• 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

Caine said:
So we stay there forever? No. I think not.

So you DO want us to stay there forever.

Policies and Strategies don't fix crazy. The Middle East isn't ready to live without strife. We can't fix that with policies and strategies and keeping a military presence there for 30+ years isn't "fixing" anything.

Nah. Its better to waste all of our resources, lives, and money to the point where the government goes bankrupt. All for...... "stability".

I don't care, stay there a decade or a century. The moment we walk out those crazy ****ers are going to tear each other apart. And with the way the ROE is these days, they are going to tear each other apart while we watch.
Click to expand...

If not us (US) than a consistent UN force that would serve the same purpose...the purpose we've served in Europe since WWII.
 
mac said:
A series of successful terrorist attacks in this country would do irreparable harm.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the question would always be "just who ACTUALLY perpetrated the attacks?" :roll:
 
Caine said:
So we stay there forever? No. I think not.
Click to expand...
Staying there forever was never listed as an option.
So you DO want us to stay there forever.
Click to expand...
What would give you this idea? Are the only options to leave immediately or stay forever?
Policies and Strategies don't fix crazy. The Middle East isn't ready to live without strife. We can't fix that with policies and strategies and keeping a military presence there for 30+ years isn't "fixing" anything.
Click to expand...
You're the first one I know of who suggested 30 years or forever. Where do you come up with these numbers?
Nah. Its better to waste all of our resources, lives, and money to the point where the government goes bankrupt. All for...... "stability".
Click to expand...
All the lives and resources were wasted and now you have 'instability'. You actually prefer this option?
I don't care, stay there a decade or a century. The moment we walk out those crazy ****ers are going to tear each other apart. And with the way the ROE is these days, they are going to tear each other apart while we watch.
Click to expand...
I can't debate your feelings.
 
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...

They can't huh?
september-9-11-attacks-anniversary-ground-zero-world-trade-center-pentagon-flight-93-second-airp.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 9-11-1.jpg
    9-11-1.jpg
    28.8 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:
Grant said:
All the lives and resources were wasted and now you have 'instability'. You actually prefer this option?
.
Click to expand...
Yes. Yes I do.

Iraq needs to know its time to sink or swim.
 
mac said:
If not us (US) than a consistent UN force that would serve the same purpose...the purpose we've served in Europe since WWII.
Click to expand...

Oh that. Which I also disagree with.
 
Caine said:
Oh that. Which I also disagree with.
Click to expand...

You can disagree with it all you want, but we ended 1000 years of constant warfare in Western Europe.
 
mac said:
You can disagree with it all you want, but we ended 1000 years of constant warfare in Western Europe.
Click to expand...

Correlation does not equal causation.
 
mac said:
You can disagree with it all you want, but we ended 1000 years of constant warfare in Western Europe.
Click to expand...

LOL We ended nothing. What about eastern Europe? Bosnia, and now Ukraine come to mind. Our forces simply substituted for other countries defense spending, sort of a lend lease without the strings.
There is no end to how much we spend to prop up the defense conglomerates. Wasted money for the most part.
 
Caine said:
Yes. Yes I do.

Iraq needs to know its time to sink or swim.
Click to expand...

They are sinking unless they receive aid. And you think that will then teach them a lesson? What would be the point of having a powerful terrorist group take over Iraq with access to Iraqi oil, and other countries throughout the Middle East. America, with its coalition members, started the war in Iraq and should have seen it through until they could properly looked after themselves and the region had settled down. To do otherwise was foolish and immoral.

One good thing is that, without US even being informed, Egypt and the UAE are attacking Islamist strongholds in Libya. But these countries need help and other nations, in their own long term interest, should give it to them.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
You can disagree with it all you want, but we ended 1000 years of constant warfare in Western Europe.
Click to expand...

And there were plenty of Americans who were against fighting Hitler as well, and for very good reasons. But eventually they had to get involved because evil will never go away on its own volition.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL We ended nothing. What about eastern Europe? Bosnia, and now Ukraine come to mind. Our forces simply substituted for other countries defense spending, sort of a lend lease without the strings. There is no end to how much we spend to prop up the defense conglomerates. Wasted money for the most part.
Click to expand...
That's the way the world is. If it's not one crazy place it's another and it was ever thus.. Expecting otherwise is unrealistic, ergo, it makes sense to pay insurance for our continued freedoms.
 
Grant said:
That's the way the world is. If it's not one crazy place it's another and it was ever thus.. Expecting otherwise is unrealistic, ergo, it makes sense to pay insurance for our continued freedoms.
Click to expand...

Forcing our presence on nations that do not want it is not the way to preserve freedoms. It is the way to make more enemies that threaten those freedoms. Vietnam is a perfect example. If we had stayed there forever to keep the country from being reunited we would not have an ally like Vietnam in S.E. Asia today. We are not instruments of tyranny and making damn sure everybody knows it is the key to our "continued freedoms".
 
Grant said:
They are sinking unless they receive aid. And you think that will then teach them a lesson? What would be the point of having a powerful terrorist group take over Iraq with access to Iraqi oil, and other countries throughout the Middle East. America, with its coalition members, started the war in Iraq and should have seen it through until they could properly looked after themselves and the region had settled down. To do otherwise was foolish and immoral.

One good thing is that, without US even being informed, Egypt and the UAE are attacking Islamist strongholds in Libya. But these countries need help and other nations, in their own long term interest, should give it to them.
Click to expand...

It was foolish and immoral to go to Iraq without a plan but you support it still. Bush left Obama with the choice of propping up a sectarian tyrant who was murdering Sunnis in their beds or withdraw like Maliki demanded and hope he would face the music and rule Iraq fairly. There was no good choice PERIOD. But ISIL will not take Bagdad or Iraq our air force will see to that, but the job of retaking the fallen cities must be the Iraqi's feet on the ground.
 
Those of us in the business call it 'walking the dog' ---

You start at the western border, and just walk the bombs until you get to the eastern border. No border? No problem - just keep walking.
 
iguanaman said:
Forcing our presence on nations that do not want it is not the way to preserve freedoms. It is the way to make more enemies that threaten those freedoms. Vietnam is a perfect example. If we had stayed there forever to keep the country from being reunited we would not have an ally like Vietnam in S.E. Asia today. We are not instruments of tyranny and making damn sure everybody knows it is the key to our "continued freedoms".
Click to expand...

Did you, by any chance, spend any time in Iraq? Yeah ... I didn't think so.

Reality doesn't seem to be your strong point, does it?
 
GBFAN said:
Did you, by any chance, spend any time in Iraq? Yeah ... I didn't think so.

Reality doesn't seem to be your strong point, does it?
Click to expand...

And what is your strong point? And what does where I have been have to do with anything?
 
iguanaman said:
And what is your strong point? And what does where I have been have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

Simple - you sound like a liberal talking machine, spewing out the popular diatribe regardless of what the truth might be. It was clear to me that reality is a stretch for you ... it's one thing to misrepresent reality, and know you're doing it ... it's a whole different thing to accept the lies of others at face value and being to intellectually lazy to investigate for the truth.
 
GBFAN said:
Simple - you sound like a liberal talking machine, spewing out the popular diatribe regardless of what the truth might be. It was clear to me that reality is a stretch for you ... it's one thing to misrepresent reality, and know you're doing it ... it's a whole different thing to accept the lies of others at face value and being to intellectually lazy to investigate for the truth.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the platitudes. Now I know your strong point. Sadly their is no way to debate platitudes, but I think you know that. Go back to your Hannity.
 
iguanaman said:
Forcing our presence on nations that do not want it is not the way to preserve freedoms. It is the way to make more enemies that threaten those freedoms. Vietnam is a perfect example. If we had stayed there forever to keep the country from being reunited we would not have an ally like Vietnam in S.E. Asia today. We are not instruments of tyranny and making damn sure everybody knows it is the key to our "continued freedoms".
Click to expand...
Best avoid Vietnam and stick to subjects you may know something about.
 
Grant said:
Best avoid Vietnam and stick to subjects you may know something about.
Click to expand...

I do know that today there are 2 flights a day from LAX to Ho Chi Minh city and my tablet was made there. Is that a problem for you?
 
iguanaman said:
I do know that today there are 2 flights a day from LAX to Ho Chi Minh city and my tablet was made there. Is that a problem for you?
Click to expand...
Not at all. Now you're talking of a subject you know something about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom