• 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 Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

cpwill said:
...and ungoverned space serving as a launch-pad for terrorist groups for years. Yeah. That's fantastic.
Click to expand...

Yes, I thought a libertarian like yourself would enjoy the idea of ungoverned space.
 
iguanaman said:
Where as before they were only blown to pieces. Much more humane. Now dare we not blow up civilians so they won't be crucified.
Click to expand...

On the contrary - we went to great lengths to minimize civilian casualties. ISIL seeks to maximize them.
 
imagep said:
Yes, I thought a libertarian like yourself would enjoy the idea of ungoverned space.
Click to expand...

Again, you people (that's right, you people) need to learn the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist". Libertarians believe that governments' role is properly restricted to guaranteeing our rights (which are negative in nature) and solving tragedies of the commons. Anarchists believe in effectively no government (ungoverned space).

It's the difference between believing that we should have a police force, but that they should have to do things like prove probable cause before they bust into our house and arrest us and believing that we should just have a free-for-all and let the guy with the best guns win.
 
iguanaman said:
Limited by what? How many casualties we can stomach?
Click to expand...

Limited by wisdom and the needs on the ground as communicated by the commanders who are the experts at this sort of thing and who the White House traditionally ignores in favor of political feel-good solutions.

Our involvement will bring more recruits to ISIS and more misery for the people. Muslims have to fight this war or it means nothing
Click to expand...

Oh gosh, that's not good to hear. Here I thought there were Muslims fighting in this conflict - but apparently they aren't. :roll: I guess we should call the Iraqi's, the FSA, the Kurds, the Saudies, the Emirates, and tell them all that iguanaman has declared them non-Muslim.

You know like invading Iraq meant nothing except more civilians being killed.
Click to expand...

That is flatly incorrect. Like it or not, Iraq now has a (semi) functioning representative government that recognizes limits on its ability to abuse its populace, which it depends upon for governing legitimacy. A larger percentage of Iraqi's voted in 2005 than Americans had the previous year.
 
cpwill said:
Limited by wisdom and the needs on the ground as communicated by the commanders who are the experts at this sort of thing and who the White House traditionally ignores in favor of political feel-good solutions.



Oh gosh, that's not good to hear. Here I thought there were Muslims fighting in this conflict - but apparently they aren't. :roll: I guess we should call the Iraqi's, the FSA, the Kurds, the Saudies, the Emirates, and tell them all that iguanaman has declared them non-Muslim.



That is flatly incorrect. Like it or not, Iraq now has a (semi) functioning representative government that recognizes limits on its ability to abuse its populace, which it depends upon for governing legitimacy. A larger percentage of Iraqi's voted in 2005 than Americans had the previous year.
Click to expand...

Yes it is Muslims fighting and that is the way it should stay or there will be no resolution only a holding action. It is about time they step up and take control of their future.
There has been no legitimacy to the Iraq Govt. under Maliki. He has used the same tactics as Saddam only this time directed at the Sunni's. This behavior has led to ISIS being seen as the lesser of 2 evils in much of Iraq. He has corrupted the Iraq military to the point where they refuse to fight ISIS in Sunni areas. Only a partisan fool would believe we have accomplished anything in Iraq but adding to the suffering.
As far as listening to the military, that is what we had been doing under Bush. It has not been successful, unless eternal war is our game.
 
iguanaman said:
Yes it is Muslims fighting and that is the way it should stay or there will be no resolution only a holding action. It is about time they step up and take control of their future.
There has been no legitimacy to the Iraq Govt. under Maliki. He has used the same tactics as Saddam only this time directed at the Sunni's. This behavior has led to ISIS being seen as the lesser of 2 evils in much of Iraq. He has corrupted the Iraq military to the point where they refuse to fight ISIS in Sunni areas. Only a partisan fool would believe we have accomplished anything in Iraq but adding to the suffering.
As far as listening to the military, that is what we had been doing under Bush. It has not been successful, unless eternal war is our game.
Click to expand...

No war was ever won by a politician in D.C. but wars are always lost by the politicians in D.C. Bush and the military won the war, Obama lost the peace showing his inexperience and incompetence. He lost the peace in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Liberalism is a complete disaster and always will be because liberals always believe they are right and that the rest of the world thinks like they do. Evil knows one thing, force, not negotiation.
 
cpwill said:
On the contrary - we went to great lengths to minimize civilian casualties. ISIL seeks to maximize them.
Click to expand...

