• 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!

Obama Is Sending 275 US Troops To Iraq

Where does it say that millions were killed? Come on, show me.

You'll figure it out if you try, keep reading.
 
Nothing! haha

Nice apology for the Iranian regime.
So you made a nonsensical remark and you graduate to Ad homs now? Classy.
 
So you made a nonsensical remark and you graduate to Ad homs now? Classy.

It's amazing that anyone would claim the Iranian regime has not killed millions. Do you know anything about the regime?

But do please keep asking for sources, I find that so amusing.
 
It's amazing that anyone would claim the Iranian regime has not killed millions. Do you know anything about the regime?

But do please keep asking for sources, I find that so amusing.
Whats amusing is you making a claim yet cannot back it up with anything. I suppose you think the world is flat as well.

But please keep it up, the hole youre digging for yourself just keeps going deeper.
 
I have to agree as much as I hate war and was against the war in Iraq from the start, we owe it to the people to stand by what we promised them - freedom from a dictatorship and to be able to create a representative self government. We totally ****ed up there and have to stand up and admit it. I don't have any answers to how we can fix it but I don't feel that it's right to do nothing.

But we didn't **** up there. We freed them from a dictatorship and provided security for them so they could set up their own government. We even trained their new military, then we left.

The fact that they still have factional religious conflicts that are centuries old that have resurfaced is not our responsibility.
 
If Obama showed even a hint of testicular fortitude, this would have never happened. They are open and brazen precisely because Obama has repeatedly shown himself to be a little bitch in the foreign affairs arena.

I agree with Obama on this one.

Im not making that phone call or writing that letter that says, "Your son had to die because I had to "show 'em who is boss" " or "Your son had to die because 'MericA!, thats why"
 
I agree with Obama on this one.

Im not making that phone call or writing that letter that says, "Your son had to die because I had to "show 'em who is boss" " or "Your son had to die because 'MericA!, thats why"
WHich Obama do you agree wit? The Im not sending anyone, or the Im only sending a handful, or the Im sending in air strikes, or the Im going to see if Iran can fix this for us or maybe Russia, or the I may decide to full on engage the terrorists, or the I am encouraging radical muslims to express their desires by overthrowing standing governments just not in places like Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, or the...


My earlier comments were and are that Bush is the original sinner here..not in that we went to war but rather in how we approached post war ops beginning in 2003. But that is different from what we are talkign about now. Obama is lost when it comes to foreign policy and everyone knows it. He is paralyzed. If he had even the slighest hint of a spine or resolve I dont believe ISIS would be so emboldened to believe they could stage an open all out assault on what is now an ally of the US with the US still present in the region.

You may have also seen...I support the decision to send in troops to protect the embassy...I just think there should be 100 times as many with orders to AGGRESSIVELY defend the embassy. I dont like tripwires.
 
10403712_10152275450342971_514873288966915292_n.jpg


Obama: All US troops out of Iraq by year's end - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News


NBC, msnbc.com and news services
updated 10/21/2011 6:58:45 PM ET
But prominent Republicans criticized the president. Sen. John McCain told Reuters the decision went against the advice of U.S. military commanders, could embolden Iran and likely will be met with alarm by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who is already concerned about U.S. commitment to his country.
"In retrospect, I don't think the political side of the Obama administration ever had any serious intentions of keeping a residual force there because none of their actions were serious," said McCain, ranking GOP member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

But administration officials said they feel confident that the Iraqi security forces are well prepared to take the lead in their country. McDonough said assessment after assessment of the preparedness of Iraqi forces concluded that "these guys are ready; these guys are capable; these guys are proven; importantly, they're proven because they've been tested in a lot of the kinds of threats that they're going to see going forward.
Pulled the troops out for the wrong reasons.
 
One thing's for sure, if we are telling the troops that they wasted their lives. Whats that going to do for morale?

We can do all the leavin' you want but...we'll go back.

Terrible for morale. Bad decisions can have a bad effect on morale. But shedding more blood isn't going to make it better. If we go back we are beyond stupid. We learn lessons in order to avoid repeating mistakes.

I'm a vet just like you. I have served in combat zones. I understand the value of proactive aggression as a means to better protect the homeland. Our country hasn't had the will or politics to win wars since Korea. Engaging in a religious war is a bad move for us. There is no good side to the conflict. You either kill every radical muslim on the planet or stay away from the conflict. The former isn't possible so you opt for the latter. Sticking our toes in the water in these areas has been a losing proposition every time. We simply have to learn from it.
 
I agree with Obama on this one.

Im not making that phone call or writing that letter that says, "Your son had to die because I had to "show 'em who is boss" " or "Your son had to die because 'MericA!, thats why"

Is this your understanding of what's written in a condolence letter?
 
Terrible for morale. Bad decisions can have a bad effect on morale. But shedding more blood isn't going to make it better. If we go back we are beyond stupid. We learn lessons in order to avoid repeating mistakes.

I'm a vet just like you. I have served in combat zones. I understand the value of proactive aggression as a means to better protect the homeland. Our country hasn't had the will or politics to win wars since Korea. Engaging in a religious war is a bad move for us. There is no good side to the conflict. You either kill every radical muslim on the planet or stay away from the conflict. The former isn't possible so you opt for the latter. Sticking our toes in the water in these areas has been a losing proposition every time. We simply have to learn from it.

It doesn't matter whether you are engaging with them. The point is that they are engaging with you, and will continue to do so, always on a larger scale. It's how the democracies respond to these threats that's important but trying to ignore them, hoping they will go away on their own, is not one of the more rational ideas.
 
WHich Obama do you agree wit? The Im not sending anyone, or the Im only sending a handful, or the Im sending in air strikes, or the Im going to see if Iran can fix this for us or maybe Russia, or the I may decide to full on engage the terrorists, or the I am encouraging radical muslims to express their desires by overthrowing standing governments just not in places like Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, or the...


My earlier comments were and are that Bush is the original sinner here..not in that we went to war but rather in how we approached post war ops beginning in 2003. But that is different from what we are talkign about now. Obama is lost when it comes to foreign policy and everyone knows it. He is paralyzed. If he had even the slighest hint of a spine or resolve I dont believe ISIS would be so emboldened to believe they could stage an open all out assault on what is now an ally of the US with the US still present in the region.

You may have also seen...I support the decision to send in troops to protect the embassy...I just think there should be 100 times as many with orders to AGGRESSIVELY defend the embassy. I dont like tripwires.
Obama is sending in 275 men to one of the most dangerous areas of the world in the hope his leftist base will be satisfied that it remains "unbelievably small", despite the obvious risk to these Americans. When trouble occurs, as it inevitably will, do we really believe that 100 men, in 'a neighboring country' can possibly help rescue them?
 
While I'm no fan whatsoever of the current Iranian regime, this link does nothing to support your claim of "millions." Show your work, bro.

Add it up yourself. Here's another entry:

In its early years the revolutionary regime was especially criticized for its human rights record.[108] In the first 28 months of the Islamic Republic, between February 1979 and June 1981, revolutionary courts executed 497 political opponents as "counterrevolutionaries", and "sowers of corruption on earth" (Mofsed-e-filarz). In the next four years from June 1981 until June 1985, the courts sentenced more than 8000 opponents to death.[109] After a relative lull, thousands of political prisoners were executed in 1988.
History of the Islamic Republic of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At thousands per year, in the prison system alone, it doesn't take long to make millions. Of course, presuming all of the regime's slaughters are recorded is silly.

But, hey, keep defending them. Inconsistency is great.


I'll be looking forward to your defense of the US. *snicker*
 
It doesn't matter whether you are engaging with them. The point is that they are engaging with you, and will continue to do so, always on a larger scale. It's how the democracies respond to these threats that's important but trying to ignore them, hoping they will go away on their own, is not one of the more rational ideas.

They aren't engaging us. They are engaging the Iraqi government in Baghdad. I didn't suggest we should ignore them or hope they will go away. I suggested that the best course of action for the U.S. is to leave Iraq, regardless what ISIS does or does not do.

If they should attack the U.S. homeland then we should wipe them from the face of the earth. In the meantime we will gain nothing by going back to Iraq.
 
They aren't engaging us. They are engaging the Iraqi government in Baghdad. I didn't suggest we should ignore them or hope they will go away. I suggested that the best course of action for the U.S. is to leave Iraq, regardless what ISIS does or does not do.

If they should attack the U.S. homeland then we should wipe them from the face of the earth. In the meantime we will gain nothing by going back to Iraq.

Who would you "wipe from the face of the earth"? After the following 9/11 the same question could be asked. And after the next successful attack on the US how can the free world respond? Attack whom?

The fact is that we can see them in Iraq, we can see them murdering people in the most brutal way, and see them taking over American weaponry. This is an opportunity to kill bunches of terrorists before they consolidate and do more harm, and it should be taken in the boldest fashion.
 
Add it up yourself. Here's another entry:History of the Islamic Republic of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia At thousands per year, in the prison system alone, it doesn't take long to make millions. Of course, presuming all of the regime's slaughters are recorded is silly. But, hey, keep defending them. Inconsistency is great. I'll be looking forward to your defense of the US. *snicker*

Leftists will defend the Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein before they would ever defend George Bush, Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin. They'be been programmed to be anti American, unless they are fellow leftists, and nothing will dissuade them.
 
Leftists will defend the Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein before they would ever defend George Bush, Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin.

While I would not lump 'leftists' together, t'is sad but true.
 
Who would you "wipe from the face of the earth"? After the following 9/11 the same question could be asked. And after the next successful attack on the US how can the free world respond? Attack whom?

Attack what. Attack the cities whence came the attacks. Level them like we did in WWII.

The fact is that we can see them in Iraq, we can see them murdering people in the most brutal way, and see them taking over American weaponry. This is an opportunity to kill bunches of terrorists before they consolidate and do more harm, and it should be taken in the boldest fashion.

Fine. Send in the drones. Just don't spill any more American blood in a hopeless cause.
 
Add it up yourself. Here's another entry:


History of the Islamic Republic of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At thousands per year, in the prison system alone, it doesn't take long to make millions. Of course, presuming all of the regime's slaughters are recorded is silly.

But, hey, keep defending them. Inconsistency is great.


I'll be looking forward to your defense of the US. *snicker*

Actually, it DOES take long to make millions. And the fact you think I'm "defending" them is laughable.
 
One thing's for sure, if we are telling the troops that they wasted their lives. Whats that going to do for morale?

We can do all the leavin' you want but...we'll go back.

So..... you'd rather continue wasting lives?

Thats great for morale.
 
Back
Top Bottom