• 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!

Iraq lost 2,300 Humvees in Mosul: PM

I didn't vote for Obama, he's the same as Bush and I didn't want another Bush.

There's no propaganda. How long ago did we start this war? Neigh 14 years, and in 14 years we've only gone backwards. Sorry that reality isn't something you want to acknowledge, but it doesn't change reality.

I would say it is you who is not acknowledging reality. You would like to pretend these sons of bitches can be appeased or accommodated, when in fact the only remedy for them is to kill them by the thousands, preferably from the air.
 
I would say it is you who is not acknowledging reality. You would like to pretend these sons of bitches can be appeased or accommodated, when in fact the only remedy for them is to kill them by the thousands, preferably from the air.

I'm not pretending anything. Just stating facts. ME is worse off since we intervened. We have stronger and more aggressive terrorist organizations, entire countries falling to terrorist organizations and attacks, and no hope of coming to a solution after nearly 14 years. 14 years. The greatest military on the planet has only gone backwards in 14 years of effort.

Just a fact.
 
I would say it is you who is not acknowledging reality. You would like to pretend these sons of bitches can be appeased or accommodated, when in fact the only remedy for them is to kill them by the thousands, preferably from the air.

Who is saying that they should be "appeased or accommodated"? What I'm reading is that the war in Iraq was poorly thought out, had no clear goals, and has been a disaster. It would be pretty difficult to argue otherwise, given the situation currently. All that the Republicans can do is say that the Democrats are to blame, and the Democrats have no argument except to throw the blame on Republicans. Guess what? This is not a partisan failure.
 
I didn't vote for Obama, he's the same as Bush and I didn't want another Bush.

There's no propaganda. How long ago did we start this war? Neigh 14 years, and in 14 years we've only gone backwards. Sorry that reality isn't something you want to acknowledge, but it doesn't change reality.
5 years ago, the country was described as stable. We know for a fact that the surge killed terrorists, drove them out of Iraq, and cornered the remaining small group in Mosul. While people disagree about the effectiveness of 'the surge' and argue that it may have been due to other circumstances, what is undeniable is that a major difference was made during that time period. Joe Biden toured the land. He went all over Iraq. It was described as fully in control and he expressed how impressed he was with the success and with the development of our Iraqi Allies. He touted Iraq as Obamas greatest foreign policy accomplishment. Then the decision was made to not negotiate the SOFA and to withdraw ALL US troops.

What happened after that?
 
5 years ago, the country was described as stable. We know for a fact that the surge killed terrorists, drove them out of Iraq, and cornered the remaining small group in Mosul. While people disagree about the effectiveness of 'the surge' and argue that it may have been due to other circumstances, what is undeniable is that a major difference was made during that time period. Joe Biden toured the land. He went all over Iraq. It was described as fully in control and he expressed how impressed he was with the success and with the development of our Iraqi Allies. He touted Iraq as Obamas greatest foreign policy accomplishment. Then the decision was made to not negotiate the SOFA and to withdraw ALL US troops.

What happened after that?
Syria happened, then the whole mess fell apart.
 
Syria happened, then the whole mess fell apart.
Syria...hmmm...yes...Syria happened. What happened in Syria? Who are we even SUPPORTING in Syria?
 
I didn't vote for Obama, he's the same as Bush and I didn't want another Bush.

There's no propaganda.
How long ago did we start this war?
Neigh 14 years, and in 14 years we've only gone backwards. Sorry that reality isn't something you want to acknowledge, but it doesn't change reality.



This war started in 1991 when Bush Sr attacked Iraq. That was 24 years ago and we still haven't got the job done.
 
A CNN poll now shows more Americans blame Obama and NOT Bush for the Cluster that is current day Iraq.

Ya think ?
 
I'm not pretending anything. Just stating facts. ME is worse off since we intervened. We have stronger and more aggressive terrorist organizations, entire countries falling to terrorist organizations and attacks, and no hope of coming to a solution after nearly 14 years. 14 years. The greatest military on the planet has only gone backwards in 14 years of effort.

Just a fact.

Here's another fact: The greatest military in the history of the world is not worth a tinker's damn without the will to use it, and with full force. The U.S. never should have been so fastidious about sparing civilians when bombing military targets--most Iraqis never felt the war directly enough to make them truly believe they had been whipped. They were still full of fight and resentment, and the fact cities in Iraq are sheltering ISIS jhadists suggests that many of them still are. I am sure most Iraqis saw the obsessive concern with preventing civilian casualties as nothing but weakness, because they know they would not have bothered about that if our positions had been reversed.
 
Last edited:
Fenton;1064681182[B said:
]A CNN poll now shows more Americans blame Obama and NOT Bush for the Cluster that is current day Iraq.

Ya think ?
[/B]



Nope. Bush Sr. kicked off this mess in 1991 and the USA has gained nothing since then.
 
