• 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

TheDemSocialist said:
How are you claiming "it worked"? Attacks still rose....



It concerns you less because it refutes your talking point of somehow Iraq was stable and the war was a success.


"It works"? :lamo How did it "work"?
"The report suggests that U.S. foreign policy has played a big role in making the problem worse: "The rise in terrorist activity coincided with the US invasion of Iraq," it concludes. "This created large power vacuums in the country allowing different factions to surface and become violent." After 13 years, 2 wars and trillions in military spending, terrorist attacks are rising sharply - The Washington Post Seems like if you mean creating terrorist activity, then **** the invasion "worked".

"GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I don’t think that keeping a few thousand troops in Iraq would have stopped ISIS. And it wouldn’t have fixed the Iraqi forces. There are deep schisms inside Iraq and they reflect the deep problems and they reflect the problems that really Islam has. They were God’s chosen people, they were the center of civilization for hundreds of years, and three hundred years ago these barbarians from Europe with more money technology and know how and took over the world and Islam has had a hard time coping with that."
Gen. Wesley Clark: Staying Longer In Iraq Wouldn’t Have Made A Difference | Liberaland
Click to expand...

The fact is that Iraq was much safer after the surge-one need only look at the number killed-lets be honest thats what matters most. Of course it will piss off terrorists, but they are pissed they can't behead and enslave innocents SO **** THEM.
 
US Conservative said:
The fact is that Iraq was much safer after the surge-one need only look at the number killed-lets be honest thats what matters most.
Click to expand...
Wow... Apparently your definition of "much safer" is averaging over a terrorist attack a day.... I guess you are one of those people who claim "Iraq was stable before we withdrew". But then again you are one of those who doesn't actually understand the withdrawal process (i'm pretty sure you have had this explained to you over and over again, but you keep on keeping on). But hey, "mission accomplished right"? But then again, how many terrorist casualties and attacks before we invaded?

But then again, you are the one that refuses to recognize the giant unrest in the region is bigger than one person, so you keep on hammering the "its Obama's fault!" card.

Of course it will piss off terrorists, but they are pissed they can't behead and enslave innocents SO **** THEM.
Click to expand...
Man, what a great response! :lamo
 
Everyone has their plan of course and is somewhat different than others.

There are MANY countries - dictators and leaders of various kinds - in that region that want to take on ISIS for their own reasons and safety.

Despite the "get out of the whole region" simplistic attitude, our economy is highly dependent good and interconnected relationship with many of those countries.

We should invite and organize those countries, along with our own troops and forces, to do a land grab. Tell the Kurds it is a fight for their independence and if they fight and win we will recognize Kurdistan formally as a new country - that includes any ISIS territory they capture. Iran, Syria and Syrian fighters, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt - ISIS land and natural resources grab bag for the taking.

The war itself to be fought as a war, not a police action, meaning ISIS towns and cities are leveled - civilians should flee, all suspected of being a fighter captured if not killed, and the entire area completely overrun by this lose composite (coalition). As for the government of Iraq? If Iraq even wants to exist at all as a country they better fight to protect what territory they can.

It is in the USA's interest to be involved with those countries in this action, but that would result in it largely being Muslims killing Muslims.

It is the half measures and tiptoe way of thinking being cautious to offend no one and try to make the bizarre claim we are fighting a moral NICE war - and there is no such thing as nice war or loving conquest.

In this, some borders would be redefined as stand off lines between some allies come to be at odds. At that point, We're done. We don't rebuild anything or police anything. Every country that grabbed ISIS held territory does whatever it does or doesn't do.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Wow... Apparently your definition of "much safer" is averaging over a terrorist attack a day.... I guess you are one of those people who claim "Iraq was stable before we withdrew". But then again you are one of those who doesn't actually understand the withdrawal process (i'm pretty sure you have had this explained to you over and over again, but you keep on keeping on). But hey, "mission accomplished right"? But then again, how many terrorist casualties and attacks before we invaded?

But then again, you are the one that refuses to recognize the giant unrest in the region is bigger than one person, so you keep on hammering the "its Obama's fault!" card.


Man, what a great response! :lamo
Click to expand...

Walk on eggshells. Im not doing it.
 
US Conservative said:
Walk on eggshells. Im not doing it.
Click to expand...

I think your responses show that your hole point is not founded in reality. "Its safe", but averaging over a terrorist attack a day shows that it is not. Then you claim that "hey if we left troops behind, we will be awesome", but then a high ranking General disagrees with you. But hey keep it up! Maybe one day oceania will beat eurasia!
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I think your responses show that your hole point is not founded in reality. "Its safe", but averaging over a terrorist attack a day shows that it is not. Then you claim that "hey if we left troops behind, we will be awesome", but then a high ranking General disagrees with you. But hey keep it up! Maybe one day oceania will beat eurasia!
Click to expand...

I like people to not die. Crazy I know. :roll:
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Wow... Apparently your definition of "much safer" is averaging over a terrorist attack a day....
Click to expand...
How many were killed during 2011 before Obama pulled the troops and how many are being killed now?
I guess you are one of those people who claim "Iraq was stable before we withdrew".
Click to expand...
That was Barry Obama's claim. Of course that is no longer true.
But then again, you are the one that refuses to recognize the giant unrest in the region is bigger than one person, so you keep on hammering the "its Obama's fault!" card.
Click to expand...
Well of course it's Obama's fault. Who else? The motto of this presidency, echoed by his sycophants, is that 'The buck stops elsewhere'.
 
US Conservative said:
They are fighting now-bombing ISIS territory-more arab nations than ever in history. But they dont have a cohesive strategy, lack leadership, and are also suspicious of each other, plus they are also terrified of ISIS in their own territory.

If they knew they had us leading them, with a commitment for victory they'd do even more. **** I'd give them the bombs to drop and bullets to shoot.
But they dont have a leader to make that happen-it wont be Obama-that dog wont hunt.
Click to expand...

I don't believe for a second that this will go on for long, soon they will realize how expensive it is and how much they are putting a target on their own backs. Just like France, who pretended they'd fight ISIS, they stopped almost immediately. It takes a serious commitment to fight long-term. I don't think any of them have that commitment. Even with us leading the fight, they have no interest in joining in for the long haul. They expect us to do the heavy lifting, that's the lesson we've taught the world.
 
US Conservative said:
We will, though I think we should negotiate terms with the Iraqi's and OPEC nations as well in exchange. We didn't do that last time, which is one reason I lol at the implication that Iraq was "all about oil".
Click to expand...

We can't, we don't have the money. What you mean is, the Chinese will fund it and we'll be paying for it for decades, perhaps forever. So much for fiscal responsibility.
 
US Conservative said:
Tragically wars are expensive.
Click to expand...

Yes they are but they still have to be paid for. We have to be realistic in our goals, we can't just figure we're going to spend 100 trillion dollars on a war and occupation, that's just not realistic.
 
Cephus said:
Yes they are but they still have to be paid for. We have to be realistic in our goals, we can't just figure we're going to spend 100 trillion dollars on a war and occupation, that's just not realistic.
Click to expand...
Is 100 trillion the official estimate or did you just make that up?

Being as how this is an international problem it should be paid for by the international community.
 
Grant said:
Well of course it's Obama's fault. Who else? The motto of this presidency, echoed by his sycophants, is that 'The buck stops elsewhere'.
Click to expand...

As I've stated over and over again. This consequences of the US involvement in the middle east and the consequences of the destabilization of the region is bigger than one man. It goes all the way back to the 80's possibly further. Several presidents and their policies are responsible for this mass insurgency and destablization of the region.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
As I've stated over and over again. This consequences of the US involvement in the middle east and the consequences of the destabilization of the region is bigger than one man. It goes all the way back to the 80's possibly further. Several presidents and their policies are responsible for this mass insurgency and destablization of the region.
Click to expand...

Syria is a textbook example of a nation that had very little to no American involvement that is now a terrorist haven. Terrorists do what they do-they dont need us as an excuse guy.
 
US Conservative said:
Syria is a textbook example of a nation that had very little to no American involvement that is now a terrorist haven. Terrorists do what they do-they dont need us as an excuse guy.
Click to expand...

You realize that this even took place in Iraq, correct?
 
US Conservative said:
Yes, and you realize it does not matter to the discussion?
Click to expand...

No of course it does. I state and held the position that the US policies for many years are responsible for the destabilization in the region and the rise and popularity of ISIS.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
No of course it does. I state and held the position that the US policies for many years are responsible for the destabilization in the region and the rise and popularity of ISIS.
Click to expand...

And I have demonstrated that the ME was violent long before, and is still violent even where there is no significant presence. Frankly, "hot spots" are where radical islamists are, and history bears that out.
 
US Conservative said:
And I have demonstrated that the ME was violent long before, and is still violent even where there is no significant presence. Frankly, "hot spots" are where radical islamists are, and history bears that out.
Click to expand...

:naughty You claimed that ISIS is in Syria and the US had no direct presence in Syria therefore the US foreign policy in the region and specifically towards Iraq had nothing to do with it..
 
TheDemSocialist said:
As I've stated over and over again. This consequences of the US involvement in the middle east and the consequences of the destabilization of the region is bigger than one man. It goes all the way back to the 80's possibly further. Several presidents and their policies are responsible for this mass insurgency and destablization of the region.
Click to expand...
You can continue repeating it into your next lifetime but it won't make it any more true.

It was Obama's decision to remove the troops from Iraq, all against the military's advice, as well as advisers. He is the Commander-In-Chef and therefore responsible for what we see there today. It is no one else's fault but his.
 
Grant said:
You can continue repeating it into your next lifetime but it won't make it any more true.
Click to expand...
There are numerous studies I have posted to back up the opinion I hold...

It was Obama's decision to remove the troops from Iraq, all against the military's advice, as well as advisers. He is the Commander-In-Chef and therefore responsible for what we see there today. It is no one else's fault but his.
Click to expand...
I have posted severl studies in the past to back up my opinion, and the reality of geopolitical policies and the consequences of these policies simply do not hold ture.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
There are numerous studies I have posted to back up the opinion I hold...
Click to expand...
Then these 'studies' are wrong as well.

I have posted severl studies in the past to back up my opinion, and the reality of geopolitical policies and the consequences of these policies simply do not hold ture
Click to expand...
Seems like you've been wasting your time then. You should look around for more reliable 'studies'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom