• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Who do you support the Iraqi insurgency or U.S. and coalition forces?

Which side do you support?

  • Insurgency

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • U.S./Coalition forces

    Votes: 16 88.9%
  • Total voters
    18

I know the claims are untrue for example the claims by Murtha have since been proven totally false and the JAG officer won't even bring it to trial for lack of evidence but regardless B.F. Murtha stated the false allegations as fact. It's funny that they demand trials for terrorists before we call them terrorists but have no problem stating as fact that our troops murder civilians in cold blood before their's even a full investigation.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Please back up your statement about code pink and ANSWER with actual quotations. It helps to show everyone exactly what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Jodie Evans leader of Code Pink:

We must begin by really standing with the Iraqi people and their right to resist. I can remain myself against all forms of violence, and yet I cannot judge what someone has to do when pushed to the wall to protect all they love. What does the Iraqi resistance have to lose? They are fighting for their country, to protect their families and to preserve all they love. They are fighting for their lives, and we are fighting for lies. It is so amazingly obvious; we must get out of Iraq now. They will rebuild their country, it will take time, a long time, but they cannot start until we are gone.

ANSWER, Antiwar Rallies and Support for Terror Organizations

http://www.adl.org/israel/answer.asp
 
:2wave:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It was an unverfied report and Durbin quoted it stating it as fact when he knew damn well that it was not verified.
Click to expand...

I still don't think you can blame the man for trusting an FBI report. As I recall, some of the CIA reports that caused us to go to war were unverified. I really don't think this is enough to call him a traitor over.

You've got google.
Click to expand...

No, that's not how it works. Since you made the claims, it is your responsibility to provide documentation. And without documentations, there's no reason we should believe or trust your quotations. At this point, we might as well treat them as if they were never mentioned, since we don't know anything about them.

No you either support the troops or you support the insurgency there is no middle ground.
Click to expand...

What about someone who believes in partitioning Iraq? What about someone who believes drawing down troops but embedding the remaining in Iraqi units as advisors? What about someone who believes in drawing down troops, but leaving some in border areas and Kurdistan? What about someone who believes in support one faction over the others? There's so many viewpoints than your start either/or. Broaden your horizens.

Also, tot, if you're so in support of the soldiers, why aren't you one?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Not without supporting the insurgents mission, this is a 0 sum game here, lack of support for one equates to support for the other.
Click to expand...

Considering that there's approxamently 2,351 sides in the Iraq conflict, and considering there's about as many directions various parties can take this war in, this is as not a 0-sum game as you can get.
 
the makeout hobo said:
:2wave:

I still don't think you can blame the man for trusting an FBI report. As I recall, some of the CIA reports that caused us to go to war were unverified. I really don't think this is enough to call him a traitor over.
Click to expand...

It was not the final FBI report, it turned out to be totally false, the intelligence that got us into Iraq was verified and suppported by all 16 members of the intel community. Sorry but you don't go comparing the troops to Nazi's based on unverified bullshit.


The quotes speak for themselves I'm not going hunting for a hundred transcripts. You made the assertion that the quotes were out of context the burden of proof is on YOU.


That was not the question that was asked.

Also, tot, if you're so in support of the soldiers, why aren't you one?
Click to expand...

I'm going OCS as soon as I graduate.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Not without supporting the insurgents mission, this is a 0 sum game here, lack of support for one equates to support for the other.
Click to expand...
Well then, I guess I'm out of the game. I support the soldiers, they're following orders. But I don't support the ones sitting behind desks giving those orders.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Considering that there's approxamently 2,351 sides in the Iraq conflict, and considering there's about as many directions various parties can take this war in, this is as not a 0-sum game as you can get.
Click to expand...

A gain for the insurgency is a loss for the U.S. and coalition forces. War by its very nature is a zero sum game, it doesn't matter that the insurgency has different factions their overall goal is the same IE to drive the U.S. out.
 
The quotes speak for themselves I'm not going hunting for a hundred transcripts. You made the assertion that the quotes were out of context the burden of proof is on YOU.
Click to expand...

No, I said the quotes MIGHT be out of context and MIGHT be twisted. As the one who presented the evidence, it is up to YOU to prove your evidence is trustworthy. Ask anyone with any experience in law. Why should we trust the quotes just because you say so?

That was not the question that was asked.
Click to expand...

No, but it's how reality works, tater tot. There are more sides than the two you paint it as, and there's more options in how to handle this than "support the troops/support the insurgents." Heck, insurgents aren't even a unified force, there's dozens of groups. Some of the "insurgents" we were fighting against are our allies now. To break it up so cleanly shows you have no concept of the reality in Iraq.

I'm going OCS as soon as I graduate.
Click to expand...

Still in high school? Figures.

A gain for the insurgency is a loss for the U.S. and coalition forces. War by its very nature is a zero sum game.
Click to expand...

Many prominent military thinkers would disagree with you on that. May I ask what military tretises you've studied? Have you read Jomini? Clausewitz? Sun Tzu? What authority are you saying this on?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
A gain for the insurgency is a loss for the U.S. and coalition forces. War by its very nature is a zero sum game, it doesn't matter that the insurgency has different factions their overall goal is the same IE to drive the U.S. out.
Click to expand...

No, their goal is to get as big a piece of pie for their faction, their leader, and their tribe/family as they can. The US is just a secondary concern.
 
Dishonest and 'loaded' poll. There are more then two options in this issue.
 

I presented the evidence, you claimed the quotes are out of context, it's not up to me to disprove your assertion it's up to you to prove your assertion.


Still in high school? Figures.
Click to expand...

No I'm in college.

Many prominent military thinkers would disagree with you on that. May I ask what military tretises you've studied? Have you read Jomini? Clausewitz? Sun Tzu? What authority are you saying this on?
Click to expand...

I've read Clausewitz, Machiavelli's the Prince, Sun Tzu's the Art of War, and am currently reading the Counterinsurgency Manual.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I presented the evidence, you claimed the quotes are out of context, it's not up to me to disprove your assertion it's up to you to prove your assertion.
Click to expand...

No, he claimed your quotes might be out of context. And with your record well......
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I presented the evidence, you claimed the quotes are out of context, it's not up to me to disprove your assertion it's up to you to prove your assertion.
Click to expand...


It's YOUR evidence, so it's YOUR responsibility. You claimed the quotes are in context, it's not up to me to prove your assertation, it's up to you to prove your assertation. Taking for example the Dick Durbin quote, it really helps to know that he's talking about Gitmo and that he's referring to an FBI report. not knowing those totally change what he's saying.

I've read Clausewitz, Machiavelli's the Prince, Sun Tzu's the Art of War, and am currently reading the Counterinsurgency Manual.
Click to expand...

I find that quite shocking. Both Clausewitz and Sun Tzu stress over and over the importance of the Political over the Militaristic. Neither one in their books treat war as a zero-sum game, and both of them discuss alliances extensively, something that your treating it as two sided seems to ignore.
 

The quote from Durbin clearly let's it be known that he's talking about a U.S. detention center and he is citing a report.



Ya there was no such thing as game theory during their time, however, Clausewitz's main thesis corresponds very well to the zero-sum game:

"war is nothing but a duel [or wrestling match, a better translation of the German Zweikampf] on a larger scale."
 
Ya there was no such thing as game theory during their time however Clausewitz main thesis corresponds very well to the zero-sum game:

"war is nothing but a duel [or wrestling match, a better translation of the German Zweikampf] on a larger scale."
Click to expand...

You give me a quote from the introduction that really doesn't settle the point of the question.

War is a zero-sum game, right? Who won the war of 1812? Who won the Korean War? Who won the Winter's War? Who won the English Civil War? Who won the Troubles in Ireland? The Thirty-Year's War? Give me a number and I'll give you that many wars that ended in a situation where neither side had a total victory or total defeat.

war is not a zero sum game because both sides have wants and needs that are not always compatable, and can often be negotiated in ways that neither side loses all the way. Look at Japan in WWII. They lost just about everything, but they got to keep the emperor, the one demand they wanted, meaning it wasn't a zero-sum peace treaty.
 

In every single war a gain for one side is a loss for the other.
 

Here’s a link that will give you some context on what Kerry was referring to on his” Face the Nation interview.” It’s SOP with the Neo-Cons to take anything out of context to get their agenda across. But they give birth to a calf when some of the same tactics are used n them.(see the poor old Rush thread).I didn’t check the other’s,more that likely the same out of context tactic.



http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7801.htm
 
I wonder if you've ever considered the following :-

1) A very large number of brits were opposed to getting involved in this mess in the first place. And the fact that we were lied to to get us to go there is now widely known. You may have noticed we had a change of PM recently because the lying sonofabitch that took us into this mess knew his credibility was shot to hell in a bucket. And wre have diferent legal standards to you. We can't just go belligerently parading into someone else's country to effect a regieme change. You can. ANd you should have been left to do so on your own. Our involvement should have been to hand you a large box of free body bags. And nothing more. Not even the rioght to refuel your planes in our country.

2) You see I know rather more about what the poor bloody infantryman has to put up with than you may think. Your contrymen funded the libyan and czech made bombs and bullets that ripped my pal to bits in northern ireland. Paid for with money from a bunch of guys caled NORAID. You called them 'fighters for religious freedom' when you subsidised them.

3) However even though my friend was blown to bits too small to put in a coffin by religious nutters funded by yanks, I still have the common sense to know that the british armed forces that are currently being shot at and bombed by other religious nutters - most of whom were armed by YOU - have absolutely no say in, and no way out of their ordeal they are now being subjected to.

You see, I know that once the lying sonofabitch in Number 10 Downing Street called in the heads of our armed forces and misused the powers "derogated" ? to him by what little of our constitution actually exists to tell them to fall in behind colin powell and do his bidding. Once he had done that no military man had much of a say as all are pledged by their commission and / or their oath to follow those orders.

Now the head of the British Army, Sir Richard Danatt, has made several speeches and press releases which might lead you to think that we are going to repeat the same mistakes the americans made when their boys came back from vietnam.

Now in my opinion Sir Richard is a military man whose job includes looking out for the well being of the men (and women) under his command. And I will not condemn him for doing that job in the way he feels is best.

But to Sir Richard and to you I would say that we in britain who never wanted this fight to be fought know who to blame. And we know it is not Sir Richard nor any of those who serve under him. Because we know the man to blame does not wear a uniform.

So on the basis if all I've said above I don't accept your position at all. Because it is entirely possible to be concerned for the welfare of our troops whilst holding in utter contempt the politician who sent them to their deaths.

And if you have a problem understanding that then maybe all the stereotypes of americans that I dismiss as ridiculous stereotypes are maybe not that ridiculous after all.
 

John Murtha

Marine Names Murtha in Defamation Suit - washingtonpost.com


Murtha toedancing:

"In the court filing, obtained by The Washington Post, the lawyers say that Murtha made the comments after being briefed by Defense Department officials who "deliberately provided him with inaccurate and false information." Neal A. Puckett and Mark S. Zaid, suing for libel and invasion of privacy, also wrote that Murtha made the comments outside of his official scope as a congressman".


Murtha made the comments outside of his official scope as a congressman?

Bull$hit


YouTube - John Murtha Says Troops Kill In Cold Blood

Some more of Murthas handiwork, goes to show the integrity of this guy.

YouTube - John Murtha threatens Congressman

YouTube - Murtha - Abscam
 
Well, let's see:

I do not support our troops being placed in Iraq to fight a war they should not be fighting.

I do support our troops being brought home so that they may live safe and fulfilling lives.

I do want every single soldier in Iraq to come home safely NOW.

On the flip side, if I were an Iraqi, I would kill every invading soldier I could find. So I understand why the insurgents fight, I would do the same in their position. Which is exactly why I support bringing our troops home.
 

So you support the mission of the insurgency that's all I needed to know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…