• 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!

What should we do about Iraq?

What should we do about Iraq?

  • Total voters
    59
Paratrooper said:
I said go back but I'm not talking about our previous presence but a small behind the scenes force of intelligence and direct action teams that can take out HVTs. I was a member of such a unit (Task Force Dagger) and it was highly successful. I have deployed with conventional forces and unconventional forces (and while this is no hit on conventional forces) I feel sof units are more effective in this type of environment. I believe allot of people are playing politics with this liberals to slam Bush for starting it, and conservatives for the President pulling out early and sending troops back in. I think we can all agree that allowing units like Al Qaeda and ISIS to have safe haven is in none of our best interest. Particularly in light of A) our borders are ineffective at keeping people out, B) by taking over countries like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, these groups are getting access large quantities of weapons they did not previously have access to. C) looting of banks is giving them access to funds so they can hold larger and more effective attacks.
Click to expand...

Not going to work as a stand alone unit. Before the HVT teams worked in a bevy of conventional forces that helped keep the informants safe from retaliation. That helped dilute the terrorists response as the terrorists had literally tens of thousands of targets to attack. Make the target much smaller and far more eyes focus on each team- just like the CIA team wiped out by a turn coat suicide bomber.

The surprise effect TF Dagger had in the open terrain of Afghanistan with the mercenary Northern Alliance forces is no longer a surprise. The more urban Iraq isn't Afghanistan, I doubt too many B-52 strikes can be used in Iraq.

I'm more of the mindset that a hammer doesn't fix this, a pen does. Unless the people feel their future lies with the government they will not support stability but rather violent protest. Unless a true political resolution is achieved tribal strife will dominate the region. Now we have a region primed for the sunni/shi'ite showdown. No amount of special units will stop this.
 
grip said:
It seems we're in a holding pattern, though there's definitely going to be 'mission creep' over time. Our Congress, Intel Agencies and Military just can't help themselves, it's what they do.
Click to expand...

what is wrong with issuing a letter of marque against the ISIS organization?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
what is wrong with issuing a letter of marque against the ISIS organization?
Click to expand...


I don't see how that will change their minds or their actions? But I heard some good news today that the US believes they've run out of options. They don't ave the ability to take Baghdad or the Kurds, so we may not have to do anything.
 
grip said:
I don't see how that will change their minds or their actions? But I heard some good news today that the US believes they've run out of options. They don't ave the ability to take Baghdad or the Kurds, so we may not have to do anything.
Click to expand...

the reason why i suggest a letter of marque is because it is one of congresses delegated powers. so why not simply contract bounty hunters to fight in the middle east?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
the reason why i suggest a letter of marque is because it is one of congresses delegated powers. so why not simply contract bounty hunters to fight in the middle east?
Click to expand...

Most of the mercenaries that we can trust with US armament are ex US military working as mercenaries either alone or for a company. It would probably cost a fortune and no guarantee, they'd accomplish goals set out with command structure and intel. Doesn't mean it couldn't work, but I see a host of logistical problems and possible War crimes accusations from other nations.
 
Obama's 'people' read the top poll and say;

'Well, even though the poll numbers are extraordinarily close...we are going back in.'
 
Navy Pride said:
And you say?
Click to expand...

Stay out, I say. Let them kill each other off. The more the merrier. Its how God cleans the gene pool. We should help God and supply both sides with all the firepower they desire.
 
MadLib said:
"Their turn?" What are we, children? If we want something done right, we should do it ourselves.
Click to expand...

You mean like the last time? :lamo
 
DA60 said:
Obama's 'people' read the top poll and say;

'Well, even though the poll numbers are extraordinarily close...we are going back in.'
Click to expand...

Ahhh, never let a chance to take a cheap shot at Obama pass you by.
 
notquiteright said:
We can never overcome BushII's incompetency and insufferable ignorance/arrogance in the ME. He kicked over an ant mound and is amazed so many ants have crawled out across the region to fight and bite everything instead of a parade of children throwing candy and flowers... :doh

He expected secularists to take over, guiding the people toward a western style democracy, and instead got tribal people who revert back to their centuries old blood/religious feuds.

BushII expected his dear family friends, the House of Saud, to support democratic reform across the ME, but instead got brutal repression and support funneled to terrorists around the ME.

BushII sat for YEARS allowing Iraq to fall apart before doing what his generals had advised from the beginning... high troop numbers and financial support for the out of work Sunnis. Thousands of Americans paid with their lives and limbs for this gross incompetency.

Now Iran is the major player in the region, their support of Maliki keeps any real reform in the central Iraqi government a pipe dream. Iraq is no longer the buffer state between Shi'ites and Sunnis but now the battleground that can spread to the Shi'ite dominated Saudi oil regions along the Persian gulf.

BushII so screwed the pooch on this that no one can unscrew it. BushII, even as his Generals warned him if he breaks Iraq he will own it, he still opened the ME Pandora's box and released all manner of E-Vile across the region.

But let's blame Obama.... :doh
Click to expand...

Didn't Cheney assure us we would be welcomed as liberators? Ooops, got that one slightly wrong, Dick.
 
Wiggen said:
You mean like the last time? :lamo
Click to expand...

:shrug: There will always be risks and mistakes in foreign policy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with a threat to our national security and to the stability of the Middle East. It's far better than sitting on our asses and expecting someone else to take care of it.
 
MadLib said:
:shrug: There will always be risks and mistakes in foreign policy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with a threat to our national security and to the stability of the Middle East. It's far better than sitting on our asses and expecting someone else to take care of it.
Click to expand...

What's happening in Iraq is not a threat to our national security. If it was happening in Canada, it might be. But it isn't. How do you propose we 'deal' with this threat? How many more American lives are you willing to sacrifice? Are you going to volunteer?

Put me down as one willing to sit on my 'ass' and let those directly threatened by all of this deal with it. As I said before, it's somebody else's turn now.
 
Wiggen said:
What's happening in Iraq is not a threat to our national security. If it was happening in Canada, it might be. But it isn't.
Click to expand...
Was the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan a threat to our national security?

How do you propose we 'deal' with this threat?
Click to expand...

Airstrikes/cruise missiles in strategic areas and on front line positions facing Iraqi, Kurdish, and moderate Syrian rebel forces, allowing them to handle the combat aspect - no American boots on the ground. Also, make it clear that we will have no confidence in the current Iraqi government unless they replace Maliki.
 
We should give it a hug...and leave it alone to solve it's own problems.
 
If we are going to go back into Iraq, one would have to assume that we're actually going to help the situation. That will certainly not be true. We'd either be going to protect "our" oil, or we would be genuinely involved in the war. And as someone earlier mentioned, the war is sectarian, and we have no business taking sides.

Wiggen said:
Ahhh, never let a chance to take a cheap shot at Obama pass you by.
Click to expand...

To be fair, we are still in Afghanistan are we not? There's not much evidence to suggest that Obama is a dove on foreign policy.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Grab popcorn and kick up our feet. We've done enough damage there it's time to focus on un****ing America.
Click to expand...

I agree, it is time to focus on the USA.

Keep the hell out.

We should have left it alone in the first place. The clusterfudge that is going on now was foreseeable.
 
Time for a horrible joke.

If we really want to **** the people of Iraq, we should go with both options, continuously, alternating between the two.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
If we are going to go back into Iraq, one would have to assume that we're actually going to help the situation. That will certainly not be true. We'd either be going to protect "our" oil, or we would be genuinely involved in the war. And as someone earlier mentioned, the war is sectarian, and we have no business taking sides.



To be fair, we are still in Afghanistan are we not? There's not much evidence to suggest that Obama is a dove on foreign policy.
Click to expand...

That's not what the fringies on the Far Right think.
 
I have a question for you lefties who want to stay the hell out. How much are you willing to pay for gas? $5.00 a gallon $10/00. a gallon because if we wah our hands of Iraq that is what we will pay.
 
I don't really know if we should or should not put troops back in Iraq. Or even whether we should support them without deploying troops on the ground.


I suspect that the only way to really stabilize the region would be to separate it into several "states", with majority Shia, Sunni, or Kurd residents in each - it would appear that any one faction having majority control (as seemingly took place when we were helping) is a bad idea.

It's kinda like if republicans and democrats were willing to kill and terrorize each other in order to advance their position. The Kurds are the independents, centrists, and such, sitting in their territory shaking their heads. And keeping the democrats and republicans out.

Terrible analogy I know.

So far as I can tell, however, thought processes are just DIFFERENT in that country...hell maybe the region.
They don't have the same priorities that I have, it would seem...
 
Navy Pride said:
I have a question for you lefties who want to stay the hell out. How much are you willing to pay for gas? $5.00 a gallon $10/00. a gallon because if we wah our hands of Iraq that is what we will pay.
Click to expand...
Better than trying again and failing again.

We as a people aren't capable of allowing our soldiers to take the actions necessary to stabilize Iraq.
 
Navy Pride said:
I have a question for you lefties who want to stay the hell out. How much are you willing to pay for gas? $5.00 a gallon $10/00. a gallon because if we wah our hands of Iraq that is what we will pay.
Click to expand...

3 people voted to remain in Iraq.

46 voted to get out.

I have not researched the people who voted, but are you saying all 46 that voted "no" are "lefties"?
 
year2late said:
3 people voted to remain in Iraq.

46 voted to get out.

I have not researched the people who voted, but are you saying all 46 that voted "no" are "lefties"?
Click to expand...
Personally, I started out more or less fully behind the war in Iraq back when it started.

Now I'm more or less on the opposite side.

Probably means I switched from conservative to liberal, or something...heh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom