• 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. Weighs Direct Military Action Against ISIS in Syria

Jango said:
No, it is you that is mistaken. I know why we're where we're at. You don't understand that we have a serious problem right now so reflection & introspection of prior U.S. Foreign Policy actions is not an important task to be done right now: we first must survive & resteady ourselves. Then, a thorough reexamination is in order. Sort out your priorities, mate.
Click to expand...

Going at it from that angle will never bring peace. Your advocating focus on cure, but your absent in between when we need to focus on prevention, which means more trouble and then more cure, back and forth.
 
Grant said:
No, personally I have no reason to fear them. Or anything for that matter.

Do you feel the terrorists have won? I feel the terrorists are winning, and will continue to do so until the democracies provide some strong leadership. Islamic terrorism is coming at a perfect time for them, with no strong leadership especially, of course, in America. A perfect storm, if you will.

They're are certainly doing well in Europe. 15% of French people back ISIS militants, poll finds ? RT News

What makes you so sure that the terrorists will leave the USA alone? Do you think they are lying? ISIS Terrorizes Middle East, Threatens United States
Click to expand...

Our Intelligence and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies have done a pretty good job so far of thwarting terrorist attacks on American soil thus far.
As a soldier myself, what we have done in the Middle East has, in my opinion, very little effect on whether or not terrorist attacks occur here.

And of course, a ground invasion of the United States is virtually impossible, even for some of the Strongest Military in the world.....

Will there be another terrorist attack? Sure at some point, it is inevitable, whether that be an attack perpetrated by a foreign terrorist group or one grown right here at home.

Does anyone honestly think that sending our troops to foreign lands is going to change that? We've been in that region for over a decade now fighting, tearing down the countries to build them back up again only to find out that the citizens there are unwilling to step up and take control of their own defense. During this process we have managed to sacrifice the lives of thousands of U.S. service members, make living conditions WORSE for many of the citizens of those countries, managed to contribute arms to those who now fight against our goals there, and all this while dumping trillions of U.S. Taxpayer dollars to end up almost right back where we started.

How many thousand more soldiers lives, trillions of dollars, and years are you willing to waste there?
 
Caine said:
Our Intelligence and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies have done a pretty good job so far of thwarting terrorist attacks on American soil thus far.
As a soldier myself, what we have done in the Middle East has, in my opinion, very little effect on whether or not terrorist attacks occur here.

And of course, a ground invasion of the United States is virtually impossible, even for some of the Strongest Military in the world.....

Will there be another terrorist attack? Sure at some point, it is inevitable, whether that be an attack perpetrated by a foreign terrorist group or one grown right here at home.

Does anyone honestly think that sending our troops to foreign lands is going to change that? We've been in that region for over a decade now fighting, tearing down the countries to build them back up again only to find out that the citizens there are unwilling to step up and take control of their own defense. During this process we have managed to sacrifice the lives of thousands of U.S. service members, make living conditions WORSE for many of the citizens of those countries, managed to contribute arms to those who now fight against our goals there, and all this while dumping trillions of U.S. Taxpayer dollars to end up almost right back where we started.

How many thousand more soldiers lives, trillions of dollars, and years are you willing to waste there?
Click to expand...

Ya, they are good at stopping the ones that they don't setup, take the 93 wtc bombing. They hired the guy to build the bomb, the guy wanted to use fake stuff, since the intention was clear, they gave the guy the real explosive. He began recording conversations with the FBI, who did not stop the bomb from going off as promised.,, and because the guy smelled the setup, you might never have heard of emad salem.

Obama's biggest fear was a nuke going off in an American city, that week, nukes to missing from an Air Force base that was not even supposed to have nukes, and shipped them to a town, where the veiled threat of a nuke going off in that city. The following week, the top nuke commanders started getting caught "gambling" and other likely made up stuff... By the time that dust settled, it's been over 200 top military commanders have been replaced.

Oh, and, I hope Isis doesn't read the news, or the forum, because the us no longer protects it's southern border, so they can just walk in with any weapons they want... Perhaps the stinger missiles given to ALQUIADA in the wake of Benghazi.

That said, nobody wants wars, except for those who profit from wars... And if a person is in the business of profiting from murder, what do you think they might do to maintain the profit margins?
 
Caine said:
Does anyone honestly think that sending our troops to foreign lands is going to change that? We've been in that region for over a decade now fighting, tearing down the countries to build them back up again only to find out that the citizens there are unwilling to step up and take control of their own defense.
Click to expand...
The Iraqis, like most ME countries, never had a democracy before, never had representational government, were tribal and had no experience in running a country whatsoever. To leave them on their own and expect them to "take control of their own defense" was impossible, and either naive or indifferent. Iraq had been won but, as elsewhere in the world, troops and advisers had to remain to defend what was won. To risk everything, the investment of lives and trillions of dollars on the unrealistic hope that they could take control of their own defense, was criminal. Certainly it was a loss, but a loss was not inevitable until all military was withdrawn.
During this process we have managed to sacrifice the lives of thousands of U.S. service members, make living conditions WORSE for many of the citizens of those countries, managed to contribute arms to those who now fight against our goals there, and all this while dumping trillions of U.S. Taxpayer dollars to end up almost right back where we started.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Packing up and leaving was the worst military decision ever made by any President.
How many thousand more soldiers lives, trillions of dollars, and years are you willing to waste there?
Click to expand...
That depends on whether the democracies get serious or not. Nothing was wasted until Iraq was abandoned, and only then did it all start to unravel. Making military decisions based on election cycles will guarantee long term failure.

As far as an invasion of the USA is concerned there will just be Islamists shooting innocent people whenever and wherever they choose, just as those DC snipers did a few years ago, or the Boston terrorists did, or at Fort Hood,. They will never confront the US military, and don't have to. That is 20th century warfare.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mich...urce=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
In that case, you have no problem with Russian presence in the parts of Ukraine no longer governed by Kiev.
Click to expand...

Russia is fighting to annex territory. It is the aggressor. The U.S. is being defensive by fighting the aggressor. The U.S. has no interest in annexing the territory. Different situation entirely. I would certainly encourage Russia to join the fight against ISIS, however. I think we infidels would do well to join forces to defeat ISIS.
 
Caine said:
Our Intelligence and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies have done a pretty good job so far of thwarting terrorist attacks on American soil thus far.
As a soldier myself, what we have done in the Middle East has, in my opinion, very little effect on whether or not terrorist attacks occur here.

And of course, a ground invasion of the United States is virtually impossible, even for some of the Strongest Military in the world.....

Will there be another terrorist attack? Sure at some point, it is inevitable, whether that be an attack perpetrated by a foreign terrorist group or one grown right here at home.

Does anyone honestly think that sending our troops to foreign lands is going to change that? We've been in that region for over a decade now fighting, tearing down the countries to build them back up again only to find out that the citizens there are unwilling to step up and take control of their own defense. During this process we have managed to sacrifice the lives of thousands of U.S. service members, make living conditions WORSE for many of the citizens of those countries, managed to contribute arms to those who now fight against our goals there, and all this while dumping trillions of U.S. Taxpayer dollars to end up almost right back where we started.

How many thousand more soldiers lives, trillions of dollars, and years are you willing to waste there?
Click to expand...

Good question for him. He loves volunteering American blood and treasure!
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/w...litary-action-possible-against-isis.html?_r=0

So we are going to selectively bomb in Iraq then in Syria? We know this wont drastically hurt ISIS. But the question is where do we bomb in Syria? [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

ISIS has been fighting a conventional war in Syria and Iraq. Our airstrikes will prohibit them from doing that in that we will destroy all their heavy military equipment along with a majority of their forces. Of course it will drastically hurt them.
 
Montecresto said:
It's not that I don't recognise the threat man, its that our policies in the ME have helped to make it possible. The part of this that continues to escape you.
Click to expand...

