsible for a good part of the problems we will face in the next few years.
 
Montecresto said:
I didn't speak to Bush's IQ in that post, and really don't know why you didn't comment on what you quoted but rather made unrelated points. I have a high regard for FDR's domestic policies, but he gets a big "F" concerning his foreign policy/the war.
Click to expand...

That is right. All you did was to agree with a really quite misguided albeit widely believed opinion.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064653624 said:
I'm sure living under Saddam Husein's regime was much kinder and gentler than maintaining their new found freedom.
Click to expand...

Why should the US 'maintain' Iraq's freedom? It's their freedom. let them fight for it. If they don't want to then **** em. ISIS's rule will be 100x worse than Saddam. Let ISIS kill them until they get the balls to fight back.

The Iraqi's outnumbered ISIS 10-1 and they ran? WTF?
 
joG said:
I think that that attitude is not only wrong and wrong headed, but will be responsible for a good part of the problems we will face in the next few years.
Click to expand...

Pointing out USFP failures in the Middle East will be responsible for the problems we face in coming years!!?? Ok, sure.
 
joG said:
That is right. All you did was to agree with a really quite misguided albeit widely believed opinion.
Click to expand...

There's a reason for that.
 
Montecresto said:
Pointing out USFP failures in the Middle East will be responsible for the problems we face in coming years!!?? Ok, sure.
Click to expand...

No. But the wrong analysis you seem to follow will.
 
joG said:
No. But the wrong analysis you seem to follow will.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense whatsoever. My analysis is based upon the intelligence communities analysis.
 
Montecresto said:
That makes no sense whatsoever. My analysis is based upon the intelligence communities analysis.
Click to expand...

That might be, because you have never really thought it through.
 
joG said:
There always is. And followers are never short of a quick populism to justify their simplistic view.
Click to expand...

My original view, which opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq in real time, throughout the lead up to it, as the Bush administration sold the American people on it, has come to be the broadly viewed position on it. So no, we're not going backwards. Whether or not Americans have learned any lessons from it, remains uncertain.
 
joG said:
That might be, because you have never really thought it through.
Click to expand...

Right, I just woke up this morning and formed my first ever position on the events of the last dozen years in the Middle East.
 
Montecresto said:
Yep, and they were totally wrong, point?
Click to expand...
Were they? Were they 'wrong'? Were they 'lying'? Or were things significantly better there and then they got completely ****ed by the typical amateur hour governance and foreign policy demonstrated by the administration? Every facet of the middle east has been mishandled by this current administration. The presidential limo is a clown car.
 
VanceMack said:
Were they? Were they 'wrong'? Were they 'lying'? Or were things significantly better there and then they got completely ****ed by the typical amateur hour governance and foreign policy demonstrated by the administration? Every facet of the middle east has been mishandled by this current administration. The presidential limo is a clown car.
Click to expand...

Lying, wishful thinking, misinterpreting temporal events, I have no idea. Not sure what to make of the rest of your hyperbolic comments.
 
WSUwarrior said:
Apparently Obama's strategy of sending in advisers to "train" Iraqi forces is a failed policy.


Literally every decision Obama has made in Iraq has been the wrong one. Imagine that, an anti-war liberal college professor doesn't know how to win wars. Is it 2016 yet?
Click to expand...

What about 10 years and 100's of billions spent by GW Bush to train and equip the Iraqi's? Was that a success? Obama voted against invading Iraq.
 
Montecresto said:
Lying, wishful thinking, misinterpreting temporal events, I have no idea. Not sure what to make of the rest of your hyperbolic comments.
Click to expand...

You think Joe Biden missed something in his 18 trips there? You think maybe he saw something you didn't? You think maybe you are invested in your rhetoric?
 
iguanaman said:
What about 10 years and 100's of billions spent by GW Bush to train and equip the Iraqi's? Was that a success? Obama voted against invading Iraq.
Click to expand...

When did Obama vote against Iraq?

And how did the future Dem nominee vote?
 
VanceMack said:
You think Joe Biden missed something in his 18 trips there? You think maybe he saw something you didn't? You think maybe you are invested in your rhetoric?
Click to expand...

I think I clearly did not impute motives in my statement you quoted.
 
PoS said:
We invaded Iraq under false pretenses, inadvertently created more terror groups like ISIS as a consequence and now our puppets refuse to fight for us. This isnt anything new when it comes to US foreign policy... this happened before with Vietnam, Iran, etc.
Click to expand...

Disbanding the Military (Bathists) created the conditions for this and past problems.
 
The war in 2003 and the mess over there now is in Bush II's lap. It's all his.

Funny thing too is as 2016 gets closer I'm betting Bush III(Jeb) will be more and more isolationist about Iraq then even Obama is. LOL.. Bush I and Bush II had wars there. I doubt Jeb wants to be known as the 3rd Bush president(if he wins) who got us into a war there. If he's the GOP nom he'll backpedal like crazy away from wanting boots on the ground in Iraq.
 
iguanaman said:
What about 10 years and 100's of billions spent by GW Bush to train and equip the Iraqi's? Was that a success? Obama voted against invading Iraq.
Click to expand...

Nope it was a failure (Im not a partisan hack like you) and Obama wasnt even in the Senate at the time to vote for the war. Talk about clueless. :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom