Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS[W:452]

Montecresto · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Q

jmotivator said:
Hah! You are trying to "settle" a dispute that only you are involved in.

But I will play, I was quoting statistics of civilians killed by Saddam and his regime as reported by reliable sources.

In your report the IBC did a study of the civilian deaths caused by both sides during the conflict and found that 7,419 civilians were killed during the major combat phase of the mission ending April 30, 2003. In total IBC tallies 120,816 total verified civilian deaths during the time the US forces were in Iraq. This is an under-count, but it is the only study provided by your source. How about I more than double it for sake of argument to 250,000 civilians killed in Iraq from 2003 to 2012 AND ignore the IBC audit of their 2005 figures that attributed only 37% of deaths to the US coalition operations. So I am taking the studies high estimate and multiplying that by 6 to get the US caused casualties, for the sake of argument. What point would you like to make with that figure?

And there you have it, you proved my earliest point by going with the lowest estimate of civilian casualties, due to the U.S. War in Iraq, just as Upsideguy proved you sought out and quoted the highest estimates when looking for civilian casualties by Hussein. :lamo

Grant · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Helix said:
did you read the article i posted? if not, here's another.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/an-unstable-divided-land.html?_r=0 and one from 2007, when a lot more US troops were there :Iraq, 'Sinking Fast,' Is Ranked No. 2 on List of Unstable States

So Iraq was unstable in 2002 and after the military left. We know that.

in 2002, what did you think was worse than Al Qaeda? there's always some new and terrible enemy waiting to be born, and interventionism isn't stopping it.

Intervention> Which one?

so, answer the question : do you support long term occupation?

A military presence would be required just as it was in Europe following WWII and just as it is in other parts of the world. That is the only way.

see above links.

I'd rather hear your argument in your words.

we can't afford to occupy vast regions of the Middle East, those who want us to are not willing to pay for it, and i have serious doubts that it would work anyway.

I can't see how doing nothing is an option. Historically that is always what people prefer but it has never boded well. Do you think the Jihadists will eventually calm down once they get enough territory?

bring our troops home, and let's put a better roof on the house. it's time that we nation build here instead.

There is no money left for 'nation building', or a roof, which is whty there are so many problems with the infrastructure. The country is mired in debt and about half the people are receiving government assistance of some sort, which they seem to want. The borders are insecure, the people as weak as any time in their history and Americans, under Obama, have become uncertain Allies.
The larger problem is that most other democracies are in similar situations. We are all in debt and militarily weak, with a large portion of the populations demanding more government services while the governments borrow more so they can get elected, or re-elected.
Best get a genuine leader next go around. Politicians always claim that every election is the most important in history but after the Obama debacle that will truly be the case.

Grant · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Tazmanian Devil said:
I'm not a huge fan of playing the blame game, but I can forgive GWB's ignorance of Islam at the time because academic Jihadists had assured OUR academics that Jihad was merely a form of spiritual yoga.

And when anyone asked anyone who SHOULD have known the truth about Islam no one would have had a clue that Muslims wouldn't be just like people anywhere else in the world where military force could and had been successful in accomplishing what Bush hoped to accomplish in Iraq.

The reality we now understand is that Kafirs and Kafir governments and Kafir military forces in/on Islamic lands are absolutely taboo and those affiliated with them are seen as hated apostates and worthy of a death sentence.

And that is why I NOW support a full and complete disengagement in the M.E. And all attempts to change their nature or governments will fail when we understand the deeply entrenched belief and allegiance the people there all have to Islamic doctrine and law and culture and history and their Prophet.

Yes, every time a democracy is bombed the first thing the leaders would do is claim Islam is a great and peaceful religion, that bombers weren't representative of islam, and then go to the mosque to pray. Meanwhile Muslims would concern themselves with an imaginary "backlash" that never happens.

That was after the first few bombings anyway. That trend, like its many victims, may have died out. The 'backlash' fears continue.

Tazmanian Devil · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Grant said:
Yes, every time a democracy is bombed the first thing the leaders would do is claim Islam is a great and peaceful religion, that bombers weren't representative of islam, and then go to the mosque to pray. Meanwhile Muslims would concern themselves with an imaginary "backlash" that never happens.

That was after the first few bombings anyway. That trend, like its many victims, may have died out. The 'backlash' fears continue.

The Media and Jihad
Apr 26 2015 | by Bill Warner

Every time that there is a major jihad attack, the media responds in the same way. There is now a routine that the authorities tell us:

Islam is the religion of peace
Muslims that do jihad are extremists and not real Muslims
Authorities must watch out for retaliation against Muslims
All religions are the same. The Christians are as bad or worse
We have not done enough to welcome Islam
Concessions will reduce jihad; we need to give Islam more concessions.

The Media and Jihad

jmotivator · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Montecresto said:
Q

And there you have it, you proved my earliest point by going with the lowest estimate of civilian casualties, due to the U.S. War in Iraq, just as Upsideguy proved you sought out and quoted the highest estimates when looking for civilian casualties by Hussein.

I didn't go to the lowest estimate of civilian casualties, you liar. I went to the ONLY estimate of civilian casualties you provided, took their highest estimate of US caused casualties and multiplied it by a factor of 6.

So tell me how claiming a death toll that is 600% higher than high estimate of YOUR provided source is going with the "lowest estimate"? Are you really trying to make that incredibly idiotic argument? :roll:

upsideguy · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

jmotivator said:
That is a lot of wording to admit you are wrong. Your claim that I exaggerated by a factor of 10 was an exaggeration on your part, and your revised claim is really no better.

It isn't an exaggeration to go by numbers that have been claimed by reasonable sources. You have no idea if the numbers your are relying on are any more accurate than mine are, so trying to quantify what you see as an "exaggeration" is simply foolish.

I am hardly "wrong" as my contention was with the exaggeration of the number of people that you could reasonably attribute as "murdered" by Saddam. You said it was 1 million. I said it was an exaggeration of 10 fold (which would be a number of closer to 100,000)

So, we are back to arguing over the degree of exaggeration. Again, the simple fact is that Saddam murdered more like 200,000 of his citizens, not 1 million. So its a 5 fold bust on an overstatement of 800,000 instead of 900,000. This is getting to be silly at this point.

The 1 million number is an exaggeration. The fact that Saddam was a tyrant we can both agree upon.

Helix · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Grant said:
So Iraq was unstable in 2002 and after the military left. We know that. Intervention> Which one?

and in 2006-2007. are you even reading the links? as for 2002, Iraq was somewhat stable under that ****head Saddam, another problem the region should have solved for itself instead of waiting for a foreign power to do it.

Grant said:
A military presence would be required just as it was in Europe following WWII and just as it is in other parts of the world. That is the only way.

good. you support an occupation. let's get into that, because i have a lot of questions. let's start with Syria and Iraq.

Helix said:
so, first, we retake the region, right? how much of the region? the US would have to take Syria this time, too. that's a lot of territory, and a good chunk of it is an absolute disaster. i assume you support rebuilding it. how much will that cost? how many years of occupation?

as we've already discussed, retaking the region is going to require a massive military force, and Russia is not going to stand idly by as we claim the oil. they will also not let us occupy Syria. how do you propose we deal with that part of the dynamic?

which faction will control the regional government in the newly occupied Iraq / Syria? how will you placate the other factions? how will other countries in the region respond? how will other superpowers respond? how will emerging powers in other parts of the world respond?

once we get this part covered, we can move on to other problems which make your proposed occupation a complete disaster.

Grant said:
I'd rather hear your argument in your words.

what the **** do you think i'm doing right now? i'm making arguments and supporting them with links.

Grant said:
I can't see how doing nothing is an option. Historically that is always what people prefer but it has never boded well. Do you think the Jihadists will eventually calm down once they get enough territory?

i think that the regional powers will finally be forced to respond once they can't use the US as a free military.

Grant said:
There is no money left for 'nation building', or a roof, which is whty there are so many problems with the infrastructure. The country is mired in debt and about half the people are receiving government assistance of some sort, which they seem to want. The borders are insecure, the people as weak as any time in their history and Americans, under Obama, have become uncertain Allies.

and you think a perpetual state of war is helping that?

Sun Tzu said:
2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.

3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.

4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

just at least consider this.

Grant said:
The larger problem is that most other democracies are in similar situations. We are all in debt and militarily weak, with a large portion of the populations demanding more government services while the governments borrow more so they can get elected, or re-elected.
Best get a genuine leader next go around. Politicians always claim that every election is the most important in history but after the Obama debacle that will truly be the case.

how much more are you personally willing to pay in taxes to fund a new invasion and occupation? just say "whatever it takes," and then we can continue. i have yet to hear that from a hawk. at least then i will know that you are serious.

Tazmanian Devil · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Montecresto said:
:lamo just every post of yours.

Islamic doctrine does not = Muslims.

Revealing the truth of the bigotry and deceit and jihad of Muslims to get rid of all unbelievers using any way possible doesn't mean that I hate all Muslims.

The Prophet would kill me were He alive. And he ordered Muslims to accept my conversion to Islam or accept subjugation to Muslims or else kill me.

But that doesn't necessarily mean I hate all Muslims even though all Muslims are obligated to follow His orders and emulate His example.

And I CERTAINLY DON'T hate you.

So, I ask that you reconsider your opinion.

And even if you don't, I still won't hate you unless I knew you'd done something that was hateful.

Montecresto · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

jmotivator said:
I didn't go to the lowest estimate of civilian casualties, you liar. I went to the ONLY estimate of civilian casualties you provided, took their highest estimate of US caused casualties and multiplied it by a factor of 6.

So tell me how claiming a death toll that is 600% higher than high estimate of YOUR provided source is going with the "lowest estimate"? Are you really trying to make that incredibly idiotic argument? :roll:

Lol, must be hitting a nerve!

This is my source, your sticking with the low estimate.

Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Montecresto · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

D

Tazmanian Devil said:
Islamic doctrine does not = Muslims.

Revealing the truth of the bigotry and deceit and jihad of Muslims to get rid of all unbelievers using any way possible doesn't mean that I hate all Muslims.

The Prophet would kill me were He alive. And he ordered Muslims to accept my conversion to Islam or accept subjugation to Muslims or else kill me.

But that doesn't necessarily mean I hate all Muslims even though all Muslims are obligated to follow His orders and emulate His example.

And I CERTAINLY DON'T hate you.

So, I ask that you reconsider your opinion.

And even if you don't, I still won't hate you unless I knew you'd done something that was hateful.

I'm not a Muslim, so I shouldn't think I'm the focus of your hate, no.

To the bolded. That you accuse all Muslims of practicing or supporting jihad and the conquest of the world is evidence of your hate, bigotry and danger.

The last thing we need is you Christian fanatics sticking a stick in and stirring it up.

Tazmanian Devil · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Montecresto said:
D

I'm not a Muslim, so I shouldn't think I'm the focus of your hate, no.

To the bolded. That you accuse all Muslims of practicing or supporting jihad and the conquest of the world is evidence of your hate, bigotry and danger.

The last thing we need is you Christian fanatics sticking a stick in and stirring it up.

You remind me of a boy who hates taking a bath.

Only in your case you hate becoming informed about the truth of Islam.

Jump in. The water's fine.

Once you became informed you would see that all Muslims ARE Jihadists.

If they are not they are Apostates or Kafirs.

Jihad is REQUIRED OF EVERY Muslim.

And then you might actually learn what constitutes Jihad.

And then the goal of Jihad.

Once you become intelligently informed you will change your view of me.

Not that it bothers me what you mistakenly believe about me.

Islam has ordered all Muslims to get rid of all Kafirs.

And they are doing exactly that under the radar for the most part.

Staying quiet and compliant only guarantees we will be like the passengers on 9/11 who were told:

'Stay quiet and you'll be OK,' Atta told passengers

Click to expand...

I oppose that.

How else should I resist being conquered?

Give me your suggestion?

JANFU · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Tazmanian Devil said:
Semantics.

I'm not a medical professional (nor do I play one online) but in a medical emergency critically injured patients can often not be transported to a hospital for intensive life saving care until they are, first, stabilized on the scene.

Iraq was stable enough for Obama to pull out but not stable enough to avoid the hell that GWB (whose popularity in a CNN poll today shows as higher than Obama's!) predicted would befall Iraq unless a supporting force was left there to prevent.

George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post

And you will note that the Washington Post has never been a big W supporter.

Audacious man, screwed up by going into Iraq, then makes that comment. Playing to the Hawks.
Do you remember this man?
Gen. Eric K. Shinseki

Tazmanian Devil · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

JANFU said:
Audacious man, screwed up by going into Iraq, then makes that comment. Playing to the Hawks.
Do you remember this man?
Gen. Eric K. Shinseki

Sure. I knew of him before he was made the head of the V.A. and screwed up.

And you sound like you are afflicted with BDS.

Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Even the WashPo admitted Bush was right.

George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post

You won't.

BDS.

JANFU · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Tazmanian Devil said:
Sure. I knew of him before he was made the head of the V.A. and screwed up.

And you sound like you are afflicted with BDS.

Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Is that all you know about him?

Tazmanian Devil · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

JANFU said:
Is that all you know about him?

Why?

Will I get a prize for knowing more about him than someone else here?

:lamo

What is your point?

JANFU · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Tazmanian Devil said:
Why?

Will I get a prize for knowing more about him than someone else here?

:lamo

What is your point?

That you should read my Sig line.
Time to take you to school.
Ask for help as I think you may need it, nah I am sure you will need it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12shinseki.html

Eric Shinseki - SourceWatch

Tazmanian Devil · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

JANFU said:
That you should read my Sig line.
Time to take you to school.
Ask for help as I think you may need it, nah I am sure you will need it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12shinseki.html

Eric Shinseki - SourceWatch

As I have had a recent spate of attacks on my computer, you will excuse my reluctance to click on anything suggested by someone who may want to silence me.

Why not just provide an executive summary?

Otherwise I guess your point will remain in your head and the cyber.

Montecresto · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Tazmanian Devil said:
You remind me of a boy who hates taking a bath.

Only in your case you hate becoming informed about the truth of Islam.

Jump in. The water's fine.

Once you became informed you would see that all Muslims ARE Jihadists.

If they are not they are Apostates or Kafirs.

Jihad is REQUIRED OF EVERY Muslim.

And then you might actually learn what constitutes Jihad.

And then the goal of Jihad.

Once you become intelligently informed you will change your view of me.

Not that it bothers me what you mistakenly believe about me.

Islam has ordered all Muslims to get rid of all Kafirs.

And they are doing exactly that under the radar for the most part.

Staying quiet and compliant only guarantees we will be like the passengers on 9/11 who were told:

I oppose that.

How else should I resist being conquered?

Give me your suggestion?

To the bolded, you lost me there dude, the rest probably has as much meaning. You came to DP to peddle a singular point Muslim=Enemy, and I'm not interested.

JANFU · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Tazmanian Devil said:
As I have had a recent spate of attacks on my computer, you will excuse my reluctance to click on anything suggested by someone who may want to silence me.

Why not just provide an executive summary?

Otherwise I guess your point will remain in your head and the cyber.

Eric Shinseki -Army Chief of Staff testified to Congress that not enough troops were being planned for the Iraq war. Several hundred thousand would be required.
His replacement was announced 14 months ahead of schedule. Unheard of.
Senator Lindsay Graham concurred in 2007- way to late eh.
The General was hing out to dry, this stifled input from the Military. Rumsfeld effectively muzzled input to Congress by the Military on Iraq.
A very clear message was sent.

Eric Shinseki - SourceWatch

"Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required," General Shinseki told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee today. "We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems." [4]
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz called his estimate "wildly off the mark" and said, "I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down." By July 2003, "many experts say that the worst of the chaos in Iraq could have been contained if there had been enough troops on the ground from the beginning. There's a growing consensus that something close to what Shinseki suggested might be necessary to turn the situation around." [3

Jan 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12shinseki.html

We never had enough troops to begin with,” Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said just before the president’s televised address. “A month or two ago we found out the Army is broken, and they agreed that General Shinseki was right.”

jmotivator · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Montecresto said:
Lol, must be hitting a nerve!

This is my source, your sticking with the low estimate.

Liars do strike my nerve, yes.

What is the high estimate of civilian casualties by US coalition forces from your source. Show your work.

jmotivator · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

upsideguy said:
I am hardly "wrong" as my contention was with the exaggeration of the number of people that you could reasonably attribute as "murdered" by Saddam. You said it was 1 million. I said it was an exaggeration of 10 fold (which would be a number of closer to 100,000)

So, we are back to arguing over the degree of exaggeration. Again, the simple fact is that Saddam murdered more like 200,000 of his citizens, not 1 million. So its a 5 fold bust on an overstatement of 800,000 instead of 900,000. This is getting to be silly at this point.

The 1 million number is an exaggeration. The fact that Saddam was a tyrant we can both agree upon.

Your 10 fold claim is the only demonstrable exaggeration here, upsideguy. I stated numbers within the estimates of published sources, you pulled an exaggeration out of your ass and continue to try and defend it. You are wrong, on all counts. Deal with it.

JANFU · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Tazmanian Devil said:
As I have had a recent spate of attacks on my computer, you will excuse my reluctance to click on anything suggested by someone who may want to silence me.

Why not just provide an executive summary?

Otherwise I guess your point will remain in your head and the cyber.

Spend a few dollars on some protection. You do believe in safe internet use?
Never know what you can catch eh?

Montecresto · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

jmotivator said:
Liars do strike my nerve, yes.

What is the high estimate of civilian casualties by US coalition forces from your source. Show your work.

Why'd you chop it from my post in your quote. Apparently you're projecting.

jmotivator · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Montecresto said:
Why'd you chop it from my post in your quote. Apparently you're projecting.

Why did I chop the source I already quoted once? Do you need me to quote it again.

Ok, your turn: Go to your source and tell me what the high estimate is for civilian deaths in the cited study. Is the estimate more or less than the 250,000 number I stated? Obviously if I am picking the "low estimate" of civilian deaths then your high estimate should be higher than 250,000.

Actually, let me save you the time since you aren't in the habit of reading:

The Iraq Body Count project (IBC project), incorporating subsequent reports, has reported that by the end of the major combat phase up to April 30, 2003, 7,419 civilians had been killed, primarily by U.S. air-and-ground forces.[18][88]

It shows a total range of at least 110,591 to 120,816 civilian deaths in the whole conflict as of December 12, 2012.[18][91]

So, is the IBC estimate of 120,816 more of less than my stated estimate of 250,000?

Montecresto · Jun 3, 2015

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

jmotivator said:
Why did I chop the source I already quoted once? Do you need me to quote it again.

Ok, your turn: Go to your source and tell me what the high estimate is for civilian deaths in the cited study. Is the estimate more or less than the 250,000 number I stated? Obviously if I am picking the "low estimate" of civilian deaths then your high estimate should be higher than 250,000.

Actually, let me save you the time since you aren't in the habit of reading:

The Iraq Body Count project (IBC project), incorporating subsequent reports, has reported that by the end of the major combat phase up to April 30, 2003, 7,419 civilians had been killed, primarily by U.S. air-and-ground forces.[18][88]

It shows a total range of at least 110,591 to 120,816 civilian deaths in the whole conflict as of December 12, 2012.[18][91]

So, is the IBC estimate of 120,816 more of less than my stated estimate of 250,000?

The IBC is but one source of estimate on the civilians killed in Iraq. There are many sources, and I'll post the range for you again here.

Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million. Iraqis died as a result of the conflict.

Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as Upsideguy correctly pointed out to you, killing civilians in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein for killing civilians is stupid!

Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS[W:452]

Montecresto

Grant

Grant

Tazmanian Devil

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

Helix

Tazmanian Devil

Montecresto

Montecresto

Tazmanian Devil

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream

Tazmanian Devil

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream

Tazmanian Devil

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream

Tazmanian Devil

Montecresto

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream

Montecresto

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

Montecresto

Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS[W:452]

Computer Gaming Nerd

Pragmatic Idealist

Land by the Gulf Stream

Land by the Gulf Stream

Land by the Gulf Stream

Land by the Gulf Stream

Computer Gaming Nerd

Computer Gaming Nerd

Land by the Gulf Stream

Computer Gaming Nerd

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency