• 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!

ISIS reportedly burns 45 people alive

Thats funny, from your interpretation things got worse after the surge. Hint, they got worse after Obama pulled out for politics.

Not according to the NIE that you love to ignore.
 
I think the billions the Arab emirates are sitting on would argue that. But hey if you want to continue to blame the past why not get mad at the Germanic tribes that sacked Rome and put us in the dark agezs?

When I see a German here blaming the citizens of the Middle East, or any country that they raped and vandalised in the past, for not having their **** together, I give them hell too!
 
What makes you think the Syrians want to work with us after Obama called for Assad to step down and then started aiding people to oust him?
Because he is the one calling for cooperation...
Assad Offers Military Support to US in Fight against IS Group | News | teleSUR

What if a solely arab coalition cant or wont fight, or is losing? Then what?
What if?
1.) That is a big "what if question"
2.) IF that does happen, (which i dont think it will since of the recent gains of the Kurds in the north, the SAA in Syria, and the Iraqi army) then I think there is only one option. Cut off the head of the organization. Which I think means we should not only halt trade with the countries that have ties with ISIS, but embargo them, and cut diplomatic ties with them.
 
Helping the Kurds is key I agree my only worry is with Turkey and how they will react to a potential free Kurdish state which could potentially happen especially if we arm them/ fund them. Another worry with that is that if were to support the Kurds we could potentially see Iraq break up as each region looks to defend its borders and its own cultural identity.
I like most of your points except negotiation with the Assad government, Don't you think that given the weapons he has used and the brutal tactics he has been implementing that the West could possibly discredit itself by entering talks with them? Especially given the relationship they have with Russia?

Just great watching arrogant Brits and Europeans discussing how things need to be dealt with in this place or another. Have you not done enough damage around the world for a lifetime. Maybe its time for you to sit one out, mind your god damn business and let somebody else work this out.
 
This only shows how truly partisan you are, and how your agenda is only to lay blames at one presidents feet.

Actually, your dismissal of the facts betrays your own partisanship.
_72103266_iraq_deaths_v8_624gr.gif

BBC News - Iraq's annual death toll highest in five years - UN

_48891051_iraq_deaths464x225.gif

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11107739

A good question is why you are against a proven strategy that has already worked in Iraq.
 
Just great watching arrogant Brits and Europeans discussing how things need to be dealt with in this place or another. Have you not done enough damage around the world for a lifetime. Maybe its time for you to sit one out, mind your god damn business and let somebody else work this out.

Well this is a debate forum so hopefully you understand that what we are talking about has no bearing on actual events. I would honestly love to hear your strategy for ISIS though? Dem Socialist isn't someone I agree with a whole lot but he knows what he's talking about. With you however I am not so sure.

So go on how do you want the world to handle ISIS?
 
Because he is the one calling for cooperation...
Assad Offers Military Support to US in Fight against IS Group | News | teleSUR


What if?
1.) That is a big "what if question"
2.) IF that does happen, (which i dont think it will since of the recent gains of the Kurds in the north, the SAA in Syria, and the Iraqi army) then I think there is only one option. Cut off the head of the organization. Which I think means we should not only halt trade with the countries that have ties with ISIS, but embargo them, and cut diplomatic ties with them.

That is a big what if-the situation would depend on it-and right now I dont see any arabs stepping up to defend it. How many more should die in the mean time.

How do you cut off its head when its designed to operate independently if need? Did you seriously just suggest we cut off trade with nations that have ties with them? We are long past soft measures-they believe they are restoring the caliphate.
 
Well this is a debate forum so hopefully you understand that what we are talking about has no bearing on actual events. I would honestly love to hear your strategy for ISIS though? Dem Socialist isn't someone I agree with a whole lot but he knows what he's talking about. With you however I am not so sure.

So go on how do you want the world to handle ISIS?

The Islamic state was unheard of a dozen years ago when Blair and Bush decided to attack, invade and occupy a country that had done neither of our countries any harm. Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi nor Assad gave any quarters to Islamic extremists. It's a dozen years of failed US/UK policy in the Middle East that has given rise to these miscreants that are now plaguing the region. Those that caused the problem should not be the ones deciding how to deal with it. Time for the US/UK to sit down and shut up.
 
Helping the Kurds is key I agree my only worry is with Turkey and how they will react to a potential free Kurdish state which could potentially happen especially if we arm them/ fund them. Another worry with that is that if were to support the Kurds we could potentially see Iraq break up as each region looks to defend its borders and its own cultural identity.
I agree. I came from a realist view on that post. In my opinion I think we should also remove the PKK from terrorist list, but that is outside a realists view of foreign policy. I see where you are coming from with the Turks. Erdogan has generally been a neusis with ISIS, allowing essentially open access to borders along Turkey, and turining a blind eye to financies to them. He clearly has a vested interest in keeping what is known as Kurdistan in a constant conflict with ISIS. I think if the US works a deal out with Iraq (which they might be willing to, espcially since the nothern region of Iraq is semi-autonomisou) and agree to move towards a free and independent Kurdistan over a certain time frame, that not only can the US but Iraq can pressure to move the Turksih region to do the same. I believe this will also mainly depend on the PKK. I think the PKK has shown a willingness to move towards a peaceful solution in the last few years to move away from armed struggle in Turkey. This can be seen through multiple cease fires. I believe once this is shown we can really make headway in that region.

I also think the Kurdish region and point play a lot into the Syrian-Kurdish region. The PYD (a stong Kuridsh group has in many cases been willing to work with the Assad government on terms of soverignty and secularism. These talks have not moved forward mainly because of ISIS controlled regions) has open dialogue and connections within the Assad government. And have on several cases fought with the Assad regime and their National Defense Force (NDF). I think this can lead to inroads with a Kurdish state on the Syrian front.

I like most of your points except negotiation with the Assad government, Don't you think that given the weapons he has used and the brutal tactics he has been implementing that the West could possibly discredit itself by entering talks with them?
Especially given the relationship they have with Russia?

With all since of morality, I think it little matters now. What we have is a war of attrition. I just want to make several points clear before I go on with my answer. I am not a Ba'athist. I am not a fan of the Assad government. During the original revolution, and protests I was 1.)for the protests. 2.) I was for the original FSA uprising and taking up arms once the Assad gov become incredibly brutal and inhuman. Essentially what became of the original Syrian Revolution (in my book) was a hijacking by jihadists, and criminals. Once this became more and more clear ( moved away from it and more towards a position of: what the region needs now is stability. In 2012 I even wrote a paper on how I thought that the FSA was being hijacked and openly working with Al-Nusra and many in the FSA ranks were moving towards a openly jihadist and radical islamic position. What I believe we have is essentially a proxy war, with a rogue terrorist insurgency, and coupled with unknown groups fighting eachother. What I think needs to be done is some sort of political deal between Assad, the moderates, and Russians. This is only going to come through a political and peaceful deal. There needs to be some sort of military approach by the Syrian government and political approach by the Syrian government. This will only happen once the FSA (and their representatives) decide that their uprising has essentially failed and been hijacked. I honestly dont believe the US will be much influence. I think that Russia will have to lead the roll. I believe that the US has sidelined itslef too much on Syrian and that Assad does not trust the US. Russia has called for multiple talks within the Syrian gov and the Syrian opposition and that Russia will be leading these talks. Does this have to do with the US position on Syria? Yes. Was it exclusive to Obama? No. I think it was the nature of the conflict and about who is currently coming out on top (Assad). If that happens, then I think Syria can, and will defeat ISIS.
 
The Islamic state was unheard of a dozen years ago when Blair and Bush decided to attack, invade and occupy a country that had done neither of our countries any harm. Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi nor Assad gave any quarters to Islamic extremists. It's a dozen years of failed US/UK policy in the Middle East that has given rise to these miscreants that are now plaguing the region. Those that caused the problem should not be the ones deciding how to deal with it. Time for the US/UK to sit down and shut up.

It was unheard of but it existed during the Iraq war however it dwindled in numbers and was all but pushed out of Iraq. They gained a significant presence in Al Anbar, Nineveh, Kirkuk and other areas, but around 2008, its violent methods, including suicide attacks on civilian targets and the widespread killing of prisoners, led to a backlash from Sunni Iraqis and other insurgent groups which eventually led to it being almost non existent.
ISIS profited from the West's inaction in Syria where they have gone from strength to strength praying on the desperate and the needy. As they say if you don't treat a wound the infection spreads which is exactly what happened in Syria. Anyone that's thinks that the Iraq war made ISIS what it is today as a very basic knowledge on the group and the impact that the Syrian Civil war has had on the region.
 
I agree. I came from a realist view on that post. In my opinion I think we should also remove the PKK from terrorist list, but that is outside a realists view of foreign policy. I see where you are coming from with the Turks. Erdogan has generally been a neusis with ISIS, allowing essentially open access to borders along Turkey, and turining a blind eye to financies to them. He clearly has a vested interest in keeping what is known as Kurdistan in a constant conflict with ISIS. I think if the US works a deal out with Iraq (which they might be willing to, espcially since the nothern region of Iraq is semi-autonomisou) and agree to move towards a free and independent Kurdistan over a certain time frame, that not only can the US but Iraq can pressure to move the Turksih region to do the same. I believe this will also mainly depend on the PKK. I think the PKK has shown a willingness to move towards a peaceful solution in the last few years to move away from armed struggle in Turkey. This can be seen through multiple cease fires. I believe once this is shown we can really make headway in that region.

I also think the Kurdish region and point play a lot into the Syrian-Kurdish region. The PYD (a stong Kuridsh group has in many cases been willing to work with the Assad government on terms of soverignty and secularism. These talks have not moved forward mainly because of ISIS controlled regions) has open dialogue and connections within the Assad government. And have on several cases fought with the Assad regime and their National Defense Force (NDF). I think this can lead to inroads with a Kurdish state on the Syrian front.




With all since of morality, I think it little matters now. What we have is a war of attrition. I just want to make several points clear before I go on with my answer. I am not a Ba'athist. I am not a fan of the Assad government. During the original revolution, and protests I was 1.)for the protests. 2.) I was for the original FSA uprising and taking up arms once the Assad gov become incredibly brutal and inhuman. Essentially what became of the original Syrian Revolution (in my book) was a hijacking by jihadists, and criminals. Once this became more and more clear ( moved away from it and more towards a position of: what the region needs now is stability. In 2012 I even wrote a paper on how I thought that the FSA was being hijacked and openly working with Al-Nusra and many in the FSA ranks were moving towards a openly jihadist and radical islamic position. What I believe we have is essentially a proxy war, with a rogue terrorist insurgency, and coupled with unknown groups fighting eachother. What I think needs to be done is some sort of political deal between Assad, the moderates, and Russians. This is only going to come through a political and peaceful deal. There needs to be some sort of military approach by the Syrian government and political approach by the Syrian government. This will only happen once the FSA (and their representatives) decide that their uprising has essentially failed and been hijacked. I honestly dont believe the US will be much influence. I think that Russia will have to lead the roll. I believe that the US has sidelined itslef too much on Syrian and that Assad does not trust the US. Russia has called for multiple talks within the Syrian gov and the Syrian opposition and that Russia will be leading these talks. Does this have to do with the US position on Syria? Yes. Was it exclusive to Obama? No. I think it was the nature of the conflict and about who is currently coming out on top (Assad). If that happens, then I think Syria can, and will defeat ISIS.


Just a great post in general mate which on here sometimes is hard to come by. Love your points about PKK who in my book are a bunch of bloody heroes however I have noticed that Western media has distanced themselves from the PKK and instead of reported it as mainly civilian fighters ( another story and yes I work for the bbc lol). Would also love to get into your points about Russia and what that could do to Americas global standing.
Honestly I have to go to work but I will come back to this and I would love to see that paper you wrote if you would be so kind to message me a link.
 
Actually, your dismissal of the facts betrays your own partisanship.
_72103266_iraq_deaths_v8_624gr.gif

BBC News - Iraq's annual death toll highest in five years - UN
1.)No this doenst confrim anything when it comes to my "own partisanship.". If you would of read your article it actually backs up my points I made earlier, especially relating to the failure of the Iraqi gov; "Announcing the 2013 death toll, the UN head of mission in Iraq, Nickolay Mladenov, said: "This is a sad and terrible record which confirms once again the urgent need for the Iraqi authorities to address the roots of violence to curb this infernal circle.".

Also with the graph you posted, how does it back up your point? I know you want to pin this all on Obama, but Obama was president since 2008... Attacks went down for 3 year straight....... But then... God damnit, I know what you are going to blame this one,..... "If only we left troops behind... It was Obamas fault we puled out"... Right? Is this the argument you are goin to state.. If so please do...

Oh wow! I mean I wonder why troop casualties decreased!? Its not like President Bush declared a draw down, then a deal coundlnt be made between the US gov and Iraqi gov to decrease troops even more until US troops were gone...

A good question is why you are against a proven strategy that has already worked in Iraq.
:lamo
Worked?!?!? Iraq was apart of the global war on terror. Iraq had basically no terrorist attacks in the country, no presence of terrorist groups, what happened once we invaded!? It became the jiahdi playground. If you think this strategy has worked, you are crazy.
wk0mzp.png

#of terrorist attacks in Iraq
Looks like a real winner!

After 13 years, 2 wars and trillions in military spending, terrorist attacks are rising sharply - The Washington Post
Have fun with the giant money suck and the war between eastaisia and eurasia. Just remember, it never ends.
 
It was unheard of but it existed during the Iraq war however it dwindled in numbers and was all but pushed out of Iraq. They gained a significant presence in Al Anbar, Nineveh, Kirkuk and other areas, but around 2008, its violent methods, including suicide attacks on civilian targets and the widespread killing of prisoners, led to a backlash from Sunni Iraqis and other insurgent groups which eventually led to it being almost non existent.
ISIS profited from the West's inaction in Syria where they have gone from strength to strength praying on the desperate and the needy. As they say if you don't treat a wound the infection spreads which is exactly what happened in Syria. Anyone that's thinks that the Iraq war made ISIS what it is today as a very basic knowledge on the group and the impact that the Syrian Civil war has had on the region.

I'm sorry. Once again, coming from the biggest imperialistic, warmongering nation in modern history, I give the UK's opinion on foreign policy, no credibility.
 
This is not a conventional force. This is a force that uses bombing, and invasions to their advantage. We have been in a War on Terror for the past 14+ years. The only thing we have seen during this "war on terror" is a drastic increase in terror. Terror groups have seen their ranks increase, they have seen their funds increase, they are now even taking over states. The only thing this war on terror has done is increase terror. If you think we can realistically kill our way out of this war, the recent history proves that wrong. We cannot win a war on a tactic.
Recall that the US military had control over Iraq, elections were held and even BHO declared it 'stable'. When Obama removed the troops those who were doing the killing earlier now have control over a very large area and are establishing a Caliphate. They can be defeated in a number of ways but the first is militarily.
The Democracies are not acting sufficiently or in unison. They need a leader and they have none. What we are doing, as mentioned earlier, is acting as befuddled bystanders and watching the carnage on the internet. This sins of omissions are dishonorable, cowardly and inhumane.
 
I'm sorry. Once again, coming from the biggest imperialistic, warmongering nation in modern history, I give the UK's opinion on foreign policy, no credibility.
Whose foreign policies would you prefer?
 
I'm sorry. Once again, coming from the biggest imperialistic, warmongering nation in modern history, I give the UK's opinion on foreign policy, no credibility.

That's only because it doesn't take a compromise and cooperation policy you espoused on another thread - a policy which could equally be called "appeasement."
 
Whose foreign policies would you prefer?

Not any of our policies.....might be a country who has never been involved in Foreign policy to be acceptable for him. See if everybody just stayed home and never went out to play.

All would be like Rosie and the flowers wouldn't have thorns.
 
The Islamic state was unheard of a dozen years ago when Blair and Bush decided to attack, invade and occupy a country that had done neither of our countries any harm. Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi nor Assad gave any quarters to Islamic extremists. It's a dozen years of failed US/UK policy in the Middle East that has given rise to these miscreants that are now plaguing the region. Those that caused the problem should not be the ones deciding how to deal with it. Time for the US/UK to sit down and shut up.

So you would handle it by going back in time and casting blame. That appears to be your one constant strategy.
 
Actively send funds to arm the Kurds. Kurdish groups should be YPJ, YPG, and the PYD. I also believe troops should be in Iraq to only train Iraqi troops on the basis of that they will allow the establishment of a Kurdish state, and these troops should only remain there based on the Iraqi Parliaments agreement. I also think we should actively promote the allowment of Sunnis to enter the government and those who were once apart of the Ba'athist party to re-enter the Iraqi government. I also think we should enter into direct negotiations with the Syrian government, and Iranian government on how to combat this group. I think if anything we need to promote the direct regions to combat this group. We should not be "leading" this combat opposition. Those who are are a direct neighbor threat should be leading this counterinsurgency. Saudi, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Qatar, Lebanon, etc. I also believe that there are any clear links to states in any region, that show links to ISIS, and the Al-Nusra front we should immediately halt trade and economic talks with those countries until they clearly end those links and connections. I also believe we should end the training (which has been going on since 2011) with the "moderate rebels" within Syria. Many of these "moderate rebels" are working with many of these terrorist groups. We need to show the Syrian government that we are willing to work with them to combat groups such as ISIS and Al-Nusra. Our indirect support for these groups (which indirectly come from many of these "moderate rebels") only destabilizes the region more and causes more war
I like your strategy because it is, finally, a strategy.

The tricky part is encouraging 'allowment' while still respecting local sovereignty.
 
1.)No this doenst confrim anything when it comes to my "own partisanship.". If you would of read your article it actually backs up my points I made earlier, especially relating to the failure of the Iraqi gov; "Announcing the 2013 death toll, the UN head of mission in Iraq, Nickolay Mladenov, said: "This is a sad and terrible record which confirms once again the urgent need for the Iraqi authorities to address the roots of violence to curb this infernal circle.".

Also with the graph you posted, how does it back up your point? I know you want to pin this all on Obama, but Obama was president since 2008... Attacks went down for 3 year straight....... But then... God damnit, I know what you are going to blame this one,..... "If only we left troops behind... It was Obamas fault we puled out"... Right? Is this the argument you are goin to state.. If so please do...


Oh wow! I mean I wonder why troop casualties decreased!? Its not like President Bush declared a draw down, then a deal coundlnt be made between the US gov and Iraqi gov to decrease troops even more until US troops were gone...


:lamo
Worked?!?!? Iraq was apart of the global war on terror. Iraq had basically no terrorist attacks in the country, no presence of terrorist groups, what happened once we invaded!? It became the jiahdi playground. If you think this strategy has worked, you are crazy.
wk0mzp.png

#of terrorist attacks in Iraq
Looks like a real winner!

After 13 years, 2 wars and trillions in military spending, terrorist attacks are rising sharply - The Washington Post
Have fun with the giant money suck and the war between eastaisia and eurasia. Just remember, it never ends.

Hmm try real hard here-what happened in 07? Oh! It was the surge that the left said wouldnt work. Also note the spike after we left, I'd love to see the most current figures, but undoubtedly they are worse.
And in the end, the number of attacks concerns me less than the number of innocents killed.

You may not like the fact that a presence and commitment works, but it does, and it will again.
 
Back
Top Bottom