• 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!

US combat mission in Iraq to end on schedule Aug 31: Obama

When will we learn War is never the answer?
 
Taylor said:
That wasn't going to happen. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia... none of these states have a "Come on in Americans and hunt down terrorists!" policy.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean they have to know about it. Send special forces in, kick ass, get out, undetected.
 
apdst said:
Refer back to one of your historical sources and see how Viet Vets were treated after Vietnam. They were treated like losers, the same way Iraq Vets will be treated, if this is declared a defeat.
Click to expand...

No one is discussing calling it a defeat. You're interjecting a new terminology into the discussion. I'd call it "ending hostilities and withdrawing forces," myself. Do you consider it a defeat for which you plan to hold our troops responsible? If so, that sounds like a personal problem.

I nevr said that. Any suggestion that I did is an outright lie.
Click to expand...

This is your reasoning, which you interjected into the discussion. No one else labeled this a defeat. Hence, it's a rational question.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
So, your contention is that we are being opposed militarily in Iraq? Doesn't that fly in the face of your belief that these are enemy combatants who can be tortured, then? Which is it?
Click to expand...

Just because a fighting force doesn't rate protections under the Geneva Convention, doesn't make them any less of a military force. Anytime a force uses interlocking fields of fire, explosives, anti-armor ambushes, etc. to fight, then they are using military tactics and that makes them a military force.

The tactics of street gangs largely depend on the gang, but in Los Angeles and Chicago, they are fairly organized in criminal activity and control of specific neighborhoods through terror and intimidation.
Click to expand...

But, which tactical doctrine do they employ? Hart? Clausewitz? Rommel? Patton? Lee?

Selling drugs and doing late night drivebys don't qualifiy as, "combat tactics".
 
apdst said:
Just because a fighting force doesn't rate protections under the Geneva Convention, doesn't make them any less of a military force. Anytime a force uses interlocking fields of fire, explosives, anti-armor ambushes, etc. to fight, then they are using military tactics and that makes them a military force.
Click to expand...

Then 18th Street and Gangster Disciples are an army.

Are you a tactical expert or are you just pulling this shi'ite opinion out your ass?
 
drz-400 said:
What is the upside of being there? Pride? Sorry, but that does not cut it for me, especially every time I see on the news someone coming home in a casket. Bring our guys home, where they are supposed to be.
Click to expand...

The upside of being there, is that we don't have to go back and start all over from scratch.

You don't like seeing people come home in caskets? If we have to go back in ten years, to re-learn how to fight the enemy all over again, you'll see even more young Americans coming home in caskets.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Then 18th Street and Gangster Disciples are an army.

Are you a tactical expert or are you just pulling this shi'ite opinion out your ass?
Click to expand...

Ok, so explain to us whose tactical orginization they used to make themselves into an army.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Or, rehash Kuwait, circa 1991...bomb the fuck out of them. Worked better than invasion.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but all you Lefties would go ape **** if we did that. But, even in Desert Storm, we had to attack the enemy and suffered 1,200 casualties.
 
apdst said:
Ok, so explain to us whose tactical orginization they used to make themselves into an army.
Click to expand...

YOu don't believe that street gangs have organizations, leadership, hierarchy, rules, and structure? I don't think you're equipped for this discussion.
 
apdst said:
The upside of being there, is that we don't have to go back and start all over from scratch.

You don't like seeing people come home in caskets? If we have to go back in ten years, to re-learn how to fight the enemy all over again, you'll see even more young Americans coming home in caskets.
Click to expand...

So do the job right the first time type of thing. I guess that is a little more legit, however, given that we have been fighting there for like 8 years I am not that convinced in such an argument.
 
apdst said:
I don't disagree, but all you Lefties would go ape **** if we did that. But, even in Desert Storm, we had to attack the enemy and suffered 1,200 casualties.
Click to expand...

You consider me a lefty? LMFAO!

I am all in favor of bombing the **** out of bad guys.

And, as usual, your numbers are way off:

The DoD reports that U.S. forces suffered 148 battle-related deaths (35 to friendly fire), with one pilot listed as MIA (his remains were found and identified in August 2009). A further 145 Americans died in non-combat accidents.[78]
Click to expand...

That adds up to 253. I don't know where you pulled the 1200 figure, likely out from between your buttocks, as per your usual m.o.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
There is an assumption on your part that our police actions prevented these things. I don't think you can prove this. Thus, your point is moot.



Real history suggests that Vietnam worked?



Welcome to training exercises, 101. Our guys hadn't fought since vietnam when we went into Kuwait in 1991, and they managed.
Click to expand...

We wound up with 1,200 casualties, inflicted by a two-bit army. It's a good thing we weren't up against a real fighting force.

All the training in the world can never substitute the experience that soldier gain in actual combat.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
You consider me a lefty? LMFAO!

I am all in favor of bombing the **** out of bad guys.

And, as usual, your numbers are way off:



That adds up to 253. I don't know where you pulled the 1200 figure, likely out from between your buttocks, as per your usual m.o.
Click to expand...

Did I say, "deaths", or did I say, "casualties"? You do know the difference?
 
apdst said:
Did I say, "deaths", or did I say, "casualties"? You do know the difference?
Click to expand...

Definition: a member of the armed forces lost to service through death, wounds, sickness, capture, or because his or her whereabouts or condition cannot be determined.

We had 145 combat deaths, one MIA, and 148 accidental deaths.

Please feel free to provide the source of your 1200 figure.
 
Your Star said:
Okay this makes alot more sense, when explained like that it seems like something with a goal, instead of just empty rhetoric. Though I still think we went about it the wrong way. Invading, occupying,and nation building isn't the best way to stop terrorists. If we hunted down, and just destroyed the terrorist cells individually it would of been a much more effective, and cost efficient(in both money, and lives) way to accomplish the same goal. Also I really doubt recruitment for such cells would be anywhere near as high as it is now.
Click to expand...

You actually highlight and issue I have, and that's the notion many people seem to have that by supporting the idea of a "War on Terror" somehow one must be blanket supporting of everything done during it and how its done.

I actually agree with you, I think the method they attempted was a failed one. My personal feelings would be that I'd rather have bombed the hell out of Afghanistan, made it an example that if anyone wishes to sponsor this as a state again expect similar abject and utter destruction, and from that point forward deal with this with special forces and intelligence agency blackops, amending our standing rules on assassination if need be specifically with regards to non-political figures noted as enemies of the state. At the same time, that line of tactics would likely do little with regards to the propoganda, as I'm sure many would see the notion in Afghanistan as heartless (While currently complaining about nation building) and would complain about the blackops as being fascist and setting precedent for them to do it to our own citizens or such other foolishness.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Definition: a member of the armed forces lost to service through death, wounds, sickness, capture, or because his or her whereabouts or condition cannot be determined.

We had 145 combat deaths, one MIA, and 148 accidental deaths.

Please feel free to provide the source of your 1200 figure.
Click to expand...

Combat deaths: 148

Other: 235

Wounded: 849

United States casualties of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Look as those figures, then re-read your own definition of casualty, where it says: "a member of the armed forces lost to service through death, wounds, sickness, capture", then add those numbers up and see what you get.
 
Zyphlin said:
My personal feelings would be that I'd rather have bombed the hell out of Afghanistan, made it an example that if anyone wishes to sponsor this as a state again expect similar abject and utter destruction, and from that point forward deal with this with special forces and intelligence agency blackops, amending our standing rules on assassination if need be specifically with regards to non-political figures noted as enemies of the state. At the same time, that line of tactics would likely do little with regards to the propoganda, as I'm sure many would see the notion in Afghanistan as heartless (While currently complaining about nation building) and would complain about the blackops as being fascist and setting precedent for them to do it to our own citizens or such other foolishness.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with your position here. We should have pounded the **** out of Afghanistan, from a distance, and made an example of them as how any nation who shelters terrorists who attack the U.S. will be treated. That would have sent a much clearer message to the world.
 
apdst said:
Look as those figures, then re-read your own definition of casualty, where it says: "a member of the armed forces lost to service through death, wounds, sickness, capture", then add those numbers up and see what you get.
Click to expand...

Most of us use the term casualties to refer to those LOST in combat, not injuries. Based upon that definition of the term, how many casualties have we had in Iraq?

See, I saw what you did there. You used the term casualty to inflate the numbers for Desert Storm.

Using the same standards for the Iraq War, our casualty figure becomes 34,469.

Still want to play this game?

See, you relied upon no one questioning your figure. 1,200 doesn't sound that bad when compared against 4,200 over 8 years.

But the comparison isn't between 1,200 and 4,200. It's between 145 and 1,200, or between 1,200 and 34,000.

Nice try though.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
I totally agree with your position here. We should have pounded the **** out of Afghanistan, from a distance, and made an example of them as how any nation who shelters terrorists who attack the U.S. will be treated. That would have sent a much clearer message to the world.
Click to expand...

I personally would have preferred to see the 'peace' managed radically differently. I think we should have given BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq a 3 year timetable.

Taht being said...the war in Afghanistan, like the war in iraq, was over in a rapid hurry. They cant have been defined in any other way than as striking successes. The problem was not the war. Its what happened AFTER the war. We listened to everyone and decided to turn over the peace keeping mission to UN control.
 
Zyphlin said:
You actually highlight and issue I have, and that's the notion many people seem to have that by supporting the idea of a "War on Terror" somehow one must be blanket supporting of everything done during it and how its done.

I actually agree with you, I think the method they attempted was a failed one. My personal feelings would be that I'd rather have bombed the hell out of Afghanistan, made it an example that if anyone wishes to sponsor this as a state again expect similar abject and utter destruction, and from that point forward deal with this with special forces and intelligence agency blackops, amending our standing rules on assassination if need be specifically with regards to non-political figures noted as enemies of the state. At the same time, that line of tactics would likely do little with regards to the propoganda, as I'm sure many would see the notion in Afghanistan as heartless (While currently complaining about nation building) and would complain about the blackops as being fascist and setting precedent for them to do it to our own citizens or such other foolishness.
Click to expand...

Go back in time, and start implementing this plan at the beginning of 02, and I think the world would be a much better place.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom