• 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




I totally agree.

I guess Walker would be over there cleaning up that mess if he wasn't busy in Wisconsin, eh?

Lots of people have great ideas about how to fight wars but few of them are ready to jump into one. :roll:

It's always easy to tell someone else how to do it, but getting involved yourself in the fighting and dying is a whole 'nother story.
 
If they do or if they dont-none have a meaningful capacity to do anything about it.

So we should risk OUR lives for them?

If they don't care enough to do something about it, **** em.

But of course.... this is team America world police...

Bringin' you FREEDOM... whether you want us or not!!!!!

6327a399cfd6e3a620585ab05834d841be60d27e98ea78cb60680bc46584057c.jpg

Well Caine, when you're right, you're right. Interesting choice for a picture too. If you really think about it, Reagan's funding of the mujahadeen in the 80s was based on a flawed sense of how America could export freedom. If we only gave religious extremists money, maybe then they'd turn their sights off the medium sized Satan (America) and turn it towards the big Satan (USSR). What Reagan didn't count on was what would happen when those religious extremists went home. Lack of foresight seems to be a condition of warhawks in the post-Reagan era and now we're left to deal with their mess. :(
 
Last edited:
Well Caine, when you're right, you're right. Interesting choice for a picture too. If you really think about it, Reagan's funding of the mujahadeen in the 80s was based on a flawed sense of how America could export freedom. If we only gave religious extremists money, maybe then they'd turn their sights off the medium sized Satan (America) and turn it towards the big Satan (USSR).
What Reagan didn't count on was what would happen when those religious extremists went home.
Lack of foresight seems to be a condition of warhawks in the post-Reagan era and now we're left to deal with their mess. :(



When you give religious extremists some dangerous weapons you don't know what they might decide to do with them. :roll:

Their priorities are likely to be different from your priorities.
 
When you give religious extremists some dangerous weapons you don't know what they might decide to do with them. :roll:

Their priorities are likely to be different from your priorities.

Pretty much. Under Reagan financing of the CIA as it concerned the mujahideen rose by a factor of 20. Carter wasn't really interested in finding a military solution to the soviet invasion in Afghanistan. When Reagan became president, that all changed. The Reagan administration started throwing mountains of money at guys like Osama Bin Laden. Guys who fought the soviets and recruited using religion were the guys being funded. I wonder what either of those administrations thought would be the end result of that? I mean, we know Carter was a bit of an idiot but what was Reagan's excuse? Was he so old that he didn't foresee any future problems with funding religious extremists?
 
I totally agree.

I guess Walker would be over there cleaning up that mess if he wasn't busy in Wisconsin, eh?

Lots of people have great ideas about how to fight wars but few of them are ready to jump into one. :roll:

It's always easy to tell someone else how to do it, but getting involved yourself in the fighting and dying is a whole 'nother story.

Yeah, like telling a mechanic how to change spark plugs on your car if you've never done it and are a cook that stayed at a Holiday Inn last night. Gotta love those chickenhawks, they think they know best.
 
had to look up comorbidities....I do love medical terminilogy...co morbid ities .....oooh

I was an exception in that my doc risked a friendship by making me do A1C's every three months for a year and a half till he got the GTL and caught it early. If it weren't for the side effect of high glucose from betahystine to treat the Menierre's I would be peachy....

Interesting I didn't know that betahistine raises blood sugar levels, were you taking steroids too?

Yeah medical terminology is kinda quirky, its based in greek but its not proper and often very badly translated-many of the fathers of medicine read latin and greek, but apparently not very well.

Sounds like you have a great friend in that doc. I was listening to a comedian the other day who was talking about how all of his friends in old age are docs because it saves him from having to get an appointment.
 
So we should risk OUR lives for them?

If they don't care enough to do something about it, **** em.


But of course.... this is team America world police...

Bringin' you FREEDOM... whether you want us or not!!!!!

6327a399cfd6e3a620585ab05834d841be60d27e98ea78cb60680bc46584057c.jpg

No. We look out for our own long term interests. ISIS isn't part of that.
 
You don't seem to understand.

There isn't a "war" for us. This is up to Iraq.

We have to stop being the world police. Putting our assets and lives on the line for other people... and for what?

What is there to gain from this? Iraq will never be an "Ally" in the typical sense of the word.

That area of the world is too confused right now to have a permanent identity.....

There is a war "for us" there-at least Obama seems to think so.

We gain an ally and deny that territory to Iran and ISIS, exactly what we aren't doing now.
 
You don't seem to understand.

I don't give a **** what you think Obama wants to do.

I think about America. America is NOT Obama... Or Bush.... or Clinton.

All your partisan hackery in this thread is lost on me... Im not going to sit here and bitch back and forth between "Well Obama did this and Bush did that and wah wah wah" like you petty mongrels.

Regardless of who the President happens to be at the time.... America should not be meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern nations. Period.

America should be looking out for its own best interests, like every nation does. Isolationism, incidentally isn't in our own best interests. Weve already learned this the hard way.
 
Saddam is responsible now?

ahem...

Sigh, Obama is perfect!

since we're blaming people dead for over a ****ing decade, how about Obama's tramp of a father? He's the one sewed the seed and abandoned it to a crazy woman and doddering grandparents....

He's responsible for Obama's emotional issues that got us into this

Oh, this post is too funky to even touch.
 
Oh for crying out loud. Thats the whole problem with this neo-conservative world view. You can't defeat them. They just scatter to the shadows like roaches and grow in numbers until you leave. We hit one terrorist group and it just splits into two. The only way you keep them under control is to do what we did for decades in the Middle East, support brutal dictators that kept them in check.

Correction-the left can't beat them. I think most lefties must have some French in them, because they are so eager to surrender.
 
It was a "victory" in that we left Iraq with an elected government and a large defense force. It is not our fault that the government of Iraq is so corrupt and ineffectual that they cannot defeat ISIS with an Iraqi defense force numbering in the hundreds of thousands. We could stay there a hundred years spending a hundred billion a year and the government would no less corrupt than it is today.

We destabilized Iraq in 2003. We have a responsibility to that nation, and leaving them to the ISIS wolves for Obama's personal political benefit is not an example of that. The left loses wars like its cool.
 
America should be looking out for its own best interests, like every nation does.
Isolationism, incidentally isn't in our own best interests. Weve already learned this the hard way.

Isolationism is a hallmark of the 20th century GOP.
Not to mention the current one, with Libertarians and TEAts .
 
We destabilized Iraq in 2003. We have a responsibility to that nation, and leaving them to the ISIS wolves for Obama's personal political benefit is not an example of that. The left loses wars like its cool.

I'm glad to see that you've finally owned 2003 as the date the USA destabilized Iraq.
Now is the time for the GOP to step out of the way and let 'No Drama Obama' finish what he inherited .
 
I believe the liberation of Kuwait was a true coalition effort costs and all. It does not count as a US victory for that reason, there were many other nations involved.. Iraq 2 was simply a regime change from one sectarian dictator to another and Vietnam....was Nixon a Democrat?

Nixon was quite effective in Vietnam, the left lost the peace there as it apparently likes to do. And we can't forget the cold war.
 
Well I don't think Obama has done a very good job of handling the problem at all. However, I am sure as hell not stupid enough to trust the same bunch that got use into this mess in the first place with it.

I think Obama wanted Malaki to be more accepting to the different peoples in Iraq, and not be biased in appointing police and military leaders (generals) and local governments.

They (Iraqis) have the best government that America picked and supported by America and other countries for them, which, in American history has always been bad choices. At one time, America supported Saddam Hussien, that didn't go well either.

Snip;
Although the United States was responsible for putting the Shah in power
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

America needs to get out of the business of being a world police force and hand picking foreign country leaders. We have a seriously flawed foreign policy.
 
The "surge had nothing to do with the reduction in attacks, it was the "great awakening" of the Sunni tribes that rejected Al Qaeda and who were promised representation in the new Govt. which they never got. They are the same ones that allowed ISIS to take over much of their territory in Iraq after Maliki persecuted them. Bush's choice of Maliki was just one of a series of bad decisions that sealed Iraq's fate long before Obama had any say.
And before you say Maliki was elected I will remind you that he was first vetted and approved by the CIA and GW himself. Malaiki was a Shia terrorist with close ties to Iran but Bush was desperate to find anyone who would take the job before his terms were over.

The "great awakening" was hastened by our recommitment-and we not only encouraged the movement but paid for it.
Iraq War in Anbar Province - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I would remind you again of the billons and billions spent training and equipping the Iraqi army for 10 years prior only to have Maliki turn them into a sectarian hit squad for Iran that would not defend Sunni areas from ISIS. You can never explain away the huge blunders that followed the illegal invasion of Iraq. An invasion that was rushed for political reasons causing more US and Iraqi casualties, and worst of all was done without a plan for the aftermath. It was a operation born to fail and fail it did. It will go down in history as the worst (and most expensive) foreign policy blunder in modern times.

Obama lost the war for political purposes-the fact that Iraq could not stand up to ISIS and we have now returned is evidence on its face that we should not have left.
 
Funny, a Progressive website misses entirely that the final SOF agreement fell on Obama to negotiate. :roll:

A quick question: If the Bush SOF that he negotiated in 2008 had orders to leave 16,000 troops in Iraq do you think Obama would have kept 16,000 troops in Iraq?

Bush stated at the time that he was negotiating a SOF agreement that would leave the SOF in place for the next President. Obama actually used that statement at the time to target McCain as a Bush lackey. Obama wanted to get the troops out of Iraq, he said so. The only reason they were there in 2011 was because he needed to do it closer to his second election run. He submarined the SOF negotiation so that he could keep his promise even while all the grown ups in the room were urging a larger force in Iraq.

Why the need for American troops at all? Can't those people defend themselves? Here, I'll answer the last question for you, NO, they left their arms that we gave them on the battle field and ran away like a bunch of scared children. Malaki and the Iraqis have nobody to blame except themselves.

Keep on blaming Obama though, it makes the conservative look good to other conservative chickenhawks in forums.
 
Of course it is our choice.

If we packed up our **** and left......the middle east and quit meddling..... we keep our counter terrorist operations and intelligence gathering, and there isn't a damned thing they can do to us.

If you think our military flexing some muscle and them spilling our blood in their backyard is preventing a terrorist attack, your deluded.

They still hate you, they will still attack you, and they will be growing all the while.
 
Back
Top Bottom