• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

For all things relative to politics.

BigLutz

Banned
Why are we supposedly making all this progress and handing over all this territory to the Iraqis and yet our troops are coming home or going to other places where they're more needed coughAfghanistancough?

Is that really a question? Maybe you structured it wrong or I am reading it wrong. But mind you even though we have been bringing troops home and not sending them back, we still need troops over there to train Iraqi forces and to back them up if need be.

It makes is seem even more stupid to have our troops wasting their time and our resources doing nothing. Either we're winning and we can draw down our troops or we're not winning and they need to stay there.

Actually it isn't a "if/or", we are winning, and we are slowly drawing down our troops. This isn't something you be absolutely stupid about and just rush troops out. You bring them out slowly when you are sure the Iraqi forces are able to fully step in and handle the situation. Yes we are winning, yes we have many troops there just sitting on their butts. But right now Iraq doesn't have the man power to fully replace all of those troops. They are getting there, but for each troop removed, a Iraqi soldier has to be there to fully take over the position, and even then we have to make sure that they are fully performing their duties and the US troop wont be needed again.

It is a very slow process, but it should be done slow and correctly, than fast and sloppy.

And don't give me the evil terrorists or Iranians will move in argument because then we might as well break down make Iraq a protectorate of the United States. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If we move out too fast, and Iraq is unable and unequipped to replace the troops and equipment that we move out, then yes the populous will turn back to anyone that offers protection, and that includes Iran and Al Qaeda. Luckily enough right now we are not moving out too fast, we are taking it slow and making sure the job is done correctly.

Something I would expect you would want when you have so many lives on the line.
 

The Big Al

I just keeping Octo
Here's a brilliant idea. Let's trust the Iraqis to take care of their own country. They're already running a surplus and could easily take on the non-military costs of their reconstruction. If they already control two thirds of the country, we should be able to pull out two thirds of our troops.

This has nothing to do with the preparedness Iraqis. This has everything to do with the private contract companies who are making money hand over fist in Iraq. The longer they can drag this occupation out, the more money they can make. The more troops that require their "services", the more money they make This was why war profiteering was banned during the second world war.

That is why we're dragging our heels in Iraq. Too many people are making too much money. Hopefully, President Obama will put these death merchants in their place.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Here's a brilliant idea. Let's trust the Iraqis to take care of their own country. They're already running a surplus and could easily take on the non-military costs of their reconstruction. If they already control two thirds of the country, we should be able to pull out two thirds of our troops.

They are running a projected surplus, not to mention that Saddam screwed up that country so much, that much if not all of that money will go to repair infrastructure such as roads, water pipes, and electricity.

And just because they control two thirds of the country does not mean that we do not need our troops in there to train Iraqi troops. Nor does it mean that the country is divided up equally, many of the Provinces given to Iraqi hands are smaller in size than the several big ones.

But it is nice to know that not having been in Iraq, nor a General, you are able to decide what we should do in that country.

This has nothing to do with the preparedness Iraqis. This has everything to do with the private contract companies who are making money hand over fist in Iraq. The longer they can drag this occupation out, the more money they can make. The more troops that require their "services", the more money they make This was why war profiteering was banned during the second world war.

Ahh yes it's all for the private contractors, you know what, I truly do not care. If doing it slow and preparing the Iraqis saves lives in the end, then I do not give a damn as to who makes money. But apparently you believe we should get out faster instead of making absolutely sure Iraq does not fall into chaos again. Why? Because of the big mean evil Private Contractors.

That is why we're dragging our heels in Iraq. Too many people are making too much money. Hopefully, President Obama will put these death merchants in their place.

Hopefully President Obama is not that freaking stupid.

We are "dragging our heels" in Iraq because the top Generals over there, who have way more experience than you, and who walk the streets of Iraq instead of sitting behind a Computer in Michigan, say we need to take this steady and slow to make sure that Al Qaeda in Iraq does not resurge again and so that Iran does not try to regain their foothold, and so that Iraqi troops can be fully capable of stepping up in situations.

THAT is why we are taking it slow, and I do not blame the President for listening to them, instead of the Conspiracy nuts who believe that we are only there to make money.

My God I can only hope that Obama has the brains to listen to the people on the ground and follow what they are telling him to do.
 
Last edited:

The Big Al

I just keeping Octo
You honestly don't believe the Iraqis can't wipe their own ass without our help. And what is this almighty level of preparedness? I don't see why they need to be a military police state. If that's the case, then we've truly failed in Iraq.
 

BigLutz

Banned
You honestly don't believe the Iraqis can't wipe their own ass without our help.

