• 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'

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.

They will attack the US and have said as much. I frankly expect that they have tried already, but we haven't heard about it. They certainly have the capability.
screen_shot_20140815_at_4.21.38_pm.png.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.21.38_pm.png
 
Im sorry but you are incorrect. Im simply not using my source as you'd like. Real sorry about that.

You mean you're ignoring the part of your source which contradicts your argument? Again, knowing fully well that extraterritoriality is not something the US would have given up, would you say the Iraqis, by demanding exactly that, wanted to work with us? Your source says no. What do you say? ;)
 
You mean you're ignoring the part of your source which contradicts your argument? Again, knowing fully well that extraterritoriality is not something the US would have given up, would you say the Iraqis, by demanding exactly that, wanted to work with us? Your source says no. What do you say? ;)

My source states that Obama was offered alternatives that would have kept our troops protected and would bypass the legislature in Iraq. Obama chose not to accept. But in any case he could have stayed if he wanted to.

The problem is that he's a weak chump easily swayed by politics.
 
My source states that Obama was offered alternatives that would have kept our troops protected and would bypass the legislature in Iraq. Obama chose not to accept. But in any case he could have stayed if he wanted to.

Do you not realize that your source also included the fact that no senior Iraqi official(that includes Maliki) was offering extraterritoriality? Do you want me to point out where your source says that again or not? Again, would you have wanted Obama to have given up extraterritoriality(meaning, letting Iraqi officials have jurisdiction over US troops?)? Yes or no answer.
 
Do you not realize that your source also included the fact that no senior Iraqi official(that includes Maliki) was offering extraterritoriality? Do you want me to point out where your source says that again or not? Again, would you have wanted Obama to have given up extraterritoriality(meaning, letting Iraqi officials have jurisdiction over US troops?)? Yes or no answer.

There you are dropping extraterritoriality again. I just showed that Obama had options he didn't take. This wasn't some insurmountable task, it was a weak POTUS trying to get votes.
 
There you are dropping extraterritoriality again. I just showed that Obama had options he didn't take. This wasn't some insurmountable task, it was a weak POTUS trying to get votes.

Ah, so you're saying Obama should have taken the Iraqi stance on extraterritoriality yes? That was the issue they weren't budging on. That's why no agreement was reached. Should Obama have given it up? Yes or no?
 
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.

I am fine letting it spread to all of the middle east. Getting us out is the best idea. I doubt they will ever attack us outside from small terror attacks, which we already have.
But if we do go back, it has to be to end it.
 
I am fine letting it spread to all of the middle east. Getting us out is the best idea. I doubt they will ever attack us outside from small terror attacks, which we already have.
But if we do go back, it has to be to end it.

I definitely agree with that.
 
Condolences to his family, their pleas seam to have been ignored.

I'm particularly angry about the deaths of aid workers, people who have gone to help - been captured by the very people they went to help, handed over to jihadists and then beheaded.

I'm about the furthest thing from a war hawk... but how do you speak to people whose only language seems to be murder?
 
Ah, so you're saying Obama should have taken the Iraqi stance on extraterritoriality yes? That was the issue they weren't budging on. That's why no agreement was reached. Should Obama have given it up? Yes or no?

What I said, was that Obama had other options to keep Iraq safe, and have demonstrated as much. And now terrorists flourish under Obama.
 
That is not quite true. The aid workers are in direct and head on competition to the terrorists. They are delivering a public good that is highly important to stabilizing and deepening IS power. Competition would defuse allegiance.

I believe I recall Hamas going through this too. They are beloved in their region because they provide medical services and all other sorts of public services and when anyone else steps up to help the people, they step in and shut it down.
 
What I said, was that Obama had other options to keep Iraq safe, and have demonstrated as much. And now terrorists flourish under Obama.

Ah, he had other options, when your source states that no senior official in the Iraqi administration was willing to grant the US extraterritoriality. That's what you're saying yes? I'm waiting for you to realize the contradiction in that statement. Your source states that the US wasn't going to give up extraterritoriality. Then it states that no Iraqi was willing to grant it. Are you saying our option was to give it up and let Iraqi officials have jurisdiction over the actions of US troops?
 
Last edited:
Ah, he had other options, when your source states that no senior official in the Iraqi administration was willing to grant the US extraterritoriality. That's what you're saying yes?

One last time, I said that Al Maliki and Iraq's ambassador asked Obama to approve an executive agreement allowing the US to keep its forces in Iraq. Obama said no, and lost the peace.
 
One last time, I said that Al Maliki and Iraq's ambassador asked Obama to approve an executive agreement allowing the US to keep its forces in Iraq. Obama said no, and lost the peace.

And for the love of all that is decent and ****ing holy, the U.S. would not have been able to do so without giving up immunity.
 
And for the love of all that is decent and ****ing holy, the U.S. would not have been able to do so without giving up immunity.

Not true, Maliki would have granted it. The problem was not giving up immunity, it was getting approval from the Iraqi legislature because they were unhappy with Maliki.

Witness the rapidity with which a SOFA was reached when ISIS began to expand.

Obama lost the peace, Kobie. He has blood on his hands.
 
Bomb the living **** out of every ISIS target we can find, then deploy 5 divisions to mop up what's left.

Talking tough is always so pretty.

Tell us apdst... what does an ISIS member look like? Where's the front to this bombing and where is the back line where it stops?

You have to be completely out of your mind if you think they are not hiding within civilians so what... collateral damage? Yeah... then all the relatives of the dead join on with ISIS because even if they hate them they hate us worse. The best thing we can do is remove anyone who thinks like you from any position of power anywhere.
 
With rapidly expanding gases and and shrapnel. Its a language they can understand.
72-Virgin-Dating-Service.jpg

Tough talk from armchair patriots is not what actually gets anything done. And for those that follow such tough talk as their leadership generally find that they've been mislead due to shallow thinking.
 
Talking tough is always so pretty.

Tell us apdst... what does an ISIS member look like? Where's the front to this bombing and where is the back line where it stops?

You have to be completely out of your mind if you think they are not hiding within civilians so what... collateral damage? Yeah... then all the relatives of the dead join on with ISIS because even if they hate them they hate us worse. The best thing we can do is remove anyone who thinks like you from any position of power anywhere.

They have 30,000 fighters. That crowd wouldn't be hard to spot. They're an army. They live as an army and move as an army.

For the umpteenth time: doing nothing isn't going to work.
 
Back
Top Bottom