• 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

This doesn't seem to mean very much. We'll still have 50,000 troops there, they'll still be engaging in combat, and we'll probably try to extend their mandate after 2011. I don't think we'll be leaving Iraq to the Iraqis any time soon. It would defeat the whole purpose of the mission.

it would be our mistake to extend that mandate. we need to get the hell out of dodge and let the iraqis rule the iraqis, however flawed they might be.
 
I've always hated that term, "The war on terror". It's stupid, you can't have a war on terror, terrorism is a tactic used by people, or a specific group of people. It's not something you can defeat, it's like having a war on air strikes.

Can't have a war on an ideology as well, but its pretty accurate to suggest the Cold War as a War on Communism.

I think people get too hyped up on the "War on Terror" monikor, and it always bugs me when people make THAT the issue when people dare to simply call it what its technical term is.

Was it a stupid term to use? Sure. But it was also the most simplified way to say it...

In more specific, its a war on state sponsored terrorists whose goal is (arguably) the subjigation or destruction of westernized society, typically by militant radical islamists.

The issue here is, unlike a traditional war, there is no specific STATE to quote. Even beyond that, there is no specific group as terrorist organizations are legion and interconnect in odd ways while maintaining autonomy. The "War on Terror" notion is a sound bite, but only truly inaccurate if one is attempting to view it completely literally without allowing any context or reason to play into it. When one realizes and accepts, even if they disagree, that this is a "war" against state sponsored terrorists organizations that threaten the United States and its Allies then the "War on Terror" label makes far more sense, as "terror" is a reference to the classification of the group rather than a specific group name.
 
Iran is a different situation. I think many of us are still hoping that the Iranian people will eventually create a democracy on their own impetus.

This is actually possibly my greatest disappointment with Obama and one I don't voice often but what angers me likely the most.

Invasion likely would've not been needed. What was needed was for US to be the Iranian's French (god, I just compared us to the french).

A spark finally ignited the dry timber that was the Iranian youth, world opinion was firmly on their side, conditions were such that a take over would've seemed and likely been taken as legitimate by most of the world community. All that was needed was someone to fan the flames, to add fuel to the fire, to step up in support of the Iranian people not just in words (but at LEAST in words) but in action as well. I'm not necessarily saying military action, though if needed perhaps, but that is hardly the only type of action.

Our independence did not come about simply due to the will and hope of the American's, it came about as it did in large part due to another country deciding to come to the aid of people who had at that time no nation of their own but were fighting for such.

Our best shot at removing Iran as a thread had little to do with bombs or tanks or anything of the like. It was putting our full backing behind those revolutionaries that were attempting to right the wrong that occured in that country, and helping them to impliment a government of the people and by the people in that country. We missed that shot, we let it slip away, and I dare say I do not think that fact is going to be one we kick ourselves for repeatedly at the point when we do finally have to confront Iran in a more conventional way.
 
This is actually possibly my greatest disappointment with Obama and one I don't voice often but what angers me likely the most.

I feel your pain, bro. Obama should have publicly come out and supported the people of Iran, and refused to negotiate with "I'm a dinner jacket."

On the other hand, military support wasn't what we should have provided. Public, firm, moral support was what was needed, and the Obama administration misfired.

Hell, for that matter, the mainstream media barely paid attention. If not for people like Andrew Sullivan, it would barely have been a blip on the radar.

However, I don't believe that the green movement in Iran is over, by any stretch of the imagination. If anything, it was a public expression of the Iranian people's deep and abiding dissatisfaction with their present leadership. It's a matter of time.
 
Al-Quaeda will throw a huge celebration barbecue and annouce to their supporters, "See, I told you they don't have the resolve for the fight."

This war against terror is in it's INFANTILE stages. They haven't even begun their fight yet.

Obama is a disaster like this country has never seen, and hopefully never will again.

Oh god, he's nothing of the sort. FDR was one of the worst things to happen to this country and Obama is not even close to that. And all this **** about the WOT..."infantile stages"? We've been at it for a long time now. It's not in the "infantile" stage, it's in the "incompetent" stage. Has been from the beginning. We're not doing anything but feeding right into the terrorist propaganda machine. If we're not going to do anything, there's no point wasting our lives and our money on their problem. **** those assholes, let them figure it out for themselves. I'll take my chance with the terrorists, they're mostly incompetent as well. They got lucky with an attack and now we're all freaking out like they're god damned Nazi Germany. They ain't that good.
 
Can't have a war on an ideology as well, but its pretty accurate to suggest the Cold War as a War on Communism.

I think the Cold War very accurately describes the specific tension between the US and the USSR. If there were such a thing as the War on Communism, it would include more than the Cold war but things like Vietnam, Korea, etc. And that propaganda war didn't go so well either.
 
This is a very foolish and unwise decision on Obama's part. We need to keep the amount of troops there in Iraq until the area is secure. We can't pull out and leave a small number of troops in Iraq only to watch their government fall into the hands of terrorists. There will be many more deaths and terror attacks once wee leave. His decision is purely political and not based on what is best for the Iraqi people or America's mission that we sought out to do.
 
This is a very foolish and unwise decision on Obama's part. We need to keep the amount of troops there in Iraq until the area is secure. We can't pull out and leave a small number of troops in Iraq only to watch their government fall into the hands of terrorists. There will be many more deaths and terror attacks once wee leave. His decision is purely political and not based on what is best for the Iraqi people or America's mission that we sought out to do.

50,000 troops isn't sufficient for the job of backing up the Iraqis in taking care of their country?
 
Oh god, he's nothing of the sort. FDR was one of the worst things to happen to this country and Obama is not even close to that. And all this **** about the WOT..."infantile stages"? We've been at it for a long time now. It's not in the "infantile" stage, it's in the "incompetent" stage. Has been from the beginning. We're not doing anything but feeding right into the terrorist propaganda machine. If we're not going to do anything, there's no point wasting our lives and our money on their problem. **** those assholes, let them figure it out for themselves. I'll take my chance with the terrorists, they're mostly incompetent as well. They got lucky with an attack and now we're all freaking out like they're god damned Nazi Germany. They ain't that good.

Nice rant. I agree. Great job in letting the wind out of the hyperbole.
 
50,000 troops isn't sufficient for the job of backing up the Iraqis in taking care of their country?

I'm not sure, I would like to know the general's opinion. 50,000 troops mean nothing if they aren't allowed to preform combat missions and be on the offensive against terrorists. This isn't about military strategy or what's best in the war, it's purely political. Obama is a horrible military leader and will probably take credit for the "success" of the Iraq war, when the true credit goes to those who supported the surge and the troops themselves.
 
OK, it is now up to the Iraqis to determine their own future. We will still have about 50,000 troops there until the end of the year, but the writing is now on the wall. The end of this huge blunder known as the Iraq War is in sight, and now it is time to correct another mistake, namely not finishing the job we had to do when we were attacked on 9/11. This, of course, is Afghanistan.

Article is here.

bush-mission.jpg


Maybe Obama will put up a banner.
 
First off, how does anyone know what will happen when we leave? Secondly, why the **** is it our responsibility? Their land, their sovereignty, their government; their decision. Let them do it for themselves. We can't run around "bringing democracy" to people; they've got to want it. Country fall into the hands of terrorists, whatever. And even if they did, have you seen Iraq lately? They can be in charge of a ruined country all they want. If we couldn't secure the area in the amount of time we've been there, then it ain't happening. Sorry to burst all y'alls bubble. Ain't happening, so there is no longer any point to wasting American lives and money on it. I mean, 9.11 got ~3000 of us, and we've spent well more than 3,000 more lives fighting this damned war. We essentially doubled our own losses and have accomplished nothing. If you think this is a wise strategy, I'd say you're a crazy man. There's no end in sight, no competent plan to make one and get there. It's all FUBARed. Cut our losses and get out, the area sucks ass anyway.
 
First off, how does anyone know what will happen when we leave? Secondly, why the **** is it our responsibility? Their land, their sovereignty, their government; their decision. Let them do it for themselves. We can't run around "bringing democracy" to people; they've got to want it. Country fall into the hands of terrorists, whatever. And even if they did, have you seen Iraq lately? They can be in charge of a ruined country all they want. If we couldn't secure the area in the amount of time we've been there, then it ain't happening. Sorry to burst all y'alls bubble. Ain't happening, so there is no longer any point to wasting American lives and money on it. I mean, 9.11 got ~3000 of us, and we've spent well more than 3,000 more lives fighting this damned war. We essentially doubled our own losses and have accomplished nothing. If you think this is a wise strategy, I'd say you're a crazy man. There's no end in sight, no competent plan to make one and get there. It's all FUBARed. Cut our losses and get out, the area sucks ass anyway.
They could sell the oil to buy a nuke....whoopeee.
 
This is great news... well, it's only news because we're so used to being lied to by politicians. If this all goes according to what we're told, I think people on both sides of the aisle should give Obama a lot of credit for being open and honest with the American people regarding the war in Iraq. The cost in lives and taxpayer dollars from this war is unforgivable and our President's actions are a good reminder of why I'm happy that McCain wasn't elected. I have a few friends that I can't wait to see come home permanently. I have a few friends in Afghanistan, too... that's a different story.

Actually, it was Bush who signed the treaty that has us pulling out at the end of the year. Sorry, but you can't rewrite history and give Obama the credit for this.
 
They could sell the oil to buy a nuke....whoopeee.

Who are they going to sell oil to? Where are they gonna get a nuke from? There's a lot we can do through sanctions if need be. I mean, I don't know if we really want to break out the "Iraq has WMD" so soon again.
 
I'm not sure, I would like to know the general's opinion. 50,000 troops mean nothing if they aren't allowed to preform combat missions and be on the offensive against terrorists. This isn't about military strategy or what's best in the war, it's purely political. Obama is a horrible military leader and will probably take credit for the "success" of the Iraq war, when the true credit goes to those who supported the surge and the troops themselves.

No offense, Digs, but the surge is based upon police tactics that over the last 50 years have been proven abysmally ineffective, as well, at controlling crime. It's called a "saturation patrol"...you deluge a neighborhood with a ton of officers and drive the crime underground. Do the criminals go away? nope. They lay low. Does this tactic work over time? Nope. If not reinforced with other measures, crime rates go right back up. Same tactics used in Iraq, with the same results.

We simply cannot afford, as a nation, to put enough troops in Iraq to control what is basically a criminal problem in Iraq, unless the locals themselves are willing to step up and address it. I've watched any number of Police Departments around the U.S. use that strategy--with the same results--over the last 20 years.

I knew it was doomed to longterm failure. The root problems of violence in Iraq weren't addressed, only the symptoms were.

It's like dosing a guy who has liver cancer with tylenol.
 
Who are they going to sell oil to? Where are they gonna get a nuke from? There's a lot we can do through sanctions if need be. I mean, I don't know if we really want to break out the "Iraq has WMD" so soon again.

You know who does have nuclear weapons? Pakistan. And here we are, worried that Iraq might get them.
 
Are you kidding? They aren't even organized enough at this point to sell their oil.

Hey! I think you're missing the point. Iraq can get WMDs, so we have to make sure they don't. And also bring them democracy and World of Warcraft! And maybe Halo...but only if they're really good.
 
Can't have a war on an ideology as well, but its pretty accurate to suggest the Cold War as a War on Communism.

I think people get too hyped up on the "War on Terror" monikor, and it always bugs me when people make THAT the issue when people dare to simply call it what its technical term is.

Was it a stupid term to use? Sure. But it was also the most simplified way to say it...

In more specific, its a war on state sponsored terrorists whose goal is (arguably) the subjigation or destruction of westernized society, typically by militant radical islamists.

The issue here is, unlike a traditional war, there is no specific STATE to quote. Even beyond that, there is no specific group as terrorist organizations are legion and interconnect in odd ways while maintaining autonomy. The "War on Terror" notion is a sound bite, but only truly inaccurate if one is attempting to view it completely literally without allowing any context or reason to play into it. When one realizes and accepts, even if they disagree, that this is a "war" against state sponsored terrorists organizations that threaten the United States and its Allies then the "War on Terror" label makes far more sense, as "terror" is a reference to the classification of the group rather than a specific group name.

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.
 
Bases like Ramstein aren't in Germany because we need to "babysit" the German people. It is in use for it's stragetic purposes, not to mention bases such as Ramstein are a massive boost to Deutchland's economy. Not only that it is used by many of our allies including CA, SK, UK, JP, and AU specifically. There is no tactical purpose to set up a massive installation inside Iraqi especially when we also have major installations within Kuwait.

Anyways, glad to see that this is finally happening.

In part, that's exactly why American troops are in Germany. Immediately after VE day, that's exactly why The United States maintained a troop presence there. Since VE, there have been communist and facist influences that could have sent Germany right back into the position she was in in the 30's. US forces, in country, helped to prevent that.
 
it would be our mistake to extend that mandate. we need to get the hell out of dodge and let the iraqis rule the iraqis, however flawed they might be.

I completely agree.
 
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.
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.
 
Hey! I think you're missing the point. Iraq can get WMDs, so we have to make sure they don't. And also bring them democracy and World of Warcraft! And maybe Halo...but only if they're really good.

What Iraq really needs is a solid dose of McDonald's and Walmart. And our forces should be there, on the ground, to make that happen.
 
No offense, Digs, but the surge is based upon police tactics that over the last 50 years have been proven abysmally ineffective, as well, at controlling crime. It's called a "saturation patrol"...you deluge a neighborhood with a ton of officers and drive the crime underground. Do the criminals go away? nope. They lay low. Does this tactic work over time? Nope. If not reinforced with other measures, crime rates go right back up. Same tactics used in Iraq, with the same results.

We simply cannot afford, as a nation, to put enough troops in Iraq to control what is basically a criminal problem in Iraq, unless the locals themselves are willing to step up and address it. I've watched any number of Police Departments around the U.S. use that strategy--with the same results--over the last 20 years.

I knew it was doomed to longterm failure. The root problems of violence in Iraq weren't addressed, only the symptoms were.

It's like dosing a guy who has liver cancer with tylenol.

Even if the terrorist activities in Iraq could be defined as a criminal problem, the fact still remains that they are using military tactics to carry out their operations. The only way to combat a military force, is with a military force.
 
Back
Top Bottom