• 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!

U.S. considering 'limited' military action as militants gain in northern Iraq

Or perhaps you've simply failed to grasp your opponents' position and have substituted false motives and narratives.

Along with 57% of Americans and most of the world. Insane= a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; Fits our ME policy neatly.
 
Insane= a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction;

Tell us again how the US intentionally supplies terrorists.
 
Prior uses of our military in Iraq, and Libya as well as our policy in Syria have given rise and strength to militant Islamic jihadists as it is, more of the same medicine won't help.

So, let the extremists slaughter 100k innocent people, advance on Baghdad and possibly strike the US with a terrorist attack?

The way I'm talking about hitting them is at an intense enough level to change the game, and make Putin think twice about advancing on former soviet/euro blocks. Our policy in Syria was to let a bunch of people die and cause ISIS to grow.
 
Tell us again how the US intentionally supplies terrorists.

Um, I've posted that numerous times, so no, not again and certainly not for a dishonest person such as yourself, take a hike.
 
Um, I've posted that numerous times, so no, not again and certainly not for a dishonest person such as yourself, take a hike.

Does that post not fit the definition you provided?

Insane= a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction;
 
So, let the extremists slaughter 100k innocent people, advance on Baghdad and possibly strike the US with a terrorist attack?

The way I'm talking about hitting them is at an intense enough level to change the game, and make Putin think twice about advancing on former soviet/euro blocks. Our policy in Syria was to let a bunch of people die and cause ISIS to grow.

Step back and look at the situation in the Middle East from a distance. It's burning, and its burning largely due to insane US policies there for years. IS has been empowered and strengthened due in large part to US interference in Syria. Russia and China warned three years ago that US interference in Syria would cause the crisis to spread throughout the region, and behold, that's what we have. The forces of Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad never gave quarters to these militant Islamic jihadists. The US has totally ****ed the ME up. We need to leave. Let Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt crush these guys, and lets keep our meddling nose OUT.
 
Considering a lot of those countries get aid from us I'm note sure how we can get out of the picture. If you don't recall Israel almost ran out of ammo recently.
 
Thats where it always starts... first its a "limited action"... then it escalates to "air support"... then it escalates to "boots on the ground".... then "nation building"... then "permanent bases"... sheesh, when are we ever going to learn... :roll:
 
Last edited:
Thats where it always starts... first its a "limited action"... then it escalates to "air support"... then it escalates to "boots on the ground".... then "nation building"... then "permanent bases"... seesh, when are we ever going to learn... :roll:

Only when the repubs are in charge. Kosova was a good example when Clinton was president. Libya didn't involve any boots on the ground either.
 
Um, I've posted that numerous times, so no, not again and certainly not for a dishonest person such as yourself, take a hike.
Yes, you've posted numerous times how the US has supported terrorists all over the world. Once a day anyway.
 
Only when the repubs are in charge. Kosova was a good example when Clinton was president. Libya didn't involve any boots on the ground either.

Trust me when I say, that there were boots on the ground. It's one thing to pick out stationary targets from satellite images, it's a whole other thing entirely to hit mobile targets on the ground like a tank or infantry formation. To accomplish something like that, you need someone on the ground coordinating with aircraft in the air, or risk bombing friendlies.
 
Trust me when I say, that there were boots on the ground. It's one thing to pick out stationary targets from satellite images, it's a whole other thing entirely to hit mobile targets on the ground like a tank or infantry formation. To accomplish something like that, you need someone on the ground coordinating with aircraft in the air, or risk bombing friendlies.

I don't need to trust you as I'm well aware of that having been a munitions specialist in the Air Force and my dad was in Special Forces. However boots on the ground typically means an invasion force.
 
Step back and look at the situation in the Middle East from a distance. It's burning, and its burning largely due to insane US policies there for years. IS has been empowered and strengthened due in large part to US interference in Syria. Russia and China warned three years ago that US interference in Syria would cause the crisis to spread throughout the region, and behold, that's what we have. The forces of Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad never gave quarters to these militant Islamic jihadists. The US has totally ****ed the ME up. We need to leave. Let Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt crush these guys, and lets keep our meddling nose OUT.


If it's burning because we messed it up, then we should probably fix it before the whole region starts WW3. The rest of them are not currently solving anything, and if we allow a multinational conflict involving Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt, then say goodbye to stable oil prices and the global economy.
 
Trust me when I say, that there were boots on the ground. It's one thing to pick out stationary targets from satellite images, it's a whole other thing entirely to hit mobile targets on the ground like a tank or infantry formation. To accomplish something like that, you need someone on the ground coordinating with aircraft in the air, or risk bombing friendlies.

We already have American advisors on the ground now are you saying we don't? We also have drones that are far more precise than "satellite images".
 
We already have American advisors on the ground now are you saying we don't? We also have drones that are far more precise than "satellite images".

Officially though, those advisors are meant to check up on the status of Iraqi armed forces and secure american assets. What I'm referring to is Special Forces that embedded within front-line forces. Fair point I suppose on the drone part, I just still think of planning sessions using satellite images, out of date to be sure but perhaps I'm just nostalgic like that.

I don't need to trust you as I'm well aware of that having been a munitions specialist in the Air Force and my dad was in Special Forces. However boots on the ground typically means an invasion force.

To you and me then yes, boots on the ground is equated to invasion force. But to the layman out there, when they say there are no boots on the ground, they believe that there are no American Soldiers out there whatsoever. All that phrase does is make it easier on politicians to say that a man was KIA due to "classified reasons" and never have to face the public scrutiny.
 
Back
Top Bottom