Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Trump on Mosul

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 2:33:18 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Trump has been criticised for his last night's comments on the current operation to re-take Mosul. He stated that when the city falls, Iran and Iranian proxies will be the primary beneficiaries, and that Iran is slowly taking over Iraq. Many, including a few on this Site, have said that Trump doesn't know what he's talking about.

But really, how much truth is in Trump's words? Well...
The first thing you need to know is that Iraq and Iran used to really, really hate each other. The two countries were actually at war from 1980 until 1988. One big reason why they hated each other was simple: Iraq was under the control of the Ba'ath Party, which held to the ideology of Arab Nationalism. Obviously the Persians/Iranians aren't Arab. The Iraqis under Hussein had genocided the primary non-Arab minority group in Iraq, the Kurds.
But whenever the US invaded Iraq, the Arab Nationalists were booted from power; the Iraqis began to see America as their primary foreign enemy, and the ethnic differences between the Arabs and the Persians became much less important.
In fact, as soon as the ethnic rivalry started dying down, the Iraqis realised that they had something in common with the Iranians: religion. Iran has, quite literally, a Shi'ite theocratic government. Iraq is much closer to secular, but the majority of its people are Shi'ites. And in the post-invasion lawlessness, the Sunni minority rose up and took up the cause of jihad; their objective was to expel the US, and to restore the privileged status of Sunnis in the Iraqi government. Many Iraqi civilians were killed in the process. I imagine that many Shi'ites felt threatened by the Sunni rebels, perhaps even more so than they did by the US occupiers.
So as a result, Shi'ite militia groups were formed in Iraq. The two biggest are the "Peace Companies" (which is nothing like it sounds) and the "Badr Organization". Currently, both groups supposedly have 10,000-50,000 fighters each. Then there are others; one is the Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, which has an estimated 10,000 fighters and is directly trained and funded by Iran.

So, fast-forward to the present operation to retake Mosul. Thousands of Shi'ite militants, including groups with track records for the mass murder of Sunni civilians, are taking part in the operation.
At the end of the day, whenever ISIL has been cleared from the city, we will see countless Sunni civilians being murdered by the Shi'ite militias. A massacre for the ages. I'd bet money on that, but I'm not so confident in my ability to send money over the internet.
And after the war on ISIL has come to a close, the militia question won't magically go away. The Shi'ite militias will still be around, and the possibility exists that they will eventually unite under one banner, one grand terrorist coalition, with the objective of toppling the Iraqi government and establishing a Shi'ite theocratic government, perhaps one that is modeled after Iran. This is not guaranteed, but at the same time it's a very real possibility.
Trump has said a lot of dumb stuff, but his comments on Mosul don't fall into that category.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 11:17:25 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 2:33:18 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Trump has been criticised for his last night's comments on the current operation to re-take Mosul. He stated that when the city falls, Iran and Iranian proxies will be the primary beneficiaries, and that Iran is slowly taking over Iraq. Many, including a few on this Site, have said that Trump doesn't know what he's talking about.

But really, how much truth is in Trump's words? Well...
The first thing you need to know is that Iraq and Iran used to really, really hate each other. The two countries were actually at war from 1980 until 1988. One big reason why they hated each other was simple: Iraq was under the control of the Ba'ath Party, which held to the ideology of Arab Nationalism. Obviously the Persians/Iranians aren't Arab. The Iraqis under Hussein had genocided the primary non-Arab minority group in Iraq, the Kurds.
But whenever the US invaded Iraq, the Arab Nationalists were booted from power; the Iraqis began to see America as their primary foreign enemy, and the ethnic differences between the Arabs and the Persians became much less important.
In fact, as soon as the ethnic rivalry started dying down, the Iraqis realised that they had something in common with the Iranians: religion. Iran has, quite literally, a Shi'ite theocratic government. Iraq is much closer to secular, but the majority of its people are Shi'ites. And in the post-invasion lawlessness, the Sunni minority rose up and took up the cause of jihad; their objective was to expel the US, and to restore the privileged status of Sunnis in the Iraqi government. Many Iraqi civilians were killed in the process. I imagine that many Shi'ites felt threatened by the Sunni rebels, perhaps even more so than they did by the US occupiers.
So as a result, Shi'ite militia groups were formed in Iraq. The two biggest are the "Peace Companies" (which is nothing like it sounds) and the "Badr Organization". Currently, both groups supposedly have 10,000-50,000 fighters each. Then there are others; one is the Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, which has an estimated 10,000 fighters and is directly trained and funded by Iran.

So, fast-forward to the present operation to retake Mosul. Thousands of Shi'ite militants, including groups with track records for the mass murder of Sunni civilians, are taking part in the operation.
At the end of the day, whenever ISIL has been cleared from the city, we will see countless Sunni civilians being murdered by the Shi'ite militias. A massacre for the ages. I'd bet money on that, but I'm not so confident in my ability to send money over the internet.
And after the war on ISIL has come to a close, the militia question won't magically go away. The Shi'ite militias will still be around, and the possibility exists that they will eventually unite under one banner, one grand terrorist coalition, with the objective of toppling the Iraqi government and establishing a Shi'ite theocratic government, perhaps one that is modeled after Iran. This is not guaranteed, but at the same time it's a very real possibility.
Trump has said a lot of dumb stuff, but his comments on Mosul don't fall into that category.

As one who's been there, the Shi'a are much easier to deal with.

There's some truth in your post and a lot of hyperbole.

Trump has no clue on Mosul, it is actually going to be a 4 party fight: ISIS, peshmerga, combined Iraqi forces, and Turkey (why people never mention them except a Mosul thread already circulating) who has several thousand troops just north, in Iraq, which Iraq is telling them to get out.

Bottom line is all that aside, Mosul is not our fight, we should not have launched 800 sorties since 2014, and even broader Isis is not our fight.

You think we should fight them? Hi volunteer in the peshmerga or Iraqi forces. Most of ya that have been there know it's a mess we have no business in.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 2:32:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 11:17:25 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/21/2016 2:33:18 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Trump has been criticised for his last night's comments on the current operation to re-take Mosul. He stated that when the city falls, Iran and Iranian proxies will be the primary beneficiaries, and that Iran is slowly taking over Iraq. Many, including a few on this Site, have said that Trump doesn't know what he's talking about.

But really, how much truth is in Trump's words? Well...
The first thing you need to know is that Iraq and Iran used to really, really hate each other. The two countries were actually at war from 1980 until 1988. One big reason why they hated each other was simple: Iraq was under the control of the Ba'ath Party, which held to the ideology of Arab Nationalism. Obviously the Persians/Iranians aren't Arab. The Iraqis under Hussein had genocided the primary non-Arab minority group in Iraq, the Kurds.
But whenever the US invaded Iraq, the Arab Nationalists were booted from power; the Iraqis began to see America as their primary foreign enemy, and the ethnic differences between the Arabs and the Persians became much less important.
In fact, as soon as the ethnic rivalry started dying down, the Iraqis realised that they had something in common with the Iranians: religion. Iran has, quite literally, a Shi'ite theocratic government. Iraq is much closer to secular, but the majority of its people are Shi'ites. And in the post-invasion lawlessness, the Sunni minority rose up and took up the cause of jihad; their objective was to expel the US, and to restore the privileged status of Sunnis in the Iraqi government. Many Iraqi civilians were killed in the process. I imagine that many Shi'ites felt threatened by the Sunni rebels, perhaps even more so than they did by the US occupiers.
So as a result, Shi'ite militia groups were formed in Iraq. The two biggest are the "Peace Companies" (which is nothing like it sounds) and the "Badr Organization". Currently, both groups supposedly have 10,000-50,000 fighters each. Then there are others; one is the Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, which has an estimated 10,000 fighters and is directly trained and funded by Iran.

So, fast-forward to the present operation to retake Mosul. Thousands of Shi'ite militants, including groups with track records for the mass murder of Sunni civilians, are taking part in the operation.
At the end of the day, whenever ISIL has been cleared from the city, we will see countless Sunni civilians being murdered by the Shi'ite militias. A massacre for the ages. I'd bet money on that, but I'm not so confident in my ability to send money over the internet.
And after the war on ISIL has come to a close, the militia question won't magically go away. The Shi'ite militias will still be around, and the possibility exists that they will eventually unite under one banner, one grand terrorist coalition, with the objective of toppling the Iraqi government and establishing a Shi'ite theocratic government, perhaps one that is modeled after Iran. This is not guaranteed, but at the same time it's a very real possibility.
Trump has said a lot of dumb stuff, but his comments on Mosul don't fall into that category.


As one who's been there, the Shi'a are much easier to deal with.

There's some truth in your post and a lot of hyperbole.

Trump has no clue on Mosul, it is actually going to be a 4 party fight: ISIS, peshmerga, combined Iraqi forces, and Turkey (why people never mention them except a Mosul thread already circulating) who has several thousand troops just north, in Iraq, which Iraq is telling them to get out.

Bottom line is all that aside, Mosul is not our fight, we should not have launched 800 sorties since 2014, and even broader Isis is not our fight.

You think we should fight them? Hi volunteer in the peshmerga or Iraqi forces. Most of ya that have been there know it's a mess we have no business in.

I didn't comment on what the US should or shouldn't do about it, just that Trump's comments on Mosul weren't stupid.
Also, to my knowledge the U.S. has a volunteer armed forces. That means every American soldier fighting overseas chose to be there, either directly or indirectly by signing up with the understanding that he or she may one day be sent to X war-torn country.
Our country's armed forces exist for one purpose: to protect and advance the interests of the United States. If our leaders refuse to use this tool whenever it's needed on the grounds of "Think of the soldiers", then in effect we don't have an armed forces, and the $600,000,000,000+ U.S. taxpayers spend every year to fund that force is simply going down the drain. This country's basic interests take priority over the safety of its soldiers, and thus the decision to send in the military should only be made if doing so does not serve US interests.
If our leaders refuse to use the military whenever it really needs to be used, then they are betraying the American people. And whenever this force is used to protect and advance US interests in highly dangerous situations, those people who signed up voluntarily have no right to complain.
Again, I'm not saying that the U.S. needs to get involved in the fight against ISIL, though personally I do believe this.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 2:33:36 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
*should not be made only if
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 3:14:28 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 2:33:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
*should not be made only if

No biggie on typos... apple auto corrects all the time and being on a phone I hardly check.

We do have 5000 over there as 'advisors'. One died yesterday in an ied blast. So yes, we are lied too in 'no boots on the ground'.

On Trump being 'correct' on Mosul. One area he is dead wrong is the leadership. Baghdad is in Mosul. Personally I think both he and Hillary will expand involvement. The question is why? How is that in our interest? Terrorism?

The reality is there is a free for all going on right now. We are backing Kurds who are terrorists to Turkey, who is bombing them in Syria but is also a NATO member. So effectively we are arming a group subversive to a NATO member.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 3:20:17 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 3:14:28 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/21/2016 2:33:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
*should not be made only if

No biggie on typos... apple auto corrects all the time and being on a phone I hardly check.

We do have 5000 over there as 'advisors'. One died yesterday in an ied blast. So yes, we are lied too in 'no boots on the ground'.

On Trump being 'correct' on Mosul. One area he is dead wrong is the leadership. Baghdad is in Mosul. Personally I think both he and Hillary will expand involvement. The question is why? How is that in our interest? Terrorism?

The reality is there is a free for all going on right now. We are backing Kurds who are terrorists to Turkey, who is bombing them in Syria but is also a NATO member. So effectively we are arming a group subversive to a NATO member.

Because it is a obsession for us now. Yea, there are plenty of tangible (plausible) reasons to be involved, but I think there has been an unwarranted obsession with the ME.

We have a huge chunk of Americans listing a nasty little group of dumb-a$$es with AKs and IEDs as the biggest security threat to the US. Just outright wrong, silly.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 3:22:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 3:14:28 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/21/2016 2:33:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
*should not be made only if

No biggie on typos... apple auto corrects all the time and being on a phone I hardly check.

We do have 5000 over there as 'advisors'. One died yesterday in an ied blast. So yes, we are lied too in 'no boots on the ground'.

On Trump being 'correct' on Mosul. One area he is dead wrong is the leadership. Baghdad is in Mosul. Personally I think both he and Hillary will expand involvement. The question is why? How is that in our interest? Terrorism?

It's in our interests to see ISIL defeated. While I still believe the Iraq war to have been necessary, the U.S. did go in and screw up their country. The least we can do is to see their country in fairly good shape when the last American soldier leaves. The rise of ISIL is undermining this goal, as they have caused massive chaos and violence in the country and preventing it from being reasonably peaceful (and in Syria).

The reality is there is a free for all going on right now. We are backing Kurds who are terrorists to Turkey, who is bombing them in Syria but is also a NATO member. So effectively we are arming a group subversive to a NATO member.

The U.S. is arming the Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan and in Rojava, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think the US is arming the ones fighting in Turkey, though there could be some spillover.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 3:27:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/21/2016 3:14:28 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/21/2016 2:33:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
*should not be made only if

No biggie on typos... apple auto corrects all the time and being on a phone I hardly check.

We do have 5000 over there as 'advisors'. One died yesterday in an ied blast. So yes, we are lied too in 'no boots on the ground'.

On Trump being 'correct' on Mosul. One area he is dead wrong is the leadership. Baghdad is in Mosul. Personally I think both he and Hillary will expand involvement. The question is why? How is that in our interest? Terrorism?

It's in our interests to see ISIL defeated. While I still believe the Iraq war to have been necessary, the U.S. did go in and screw up their country. The least we can do is to see their country in fairly good shape when the last American soldier leaves. The rise of ISIL is undermining this goal, as they have caused massive chaos and violence in the country and preventing it from being reasonably peaceful (and in Syria).
Yea we messed-up their country. The question is, will more mucking about help? I can't see how. Never has before.

No. We should take responsibility for refugees and get the hell out. Load up the planes and take off as quick as possible.


The reality is there is a free for all going on right now. We are backing Kurds who are terrorists to Turkey, who is bombing them in Syria but is also a NATO member. So effectively we are arming a group subversive to a NATO member.

The U.S. is arming the Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan and in Rojava, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think the US is arming the ones fighting in Turkey, though there could be some spillover.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 3:36:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/21/2016 3:14:28 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/21/2016 2:33:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
*should not be made only if

No biggie on typos... apple auto corrects all the time and being on a phone I hardly check.

We do have 5000 over there as 'advisors'. One died yesterday in an ied blast. So yes, we are lied too in 'no boots on the ground'.

On Trump being 'correct' on Mosul. One area he is dead wrong is the leadership. Baghdad is in Mosul. Personally I think both he and Hillary will expand involvement. The question is why? How is that in our interest? Terrorism?

It's in our interests to see ISIL defeated. While I still believe the Iraq war to have been necessary, the U.S. did go in and screw up their country. The least we can do is to see their country in fairly good shape when the last American soldier leaves. The rise of ISIL is undermining this goal, as they have caused massive chaos and violence in the country and preventing it from being reasonably peaceful (and in Syria).

The reality is there is a free for all going on right now. We are backing Kurds who are terrorists to Turkey, who is bombing them in Syria but is also a NATO member. So effectively we are arming a group subversive to a NATO member.

The U.S. is arming the Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan and in Rojava, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think the US is arming the ones fighting in Turkey, though there could be some spillover.

There's more than spillover... has been since 03.

I once bought into the Kurds. Then I met them. Matheus are just as hate filled towards the Iraqis as the Turks as the Iranians. If I was a Kurd, I would be too.

I had no issue going over to Baghdad for a year. My extension was up. But again, we won in 3 weeks. Staying to nation build was the mistake (and the stupid wmd argument when military members actually say NBC. Like 'assault weapon' wmd is a politician-media contrived acronym).
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 3:43:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 3:27:09 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/21/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/21/2016 3:14:28 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/21/2016 2:33:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
*should not be made only if

No biggie on typos... apple auto corrects all the time and being on a phone I hardly check.

We do have 5000 over there as 'advisors'. One died yesterday in an ied blast. So yes, we are lied too in 'no boots on the ground'.

On Trump being 'correct' on Mosul. One area he is dead wrong is the leadership. Baghdad is in Mosul. Personally I think both he and Hillary will expand involvement. The question is why? How is that in our interest? Terrorism?

It's in our interests to see ISIL defeated. While I still believe the Iraq war to have been necessary, the U.S. did go in and screw up their country. The least we can do is to see their country in fairly good shape when the last American soldier leaves. The rise of ISIL is undermining this goal, as they have caused massive chaos and violence in the country and preventing it from being reasonably peaceful (and in Syria).
Yea we messed-up their country. The question is, will more mucking about help? I can't see how. Never has before.

In mid-2014, ISIL suddenly took over yuge swaths of Iraqi territory. What if, instead of letting the country suffer like it did for the past 2 years, the U.S. swiftly went in and took back all that territory in a couple weeks, killing or capturing about half of ISIL in the process? Then the US could've left as quick as it came.

No. We should take responsibility for refugees and get the hell out. Load up the planes and take off as quick as possible.


The reality is there is a free for all going on right now. We are backing Kurds who are terrorists to Turkey, who is bombing them in Syria but is also a NATO member. So effectively we are arming a group subversive to a NATO member.

The U.S. is arming the Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan and in Rojava, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think the US is arming the ones fighting in Turkey, though there could be some spillover.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 3:47:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 3:43:06 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/21/2016 3:27:09 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/21/2016 3:22:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/21/2016 3:14:28 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/21/2016 2:33:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
*should not be made only if

No biggie on typos... apple auto corrects all the time and being on a phone I hardly check.

We do have 5000 over there as 'advisors'. One died yesterday in an ied blast. So yes, we are lied too in 'no boots on the ground'.

On Trump being 'correct' on Mosul. One area he is dead wrong is the leadership. Baghdad is in Mosul. Personally I think both he and Hillary will expand involvement. The question is why? How is that in our interest? Terrorism?

It's in our interests to see ISIL defeated. While I still believe the Iraq war to have been necessary, the U.S. did go in and screw up their country. The least we can do is to see their country in fairly good shape when the last American soldier leaves. The rise of ISIL is undermining this goal, as they have caused massive chaos and violence in the country and preventing it from being reasonably peaceful (and in Syria).
Yea we messed-up their country. The question is, will more mucking about help? I can't see how. Never has before.

In mid-2014, ISIL suddenly took over yuge swaths of Iraqi territory. What if, instead of letting the country suffer like it did for the past 2 years, the U.S. swiftly went in and took back all that territory in a couple weeks, killing or capturing about half of ISIL in the process? Then the US could've left as quick as it came.
Im not buying that. If we left then, or before, more nastiness would have happened. This is an area of the globe we just don't belong.

Obama has caught hell from some for "leaving" too soon. My answer is, we left way too late.


No. We should take responsibility for refugees and get the hell out. Load up the planes and take off as quick as possible.


The reality is there is a free for all going on right now. We are backing Kurds who are terrorists to Turkey, who is bombing them in Syria but is also a NATO member. So effectively we are arming a group subversive to a NATO member.

The U.S. is arming the Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan and in Rojava, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think the US is arming the ones fighting in Turkey, though there could be some spillover.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 4:01:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Obama left under the timetable negotiated by BUsh. I don't fault Obama for that, I applaud him and I am no fan.

I knock him for going back, putting ground forces in as 'advisors' and using air power.

And I will repeat: dam right we left too late. Right after 'mission accomplished' but NOOO we tried to nation build. That never works.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 5:14:15 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Why can't we start a war between all the Sunnis and all the Sheites?
Look, these people are not Christians so screw 'em.
There is that conflict over who was the proper successor to Mohamed, this has been going on for hundreds of years, and it won't be over until one side eliminates the other.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 9:19:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 5:14:15 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
Why can't we start a war between all the Sunnis and all the Sheites?
Look, these people are not Christians so screw 'em.
There is that conflict over who was the proper successor to Mohamed, this has been going on for hundreds of years, and it won't be over until one side eliminates the other.

That is their wAr, not ours. Not all of 'we' are Christians... buddhists, Jews, sikhs, Hindu, muslims, atheists, agnostics, animists, Wiccan, shinto... all encompass 'we'.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 12:33:54 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
W. should have never started that war, Saddam Hussein was the only guy who could maintain order in that region.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 5:46:52 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 2:33:18 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

Trump has said a lot of dumb stuff, but his comments on Mosul don't fall into that category.

Yes, they pretty much did. http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 2:58:40 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 2:33:18 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Trump has been criticised for his last night's comments on the current operation to re-take Mosul. He stated that when the city falls, Iran and Iranian proxies will be the primary beneficiaries, and that Iran is slowly taking over Iraq. Many, including a few on this Site, have said that Trump doesn't know what he's talking about.

But really, how much truth is in Trump's words? Well...
The first thing you need to know is that Iraq and Iran used to really, really hate each other. The two countries were actually at war from 1980 until 1988. One big reason why they hated each other was simple: Iraq was under the control of the Ba'ath Party, which held to the ideology of Arab Nationalism. Obviously the Persians/Iranians aren't Arab. The Iraqis under Hussein had genocided the primary non-Arab minority group in Iraq, the Kurds.
But whenever the US invaded Iraq, the Arab Nationalists were booted from power; the Iraqis began to see America as their primary foreign enemy, and the ethnic differences between the Arabs and the Persians became much less important.
In fact, as soon as the ethnic rivalry started dying down, the Iraqis realised that they had something in common with the Iranians: religion. Iran has, quite literally, a Shi'ite theocratic government. Iraq is much closer to secular, but the majority of its people are Shi'ites. And in the post-invasion lawlessness, the Sunni minority rose up and took up the cause of jihad; their objective was to expel the US, and to restore the privileged status of Sunnis in the Iraqi government. Many Iraqi civilians were killed in the process. I imagine that many Shi'ites felt threatened by the Sunni rebels, perhaps even more so than they did by the US occupiers.
So as a result, Shi'ite militia groups were formed in Iraq. The two biggest are the "Peace Companies" (which is nothing like it sounds) and the "Badr Organization". Currently, both groups supposedly have 10,000-50,000 fighters each. Then there are others; one is the Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, which has an estimated 10,000 fighters and is directly trained and funded by Iran.

So, fast-forward to the present operation to retake Mosul. Thousands of Shi'ite militants, including groups with track records for the mass murder of Sunni civilians, are taking part in the operation.
At the end of the day, whenever ISIL has been cleared from the city, we will see countless Sunni civilians being murdered by the Shi'ite militias. A massacre for the ages. I'd bet money on that, but I'm not so confident in my ability to send money over the internet.
And after the war on ISIL has come to a close, the militia question won't magically go away. The Shi'ite militias will still be around, and the possibility exists that they will eventually unite under one banner, one grand terrorist coalition, with the objective of toppling the Iraqi government and establishing a Shi'ite theocratic government, perhaps one that is modeled after Iran. This is not guaranteed, but at the same time it's a very real possibility.
Trump has said a lot of dumb stuff, but his comments on Mosul don't fall into that category.

That is not the only thing he said. He said that the US should still be occupying Iraq.

Back to your point I raise one point and ask a question. A Kurd commander said that about 30 percent of the population of Kirkuk, Saddam's home town were supporting ISIL.

Knowing that AQ of Iraq and ISIL arise from secritarian opposition of which the Shia lead government made worse after taking control of the country what is worse? Is it worse that ISIl is not defeated and has an operating center in Iraq or is it more important the Shia majority not gain full control of the ISIL occupation?

He can't have it both ways. When you throw in Syria and Hezbullah, Trump is seemingly unaware of how those allies of Iran help strengthen Iran should Assad remain in power. He doesn't seem to care.

The fundamental problem is that Trump's plan for the area is to occupy Iraq and leave Syrian fall where it may. Just pointing out interesting secritarian dynamics is not validate his solutions are accurate.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 3:13:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 3:14:28 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/21/2016 2:33:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
*should not be made only if

No biggie on typos... apple auto corrects all the time and being on a phone I hardly check.

We do have 5000 over there as 'advisors'. One died yesterday in an ied blast. So yes, we are lied too in 'no boots on the ground'.

On Trump being 'correct' on Mosul. One area he is dead wrong is the leadership. Baghdad is in Mosul. Personally I think both he and Hillary will expand involvement. The question is why? How is that in our interest? Terrorism?

The reality is there is a free for all going on right now. We are backing Kurds who are terrorists to Turkey, who is bombing them in Syria but is also a NATO member. So effectively we are arming a group subversive to a NATO member.

You over simplify the Kurdish question. Turkey has a relationship with Iraqi Kurds. In fact Turkey buys oil from them.
They have allowed Iraq Kurdish fighters through Turkish territory to fight ISIL.

While there is plenty of bombing of Kurdish Turks fighting for independence and some Iraqi Kurds support that armed struggle the gov of Iraq Kurdistan largely support a political resolution.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 4:12:59 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 2:58:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/21/2016 2:33:18 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Trump has been criticised for his last night's comments on the current operation to re-take Mosul. He stated that when the city falls, Iran and Iranian proxies will be the primary beneficiaries, and that Iran is slowly taking over Iraq. Many, including a few on this Site, have said that Trump doesn't know what he's talking about.

But really, how much truth is in Trump's words? Well...
The first thing you need to know is that Iraq and Iran used to really, really hate each other. The two countries were actually at war from 1980 until 1988. One big reason why they hated each other was simple: Iraq was under the control of the Ba'ath Party, which held to the ideology of Arab Nationalism. Obviously the Persians/Iranians aren't Arab. The Iraqis under Hussein had genocided the primary non-Arab minority group in Iraq, the Kurds.
But whenever the US invaded Iraq, the Arab Nationalists were booted from power; the Iraqis began to see America as their primary foreign enemy, and the ethnic differences between the Arabs and the Persians became much less important.
In fact, as soon as the ethnic rivalry started dying down, the Iraqis realised that they had something in common with the Iranians: religion. Iran has, quite literally, a Shi'ite theocratic government. Iraq is much closer to secular, but the majority of its people are Shi'ites. And in the post-invasion lawlessness, the Sunni minority rose up and took up the cause of jihad; their objective was to expel the US, and to restore the privileged status of Sunnis in the Iraqi government. Many Iraqi civilians were killed in the process. I imagine that many Shi'ites felt threatened by the Sunni rebels, perhaps even more so than they did by the US occupiers.
So as a result, Shi'ite militia groups were formed in Iraq. The two biggest are the "Peace Companies" (which is nothing like it sounds) and the "Badr Organization". Currently, both groups supposedly have 10,000-50,000 fighters each. Then there are others; one is the Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, which has an estimated 10,000 fighters and is directly trained and funded by Iran.

So, fast-forward to the present operation to retake Mosul. Thousands of Shi'ite militants, including groups with track records for the mass murder of Sunni civilians, are taking part in the operation.
At the end of the day, whenever ISIL has been cleared from the city, we will see countless Sunni civilians being murdered by the Shi'ite militias. A massacre for the ages. I'd bet money on that, but I'm not so confident in my ability to send money over the internet.
And after the war on ISIL has come to a close, the militia question won't magically go away. The Shi'ite militias will still be around, and the possibility exists that they will eventually unite under one banner, one grand terrorist coalition, with the objective of toppling the Iraqi government and establishing a Shi'ite theocratic government, perhaps one that is modeled after Iran. This is not guaranteed, but at the same time it's a very real possibility.
Trump has said a lot of dumb stuff, but his comments on Mosul don't fall into that category.

That is not the only thing he said. He said that the US should still be occupying Iraq.



Back to your point I raise one point and ask a question. A Kurd commander said that about 30 percent of the population of Kirkuk, Saddam's home town were supporting ISIL.

I'm sure a lot of Iraqis did, way back then when people didn't realise what kinds of monsters they were.

Knowing that AQ of Iraq and ISIL arise from secritarian opposition of which the Shia lead government made worse after taking control of the country what is worse? Is it worse that ISIl is not defeated and has an operating center in Iraq or is it more important the Shia majority not gain full control of the ISIL occupation?

ISIL brought back legalised sex slavery. They've murdered female doctors, lawyers, and other professionals. They've literally crucified people, and beheaded innocent people on videos so that the entire world could watch. How on God's green earth is ISIL occupation better than Iraqi government occupation?

He can't have it both ways. When you throw in Syria and Hezbullah, Trump is seemingly unaware of how those allies of Iran help strengthen Iran should Assad remain in power. He doesn't seem to care.

The fundamental problem is that Trump's plan for the area is to occupy Iraq and leave Syrian fall where it may. Just pointing out interesting secritarian dynamics is not validate his solutions are accurate.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 4:20:32 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 5:46:52 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/21/2016 2:33:18 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

Trump has said a lot of dumb stuff, but his comments on Mosul don't fall into that category.

Yes, they pretty much did. http://www.debate.org...

Thanks for that relink, I totally missed Stymie destroying your pie-in-the-sky feelgoods policies.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 6:43:01 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 4:20:32 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/22/2016 5:46:52 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/21/2016 2:33:18 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

Trump has said a lot of dumb stuff, but his comments on Mosul don't fall into that category.

Yes, they pretty much did. http://www.debate.org...


Thanks for that relink, I totally missed Stymie destroying your pie-in-the-sky feelgoods policies.

Troll as usual didn't read what he said. His main criticism was that we shouldn't be helping the Iraqis in the first place, nor fighting ISIS, not that my reasons were wrong. He actually says "Your criticism of trump is fair enough" #17. But you need others to do your arguments for you, I get it, typical troll parakeet. You never did respond to my response cutting down your assertion about how standard of living would be static because of universal healthcare.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 6:49:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 4:12:59 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/22/2016 2:58:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/21/2016 2:33:18 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Trump has been criticised for his last night's comments on the current operation to re-take Mosul. He stated that when the city falls, Iran and Iranian proxies will be the primary beneficiaries, and that Iran is slowly taking over Iraq. Many, including a few on this Site, have said that Trump doesn't know what he's talking about.

But really, how much truth is in Trump's words? Well...
The first thing you need to know is that Iraq and Iran used to really, really hate each other. The two countries were actually at war from 1980 until 1988. One big reason why they hated each other was simple: Iraq was under the control of the Ba'ath Party, which held to the ideology of Arab Nationalism. Obviously the Persians/Iranians aren't Arab. The Iraqis under Hussein had genocided the primary non-Arab minority group in Iraq, the Kurds.
But whenever the US invaded Iraq, the Arab Nationalists were booted from power; the Iraqis began to see America as their primary foreign enemy, and the ethnic differences between the Arabs and the Persians became much less important.
In fact, as soon as the ethnic rivalry started dying down, the Iraqis realised that they had something in common with the Iranians: religion. Iran has, quite literally, a Shi'ite theocratic government. Iraq is much closer to secular, but the majority of its people are Shi'ites. And in the post-invasion lawlessness, the Sunni minority rose up and took up the cause of jihad; their objective was to expel the US, and to restore the privileged status of Sunnis in the Iraqi government. Many Iraqi civilians were killed in the process. I imagine that many Shi'ites felt threatened by the Sunni rebels, perhaps even more so than they did by the US occupiers.
So as a result, Shi'ite militia groups were formed in Iraq. The two biggest are the "Peace Companies" (which is nothing like it sounds) and the "Badr Organization". Currently, both groups supposedly have 10,000-50,000 fighters each. Then there are others; one is the Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, which has an estimated 10,000 fighters and is directly trained and funded by Iran.

So, fast-forward to the present operation to retake Mosul. Thousands of Shi'ite militants, including groups with track records for the mass murder of Sunni civilians, are taking part in the operation.
At the end of the day, whenever ISIL has been cleared from the city, we will see countless Sunni civilians being murdered by the Shi'ite militias. A massacre for the ages. I'd bet money on that, but I'm not so confident in my ability to send money over the internet.
And after the war on ISIL has come to a close, the militia question won't magically go away. The Shi'ite militias will still be around, and the possibility exists that they will eventually unite under one banner, one grand terrorist coalition, with the objective of toppling the Iraqi government and establishing a Shi'ite theocratic government, perhaps one that is modeled after Iran. This is not guaranteed, but at the same time it's a very real possibility.
Trump has said a lot of dumb stuff, but his comments on Mosul don't fall into that category.

That is not the only thing he said. He said that the US should still be occupying Iraq.



Back to your point I raise one point and ask a question. A Kurd commander said that about 30 percent of the population of Kirkuk, Saddam's home town were supporting ISIL.

I'm sure a lot of Iraqis did, way back then when people didn't realise what kinds of monsters they were.

Knowing that AQ of Iraq and ISIL arise from secritarian opposition of which the Shia lead government made worse after taking control of the country what is worse? Is it worse that ISIl is not defeated and has an operating center in Iraq or is it more important the Shia majority not gain full control of the ISIL occupation?

ISIL brought back legalised sex slavery. They've murdered female doctors, lawyers, and other professionals. They've literally crucified people, and beheaded innocent people on videos so that the entire world could watch. How on God's green earth is ISIL occupation better than Iraqi government occupation?

That is what I am saying. Just the fact of eliminating ISIL fro Iraq strengthens the Shia leadership in Iraq and in Iran. Trump has no answer to that if he wants to eliminate ISIL. He to will be strengthening Iran and it's allies. In short his argument is worthless.

He can't have it both ways. When you throw in Syria and Hezbullah, Trump is seemingly unaware of how those allies of Iran help strengthen Iran should Assad remain in power. He doesn't seem to care.

The fundamental problem is that Trump's plan for the area is to occupy Iraq and leave Syrian fall where it may. Just pointing out interesting secritarian dynamics is not validate his solutions are accurate.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 6:55:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 6:49:45 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 4:12:59 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/22/2016 2:58:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/21/2016 2:33:18 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Trump has been criticised for his last night's comments on the current operation to re-take Mosul. He stated that when the city falls, Iran and Iranian proxies will be the primary beneficiaries, and that Iran is slowly taking over Iraq. Many, including a few on this Site, have said that Trump doesn't know what he's talking about.

But really, how much truth is in Trump's words? Well...
The first thing you need to know is that Iraq and Iran used to really, really hate each other. The two countries were actually at war from 1980 until 1988. One big reason why they hated each other was simple: Iraq was under the control of the Ba'ath Party, which held to the ideology of Arab Nationalism. Obviously the Persians/Iranians aren't Arab. The Iraqis under Hussein had genocided the primary non-Arab minority group in Iraq, the Kurds.
But whenever the US invaded Iraq, the Arab Nationalists were booted from power; the Iraqis began to see America as their primary foreign enemy, and the ethnic differences between the Arabs and the Persians became much less important.
In fact, as soon as the ethnic rivalry started dying down, the Iraqis realised that they had something in common with the Iranians: religion. Iran has, quite literally, a Shi'ite theocratic government. Iraq is much closer to secular, but the majority of its people are Shi'ites. And in the post-invasion lawlessness, the Sunni minority rose up and took up the cause of jihad; their objective was to expel the US, and to restore the privileged status of Sunnis in the Iraqi government. Many Iraqi civilians were killed in the process. I imagine that many Shi'ites felt threatened by the Sunni rebels, perhaps even more so than they did by the US occupiers.
So as a result, Shi'ite militia groups were formed in Iraq. The two biggest are the "Peace Companies" (which is nothing like it sounds) and the "Badr Organization". Currently, both groups supposedly have 10,000-50,000 fighters each. Then there are others; one is the Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, which has an estimated 10,000 fighters and is directly trained and funded by Iran.

So, fast-forward to the present operation to retake Mosul. Thousands of Shi'ite militants, including groups with track records for the mass murder of Sunni civilians, are taking part in the operation.
At the end of the day, whenever ISIL has been cleared from the city, we will see countless Sunni civilians being murdered by the Shi'ite militias. A massacre for the ages. I'd bet money on that, but I'm not so confident in my ability to send money over the internet.
And after the war on ISIL has come to a close, the militia question won't magically go away. The Shi'ite militias will still be around, and the possibility exists that they will eventually unite under one banner, one grand terrorist coalition, with the objective of toppling the Iraqi government and establishing a Shi'ite theocratic government, perhaps one that is modeled after Iran. This is not guaranteed, but at the same time it's a very real possibility.
Trump has said a lot of dumb stuff, but his comments on Mosul don't fall into that category.

That is not the only thing he said. He said that the US should still be occupying Iraq.



Back to your point I raise one point and ask a question. A Kurd commander said that about 30 percent of the population of Kirkuk, Saddam's home town were supporting ISIL.

I'm sure a lot of Iraqis did, way back then when people didn't realise what kinds of monsters they were.

Knowing that AQ of Iraq and ISIL arise from secritarian opposition of which the Shia lead government made worse after taking control of the country what is worse? Is it worse that ISIl is not defeated and has an operating center in Iraq or is it more important the Shia majority not gain full control of the ISIL occupation?

ISIL brought back legalised sex slavery. They've murdered female doctors, lawyers, and other professionals. They've literally crucified people, and beheaded innocent people on videos so that the entire world could watch. How on God's green earth is ISIL occupation better than Iraqi government occupation?

That is what I am saying. Just the fact of eliminating ISIL fro Iraq strengthens the Shia leadership in Iraq and in Iran. Trump has no answer to that if he wants to eliminate ISIL. He to will be strengthening Iran and it's allies. In short his argument is worthless.

I understand what you're saying; ISIL and the Shi'ite militias are two opposite sides of the same coin. You eliminate one and the other thrives.
I'd say that the U.S. needs to see both ISIL and the Shi'ite militias defeated. For all its faults, only the Iraqi government can be trusted to hold power in the country, and I think Trump gets this.



He can't have it both ways. When you throw in Syria and Hezbullah, Trump is seemingly unaware of how those allies of Iran help strengthen Iran should Assad remain in power. He doesn't seem to care.

The fundamental problem is that Trump's plan for the area is to occupy Iraq and leave Syrian fall where it may. Just pointing out interesting secritarian dynamics is not validate his solutions are accurate.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 2:24:47 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
If the Shi'ite militia goes into Mosul and attacks ISIL, the Badr Orginization will be fighting a worse orginization.
Somehow that seems like a good idea to me.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 2:44:05 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
All this talk over the kurdashians lately. The way I deal with the likes of them is to turn off the TV, don't be a dick, and tend my own family.

Too complicated?.....No, must be too simple.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.