5 years ago, the country was described as stable.

5 years ago it wasn't stable. Balancing a pin on its point does not mean it's stable. It is in fact unstable. It held for as long as we would be there as a force, but we cannot be there for infinity. This is one of the main failures of the original invasion, we invaded a place that could not stand on its own. It stood so long as there was sufficient force, be that Saddam or some occupying force. But occupying forces are always at a disadvantage, it's a race against the clock. We lost.

If you're going to topple governments, you need to be able to plan for success afterwards. We did not. So 14 years and we've only gone backwards.
 
Who is saying that they should be "appeased or accommodated"? What I'm reading is that the war in Iraq was poorly thought out, had no clear goals, and has been a disaster. It would be pretty difficult to argue otherwise, given the situation currently. All that the Republicans can do is say that the Democrats are to blame, and the Democrats have no argument except to throw the blame on Republicans. Guess what? This is not a partisan failure.

Who? This sorry excuse for a president, that's who. It's clear to many of us that B. Hussein Obama started by bowing and apologizing for this country, and that he has consistently tried to appease Islamic extremists ever since. He probably feels more sympathy for them than he does for Americans. He does not wish this country well and wants to see it humbled. His appeasement of the Islamist thugs who rule Iran has been especially shameful--and dangerous.
 
Here's another fact: The greatest military in the history of the world is not worth a tinker's damn without the will to use it, and with full force. The U.S. never should have been so fastidious about sparing civilians when bombing military targets--most Iraqis never felt the war directly enough to make them truly believe they had been whipped. They were still full of fight and resentment, and the fact cities in Iraq are sheltering ISIS jhadists suggests that many of them still are. I am sure most Iraqis saw the obsessive concern with preventing civilian casualties as nothing but weakness, because they know they would not have bothered about that if our positions had been reversed.

That's because our military is not built for imperial policing endeavors, nor should we try to use it as such.
 
Maybe the USA should start building Humvees in Iraq since they're going through so many of them there, eh?

Yes, and maybe we could sell them at a discount to ISIS, maybe finance them at zero percent, knock a few thousand off of the sticker price.
 
Who? This sorry excuse for a president, that's who. It's clear to many of us that B. Hussein Obama started by bowing and apologizing for this country, and that he has consistently tried to appease Islamic extremists ever since. He probably feels more sympathy for them than he does for Americans. He does not wish this country well and wants to see it humbled. His appeasement of the Islamist thugs who rule Iran has been especially shameful--and dangerous.

Ah, so no one on this forum. The POTUS does send appeasement drones from time to time to blow away a few terrorists. He also sends aircraft to bomb them, and works with our allies in the ME to try to turn the tide. Would you have him commit troops as well? How many?
 
Syria...hmmm...yes...Syria happened. What happened in Syria? Who are we even SUPPORTING in Syria?

I have no idea who is worth supporting in Syria. It looks like the bad guys against the worse guys to me.
 
Nope. Bush Sr. kicked off this mess in 1991 and the USA has gained nothing since then.

Oh that's right.

I remember back in the 90s when ISIS was marching town to town unchallenged killing all those who got in their way.

Oh wait, that didn't happen until Obama based a critical Foreign Policy decision on a stupid Political narrative.

Obama himself acknowledged a peaceful stable Iraq and when Bush jr left it Iraq citizens were voting in open elections.

Even Iraqi Women were allowed to vote without the fear of persecution.

Your Bush obsession is clouding your judgement ....again.
 
5 years ago it wasn't stable. Balancing a pin on its point does not mean it's stable. It is in fact unstable. It held for as long as we would be there as a force, but we cannot be there for infinity. This is one of the main failures of the original invasion, we invaded a place that could not stand on its own. It stood so long as there was sufficient force, be that Saddam or some occupying force. But occupying forces are always at a disadvantage, it's a race against the clock. We lost.

If you're going to topple governments, you need to be able to plan for success afterwards. We did not. So 14 years and we've only gone backwards.

Oh I DO agree we did not plan for success. Hell...we had the very same people that were on record as touting their reasons and purpose for supporting the war flipping the script and lying less than 2 years later as they plunged headlong into an election. We have democrat senators touting their DECADES of experience and knowledge backing their play on the Iraq war vote, only to cry 'victim' and claim they were suddenly lied to....as if the same intel Clinton had been feeding them for 8 years was somehow different. And lets not forget the Clintons. Both of them. Oh...we have some REALLY good video of BOTH of them touting their reasoned war vote...and then suddenly they too were 'lied to'. Yes...its pretty tough to sell a long term plan or commitment when politicians are more concerned about themselves and their parties interest every 2 years.

Thats not to say Bush didnt make some doozy mistakes all on his own. But the bipartisan war effort ended the moment Saddam surrendered and hauled ass.
 
I have no idea who is worth supporting in Syria. It looks like the bad guys against the worse guys to me.
Yep. Its kind of a bitch when you jump into bed with the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda to oust Bashir Assad. That makes it pretty tough to know who the players are and who the good guys are. Might explain why that whole game has been such an epic screw up.
 
5 years ago it wasn't stable. Balancing a pin on its point does not mean it's stable. It is in fact unstable. It held for as long as we would be there as a force, but we cannot be there for infinity. This is one of the main failures of the original invasion, we invaded a place that could not stand on its own. It stood so long as there was sufficient force, be that Saddam or some occupying force.

If you're going to topple governments, you need to be able to plan for success afterwards. We did not. So 14 years and we've only gone backwards.

Are you denying the claims your president made in his December 14, 2011 speech at Fort Bragg--almost three years into his presidency? He said we were "leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq." He spoke of "this moment of success" that American troops had brought about it Iraq and called it "an extraordinary achievement, nearly nine years in the making."

What had become of that "sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq," just three years later? Where has it gone? Either Mr. Obama was lying, or he has quickly squandered that extraordinary achievement he boasted of. He, General Dempsey, and others in his administration are now openly admitting they were caught by surprise--that they had no plan to counter what has happened. For more than a year, Mr. Obama watched as this malignancy grew in Syria. But he did nothing, dismissing ISIS as a "JV team." He finally began a token military effort last summer, but it has been so puny that the jihadists have gained ground against it. Within the past few weeks Ramadi, a city of a half-million or more people only sixty miles from Baghdad, has fallen to them.

But occupying forces are always at a disadvantage, it's a race against the clock.

Really? What evidence is there for that? The U.S. still maintains a substantial force in South Korea, more than sixty years after the end of the war there. I don't see that it is at any disadvantage to anyone or ever has been, or that there has been any race against the clock. It was and is a strong military force, and the U.S. will maintain it there as long as it sees fit.

Military experts argued for a somewhat smaller force of that kind to be left in Iraq, but Mr. Obama didn't want one. So he used an existing status-of-forces agreement as a flimsy excuse for throwing up his hands helplessly and doing nothing. Imagine Franklin Roosevelt, or Harry Truman, or Dwight Eisenhower, or John Kennedy, or Ronald Reagan meekly letting the U.S.-approved leader of a piss-ant country the U.S. had overrun with hundreds of thousands of troops deny him, if he had been determined to keep a small part of that force there.
 
That's because our military is not built for imperial policing endeavors, nor should we try to use it as such.

I note your slur against this country, and it doesn't surprise me. It is drivel. No great power in history has ever had less ambition for empire than the United States. For four years after WWII, only this country had the atom bomb. By 1949, we had about 200 of them, before anyone else had even one. With an advantage that enormous, the U.S. could have dictated terms to every nation on earth, and built an empire like the world had never seen.
 
I note your slur against this country, and it doesn't surprise me.

My slur against this country, huh? I fear your imagination is running away on you.
 
Are you denying the claims your president made in his December 14, 2011 speech at Fort Bragg--almost three years into his presidency? He said we were "leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq." He spoke of "this moment of success" that American troops had brought about it Iraq and called it "an extraordinary achievement, nearly nine years in the making."

Words are wind, measurement is fact. Obviously that was wrong because none of that held.

What had become of that "sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq," just three years later? Where has it gone? Either Mr. Obama was lying, or he has quickly squandered that extraordinary achievement he boasted of. He, General Dempsey, and others in his administration are now openly admitting they were caught by surprise--that they had no plan to counter what has happened. For more than a year, Mr. Obama watched as this malignancy grew in Syria. But he did nothing, dismissing ISIS as a "JV team." He finally began a token military effort last summer, but it has been so puny that the jihadists have gained ground against it. Within the past few weeks Ramadi, a city of a half-million or more people only sixty miles from Baghdad, has fallen to them.

The self-reliant Iraq never existed. It was propped up by American force, but was never able to stand on its own.

Really? What evidence is there for that? The U.S. still maintains a substantial force in South Korea, more than sixty years after the end of the war there. I don't see that it is at any disadvantage to anyone or ever has been, or that there has been any race against the clock. It was and is a strong military force, and the U.S. will maintain it there as long as it sees fit.

Military experts argued for a somewhat smaller force of that kind to be left in Iraq, but Mr. Obama didn't want one. So he used an existing status-of-forces agreement as a flimsy excuse for throwing up his hands helplessly and doing nothing. Imagine Franklin Roosevelt, or Harry Truman, or Dwight Eisenhower, or John Kennedy, or Ronald Reagan meekly letting the U.S.-approved leader of a piss-ant country the U.S. had overrun with hundreds of thousands of troops deny him, if he had been determined to keep a small part of that force there.

What evidence? Korea, Vietnam, hell our own Revolution.
 
Back
Top Bottom