• 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!

George W. Bush Is Intervening in Iraq—Again

apdst said:
The strategy is to do nothing.
Click to expand...

Only in the right wing bizzaro universe is continuous bombing and supporting local allies considered "doing nothing".

Hey maybe since you consider every situation comparable to WWII you can dig up the grave of MacArthur and ask him what he'd do against ISIS.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Only in the right wing bizzaro universe is continuous bombing and supporting local allies considered "doing nothing".

Hey maybe since you consider every situation comparable to WWII you can dig up the grave of MacArthur and ask him what he'd do against ISIS.
Click to expand...

And how much effect is that having?

How many targets were attacked today?
 
apdst said:
And how much effect is that having?

How many targets were attacked today?
Click to expand...

Well I'm not conducting the strikes apdst so I don't have that information on hand, but the fact of the matter is except for a few areas in Syria ISIS advance has been brought to a halt and the Kurds and Iraqi Government and backed militias are holding or advancing.

Your eagerness to throw troops into harms way as some form of internet bravado isn't very appealing and Obama would make a big mistake at this junction in time to commit troops when the problem appears to be contained.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Well I'm not conducting the strikes apdst so I don't have that information on hand, but the fact of the matter is except for a few areas in Syria ISIS advance has been brought to a halt and the Kurds and Iraqi Government and backed militias are holding or advancing.

Your eagerness to throw troops into harms way as some form of internet bravado isn't very appealing and Obama would make a big mistake at this junction in time to commit troops when the problem appears to be contained.
Click to expand...

Obama is on the right track here. I don't say that often, but it would indeed be a mistake to expand this into another ground war. There's plenty of things he screwed up that allowed the situation to get to this point, but the reaction now is on point. Not every nail needs to be hammered by the US alone.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Well I'm not conducting the strikes apdst so I don't have that information on hand, but the fact of the matter is except for a few areas in Syria ISIS advance has been brought to a halt and the Kurds and Iraqi Government and backed militias are holding or advancing.

Your eagerness to throw troops into harms way as some form of internet bravado isn't very appealing and Obama would make a big mistake at this junction in time to commit troops when the problem appears to be contained.
Click to expand...

So, we're not continuously bombing them, are we?

I've never said that American troops should be deployed, but I understand that you're going to ignore that little reality.
 
SBu said:
Obama is on the right track here. I don't say that often, but it would indeed be a mistake to expand this into another ground war. There's plenty of things he screwed up that allowed the situation to get to this point, but the reaction now is on point. Not every nail needs to be hammered by the US alone.
Click to expand...

A ground war is the only way to defeat ISIS. Wars can't be won with airpower, alone. Somebody's troops will have to face the enemy, on the ground.
 
apdst said:
A ground war is the only way to defeat ISIS. Wars can't be won with airpower, alone. Somebody's troops will have to face the enemy, on the ground.
Click to expand...

Agree. However, the days of committing our troops in large numbers to the ME are over. ME states will have to finally step up to the plate to confront the challenges in their own back yard. American troops can defeat any armed threat, but they can't secure a lasting peace/solution. Only the total commitment of ME states can produce that.
 
SBu said:
Agree. However, the days of committing our troops in large numbers to the ME are over. ME states will have to finally step up to the plate to confront the challenges in their own back yard. American troops can defeat any armed threat, but they can't secure a lasting peace/solution. Only the total commitment of ME states can produce that.
Click to expand...

It'll never happen.
 
SBu said:
Then I feel much better that our troops won't be caught in the middle of a failed region.
Click to expand...

We won't feel better when the violence spills over our of the region.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
don't forget, if a republican becomes president his party will have to hold themselves accountable according to the same standards of judgement they used to judge obama.
Click to expand...

why would you say this like there is truth to it?

it is fact that neither party holds their party to the same standards they hold the other to.
 
apdst said:
We won't feel better when the violence spills over our of the region.
Click to expand...

Which is why I advocate an aggressive containment strategy. Sending troops into the ME isn't going to prevent spill over as has been displayed.
 
disneydude said:
We've gone through this before with the US arming the contra rebels in El Salvador. Remember also when the US was arming Saddam Hussein and Iraq in their war against Iran? We never seem to learn from our mistakes and are going to repeat them over and over.
Click to expand...

Except that virtually all Iraqi weapons are not from the U.S. Virtually all were Soviet with a handful of French thrown in.
 
Navy Pride said:
[h=1]George W. Bush Is Intervening in Iraq—Again[/h] When Iraqi tribal leaders came to D.C. looking for help against ISIL, the White House refused. Then the former president made a call.

By MARK PERRY
February 12, 2015
Click to expand...

Good for him.

As much as GWB made mistakes [what president hasn't] he has been silent too long.

I read this and weep..

The brutal attack underscored the purpose of the Anbar delegation’s visit: The tribal leaders believed that they could defeat the Islamic State—but only if the Obama administration would agree to ship them weapons directly, bypassing Iraq’s untrustworthy Ministry of Defense.

Yet after they arrived in Washington the tribal leaders found themselves thwarted at every turn in their efforts to meet with high-level administration officials. They were told they would have to take up these matters with new Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and would have to rely for weapons on those provided to them by Abadi’s ministry of defense.

Read more: George W. Bush Is Intervening in Iraq
Click to expand...

...as it tells me that the Obama administration has no intentions of defeating ISIS, the military's hands are tied and there is no goal
 
SBu said:
Agree. However, the days of committing our troops in large numbers to the ME are over. ME states will have to finally step up to the plate to confront the challenges in their own back yard.
Click to expand...

And what if they don't?

In my opinion, the only thing that will ever lead to a lasting peace in the Middle East will be a massive long term occupation of the Middle East from Iran to Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Because ultimately, against insurgents and irregulars you can't defeat them by killing them. You defeat them by occupying territory and expelling them from more and more of it.
 
disneydude said:
LOL.....God bless the guy that created the mess we are in the first place? God bless the man that manipulated public fear after 911 to "justify" Cheney/Rumsfield decades old desire to attack Iraq?

No....God bless the thousands of US soldiers that died as a result of Bush's lies. God bless their families. And God Bless all of us that we don't repeat the same mistakes with the ignorance that created even more instability in the region.

No....we don't need any more of GWB's involvement in Iraq.
Click to expand...

You really should get over your partisan hatred and think about the problems at hand. Attempting to blame Bush is just anal partisanship. After all, when Obama completed the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, he not only claimed it as a success, he took credit for it.
 
SBu said:
Which is why I advocate an aggressive containment strategy. Sending troops into the ME isn't going to prevent spill over as has been displayed.
Click to expand...

The only way to contain them is to destroy them.
 
Dayton3 said:
And what if they don't?

In my opinion, the only thing that will ever lead to a lasting peace in the Middle East will be a massive long term occupation of the Middle East from Iran to Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Because ultimately, against insurgents and irregulars you can't defeat them by killing them. You defeat them by occupying territory and expelling them from more and more of it.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with that because it would cost way too much in American lives, money, and effort. What would we do that for? The benefit of the ME? I'm not interested.

Contain the ME. Let them kill each other indefinitely and maybe they will forget that they also hate us.
 
Top Cat said:
Like telling Dubya he's no longer POTUS. And then tell him to stfu and go back to ranching.
Click to expand...

Can we assume then that Clinton will close the pie hole?

And please, if you can find a way to muzzle the loser Al Gore, he wasn't even a president but Clinton's butt boy.
 
disneydude said:
Oh puh-lease. How dare YOU mention our brave troops when you don't give a rats ass that your hero used them as pawns in his little war games. How dare YOU feign your respect for our troops when you spit on the freedoms that they fought and died for and willingly give them up for a false sense of security.

Words are cheap. Actions speak volumes. You can claim your 'support" for our troops but that claim is hollow when you are willing to send them off to die for a lie.
Click to expand...

Which lie would that be?
 
Fearandloathing said:
Good for him.

As much as GWB made mistakes [what president hasn't] he has been silent too long.

I read this and weep..



...as it tells me that the Obama administration has no intentions of defeating ISIS, the military's hands are tied and there is no goal
Click to expand...
That may be so...

but, suppose the CIC does it right this time, gets a declaration of war from Congress (fat chance) and goes against ISIS and wipes it out, along with Al Qaeda in Yemen, then what?

Who will take over the Mid East if the US does wipe out ISIS?

If, on the other hand, the nations with the most to lose, i.e., those who are currently fighting ISIS, prevail, then it won't be an American victory, but a Mid East victory.

It is tempting to put a quick end to the fighting in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen and stop ISIS in its tracks, but is that even possible? What would be the ultimate result?
 
Montecresto said:
Always hindsight and thinking after the fact. Again, Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad gave no quarters to these miscreants.

Stop swallowing camels and straining on gnats!

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Click to expand...

And they are/were part of the problems with the rise of Islamic terrorists. Just as Saudi is involved in the Syrian civil war.
I wonder what the redacted documents from the 911 commission state regarding Saudi involvement in 911. BO promised to make them public. How is that doing?
Did I state invasion, nope.
They need help to train, then the problem it is theirs to address. Otherwise it spreads like a fungus.
Including stopping the killings by the Shia Militias, the casting out of all Sunni’s in Iraq.
Syria- how did the west start that mess? Assad was massacring civilians.
The Govts. are corrupt, subjecting minorities to a number of human rights violations.
That would be another cause.
Then throw in the approx 1500 year war between Shia/Sunni.
I will be glad when we can all rid ourselves of any involvement in the ME/ Africa.

Basically they are as crazy as a **** house rat with hate to start with.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That may be so...

but, suppose the CIC does it right this time, gets a declaration of war from Congress (fat chance) and goes against ISIS and wipes it out, along with Al Qaeda in Yemen, then what?

Who will take over the Mid East if the US does wipe out ISIS?

If, on the other hand, the nations with the most to lose, i.e., those who are currently fighting ISIS, prevail, then it won't be an American victory, but a Mid East victory.

It is tempting to put a quick end to the fighting in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen and stop ISIS in its tracks, but is that even possible? What would be the ultimate result?
Click to expand...

Seriously?


I have to leave now.....I need some reality.

Obama doing something right...in war!

:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo

yeah...it could happen. And I wait for diamonds to fall out of the sky
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom