• 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

Μολὼν λαβέ;1063457416 said:
How much better off do you think the US would be if they won the war? They already won it once and look what happened?

Who knows, but the way things are turning out is a recipe for disaster.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063457463 said:
Then respond with Hell's fire, not appeasement. The time for politically correct wars is over. Strength is greatest negotiation tool leadership in the ME, Westen Europe, and the radical Far East understands.

War is Hell.
William Tecumseh Sherman

We are still fighting a PC war, even though we would be justified, we wont.

Im not cool with simply responding afterwords.

I want these bitches constantly looking over their shoulder. Every damn day.
 
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.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend...... For now. LOL.
 
Yes, ever since that day O-Bomb-A lobbed 112 cruise missiles into Libya, it was obvious that he was intent of causing chaos over there.

When Obama flipped off the Constitution and Congress with his middle finger and fired off 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles to throw another American allie under the bus in name of regime change for the "Frogs" :blah: wasn't what caused the chaos in the Middle East and North Africa today. It just confirmed to the world that Obama has his head stuck up his ass and can't be trusted as an allie.

What really caused the entire Middle East and North Africa becoming the basket case it is today is was when Barak Obama threw a long time American/Western World allie under the bus, President Mubarak who protected Israels southern flank and kept the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, fascist Islam and the jihdatist in check. Obama came out publicly supporting the "Arab Spring."

When one of the first acts of Obama when he took the oath of POTUS (twice) and has failed to uphold was when he kicked the bust of Winston Churchill out of the White House and returned it to the British Embassy. Basically flipping off our # 1 allie in the world.

It was a dead giveaway what would follow in the Obama administration.
 
maybe the united states can issue a letter of marque against ISIS.

Well it was before your time, but lessons learned from the Vietnam War can be found in "Soldier of Fortune Magazines" published during the 1970's. Visit any large public library that wasn't infiltrated by the "New Left" and you can see what was going on.

"letters of Marquise" were issued to three or four American corporations and even individuals to engage in numerous Cold War proxy wars in Africa, Latin America, S.E. Asia and Islamic Asia and the Middle East.

Some times we won and other times we lost like in South Africa and today all of South Africa suffers because the ABC are in control of the government. Has there ever been a nation who destroyed their nuclear weapons arsenal as fast as the South African government did when they saw the writing on the wall ?
 
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.

If peace in Europe was possible after.... what? 3000 years of recorded warfare, why isn't it possible in the Middle East?
 
If peace in Europe was possible after.... what? 3000 years of recorded warfare, why isn't it possible in the Middle East?

The level of education, fighting for land/resources and sectarian differences are the causes for the strife and wars in the ME. We essentially backed the removal of the dictators that had ruled for the past several decades during the Arab Spring. And now it appears there was a reason for the dictators success and brutality, and why we originally supported and had diplomatic dealings with them.

I don't believe that some level of stability and peace cannot be reached again but it won't happen over night.
 
The level of education, fighting for land/resources and sectarian differences are the causes for the strife and wars in the ME. We essentially backed the removal of the dictators that had ruled for the past several decades during the Arab Spring. And now it appears there was a reason for the dictators success and brutality, and why we originally supported and had diplomatic dealings with them.

I don't believe that some level of stability and peace cannot be reached again but it won't happen over night.

Much more different than this:

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.
 
Much more different than this:


Yes, I don't completely agree with his assessment because nations at peace go thru spells. Every few decades a new generation comes up not knowing the horrors of war and seem hell bent on starting one. But there hasn't been an all out War between multiple, major countries since the 40's. I believe the world will eventually reach a point of reasonably sustained peace for the sake of stability, except in remote impoverished areas like Africa. The global economies are becoming so intertwined and cultures sharing positive attributes that it's to the larger powers benefit to ensure a working relationship. They fight now for market share, technological advancements and to retain energy resources as the new strategic interests.
 
Yes, I don't completely agree with his assessment because nations at peace go thru spells. Every few decades a new generation comes up not knowing the horrors of war and seem hell bent on starting one. But there hasn't been an all out War between multiple, major countries since the 40's. I believe the world will eventually reach a point of reasonably sustained peace for the sake of stability, except in remote impoverished areas like Africa. The global economies are becoming so intertwined and cultures sharing positive attributes that it's to the larger powers benefit to ensure a working relationship. They fight now for market share, technological advancements and to retain energy resources as the new strategic interests.

In full agreement. The regions which are least capable providing the world with resources see the least war. Those who established democratic forms of government before any sort of resources were discovered have also seen little warfare. The Middle East, Asia and Africa currently hold most resources in the world. For various reasons (tribal warfare, colonialism, Western interventionism etc.) they were never able to set up proper democratic governments. Those same factors have ensured that they've been unable to attain the same levels of social and economic modernity as the West. I think within 50 years social media will ensure that those countries join the rest of the world. Twitter already played a gigantic role in the Arab Spring. It's only a matter of time before the ideas of civil discussion enter the lexicons of even those who advocate Sharia law.
 
In full agreement. The regions which are least capable providing the world with resources see the least war. Those who established democratic forms of government before any sort of resources were discovered have also seen little warfare. The Middle East, Asia and Africa currently hold most resources in the world. For various reasons (tribal warfare, colonialism, Western interventionism etc.) they were never able to set up proper democratic governments. Those same factors have ensured that they've been unable to attain the same levels of social and economic modernity as the West. I think within 50 years social media will ensure that those countries join the rest of the world. Twitter already played a gigantic role in the Arab Spring. It's only a matter of time before the ideas of civil discussion enter the lexicons of even those who advocate Sharia law.

I agree that even the sectarian and religious divides of the Islamic faith will eventually find a happy mutual understanding.

The USA doesn't intend evil purposes when we're manipulating an area of the world for strategic interests and their resources, it's a matter of a huge energy need to fuel the economic growth of the modern society. We do cause regional problems and stir up strife, out of an inability to completely play opposing forces to our desired needs. It's like the game of Risk where we move pieces, finance certain groups and militarily back areas that support us. Unfortunately, it can all get too complicated and out of hand, as what's happening with the ME right now. The growing economies of Russia and China also want a slice of the energy pie out that area with pipelines for oil and gas. And we're all getting confused about who to back and whose not in our pockets.

We're actually paralyzed on what to do, till someone emerges in control and with an identity that we can latch onto. And Russia is having enough problems with their old break away republic of Ukraine and their energy resources. Between the Arab lands of Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Israel that whole region could explode into conflict, so we need to be damn careful how we tread.
 
If peace in Europe was possible after.... what? 3000 years of recorded warfare, why isn't it possible in the Middle East?

When was there peace in Europe? Are you referring to the Pax Americana? If so that was in spite of Europe, not because of it.
And that pales in comparison to Arabs in the ME, who make Euro's seem downright reasonable. :cool:
 
When was there peace in Europe? Are you referring to the Pax Americana? If so that was in spite of Europe, not because of it.
And that pales in comparison to Arabs in the ME, who make Euro's seem downright reasonable. :cool:

And yet... the biggest war the ME has had doesn't even come close to WWII.
 
When Obama flipped off the Constitution and Congress with his middle finger and fired off 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles to throw another American allie under the bus in name of regime change for the "Frogs" :blah: wasn't what caused the chaos in the Middle East and North Africa today. It just confirmed to the world that Obama has his head stuck up his ass and can't be trusted as an allie.

What really caused the entire Middle East and North Africa becoming the basket case it is today is was when Barak Obama threw a long time American/Western World allie under the bus, President Mubarak who protected Israels southern flank and kept the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, fascist Islam and the jihdatist in check. Obama came out publicly supporting the "Arab Spring."

When one of the first acts of Obama when he took the oath of POTUS (twice) and has failed to uphold was when he kicked the bust of Winston Churchill out of the White House and returned it to the British Embassy. Basically flipping off our # 1 allie in the world.

It was a dead giveaway what would follow in the Obama administration.
I'm not going to disagree with that. I stand corrected, as the Tomahawks were his first use of force in his acts that I know of, which I will call treasonous. Though this is a different debate.
 
I'm not going to disagree with that. I stand corrected, as the Tomahawks were his first use of force in his acts that I know of, which I will call treasonous. Though this is a different debate.

Mubarak was deposed by a POPULAR uprising. How did Obama throw anyone under the bus. Was he suppose to help Mubarak stay in power against the will of the people? And if so, why there and not Syria. And do I understand that you consider Obama's action in Libya to be treason?
 
Back
Top Bottom