• 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!

US hostage Kassig 'killed by IS'

CMPancake said:
Who would you declare war on then? The country, the group the country resides in, or what? Because the last time we tried a "full out" war we ended up with more Terrorists.
Click to expand...
Assuming this is true why do you believe there are more terrorists after we fought with both hands tied behind our backs?

Not even terrorists want to be on the losing side. This next time let's wage war to win it.
 
Misterveritis said:
Are you serious? If you refer to ISIS then ground troops supported by artillery and air power will do quite nicely.
Click to expand...

You're suggesting a full on invasion of a country to route Terrorists residing in the country. That's like going after a cockroach with a flamethrower.

Misterveritis said:
Assuming this is true why do you believe there are more terrorists after we fought with both hands tied behind our backs?
Click to expand...

How have we fought the War on Terror with both hands behind our backs. We've tried knocking down dictators, funding and aiding rebel groups (who went around to become terrorists themselves) and waged two wars in Iraq and the Afghan. If there's anything the War on Terror has been, handicapped is not one of them.
 
Kobie said:
1. I don't live in Utica, kid. I used to. I'm not sure why you continue to mention it ... you must see some relevance in it.
2-4. I see no denial of facts, which means you must accept them, yet still continue your blatant shilling.
Click to expand...

Kobie give it up. Obama's politics and his failed leadership have "led" us here. You can't start to fix things until you recognize there is a problem. Can you admit that both Obama's leadership and ISIS are problems?
 
Kobie said:
Why do you continue to display your blatant ignorance of how the world actually functions? Do you think killing Maliki (as was suggested) would have been a good idea?
Click to expand...

More shucking and jiving. I never suggested that, why are you changing the subject?
 
CRUE CAB said:
Should have left a residual force. Should not have lied about the rise if ISIS. Should call them ISIS, not ISL. Should have met them head on with a quick strike force. Those are just for a start.
Click to expand...

Amen, when our POTUS communicates to these terrorists that he's not fighting to win, and then gives them withdrawal deadlines he's giving them implicit permission to continue. These are NOT the type to surrender to, ever.
 
US Conservative said:
RIP. Life is cheap under ISIS, and Obama has allowed ISIS to flourish. These attacks will continue until our weak President decides to get serious.
Click to expand...

When was Obama elected president of the world? When was the US appointed sheriff of the world?

Anyhow, since you obviously haven't been following the news on ISIS, it's not exactly flourishing.
 
Misterveritis said:
I am surprised that no one on this board is familiar with negotiations. The Iraqis had an excellent bargaining chip. They failed to realize that Obama was not a leader. He was an empty suit best suited to lying to his own stupid supporters that securing a lasting peace in Iraq.

Obama's chickens are coming home to roost.
Click to expand...

Thats it. Just another consequence of a weak leader who isn't used to give and take, or opposition, or even cooperating with the other side. His domestic failures mirror his foreign policy failures in that sense.

Im thinking even Jimmy Carter could have done better.
 
Kobie said:
Ah, so now the Iraqis wouldn't let that go because it was Obama in the first place. The man's very existence led them to that stance.

Well, that's a new one. While I do enjoy watching you guys twist yourselves into rhetorical pretzels to blame all of our problems on Obama, it's kinda getting boring.
Click to expand...

Thats not what he said-Obama's weak leadership and diplomatic skills present in different ways, this is one example. Keep in mind all the while his own staff was telling him to leave a force or face what would become ISIS.

Obama let this happen Kobie, and he did it for politics.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Bad news, its coming. Afford it or not.
Click to expand...

I made a note of that prediction. Be prepared to admit that you have no understanding of world politics when I bring your statement up in about a year or so.
 
Kobie said:
So the problem here, then, is that Obama simply couldn't convince Iraqi leadership to budge on a hard-line policy that Bush agreed to before Obama took office.
Click to expand...

Kobie, you are tap dancing like its cool. Bush was out for years by this point. Although it does fall in line with your lazy narrative about blaming Bush, Obama was POTUS, and the buck stops with him.
 
Amadeus said:
What should he do? Lay out your strategy.
Click to expand...

I'm way to lazy to read the thread (it is over 37 pages) but did the miracle happen and you got a coherent response for an alternative plan...or did he just do what he always does and resort to insults and then flee?
 
Hatuey said:
If any agreement was dependent on the Iraqis denying us extraterritoriality, then your statement is false. There were no other routes. Again, you're going against your own sources on this.
Click to expand...

Im sorry but you are incorrect. Im simply not using my source as you'd like. Real sorry about that.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Well heck. Lets just drop flowers and greeting cards and see how that works. If we dont want to have to keep running back there then yes, war. Full out take no prisoners war.
Click to expand...

We don't need to "keep running back there"...ever (unless they attack the US of course). It's not any of our business what people in other countries do unless it harms us. Our only interest in ISIS should be to contain them so that it doesn't spread.
 
matchlight said:
This country is now so infested with leftist drones that there could be a damn video of Obama agreeing to sell our nuclear secrets to our enemies, and about forty per cent of the population would find a way to explain it away. As long as that check keeps coming, there are millions of takers for whom Barry the Red can do no wrong.
Click to expand...

We see that daily.
 
US Conservative said:
Kobie give it up. Obama's politics and his failed leadership have "led" us here. You can't start to fix things until you recognize there is a problem. Can you admit that both Obama's leadership and ISIS are problems?
Click to expand...

When did I ever say ISIS wasn't a problem? What the **** is wrong with you?
 
CRUE CAB said:
Combat troops enmasse. Pure and absolute power to completely demolish any and all remnants of the enemy.
Click to expand...

And since ISIS abides by no internationally recognized rules of war, we should wage war unhindered by any such restrictions. And let it serve as a warning to what we can do if so inclined.
 
US Conservative said:
Wars with radical islamists dont end because you'd like to cut and run. ...
Click to expand...

They never end, unless you kill them all or convert them all. I don't think that either is a viable option.
 
imagep said:
When was Obama elected president of the world? When was the US appointed sheriff of the world?

Anyhow, since you obviously haven't been following the news on ISIS, it's not exactly flourishing.
Click to expand...

Its exactly flourishing, terrorism has grown like its cool under Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom