• 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'

Five Americans beheaded so far this year during the Obama administration.

If we count beheadings in the CONUS by Muslims it's six.

6 1/2 weeks still left in the year.

I wonder what the total number will be at the end of the year ?
 
Yeah, that fee speech thingy can be a real bitch when you won't consider the content....Obama a military strategist....


seriously?

I don't remember ever calling him a military strategist. That's why presidents have generals.

Perhaps you can explain to me why a beheading under Bush is no big deal but under Obama it's obviously a sign of incompetence and timidity?

And I don't know who told you that the first amendment prevents you from being criticized on the internet, but you might want to reread it.

Im sorry but you are mistaken. I am not POTUS. I can criticize away as I see fit, it does NOT make my criticism invalid.

The FACT here, is we have a POTUS unable to do anything substantive. This will likely not change unless there is another major US attack, or a new POTUS is elected in 2016. Which means no definitive response until 2017 at the earliest.

Obama has willingly left our former allies alone, and he's allowed a TERRORIST STATE to aggressively grow across Asia and Africa. Thats real.

I think it's fascinating that you think things occur in a vacuum with no historical context whatseover. ISIS formed under Bush and Americans were dying about 100x faster than they are now.

I know it's easy for you to cry from your arm chair about how our soldiers should be forever in combat, but if you feel like something should be done you can do it your god damn self. If only we were still in Iraq, then Americans everywhere would be safe! What kind of idiotic fantasy world do you live in?

Five Americans beheaded so far this year during the Obama administration.

If we count beheadings in the CONUS by Muslims it's six.

6 1/2 weeks still left in the year.

I wonder what the total number will be at the end of the year ?

Do you think it'll be more or less than the 4,000 soldiers that died in Iraq? Do soldiers' lives hold zero value to you? Why don't they count?

From 2003 to 2008 we had anywhere from 400-900 deaths a month, and you're over here implying that we should relaunch the war because of 6 murdered people? Screw our military, send those bitches back, amiright? Who cares since you're too old to go back.
 
Last edited:
I think it's fascinating that you think things occur in a vacuum with no historical context whatseover. ISIS formed under Bush and Americans were dying about 100x faster than they are now.

I know it's easy for you to cry from your arm chair about how our soldiers should be forever in combat, but if you feel like something should be done you can do it your god damn self. If only we were still in Iraq, then Americans everywhere would be safe! What kind of idiotic fantasy world do you live in?

I understand the context just fine. And I understand that your silly comments dont change that our hard fought victory in Iraq was squandered, and now will likely have to be fought again. And Iraq, is just part of the war on terror-who said a victory there would mean "Americans everywhere would be safe"? I didn't. What you are doing, is fighting men of straw.
 
Five Americans beheaded so far this year during the Obama administration.

If we count beheadings in the CONUS by Muslims it's six.

6 1/2 weeks still left in the year.

I wonder what the total number will be at the end of the year ?

That's why they do it. That's the same kind of thing that cost us Vietnam.
 
I understand the context just fine. And I understand that your silly comments dont change that our hard fought victory in Iraq was squandered, and now will likely have to be fought again. And Iraq, is just part of the war on terror-who said a victory there would mean "Americans everywhere would be safe"? I didn't. What you are doing, is fighting men of straw.

If Iraq was a "huge victory" it wouldn't have fallen the **** apart when we followed Bush's timeline to leave Iraq. I see through you now. 900 US casualties a year is no problem at all, but if 6 people are beheaded under Obama we should relaunch the war.

I'm sorry, the military is not your personal pawn force.
 
If Iraq was a "huge victory" it wouldn't have fallen the **** apart when we followed Bush's timeline to leave Iraq. I see through you now. 900 US casualties a year is no problem at all, but if 6 people are beheaded under Obama we should relaunch the war.

I'm sorry, the military is not your personal pawn force.

Quit poking holes in his arguments. He thinks the Iraqis wanted us back even though they wanted to deny the US extraterritoriality and if it weren't for Obama, they would have given it to us. That meddling Obama! Following Bush's withdrawal plan and then refusing to make our troops subject to Iraqi laws!

It's probably not as funny as Jack Hays' belief that what unnamed sources thought was going to happen is relevant to international agreements. Making him double down on his ridiculous arguments by claiming that the language of the agreement is not as relevant as what some unnamed source in some NYT piece wanted was better though.

You can't make up their simplistic interpretation of events. US Conservative honestly thinks Iraq was peaceful when we left in 2008. Can you imagine? Iraq had the same level casualties in 2008 as it did in 2003. Was 2003 a peaceful year for Iraq?
 
Last edited:
If Iraq was a "huge victory" it wouldn't have fallen the **** apart when we followed Bush's timeline to leave Iraq. I see through you now. 900 US casualties a year is no problem at all, but if 6 people are beheaded under Obama we should relaunch the war.

I'm sorry, the military is not your personal pawn force.

Oh, my friend, I am sorry but it is his personal pawn force.

You see, he is (probably) a Neocon. And they use the United States military like a hypochondriac uses Aspirin...to try and fix every little problem. And, like Aspirin, there are always more soldiers (and tax dollars) that the government can sacrifice to fulfill their personal - oops, sorry - 'patriotic' ends.

Imo, Neocons (in general) are doing FAR more harm to America then ISIS could ever dream of doing by going around the world, making neutrals out of friends and enemies out of neutrals, all the while costing America gigantic sums of money and precious, brave American blood (not to mention a sh!t load of innocent civilian blood).

Anyone who actually thinks America is safer now then they were the day after 9-11 is STAGGERINGLY delusional on this subject. America is FAR weaker, far more broke and far more hated then it was before that first airliner slammed into the tower.
 
Last edited:
If Iraq was a "huge victory" it wouldn't have fallen the **** apart when we followed Bush's timeline to leave Iraq. I see through you now. 900 US casualties a year is no problem at all, but if 6 people are beheaded under Obama we should relaunch the war.

I'm sorry, the military is not your personal pawn force.

You quoted the phrase "huge victory", who were you referring to?
That wasn't me and I wonder why you would suggest I said something I did not.
 
Last edited:
Oh, my friend, I am sorry but it is his personal pawn force.

You see, he is (probably) a Neocon. And they use the United States military like a hypochondriac uses Aspirin...to try and fix every little problem. And, like Aspirin, there are always more soldiers that the government can sacrifice to fulfill their personal - oops, sorry - 'patriotic' ends.

Imo, Neocons (in general) are doing FAR more harm to America then ISIS could ever dream of doing by going around the world, making neutrals out of friends and enemies out of neutrals, all the while costing America gigantic sums of money and precious, brave American blood (not to mention a sh!t load of innocent civilian blood).

Anyone who actually thinks America is safer now then they were the day after 9-11 is STAGGERINGLY delusional on this subject.

Its amusing to me that liberals who see the military as a means to forcibly implement social change see ISIS as a trivial issue to be pursued "like a hypochondriac uses Aspirin".

Your logic is flawed.
 
Quit poking holes in his arguments. He thinks the Iraqis wanted us back even though they wanted to deny the US extraterritoriality and if weren't for Obama, they would have given it to us. That meddling Obama! Following Bush's withdrawal plan and then refusing to make our troops subject to Iraqi laws!

Al Maliki, Iraqs ambassador, and our military advisers all warned Obama of what would happen-he ignored them and the worse case scenario came true. Genocide, mass murder, rape, slavery, child abuse of the worst kind, and an ever-enlarging terrorist home base.

No excuses will suffice. Obama did this-and Obama will own it.
 
Al Maliki, Iraqs ambassador, and our military advisers all warned Obama of what would happen-he ignored them and the worse case scenario came true.

Still not following the conversation are you? What they wanted was to deny the US soldiers extraterritoriality. Your own source confirmed that there would be no agreement from the Iraqi government AT ANY LEVEL if the US had extraterritoriality. Their fears of what would happen are irrelevant, as long as they would not afford extraterritoriality, no US troop should touch Iraqi soil. That was the right decision. That 3 years after they reaped what they sowed is their problem. :shrug:
 
That's why they do it. That's the same kind of thing that cost us Vietnam.

You lost me on that one Vance.

During the early years in the RVN, the PLF (VC) were waging a terrorist war against the civilian population. Mostly targeting civilians and local government officials. I think it was in 1961 was the first time when the VC would actually engage ARVAN in combat.

North Vietnam and the NVA troops didn't enter the RVN until 1965. Then the war was about taking ground and holding it. Until the VC and NVA got their butts whooped big time during Tet of 68. That's when Gen. Giap acknowledged that the American soldier couldn't be defeated on the battlefield.

After Walter Cronkite lied to the American people, Uncle Hoe and Gen, Giap came up with a new strategy, attrition. It was no longer taking ground and trying to hold it. It was kill as many Americans as possible then haul ass to their sanctuary across the border into Cambodia and Laos. North Vietnam knew eventually the American people would get tired of all of the American casualties and tired of the war. Basic how to win a war 10,000 miles from the battlefields.
 
You lost me on that one Vance.

During the early years in the RVN, the PLF (VC) were waging a terrorist war against the civilian population. Mostly targeting civilians and local government officials. I think it was in 1961 was the first time when the VC would actually engage ARVAN in combat.

North Vietnam and the NVA troops didn't enter the RVN until 1965. Then the war was about taking ground and holding it. Until the VC and NVA got their butts whooped big time during Tet of 68. That's when Gen. Giap acknowledged that the American soldier couldn't be defeated on the battlefield.

After Walter Cronkite lied to the American people, Uncle Hoe and Gen, Giap came up with a new strategy, attrition. It was no longer taking ground and trying to hold it. It was kill as many Americans as possible then haul ass to their sanctuary across the border into Cambodia and Laos. North Vietnam knew eventually the American people would get tired of all of the American casualties and tired of the war. Basic how to win a war 10,000 miles from the battlefields.
US Soldiers were kicking NVC ass and winning back offensive after offensive...right up until the media started reporting on casualties. It didnt matter that we would win a battle inflicting a 45-1 loss ratio. The NVC knew then...all they had to do is outlast the US public and political will to fight. Thats why they are conducting these beheadings. They are counting on people reeling from the shock and horror. They are counting on it.
 
What system should have been implemented? I dont see us installing another dictator, I have heard the case for a monarch, but even that I would never see the US doing.
Why not?

Perhaps the best answer for the time was to put Iraq under a unified Arab state rule, even under OPEC. Whatever the solution for governance, it needed to be an Arab solution.
 
I guess you've forgotten that you are not required to answer every posting you disagree with. In fact, you don't even have to read the thread. Now I've reminded you of this, do try and remember.

The only thing you have reminded me of is how some posters have no argument. It's really boring and lame and shows nothing but a lack of knowledge and intestinal fortitude.

I expected nothing less.
 
Kobie, I was not, nor am I now discussing legal immunities. Read that again.
Obama had ways to keep our troops in Iraq, this is well known and backed up by higher ups who have said as much. Obama chose not to, and now terrorism flourishes-this must have been what was meant by hope and change.

Oh, for ****'s sake.

The ONLY way we could have kept troops in Iraq would be to give up legal immunities to prosecution of American soldiers under Iraqi law, while we were fighting a war for them. I know you're not discussing said immunity issues, because you're willfully ignoring them, because it was a non-starter -- Iraq would never let us stay without them, we would never stay with them -- that demolishes your idiotic argument.
 
Yes. We could have assassinated him or allowed it to happen through our own non-intervention. Maliki was not critical to success in Iraq. Nobody would have cared. The internal fight was over oil revenue sharing and nothing else at that point.

I do see your point, but given the specific set of circumstances we're discussing now, it would have been a terrible idea.
 
US Soldiers were kicking NVC ass and winning back offensive after offensive...right up until the media started reporting on casualties. It didnt matter that we would win a battle inflicting a 45-1 loss ratio. The NVC knew then...all they had to do is outlast the US public and political will to fight. Thats why they are conducting these beheadings. They are counting on people reeling from the shock and horror. They are counting on it.

I concur.
 
Oh, for ****'s sake.

The ONLY way we could have kept troops in Iraq would be to give up legal immunities to prosecution of American soldiers under Iraqi law, while we were fighting a war for them. I know you're not discussing said immunity issues, because you're willfully ignoring them, because it was a non-starter -- Iraq would never let us stay without them, we would never stay with them -- that demolishes your idiotic argument.

You haven't demolished anything, except in your overactive imagination. I can see your weak-sister messiah's current troubles are making you and his other acolytes more and more desperate to cook up far-fetched excuses for him. In fact the excuses coming from you and other members of his rear guard sound much like his own--and are just about as believable.

The notion the U.S. had no choice but to hang its head meekly and do whatever Maliki's government told it to is laughable. That pisspot government was in no position to tell the U.S. anything--it never even would have existed if this country had not invaded and driven Hussein's regime from power. It was Mr. Obama who was determined to withdraw all U.S. forces, because he thought it would gain him a political advantage. He found it convenient to hide his own wish to throw in the towel behind the claim that Bush and Maliki had left him no choice. That was just one more of his lies.

Your attempt to cover President Limpwrist's fanny isn't fooling anyone. Are you so ignorant of postwar history that you really imagine U.S. Presidents haven't sometimes had to ignore loud resistance from countries where U.S. troops were stationed, and insist on keeping them there, when they were sure it was in our national interest? Next you'll be claiming that the tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Korea were only able to stay there all these years because from 1953 on, South Koreans and their leaders unfailingly loved the U.S. and wanted it there.

I suppose that if any South Korean leader had ever so much as raised his voice or wagged a finger, President Eisenhower would never have told them very clearly how things were going to be. No doubt Ike would have burst into tears, fallen all over himself apologizing for being so intrusive and insensitive, and explained to Americans that he had no choice but to pull all our troops out right away. And then, if a new Korean War had broken out as a result, I suppose Eisenhower would have shrugged helplessly and told the nation, "It's not my fault. Those mean South Koreans made me do it--they said we had to go, or they would punish our soldiers in their courts when they got into trouble in a bar or something! What else could I do but comply?"
 
You haven't demolished anything, except in your overactive imagination. I can see your weak-sister messiah's current troubles are making you and his other acolytes more and more desperate to cook up far-fetched excuses for him. In fact the excuses coming from you and other members of his rear guard sound much like his own--and are just about as believable.

The notion the U.S. had no choice but to hang its head meekly and do whatever Maliki's government told it to is laughable. That pisspot government was in no position to tell the U.S. anything--it never even would have existed if this country had not invaded and driven Hussein's regime from power. It was Mr. Obama who was determined to withdraw all U.S. forces, because he thought it would gain him a political advantage. He found it convenient to hide his own wish to throw in the towel behind the claim that Bush and Maliki had left him no choice. That was just one more of his lies.

Your attempt to cover President Limpwrist's fanny isn't fooling anyone. Are you so ignorant of postwar history that you really imagine U.S. Presidents haven't sometimes had to ignore loud resistance from countries where U.S. troops were stationed, and insist on keeping them there, when they were sure it was in our national interest? Next you'll be claiming that the tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Korea were only able to stay there all these years because from 1953 on, South Koreans and their leaders unfailingly loved the U.S. and wanted it there.

I suppose that if any South Korean leader had ever so much as raised his voice or wagged a finger, President Eisenhower would never have told them very clearly how things were going to be. No doubt Ike would have burst into tears, fallen all over himself apologizing for being so intrusive and insensitive, and explained to Americans that he had no choice but to pull all our troops out right away. And then, if a new Korean War had broken out as a result, I suppose Eisenhower would have shrugged helplessly and told the nation, "It's not my fault. Those mean South Koreans made me do it--they said we had to go, or they would punish our soldiers in their courts when they got into trouble in a bar or something! What else could I do but comply?"

So, if I'm reading you right, the United States should have just told Iraq to go screw itself, even though a vast majority of people both here and there didn't want us there, and because Obama didn't do that (never mind that he would have been skewered both domestically and internationally if he had), everything that's happened since in that region is all his fault. Wow, you drive a hard bargain.

The Bush Administration negotiated a leave date. The Obama administration adhered to those terms, and didn't budge off a complete non-starter that you know damn well would have made you apoplectic, so anything that's happened since is his fault. Not Maliki's in any way ... just his. Amazing.

Shove your "messiah" talk directly up your own ass. Leaving American troops fighting a war on behalf of a puppet government subject to the edicts of said government is out of the question and you damn well know it.
 
Still not following the conversation are you? What they wanted was to deny the US soldiers extraterritoriality. Your own source confirmed that there would be no agreement from the Iraqi government AT ANY LEVEL if the US had extraterritoriality. Their fears of what would happen are irrelevant, as long as they would not afford extraterritoriality, no US troop should touch Iraqi soil. That was the right decision. That 3 years after they reaped what they sowed is their problem. :shrug:

You are picking and choosing here pal. My point (backed by my citation) is that OBAMA HAD ALTERNATE ROUTES HE COULD HAVE TAKEN BUT DID NOT.
Obama is not a disinterested spectator here-he could have acted but did not-and THIS MESS HAPPENED as a result.

When you tell your enemy you are leaving, you are saying stick around until the coast is clear. Thats what Obama did and an awful lot of people are dying every day as a result. Thats not good enough, especially when he's going to double down on the fail in Afghanistan.
 
You lost me on that one Vance.

During the early years in the RVN, the PLF (VC) were waging a terrorist war against the civilian population. Mostly targeting civilians and local government officials. I think it was in 1961 was the first time when the VC would actually engage ARVAN in combat.

North Vietnam and the NVA troops didn't enter the RVN until 1965. Then the war was about taking ground and holding it. Until the VC and NVA got their butts whooped big time during Tet of 68. That's when Gen. Giap acknowledged that the American soldier couldn't be defeated on the battlefield.

After Walter Cronkite lied to the American people, Uncle Hoe and Gen, Giap came up with a new strategy, attrition. It was no longer taking ground and trying to hold it. It was kill as many Americans as possible then haul ass to their sanctuary across the border into Cambodia and Laos. North Vietnam knew eventually the American people would get tired of all of the American casualties and tired of the war. Basic how to win a war 10,000 miles from the battlefields.

The left lost that war just as they have in Iraq, though they did it with many more AMERICANS KILLED. People dont forget that type of thing, even if revisionist lefties would like that very much.
 
US Soldiers were kicking NVC ass and winning back offensive after offensive...right up until the media started reporting on casualties. It didnt matter that we would win a battle inflicting a 45-1 loss ratio. The NVC knew then...all they had to do is outlast the US public and political will to fight. Thats why they are conducting these beheadings. They are counting on people reeling from the shock and horror. They are counting on it.

They are indeed counting on it, and lefties are lining up to oblige them.
 
Why not?

Perhaps the best answer for the time was to put Iraq under a unified Arab state rule, even under OPEC. Whatever the solution for governance, it needed to be an Arab solution.

That would be an interesting discussion but it does not relate to Iraq under the Obama administration.
 
Back
Top Bottom