• 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

Unitedwestand13 said:
No problem.

But I am guessing this does not change your oppinion.
Click to expand...

To further engage our armed forces in the ME? Not in the slightest, they are doing as commanded, but the policies they have carried out are creating the very problems you wish to address.
 
Montecresto said:
Why are you carrying on so, your position isn't being excluded,
Click to expand...

Of course it is. You claim that if someone does not run off to war immediately, then their support of the position is fake. It's common intellectual cowardice, founded in hysterical emotion probably caused by the loss of a loved one.

I've explained why your position ("serve now or your support of your position is fake") is BS. Good day.
 
ecofarm said:
Of course it is. You claim that if someone does not run off to war immediately, then their support of the position is fake. It's common intellectual cowardice, founded in hysterical emotion probably caused by the loss of a loved one.

I've explained why your position ("serve now or your support of your position is fake") is BS. Good day.
Click to expand...

Now your putting words in my mouth, I don't think your or Mbig's support is fake at all, I believe both of you very much want to see our military engaged in Iraq again, as much as I'd like to see you out front. And you misrepresented by placing it in quotations, this is why I usually ignore you, your a dishonest poster, who goes to the basement pouting on a regular bases.
 
What are the odds that Russia may back ISIS to fight us in a proxy war?
 
grip said:
What are the odds that Russia may back ISIS to fight us in a proxy war?
Click to expand...

Not good. This springs from Syria, where Russia and China have worked to contain the spread of violence that seems to be US policy.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
By supplying weapons.
Click to expand...

To the Syrian government, unlike the US who has supplied arms to militant Islamists there. Again, sectarian violence in the ME appears to be US policy, otherwise very bad incompetence for a dozen years, at least.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
By supplying weapons.
Click to expand...

Russia could have the Syrians disengage ISIS temporarily, sell them weapons thru a covert source and let them go at it with us coming in from the south.
 
grip said:
Russia could have the Syrians disengage ISIS temporarily, sell them weapons thru a covert source and let them go at it with us coming in from the south.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be dandy!
 
Montecresto said:
Wouldn't that be dandy!
Click to expand...


Well, the recent Russian economic sanctions on imported food from us is only the beginning. Putin can't allow us to strangle their gas supplies from the Ukraine or sales to Europe. This is quickly becoming what I feared it could, with a 'tit for tat' series of escalations. There's been a sudden increase in Big Bear bombers flying into US airspace.
 
Dittohead not! said:
We can help the Kurds by sending them military hardware, but if we're going to get involved any further, then we need to do it all the way. Surely, we must have learned that limited warfare is not a good thing. That was the lesson of Vietnam, of Iraq. Little "military actions" have unintended consequences.
Click to expand...
You don't get it, didn't read the story or my post.
We Should HAVE sent them heavier weapons they asked for Weeks ago, but now it's too Late.
And I am Not calling for an invasion, but limited air/missile strikes.

They (USA friendly) and and their Oil Rich province, and Electric-providing Dams, and Heavy Christian population, are in IMMINENT danger of slaughter.
GOT IT?
Many are stranded/under Siege on a mountain as I post.
ANYONE Speak English?
This is an IMMINENT danger/slaughter situation.
No, all these Clowns see this as sending in 100,000 USA troops!
The objections do NOT address the immediacy of the situation as it exists NOW, despite the fact I presented it as such.
 
grip said:
Well, the recent Russian economic sanctions on imported food from us is only the beginning. Putin can't allow us to strangle their gas supplies from the Ukraine or sales to Europe. This is quickly becoming what I feared it could, with a 'tit for tat' series of escalations. There's been a sudden increase in Big Bear bombers flying into US airspace.
Click to expand...

Got a link on the Big Bear bombers? I hadn't heard that. No, nothing about the mess in the ME or our sparing with Russia right now is positive.
 
mbig said:
I think we ARE going to see strikes against ISIS in support of the Kurds soon.
Tens of thousands Christians and other religious minorities are in a dire situation as well
In today's press conference, Obama seems to be giving in.
I think it's pretty Dam urgent we act to help them.
I strongly advocate this, tho not any strikes helping Maliki's mini-Iraq in the South.


U.S. considering 'limited' military action as militants gain in northern Iraq
ISIS claims control of strategic Mosul Dam, Yazidi community under threat
Thomson Reuters Posted: Aug 07, 2014 8:42 AM ET Last Updated: Aug 07, 2014 2:52 PM ET
U.S. considering 'limited' military action as militants gain in northern Iraq - World - CBC News
Click to expand...

We should have kept a military presence there and this would not have happened. However our government failed at negotiating a status of forces agreement.
 
mbig said:
Air and/or Missile strikes are Not "Boots and rifle", NOR "shedding blood."

...
Click to expand...

I agree.

The case for U.S. intervention (air strikes, weapons supplies, intelligence support) on behalf of the Kurdish Regional Government is much stronger than it was in Libya and is in Syria:

1. The KRG has been a functioning democracy for years. This is not a matter of confusing American hopes with actual reality, as occurred with respect to Syria's and Libya's sectarian conflicts.
2. The KRG has been stable and pro-American. One could not say the same for the Syrian rebels and Libyan rebels. In the latter case, following U.S.-led regime change, one of the first acts of the new Libyan government was to deny a U.S. request for extradition of the Lockerbie mastermind.
3. The KRG has been a force for moderation in a region in which extremism has flourished.
4. The KRG has had implicit cooperation with U.S. strategic ally, Israel, is currently selling oil to Israel and would likely formally conclude ties with Israel were the Kurdish region to become fully sovereign.
5. The Islamic State terrorist organization is extremely hostile to American interests and allies and is a destabilizing regional force.
6. The Islamic State has threatened possible genocide against the Yazidi religious minority with genocide used in the proper sense of the term, not the more political sense that has pervaded coverage of conflicts in Gaza, Syria, Libya, etc.

In sum, the U.S. has far greater interests involved than it did in Libya and does in Syria. I opposed U.S. intervention in Libya and Syria. Air support and arms supplies to the KRG are a different matter.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I agree.

The case for U.S. intervention (air strikes, weapons supplies, intelligence support) on behalf of the Kurdish Regional Government is much stronger than it was in Libya and is in Syria:

1. The KRG has been a functioning democracy for years. This is not a matter of confusing American hopes with actual reality, as occurred with respect to Syria's and Libya's sectarian conflicts.
2. The KRG has been stable and pro-American. One could not say the same for the Syrian rebels and Libyan rebels. In the latter case, following U.S.-led regime change, one of the first acts of the new Libyan government was to deny a U.S. request for extradition of the Lockerbie mastermind.
3. The KRG has been a force for moderation in a region in which extremism has flourished.
4. The KRG has had implicit cooperation with U.S. strategic ally, Israel, is currently selling oil to Israel and would likely formally conclude ties with Israel were the Kurdish region to become fully sovereign.
5. The Islamic State terrorist organization is extremely hostile to American interests and allies and is a destabilizing regional force.
6. The Islamic State has threatened possible genocide against the Yazidi religious minority with genocide used in the proper sense of the term, not the more political sense that has pervaded coverage of conflicts in Gaza, Syria, Libya, etc.

In sum, the U.S. has far greater interests involved than it did in Libya and does in Syria. I opposed U.S. intervention in Libya and Syria. Air support and arms supplies to the KRG are a different matter.
Click to expand...

Point number three has been with US support.

Point number five is applicable to US involvement in the region as well.

And those actions that you correctly opposed in Libya and Syria, have led to the strengthening of IS.
 
Montecresto said:
Point number five is applicable to US involvement in the region as well.

And those actions that you correctly opposed in Libya and Syria, have led to the strengthening of IS.
Click to expand...

The sectarian government in Baghdad under which Prime Minister Maliki has deprived Iraq's Sunni minority among others of full political participation has probably played a much larger role in creating a fertile environment for groups such as the Islamic State to take hold.

I do agree that U.S. policy with respect to Libya and Syria has been destabilizing and created power vacuums that have been exploited by the Islamic State and other extreme actors. Politically unpalatable as it might be, I suspect that if the U.S. immediately and completely terminated assistance to armed elements in Syria, the Syrian front would become more difficult for the Islamic State. Unfortunately, I doubt that the U.S. government will do so and any approach it takes will be end up being internally contradictory with aspects of policy having the effect of weakening the Islamic State (e.g., aid to the Kurds, if it is approved) and other elements having the effect of strengthening it (arms flows into Syria, larger power vacuum there than might otherwise exist, etc.).
 
donsutherland1 said:
The sectarian government in Baghdad under which Prime Minister Maliki has deprived Iraq's Sunni minority among others of full political participation has probably played a much larger role in creating a fertile environment for groups such as the Islamic State to take hold.

I do agree that U.S. policy with respect to Libya and Syria has been destabilizing and created power vacuums that have been exploited by the Islamic State and other extreme actors. Politically unpalatable as it might be, I suspect that if the U.S. immediately and completely terminated assistance to armed elements in Syria, the Syrian front would become more difficult for the Islamic State. Unfortunately, I doubt that the U.S. government will do so and any approach it takes will be end up being internally contradictory with aspects of policy having the effect of weakening the Islamic State (e.g., aid to the Kurds, if it is approved) and other elements having the effect of strengthening it (arms flows into Syria, larger power vacuum there than might otherwise exist, etc.).
Click to expand...

The Maliki government is a Shia government with a sectarian facade, and US interference in the ME is drowning it in sectarian violence. But I generally agree with the rest of your post!
 
grip said:
Russian bombers penetrated U.S. airspace at least 16 times in past 10 days

Now CNN is announcing that the WH, State and Staff have gone quiet about air strikes in Iraq. That usually means they're planning something. Once I heard the Kurds were losing against them, I knew it was going to get bad.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. That's concerning.

White House won’t commit to stopping looming genocide of Christians, Kurds in Iraq

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/7/white-house-wont-commit-stopping-looming-genocide-/
 
Montecresto said:
as much as I'd like to see you out front.
Click to expand...

Meh, the front is for people that don't like being surrounded. My unit crest read "H Minus".
 
Montecresto said:
Then get your damn boots and rifle and head east. Americans are sick of shedding blood and treasure in the ME!
Click to expand...

Volunteer military, dude. Nobody who doesn't want to go has to.
 
MadLib said:
Volunteer military, dude. Nobody who doesn't want to go has to.
Click to expand...

Howdy Mad, a very good reason for a draft. Anyway, true enough, nobody that doesn't want to go has to, but that wasn't the point I was making, which is that IMO anybody that thinks somebody else should, ought to lead the way.
 
Montecresto said:
Howdy Mad, a very good reason for a draft. Anyway, true enough, nobody that doesn't want to go has to, but that wasn't the point I was making, which is that IMO anybody that thinks somebody else should, ought to lead the way.
Click to expand...

For a moment, try to imagine if this ridiculous standard was applied to anything else. Want to stop illegal immigration? Go join the Border Guard or Minutemen. Want to cut down on crime? Become a cop or put on a bat costume. Otherwise, you have no right to an opinion on the matter.

Somehow, this ad hom constitutes an entire argument in its own right against any sort of military intervention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom