• 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!

American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq[W:1007]

Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

I have no problem determining the difference between truth and fiction as well as hard news vs. opinion pieces. You don't seem to be able to distinguish that difference. Fox always has members of both sides in the debate and allows the viewers to decide. You claim Fox lies when the reality is you have provided no evidence to that point and attribute any false statement made by a guest as the opinion of the Fox Commentator.

There is right or wrong and you are on the wrong side of history as well as the wrong side of the economic spectrum that makes any sense at all. Personal responsibility, individual wealth creation, states handling social issues are what made this country great. Neighbor helping neighbor has always been our guiding principles but not any more as you and your ilk promote the Federal Govt. being that neighbor. Liberalism is a total and complete failure and the only economic principles that make any sense are conservative ones.

Do you consider the "contributors" (not the guests, but people who are paid to be on Fox on a regular bases) as commentators? Almost always, when mis-facts are on Fox, it's one of these "contributors", and not the host of the show or a guest. What get's to me is that Fox allows the people to state mis-facts, and doesn't bother to correct them, so viewers typically just assume them to be true. Then Fox has these same people, who frequently present inaccurate data, on their show over and over again.

That old fart who used to be on Mash, he's the worst. Almost no statistic that he states is currently accurate, he cherry picks his data from particular months, sometimes from years in the past, and then presents these numbers as if they were true today or typical of our current situation. But he is far from the only one who does this.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Do you consider the "contributors" (not the guests, but people who are paid to be on Fox on a regular bases) as commentators? Almost always, when mis-facts are on Fox, it's one of these "contributors", and not the host of the show or a guest. What get's to me is that Fox allows the people to state mis-facts, and doesn't bother to correct them, so viewers typically just assume them to be true. Then Fox has these same people, who frequently present inaccurate data, on their show over and over again.

That old fart who used to be on Mash, he's the worst. Almost no statistic that he states is currently accurate, he cherry picks his data from particular months, sometimes from years in the past, and then presents these numbers as if they were true today or typical of our current situation. But he is far from the only one who does this.

I think you are missing the pint and pick and choose what you want to believe. Here are the Fox Liberal Contributors that apparently you have never seen so how with this many can you claim Fox is biased and lies?


Fox actually has several liberals as employees or frequent contributors. They include Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Kirsten Powers, Geraldo Rivera, Dennis Kucinich and Mara Liasson.

Now name for me any prominent Conservatives on MSNBC? Not sure what "old fart" you are talking about but probably Wayne Rogers who is in the Business bloc not a political commentator
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

I think you are missing the pint and pick and choose what you want to believe. Here are the Fox Liberal Contributors that apparently you have never seen so how with this many can you claim Fox is biased and lies?




Now name for me any prominent Conservatives on MSNBC? Not sure what "old fart" you are talking about but probably Wayne Rogers who is in the Business bloc not a political commentator

Morning_Joe_poster.jpg


How about Former Florida Congressman Joe Scarborough.Will that qualify?:2wave:
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Before you run; are we in agreement that if it weren't for our incursion into Iraq we would not be seeing ISSA today?:2wave:

It's obvious you know what you are talking about. Some right-wingers get frustrated when you ask questions they don't want to answer.

In my opinion, you invade a country, you bought the results. Bush invaded, screwed it up for years and left it to his predecessor.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Morning_Joe_poster.jpg


How about Former Florida Congressman Joe Scarborough.Will that qualify?:2wave:

That would be one, anyone here that believes Sheppard Smith is a Conservative?
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

It's obvious you know what you are talking about. Some right-wingers get frustrated when you ask questions they don't want to answer.

In my opinion, you invade a country, you bought the results. Bush invaded, screwed it up for years and left it to his predecessor.

In this country we don't elect a King even though Obama thinks he is one, Bush invaded Iraq because of the Intelligence at the time and after 9/11. He won the war, created the status of forces agreement and then was Term Limited. Obama hated Iraq and squandered all the positive results and what you are seeing today is Obama arrogance and failures to maintain the status quo that he inherited.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Say something of value, post something of value, back the posts up with verifiable data and then I will have something to address. Your typical leftwing bs is nothing more than your opinion, an opinion that I reject.

You're not saying anything yet. Take your own advice.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

"Hate is a reasonable conclusion".

I like that a lot.

It's true though, so don't lose that. People with no emotional motivation usually don't need to exaggerate so much to the extreme.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

QUOTE=Conservative

In this country we don't elect a King even though Obama thinks he is one, Bush invaded Iraq because of the Intelligence at the time and after 9/11.

I believe this exchange pretty well sums it up. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, AT A CONGRESSIONAL hearing, examining the war in Iraq when REPUBLICAN congressman Walter Jones ask about the administration's manipulation of intelligence.

He got this answer. "The vice president."


He won the war, created the status of forces agreement and then was Term Limited.

I wonder where ISIS came from then?:shock:

Obama hated Iraq and squandered all the positive results and what you are seeing today is Obama arrogance and failures to maintain the status quo that he inherited.

You can flail all you want but ISIS is bushes legacy.:2wave:
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

I believe this exchange pretty well sums it up. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, AT A CONGRESSIONAL hearing, examining the war in Iraq when REPUBLICAN congressman Walter Jones ask about the administration's manipulation of intelligence.

He got this answer. "The vice president."




I wonder where ISIS came from then?:shock:



You can flail all you want but ISIS is bushes legacy.:2wave:

Really? So all that intelligence prior to Bush taking office was manipulated by Cheney? Did Clinton know that Cheney was doing that? Conspiracy theories is all you liberals ever have. Take responsibility for your own failures for a change. ISIS wasn't in Iraq, they were in Syria after being driven from Iraq. ISIS is Obama's legacy so are the thousands being killed. It really is a shame that all liberals like you can do is place blame, never accept responsibility.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

In this country we don't elect a King even though Obama thinks he is one, Bush invaded Iraq because of the Intelligence at the time and after 9/11. He won the war, created the status of forces agreement and then was Term Limited. Obama hated Iraq and squandered all the positive results and what you are seeing today is Obama arrogance and failures to maintain the status quo that he inherited.

I'm sorry, it is impossible to respond to anyone that believes that Bush won the war in Iraq. Partisanship on this scale dwarfs the senses.

It is exactly this type of kool-aid drinking that has caused this divide in this country. When one side takes credit for everything good that ever happened in our country over the past few years, and blames everything bad totally on the other side, you might as well try to talk Gollum out of the One Ring. Hopefully the Republican Party will move away from this fringe element in their Party in the near future.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

I'm sorry, it is impossible to respond to anyone that believes that Bush won the war in Iraq.
Watch what this guy said.Obama Flashback: 'We're Leaving Behind a Sovereign, Stable and Self-Reliant Iraq'
Or this guy. Joe Biden | 2010 | Iraq | Achievement | Obama Administration
It is exactly this type of kool-aid drinking that has caused this divide in this country.
And yet I get the feeling that you don't see yourself as part of the problem.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

And yet I get the feeling that you don't see yourself as part of the problem.

You mean we disagree? I'm shocked!
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

I'm sorry, it is impossible to respond to anyone that believes that Bush won the war in Iraq. Partisanship on this scale dwarfs the senses.

It is exactly this type of kool-aid drinking that has caused this divide in this country. When one side takes credit for everything good that ever happened in our country over the past few years, and blames everything bad totally on the other side, you might as well try to talk Gollum out of the One Ring. Hopefully the Republican Party will move away from this fringe element in their Party in the near future.

The results show he won the war, you choose not to believe that.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Iraq was a newly functioning democracy until Obama decided to pull the troops. Now it's back to chaos.

Well that's the joke of the day, no year. Iraq has never been a functioning democracy. Btw, what exactly is Harper going to do to help things in Iraq, or any of the ME for that matter. Thankfully though, you've got an Internet opinion, and that's where it ends for you. You probably have some say in Canada though.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

There is a big difference between peace and appeasement. Your mindset looks more like appeasement. I believe in peace through strength.

And strength for you is bombs and missels when there's far better ways to peace.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

QUOTE Conservative;

Really? So all that intelligence prior to Bush taking office was manipulated by Cheney? Did Clinton know that Cheney was doing that? Conspiracy theories is all you liberals ever have.

Are you referring to the report of the select committee on intelligence in Iraq?Or the warning that came in a secret briefing that bush received at the ranch on Aug. 6, 2001? :2wave:


ISIS wasn't in Iraq, they were in Syria after being driven from Iraq.

Was ISIS in Iraq prior to the bush invasion?

ISIS is Obama's legacy so are the thousands being killed.

NAH! bush will forever be wearing than crown.Get used to it.:2wave:
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Yes we did. Before the fighting, during the fighting, and after the unconditional surrender. We talked with Japan, for example, about an agreeable surrender before we dropped the bomb. because no agreement was reached doesn't mean we didn't negotiate.

Produce evidence that the Unites States was "negotiating" with Japan during or after the unconditional surrender. Not that we offered to stop fighting if they surrendered... but that we would accept ANY condition from them. I have literally never heard, in all my years studying this topic, both as a major in school, as a teacher or as an individual, that we negotiated with Japan in any way, shape or form.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Are you referring to the report of the select committee on intelligence in Iraq?Or the warning that came in a secret briefing that bush received at the ranch on Aug. 6, 2001? :2wave:




Was ISIS in Iraq prior to the bush invasion?



NAH! bush will forever be wearing than crown.Get used to it.:2wave:

i am talking about the Iraq Liberation Act, the UN Resolution 1441, British Intelligence, German Intelligence, The Kaye Report none of which matter to you or even matter today. All you want to do is place blame but that serves no purpose. ISIS was run out of Iraq and thrived in Syria while "YOUR" President did nothing. He didn't negotiate an American Presence in Iraq after the withdrawal and took credit for leaving a peaceful stable Iraq leaving equipment behind and no air bases. He is incompetent just like his supporters
 
Last edited:
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Produce evidence that the Unites States was "negotiating" with Japan during or after the unconditional surrender. Not that we offered to stop fighting if they surrendered... but that we would accept ANY condition from them. I have literally never heard, in all my years studying this topic, both as a major in school, as a teacher or as an individual, that we negotiated with Japan in any way, shape or form.

Japan was talking to us through the Russians. They were willing and proposed almost the same thing we eventually accepted. We always talk to our enemies in one way or another. But here's a link:

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
Surrender of designated war criminals.

Was Hiroshima Necessary?
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Japan was talking to us through the Russians. They were willing and proposed almost the same thing we eventually accepted. We always talk to our enemies in one way or another. But here's a link:

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
Surrender of designated war criminals.

Was Hiroshima Necessary?

In reading that article I see that we did not negotiate. We were given proposals by Japan and we did not accept any of them.

That is all that article stated.

We ended up dictating terms. That is what unconditional surrender is all about.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Japan was talking to us through the Russians. They were willing and proposed almost the same thing we eventually accepted. We always talk to our enemies in one way or another. But here's a link:

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
Surrender of designated war criminals.

Was Hiroshima Necessary?

Yep! Exactly. Good luck bud, I've been through all that with the same fellas before!
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Sometimes you have to fight.

Sometimes!

But not in Iraq or Afghanistan (or Syria or Ukraine)


A Washington Post/ABC News poll shows two-thirds of Americans believe what some of us were saying four and more years ago: the war in Afghanistan was not worth fighting.

Seventy-one percent of Americans now say that the war in Iraq “wasn’t worth it,” a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Annenberg poll shows, with skepticism about the lengthy war effort up substantially even in the last 18 months.


http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ir...jority-regret-iraq-war-exclusive-poll-n139686
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom