• 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!

Tribal leader: Iraqi troops in Anbar province could 'collapse within hours'

No, sorry, but we haven't been out of the Middle East for several generations!

I was referring to the US withdrawal of Afghanistan (influence of course, in the post Soviet-era) to leave it to it's own devices. And where did that end up? Only with the rise of the Taliban that provided aid and comfort to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to plan and orchestrate the 9/11 attacks from.

As I stated, withdrawal from an area where radicalism exists hasn't shown to be a successful strategy either.
 
You know, I've never got what people such as yourself on the right says that the left "doesn't have the balls to do what it takes." The fact of the matter is that Obama has bombed more countries than Bush (Lizza says Obama has bombed more nations than Bush) and the number of drone strikes have skyrocketed under administration. The following graph ONLY takes into account his first term, and even still, Obama during his first term committed six times as many drone strikes than Bush in Pakistan:

obama-vs-bush-strikes-in-pakistan.jpg


Just what do you think that he doesn't have the "balls" to do at this point if he's willing to go that far?



In all seriousness, what other options are there? Obama at least attempted a new strategy in Yemen with what he called "strategic patience" and look where that ended up. At this point, the only think we haven't tried is to withdraw from the area and pray they leave us alone... Oh wait, we tried that too? Say what you will about whether or not we should of invaded Iraq in the first place. But at least when we left that country in 2010 I suppose, the violence had returned to pre-war levels and there was a functioning unity government. Those two things I'll count as success every day of the week.

In truth, the worse thing we can do is to either ignore the problem or try and downplay it as Obama has been doing this week. We know where both those roads lead.



I'm curious, do you lump organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas with the likes of ISIS? It's true that all three will target civilian populations indiscriminately, but what about their motives? Do you see a difference? Or would they just be another place where "we need to fight"?

Obama is willing to fling missiles, thats not the same as going in to fight and win. His drone strikes are because he dosent want to deal with the political fallout of imprisoning terrorists.

And while I recognize ISIS is worse than say Hamas, they all need to go.
 
I was referring to the US withdrawal of Afghanistan (influence of course, in the post Soviet-era) to leave it to it's own devices. And where did that end up? Only with the rise of the Taliban that provided aid and comfort to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to plan and orchestrate the 9/11 attacks from.

As I stated, withdrawal from an area where radicalism exists hasn't shown to be a successful strategy either.

Or, you might say that interference to begin with hasn't been successful.
 
Obama is willing to fling missiles, thats not the same as going in to fight and win. His drone strikes are because he dosent want to deal with the political fallout of imprisoning terrorists.

And while I recognize ISIS is worse than say Hamas, they all need to go.

As though you or anybody else can make them go, whatever that even means.
 
Or, you might say that interference to begin with hasn't been successful.

It was with Iraq. The problems we face today with Iraq stem from the sectarian divide in the country, and nothing to do with Bush. To demonstrate more clearly that point, understand that sectarian divide existed even under Saddam Hussein. The difference today though is that instead of having a ruthless dictator with a strong military in place to put down such insurrections, we now have a democracy in place that only serves to exacerbate those underlying sectarian issues. Of course, the fact that ISIS rolled in from the west didn't help either.

Obama is willing to fling missiles, thats not the same as going in to fight and win. His drone strikes are because he dosent want to deal with the political fallout of imprisoning terrorists.

And while I recognize ISIS is worse than say Hamas, they all need to go.

So nothing short of sending in regular american combat troops qualifies as "going in to fight and win" then?
 
Last edited:
I was referring to the US withdrawal of Afghanistan (influence of course, in the post Soviet-era) to leave it to it's own devices. And where did that end up? Only with the rise of the Taliban that provided aid and comfort to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to plan and orchestrate the 9/11 attacks from.

As I stated, withdrawal from an area where radicalism exists hasn't shown to be a successful strategy either.

Radicalism made possible again by US policy.
 
It was with Iraq. The problems we face today with Iraq stem from the sectarian divide in the country, and nothing to do with Bush. To demonstrate more clearly that point, understand that sectarian divide existed even under Saddam Hussein. The difference today though is that instead of having a ruthless dictator with a strong military in place to put down such insurrections, we now have a democracy in place that only serves to exacerbate those underlying sectarian issues. Of course, the fact that ISIS rolled in from the west didn't help either.



So nothing short of sending in regular american combat troops qualifies as "going in to fight and win" then?

Ok, Buddha, what part of this do you not understand. The government NIE of 2006 concluded that the Iraq war increased Islamic extremism and made America less safe. STOP.............pretending the Iraq war had any success.
 
Yes. American evil.

All evil should be opposed, but if you can't oppose it on your own doorstep, you haven't the legitimacy to be going about pointing it out elsewhere.
 
All evil should be opposed, but if you can't oppose it on your own doorstep, you haven't the legitimacy to be going about pointing it out elsewhere.
There is opposing evil on your own doorstep and there is crapping on your own doorstep. When you do the latter, you tend to step in it.
 
There is opposing evil on your own doorstep and there is crapping on your own doorstep. When you do the latter, you tend to step in it.

Yes, never point out the evil within, that makes one a traitor right.
 
Yes, never point out the evil within, that makes one a traitor right.
There is nothing traitorous about it. Its just that no one will take you seriously. But that's your problem.
 
There is nothing traitorous about it. Its just that no one will take you seriously. But that's your problem.

No one, hmm. I've seen others here pointing out the same thing. Many of them before I was here.
 
It was with Iraq. The problems we face today with Iraq stem from the sectarian divide in the country, and nothing to do with Bush. To demonstrate more clearly that point, understand that sectarian divide existed even under Saddam Hussein. The difference today though is that instead of having a ruthless dictator with a strong military in place to put down such insurrections, we now have a democracy in place that only serves to exacerbate those underlying sectarian issues. Of course, the fact that ISIS rolled in from the west didn't help either.



So nothing short of sending in regular american combat troops qualifies as "going in to fight and win" then?

No war is won from the air alone, never has been.
 
You know, I've never got what people such as yourself on the right says that the left "doesn't have the balls to do what it takes." The fact of the matter is that Obama has bombed more countries than Bush (Lizza says Obama has bombed more nations than Bush) and the number of drone strikes have skyrocketed under administration. The following graph ONLY takes into account his first term, and even still, Obama during his first term committed six times as many drone strikes than Bush in Pakistan:

.................

"The fact of the matter is that Obama has bombed more countries than Bush".....

True. Because under his watch terrorism is spreading. Another cheap distraction of meaningless stats. War is not measured in bombs dropped, if they were Britain would have been in German hands after the "Battle of Britain"....it is measured in ground gained.

As Obama has for seven years attempted to ride a wave of appeasement and some weird idea of "peace" the war has spread from one fight to abut seven. So of course he has to bomb more countries, and the people in them let us not forget, because he is actually losing.

Three years ago the commander in chief declared Iraq was stable enough that American troops can come home...just in time for the election. Now, he's blabbing about "Crusades" while facing what was obvious a year ago, they need boots on the ground
 
Im not the one with the problem recognizing evil.

That depends on what your definition of evil is. When you vote Obama, evil is "not Obama". If you have swallowed sufficient doses of cool aid, then evil is any form of opposition to the regime.

Sarah Palin is evil, she gives him lip.

Ted Cruz is evil because he's...ah Ted Cruz and a funny name from Canada is easy to generate hate against.

Anyone with the name "Bush" in their ancestry is evil and unfit to be president.

Islamic terrorism, though, does not exist, there is no evil there, nor in Iran, and Libya was evil, became not evil, then became evil again, because George Bush didn't protect America from the evil of "strongman" Mohamar Gaddafi....

It's all in the brand
 
"The fact of the matter is that Obama has bombed more countries than Bush".....

True. Because under his watch terrorism is spreading. Another cheap distraction of meaningless stats. War is not measured in bombs dropped, if they were Britain would have been in German hands after the "Battle of Britain"....it is measured in ground gained.

As Obama has for seven years attempted to ride a wave of appeasement and some weird idea of "peace" the war has spread from one fight to abut seven. So of course he has to bomb more countries, and the people in them let us not forget, because he is actually losing.

Three years ago the commander in chief declared Iraq was stable enough that American troops can come home...just in time for the election. Now, he's blabbing about "Crusades" while facing what was obvious a year ago, they need boots on the ground

Even if he had tried, and then recognized that such appeasement isn't working I could respect it.
But he triples down and stays the course. What a stubborn fool.
 
Back
Top Bottom