National Stats during Obama Admin

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Hey, Mike, have you ever heard of about a sectarian civil war in Iraq?  Well, what do you think that means? Who do you think the sects are?  Where might the sects be located?

[Rotobeast]

(01-19-2017, 08:44 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Never heard of Fallujah?

Man... that place was a mess.
A friend of mine, that is a Marine, told me horror stories of that place.
I've also read of the lingering affects, from the massive use of depleted uranium.

On a positive note though, it seems al-Sadr made a big change.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-19-2017, 10:49 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Man... that place was a mess.
A friend of mine, that is a Marine, told me horror stories of that place.
I've also read of the lingering affects, from the massive use of depleted uranium.

On a positive note though, it seems al-Sadr made a big change.

Most, if not all, of the stories about DU are akin to urban legend. 

[Rotobeast]

(01-19-2017, 11:30 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Most, if not all, of the stories about DU are akin to urban legend. 

Ok, I believe that.
What about the excessive use of WP ?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-20-2017, 12:18 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Ok, I believe that.
What about the excessive use of WP ?

Excessive is a matter of perspective. 

[Dill]

(01-19-2017, 06:54 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You're gonna have to be more specific. All I see is cities that were taken by the insurgents after 2014 or how we drove them out of cities back in 2007 with a handful of bombings and mostly the setting up of a democracy in between those 2 dates.

You understand that the "insurgents" for each of the dates you cite above were entirely different groups, right?
I don't know what "handful of bombings" refers to.

[Dill]

(01-19-2017, 06:37 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Is he the Commander in Chief or not? He absolutely has the power to change it based on Intel... oops Forgot he wasn't paying attention to those reports. Oh well never mind.

I understand about point 2, but if intel thinks they are not ready, then they are not ready.
Now with that understood, if the "insurgents" were busy taking over cities like oncemore was telling us, then we should've known that there was still a threat to the new Leadership and that they were not ready to handle that group.

Didn't one of the Generals advise that we leave at least 35k behind instead of pulling them all out?
He even stated that there were options and that they didn't have to leave if they didn't want to. Neither Bush nor Obama had much of an after war plan. If we are going to do something like this, we have to finish it and see it thru.

Mike, regarding your first point: 1. there was no intel suggesting that ISIL was a threat in 2011 because it did not come into existence until 2013, in Syria. 2. The presence of US troops in Iraq was itself the primary cause of continuing insurgent violence and a source of political instability. Assuming stability was in the US national interest, getting the troops out was a good idea, not to mention a campaign promise supported by the majority of Americans tired of the quagmire. 3. Obama is the Commander in chief, but his powers are not absolute, even in terms of non-declared wars, treaties, and other military adventures. Remember that Congress could refuse to fund a continued occupation; also, Congress can direct the president to remove armed forces from any foreign country or conflict any time 60 days after their commencement (according to the War Powers Resolution). Few wanted the troops to stay though, since it would have meant hundreds of soldiers dying every year without any clear goal.

The only serious proposal to leave troops behind was the 10,000 number (similar to the residual force now in A-stan). But given the political context of the time, I am not sure Congress would have gone along. 

As intimated above, the "seeing it thru" appeared to be part of the problem in Iraq--the main problem in 2011. The one thing Obama might have done is insisted upon a balanced government in Baghdad--but that ran the risks of delegitimizing the government. 

Obama did not start a war so we can't blame him for no after war plan. He inherited a terrible problem and proposed a reasonable solution to it. In terms of US lives saved, it still looks like a good solution. About 4,500 US military died in Iraq--most AFTER the hot war of 2003.  What would the US body count be now after 5 more years of occupation? 6 or 7 thousand?

[Bengalzona]

(01-19-2017, 11:30 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Most, if not all, of the stories about DU are akin to urban legend. 

We used more DU during the first Gulf War than we did when we invaded Iraq. We learned that we just didn't need it against these guys.

[Rotobeast]

(01-20-2017, 12:33 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Excessive is a matter of perspective. 

Fair point.
I was, by no means, attempting to make any judgment.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-20-2017, 08:46 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Fair point.
I was, by no means, attempting to make any judgment.

If I was on the receiving end, any WP would be excessive. I didn't see any use of WP. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-17-2017, 06:54 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Pulling Troops out too early allowed ISIS to move in. We left the 2 countries relatively unprotected. 2013 is when ISIS rebranded their name, in early 2014 is when they started taking cities (1st one Fallujah).

(01-19-2017, 08:44 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: We knew they weren't ready.  Why do you think we were trying to negotiate a new status of forces agreement to delay the withdrawal of troops?  Because we knew they weren't ready.  Duh.  Now, how can you force a sovereign government to sign an agreement to maintain foreign troops in their country against their wishes?  You can't.  Obviously.


Never heard of Fallujah?

Nope, never heard of Fallujah!   But I'll be nice and give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't see that I posted about Fallujah in my first post.

Yes, we were trying and both sides knew they weren't ready, but both sides also expected that some troops would be left behind to help, that was a number that was being negotiated (first 10k, then 7k, 5k, 3k then non-military to supervise the transition). Obama yanked them all out in October instead of waiting until mid-December (end of the year and timeline deadline) which would've given them more time to negotiate as well.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-19-2017, 09:05 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Hey, Mike, have you ever heard of about a sectarian civil war in Iraq?  Well, what do you think that means? Who do you think the sects are?  Where might the sects be located?

Yes I have and Know what that means, can't name all groups atm, but I know most of the factions involved are usually Sunni, Kurds, Shite, Shia and maybe another?

Which is why I said we shouldn't leave.
All groups need to feel like they are a part of the new democratic government or else it just won't work.

(01-20-2017, 01:49 AM)Dill Wrote: You understand that the "insurgents" for each of the dates you cite above were entirely different groups, right?
I don't know what "handful of bombings" refers to.

Yes I know they were different groups, I was looking at Timelines for the war in general.
The Bombings happened a lot after the initial attack.

(01-20-2017, 02:33 AM)Dill Wrote: Mike, regarding your first point: 1. there was no intel suggesting that ISIL was a threat in 2011 because it did not come into existence until 2013, in Syria. 2. The presence of US troops in Iraq was itself the primary cause of continuing insurgent violence and a source of political instability. Assuming stability was in the US national interest, getting the troops out was a good idea, not to mention a campaign promise supported by the majority of Americans tired of the quagmire. 3. Obama is the Commander in chief, but his powers are not absolute, even in terms of non-declared wars, treaties, and other military adventures. Remember that Congress could refuse to fund a continued occupation; also, Congress can direct the president to remove armed forces from any foreign country or conflict any time 60 days after their commencement (according to the War Powers Resolution). Few wanted the troops to stay though, since it would have meant hundreds of soldiers dying every year without any clear goal.

The only serious proposal to leave troops behind was the 10,000 number (similar to the residual force now in A-stan). But given the political context of the time, I am not sure Congress would have gone along. 

As intimated above, the "seeing it thru" appeared to be part of the problem in Iraq--the main problem in 2011. The one thing Obama might have done is insisted upon a balanced government in Baghdad--but that ran the risks of delegitimizing the government. 

Obama did not start a war so we can't blame him for no after war plan. He inherited a terrible problem and proposed a reasonable solution to it. In terms of US lives saved, it still looks like a good solution. About 4,500 US military died in Iraq--most AFTER the hot war of 2003.  What would the US body count be now after 5 more years of occupation? 6 or 7 thousand?

Quick point. Thanks for taking the time to respond in a non-condescending and informative manner.

1. Agreed, ISIS wasn't on our intel in 2011.
2. Yes and no, the wrong people wanted us out, the people that wanted freedom didn't. There was even a poll that showed that 51% of Iraqi's wanted the US military presence to stay.
3. I know he's not absolute, but yanking the soldiers out in October vs December would've given more time for both sides to reach a better agreement. I also know he didn't start the war, but he should've been adamant that we make sure the new government has a chance to succeed. Most likely Congress would've went along.

