• 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 authorizes 200 more Troops for Iraq.....

What you do not seem to realize, but is as true as math, is that the growing number of states with nuclear capability does not decrease the probability of thermonuclear night. That worked fin in the Cold War of two superpowers. It a multi polar world without international security internalized at a higher level there is no stable optimum and the game always ends with all the pieces on the floor.

Well the US remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons. I'm not afraid of Iran. That's a trumped up biggie man just as Iraq was. The US has supported militant Islamist groups since Carter. You're under the false impression that the US is interested in stability in the ME, fuzzy math joG!
 
Well there still exists those who are Bi Polar that work in an internalized Higher level of Security. Susan Rice would be an example. Just covering all the bases. :mrgreen:

I liked Condoleezza better.
 
Well the US remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons. I'm not afraid of Iran. That's a trumped up biggie man just as Iraq was. The US has supported militant Islamist groups since Carter. You're under the false impression that the US is interested in stability in the ME, fuzzy math joG!.

Used nukes? And it was right to do so.

But you see, that is not the question. Many games require the players to do things to win that can have negative results for all players or themselves. Have you never looked at these things. They are fascinating and it is certainly a personal loss to ignore them.
 
Used nukes? And it was right to do so.

But you see, that is not the question. Many games require the players to do things to win that can have negative results for all players or themselves. Have you never looked at these things. They are fascinating and it is certainly a personal loss to ignore them.


Yeah, "games" and "players" calloused much. I don't describe the loss of human life and human suffering in such terms. Btw, if Iran ever did get nukes and used them on us, I'm satisfied that there would be plenty of Iranians that feel as you do, that it was right to do so.
 
Yeah, "games" and "players" calloused much. I don't describe the loss of human life and human suffering in such terms. Btw, if Iran ever did get nukes and used them on us, I'm satisfied that there would be plenty of Iranians that feel as you do, that it was right to do so.

In the last sentence there seems to be a glimmer of understanding of how game theory might work.
 
In the last sentence there seems to be a glimmer of understanding of how game theory might work.

Then you failed to comprehend the post.
 
Little surprise.


WASHINGTON — A nonpartisan, independent review of interrogation and detention programs in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks concludes that “it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture” and that the nation’s highest officials bore ultimate responsibility for it.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/w...partisan-review-concludes.html?ref=world&_r=0

Yes, I remember that article and the report. I didn't agree that "the United States" had tortured and believed that the formulation showed up why this group came to the conclusion it did. After looking at quite a bit of material, I am pretty sure that illegal things happened and that some people did some bad stuff. That it was "the United States" was wrong. It is also rather ignorant to say that the interrogation methods as allowed were torture. But you certainly don't want that to be so.
 
Well Assad is taking it to ISIS on his side of the Border and even Bombing their HQ and Religious Court.....But then he also has to watch with BO sending money to the Rebels backed by the MB who have lost in Syria. Since he knows Al Nusra and the Liberation Front will just take them from the MB backed Rebels.

The Kurds have taken Kirkuk and are Holding ISIS off there.. Kerry went to have talks about them going offensive too. But I think they will want their Autonomy now. Plus the majority do identify as Sunni.

Even Al Sistani and Al Sadr wont go for trying to take Assad out.

Kind of a quandary isn't it? The best chance the government of Iraq we installed have lies with Iran and Assad's Syrian forces. I think it is high time for Obama to switch sides in Syria. If he wants stability, he switches sides and does so in a hurry. If he wants to help ISIS, he continues to help the rebels.
 
Then you failed to comprehend the post.

I suspected you wouldn't grab the face saver I threw you. But you really should look at game theory and its applications. It would do your understanding of some things immens good.
 
It's strange that Russia and Iran are both trying to support Iraq against ISIL with military. Seems like a grab for something?
 
Yes, I remember that article and the report. I didn't agree that "the United States" had tortured and believed that the formulation showed up why this group came to the conclusion it did. After looking at quite a bit of material, I am pretty sure that illegal things happened and that some people did some bad stuff. That it was "the United States" was wrong. It is also rather ignorant to say that the interrogation methods as allowed were torture. But you certainly don't want that to be so.

I would have preferred that US torture had not been so.
 
I suspected you wouldn't grab the face saver I threw you. But you really should look at game theory and its applications. It would do your understanding of some things immens good.

Using nukes on civilian targets, supporting militant Islamic groups, and sowing instability, and those that excuse it are in need of face savers.
 
Kind of a quandary isn't it? The best chance the government of Iraq we installed have lies with Iran and Assad's Syrian forces. I think it is high time for Obama to switch sides in Syria. If he wants stability, he switches sides and does so in a hurry. If he wants to help ISIS, he continues to help the rebels.

US foreign policy in the ME has been support of militant Islamic groups and instability for decades. Obama came and will go, US foreign policy will continue to support chaos and instability.
 
Using nukes on civilian targets, supporting militant Islamic groups, and sowing instability, and those that excuse it are in need of face savers.

You should try and focus your anger better and try not to mix everything up. That way you would sound more rational.
 
It is far away from the States and bad results from doing nothing will not be our problem as much as their's. And should they not want to deal with it, the bad results will be around their necks. Same thing in Syria and Ukraine. They did it and the dead are their fault. Don't let them forget that their lack of responsibility created the messes.

That in a way is how I look at it. Whether or not Putin takes over the Ukraine I could care less. The Ukraine is relative a brand new nation, since 1992 or close to that. The Ukraine has always been part of Russia going back to the Czars. The Ukraine is in Russia's backyard, their problem, not ours. Syria, if one wants Stability the, Assad must stay or else all heck will break loose. Iraq, Miliki has the men and the equipment and if the Shia are willing to fight, they can defeat ISIS. If they are not as has been shown to date, no amount of intervention will help Miliki and his government become stable. It is just a matter of time before they succumb to someone, ISIS, Iran or the Iraqi Sunni.
 
US foreign policy in the ME has been support of militant Islamic groups and instability for decades. Obama came and will go, US foreign policy will continue to support chaos and instability.

It is my point of view that it is plain stupid. I can think of no other word.
 
You should try and focus your anger better and try not to mix everything up. That way you would sound more rational.

That was focused like a lazier on failed US policy in the ME. Your just deflecting, because you support US foreign policy in the ME when there is a republican in office, even though all US policy in the ME has been the support of militant Islamic groups to ensure instability. Throughout the last 4-5 presidencies.
 
That was focused like a lazier on failed US policy in the ME. Your just deflecting, because you support US foreign policy in the ME when there is a republican in office, even though all US policy in the ME has been the support of militant Islamic groups to ensure instability. Throughout the last 4-5 presidencies.

There are those that say such things and even some that believe.
 
There are those that say such things and even some that believe.

Many more than you think.


Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.

Operation Cyclone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

President Obama has crossed a moral red line. Recently, he did the unthinkable: He announced that the U.S. government would directly arm terrorist groups in Syria.

Read more: http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/20/kuhner-how-obama-arms-al-qaeda/#ixzz36FWan4LY
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


One of the most under-reported political stories of the last year is the devoted advocacy of numerous prominent American political figures on behalf of an Iranian group long formally designated as a Terrorist organization under U.S. law. A large bipartisan cast has received substantial fees from that group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), and has then become their passionate defenders.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/10/israel_mek_and_state_sponsor_of_terror_groups/


From an early stage, the rebels received financial and military support from the U.S. government, and their military significance decisively depended on it. After U.S. support was banned by Congress, the Reagan administration covertly continued it. These covert activities culminated in the Iran–Contra affair.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras
 
Last edited:
Many more than you think.


Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.

Operation Cyclone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

President Obama has crossed a moral red line. Recently, he did the unthinkable: He announced that the U.S. government would directly arm terrorist groups in Syria.

Read more: KUHNER: How Obama arms al Qaeda - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

We armed Uncle Joe too. And that was most probably the right thing to do. And he was much, much worse than the Syrian badies. But I hadn't heard that Obama was going to arm ISIL.
 
We armed Uncle Joe too. And that was most probably the right thing to do. And he was much, much worse than the Syrian badies. But I hadn't heard that Obama was going to arm ISIL.

Well now you know, stop defending it and I'll leave you alone.
 
Back
Top Bottom