The US Election 2016, Part VI

[quidproquo]

The US has troops in Iraq right now.  Clinton has changed her stance, not her mind.  Increasingly, it looks like Clinton has at least some health issues, even if nothing more than fatigue.  She does not have Trump's Energy.  Course, his might owe to frenetic energy of the maddened mind.  Don't know the ins and outs of her actual health any more than I know what kind of taxes Trump pays (or not).  Do know what I see with my own eyeballs and there's something off with the woman.  Never a doubt there's something off with Trump.

[BruceVC]

The US has troops in Iraq right now.  Clinton has changed her stance, not her mind.  Increasingly, it looks like Clinton has at least some health issues, even if nothing more than fatigue.  She does not have Trump's Energy.  Course, his might owe to frenetic energy of the maddened mind.  Don't know the ins and outs of her actual health any more than I know what kind of taxes Trump pays (or not).  Do know what I see with my own eyeballs and there's something off with the woman.  Never a doubt there's something off with Trump.

Yes but the USA didnt want to go back to Iraq, I dont blame them 

 

The problem was the Al-Malaki government failed to take the advice of the US when they left Iraq and incorporate the Sunni minority in the new Iraqi government. The Iraq Sunni felt marginalized in the new Iraq and   aligned with the Sunni fighters  in Syria and basically ISIS was formed, ISIS went into Iraq as well as fighting Assad  and routed and easily defeated the badly disciplined Iraq army

 

The USA must have felt a sense of responsibility and  commitment and only intervened to prevent the massacre and slaughter of the Yadizs by ISIS

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/07/iraq-christian-villages-flee/13710265/

 

The USA operates in Iraq but its more involved in the airstrikes and has special forces and advisors

 

There are no " boots on the ground  " 

[Guard Dog]

In November the US will have been fighting in the ME for fifteen years. Fifteen! That is longer than our involvement in WWI, WWII, & Vietnam combined. In that time the US Military has achieved every objective, won every battle and skirmish and lost nearly 6000 lives with near 50k wounded. What has that sacrifice bought? Is the ME safe? Had radical Islam been defeated? Has even Al-Qaeda been defeated? No.

 

It is long past time we turned our backs on a part of the world that takes our blood and treasure and gives us nothing in return. If Muslims want to slaughter Muslims, let them. To hell with them all.

 

Just my $.02.

 

James Monroe was a smart man.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Guard Dog

[quidproquo]

The USA operates in Iraq but its more involved in the airstrikes and has special forces and advisors

 

There are no " boots on the ground  "

The US has military stationed in Iraq. Wait, boots on the ground? See it now. You're so much a fan of Clinton you've adopted her variety of double-speak. Technically speaking, some of the supplies sent to Iraq are actual boots. (adopting the persona of Clinton) Since those boots were provided by the United States and were left behind and some of those left behind boots were taken up by Iraqis and are on the ground, the United States has boots on the ground. The clever double speak technicalities that formerly served the Clintons so well only serves to indict them in later times.

[kgambit]

 

The US has troops in Iraq right now.  Clinton has changed her stance, not her mind.  Increasingly, it looks like Clinton has at least some health issues, even if nothing more than fatigue.  She does not have Trump's Energy.  Course, his might owe to frenetic energy of the maddened mind.  Don't know the ins and outs of her actual health any more than I know what kind of taxes Trump pays (or not).  Do know what I see with my own eyeballs and there's something off with the woman.  Never a doubt there's something off with Trump.

Yes but the USA didnt want to go back to Iraq, I dont blame them 

 

The problem was the Al-Malaki government failed to take the advice of the US when they left Iraq and incorporate the Sunni minority in the new Iraqi government. The Iraq Sunni felt marginalized in the new Iraq and   aligned with the Sunni fighters  in Syria and basically ISIS was formed, ISIS went into Iraq as well as fighting Assad  and routed and easily defeated the badly disciplined Iraq army

 

The USA must have felt a sense of responsibility and  commitment and only intervened to prevent the massacre and slaughter of the Yadizs by ISIS

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/07/iraq-christian-villages-flee/13710265/

 

The USA operates in Iraq but its more involved in the airstrikes and has special forces and advisors

 

There are no " boots on the ground  " 

 

 

Soldiers of Task Force Spartan, 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit would like to have a word with you.  Well except for Staff Sgt. Louis Cardin, 27.  Seems he was killed in a rocket attack at Fire Base Bell ​in Northern Iraq.  The team fired more than 2000 rounds in 400+ attacks at ISIS positions.  That sounds an awful lot like "combat" troops to me. 