The Iraqis in many cases over the summer were leading the fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq. So don't look now but the Iraqis have learned to wipe their own ass

And what is this almighty level of preparedness? I don't see why they need to be a military police state. If that's the case, then we've truly failed in Iraq.

Were you asleep between 2003 and 2006? Do you have amnesia of those years? Have you completely forgotten them? I ask those questions because I cannot truly imagine why you would even think of such a thing.

We have proof of what happens when there are not enough troops around to protect the Iraqis, we see what kind of people the local population turns to, and we see the horror that brings. I believe some news outlets were even using the words "Civil War" to describe it?

So please forgive me for having to ask if you are suffering from some version of amnesia when you say you do not see the need for a heightened police presence in Iraq.
 

The Big Al

I just keeping Octo
The Iraqis have the right as human beings and citizens of a sovereign nation to decide what they're going to do with themselves. Either we let them be what they'll be or we end this charade and make Iraq a protectorate. If we can't trust them to run their own country without a gun to their head, then we have failed. We've flushed a trillion dollars and over 4000 American lives down the toilet for nothing except to change the name of the military regime in charge of Iraq.
 

BigLutz

Banned
The Iraqis have the right as human beings and citizens of a sovereign nation to decide what they're going to do with themselves.

Yes they do, and right now they are seeking our protection until their country is completely ready to sustain itself militarily.

Either we let them be what they'll be or we end this charade and make Iraq a protectorate.

We are going to do that but what you seem to be unable to grasp is that that you cannot flip a switch and create a million man army, it takes time, resources, and training to do so.

If we can't trust them to run their own country without a gun to their head, then we have failed.

We have trusted them to run their country, we are just providing support to their military resources so that they are able to properly govern with out bombs going off ten feet from the Capital.

We've flushed a trillion dollars and over 4000 American lives down the toilet for nothing except to change the name of the military regime in charge of Iraq.

See that is a absolutely pathetic and disgusting comment. And shows that you have absolutely no idea the horror and pain that Saddam brought during his regime. You seriously should be ashamed of yourself.
 

The Big Al

I just keeping Octo
I am not ashamed of myself. I'm ashamed of people like you who fail to see that we haven't changed a thing. What's to stop the new military regime we leave in place to do the exact same thing?

You proved in your post we've done nothing to change the political situation in Iraq. It was a military police state when we went in, it'll be a military police state when we leave. We just have to hope this new one is nicer to the citizens.
 

BigLutz

Banned
I am not ashamed of myself. I'm ashamed of people like you who fail to see that we haven't changed a thing. What's to stop the new military regime we leave in place to do the exact same thing?

The Democracy we have installed.

And to think that we havn't changed a thing shows a blind disregard for history. Where are the Government sanctioned Rape squads roaming the street? Where is Saddam's Goons at the voting booth making sure you vote the right way? Where are the holes in the desert filled with hundreds of thousands of freshly killed bodies? Where is the Government experimenting on it's own people with Chemical Weapons?

If you truly believe this is the same you can easily answer these questions. But you can't, why? Because you truly do not know what you are talking about.

You proved in your post we've done nothing to change the political situation in Iraq. It was a military police state when we went in, it'll be a military police state when we leave. We just have to hope this new one is nicer to the citizens.

You seem to have a very thin line between Police State and all out anarchy. As well as a very lacking knowledge of how it was before we went in, as well as what happens in Iraq when we fail to have a Police/Military Presence in cities. I would suggest brushing up on these if you do not want to continue to lose this debate.
 
Last edited:

The Big Al

I just keeping Octo
Since when does a democracy required armed troops walking the streets to protect the people from themselves? I'm not saying it is the same at the moment. I'm saying it would have the exact same environment for another person to come in and do the same thing. You once again miss the forest from the trees.

And the fact is, no one can solve the Iraqis' problems for them. If they truly live in a democracy they should have the right to solve it themselves by whatever means they see fit. Whether for good or for ill, it's their right as people.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Since when does a democracy required armed troops walking the streets to protect the people from themselves? I'm not saying it is the same at the moment. I'm saying it would have the exact same environment for another person to come in and do the same thing. You once again miss the forest from the trees.

Ever since the people decided to turn to armed terrorist to protect themselves and decided to try to push the country into a Civil War. Ever since Al Qaeda and Iran decided to make a push in controlling the country. You keep neglecting that this isn't Michigan, these people were teetering on the edge of a Civil War because there were not Police men and Military on the streets.

And the fact is, no one can solve the Iraqis' problems for them. If they truly live in a democracy they should have the right to solve it themselves by whatever means they see fit. Whether for good or for ill, it's their right as people.

And they have, they have voted in a Congress, they have voted in a Prime Minister, they have a able body Government that is working for them. What you continue to not be able to grasp is at this moment the Iraqi Military is not able to completely protect the entire country. It is getting there but at this moment it is not equipped or staffed enough to stretch itself over the entire country. Which is why we are training them and backing them up, and in places taking their place.

After the events that transpired between 2003 and 2006 it is pure insanity to believe that we should sit back and let the Iraqi Military stretch itself so thin that it cannot possibly protect the entire country. Now do not get me wrong, they are gaining in strength every day, and they will soon be able to protect the entire country. But until then they do require our assistance.
 

The Admiral

the star of the masquerade
If you havn't noticed, since the peace brought by the Surge we have been handing over the country to the Iraqis. Infact just two months ago we handed over a fairly major area to the Iraqis in the form of Anbar Provence.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/middle_east/july-dec08/iraq_09-01.html

Infact 12 of 18 Provences are now within Iraqi control. I would say that is a pretty big success.

But did we not, then, hand it over, which means that we had control of it?

I'm not going to argue that there was no reason at all for going in; Saddam was definitely a prick who should not have been allowed to run a government, but I think we went about ti the wrong way, charging in and saying **** about WMDs, when the evidence wasn't there or wasn't proven at the time, or whatever the case was. We killed off most of our reputation in the process; is this a worthy price, that our nation's credibility has taken a drop, that Bush had disturbingly low approval ratings... no doubt this contributed to the Republicans losing the election, right, mate?
 

BigLutz

Banned
But did we not, then, hand it over, which means that we had control of it?

Umm... we handed control of it over to Iraqi forces if that is what you are wondering. Meaning that Iraqis now have control over that area.

I'm not going to argue that there was no reason at all for going in; Saddam was definitely a prick who should not have been allowed to run a government, but I think we went about ti the wrong way, charging in and saying **** about WMDs, when the evidence wasn't there or wasn't proven at the time, or whatever the case was. We killed off most of our reputation in the process; is this a worthy price, that our nation's credibility has taken a drop, that Bush had disturbingly low approval ratings... no doubt this contributed to the Republicans losing the election, right, mate?

Well for one you have to remember that not one but two administrations believed Saddam had WMDs, as well as various other Governments, so the evidence was there and pretty much proven at the time. Mind you we could have had all the evidence in the world, but when you wait half a year, to go in when your enemy has that amount of time to prepare. Those WMDs could have ended up anywhere.

As for what contributed to the Republicans losing the election. No, no, and no. The Iraq War situation was in the back of people's minds. Infact if it were at the forefront McCain may have won the election as polls are swinging more and more in favor of actually winning the war than pulling out.
 

The Admiral

the star of the masquerade
As for what contributed to the Republicans losing the election. No, no, and no. The Iraq War situation was in the back of people's minds. Infact if it were at the forefront McCain may have won the election as polls are swinging more and more in favor of actually winning the war than pulling out.

Well, it can't have helped. I'm referring more to the process we chose for engaging the enemy (no real declaration of war, &c.) and the idea that there were no nukes in Iraq. I'm perfectly willing to accept that this could be a load of bollocks proliferated by liberal media, &c., though, since I really don't trust either side that much any more. (Let's just admit that, on the whole, people suck.) Also, the delay you mentioned is problematic, and wouldn't reflect well on Bush and likely, by extension, a part of the GOP. In six months, these WMDs could have been put to use against whoever Saddam decided he hated that week. I dare say that such things wouldn't have much of a positive effect on the public's faith in the GOP... Or, at least, there's some probability of such. (Probably only applies to us pinko commie liberals, though, who don't have any faith in the GOP to begin with... and it just keeps dropping.)

I'm not really going to argue which side (Democrat or Republican) is better. We probably have different conditions for "better" for that, anyway.
 

The Big Al

I just keeping Octo
Actually, those siting the Iraq war as their top issue voted for Obama by a decent margin.

Back to our argument.

That's not democracy, Lutz. I don't care what you say. A state where the people are being protected from themselves is never a democracy.

It's funny you bring up Michigan because we're a fairly good analogue for Iraq. Many Iraqi ex-patriots settled here. We have Shiites and Sunnis living together in the Detroit area. And guess what, they're about the only people not killing each other. They found a way to live here peacefully without being up their armpits in troops. I don't see why their brethren in Iraq can't do the same.

If anything, I think its the lack of jobs and necessities that drove the civil war from 2003 to 2006. Idle hands are the Devil's playthings you know. Instead of protecting the people from themselves, perhaps we should be more concerned with making sure they have something to do with themselves than fight.
 

BigLutz

Banned
That's not democracy, Lutz. I don't care what you say. A state where the people are being protected from themselves is never a democracy.

Yeah it is, it's called the Police Department, it's called preventing anarchy. The thing is that the military in there is not hindering anyone, they are acting as the peace keepers in a area that if they were not there the natives turn to

It's funny you bring up Michigan because we're a fairly good analogue for Iraq. Many Iraqi ex-patriots settled here. We have Shiites and Sunnis living together in the Detroit area. And guess what, they're about the only people not killing each other.

Good for you we have many in Euless... I believe, one of the cities in North Texas.

They found a way to live here peacefully without being up their armpits in troops. I don't see why their brethren in Iraq can't do the same.

Because the US Military isn't worried about Iraqi Citizens starting a fight with eachother, as has been shown in the past year or so, most Iraqi Citizens want to live in peace and carry on their every day lives. Something I have said over and over again.

What the US Military is worried about is Al Qaeda or Iranian trained soldiers coming into these areas, holding these town hostage with their superior fire power and strapping suicide bombs onto them at gunpoint.

The populous isn't the problem, it's the evil people in Syria and Iran that want to control the populous and create living bombs out of them.

The US Military isn't there to hinder people, it isn't there to force them to vote at gun point or swear the Pledge of Allegance or what ever. It is there because they are the only Police Force available until Iraq can get it's own army off the ground. And if they are not there the populous will turn to the next available group for protection.

If anything, I think its the lack of jobs and necessities that drove the civil war from 2003 to 2006. Idle hands are the Devil's playthings you know. Instead of protecting the people from themselves, perhaps we should be more concerned with making sure they have something to do with themselves than fight.

And again you show your ignorance of history in Iraq. It wasn't jobs, it wasn't people not having anything to do. If that were so we would still be having the two sides going at it. You know what it was? You know what it was proven to be?

It was a lack of any protection or presence in many areas of Iraq. The Iraqis want to live daily lives, they want to live peaceful lives, but when push comes to shove they are going to go with which ever side says "We will protect you.". We didn't have enough troops, countries were pulling out, and Shiite and Sunni extremists were going "We will protect you, if you let us walk around freely and fight these guys."

It was protection, it was always about protection. You have people blowing themselves up right down the street and the American and Iraqi army is no where to be seen. You cannot walk down the block to get groceries with out worrying that some one is hiding bombs.

Some very evil people said "We will protect you." and they had been pushed to the point that the populous of these cities were begging for protection.
 
Well, more and more people are being put in Obama's administration, and many likely people being brought up.

Many of the people being put in are people where a part of the Clinton Administration. I wonder how having all these Clintonites will pay off, and where Bill and Hillary themselves will be put in.
 

The Big Al

I just keeping Octo
I'm hoping Obama names Bill Secretary of State. I don't know if he'll get it but they'll likely some role, officially or not in particularly early stages of the Obama Administration.

Oh please, Lutz. There is a difference between a police department and a police state. Saddam's troops were peace keepers I'll have you know. They didn't mess with people's lives unless they happened to get on his bad side. Again, what have really changed there?
 

BigLutz

Banned
Oh please, Lutz. There is a difference between a police department and a police state.

Yes there is, there is also a major difference between what is happening in Iraq and a Police State as well.

Saddam's troops were peace keepers I'll have you know. They didn't mess with people's lives unless they happened to get on his bad side. Again, what have really changed there?

Well for one are you comparing US and Iraqi troops to Saddam's troops? I mean seriously are you comparing these two.

Second I have already told you what changed, I see you have forgotten that.

Third if we were to act like Saddam's troops or have a police state, do you honestly believe that the protests that happen in Iraq would have happened? Do you honestly believe that Saddam would have allowed thousands of Iraqis to gather to protest his Government? Do you think that would happen in a Police State?

You already know the answer: No.

So cut the ignorance that it is a Police State, and cut the ignorance that the US troops are like Saddam's troops, and truly cut the ignorance that nothing has changed.

You are better than that.
 

The Big Al

I just keeping Octo
Explain how what we're creating in Iraq is not a police state.

And I find your lack of foresight and ability to see the big picture astounding. Just because everything is fine at the moment doesn't mean squat. I'm talking about the environment here. The environment we've created in Iraq is no different from what Saddam created. It doesn't take a genius to understand that the same abuses of power can easily take place again.

And I find it funny you call my unwillingness to buy into your shallow, hypernationalist world view ignorance.
 
Top