• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Al Qaeda controls more territory than ever in Middle East

Travis007 said:
I already have rookie... youre a bore to me.. go back to talking about Michelle Obama is bringing shoulders back into fashion
Click to expand...

Oh please. Another god damn ****ing Internet tough guy. YOU got **** is the problem and you lied about AQ numbers and you can't support your claim.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I mean there seems to be no larger plan or agenda behind it. Like f you look at his foreign policy, to date, you're left questioning what exactly he's trying to accomplish in the region. Which doesn't require consistency in how you act towards general events like uprising, but does require a calculated strategy for what you want to achieve in the region.
Click to expand...

Sure...but one thing I want to point out that would of affected any administration in office right now.

As long as I've been alive the ME has been a hectic place but due to invasions and popular uprising the ME has become more destabilized than it has in my memory. Couple that with the fact that the US was probably least flexible in dealing with the problems due to occupying countries and a massive financial disaster. Even if you believe that the President has tons of influence over these events you can't argue that in a time of massive upheaval in the ME he's had sufficient flexibility to deal with it.
 
US foreign policy in the ME for two decades has been a destabilising force and has given rise to extremists. Perpetual war feeds the MIC machine.
 
iliveonramen said:
Sure...but one thing I want to point out that would of affected any administration in office right now.

As long as I've been alive the ME has been a hectic place but due to invasions and popular uprising the ME has become more destabilized than it has in my memory. Couple that with the fact that the US was probably least flexible in dealing with the problems due to occupying countries and a massive financial disaster. Even if you believe that the President has tons of influence over these events you can't argue that in a time of massive upheaval in the ME he's had sufficient flexibility to deal with it.
Click to expand...

As I said, I hardly hold Obama responsible for what is going on in the ME, but presidents can still deal with chaotic situations and have a visible plan. Just look at both bushes and clinton, reagon, or any other president that has dealt with less than ideal foreign policy scenerios. Surely at times things can get messed up and hectic (clinton in Somalia/rwanda) but at some point there forms a coherent policy.

If i had to point to a reason why such hasn't happened with this administration, I would point to the reason for most of it's failings, from the health care debate, to it's inaction on "too big to fail": they rather do nothing than risk bad press. Hell, during his first term we basically had H Clinton acting as the main personality pushing foreign policy issues, sometimes in direct contradiction to the hand's off approach of the larger Obama admin
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
As I said, I hardly hold Obama responsible for what is going on in the ME, but presidents can still deal with chaotic situations and have a visible plan. Just look at both bushes and clinton, reagon, or any other president that has dealt with less than ideal foreign policy scenerios. Surely at times things can get messed up and hectic (clinton in Somalia/rwanda) but at some point there forms a coherent policy.

If i had to point to a reason why such hasn't happened with this administration, I would point to the reason for most of it's failings, from the health care debate, to it's inaction on "too big to fail": they rather do nothing than risk bad press. Hell, during his first term we basically had H Clinton acting as the main personality pushing foreign policy issues, sometimes in direct contradiction to the hand's off approach of the larger Obama admin
Click to expand...

Some good points. Something being overlooked in all the focus of Robert Gate's criticism of Obama in his book is his praise for Obama having narrowed the objectives for Iraq, namely that he didn't share the Bush view that western style governance could be effectively imposed there or elsewhere in the region.
 
Montecresto said:
50,000-500,000 all terrorists in the world.
'How many terrorists are there?' | The Brunei Times
Click to expand...

Travis007's source is indeed highly biased, and upon closer reading looks like bs - though the Pew poll is nice.

But, your source isn't better;
For the intentions of this column, I am going to assume that the sum total of all (loosely defined) terrorists worldwide, stands at 500,000. This is not a real number, and the actual figure probably hovers around 50,000 ...

And for the intention of my own post here I would assume that hat the sum total of all (loosely defined) terrorists worldwide, stands at 5. This is not a real number, and the actual figure probably hovers around 1. lol

Got anything better?

Fallen.
 
Fallenangel said:
Travis007's source is indeed highly biased, and upon closer reading looks like bs - though the Pew poll is nice.

But, your source isn't better;
For the intentions of this column, I am going to assume that the sum total of all (loosely defined) terrorists worldwide, stands at 500,000. This is not a real number, and the actual figure probably hovers around 50,000 ...

And for the intention of my own post here I would assume that hat the sum total of all (loosely defined) terrorists worldwide, stands at 5. This is not a real number, and the actual figure probably hovers around 1. lol

Got anything better?

Fallen.
Click to expand...

Tell me Fallen, how many are there?
 
Fallenangel said:
Just told you... between 5-1, and that's including me....and that's what I assume.

Now how about providing another source, instead of a one that just "assumes" things?

Fallen.
Click to expand...

Well then. If theres only 6, we have even less of a problem than I perceived. The moral to this story is that nobody knows. Checked the state departments official on this and they don't even have hard numbers. So to state that there's "millions" is not realistic. How about taking that up with travis!
 
Montecresto said:
Well then. If theres only 6, we have even less of a problem than I perceived. The moral to this story is that nobody knows. Checked the state departments official on this and they don't even have hard numbers. So to state that there's "millions" is not realistic. How about taking that up with travis!
Click to expand...

We are talking about terrorist organisations that are based on ideology and have multiple branches that sometimes mimic and support each other, and in other instances fight and kill their "brothers" in a struggle for resources and control. Of course there wouldn't be any concrete numbers.

One thing is sure though, there are more than 6 of them. lol

Fallen.
 
Fallenangel said:
We are talking about terrorist organisations that are based on ideology and have multiple branches that sometimes mimic and support each other, and in other instances fight and kill their "brothers" in a struggle for resources and control. Of course there wouldn't be any concrete numbers.

One thing is sure though, there are more than 6 of them. lol



Fallen.
Click to expand...

Well yeah Fallen, I think it was obvious that your 6 number was sarcastic and so I replied in kind. Thanks for confirming there are no known numbers.
 
US Conservative said:
The theory with the fewest assumptions is the more likely to be correct. (most people dont understand what occams razor actually means).
Click to expand...

What? It's not a theory. His name is "The German". Germans are people from Germany. :2razz:
 
iliveonramen said:
Sure....and North Korea and Iran. He didn't advocate invading any of those countries. GW Bush did. He also presented a biased case to push for war with Iraq. Believing that Hussein was working on WMD's is different than putting together a one sided report to advocate for war.
Click to expand...

Says he who worships Obama, who send drones to do his dirty.
 
bitches dig science
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom