• 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

Preach to those who advocate the killing of others children.

Yeah, because we all know, that no matter what happens, it won't be your kids. So, what do you care how bad the situation gets?
 
Must be really heroic for you to offer up other peoples sons and daughters in some pathetic attempt at showing off your Conservative Bravado.

Man, ad hominem in the third post.

How much time do you have in the sandbox, boogie? How many of your close friends are there right now?

I'll wager a platinum membership my numbers for both are higher than yours.




I mean, since we've apparently decided who is allowed to have an opinion on foreign policy based upon the standard of sacrifice......
 
In 1980, when there was no war involving American personnel, there were 1,556 American servicemen who died in training accidents, serving their country. But, we know neither you, nor your kids will ever be one of them.

That's an interesting tidbit of information. Here's some more...

America's Deadliest Jobs - Forbes Each year thousands of U.S. workers die from injuries on the job. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics‘ National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries shows a preliminary total of 4,609 fatal work injuries in 2011

But I have no clue what this has to do with this thread.
 
Not really. He doesn't hate the troops like Obama does.

Maybe that explains why Obama isn't so fast to send our troops to a unwinable war in a foreign country to fight against an enemy that we can not identify, and who has not attacked us and who doesn't represent any clear and present danger.

If he didn't hate our troops, he would probably have ordered them into direct combat in every hotspot in the world.
 
That's an interesting tidbit of information. Here's some more...




But I have no clue what this has to do with this thread.

You people a screaming about killing kids, yet you never mention anything about troops who die in training accidents. But who cares, right? It won't be you or your kids that die in the service
 
Maybe that explains why Obama isn't so fast to send our troops to a unwinable war in a foreign country to fight against an enemy that we can not identify, and who has not attacked us and who doesn't represent any clear and present danger.

If he didn't hate our troops, he would probably have ordered them into direct combat in every hotspot in the world.

Concern for the welfare of our soldiers isn't the reason. The reason is because he doesn't see the jihadists as the enemy. He sees them as friends.
 
You people a screaming about killing kids, yet you never mention anything about troops who die in training accidents. But who cares, right? It won't be you or your kids that die in the service

My future daughter-in-law just took the ASVAB and is considering joining the Army. I served for 11 years in a field artillery unit as a 13E, including a brief time "over there" in 1991. My former unit has since had several tours in Iraq during the past dozen years or so.
 
Concern for the welfare of our soldiers isn't the reason. The reason is because he doesn't see the jihadists as the enemy. He sees them as friends.

And that's why we are bombing them?
 
My future daughter-in-law just took the ASVAB and is considering joining the Army. I served for 11 years in a field artillery unit as a 13E, including a brief time "over there" in 1991. My former unit has since had several tours in Iraq during the past dozen years or so.

Thank your for your service. Since you've been down range, you can indeed how indecision can only make things worse.
 
Japan attacked us by air, and a few days later Germany officially declared war against us. Japan and Germany both had an airforce and a navy.

Does ISIS have either a navy or an airforce?

Think ISIS ad AL-qaeda plan to keep their killing inside the boarders of the ME? Remember 9/11? Boston? France?

Their goal is to establish a global caliphate ruled by sharia.

You OK with that?
 
Can you provide a list of those?



ISIS is "religioius minority".



So how is that any different than Saudi Arabia?



Half the world has idiots who have sworn that same oath...going back for at least two hundred years. We don't start a war with half the world. Playing dumb isn't valid foreign policy.

Do you sympathize with Al-Qaeda too?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064264946 said:
How about some heads? Is that better?

nope.
 
YOu bet your life it is.

And will you? Or will you bet some other kids life?

Evidently for people like US Conservative, others people's children are not as important as a political ideology.
 
Evidently for people like US Conservative, others people's children are not as important as a political ideology.

They never are. And that is the pity of it all.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064265007 said:
Think ISIS ad AL-qaeda plan to keep their killing inside the boarders of the ME? Remember 9/11? Boston? France?

Their goal is to establish a global caliphate ruled by sharia.

You OK with that?

9/11 was nearly 14 years ago. It's not like they do that on a regular bases.

I'm not sure if the Boston incident was ever connected to anything other than the two brothers.

**** happens, and it's going to continue to happen, regardless of what we do in the middle east. I suspect that it's our actions in the middle east that tends to provoke it.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064265024 said:
Do you sympathize with Al-Qaeda too?

I don't sympathize with any radical religions, or terrorists.
 
Not really. He doesn't hate the troops like Obama does.

So you are taking at jabs if someone doesn't have any family members ever in the service and yet you have no problem supporting Romney who far as I know has never had any member in the military.
You just keep those goalposts on wheels I suppose.

What a joke.
 
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.

Now, had there been a Status of Forces agreement in place, then there would be far more US troops in country there, and likely that the Militant Islamic Fundamentalists would have stayed away, avoiding a conflict with those US forces, but, since there isn't, US troops get to be pulled out, the situation become far worse, before they are sent back in to retake ground already paid for once. Such foolishness. Would have been such better situation had SoF agreement been in place. Oh well.

Not only that, with forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, I'm thinking that it would have put far more restrictions on Iran's actions, boldness, and support of their support for the Shia flavor of Militant Islamic Fundamentalists, all of which have made the ME situation far worse now than it was.

Democrats appear fine with letting it get much larger.

Yup. Just means that when the US does finally go back in, and I'm pretty sure that we are going to have to, that it'll be all the more difficult, and cost all the more in blood and treasure.

Exactly. World War 2 occurred largely because the rest of the world appeased Hitler rather then confronting him early on.

Yup. I wonder. Would that make Obama our Neville Chamberlain? Do you think?
 
Your eagerness to put troops in harms way is not something to be proud of.

War should only be entered into if every other option has been exhausted.

Has America not offered up enough sons in your eyes?

How many more flag draped coffins are you willing to accept to fix a problem somewhere else.

This presupposes that there actually ARE other options, but with the barbarity with which the Militant Islamic Fundamentalists conduct themselves and their affairs, doesn't seem like there are very many viable options. But, please, if you have some, or know of some, I think it interesting to learn more about them.

Most Canadians and Americans understand that ISIS would not stop at having it's own state. They are spreading like a cancer in many third world nations. The only thing that will stop them is force.

Exactly. Question is now, how bad does it have to get, how long will it be, how much larger and more powerful do we allow the Militant Islamic Fundamentalists to get before there is sufficient political will and foresight to beat the cancer back? I'm thinking that it won't be on Obama's watch.
 
It is has the Bill Clinton Afghanistan/Taliban/AQ policy feel to it. Take a few superficial but materially insignificant steps until terror hits home.

And I too think it likely that it'll hit home again. This time it won't be airliners, but it'll be something else. Hopefully not something worse and more permanent damage. Weaponized smallpox or weaponized measles or other WMD immediately comes to mind.
 
My future daughter-in-law just took the ASVAB and is considering joining the Army. I served for 11 years in a field artillery unit as a 13E, including a brief time "over there" in 1991. My former unit has since had several tours in Iraq during the past dozen years or so.

Thank your for your service. Since you've been down range, you can indeed how indecision can only make things worse.

Indeed. Thank you for your service sir. You have my respect and my thanks.
 
Back
Top Bottom