• 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!

Gov. Scott Walker: Don't Rule Out 'Boots on the Ground' Against ISIS

Caine said:
Yes..

Let us continue to wage international decades long wars spanning my children's lifetime because a group of dudes with swords "be dissin' us"

g1376261279864433200.jpg
Click to expand...

That is foolish. They are determined to attack us. And there's a reason why DoD refers to this conflict as "The Long War."
 
Fearandloathing said:
well, that is an incredible job of avoiding the subject.

You asked for someone to show you that Terrorism is a threat to safety and I did.

What you think about Iraq in the 50's is irrelevant and, frankly, boring, I doubt you have a clue.
Click to expand...

Didn't say safety.... your changing the goalposts.

I said a threat to our freedoms......

Which in a way it is... but only because we allow our government to take them from us...

Therefore... our GOVERNMENT is a threat to our freedoms as a result of its reaction to Terrorism.


Terrorism itself will never cause us to lose our freedom unless we let it win, by allowing our terror to make us give the government more control over us.
 
matchlight said:
This President is in the habit of making a show of action and mouthing platitudes, but doing very little that counts. Many Americans are not taken in by his habitual lying.

The mixed force Kagan is describing is a somewhat smaller and more mobile version--with less emphasis on armor and more on armed helicopters--of the heavily armed force the U.S. has maintained at bases around South Korea, keeping the peace on the peninsula for for sixty years now. Like that force, it would also have a carrier or two on call as backup. It is what Mr. Obama should have left behind to stabilize Iraq, but--I believe for personal political gain--chose not to. All that did was create the pressing need to put a force like this back in, after the situation has deteriorated and made the job much harder and riskier.

Now the task is to recapture large, important areas that allied servicemen died to secure not many years ago. In Iraq, at least, it is Mr. Obama's fault that these savages were allowed to take over these cities and districts. His protestations about being bound by a status of forces agreement ring false. That is a flimsy cover story cooked up to hide his dereliction.

The L.A. Times just ran an article about plans to retake Mosul, maybe by this summer. I hope so. It's seemed to me for quite a while that because Mosul is Iraq's second-largest city, is near large oil fields, is at the farthest end of their supply lines, and is close enough to Irbil and Kurdish Iraq to make that a good base of operations, a successful campaign to retake it would badly tarnish the image of success the jihadists' appeal relies on so much. If some of them are forced to come out of the city and fight in the open, we may get to see how badly they want to fight when napalm is being dropped on them.
Click to expand...



all this is beginning to look a whole lot like the Pentagon Papers.....

'we had the means....we did it the other way...
 
Jack Hays said:
Having lived for 18 years outside the US, I beg to differ.
Click to expand...

I don't care what goes on outside of the U.S.

Europe's proximity to the land of radical islam makes that area a greater threat to them.

We have a few advantages in that regard.
 
Caine said:
I don't care what goes on outside of the U.S.

Europe's proximity to the land of radical islam makes that area a greater threat to them.

We have a few advantages in that regard.
Click to expand...

No, we do not. The course of action you advocate would increase US civilian casualties many times over.
 
Chainsaw said:
Yemen, Syria, Libya, much of North Africa, half of Iraq have all seen exponential growth in AQ and/or ISIS over the last few years. These threats will have to be dealt with again, the only debate is how big and powerful do we let the terrorists get before we do.
Click to expand...

US policies in all those regions have given rise to those groups. Wouldn't sound policies be preferred?
 
Caine said:
I don't care what goes on outside of the U.S.

Europe's proximity to the land of radical islam makes that area a greater threat to them.

We have a few advantages in that regard.
Click to expand...

This is why libertarianism, big and little L, is so perplexed by the reality of international diplomacy. When all the talks fail, libertarians can't seem to present a cogent response.
 
Travis007 said:
Time magazine?...........cmon now...
Click to expand...

So basically reality doesn't conform to whatever right wing mythology you subscribe to, thus you reject the source.

What about the Associated Press then:

Nearly 40,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, all of whom will withdraw by Dec. 31, a deadline set in a 2008 security agreement between Baghdad and the administration of then-President George W. Bush.

But talks ran aground over Iraqi opposition to giving American troops legal immunity that would shield them from Iraqi prosecution. Legal protection for U.S. troops has always angered everyday Iraqis who saw it as simply a way for the Americans to run roughshod over the country. Many Iraqi lawmakers were hesitant to grant immunity for fear of a backlash from constituents.

"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki told a news conference Saturday. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."
Click to expand...

Conflicted Iraqis face future without US troops

Go ahead and feel free to reject that too though. Just keep making crap up if it makes you feel better.
 
Jack Hays said:
No, we do not. The course of action you advocate would increase US civilian casualties many times over.
Click to expand...

You have nothing to back up your claim that we would have civilian casualties at any greater level if we isolate ourselves from the middle east than if we continue to meddle and, via our meddling, continue to give cause to arms for more people to convert to radical islam.
 
matchlight said:
This President is in the habit of making a show of action and mouthing platitudes, but doing very little that counts. Many Americans are not taken in by his habitual lying.

The mixed force Kagan is describing is a somewhat smaller and more mobile version--with less emphasis on armor and more on armed helicopters--of the heavily armed force the U.S. has maintained at bases around South Korea, keeping the peace on the peninsula for for sixty years now. Like that force, it would also have a carrier or two on call as backup. It is what Mr. Obama should have left behind to stabilize Iraq, but--I believe for personal political gain--chose not to. All that did was create the pressing need to put a force like this back in, after the situation has deteriorated and made the job much harder and riskier.

Now the task is to recapture large, important areas that allied servicemen died to secure not many years ago. In Iraq, at least, it is Mr. Obama's fault that these savages were allowed to take over these cities and districts. His protestations about being bound by a status of forces agreement ring false. That is a flimsy cover story cooked up to hide his dereliction.

The L.A. Times just ran an article about plans to retake Mosul, maybe by this summer. I hope so. It's seemed to me for quite a while that because Mosul is Iraq's second-largest city, is near large oil fields, is at the farthest end of their supply lines, and is close enough to Irbil and Kurdish Iraq to make that a good base of operations, a successful campaign to retake it would badly tarnish the image of success the jihadists' appeal relies on so much. If some of them are forced to come out of the city and fight in the open, we may get to see how badly they want to fight when napalm is being dropped on them.
Click to expand...

Good post. Today the Senate held a confirmation hearing for Ash Carter, potential sec of defense. Its refreshing to hear his clarity and resolve. He's also aware of the crap spin tactics of Obama.
 
US Conservative said:
This is why libertarianism, big and little L, is so perplexed by the reality of international diplomacy. When all the talks fail, libertarians can't seem to present a cogent response.
Click to expand...

And you can't seem to bring yourself to do anything other than discuss partisan politics.
 
Caine said:
You have nothing to back up your claim that we would have civilian casualties at any greater level if we isolate ourselves from the middle east than if we continue to meddle and, via our meddling, continue to give cause to arms for more people to convert to radical islam.
Click to expand...

Radical Islam arose from the decay and decline of Arab society and culture. It would exist, and its believers would hate us, even if the US had pursued entirely passive policies.
 
Jack Hays said:
Radical Islam arose from the decay and decline of Arab society and culture. It would exist, and its believers would hate us, even if the US had pursued entirely passive policies.
Click to expand...

Annnnnddd.....

You have nothing to back that claim up with either.

The whole "Dem Dere Mooslumz hate us fer R freedumbz" theory has failed to be proven.
 
Jack Hays said:
Radical Islam arose from the decay and decline of Arab society and culture. It would exist, and its believers would hate us, even if the US had pursued entirely passive policies.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely true-look at what radical islamists do to others for simply being the wrong type of muslim in Africa, asia, etc. The left has failed in its attempt to characterize the actions of these monsters as simply a reaction the the US, its because the US is their favorite whipping boy.
 
US Conservative said:
Yes, and in a political forum discussing politics no less. Where do I ever get these ideas? :roll:
Click to expand...

The topic isn't Conservatism, Liberalism, or Libertarianism.

The topic is U.S. Action in the Middle East.

Because one person has a particular "Lean", does not mean their beliefs can be put into some kind of vacuum of which They believe in X, Y, Z across the board.

You can't debate this by debating someone's "Lean" rather than them.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You know I would say you cant make this **** up, but someone obviously did and you are repeating it. From Time Magazine's reporting at the time:



Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

A big fail your attempts to rewrite history.
Click to expand...


a big fail is a Time Magazine article written before the pull out speculating that Republicans will make an election issue of it and expressing an OPINION that:

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it
Click to expand...


"appears" from five years ago is proof only that someone is desperate to hang an albatross....who has no albratross
 
Caine said:
Annnnnddd.....

You have nothing to back that claim up with either.

The whole "Dem Dere Mooslumz hate us fer R freedumbz" theory has failed to be proven.
Click to expand...

A great (perhaps the greatest) Western scholar of Islam disagrees with you, and wrote this in 1990.

The Roots of Muslim Rage

pages.pomona.edu/.../Lewis_roots_of_muslim_rage.pdf


Pomona College


by B Lewis - ‎Cited by 47 - ‎Related articles
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Roots of Muslim Rage. Lewis, Bernard. The Atlantic ...
 
Caine said:
The topic isn't Conservatism, Liberalism, or Libertarianism.

The topic is U.S. Action in the Middle East.

Because one person has a particular "Lean", does not mean their beliefs can be put into some kind of vacuum of which They believe in X, Y, Z across the board.

You can't debate this by debating someone's "Lean" rather than them.
Click to expand...

Politics colors ones worldview, manifested in international diplomacy, contrast the differences manifested in Carter, and Obama to Bush and Reagan. See how this works?
 
You had boots on the ground in Iraq before. Maybe some new boots can do a better job.
 
"I suppose with all of the benefit of hindsight everything is obvious. Cool for you. Reagan did the right thing. You want an administration to look 40 years into the future. Obama was unwilling or unable to look two years into the future."
Hatuey said:
There was no need to look 40 years into the future. Islamic terrorism was already a fact in the 1980s. Hell, the attack on the Beirut barracks - the deadliest attack on Americans at the time - happened in 1983. What Reagan didn't foresee was that these attacks would continue and maybe funding these people wasn't a good idea. Now we can reap his harvest. :(
Click to expand...
And where was the great menace of that age? Reagan defeated the Evil Empire. The Effeminate One on the golf course cannot even say Evil Empire.

Islamic terrorism has been a fact since the mid 620s. The Soviet Union needed to be defeated. Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. The Effeminate One on the golf course supports the Islamofascists. It is his harvest the middle east is reaping. Obama has a very great deal of blood on his hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom