• 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

tacomancer said:
I think the only way towards peace is a three state solution and I am fully supportive of it. Defining the borders, thats the problematic part and its going to unfortunately be a bloody affair. I dont think there is any viable solution except war. There are just too many generations of vendettas.

However, the moment a treaty is signed defining borders. We need to put a ton of un troops there to enforce it until there is a cooling off period. Thats their only long term chance I think.
Click to expand...
it's going to self-partition, and the borders will be set by the players, no need to draw maps this time. I imagine those borders will be "flexible" -in that it's going to take awhile to settle out.

Baghdad though.....that's a big one
 
Montecresto said:
A huge NO to US policy in the ME.
Click to expand...

So just let the ISIS massacre of the Yazidis continue is what you're stating.

I'm not a proponent of the US being in the ME until they attack the US again, which IMO they eventually will.

However, not ending the religious genocide in Iraq by Islamists makes the US as bad as the mass murderers.
 
Coin said:
I doubt Kurds can own ISIS, no matter what weapons they get.
Click to expand...
agree, but they can stalemated their advances, and hold the Mosul dam with our air support.

The crisis gripping Iraq escalated rapidly on Thursday with a re-energized Islamic State in Iraq and Syria storming new towns in the north and seizing a strategic dam as Iraq’s most formidable military force, the Kurdish pesh merga, was routed in the face of the onslaught.


The loss of the Mosul Dam, the largest in Iraq, to the insurgents was the most dramatic consequence of a militant offensive in the north, which has sent tens of thousands of refugees, many from the Yazidi minority, fleeing into a vast mountainous landscape.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/world/middleeast/isis-forces-in-iraq.html?_r=0

ugh. missed this
 
Montecresto said:
It started in Tunisia, and we already agreed that that is the LONE bright spot in the region.
Click to expand...

Right, but then it spread across the ME. All the countries that are at issue here, Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Egypt (and we're not even talking about the countries in the Arabian Peninsula that had to deal with minor uprisings) all stem back to the Arab Spring. Just saying that this all doesn't boil down the US Policy in this case. Even if we hadn't invaded Iraq, Saddam would of still had to deal with the issue of ISIS just as Assad is now.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063647900 said:
So just let the ISIS massacre of the Yazidis continue is what you're stating.

I'm not a proponent of the US being in the ME until they attack the US again, which IMO they eventually will.

However, not ending the religious genocide in Iraq by Islamists makes the US as bad as the mass murderers.
Click to expand...

Just because we're choosing not to get involved in another ME mess, doesn't equate us to mass murders.

I get the compassion argument, I really do. It's just that the compassion argument generally ends up biting us in the ass at the end of the day. Say we attack ISIS, now we're getting involved in a internal power struggle in Iraq, one which the Sunnis were being oppressed by the Shia. And guess what, then you'd have another genocide as the Shia start rolling in on the Sunnis. Want to get involved again when that happens?
 
ecofarm said:
What does the unsubstantiated claim of a former Egyptian interior minister prove?
Click to expand...

About as much as every unsubstantiated claim of yours. Except, he was under oath and you are free to lie.
 
U.S. Aircraft Conducting Strikes Against Militants at Mosul Dam - WSJ

The American airstrikes are designed to weaken the group calling itself the Islamic State, which is controlling the dam, so that Kurdish fighters can launch a ground offensive to rout the Sunni militants, they said.

The strikes represent an important broadening of the American military operations in Iraq approved last week by President Barack Obama that indicate how the administration may push the limits of the scope of authorized
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Right, but then it spread across the ME. All the countries that are at issue here, Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Egypt (and we're not even talking about the countries in the Arabian Peninsula that had to deal with minor uprisings) all stem back to the Arab Spring. Just saying that this all doesn't boil down the US Policy in this case. Even if we hadn't invaded Iraq, Saddam would of still had to deal with the issue of ISIS just as Assad is now.
Click to expand...

Indeed Saddam, Gaddaf had terrorists in check. Assad was doing the same.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Right, but then it spread across the ME. All the countries that are at issue here, Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Egypt (and we're not even talking about the countries in the Arabian Peninsula that had to deal with minor uprisings) all stem back to the Arab Spring. Just saying that this all doesn't boil down the US Policy in this case. Even if we hadn't invaded Iraq, Saddam would of still had to deal with the issue of ISIS just as Assad is now.
Click to expand...

Wrong, this is where western propaganda and your gullibility comes in.
 
Montecresto said:
About as much as every unsubstantiated claim of yours. Except, he was under oath and you are free to lie.
Click to expand...

What do you claim his statement proves?
 
Montecresto said:
He's your president, he hurts himself, he hurts you, he tarnishes US credibility, he tarnishes yours.
Click to expand...

He's my president like Bush was your president.

However, he certainly has tarnished the USA. No wonder Hillary was recently running away from his foreign policy, which is :bs BTW because as head of state dept. she pushed and supported his policies.

So much for the hope and change you voted for.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Right, but then it spread across the ME. All the countries that are at issue here, Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Egypt (and we're not even talking about the countries in the Arabian Peninsula that had to deal with minor uprisings) all stem back to the Arab Spring. Just saying that this all doesn't boil down the US Policy in this case. Even if we hadn't invaded Iraq, Saddam would of still had to deal with the issue of ISIS just as Assad is now.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. Unless your suggesting that the US would have facilitated IS under that circumstance as they have under these, in which case I might agree.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063647933 said:
He's my president like Bush was your president.

However, he certainly has tarnished the USA. No wonder Hillary was recently running away from his foreign policy, which is :bs BTW because as head of state dept. she pushed and supported his policies.

So much for the hope and change you voted for.
Click to expand...

Selective memory. Recall Bush's AR at the end of his presidency and all the GOPer candidates that put half the distance across the world between themselves and him. Stop being so damn partisan if you want to talk to me. Politicians, whether of the smart elephant or the dumb ass parties do this. And gullible patronising Americans eat it up.
 
ecofarm said:
What do you claim his statement proves?
Click to expand...

I posted it at the end of his statement, but you didn't see that because you dismissed it after the first line, because anything critical of the US from a foreign diplomat is a lie.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Just because we're choosing not to get involved in another ME mess, doesn't equate us to mass murders.

I get the compassion argument, I really do. It's just that the compassion argument generally ends up biting us in the ass at the end of the day. Say we attack ISIS, now we're getting involved in a internal power struggle in Iraq, one which the Sunnis were being oppressed by the Shia. And guess what, then you'd have another genocide as the Shia start rolling in on the Sunnis. Want to get involved again when that happens?
Click to expand...

:wow:

:notlook:
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Just because we're choosing not to get involved in another ME mess, doesn't equate us to mass murders.

I get the compassion argument, I really do. It's just that the compassion argument generally ends up biting us in the ass at the end of the day. Say we attack ISIS, now we're getting involved in a internal power struggle in Iraq, one which the Sunnis were being oppressed by the Shia. And guess what, then you'd have another genocide as the Shia start rolling in on the Sunnis. Want to get involved again when that happens?
Click to expand...

The compassion argument is always the pink lapel ribbon that makes Americans feel warm and fuzzy inside while our drones and tomahawks are killing women and children.
 
annata said:
it's going to self-partition, and the borders will be set by the players, no need to draw maps this time. I imagine those borders will be "flexible" -in that it's going to take awhile to settle out.

Baghdad though.....that's a big one
Click to expand...

I think there will be some dispute as you have this or that tribe who owned that hill four hundred years ago and other such things. Eventually it will work itself out.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063647900 said:
So just let the ISIS massacre of the Yazidis continue is what you're stating.

I'm not a proponent of the US being in the ME until they attack the US again, which IMO they eventually will.

However, not ending the religious genocide in Iraq by Islamists makes the US as bad as the mass murderers.
Click to expand...

Then we are as bad as mass murderers.

Genocides in history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many of these did the US stop?
 
Montecresto said:
The compassion argument is always the pink lapel ribbon that makes Americans feel warm and fuzzy inside while our drones and tomahawks are killing women and children.
Click to expand...

At least you got the part right about women and children being killed. The rest is :bs

Non-Muslims are being beheaded because they don't adhere to the "peaceful religion" doctrine and you support the Obama strategy of allowing it to continue.

Keep feeling all warm and fuzzy.
 
Coin said:
Indeed Saddam, Gaddaf had terrorists in check. Assad was doing the same.
Click to expand...

Gaddafi and Assad didn't have anything in check, otherwise they would of dealt with these issues long before we got involved. After all, how long did it take for us to launch air strikes into Lybia?

Saddam is the more interesting question, and one I honestly don't know about. It has nothing to do with the perceived strength of the Iraqi military under Saddam, but more so with the Sunnis. ISIS wouldn't of gotten anywhere without the support (passive or otherwise) of the local Sunnis. And they were pretty well taken care of during Saddam reign. Would the Sunnis of still risen up purely based on religious reason? I don't know, but I doubt it.
 
Montecresto said:
I posted it at the end of his statement, but you didn't see that because you dismissed it after the first line, because anything critical of the US from a foreign diplomat is a lie.
Click to expand...

I saw vague accusations. What, exactly, does that person's claim prove?
 
Montecresto said:
Wrong, this is where western propaganda and your gullibility comes in.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate?

Montecresto said:
That's ridiculous. Unless your suggesting that the US would have facilitated IS under that circumstance as they have under these, in which case I might agree.
Click to expand...

Wait, did you reply to the same post twice? Oh well, in any case...

In the beginning when we were arming Syrian rebels, it's obvious now that not a lot of care was taken to make sure the right rebels were getting equipment. That being said, we're not now (intentionally) arming ISIS. In case you missed the memo, we did start air strikes on them you know...

Montecresto said:
The compassion argument is always the pink lapel ribbon that makes Americans feel warm and fuzzy inside while our drones and tomahawks are killing women and children.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you have no compassion for the Yazidis being slaughtered by ISIS huh? Always the cynic ey Monte?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063647967 said:
At least you got the part right about women and children being killed. The rest is :bs

Non-Muslims are being beheaded because they don't adhere to the "peaceful religion" doctrine and you support the Obama strategy of allowing it to continue.

Keep feeling all warm and fuzzy.
Click to expand...

Sorry, nice try, but I have ridiculed the Obama policy in Syria that has facilitated IS, so stop lying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom