• 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!

US combat mission in Iraq to end on schedule Aug 31: Obama

That wasn't going to happen. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia... none of these states have a "Come on in Americans and hunt down terrorists!" policy.

Iraq does. However, aren't Pakistan and Saudi Arabia our allies? One might well wonder why we are maintaining friendly relations with nations that have created a climate that is pro-terror.
 
Even if the terrorist activities in Iraq could be defined as a criminal problem, the fact still remains that they are using military tactics to carry out their operations. The only way to combat a military force, is with a military force.

Actually, their tactics are virtually identical to street gangs. You give these groups far too much credit.
 
What Iraq really needs is a solid dose of McDonald's and Walmart. And our forces should be there, on the ground, to make that happen.

Hell ya! Make them fat and lazy so they don't wanna be terrorists.
 
it would be our mistake to extend that mandate. we need to get the hell out of dodge and let the iraqis rule the iraqis, however flawed they might be.

How are you going to feel about it when we have to send a brand new crop of American troops into Iraq to put things back together, again. They'll have to learn how to fight the enemy all over again.

In terms of American KIA's, it would be better to just stay, until we are certain that the Iraqis can keep a handle on things, no matter how long that is.
 
How are you going to feel about it when we have to send a brand new crop of American troops into Iraq to put things back together, again. They'll have to learn how to fight the enemy all over again.

How I feel is that we should stop being the world's police department. Our plans for the invasion and nation-building of Iraq were flawed from the onset. Maybe we should get out of the business of propping up handpicked dictators like Saddam Hussein entirely, and then we wouldn't feel compelled to invade when things go sour.

Yoru mentality is viewed upon a neo-con perception that it is America's job to keep order in the world. I'd say that a number of us feel differently.
 
Actually, their tactics are virtually identical to street gangs. You give these groups far too much credit.

Care to post some examples of how street gangs use shaped charges in anti-armor ambushes? I've never noticed that street gangs used any sort of tactical doctrine.
 
Iraq does.
Saddam sure didn't (the approach was offered as an alternative to the war)

However, aren't Pakistan and Saudi Arabia our allies? One might well wonder why we are maintaining friendly relations with nations that have created a climate that is pro-terror.
They are our allies. Many of their people aren't. Leaders who allowed us in to carry out attacks on "terrorists" wouldn't be leaders for very long.
 
How are you going to feel about it when we have to send a brand new crop of American troops into Iraq to put things back together, again. They'll have to learn how to fight the enemy all over again.

In terms of American KIA's, it would be better to just stay, until we are certain that the Iraqis can keep a handle on things, no matter how long that is.

How many troops have we already lost? So your argument is that we should stay there forever, because if we leave for some amount of time it may be possible in the future that we'll have to go back in. Thus the sustained presence, which will be taking casualties, will ultimately cause less casualties than the maybe future war would cause? That's the argument? Is there any proof, data, or anything on that or are we just making **** up as we go along?
 
Care to post some examples of how street gangs use shaped charges in anti-armor ambushes? I've never noticed that street gangs used any sort of tactical doctrine.

The difference is in weaponry and firepower, not tactics.
 
I'm just hoping they are all out by 2013 so that my boyfriend doesn't have to go back. Call me selfish.
 
Is there any proof, data, or anything on that or are we just making **** up as we go along?

****, Ikari, why you gotta be so demanding? Hasn't flying by the seat of our damn pants worked well for us so far?
 
How are you going to feel about it when we have to send a brand new crop of American troops into Iraq to put things back together, again. They'll have to learn how to fight the enemy all over again.

In terms of American KIA's, it would be better to just stay, until we are certain that the Iraqis can keep a handle on things, no matter how long that is.

that might never happen. we need to get OUT.
 
How I feel is that we should stop being the world's police department. Our plans for the invasion and nation-building of Iraq were flawed from the onset. Maybe we should get out of the business of propping up handpicked dictators like Saddam Hussein entirely, and then we wouldn't feel compelled to invade when things go sour.

Yoru mentality is viewed upon a neo-con perception that it is America's job to keep order in the world. I'd say that a number of us feel differently.

For a long time, America wasn't the world's police force. Then, when things had grown so out of control, that we were forced to get involved, we wound up with a world war that killed a half million Americans. Add up all the combat casualties since WW2 and it's less than half the number of soldiers WIA, KIA ans MIA during WW2.

Yoru mentality is viewed upon a neo-con perception that it is America's job to keep order in the world. I'd say that a number of us feel differently.

I'd say that a number of you are wrong and it's based on your short sighted view of the world and a lack of historical knowledge.
 
Saddam sure didn't (the approach was offered as an alternative to the war)

There were any number of possible solutions for the Saddam Hussein problem short of outright war. The Bush administration put troops on the ground way too early, with insufficient clarity of mission and no exit plan.
 
The difference is in weaponry and firepower, not tactics.

No, there's a huge difference in tactics, unless of course, you can show us which tactical doctrine that street gangs use. Care to?
 
For a long time, America wasn't the world's police force. Then, when things had grown so out of control, that we were forced to get involved, we wound up with a world war that killed a half million Americans. Add up all the combat casualties since WW2 and it's less than half the number of soldiers WIA, KIA ans MIA during WW2.

None of our police actions around the world since WWII have been effective. Part of our problem in WW2 was that we had insufficient forces to get involved in what was happening in Europe. I support having a large standing volunteer army, but using them far less frequently.


I'd say that a number of you are wrong and it's based on your short sighted view of the world and a lack of historical knowledge.

History suggests that our involvement in police actions and nation building have failed every single time since WW2.
 
that might never happen. we need to get OUT.

Why? So we declare defeat and shame our veterans for the rest of their lives for being losers, like we did after Vietnam?

Also, we send the message to the bad guys that they do not need to defeat our soldiers on the battlefield, all they need to do is defeat our gutless politicians in Washington and the anti-war crowd who voted for those politicians.

I', having trouble seeing an upside, here.
 
No, there's a huge difference in tactics, unless of course, you can show us which tactical doctrine that street gangs use. Care to?

So, your contention is that we are being opposed militarily in Iraq? Doesn't that fly in the face of your belief that these are enemy combatants who can be tortured, then? Which is it?

The tactics of street gangs largely depend on the gang, but in Los Angeles and Chicago, they are fairly organized in criminal activity and control of specific neighborhoods through terror and intimidation.
 
Why? So we declare defeat and shame our veterans for the rest of their lives for being losers, like we did after Vietnam?

Also, we send the message to the bad guys that they do not need to defeat our soldiers on the battlefield, all they need to do is defeat our gutless politicians in Washington and the anti-war crowd who voted for those politicians.

I', having trouble seeing an upside, here.

How are our troops shamed by the fact that their CIC didn't have a clear objective, mission, or exit strategy? That's a failure in command staff, not boots on the ground. Further, our officers and enlisted personnel have performed admirably, at great personal cost, in persevering in an unwinnable situation. Conceding that we should never have entered another land war in Asia is only common sense.

The mistake was in becoming an occupying force.

No offense, but speaking for one of the guys in uniform, he'd prefer not to go back to the cluster****. Very little has been accomplished by their bravery, and that's a shame. But the shame belongs to those who put them there, not the guys and gals themselves. I'm pretty sure that 99.9% of all Americans understand this. It's not rocket science.


I'm appalled that you would even try to lay shame at the feet of our military personnel. Seriously. What are you thinking? It's not their fault that they were sent in without a plan as to how this nation building would occur.
 
Last edited:
None of our police actions around the world since WWII have been effective. Part of our problem in WW2 was that we had insufficient forces to get involved in what was happening in Europe.

Has there been any kind of full scale invasion of the United States, or our neighbors? Did the Soviets get a foothold in the western hemishpere? Have there been anymore world wars? Have we deployed millions of American troops to a foreign country, where over a million of them never returned? I would say that our police actions since WW2 have been fairly effective.




History suggests that our involvement in police actions and nation building have failed every single time since WW2.

Revisionist history tells that tale. The real history tells something totally different.

I support having a large standing volunteer army, but using them far less frequently.

An army that doesn't fight, doesn't know how to fight.
 
How are our troops shamed by the fact that their CIC didn't have a clear objective, mission, or exit strategy? That's a failure in command staff, not boots on the ground. Further, our officers and enlisted personnel have performed admirably, at great personal cost, in persevering in an unwinnable situation. Conceding that we should never have entered another land war in Asia is only common sense.

The mistake was in becoming an occupying force.

No offense, but speaking for one of the guys in uniform, he'd prefer not to go back to the cluster****. Very little has been accomplished by their bravery, and that's a shame. But the shame belongs to those who put them there, not the guys and gals themselves. I'm pretty sure that 99.9% of all Americans understand this. It's not rocket science.


I'm appalled that you would even try to lay shame at the feet of our military personnel. Seriously. What are you thinking? It's not their fault that they were sent in without a plan as to how this nation building would occur.

Refer back to one of your historical sources and see how Viet Vets were treated after Vietnam. They were treated like losers, the same way Iraq Vets will be treated, if this is declared a defeat.

I'm appalled that you would even try to lay shame at the feet of our military personnel. Seriously. What are you thinking? It's not their fault that they were sent in without a plan as to how this nation building would occur.

I nevr said that. Any suggestion that I did is an outright lie.
 
Why? So we declare defeat and shame our veterans for the rest of their lives for being losers, like we did after Vietnam?

Also, we send the message to the bad guys that they do not need to defeat our soldiers on the battlefield, all they need to do is defeat our gutless politicians in Washington and the anti-war crowd who voted for those politicians.

I', having trouble seeing an upside, here.

What is the upside of being there? Pride? Sorry, but that does not cut it for me, especially every time I see on the news someone coming home in a casket. Bring our guys home, where they are supposed to be.
 
Has there been any kind of full scale invasion of the United States, or our neighbors? Did the Soviets get a foothold in the western hemishpere? Have there been anymore world wars? Have we deployed millions of American troops to a foreign country, where over a million of them never returned? I would say that our police actions since WW2 have been fairly effective.

There is an assumption on your part that our police actions prevented these things. I don't think you can prove this. Thus, your point is moot.

Revisionist history tells that tale. The real history tells something totally different.

Real history suggests that Vietnam worked?

An army that doesn't fight, doesn't know how to fight.

Welcome to training exercises, 101. Our guys hadn't fought since vietnam when we went into Kuwait in 1991, and they managed.
 
Back
Top Bottom