ISIL is a product of our intervention. We can take "credit" for all their horrors too,

Blair continues to have no regrets over the decision to attack and occupy Iraq. After all, he writes, there were a few fairly good years in Iraq, following the carnage of 2003-2007. ‘3/4 years ago Al Qaida in Iraq was a beaten force,’ he claims. He must be referring to the quiet years 2009-2012, when 18,000 Iraqi civilians were killed. The truth is violence never ceased in Iraq. The cracks never filled. The wounds never healed. Our continued support has been catastrophic, costing thousands of innocent lives and delivering the final blow to a divided society. ‘We need a comprehensive plan for the Middle East that correctly learns the lessons of the past decade,’ writes Blair. Sadly, he still appears to need to include himself in that ‘we’.
Click to expand...
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/casualties-of-support/
 
Conservative said:
being naive isn't a successful winning strategy. liberals are very naive in believing that the U.S. is the problem and not radical Islam. Liberal logic leads to events like 9/11 and ISIS today. One of these days being naive is going to cost thousands of American lives again.
Click to expand...

The Russians invaded Afghanistan and we got the Taliban and al Qaeda, the US invaded Iraq and we got ISIL. It is all just a coincidence? And you say liberals are naïve. LOL
 
iguanaman said:
You are deluded if you think there was any peace for the Iraqi people either when we were there OR after we left.
Click to expand...
In fact the US president pronounced it "stable" and his VP called it their "greatest achievement". Do you have some inside information no one else has?[/QUOTE]

Here is a list of the casualties in Iraq, and not all by terrorists. In 2011 there were 54, including accidents, which strongly suggests that the country was stable, just as Obama and Biden said.iCasualties: Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom Casualties

It's pointless also to submit opinion pieces as fact.
 
iguanaman said:
The Russians invaded Afghanistan and we got the Taliban and al Qaeda, the US invaded Iraq and we got ISIL. It is all just a coincidence? And you say liberals are naïve. LOL
Click to expand...
ISIS appeared after the forces left. Unless you include the timing of these events your analysis is meaningless.
 
Conservative said:
being naive isn't a successful winning strategy. liberals are very naive in believing that the U.S. is the problem and not radical Islam. Liberal logic leads to events like 9/11 and ISIS today. One of these days being naive is going to cost thousands of American lives again.
Click to expand...
There seems to be a willingness, if not an eagerness, to be foolish and naive. They probably feel quite safe in thinking that the United States is the real enemy.
 
cpwill said:
... Here I thought there were Muslims fighting in this conflict - but apparently they aren't. :roll: I guess we should call the Iraqi's, the FSA, the Kurds, the Saudies, the Emirates, and tell them all that iguanaman has declared them non-Muslim. ...
Click to expand...

ISIS has already declared those groups non-muslims, so that shouldn't surprise anyone.
 
iguanaman said:
Yes it is Muslims fighting and that is the way it should stay or there will be no resolution only a holding action. It is about time they step up and take control of their future.
Click to expand...

:roll: do you have anything to actually add beyond cliche's?

1. Muslims are fighting ISIL
2. They do not have the organic ability to hold back and then defeat it.

There has been no legitimacy to the Iraq Govt. under Maliki. He has used the same tactics as Saddam only this time directed at the Sunni's.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting claim. Can you cite instances of Maliki using chemical weapons to attempt to ethnically cleanse the Sunni? Are you even aware that Maliki is no longer in power, having been driven out by the Democratic processes that had zero effect on Saddam?

Or are you continuing to spit ignorant hyperbole in place of any kind of rational thought process?

As far as listening to the military, that is what we had been doing under Bush. It has not been successful, unless eternal war is our game.
Click to expand...

:lol: okay. I tell you what - we'll make this easy. Compare Iraq in 2009 to Iraq in 2014. Which one is more stable? :)
 
iguanaman said:
ISIL is a product of our intervention. We can take "credit" for all their horrors too,
Click to expand...

:roll: that is idiotic. ISIL is responsible for their own actions and decisions.
 
iguanaman said:
The Russians invaded Afghanistan and we got the Taliban and al Qaeda, the US invaded Iraq and we got ISIL. It is all just a coincidence? And you say liberals are naïve. LOL
Click to expand...

Thank you for this - I can't think of a better demonstration.

Hint: neither the Taliban nor al-Qa'ida fought the Russians in Afghanistan. Both were later creations.
 
iguanaman said:
The Russians invaded Afghanistan and we got the Taliban and al Qaeda, the US invaded Iraq and we got ISIL. It is all just a coincidence? And you say liberals are naïve. LOL
Click to expand...

Careful, they'll twist your words. While the Soviet Union was fighting in A-Stan, the US supported, as a matter of policy the militant Islamic group Mujahideen which succeeded in causing a soviet withdrawal leaving a power vacuum that gave rise to the Taliban we had to fight a dozen years later. By this time, AQ was in A-Stan as well and followed us to Iraq. AQI, was the beginning of ISI forming in the middle of Bush's war in Iraq. ISI eventually spread to Syria and added the second "S", ISIS, and subsequently changed it simply to the Islamic State.

The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999. This group was the forerunner of Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). It took part in the Iraqi insurgency against American-led forces and their Iraqi allies following the 2003 invasion of Iraq and joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which consolidated further into the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) shortly afterwards. At its height it enjoyed a significant presence in Al Anbar, Nineveh, Kirkuk, and other areas, but around 2008, its violent methods led to a backlash against it and temporary decline.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant
 
iguanaman said:
The Russians invaded Afghanistan and we got the Taliban and al Qaeda, the US invaded Iraq and we got ISIL. It is all just a coincidence? And you say liberals are naïve. LOL
Click to expand...

You and "your" President need to get on the same page

Video: Obama-

How many troops did the military request for the Afghanistan Surge and how many did Obama authorize? You have a very selective memory which most liberals seem to have
 
iguanaman said:
Air strikes typical precede any on the ground operations we have done recently. Do you remember how many weeks of airstrikes preceded ground operations in Kuwait or Iraq? I guess the Generals didn't have a clue unlike you? They serve to "soften up" the enemy and play havoc with Command/Control and supply lines, supporting ground troops comes later. Obama never said there would be no ground troops just not American.
Click to expand...

the Generals have a clue.... as a Retired Marine, I have a clue.

you?... not so much.
 
Conservative said:
You and "your" President need to get on the same page

Video: Obama-

How many troops did the military request for the Afghanistan Surge and how many did Obama authorize? You have a very selective memory which most liberals seem to have
Click to expand...

What good did the "surge " in Afghanistan do? Are the Taliban defeated? No. Will any surge end the threat of extremists? Not unless it is a surge of Muslim fighters that are sick of endless war. Like all Presidents he believed the Generals who told him they could "win" if they had more men. He will not be fooled twice.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
What good did the "surge " in Afghanistan do? Are the Taliban defeated? No. Will any surge end the threat of extremists? Not unless it is a surge of Muslim fighters that are sick of endless war.
Click to expand...


Answer the question, how many troops did the military ask for and how many did they get? Maybe Obama ought to play less golf and have fewer fund raisers and learn how to do the job. Leadership is about taking responsibility and not blaming someone else.
 
Thrilla said:
the Generals have a clue.... as a Retired Marine, I have a clue.

you?... not so much.
Click to expand...

Listening to Generals has got us where we are now, no doubt. We are stuck in an endless circle of war without purpose or end. It's a Generals dream come true. No one cares about Generals in peacetime.
 
cpwill said:
Thank you for this - I can't think of a better demonstration.

Hint: neither the Taliban nor al-Qa'ida fought the Russians in Afghanistan. Both were later creations.
Click to expand...

As is usual for right wing neocons you forget that actions often have unforeseen consequences. It was the turmoil of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan that drove 1000's of child refugees to Pakistan where they were "trained" in Saudi backed extremist Muslim schools. Those refugees became the Taliban. No invasion, no refugees and no Taliban. See how that works?
 
iguanaman said:
As is usual for right wing neocons you forget that actions often have unforeseen consequences. It was the turmoil of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan that drove 1000's of child refugees to Pakistan where they were "trained" in Saudi backed extremist Muslim schools. Those refugees became the Taliban. No invasion, no refugees and no Taliban. See how that works?
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a stretch. Had the Soviet Union of won, those very same refugees very well could of been forced into Pakistan to escape the oppression of the Soviet Puppet government. Also, it's important to keep in mind that the Soviet Union started that conflict, we were simply supporting freedom fighters that to Americans, were no different than those freedom fighters in Eastern Europe. Finally, it was important to check Soviet Aggression. We'd have a lot more problems if all of Asia was red...
 
iguanaman said:
Listening to Generals has got us where we are now, no doubt. We are stuck in an endless circle of war without purpose or end. It's a Generals dream come true. No one cares about Generals in peacetime.
Click to expand...

This is a poor Hollywood caricature that has no basis in reality. You do realize that the vast majority of generals have served as regular infantry on the ground. If anything, they would have far more understanding of the suffering of those troops than either you or I...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom