• 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 violence 'worst in two years'

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,079
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Iraq violence 'worst in two years' - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
At least 535 people have been killed in Iraq in the month of July, making it the country's deadliest since May 2008, according to Iraqi government figures.

The US military on Sunday, however, took the unusual step of disupting those numbers, saying the real death toll for July stood at less than half of that.

I'd say it's past time to withdraw and admit this entire venture was a mistake.
 
Isnt that a bit of debate by hyberbole, digs? can you honestly compare crime in memphis to what is going on at the other side of the world in Iraq? Can't honestly say I think just a straight pullout tomorrow is an option, but your comparison is unfair and highly exaggerated.
 
Yes, withdraw and let violence escalate and a terrorist regime establish itself. Maybe the should send more troops or rethink a strategy. So, because murder is high in Memphis, should we withdraw all police?

We are not nation builders.
 
We are not nation builders.

We shouldn't be, but fighting terrorism and destroying national governments in the process requires it or face the probability that it will be worse afterwards. What would have happened had we bombed and kicked the **** out of Iraq and then just left them to recover and sort themselves out? Whatever our complaints about the people hating us now, it would be ten to hundred x worse. The leadership, that emerged would be solidly anti-American with wide popular support. We could say to them, don't support terrorists or we'll come back and do it again, but that isn't effective with that culture. That approach would only be effective if we were willing to so destroy the population and infrastructure that their only concern was whether they could scrape together enough food and sticks to last through the winter, with no economy, nothing but the barest amount of local organization and no national structure left to speak of.

We haven't, and we won't do that. So nation building, filling the vacuum, is the only viable, long term solution in Iraq. Which is why we can't afford to abandon Iraq until a government which is at least neutral, is strong enough to control the people.
 
Isnt that a bit of debate by hyberbole, digs? can you honestly compare crime in memphis to what is going on at the other side of the world in Iraq? Can't honestly say I think just a straight pullout tomorrow is an option, but your comparison is unfair and highly exaggerated.

I think the logic of "the violence is at the worst level we have seen in two years, therefore we should quit" is similar to my analogy. My comparison shows the absurdity of wanting to pull out because violence is the highest it has been in two years.
 
When one is in a fight that is not one's own, sometimes the best thing to do is fall back. As was stated in the previous post, we are not nation builders. We are also not the world's police. There does, on occasion, come a time when it is best to leave others to fight their own battles. Just how long should we stay there? Till its a paradise on earth? Till all the different factions there can live together in peace and harmony? Until all the terrorists are dead? Not a single one of these scenarios is going to happen. So when is enough, enough?
 
Weird, you think we wouldve 'won' (whatever the goal is) by now if he was still in office today?

Well, if not for having an America hating ***** for a prez, sure.

I think any idiot could see that the goal is to arrest this kind of violence.
 
Well, if not for having an America hating ***** for a prez, sure.

I think any idiot could see that the goal is to arrest this kind of violence.
Yes and many many years after the start of the war there doesnt really seem to be an end in sight.

The same The United States, "won", World War 2.
This is not WW2. It isnt even the same KIND of war
 
Yes and many many years after the start of the war there doesnt really seem to be an end in sight.


This is not WW2. It isnt even the same KIND of war

Because we took the Liberal-*****-foot approach to warfare, is the reason that it hasn't been decided, yet. If it weren't for Liberals worrying about people getting hurt, this would have been long since finished. You only have yourselves to blame.
 
Because we took the Liberal-*****-foot approach to warfare, is the reason that it hasn't been decided, yet. If it weren't for Liberals worrying about people getting hurt, this would have been long since finished. You only have yourselves to blame.
The world is not a Rambo flick. Dont take your foreign policy ideas from SPIKE.

People will take you more seriously
 
The world is not a Rambo flick. Dont take your foreign policy ideas from SPIKE.

People will take you more seriously

Don't take your foreign policy ideas from 4 decades of failed policies; people will take you more seriously.
 
apdst said:
The same The United States, "won", World War 2.

Except this isn't a war, it's a military occupation. Feel free to try again.

Don't take your foreign policy ideas from 4 decades of failed policies; people will take you more seriously.

Wow, pot kettle black!

"Counterinsurgency" has been shown to be a complete and utter failure, especially for the American military, for the past 4 decades, since its failure in Vietnam.
 
Last edited:
Except this isn't a war, it's a military occupation...



Wow, pot kettle black!

"Counterinsurgency" has been shown to be a complete and utter failure, especially for the American military, for the past 4 decades, since its failure in Vietnam.
Forget it. You cant fight jingoism, they just label you a "fer-iner" and say you should be bombed too.
 
We only give a **** about the middle east because we’re so dependent on oil. We need to keep this region stable in the short term while we do whatever the **** it takes to get off of oil. Then we can let them plunge into chaos and find a new equilibrium that doesn’t involve the US spending trillions to maintain stability.

Why the hell aren’t we spending those trillions domestically, in search of a non-oil fuel source?
 
Back
Top Bottom