• 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!

Syrian Warplanes Strike in Western Iraq, Killing at Least 50 People

US Conservative

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
33,522
Reaction score
10,826
Location
Between Athens and Jerusalem
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Syrian Warplanes Strike in Western Iraq, Killing at Least 50 People
Second Consecutive Day of Airstrikes by Syria Is Aimed at Shoring Up Iraqi Armed Forces

BAGHDAD—Syrian warplanes carried out airstrikes in western Iraq, stepping up the military role of the U.S. adversary in helping Baghdad's Shiite-dominated government fight Sunni insurgents.

The strikes on Tuesday came as the Pentagon announced that the first 130 members of a potential 300 U.S. military advisers were in place in Baghdad to start assessing and improving the Iraqi army's ability to counter the gains of rebels led by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.

Syrian Warplanes Strike Western Iraq, Killing at Least 50 People - WSJ

And the escalation continues. Under Obama our geopolitical adversaries fill the power vacuum.
 
Under Obama our geopolitical adversaries fill the power vacuum.

As they should, we shouldn't be involved in this. Obama is actually making a good call on this. Syria and Iran have a direct interest in making sure Al-Qaeda is obliterated as they are a direct threat to both of them.
 
Syrian Warplanes Strike in Western Iraq, Killing at Least 50 People
Second Consecutive Day of Airstrikes by Syria Is Aimed at Shoring Up Iraqi Armed Forces

BAGHDAD—Syrian warplanes carried out airstrikes in western Iraq, stepping up the military role of the U.S. adversary in helping Baghdad's Shiite-dominated government fight Sunni insurgents.

The strikes on Tuesday came as the Pentagon announced that the first 130 members of a potential 300 U.S. military advisers were in place in Baghdad to start assessing and improving the Iraqi army's ability to counter the gains of rebels led by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.

Syrian Warplanes Strike Western Iraq, Killing at Least 50 People - WSJ

And the escalation continues. Under Obama our geopolitical adversaries fill the power vacuum.

The USA has been arming and funding ISIS. Must be doing just what the USA wants. Now the Mainstream Brainstream Media always refer to ISIS instead of terrorists. If we, the USA, supply the funds and arms, then we might be identified as the terrorists. I mean, ISIS slipped right through USA satellite imagery with their ghosts movements of miles long column of troops in Toyota trucks and noone noticed. Hot dam, y'all, whos' side we on, anyway? Northrup-Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon gotta be happy campers as all these warring parties need weapons and business is good. "War is good business, and business is good." Somebody give the marketing and promotions departments a bonus for pulling this latest one off. A lil' killin' here, devastation and mayhem over there and the stock is looking good. Ain't CORPORATISM grand?
 
They don't see it that way Dave. It's just all bad politics on Obama's watch. Corporate America gets the GOP pass.
 
As they should, we shouldn't be involved in this. Obama is actually making a good call on this. Syria and Iran have a direct interest in making sure Al-Qaeda is obliterated as they are a direct threat to both of them.

USC is an anti Obama partisan. Not a pro American interested in peace in the ME.
 
As they should, we shouldn't be involved in this. Obama is actually making a good call on this. Syria and Iran have a direct interest in making sure Al-Qaeda is obliterated as they are a direct threat to both of them.

And do we have a direct interest in making sure AQ is obliterated? Right now our president is acting as if we dont, though we was swift to take credit for things when they were going well. I disagree. Im not going to lose this war only to be worse off than when we started it.
 
And do we have a direct interest in making sure AQ is obliterated? Right now our president is acting as if we dont, though we was swift to take credit for things when they were going well. I disagree. Im not going to lose this war only to be worse off than when we started it.

We do not have the legal authority required to engage in military intervention in Iraq. The authorization of military force signed in 2002 expired and the 2001 authorization of millitary force does not cover millitary involvement in Iraq.
 
The USA has been arming and funding ISIS. Must be doing just what the USA wants. Now the Mainstream Brainstream Media always refer to ISIS instead of terrorists. If we, the USA, supply the funds and arms, then we might be identified as the terrorists. I mean, ISIS slipped right through USA satellite imagery with their ghosts movements of miles long column of troops in Toyota trucks and noone noticed. Hot dam, y'all, whos' side we on, anyway? Northrup-Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon gotta be happy campers as all these warring parties need weapons and business is good. "War is good business, and business is good." Somebody give the marketing and promotions departments a bonus for pulling this latest one off. A lil' killin' here, devastation and mayhem over there and the stock is looking good. Ain't CORPORATISM grand?

Some good points. That said amongst the terror groups, maybe we should provide supplies-to the losing side. Leave them fighting each other, its good for us, and I dont care about them. :cool: Civilians are another matter.
 
They don't see it that way Dave. It's just all bad politics on Obama's watch. Corporate America gets the GOP pass.

Not really, I remember the context of the start of the wars-why we decided to go there. To leave now-in a worse spot than when we got there for political purposes is sickening. This goes back well before even W, however Obama's foreign policy and relations have been a disaster.

And what does this have to do with the GOP? Obama gives a corporate pass like its cool.
 
Not really, I remember the context of the start of the wars-why we decided to go there. To leave now-in a worse spot than when we got there for political purposes is sickening. This goes back well before even W, however Obama's foreign policy and relations have been a disaster.

And what does this have to do with the GOP? Obama gives a corporate pass like its cool.

Yes, Obama too gives corporate pass. That's why American politics is screwed up. It's time for a non establishment president. Unfortunately, partisans don't understand that, therefore expect more of the same.
 
USC is an anti Obama partisan. Not a pro American interested in peace in the ME.

Is peace at any cost worth it?

Im very much partisan and even more so pro American-but to cling to a dream that peace in the middle east is something achievable after centuries of conflicts because YOU want to feel good about its possibility is naive. Peace alone at the expense of millions killed in the ME isn't really a true peace. Peace at all costs is ridiculous.
 
Yes, Obama too gives corporate pass. That's why American politics is screwed up. It's time for a non establishment president. Unfortunately, partisans don't understand that, therefore expect more of the same.

Obama was supposed to be non-establishment and look what we got. And your last line is silly, and untrue. Id even support a 1 term limit across the board, thats not more of the same.

Look around nobody is happy, on the left or right.
 
Is peace at any cost worth it?

Im very much partisan and even more so pro American-but to cling to a dream that peace in the middle east is something achievable after centuries of conflicts because YOU want to feel good about its possibility is naive. Peace alone at the expense of millions killed in the ME isn't really a true peace. Peace at all costs is ridiculous.

What does that have to do with the hundreds of thousands of civilians that the US has killed in the ME in a century of interference? And partisans fuel the fire.
 
Is peace at any cost worth it?

Im very much partisan and even more so pro American-but to cling to a dream that peace in the middle east is something achievable after centuries of conflicts because YOU want to feel good about its possibility is naive. Peace alone at the expense of millions killed in the ME isn't really a true peace. Peace at all costs is ridiculous.

How can you expect to fight a war with a broken armoury and demoralized nation. There is simply no motivation in America to get involved in another war in the Middle East.
 
Obama was supposed to be non-establishment and look what we got. And your last line is silly, and untrue. Id even support a 1 term limit across the board, thats not more of the same.

Look around nobody is happy, on the left or right.

How is the last line silly? In a prior post you confessed your partisanship. That's the problem. And yes, nobody is happy. And the reason is that Washington is corporate controlled, this has been explained endlessly by several here, but the partisan trudges on.
 
How can you expect to fight a war with a broken armoury and demoralized nation. There is simply no motivation in America to get involved in another war in the Middle East.

Thankfully. All that's left is complete withdrawal.
 
What does that have to do with the hundreds of thousands of civilians that the US has killed in the ME in a century of interference? And partisans fuel the fire.

Every nation on earth pursues things that are in their own best interest. Thats the world. This particular region takes that quite seriously.

They have been in a state of constant violence for thousands of years. The bloody history of Islam can't be blamed on the US. Thats an inference you seem to want to make.
 
How can you expect to fight a war with a broken armoury and demoralized nation. There is simply no motivation in America to get involved in another war in the Middle East.

We have plenty of arms, and the nation is demoralized because the left put us there. By its actions and implications.
 
How is the last line silly? In a prior post you confessed your partisanship. That's the problem. And yes, nobody is happy. And the reason is that Washington is corporate controlled, this has been explained endlessly by several here, but the partisan trudges on.


This isnt about your tirade on corporate America.
 
Every nation on earth pursues things that are in their own best interest. Thats the world. This particular region takes that quite seriously.

They have been in a state of constant violence for thousands of years. The bloody history of Islam can't be blamed on the US. Thats an inference you seem to want to make.

I've never denied the history of the ME. Just pointing out that we haven't been an improvement, an inference you seem to want to make. And not every nation on earth pursues their interests at the end of a gun!!
 
Until the US is attacked again.

You obviously miss the point, all the points. We weren't attacked because of our 'values'. Check US interference in the ME for a century. Complete withdrawal eliminates future attacks. That's beside the fact that we don't know who attacked us anyway, assuming you reference 9/11.
 
And do we have a direct interest in making sure AQ is obliterated? Right now our president is acting as if we dont, though we was swift to take credit for things when they were going well. I disagree. Im not going to lose this war only to be worse off than when we started it.

Not over there we don't, we are not the world police. All that happens when the U.S. gets involved in the middle east is we mess it up. Here's a hint, they don't like us and they don't want us over there. We are only acting as a recruitment tool for Al-Qaeda.

And as for your statement of "You aren't going to lose this war", what in the holy hell are you even talking about. Unless you are deployed there YOU ain't doing anything except typing on a damn computer keyboard.
 
Let Iraq and Syria handle them. They are both allies. Let them handle them and fight them. They are in their backyard so they should handle them. The SAA has been doing a pretty good job and slowly destroying ISIS.
 
Back
Top Bottom