What continues to escape most is that any policy regarding the middle east helps to make things possible. If we act, something happens, if we don't act, something happens....no matter what, some of that "something" will be negative.
 
fmw said:
Russia is fighting to annex territory. It is the aggressor. The U.S. is being defensive by fighting the aggressor. The U.S. has no interest in annexing the territory. Different situation entirely. I would certainly encourage Russia to join the fight against ISIS, however. I think we infidels would do well to join forces to defeat ISIS.
Click to expand...

Oh for Pete's sake. Again you think propaganda only emanates from other places. Russia is not the aggressor in Ukraine. Remember, the US supported a violent coup that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine installing a pro-Western government, quite naturally completely unacceptable to Russia. What we have seen there is an attempt at NATO expansion eastward. Russia is responding to US intrigue, they are not the aggressors. And they appear willing to pay the price to deny this.

As to the US, regime change is our goal in the ME, which seems odd that you would deny that as aggression, because Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad see it as very aggressive. And Russia has been supporting president Assad all along in his fight against militant extremism in Syria. It's US support of those fighting to topple President Assad that has emboldened them and given rise to IS which has spread beyond Syria's borders, precisely as China and Russia warned US interference in Syria would cause.
 
mac said:
What continues to escape most is that any policy regarding the middle east helps to make things possible. If we act, something happens, if we don't act, something happens....no matter what, some of that "something" will be negative.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. Well tell me. How is it that creating power vacuums can ever be positive?
 
Montecresto said:
Oh, I see. Well tell me. How is it that creating power vacuums can ever be positive?
Click to expand...

By not creating them. Put a govt in place then back it up, as long as that takes. We're still in Europe, after all.

Americans want clean and neat little wars. We go in, wipe the floor with em, then roll out. Doesn't work. We have to commit to maintaining peace in the middle east with a long term, significant presence.
 
mac said:
By not creating them. Put a govt in place then back it up, as long as that takes. We're still in Europe, after all.

Americans want clean and neat little wars. We go in, wipe the floor with em, then roll out. Doesn't work. We have to commit to maintaining peace in the middle east with a long term, significant presence.
Click to expand...

Except that that's not what has happened. Beginning with arming the mujahideen, which created the power vacuum when Russia left which gave rise to the Taliban that we only had to fight latter. The power vacuum we created in Iraq gave rise to and emboldened AQ/ISIS, the power vacuum we've created in Libya has it in chaos, and now then we've been supporting those who have been trying to topple president Assad in Syria, still hanging on, though greatly weakened, the power vacuum there has further strengthened IS which is spreading back into Iraq and Lebanon and threatens other Syrian neighbours. US policy has been a fan to the flames, fuel on the fire, and anything but a peaceful solution.
 
OMG, what are we going to do?!?!

These guys are as big a threat to the US as the Viet Cong was! Yikes! :shock:

Chuck Hagel must be having flashbacks to Saigon, poor baby.
 
Montecresto said:
Except that that's not what has happened. Beginning with arming the mujahideen, which created the power vacuum when Russia left which gave rise to the Taliban that we only had to fight latter. The power vacuum we created in Iraq gave rise to and emboldened AQ/ISIS, the power vacuum we've created in Libya has it in chaos, and now then we've been supporting those who have been trying to topple president Assad in Syria, still hanging on, though greatly weakened, the power vacuum there has further strengthened IS which is spreading back into Iraq and Lebanon and threatens other Syrian neighbours. US policy has been a fan to the flames, fuel on the fire, and anything but a peaceful solution.
Click to expand...

There was no "power vacuum created in Iraq" until Barrack pulled the troops. It was thought in some circles that up to 70,000 troops would remain in Iraq - policing, training and keeping the country stable.
 
Montecresto said:
Except that that's not what has happened.
Click to expand...

You're right...we left. Now we're going back.

Beginning with arming the mujahideen, which created the power vacuum when Russia left which gave rise to the Taliban that we only had to fight latter. The power vacuum we created in Iraq gave rise to and emboldened AQ/ISIS, the power vacuum we've created in Libya has it in chaos, and now then we've been supporting those who have been trying to topple president Assad in Syria, still hanging on, though greatly weakened, the power vacuum there has further strengthened IS which is spreading back into Iraq and Lebanon and threatens other Syrian neighbours. US policy has been a fan to the flames, fuel on the fire, and anything but a peaceful solution.
Click to expand...

The key thing you've missed....we left.
 
Montecresto said:
Oh for Pete's sake. Again you think propaganda only emanates from other places. Russia is not the aggressor in Ukraine. Remember, the US supported a violent coup that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine installing a pro-Western government, quite naturally completely unacceptable to Russia. What we have seen there is an attempt at NATO expansion eastward. Russia is responding to US intrigue, they are not the aggressors. And they appear willing to pay the price to deny this.

As to the US, regime change is our goal in the ME, which seems odd that you would deny that as aggression, because Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad see it as very aggressive. And Russia has been supporting president Assad all along in his fight against militant extremism in Syria. It's US support of those fighting to topple President Assad that has emboldened them and given rise to IS which has spread beyond Syria's borders, precisely as China and Russia warned US interference in Syria would cause.
Click to expand...

So we disagree. We usually do.
 
Henry David said:
OMG, what are we going to do?!?!

These guys are as big a threat to the US as the Viet Cong was! Yikes! :shock:

Chuck Hagel must be having flashbacks to Saigon, poor baby.
Click to expand...

Is it your belief that Islamic terrorism is the same threat as were the North Vietnamese?
 
Grant said:
Is it your belief that Islamic terrorism is the same threat as were the North Vietnamese?
Click to expand...

Less of a threat. At least the NVA had its people behind them, and it had some level of industrial capacity. These guys are just a well organized gang of thieves who majorly scored a bunch of US equipment and weapons.

But having been there, North Vietnam was no threat at all to the US. All they wanted was to get the nasty invader out of their country. I consider that a reasonable wish.

These guys don't even have a navy or an air force, and Chuck Hegal is saying they are a threat. They can't even cross the frigging ocean. :lol:
 
The False Flag That Couldn't....:cool:
 
Henry David said:
Less of a threat. At least the NVA had its people behind them, and it had some level of industrial capacity. These guys are just a well organized gang of thieves who majorly scored a bunch of US equipment and weapons.

But having been there, North Vietnam was no threat at all to the US. All they wanted was to get the nasty invader out of their country. I consider that a reasonable wish.

These guys don't even have a navy or an air force, and Chuck Hegal is saying they are a threat. They can't even cross the frigging ocean. :lol:
Click to expand...

Why would you think they need an air force or a navy?
 
Grant said:
Why would you think they need an air force or a navy?
Click to expand...

It seems to me that any credible threat to the US would need a credible military organization.

A group of ragtag criminals running around the Mideast desert does not qualify as a threat to the US, IMO.
 
Henry David said:
It seems to me that any credible threat to the US would need a credible military organization. A group of ragtag criminals running around the Mideast desert does not qualify as a threat to the US, IMO.
Click to expand...
Or Jayvees, as Obama called them.

You seem to be one of those who believe that terrorists would act like the Allies forces did during WWII.

Terrorists can now enter the US easily, and arm themselves as well. They will simply get a weapons of some sort and murder as many civilians as they can, in shopping centers, movie theaters, and elsewhere, and then go to trial. Keep in mind that terrorists are certainly not fearful of dying, or of going to prison.

What happened in Washington DC, Fort Hood and Boston will become the norm, just as it is in Israel, Iraq, Syria, or any other war zone where terrorists are involved. Democracies believing they have a handle on terrorists and their tactics, or can rely on their military, are only fooling themselves. Think of the DC snipers times a hundred, or thousand, and then you'll get the idea.
 
Henry David said:
OMG, what are we going to do?!?!

These guys are as big a threat to the US as the Viet Cong was! Yikes! :shock:

Chuck Hagel must be having flashbacks to Saigon, poor baby.
Click to expand...


Heya HD. :2wave: Check out the War on Terror Forum, where we have information up on these guys. Do you think possession of Scud Missiles make them more of a threat? They have now taken Assads last military base in Northern Syria. An Air base. They also now have an Airport.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-t...ighting-force-us-special-ops-sources-say.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-terror/203036-isis-captures-major-air-base-syria.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom