• 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!

U.S. troops hope Afghanistan sacrifices not in vain

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's not going to. The military is to big and slow to do a withdrawl that quickly. 2013, maybe. Probably 2015.

We have an agreement with the Iraqis to remove all our combat troops by 2011. We made that agreement in 2008. Are you trying to tell me we cannot remove our troops in a 3 year timetable?

It doesn't matter. No one cares about Iraq anymore. It will be another promise Obama made to the left that he will break.

Obama's reelection will depend on his removing the troops from Iraq.
 

kansaswhig

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,164
Reaction score
509
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We have an agreement with the Iraqis to remove all our combat troops by 2011. We made that agreement in 2008. Are you trying to tell me we cannot remove our troops in a 3 year timetable?

No, we can't and won't. You know the trick right?

The Army is made up of "Brigade Combat Teams". Thus, your term "combat troops". If there are no BCTs in Iraq, then there are no Soldiers, right? Wrong. The Army recently re-named a dozen of it's BCTs. Now we are calling them "AABs" (Advisory and Assistance Brigades)...not "combat troops". (And it was just the units scheduled for Iraq, too...what irony) The units didn't change, just the name. So, no we won't have all combat troops out of Iraq by 2011. That is so rediculous that it's laughable.


Obama's reelection will depend on his removing the troops from Iraq

No it won't. No one will give a crap.


PS Quit writing in blue inside the quotes. It's annoying to try and respond. Learn how to multi-quote.
 
Last edited:

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No, we can't and won't. You know the trick right?

The Army is made up of "Brigade Combat Teams". Thus, your term "combat troops". If there are no BCTs in Iraq, then there are no Soldiers, right? Wrong. The Army recently re-named a dozen of it's BCTs. Now we are calling them "AABs" (Advisory and Assistance Brigades)...not "combat troops". (And it was just the units scheduled for Iraq, too...what irony) The units didn't change, just the name. So, no we won't have all combat troops out of Iraq by 2011. That is so rediculous that it's laughable.

And you think the Iraqi and American public will allow that? I don't!

No it won't. No one will give a crap.

We shall see!
 

kansaswhig

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,164
Reaction score
509
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And you think the Iraqi and American public will allow that? I don't!

Iraqis are more likely to be mad than Americans. They don't give a crap. I hope it does end, I don't want to go back. My buddies over there now say that they aren't doing anything.


We shall see!

If Obama loses, Iraq won't have anything to do with it.

On the list of hot issues, Iraq is down by Gay Marraige. Probably farther down the list at this point. No one cares.
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Iraqis are more likely to be mad than Americans. They don't give a crap. I hope it does end, I don't want to go back. My buddies over there now say that they aren't doing anything.

My son left the Air Force after 13 years due to our treatment of the Iraqis.

If Obama loses, Iraq won't have anything to do with it.

On the list of hot issues, Iraq is down by Gay Marraige. Probably farther down the list at this point. No one cares.

A large number of people that worked to elect Obama care.
 

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
In Gulf War 1. Is this the first you've heard of it?

Ancient history.

You are the one that brought up Germany and Japan. We did not go to war with either to bring Democracy to them. They were threats, Iraq was not.
That is why your analogy does not apply.

My analogy does apply. It is not about the differences with how we got to those places and Iraq. It is about what we did when we got there and rebuild the countries.

Exactly, that's the same thing I am saying. It was about controlling the region militarily so no one can mess with our oil interests. After we invaded and occupied Iraq, US oil was able to return to the US for the first time since Saddam had kicked them out years ago, and now there is no worry about the pro-west government we installed switching to the Euro as Saddam had threatened to do. And we have bases and troops readily available to prevent any attacks on our government there or sabotage of the oil infrastructure.

We are buying it on the open market.

Most likely strongly influenced by Iran.

We'll see how the Iraqis decide the Open List/Closed List issue to see how much influence the Iranians have.
 
Last edited:

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I hope it does end, I don't want to go back.

Word.

My buddies over there now say that they aren't doing anything.

I wondered about that now that they have disengaged from the cities.

If Obama loses, Iraq won't have anything to do with it.

Could there be other reasons?

On the list of hot issues, Iraq is down by Gay Marraige. Probably farther down the list at this point. No one cares.

We certainly do!!
 

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
My son left the Air Force after 13 years due to our treatment of the Iraqis.

Damn, that's a big decision. Is he happy about his choice?
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
40,296
Reaction score
11,692
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ok, Lets put an end to this reliance on flawed numbers. If we are going to debate, and not just throw talking points back and forth, then we should at least agree on sourcing.


They are not associated with Commondreams.org.


Oh my! That is funny....:rofl You obviously are just typing from your extensive left wing notes, and not bothering to read anything disputing your hallowed view.

Even though IBC is as partisan as they come, the media took the bait — hook, line, and sinker. And in the rush to publish the blaring headers of the report — U.S. forces killed four times as many civilians as “anti-occupation forces”! — hardly anyone examined the underlying data.

But they should. The report itself is premised on two years worth of newspaper and web data — well, “data” in a loose sense. IBC rests its laurels on numbers generated from newspaper reports of deaths and newspaper reports of mortuary and hospital logs. The methodology is flawed from the get-go, and though the citations are noted, there are no links to the articles. (That’s not exactly true; there are a couple links to particularly gory stories, like one with the headline, “I saw the heads of my two little girls come off.”) The lack of transparency, however, is only a small flaw in an ocean of methodological errors. Deaths only have to be verified by two of their accepted sources — which include (the non-fair and balanced) CommonDreams.org, Al Jazeera, and ReliefWeb — and often the second source is just a reprint of the first. A death count only has to be mentioned in passing in the article, like a doctor or bystander who gives a reporter casualty estimates.


Alston B. Ramsay on Iraq Body Count on National Review Online


Read it this time. And with that we put away IBC forever more on the trash heap of flawed anti war rhetoric.


considered by both the right and left to be the most authoritative source on Iraqi deaths.


And the laughs keep commin', show me the sources on the 'right' who agree with this travesty of supposed war time counting. Can you? Or is it just a throw away tag meant to stifle, and detract from the fact that you are caught like a fish on a hook with this leftist agenda.


Let's see your source that is more authoritative than Iraq Body Count? I have asked you before and you have provided nothing.


I think I would stick with the link kansaswhig was so gracious as to provide. iCasualties | Operation Iraqi Freedom | Iraq They seem sound, and fair.

Aside from that I have always relied on what the Pentagon has said in relation to numbers in Iraq.


Do you have anything to add to this discussion?


Sure, the question is, are you willing to debate it? See, if by add you really mean agree with me, then no, I won't. Because your anti American view of our geo political status seems to emanate from whatever leftist, MoveON, self deprecating info you can find. I am truly sorry for you that you view your own country in such a light, and wonder if there is anything I can do to help alleviate your obvious suffering of living here. This:Unsupported Browser May be more to your liking.


j-mac
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Ancient history.

We still have two active wars that were spawned from it. To me, that makes it relevant.



My analogy does apply. It is not about the differences with how we got to those places and Iraq. It is about what we did when we got there and rebuild the countries.

It makes a difference if our reason for being there was invalid.




We are buying it on the open market.

Iraq was not safe for oil contractors (and US oil companies were not allowed) before the war. Now, via our heavily armed occupation they are.



We'll see how the Iraqis decide the Open List/Closed List issue to see how much influence the Iranians have.

That's right, it is all up in the air. Much too early to be talking successes which all are likely to evaporate after our troops are removed.
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
True, but we didn't install him. The Iraqi coalition that won the election selected him.

Could not have happened without our invasion, armed occupation and appointment to the Interim government. We enabled the whole pro-west government we still defend with American tax dollars and lives today!
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Damn, that's a big decision. Is he happy about his choice?

While he regrets not staying in until retirement but he could no longer condone what we were doing to the Iraqis. I admire and love him very much for making that tough personal decision.
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think I would stick with the link kansaswhig was so gracious as to provide. iCasualties | Operation Iraqi Freedom | Iraq They seem sound, and fair.

If it makes you feel better to use Kansaswhig's site, we can go with that. Being responsible for the needless deaths of 46,000 civilians to me is just as immoral for being responsible for 100,000 civilians as determined by the British Research Group.

The terrorist were only responsible for 3000 deaths on 9/11.


Aside from that I have always relied on what the Pentagon has said in relation to numbers in Iraq.

"We don't do body counts," Gen. Tommy Franks, who directed the Iraq invasion, has said.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/03/MN98747.DTL#ixzz0VeToe91e
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
40,296
Reaction score
11,692
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If it makes you feel better to use Kansaswhig's site, we can go with that. Being responsible for the needless deaths of 46,000 civilians to me is just as immoral for being responsible for 100,000 civilians as determined by the British Research Group.


This isn't about me. This is about you trying to pass of a debunked, bias site, pulling numbers out of their ass.

I am glad you concede on this....Considering you said:

considered by both the right and left to be the most authoritative source on Iraqi deaths.

An utterly false statement.

Now, about the 46,000 casualties. Regrettable ofcourse, and they gave their lives in the making of a free Iraq. But I think that is amazing. At NO time in the measurement of casualties in wartime has a count been so low. The US showed great restraint, and technological know how to keep collateral damage so low.


The terrorist were only responsible for 3000 deaths on 9/11.


Oh, so war should be a tit for tat exercise should it?


"We don't do body counts," Gen. Tommy Franks, who directed the Iraq invasion, has said.


So?


j-mac
 

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Catawba, welcome back. I thought you had conceded these last few points! We have put a lot of sweat into it! We are reaching points which we will not resolve so it may be best to say "we don't agree". I would like to take this opportunity to point out that it is a lot of work on me to sort out your lack of correct multi-quotes in your responses. Please start multi-quoting, or I will have to end my participation this interesting debate.

reefedjib said:
Catawba said:
reefedjib said:
Catawba said:
reefedjib said:
Yes. Perhaps you just don't realize the effort made to prevent civilian casualties. In stark contrast was the terrorists intentional targeting of civilians. You need to ackowledge that.
You mean excepting when we strike water treatment plants and electricity plants that result in the deaths of a hundred thousand innocent civilians?
We did not do this in Operation Iraqi Freedom. When did we do this?
In Gulf War 1. Is this the first you've heard of it?
Ancient history
We still have two active wars that were spawned from it. To me, that makes it relevant

It has nothing to do with "the effort made to prevent civilian casualties. In stark contrast was the terrorists intentional targeting of civilians." in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

You need to ackowledge that!

reefedjib said:
My analogy does apply. It is not about the differences with how we got to those places[Germany, Japan, Korea] and Iraq. It is about what we did when we got there and rebuild the countries.
It makes a difference if our reason for being there was invalid.

Not one bit. My analogy was that we have previously built democracies successfully and that has nothing to do with how we went in. Our reason for being there is not invalid. We are there.

Iraq was not safe for oil contractors (and US oil companies were not allowed) before the war. Now, via our heavily armed occupation they are

Yes, indeed. This is another good thing. The US oil companies won their contracts through open bidding.

reefedjib said:
We'll see how the Iraqis decide the Open List/Closed List issue to see how much influence the Iranians have
That's right, it is all up in the air. Much too early to be talking successes which all are likely to evaporate after our troops are removed.

It is all not up in the air. Only the amount of Iranian influence is in question and that is a question for the Iraqis to answer. They are not "likely to evaporate after our troops are removed". Prove that.

reefedjib said:
Catawba said:
He would not be where he is with out us
True, but we didn't install him[al'Maliki]. The Iraqi coalition that won the election selected him[al'Maliki]
Could not have happened without our invasion, armed occupation and appointment to the Interim government. We enabled the whole pro-west government we still defend with American tax dollars and lives today!

Yes, you are correct. That is the meaning of my "True" above. My point still stands: we didn't install him, he was placed in power through the Iraqi democratic process.
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Now, about the 46,000 casualties. Regrettable ofcourse, and they gave their lives in the making of a free Iraq.

You speak as if the 46,000 Iraqi citizens voluntarily gave their lives for freedom, when in fact it we that sacrificed their lives so we could control the middle east oil reserves.

But I think that is amazing. At NO time in the measurement of casualties in wartime has a count been so low.

It is not a war it is an optional and immoral invasion and occupation of a country that never attacked us.

The US showed great restraint, and technological know how to keep collateral damage so low.

What are you talking about? Is your defense that we kill more people accidently than the terrorists do on purpose?

Oh, so war should be a tit for tat exercise should it?

No, there should be a reason for invading and occupying another country.

So?

It is why your statement is bogus that you would go by the Pentagon's numbers. As pointed out Tommy Franks, the US military does not do body counts.
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Catawba, welcome back. I thought you had conceded these last few points! We have put a lot of sweat into it! We are reaching points which we will not resolve so it may be best to say "we don't agree". I would like to take this opportunity to point out that it is a lot of work on me to sort out your lack of correct multi-quotes in your responses. Please start multi-quoting, or I will have to end my participation this interesting debate.

You will be missed.:)

No concession, just life.




It has nothing to do with "the effort made to prevent civilian casualties. In stark contrast was the terrorists intentional targeting of civilians." in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

You need to ackowledge that!

I see no difference in us knowingly bombing civilian infrastructure that we knew would result in the deaths of tens of thousands.

The Islamic extremists certainly saw it that way, hence their attack on 9/11!



Not one bit. My analogy was that we have previously built democracies successfully and that has nothing to do with how we went in. Our reason for being there is not invalid. We are there.

We are there for immoral reasons which some try to validate by saying we killed thousands for their own good.


Yes, indeed. This is another good thing. The US oil companies won their contracts through open bidding. What you consider a good thing I consider an immoral trading of human lives for future oil.

You are right, I will never agree with you on this.




It is all not up in the air. Only the amount of Iranian influence is in question and that is a question for the Iraqis to answer. They are not "likely to evaporate after our troops are removed". Prove that.

Just as soon as our military occupation ends, I will! Until that happens all that you can say for sure is that we have a successful occupation. We outgun Iraq. We knew that before we attacked them.


Yes, you are correct. That is the meaning of my "True" above. My point still stands: we didn't install him, he was placed in power through the Iraqi democratic process.

Now you are just talking semantics. If he was popular, his own country would protect his government rather than us having to protect his government from his countrymen for the last 5 years, and still cannot stand without our protection.
 

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
K, I enjoyed it! See you around. :)
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Great! After our 6 years of occupation we almost have Iraq back at the point of stability under Saddam, and it only cost tens of thousands of lives and a couple trillion in taxpayer debt, and it all collapses when we stop occupying Iraq.

Whoopee!

Pathetic. You would condone Saddam's malicious rule as stability.
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Pathetic. You would condone Saddam's malicious rule as stability.

Like it or not, Iraq was more stable and more civilized than most ME countries. Most of Saddam's malicious rule was carried out when we were his ally. That all changed when he kicked the US oil companies out of Iraq and threatened to switch to the Euro.

When we moved in to establish military control of the region's oil to allow the return of US oil, Iraq was a defenseless country that we had bombed back a century in Gulf War 1 followed by 10 years of sanctions.

Imperialism plain and simple.
 
Top Bottom