• 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!

Back to Iraq?

Back to Iraq?

  • Yes, with some amount of troops.

    Votes: 2 5.6%

  • No, we'll stay out indefinitely.

    Votes: 16 44.4%

  • We'll do minimalist advisers, air force and/or drone attacks.

    Votes: 10 27.8%

  • It's a watch and wait situation for now.

    Votes: 8 22.2%

  • Other (explain).

    Votes: 3 8.3%
  • Total voters
    36
Unitedwestand13 said:
the only way i can approve of american involvement in iraq is by issuing a proper declaration of war. because that is the only way we can get involved in iraq without violating the law.
Click to expand...

That tangential, but ok. So what if Obama refuses to go to congress? And one other thing-when war is declared it IS NOT against the civilians of that nation-earlier you made that statement. War is against the military and leadership of that nation, NOT its non-combatants-thats critical to understand.
 
WillyPete said:
This is not something I've followed closely, but apparently there are signs that's not as true as it once was.
Click to expand...

They are trying to make nice with the Kurds while they fight ISIS on Turkeys border. Lets say they give that land to the Kurds. Iraq too.

And then those Kurds decide to use that land to launch military operations in Syria and Iran-what then? Well then Iran and Syria might expand the conflict. If this was easy to fix it would have been fixed.
 
US Conservative said:
1) Read your initial post to me again. Its filled with bizarre delusions and silly phrases like no blood for oil. 2) If you believe that as true, why would you use (and pay!) for a computer made of oil based products? 3) Is it because you like blood? 4) The oil used to make your computer didn't just magically appear, it had to be located, harvested, and refined. This applies to anything made of plastic in your home. 5) If you disagree with my comments regarding energy, kindly link to the current US energy demands, and show WHAT source, other than oil can meet that demand.
Click to expand...

1) Statement of opinion- Poster has a hard time looking past his own bizarre ideology...whatever it is.

2) Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

3) Statement of delusion - Poster cannot differentiate between a metaphor and literal language.

4) Poster has lost the concept that the thread is about sacrificing human lives for oil.

5) Considering the posters treats his own opinions as facts without verification, he should be the first one to offer proof.
 
US Conservative said:
They are trying to make nice with the Kurds while they fight ISIS on Turkeys border.
Click to expand...

They have also become major trade partners, doing twice as much business with the Kurds as they do with the rest of Iraq. This isn't a short term convenience thing.

I'm not opposed to supporting Iraqi troops against ISIS, with limited ground presence. What I'm not seeing so far is any reason to believe that this time will work, when our last several efforts have failed.

I'd expect they will (again) fight until they can not longer advance their cause, and then they will withdraw until we leave again (even if it takes years,) and then reappear.

Does your plan include a counter for this?
 
Paxaeon said:
1) Statement of opinion- Poster has a hard time looking past his own bizarre ideology...whatever it is.

2) Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

3) Statement of delusion - Poster cannot differentiate between a metaphor and literal language.

4) Poster has lost the concept that the thread is about sacrificing human lives for oil.

5) Considering the posters treats his own opinions as facts without verification, he should be the first one to offer proof.
Click to expand...

In other words, you have nothing, and prefer to stick to your baseless claims. Thanks.
 
WillyPete said:
They have also become major trade partners, doing twice as much business with the Kurds as they do with the rest of Iraq. This isn't a short term convenience thing.

I'm not opposed to supporting Iraqi troops against ISIS, with limited ground presence. What I'm not seeing so far is any reason to believe that this time will work, when our last several efforts have failed.

I'd expect they will (again) fight until they can not longer advance their cause, and then they will withdraw until we leave again (even if it takes years,) and then reappear.

Does your plan include a counter for this?
Click to expand...

Turkey wont let its Kurdish region go because they are trading with local Kurds, neither will Syria, Iraq, or Iran. Although this is a good time to try for independence. The kurds always get sassy when their nations are under stress.

When you ask why things will work this time-its important to note that the surge against insurgents in Iraq DID work. Our presence there DID work. Our withdrawal was based not on military success or failure but rather on politics. Obama ran on ending both wars, and he wants that to be his legacy, even if it means millions may die, and the US might be attacked again. Our mistake was leaving, frankly a minimal presence would have likely prevented this. The FSA, and ISIS were fighting in Syria and often withdrew to Iraq knowing Syria wouldnt follow, and that there were no longer americans there. This should have been squashed at that time-but again politics. Tragically the same scenario is being set up in Afghanistan currently-the intentional losing of a conflict for political purposes.

Frankly, long term the best option may be to keep a limited presence in both nations for an extended period-much like Europe and Japan post ww2.
To have fought these wars only to leave the region to an expanding terrorist state-which WILL result in the deaths of Americans, especially in the context of WHY we went to war after 9/11 would be insane. To leave it to our geopolitical adversaries Russia and Iran would be a disaster. It would undermine anything we have done or will do. There are politicians like Obama and Biden who were willing to lose these wars even back before the troop surge-and all for politics.

To leave that neighborhood in the state it is now in would be a disaster-not just now but long term.
 
US Conservative said:
Frankly, long term the best option may be to keep a limited presence in both nations for an extended period-much like Europe and Japan post ww2.
Click to expand...

I think you may be right, but this isn't the war that was sold to the citizenry. I think if we had pitched it that way, we might have avoided the whole situation. It's clear to me that the U.S. has no appetite for the war you are describing, 9/11 notwithstanding.

How long are we prepared to babysit Iraq? Let's say we stay for 20 more years and keep the peace. What's to stop the (now thoroughly suppressed) jihadists from reemerging then?
 
US Conservative said:
Oil prices are largely set on the world stage, so even more local drilling is unlikely to drop costs significantly. What we DO have, is hundreds of years of oil, and the likelyhood that new reserves and harvesting techniques will be developed. And we can send money to our allies or at least not our geopolitical adversaries. Thats what we should be doing now. And beyond that, there is no substitute that even comes close to meeting our demands.

As far as the taxes, maybe instead of thinking how you can punish Americans to make them think more in line with you (how independent), instead think of the risks as they exist today. You know what makes people hawkish? A terrorist attack, as well as daily news about the constant violence from islamists.

ISIS was a more radical AQ, and they have been fighting for quite some time, all over the world. This is becoming a beacon for terrorists. Hit them there or they will hit us here. They openly state this as a goal.
Click to expand...

no more unfunded wars. tax rates should go up for everyone during time of war, including the lower socioeconomic classes. for the wealthiest, the rates should be nearly confiscatory; 70+ percent, and investment income should be taxed as income.

right now, no one fights the hawks when they sign us up for a new war, because those of us who don't go don't have to pay anything. there's even somewhat of an incentive for war, because a major industry makes money from it. when troops are deployed, everyone should have to make a financial sacrifice. war should be completely economically unappealing, and this should provide an incentive to only use it as a last resort.

it's funny how the right forgets about fiscal responsibility when the discussion turns to war. **** that. no more unfunded wars. we should enact wartime tax rates every time we engage in a military action, and they should stay in place until the troops come home.
 
Helix said:
no more unfunded wars. tax rates should go up for everyone during time of war, including the lower socioeconomic classes. for the wealthiest, the rates should be nearly confiscatory; 70+ percent, and investment income should be taxed as income.

right now, no one fights the hawks when they sign us up for a new war, because those of us who don't go don't have to pay anything. there's even somewhat of an incentive for war, because a major industry makes money from it. when troops are deployed, everyone should have to make a financial sacrifice. war should be completely economically unappealing, and this should provide an incentive to only use it as a last resort.

it's funny how the right forgets about fiscal responsibility when the discussion turns to war. **** that. no more unfunded wars. we should enact wartime tax rates every time we engage in a military action, and they should stay in place until the troops come home.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If there isn't shared sacrifice, it's pretty easy to be pro-war.
 
WillyPete said:
I think you may be right, but this isn't the war that was sold to the citizenry. I think if we had pitched it that way, we might have avoided the whole situation. It's clear to me that the U.S. has no appetite for the war you are describing, 9/11 notwithstanding.

How long are we prepared to babysit Iraq? Let's say we stay for 20 more years and keep the peace. What's to stop the (now thoroughly suppressed) jihadists from reemerging then?
Click to expand...

The Iraq war was poorly sold-too much emphasis was placed on particular threats, and not enough on the long term plan. We were fully justified in going to war there, for many reasons beyond wmd's. The American public was told it this would not be a short term thing-that we are in it for the long haul, though I understand people being war weary. That said, after a long war, to abandon that nation and to leave it to the same wolves we are fighting elsewhere makes no sense. I care about the US much more than those nations-but we can't allow our fatigue to make this a failed war. We've gone too far, and the threats are as serious if not more so than they were in 2001. Im not saying we should write a blank check in perpetuity about our presence, but as of now its the smart play.

I see us staying there as proof that we actually care about the nations we go to war with. Its been said that the best thing to happen to some nations is to be militarily engaged with the US-because it means within a few decades they will have a much improved life and we will buy their cars. We should fight to help those that we have left there.
 
US Conservative said:
The Iraq war was poorly sold-too much emphasis was placed on particular threats, and not enough on the long term plan. We were fully justified in going to war there, for many reasons beyond wmd's. The American public was told it this would not be a short term thing-that we are in it for the long haul, though I understand people being war weary. That said, after a long war, to abandon that nation and to leave it to the same wolves we are fighting elsewhere makes no sense. I care about the US much more than those nations-but we can't allow our fatigue to make this a failed war. We've gone too far, and the threats are as serious if not more so than they were in 2001. Im not saying we should write a blank check in perpetuity about our presence, but as of now its the smart play.

I see us staying there as proof that we actually care about the nations we go to war with. Its been said that the best thing to happen to some nations is to be militarily engaged with the US-because it means within a few decades they will have a much improved life and we will buy their cars. We should fight to help those that we have left there.
Click to expand...

Just a damn shame that there is no "raspberry button."
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Not only that but if there is no declaration of war, the United States can not legally justify military intervention.
Click to expand...

Thats not entirely true, there is some discretion to POTUS regarding this, and often politicians call military intervention things like conflicts to get around that. Military intervention does not equal war.
 
US Conservative said:
That said, after a long war, to abandon that nation and to leave it to the same wolves we are fighting elsewhere makes no sense. I care about the US much more than those nations-but we can't allow our fatigue to make this a failed war. We've gone too far, and the threats are as serious if not more so than they were in 2001. Im not saying we should write a blank check in perpetuity about our presence, but as of now its the smart play.
Click to expand...

That same sort of logic kept us in Vietnam. Iraq is going to need to stand up on its own, or it will fall no matter what we do.

You didn't answer my question about how to prevent the jihadists from simply fading into the background for a few years, and then re-emerging when we leave again. The long game works in their favor, not ours.
 
Helix said:
no more unfunded wars. tax rates should go up for everyone during time of war, including the lower socioeconomic classes. for the wealthiest, the rates should be nearly confiscatory; 70+ percent, and investment income should be taxed as income.

right now, no one fights the hawks when they sign us up for a new war, because those of us who don't go don't have to pay anything. there's even somewhat of an incentive for war, because a major industry makes money from it. when troops are deployed, everyone should have to make a financial sacrifice. war should be completely economically unappealing, and this should provide an incentive to only use it as a last resort.

it's funny how the right forgets about fiscal responsibility when the discussion turns to war. **** that. no more unfunded wars. we should enact wartime tax rates every time we engage in a military action, and they should stay in place until the troops come home.
Click to expand...

So you want to punish people for not doing what you'd like. And you manage to sneak class struggle in there as well. Clearly an "independent" mindset.
 
US Conservative said:
So you want to punish people for not doing what you'd like. And you manage to sneak class struggle in there as well. Clearly an "independent" mindset.
Click to expand...

no, i want war to be damned unappealing to those who sign us up for it, and i want some serious pressure put on the hawks by everyone else. the way to do that is to hit everyone in the wallet every time we go to war. then we will only go to war as a last resort.
 
US Conservative said:
We didn't ask to be attacked on 9/11. So we went in to do something about it.
Click to expand...

This may come as a surprise, but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And the American public had to be sold on the war with a two-year campaign of propaganda and misinformation.

Maybe if Bush had said, 'By the way, we're going to have to raise taxes' people would have been less inclined to support the invasion. And I'm sure that was discussed by the Bush Administration.
 
Helix said:
no more unfunded wars. tax rates should go up for everyone during time of war, including the lower socioeconomic classes. for the wealthiest, the rates should be nearly confiscatory; 70+ percent, and investment income should be taxed as income.

right now, no one fights the hawks when they sign us up for a new war, because those of us who don't go don't have to pay anything. there's even somewhat of an incentive for war, because a major industry makes money from it. when troops are deployed, everyone should have to make a financial sacrifice. war should be completely economically unappealing, and this should provide an incentive to only use it as a last resort.

it's funny how the right forgets about fiscal responsibility when the discussion turns to war. **** that. no more unfunded wars. we should enact wartime tax rates every time we engage in a military action, and they should stay in place until the troops come home.
Click to expand...

We have many unfunded wars, including the endless wars on poverty and drugs. It is interesting how you choose to determine what causes the deficit. ;)
 
CRUE CAB said:
Who has been out of office for over 5 years. Nice try.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that matters? Did he all of the sudden stop being the one who invaded Iraq? 100 years from now, he'll still be the one who created this problem.
 
Boo Radley said:
Why do you think that matters? Did he all of the sudden stop being the one who invaded Iraq? 100 years from now, he'll still be the one who created this problem.
Click to expand...
Subjective on the "created this problem". Saddam you find no fault with?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom