• 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!

ISIS massacres 90 Yazidis in Northern Iraq

I'm not concerned with the intent of others. I'm concerned with the trouble that American policy has caused in the ME. And you and other conservatives are confusing on this because you love to trash Obama on his foreign policy, and at the same time defend it, strange.



Well in your concern.....you have yet to show when it was Right for our Interests. Not once have I seen you speak favorably for anything concerning any US Foreign Policy. Other than to stay locked up and not do business anywhere else. Again.....you are not concerned with the intent of others. Yet if those others were attempting to do us harm such makes it a vital interest. Which you deny.
 
Drawing lines in the ME hasn't been that good for America.
 
Well in your concern.....you have yet to show when it was Right for our Interests. Not once have I seen you speak favorably for anything concerning any US Foreign Policy. Other than to stay locked up and not do business anywhere else. Again.....you are not concerned with the intent of others. Yet if those others were attempting to do us harm such makes it a vital interest. Which you deny.

Our non military, and non interfering policy's are just fine. My interests don't come at the expense of others lives. And I have never advocated to put a lock on "business" abroad. We should provide needed aid, support the fights against aids, homelessness and starvation. We should help developing countries with water quality and farming technology. We should engage in joint projects that improve the well being of people's lives. Participate in disaster relief and crisis management. We should engage in trade and all forms of legal business and tourism. We should have embassies and ambassadors to promote all those things. My criticisms to US foreign policy is limited and focused and you're quite aware of that.
 
Our non military, and non interfering policy's are just fine. My interests don't come at the expense of others lives. And I have never advocated to put a lock on "business" abroad. We should provide needed aid, support the fights against aids, homelessness and starvation. We should help developing countries with water quality and farming technology. We should engage in joint projects that improve the well being of people's lives. Participate in disaster relief and crisis management. We should engage in trade and all forms of legal business and tourism. We should have embassies and ambassadors to promote all those things. My criticisms to US foreign policy is limited and focused and you're quite aware of that.


What about our commitments to Allies? Naturally some lines do have to be drawn. That's not to say BO's were.

Let me ask you this.....how does the Policy change, once we become totally independent of others for energy sources? How does that affect others going forward? When they see that US will do so in less than a decade if not in under 5 years?

Also no one is saying that both Parties haven't been getting it wrong when it comes to dealing with those in the ME.....especially when it comes to sharing our military tech.

As well as with anyone else.
 
I, for one, don't really think we should sit back and allow genocide to occur at the behest of a terrorist state simply because we judge their culture as being inferior to ours. Even if sustained intervention in the ME is a mistake, a line should at least be drawn at genocide.

Then we are doomed to never leave with the associated drain on our national resources, as they will start right back up as soon as they get a chance. Because as soon as one group is quelled, another will rise until its finally worked out of their culture (as we have been seeing for the last at least fourty years). So long as we are involved, we will give them an excuse to not blame themselves for their actions.

Personally I wish we could prevent genocide too, but if a culture is that committed, there isn't that much you can do to stop them since you can't wipe out an entire culture and retain the moral high ground. Maybe if let them do it for a generation, they next group of children will see the pointlessness of it.
 
Last edited:
What about our commitments to Allies? Naturally some lines do have to be drawn. That's not to say BO's were.

Let me ask you this.....how does the Policy change, once we become totally independent of others for energy sources? How does that affect others going forward? When they see that US will do so in less than a decade if not in under 5 years?

Also no one is saying that both Parties haven't been getting it wrong when it comes to dealing with those in the ME.....especially when it comes to sharing our military tech.

As well as with anyone else.

Not sure I understand your question, and if you're acknowledging that both parties ME policies have been a problem then that's good.
 
Then we are doomed to never leave with the associated drain on our national resources, as they will start right back up as soon as they get a chance. Because as soon as one group is quelled, another will rise until its finally worked out of their culture (as we have been seeing for the last at least fourty years). So long as we are involved, we will give them an excuse to not blame themselves for their actions.

Being #1 comes with responsibilities. Iraq stands a much better chance of rising above genocide with human rights and democracy supported.

Personally I wish we could prevent genocide too, but if a culture is that committed, there isn't that much you can do to stop them since you can't wipe out an entire culture and retain the moral high ground. Maybe if let them do it for a generation, they next group of children will see the pointlessness of it.

Foolishness. Look at North Korea, Iran, etc. Tyrants there have taken hold and are determined to never let the people up.

Arguing that genocidal dictatorship will fix things is too ridiculous.



Your problem is that you think the average Iraqi wants this.
 
Then we are doomed to never leave with the associated drain on our national resources, as they will start right back up as soon as they get a chance. Because as soon as one group is quelled, another will rise until its finally worked out of their culture (as we have been seeing for the last at least fourty years). So long as we are involved, we will give them an excuse to not blame themselves for their actions.

Personally I wish we could prevent genocide too, but if a culture is that committed, there isn't that much you can do to stop them since you can't wipe out an entire culture and retain the moral high ground. Maybe if let them do it for a generation, they next group of children will see the pointlessness of it.

See, that's the thing. The ME CANNOT be quelled. As soon as you leave, it starts up again. And, keeping a permanent force there, S. Korea or Germany style, still isn't the same because they would be constantly involved in skirmishes with a steady stream of body bags coming home in perpetuity, something we don't see in Korea or Germany.
 
Being #1 comes with responsibilities. Iraq stands a much better chance of rising above genocide with human rights and democracy supported.



Foolishness. Look at North Korea, Iran, etc. Tyrants there have taken hold and are determined to never let the people up.

Arguing that genocidal dictatorship will fix things is too ridiculous.



Your problem is that you think the average Iraqi wants this.

Then what value are they to this country? They are a net expense and we should seek to minimize our losses in that scenario.
 
Then what value are they to this country? They are a net expense and we should seek to minimize our losses in that scenario.

This is not about economics. It's about human rights and justice. The more human rights and justice a country has, the faster it develops.
 
Then what value are they to this country? They are a net expense and we should seek to minimize our losses in that scenario.

Humanitarianism is the facade put upon it. It most certainly is about economics and oil.



Obama says it’s to protect minorities. That’s nothing new. Obama is the fourth president in a row to bomb Iraq … while claiming it is for humanitarian purposes.

But the architects of the Iraq War (the one which started in 2003) themselves admitted it was about oil.

For example, U.S. Secretary of Defense – and former 12-year Republican Senator – Chuck Hagel said of the Iraq war in 2007:

People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs.
 
Last edited:
Still say we should of annexed Iraq....
 
This is not about economics. It's about human rights and justice. The more human rights and justice a country has, the faster it develops.

And when that culture as a whole (or enough of a critical mass of people) begin to value that, we should intervene. Until then, we are just wasting our time.
 
Humanitarianism is the facade put upon it. It most certainly is about economics and oil.



Obama says it’s to protect minorities. That’s nothing new. Obama is the fourth president in a row to bomb Iraq … while claiming it is for humanitarian purposes.

But the architects of the Iraq War (the one which started in 2003) themselves admitted it was about oil.

For example, U.S. Secretary of Defense – and former 12-year Republican Senator – Chuck Hagel said of the Iraq war in 2007:

People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs.

You know, the argument would hold more weight if we got more than 4% of our oil from Iraq. Or the fact that so much of it goes to places like China. Look I really wish our foreign policy was simply just about Oil, but so many decisions we've made over the past several years has only hurt that cause, not helped it.
 
I doubt Kurds can own ISIS, no matter what weapons they get.
 
You know, the argument would hold more weight if we got more than 4% of our oil from Iraq. Or the fact that so much of it goes to places like China. Look I really wish our foreign policy was simply just about Oil, but so many decisions we've made over the past several years has only hurt that cause, not helped it.

Ok, so you've a better grasp on reality then our SOD.

It's about global oil supply.

Here’s the correct answer:

America’s vital interest in the Middle East can be summed up in three words: oil, oil and oil. That’s it. If that region wasn’t sitting on such huge reserves, America wouldn’t give it a second thought, with the exception of its security guarantee to Israel.

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2011/03/22/u-s-involvement-in-libya-is-all-about-oil/


It may be comforting to pretend that our enemies "hate our freedoms," as President Bush stated, but it is a mistake to ignore the truth.

President Bush is not the first to ask: "Why do they hate us?" In a staff discussion 44 years ago, President Eisenhower asked his National Security Council about "the campaign of hatred against us [in the Arab world], not by the governments but by the people".

His National Security Council outlined the basic reasons: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is "opposing political or economic progress" because of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the region.
 
Last edited:
And when that culture as a whole (or enough of a critical mass of people) begin to value that, we should intervene. Until then, we are just wasting our time.

The average Iraqi DOES value human rights and justice. This is your disconnect from reality. Everywhere I've been, all around the world, my travels have taught me: people are people.

Presuming the majority of Iraqis are terrorists is nonsense. Do you not understand oppression?
 
The average Iraqi DOES value human rights and justice.
Everyone in that region does. It's just that they concept the democracy, justice and human rights in a different way we do in West.
 
Ok, so you've a better grasp on reality then our SOD.

To be fair, this is the same SOD that is now supporting going back to Iraq so....

It's about global oil supply.

Here’s the correct answer:

America’s vital interest in the Middle East can be summed up in three words: oil, oil and oil. That’s it. If that region wasn’t sitting on such huge reserves, America wouldn’t give it a second thought, with the exception of its security guarantee to Israel.

U.S. Involvement in Libya Is All About Oil | News | Philadelphia Magazine


It may be comforting to pretend that our enemies "hate our freedoms," as President Bush stated, but it is a mistake to ignore the truth.

President Bush is not the first to ask: "Why do they hate us?" In a staff discussion 44 years ago, President Eisenhower asked his National Security Council about "the campaign of hatred against us [in the Arab world], not by the governments but by the people".

His National Security Council outlined the basic reasons: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is "opposing political or economic progress" because of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the region.

As far as Lybia goes, that wasn't our idea. If you recall, it was the Europeans that got their panties in a wad trying to deal with the refugee crisis that decided it had enough.

The thing is though, in the middle east anyways, if we aren't going to start annexing countries and taking them over ourselves, I kind of like the oppressive governments. As we've clearly seen, give people in the middle east freedom and it just makes things worse for us.
 
Everyone in that region does. It's just that they concept the democracy, justice and human rights in a different way we do in West.

Wrong. Everyone wants human rights and representation.

It's beyond stupid to presume that some people "like being slaves".
 
As we've clearly seen, give people in the middle east freedom and it just makes things worse for us.
and for them.
Because I doubt anyone believe Libya will ever be better than it was.
 
To be fair, this is the same SOD that is now supporting going back to Iraq so....



As far as Lybia goes, that wasn't our idea. If you recall, it was the Europeans that got their panties in a wad trying to deal with the refugee crisis that decided it had enough.

The thing is though, in the middle east anyways, if we aren't going to start annexing countries and taking them over ourselves, I kind of like the oppressive governments. As we've clearly seen, give people in the middle east freedom and it just makes things worse for us.

What's the conflict, the SOD was quite belligerent/arrogant in his 2007 statement and he's pursuing the policy now. Seems consistent enough to me.


Btw, you quoted it, what do you have to say about Eisenhower's NST telling him that its Americas destructive policies in the ME that cause the people to hate us. I didn't even need to find that, to understand this myself, its that damn obvious!
 
Last edited:
and for them.
Because I doubt anyone believe Libya will ever be better than it was.

You deny the existence of development and that Libya will experience it? Libya got better the moment Qaddafi left power.

Freedom is bad for people? How naive.
 
and for them.
Because I doubt anyone believe Libya will ever be better than it was.

I don't know if I can say that across the board though. I guess it all depends on what they want out of the government. If they are wanting a religious government, then countries like Egypt, Palestine, and Lebanon are what they want I suppose, and may be happy with. If the rebels did end up defeating Assad, we'd have a radical government there as well. The only bright spot is Tunisia, but that's because there going for the more secular approach, and away from this religious nonsense.
 
Wrong. Everyone wants human rights and representation.

It's beyond stupid to presume that some people "like being slaves".

It may seem to you and to me as slaves but it's their way of living. We should get deal with it.

Let's take an example:
In those countries, the stealing punishment is applied by cutting one hand.
It may look stupid and OMG to us, but this is how they have been living for so long.
The cheating, the marriage unaccepted by the family as well have some bad and extreme punishments.
It may still look stupid to us but keep in mind that you cannot come up with the dictatorship card and blame the leader.
Mostly these kind of punishments are applied by father to the daughter, family to the member, city society to a people.
A father can never treat it's daughter like a slave, however it seems so in West (of course you can find tiny cases all around the world).
This is how we've been taught, that's this one is good (our way of living) and the other one in the other side is bad.


I've seen around that you try to picture that region like some prisoners who are seeking for the only kind of freedom & democracy you've seen so far and that the US/West are the one to save them.
Believe me, they do not want the kind of democracy we have.
 
Back
Top Bottom