 

And the special forces units would seriously like to discuss exactly what your definition of "boots on the ground" is.

 

You're smoking WAY too much ganja.  

Edited September 10, 2016 by kgambit

[BruceVC]

In November the US will have been fighting in the ME for fifteen years. Fifteen! That is longer than our involvement in WWI, WWII, & Vietnam combined. In that time the US Military has achieved every objective, won every battle and skirmish and lost nearly 6000 lives with near 50k wounded. What has that sacrifice bought? Is the ME safe? Had radical Islam been defeated? Has even Al-Qaeda been defeated? No.

 

It is long past time we turned our backs on a part of the world that takes our blood and treasure and gives us nothing in return. If Muslims want to slaughter Muslims, let them. To hell with them all.

 

Just my $.02.

 

James Monroe was a smart man.

Well I consider Afghanistan a success because Bin Laden was eventually killed? But I agree, its time to pull out of Afghanistan ....I predict it will fall apart once the USA leaves but that cant be helped as the current government is very dysfunctional

 

But dont think the last 15 years was a waste, not at all. These are some of positive points 

 

• The USA and its allies have refined and improved there military and strategies....they are a very effective military and very well trained due to years of combat
• The USA has developed strong new alliances around information gathering
• The USA has learnt new tactics like drone strikes and is very active in places like Africa 
• You can never completely defeat  groups like AQ as they are an ideology but the US did kill many AQ leaders
• ISIS made AQ redundant as extremists flocked to ISIS....and ISIS will be defeated eventually

So dont think since 9/11 the USA wasted 15 years as it does face several threats but there is no point allowing US or Western troops to die in ground battles in the ME as the sacrifice is not appreciated ...so let the Russians sort things out ( what a joke that has been, I thought Putin would at least send ground troops )

[BruceVC]

 

 

The US has troops in Iraq right now.  Clinton has changed her stance, not her mind.  Increasingly, it looks like Clinton has at least some health issues, even if nothing more than fatigue.  She does not have Trump's Energy.  Course, his might owe to frenetic energy of the maddened mind.  Don't know the ins and outs of her actual health any more than I know what kind of taxes Trump pays (or not).  Do know what I see with my own eyeballs and there's something off with the woman.  Never a doubt there's something off with Trump.

Yes but the USA didnt want to go back to Iraq, I dont blame them 

 

The problem was the Al-Malaki government failed to take the advice of the US when they left Iraq and incorporate the Sunni minority in the new Iraqi government. The Iraq Sunni felt marginalized in the new Iraq and   aligned with the Sunni fighters  in Syria and basically ISIS was formed, ISIS went into Iraq as well as fighting Assad  and routed and easily defeated the badly disciplined Iraq army

 

The USA must have felt a sense of responsibility and  commitment and only intervened to prevent the massacre and slaughter of the Yadizs by ISIS

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/07/iraq-christian-villages-flee/13710265/

 

The USA operates in Iraq but its more involved in the airstrikes and has special forces and advisors

 

There are no " boots on the ground  " 

 

 

Soldiers of Task Force Spartan, 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit would like to have a word with you.  Well except for Staff Sgt. Louis Cardin, 27.  Seems he was killed in a rocket attack at Fire Base Bell ​in Northern Iraq.  The team fired more than 2000 rounds in 400+ attacks at ISIS positions.

 

And the special forces units would seriously like to discuss exactly what your definition of "boots on the ground" is.

 

You're smoking WAY too much ganja.  

 

 

You are being pedantic now

 

I mentioned special forces and there are US forces advising the Iraq army (advisors ) and obviously there is some US presence in Iraq as they have an embassy but there isnt a US infantry battalion engaging with ISIS 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/20/us-sends-more-support-troops-to-iraq-after-isis-rocket-kills-marine.html

 

So again this is not considered " boots on the ground " in the normal sense ...you want some weed ?

Edited September 10, 2016 by BruceVC

[Oerwinde]

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/04/iraq-usa-urban-troop-withdrawal

 

Don't know much about the other stuff, but this is an excellent response regarding the withdrawal.  Addressing that, my take:

 

Remember reading about the withdrawal at the time and al-Maliki's comments were part of a dance also. Kind of like the dance you all have here.  Context is an American President who had no intention of having a larger permanent presence in the country.  Easy to insist you won't allow troops to stay when your American counterpart has made it clear they don't want to anyway and will support your stance.  Different context could have and undoubtedly would have rendered a different result.  The withdrawal was not set in stone.  That it ended the way it did does not mean it was destiny or fated to do so.

 

Just to bite the coin, I watched all the videos you lot posted on the previous page.  The wall and clapping videos were comedy routines, but after the Johnson ad that GuardDog posted ended, youtube drove into one with Abraham Lincoln promoting Johnson, which was also quite funny. 

I was intimately involved in the Iraq invasion, I admit I naively thought the Iraqs after living under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam would welcome the benefits of a Democracy....it was a lesson I will never forget 

 

Yes the USA made a mistake but they did try to fix Iraq but it wasnt obtainable, so al-maliki wanted the USA to leave and remember this 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27198274/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/pact-sets-limits-iraqi-prosecution-troops/#.V9RS9fl94b0

 

 

The thing with Democracy is that you can't force it on people. It needs to come organically. Europe had the idea of democracy from a very early stage, with the greeks, but it wasn't until the enlightenment that it really started taking hold. Other things needed to take root before democracy could. The British for instance developed ideas such as common law, a parliament of peers, etc. long before the vote was given to the common people. Rule of law and equal administration of the law was important, as was a free press and a cultural disdain for corruption. Britain had a head start on all of this as well, due to the magna carta, which is why the countries founded by British settlers went on to be stable and prosperous nations. If you take a culture with no history of democracy, a largely illiterate population, and a culture based on a violent anti-democratic religion like Islam, and try to force democracy on them, democracy will not thrive. 

 

TL:DR - It took Europe thousands of years to develop functioning democracy, beating it into a barbarian culture in a few months is obviously not going to work. 

[BruceVC]

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/04/iraq-usa-urban-troop-withdrawal

 

Don't know much about the other stuff, but this is an excellent response regarding the withdrawal.  Addressing that, my take:

 

Remember reading about the withdrawal at the time and al-Maliki's comments were part of a dance also. Kind of like the dance you all have here.  Context is an American President who had no intention of having a larger permanent presence in the country.  Easy to insist you won't allow troops to stay when your American counterpart has made it clear they don't want to anyway and will support your stance.  Different context could have and undoubtedly would have rendered a different result.  The withdrawal was not set in stone.  That it ended the way it did does not mean it was destiny or fated to do so.

 

Just to bite the coin, I watched all the videos you lot posted on the previous page.  The wall and clapping videos were comedy routines, but after the Johnson ad that GuardDog posted ended, youtube drove into one with Abraham Lincoln promoting Johnson, which was also quite funny. 

I was intimately involved in the Iraq invasion, I admit I naively thought the Iraqs after living under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam would welcome the benefits of a Democracy....it was a lesson I will never forget 

 

Yes the USA made a mistake but they did try to fix Iraq but it wasnt obtainable, so al-maliki wanted the USA to leave and remember this 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27198274/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/pact-sets-limits-iraqi-prosecution-troops/#.V9RS9fl94b0

 

 

The thing with Democracy is that you can't force it on people. It needs to come organically. Europe had the idea of democracy from a very early stage, with the greeks, but it wasn't until the enlightenment that it really started taking hold. Other things needed to take root before democracy could. The British for instance developed ideas such as common law, a parliament of peers, etc. long before the vote was given to the common people. Rule of law and equal administration of the law was important, as was a free press and a cultural disdain for corruption. Britain had a head start on all of this as well, due to the magna carta, which is why the countries founded by British settlers went on to be stable and prosperous nations. If you take a culture with no history of democracy, a largely illiterate population, and a culture based on a violent anti-democratic religion like Islam, and try to force democracy on them, democracy will not thrive. 

 

TL:DR - It took Europe thousands of years to develop functioning democracy, beating it into a barbarian culture in a few months is obviously not going to work. 

 

Yes I understand you cant force the concepts of Western democracy but end of the day all Western democracies have the same themes and rules that include

 

• Democratically elected governments that can be criticised
• Free media 
• Human rights are respected and things like womens rights and gay rights are enshrined in law 
• Freedom of religion

 

I am supportive of these things and Western countries have overall the happiest citizens and offer there citizens the best quality of life...you also find most Western countries have very strong economies

 

Most Muslim countries follow Sharia law, I have never agreed with it but I always thought " if they happy lets leave them " 

 

But now we are seeing mass immigration to Western countries from some Muslim countries which has unintentionally proven the advantages of our laws and culture over Sharia.

 

So people need to adopt to our laws and respect our way of life.....I think it can be done with a little effort 

[quidproquo]

Excellent point, mate. Course, might be you shouldn't give up after a few months either, or a few years.

 

US is still in Afghanistan and quit Iraq. Seems arseways to me. Iraq could've been won with the long view and is worth more if it is.

[BruceVC]

Excellent point, mate. Course, might be you shouldn't give up after a few months either, or a few years.

 

US is still in Afghanistan and quit Iraq. Seems arseways to me. Iraq could've been won with the long view and is worth more if it is.

 I am talking about people who come from Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Eritrea, Sudan , Libya and Nigeria and want to immigrate to Western countries like the EU

[Oerwinde]

Excellent point, mate. Course, might be you shouldn't give up after a few months either, or a few years.

 

US is still in Afghanistan and quit Iraq. Seems arseways to me. Iraq could've been won with the long view and is worth more if it is.

 

I agree that had the US stayed in Iraq, it may have turned out better. They were working towards it. Afghanistan is a lost cause. The kinds of people who want Afghanistan to be a modern prosperous country are few and far between, while people grasping at power are much more common.

 

This is where me and Bruce differ on what makes a good leader. Democratically elected is not a prerequisite for a good leader. A dictator can be a good leader if he keeps the wellbeing and prosperity of his country and people at the forefront. Democracy can be disasterous with an uninformed illiterate population. Sometimes it takes a literate informed dictator to prepare a people for democracy.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Oerwinde

[BruceVC]

 

Excellent point, mate. Course, might be you shouldn't give up after a few months either, or a few years.

 

US is still in Afghanistan and quit Iraq. Seems arseways to me. Iraq could've been won with the long view and is worth more if it is.

 

I agree that had the US stayed in Iraq, it may have turned out better. They were working towards it. Afghanistan is a lost cause. The kinds of people who want Afghanistan to be a modern prosperous country are few and far between, while people grasping at power are much more common.

 

This is where me and Bruce differ on what makes a good leader. Democratically elected is not a prerequisite for a good leader. A dictator can be a good leader if he keeps the wellbeing and prosperity of his country and people at the forefront. Democracy can be disasterous with an uninformed illiterate population. Sometimes it takes a literate informed dictator to prepare a people for democracy.

 

Why in the name of all that is reasonable should the USA have stayed in Iraq?

 

Iraq was a disaster for them, they were being attacked and hated by both Sunni and Shia. Iran was suing this opportunity to kill Western troops and the whole ME blamed them

 

Leaving Iraq was absolutely the right thing to do 

[quidproquo]

Iraq had been by and large pacified to a greater degree by the time the US withdrew. At that point, assuming that the US could negotiate a reasonable SOFA, the upkeep would have been not much if any more than any number of bases around the world. The US paid for an allied nation that could provide an excellent base of operation in the region. A much better located base of operations than any other nation in the area. The US paid that price in treasure and blood. Then, rather than push for a SOFA that would have taken advantage of the payment they already made, Obama abandoned it. There was a choice, regardless of what people want to assert now. Even if the SOFA negotiations had failed, clearly they were not pursued with all. There are no long term goals for the American public now and there haven't been any long term goals for most other western countries for a long time. If, might be when, the US has to go into the region to fight another ground war, and takes with them a sizeable coalition, it will be clear that defending the gains in Iraq would have cost much less than doing it all over again. The assumption that if the US simply doesn't ruffle feathers that it will all sort itself out isn't merely naïve. It's foolish and dangerous. The US could have created an ally in the region. They failed for lack of will and no one else even had the stomach to try.

[BruceVC]

Iraq had been by and large pacified to a greater degree by the time the US withdrew. At that point, assuming that the US could negotiate a reasonable SOFA, the upkeep would have been not much if any more than any number of bases around the world. The US paid for an allied nation that could provide an excellent base of operation in the region. A much better located base of operations than any other nation in the area. The US paid that price in treasure and blood. Then, rather than push for a SOFA that would have taken advantage of the payment they already made, Obama abandoned it. There was a choice, regardless of what people want to assert now. Even if the SOFA negotiations had failed, clearly they were not pursued with all. There are no long term goals for the American public now and there haven't been any long term goals for most other western countries for a long time. If, might be when, the US has to go into the region to fight another ground war, and takes with them a sizeable coalition, it will be clear that defending the gains in Iraq would have cost much less than doing it all over again. The assumption that if the US simply doesn't ruffle feathers that it will all sort itself out isn't merely naïve. It's foolish and dangerous. The US could have created an ally in the region. They failed for lack of will and no one else even had the stomach to try.

It is simply untrue that Iraq was stable when the USA wanted to pull out

 

Sorry but this is fundamental to this debate, Iraq was never stable because the USA was fighting either Shia militia or Iraq Sunni. As the war dragged on you also had  Al-Qaeda in Iraq who were supported by many Iraq Sunni, then you had the civil war in Syria start in March 2011, the USA pulled out of Iraq end of 2011

 

So that meant the Sunni forces were growing more and more powerful but there focus was initially Syria 

 

But there were constant bomb blasts and attacks against the USA and Shia government. This escalated when the USA pulled out 

 

The Iranians wanted the USA out because they thought there influence over the Iraq government would be more effective without the USA but more importantly the USA was tired of being blamed and criticised by both sides ....they had NO friends in Iraq 

 

But now look, in the 2016 they are respected and are part of the coalition against ISIS ..this is the way the West should operate in the ME. 

[quidproquo]

I sense you're a decent bloke, but when you say things it's like my mate told me that his dog started talking to him. It's funny and all, but the question of what his dog is telling him to do always swims around the back of your mind. Would never suggest that Iraq was entirely pacified, but your scenario is... bullocks. You've the faith of the believer and I never argue religion, especially with a mate whose God is a talking dog. Don't want his dog speaking gainst me.

Edited September 11, 2016 by quidproquo

[kgambit]

...you want some weed ?

 

 

No thanks, you;ve had more than enough for both of us.  

[BruceVC]

I sense you're a decent bloke, but when you say things it's like my mate told me that his dog started talking to him. It's funny and all, but the question of what his dog is telling him to do always swims around the back of your mind. Would never suggest that Iraq was entirely pacified, but your scenario is... bullocks. You've the faith of the believer and I never argue religion, especially with a mate whose God is a talking dog. Don't want his dog speaking gainst me.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/15/iraq-bomb-blast-deaths

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_January_2011_Iraq_bombings

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/08/15/iraq.violence/index.html

 

This is not about being right, this is about historical fact.  I was intermittently involved in the invasion of Iraq and I followed the events of the Iraq invasion since 2001

 

The violence and instability  is documented and understood. Iraq was not stable when the USA pulled out in 2011  

[quidproquo]

Choose your facts carefully. Sure you're the voice of experience. You've got the inside kith on these things, BruceVC. You're in the know.

 

However, by 2011 the Iraqis already knew the Americans were gone. The US had the watches, as they say, and they had the time. The people who wanted The Coalition to stay had faded into the shadows for self preservation. But, even assuming that the country hadn't been by and large pacified after the surge years earlier? What if? Did we expect that things were going to be easy always because the coalition had made them easier temporarily? Did the west think that the best way to recoup their losses was to cut and run? Nothing emboldens the bad guys more than the good guys saying they've already given up. The bad guys made some of those attacks you cite solely to reassert what the future held when the allies were inevitably destined to quit the field.

 

You can keep talking bout historical facts, and I'm sure some people would blame you for cherry picking those facts if you were a dread right winger, but I don't care about individual facts when the pattern is made from whole cloth. Did those attacks become worse or better after the US left? You have a narrative, and that's all well and good, but your facts that you choose so carefully are part of a larger fact pattern that defies your assessment. Sorry, mate, but you've got it wrong.

 

It's like some scientist bloke said a long time ago, "a man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding." You don't know, BruceVC. You're just hearing your dog talk to you.

 

Undoubtedly many will agree with you, but you cannot convince someone who already believes as you do for if he already believes, the statement of agreement is not persuasion.

Edited September 11, 2016 by quidproquo

[BruceVC]

Choose your facts carefully. Sure you're the voice of experience. You've got the inside kith on these things, BruceVC. You're in the know.

 

However, by 2011 the Iraqis already knew we were gone. We had the watches, as they say, and they had the time. The people who wanted us to stay had faded into the shadows for self preservation. But, even assuming that the country hadn't been by and large pacified after the surge years earlier? What if? Did we expect that things were going to be easy always because we'd made them easier temporarily? Did we think that the best way to recoup our losses was to cut and run? Nothing emboldens the bad guys more than the good guys saying they've already given up. The bad guys made some of those attacks you cite solely to reassert what the future held when we were inevitably destined to quit the field.

 

You can keep talking bout historical facts, and I'm sure some people would blame you for cherry picking those facts if you were a dread right winger, but I don't care about individual facts when the pattern is made from whole cloth. Did those attacks become worse or better after the US left? You have a narrative, and that's all well and good, but your facts that you choose so carefully are part of a larger fact pattern that defies your assessment. Sorry, mate, but you've got it wrong.

 

It's like some scientist bloke said a long time ago, "a man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding." You don't know, BruceVC. You're just hearing your dog talk to you.

 

Undoubtedly many will agree with you, but you cannot convince someone who already believes as you do for if he already believes, the statement of agreement is not persuasion.

I feel I am  being rude, thats not  my intention so sorry if I seem like that 

 

Welcome to the forums   I hope you stay, we never seem to keep people and there are no women here...not one. I expressed concern about that but everyone seems fine with that 

 

Are you from the UK? So are my family and some of family live there...I love London 

 

Now back to this debate, I just want to clarify what we debating

 

Are you saying when the USA left Iraq the country was stable and they should have stayed ?

Edited September 11, 2016 by BruceVC

[quidproquo]

I think I'm too much in a pint right now to do my response justice. I'll quit the field and leave it to you, mate. Just for now, mind you. Later, I might switch from bitter to whiskey, and it always brings out the fire in me.

[BruceVC]

I think I'm too much in a pint right now to do my response justice. I'll quit the field and leave it to you, mate. Just for now, mind you. Later, I might switch from bitter to whiskey, and it always brings out the fire in me.

Okay lets chat later, I am going out for the day soon but we can swop stories when convenient 

 

I am interested in  your involvement, if any, in Iraq But even if you werent involved just your personal opinion

 

I have a good book about the Irish regiment in Basra 

Edited September 11, 2016 by BruceVC

[ManifestedISO]

 

we never seem to keep people and there are no women here...not one

 

They're here, just invisible because damned dudes are deplorable.

[Oerwinde]

 

 

we never seem to keep people and there are no women here...not one

 

They're here, just invisible because damned dudes are deplorable.

 

 

I always wondered what happened to LadyCrimson. She's been a regular here since day one, and I haven't seen her in like a year.

[quidproquo]

 

 

we never seem to keep people and there are no women here...not one

 

They're here, just invisible because damned dudes are deplorable.

 

A whole basket of them.