Random Politics & Religion #00

Because convenience excuses.

This has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in my life.... almost fell out of my chair laughing at you right now...

First of all you could actually argue that this is false in some cases. Some American soldiers have deserted in the face of combat.

Second, you could train soldiers all you wanted and they could still drop their weapons and run. basing the extent of their training on them choosing not to fight in the first place is just ridiculous... Defending something at the cost of your own life isn't something that comes easy.

Third, we've sent over troops with minimal training to war zones. The state of the nation and what people are willing to do in the face of opposition is what counts in many cases... if you're not even willing to fight in the first place then all the training in the world won't help out.

You could make an argument that we left the government weak and the only thing propping them up was our assistance but in the end they didn't even want us there anymore... should we force occupation until all possible threats everywhere are eliminated?

You don't seem to want the US to be invovled in conflicts yet you want them to pretty much stay forever if we do.

ITT: Military Training is complete when you drop your weapons and start running away when the fighting starts.

Keep flailing Flavin, you might hit something yet!

Because no one wants to deal with a post-Kim North Korea. Not SK, not China, not the US, not anyone.

China favors NK as a buffer between itself and SK as SK leans heavily towards the US, SK is mixed on reunification as surplus population would mean conflict and refugees and a divided Korea means a weaker Korea overall.

So we let Kim posture. He won't do ***and if he did SK has the capability and will to take the capital. Seoul is in range of artillery fire but then the question is, what does Kim's regime have to gain effectively wiping itself from existence?

Kim isn't crazy. He's a bloodthirsty dictator but he isn't fighting for paradise or some ***. He wants to stay in power.

Again, how do you instill the will to fight in Iraqi soldiers? If they don't believe in the conflict, no amount of weaponry and training is going to make them fight your war. And believe me, the US has more to lose here than the average Iraqi. When we have to go back in with boots and take down ISIS.

Many of those soldiers are in it for the money and prestige of being given guns and training. They don't give a ***about the integrity of the country lol.

Also, just to let you know, when somebody says that they don't want to be involved in regional conflicts, they generally mean that they don't want to be involved in regional conflicts. Not the opposite.

Just a heads up.

Troll away... we know it's what you do best lol...

Ask the US Army, they have centuries of instilling the will to fight in people who don't have the will to fight prior to basic training. Remember, we had a draft for centuries until they stopped using it (but didn't get rid of it). I'm sure that nearly all people drafted aren't cold-blooded killers when they first arrived in boot camp.

But hey, anything to help your BFF look good, right?

No, son, that's your job here.

What, and all soldiers from the U.S. aren't in it for the military benefits as well? They're trained to fight even when they don't want to, and they do it well.

It isn't because the US forced ideals on to others. It's because we forced others to put benefits to the US over benefits to themselves.

@spath that wasn't quite my point but you make a good argument.


Troll points finger at troll? Que?

Responding to a person on the topic at hand is not trolling. Creating another argument just to make the first person look bad is.

Flavin is well known to create arguments just to make others look bad.

So many people here are guilty of that lol

Yeah, because most of those draftees weren't scared out of their minds before they fired their first shot, weren't we just talking about PTSD?

Again, many Iraqis do not SEE their country as one whole entity, many of them do not believe in the government or the ideals by which it stands. Being a soldier however pays the bills and you need to be alive to keep getting paid.

This is starkly different to the America where at least on a fundamental level we believe in the governments legitimacy and the borders set by that government. You may not believe in the POTUS but you're supposed to respect his/her authority.

If you're only in the fight to protect yours (your town, region), you aren't going to a give a ***if some other part of Iraq gets attacked. It isn't yours so who cares? Why shed blood for those people?

There are tribal aspects to Iraqi culture that aren't going to change because you give a man a gun and some training. America isn't going to change overnight what has been a thing long before the West decided to play in the sand.

And now we come to the point in this discussion where any further debate will be pointless, as neither side will budge in their viewpoint, nor if there is any evidence presented, the other side will not budge from their viewpoint even though they were just proven wrong.

The amount of bribes we've had to shell out to local warlords for instance in Afghanistan to fight terrorists illuminates much of the problems of staying around.

You're essentially shoring up a wall of glass that will break as soon as you leave the region, stop paying people to fight or stop looking like the best side to take bribes from. Guys have no problems defecting to ISIS, AQ etc if they're the best chance you have of *staying alive*

If you think loyalty works there the same way it does in the US, you're sadly mistaken. Guys will Allahu Ackbar for ISIS if it means not being thrown into a mass grave.

Again, what about American soldiers? They were fighting better in Iraq than the Iraqis, and I'm sure they cared even less about the country. Training can't give you the will to fight, but it can go a long way in making you mentally prepared for it so that you don't run off screaming like a little girl when you hear the first gunshot.

Are you suggesting you presented evidence that the Iraqi army was not properly trained/equipped?

Yeah, they ran away. Did you miss that part?

Because your viewpoint isn't backed up by anything. Generals and military officials throughout Iraq/Afghanistan have groaned and complained and written extensively on what I've laid out.

You essentially have: BUT WE COULDA STAYED LONGER without explaining how that would change the issues on the ground. Then you go political to cover your lack of any real substance because Hillary, Obama, democrats, liberals whatever.

Not once have I mentioned anything political because a discussion of strategy in dealing with Iraq can be done without it.

Did I say that, or are you just inferring that I did?

Protip: You are inferring. Just in case you missed that, you are inferring. Also, see: You. Please also note the following word: Are. And take this into consideration: Inferring.

I don't think anyone is defending the invasion of Iraq as being a good thing. Or maybe I'm missing something.

People seem to forget that when you remove power structures, it isn't easy to predict or control what replaces them.

Not backed by anything, huh?

But hey, whatever floats your boat

But that's ok, because:

Yeah we destabilized Iraq for bs reasons then left it to fold when its incompetent army flees their first conflict.

Last I heard Iraq soldiers had been making ground on ISIS and taking territory back. Has this changed?

Because many Americans believed in the mission set out by our leaders and commit themselves to that. There's also a cohesiveness that American soldiers have that many Iraqis do not. I.E believing your superior officers, believing in the mission, assurances you'll be paid etc etc.

Iraqis =/= Americans in their viewpoints / worldview. As I said before, most American soldiers even if they're in it solely for a check are going to fight to presumably make it alive back home.

In Iraqi you can safely abandon your post, not show up, your CO is likely corrupt or is taking bribes and you're defending some territory that isn't your hometown.

Why would you give a ***again?

And you are trying to pin that on the training why? To make Obama look bad? Its not working. Try pinning in on the Iraqi leadership who ordered the retreat. The soldiers were not poorly equipped, that argument doesn't exist.

How long exactly would you have wanted the US to stay and train the Iraqis? A specific time frame, don't try to say "until it was complete" because thats not an answer. They aren't given a sticker that says "YOU ARE 100% READY TO KILL!"

Keep in mind we were asked to leave by the Iraqi leadership.