On your last point about how many more American's would've died, no idea, but we know that almost 40k Iraqi Civilians have died since we left and ISIL/ISIS gained control. Now what is the price of those Iraqi Civilians vs 1 US Soldier?
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

I'd rather we not continue arguing about it, and that I hope we have learned a valuable lesson about invading other countries that you must also have a solid rebuilding/exit plan. But unfortunately, I doubt we will.

[McC]

(01-18-2017, 10:43 AM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Yes.  I'm taking Friday off, as I'm sure you are, to be glued to the tv to watch the Furor rise against the ashes to make Amerika great again.

Well, this President won't be a traitor, unlike the outgoing one.  You can count on that.

[Belsnickel]

(01-20-2017, 02:36 PM)McC Wrote: Well, this President won't be a traitor, unlike the outgoing one.  You can count on that.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-20-2017, 12:27 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Nope, never heard of Fallujah!   But I'll be nice and give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't see that I posted about Fallujah in my first post.

Yes, we were trying and both sides knew they weren't ready, but both sides also expected that some troops would be left behind to help, that was a number that was being negotiated (first 10k, then 7k, 5k, 3k then non-military to supervise the transition). Obama yanked them all out in October instead of waiting until mid-December (end of the year and timeline deadline) which would've given them more time to negotiate as well.

What happened in Fallujah in 2004?  It was ongoing problem that didn't suddenly start out of the blue in 2014 when ISIS "moved in" after we withdrew. The government of Iraq knew if they didn't sign a new status of forces agreement we weren't going to keep troops there.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-20-2017, 02:08 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes I have and Know what that means, can't name all groups atm, but I know most of the factions involved are usually Sunni, Kurds, Shite, Shia and maybe another?

It basically boils down to Sunni vs. Shite. What do you think is going on now? A proxy war pitting Sunni vs. Shite. Saudi Arabia on one side. Iran on the other.

Quote:Which is why I said we shouldn't leave.
All groups need to feel like they are a part of the new democratic government or else it just won't work.

The new government was fomenting the sectarian violence.

Quote:Yes I know they were different groups, I was looking at Timelines for the war in general.
The Bombings happened a lot after the initial attack.

The bombing began as early as the late spring/early summer of 2003. Just got worse from there. Thanks in large part to Paul Bremer. We had KIAs from IEDs before we even reached Bagdad.  We had bombings going on the same time the Jessica Lynch fairytale was being told.  I think it is laughable someone would suggest the bombing started later.

Quote:Quick point. Thanks for taking the time to respond in a non-condescending and informative manner.

1. Agreed, ISIS wasn't on our intel in 2011.

They were. They just had a different name. 

Quote:2. Yes and no, the wrong people wanted us out, the people that wanted freedom didn't. There was even a poll that showed that 51% of Iraqi's wanted the US military presence to stay.

It was almost universal the Iraqi people wanted us to leave. Right after we arrived in Bagdad they were like, "Thanks for coming. Now get out."

Quote:3. I know he's not absolute, but yanking the soldiers out in October vs December would've given more time for both sides to reach a better agreement. I also know he didn't start the war, but he should've been adamant that we make sure the new government has a chance to succeed. Most likely Congress would've went along.

You can continue to negotiate a new status of forces agreement while you withdraw troops. You just can't withdraw troops overnight or in the last month of an agreement. We don't have the logistics to wait until the last moment. Let's assume for a second your timeline is right, what would be the purpose of withdrawing troops in October vs. December? To give the Iraqi government an ultimatum to sign the new status of forces agreement before you lose your security blanket we are providing. 

Quote:On your last point about how many more American's would've died, no idea, but we know that almost 40k Iraqi Civilians have died since we left and ISIL/ISIS gained control. Now what is the price of those Iraqi Civilians vs 1 US Soldier?
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

I'd rather we not continue arguing about it, and that I hope we have learned a valuable lesson about invading other countries that you must also have a solid rebuilding/exit plan. But unfortunately, I doubt we will.

So you're telling me more Iraq civilians died as a result of the US invasion rather than the US withdrawal. Are you arguing for or against ISIS?  Because it seems like you just became the head of their recruiting department. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-20-2017, 03:53 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It basically boils down to Sunni vs. Shite. What do you think is going on now? A proxy war pitting Sunni vs. Shite. Saudi Arabia on one side. Iran on the other.

The new government was fomenting the sectarian violence.

Even more reason to not leave.

(01-20-2017, 03:53 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The bombing began as early as the late spring/early summer of 2003. Just got worse from there. Thanks in large part to Paul Bremer. We had KIAs from IEDs before we even reached Bagdad.  We had bombings going on the same time the Jessica Lynch fairytale was being told.  I think it is laughable someone would suggest the bombing started later.

To clarify, I talking about the Suicide/Car bombs during that time frame and not that they didn't happen while we were there, but just during the Iraqi war timeline, that was the only major things that happened from 2004-2014 (Fall of Fallujah).

(01-20-2017, 03:53 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: They were. They just had a different name. 

So did we had intel on them or not prior to them rebranding their name.

(01-20-2017, 03:53 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It was almost universal the Iraqi people wanted us to leave. Right after we arrived in Bagdad they were like, "Thanks for coming. Now get out."

Not totally true, took me a while to find it, but the main reason we left early was because the Iraqi's refused to give the troops immunity from prosecution in the Iraqi Courts. A position that the US said no to, no immunity, no stay, buh bye.

(01-20-2017, 03:53 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You can continue to negotiate a new status of forces agreement while you withdraw troops. You just can't withdraw troops overnight or in the last month of an agreement. We don't have the logistics to wait until the last moment. Let's assume for a second your timeline is right, what would be the purpose of withdrawing troops in October vs. December? To give the Iraqi government an ultimatum to sign the new status of forces agreement before you lose your security blanket we are providing. 

Anything wrong with giving more time to train the Iraqi's?

(01-20-2017, 03:53 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So you're telling me more Iraq civilians died as a result of the US invasion rather than the US withdrawal. Are you arguing for or against ISIS?  Because it seems like you just became the head of their recruiting department. 

No? Where did I say that? The deaths from the invasion also include military deaths. The deaths I listed are civilian only since we left.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-20-2017, 04:58 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Even more reason to not leave.

Again, the withdrawal date had already been agreed upon. The only way to change the date was a new agreement. The Iraqi government wouldn't sign a new status of forces agreement.

Quote:To clarify, I talking about the Suicide/Car bombs during that time frame and not that they didn't happen while we were there, but just during the Iraqi war timeline, that was the only major things that happened from 2004-2014 (Fall of Fallujah).

That's 100% incorrect. Why did we have a "surge"?

Quote:So did we had intel on them or not prior to them rebranding their name.

Yes. Al-Zarqawi ring any bells?

Quote:Not totally true, took me a while to find it, but the main reason we left early was because the Iraqi's refused to give the troops immunity from prosecution in the Iraqi Courts. A position that the US said no to, no immunity, no stay, buh bye.

That is part of the status of forces agreement. You claimed 51% of Iraqis wanted us to stay. I claimed, based upon my own personal experience interacting with Iraqis it was almost universal they wanted us to leave. The sooner the better. Getting us to leave was one of the factors feeding the insurgency.

Quote:Anything wrong with giving more time to train the Iraqi's?

And you can continue training while withdrawing the bulk of forces involved in security and combat operations. What were they going to learn in 2 months they didn't learn during the previous 7-8 years? The difference is negligible.

Quote:No? Where did I say that? The deaths from the invasion also include military deaths. The deaths I listed are civilian only since we left.

I'm talking about civilian deaths. More than 40k civilians died as a result of the US invasion. A lot more.

[*bfine32*]

(01-20-2017, 02:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:

Strange that you would only find his suggestion that Obama is a Traitor to be hilarious and not the comparison of Trump to Hitler that he was replying to.

Seems we only appreciate the words used to incite partisonship that support our side. We should all strive to be more bi-patisan

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-20-2017, 06:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Strange that you would only find his suggestion that Obama is a Traitor to be hilarious and not the comparison of Trump to Hitler that he was replying to.

Seems we only appreciate the words used to incite partisonship that support our side. We should all strive to be more bi-patisan

Strange you would only call out the reaction to the traitor comment, rather than the traitor comment and the reaction to the traitor comment. 

#fakebipartisanship