• 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!

50 soldiers killed in ISIS attack on Egyptian Army's Sinai checkpoints

Please show me what part of Iraq ISIS controlled while Bush was in the WH and for the three years afterwards with American boots on the ground?

Perhaps you forget the Iranian funded, trained and equipped Militias?
Perhaps you forget the Sunni uprising?
Perhaps you are mighty selective. Yeah
Perhaps the question you asked is BS.
 
And quite correct



The Russians did the hard graft and you guys did the movies

No question about it, the U.S. involvement in WWII had nothing to do with securing England. History has been re-written
 
Perhaps you forget the Iranian funded, trained and equipped Militias?
Perhaps you forget the Sunni uprising?
Perhaps you are mighty selective. Yeah
Perhaps the question you asked is BS.

Perhaps you forgot the surge and the conditions in Iraq when Bush left office. The question I asked is accurate so how about answering it
 
Maybe English isn't your first language but yes, I believe the Bush speech, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein eliminated a major supporter of terrorism and a funder of terrorism.

Well here it comes for ya.
I am not well educated.
My grammar sucks.
Much to old to give a hoot about it at this point in life.
Next I am quite comfortable financially.

Next if you wish to bring up or criticize my grammar - well piss off.

Good now that this issue has been addressed we shall carry on with the discussion.

Bush noted Saddam and AQ - Funding - do you believe that Saddam funded AQ?
 
Perhaps you forgot the surge and the conditions in Iraq when Bush left office. The question I asked is accurate so how about answering it
Perhaps you forgot about that General, testifying before Congress on the troops that would be needed to maintain order/control in Iraq.
Went against the WH and Cheney line.
His replacement was announced approx a tad over a year ahead of time.
Effectively ending his carrier.

Why was the surge needed?
 
Please show me what part of Iraq ISIS controlled while Bush was in the WH and for the three years afterwards with American boots on the ground?
Isis was not yet formed to be formidable yet. :doh
 
Well here it comes for ya.
I am not well educated.
My grammar sucks.
Much to old to give a hoot about it at this point in life.
Next I am quite comfortable financially.

Next if you wish to bring up or criticize my grammar - well piss off.

Good now that this issue has been addressed we shall carry on with the discussion.

Bush noted Saddam and AQ - Funding - do you believe that Saddam funded AQ?

Amazing how Democrats thought so in 1998 with the Iraq Liberation Act and again in 2002 when they voted for the war. Doesn't really matter what I think but I do know that Saddam Funded terrorism.
 
Perhaps you forgot about that General, testifying before Congress on the troops that would be needed to maintain order/control in Iraq.
Went against the WH and Cheney line.
His replacement was announced approx a tad over a year ahead of time.
Effectively ending his carrier.

Why was the surge needed?

Refresh my memory who was that General?

Why was the surge needed? Does it matter, it worked.
 
What is evident now is the coverage is greater than it was before the war so how do you know? Things were much better after the surge and while U.S. troops were on the ground. They deteriorated after the troops left the country exactly as predicted

Yep. US troops left before the job was finished. We had a "democracy" in Iraq, after all, and purple fingers to prove it. The problem was, radical Islam was still alive and well. We didn't know our enemy, didn't have a plan nor a will to win the war.

And that is no way to run a war.
 
Refresh my memory who was that General?

Why was the surge needed? Does it matter, it worked.

Army Chief of Staff, Shinseki
Deflection- Why was the surge needed.
 
Please show me what part of Iraq ISIS controlled while Bush was in the WH and for the three years afterwards with American boots on the ground?

I believe it must be the same part that they controlled before the US invasion.
 
Amazing how Democrats thought so in 1998 with the Iraq Liberation Act and again in 2002 when they voted for the war. Doesn't really matter what I think but I do know that Saddam Funded terrorism.

But not AQ - agreed?
 
No question about it, the U.S. involvement in WWII had nothing to do with securing England. History has been re-written

And WW2 has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread either :roll:

Its the mistakes of the Bush administration and their aftermath that was the catalyst for ISIS
 
Without uniforms who knows, a terrorist is a terrorist regardless of affiliation

A man of your years and education still stuck on Ring around the Rosie.
Go back to all those investigations congress had.
 
A man of your years and education still stuck on Ring around the Rosie.
Go back to all those investigations congress had.

Does it really matter? The question is what does this country do now about ISIS? I do know that ISIS controlled no property in Iraq while Bush was in the WH and none until our military left under Obama
 
ISIS is at war with the West and that should make us at war with them because the threat is real. Yes, I would support a resolution declaring War against ISIS.

Yes, the threat is real and should not be ignored. But the threat isn't military might, it's extreme religious fundamentalist ideology and no army can stop ideas or beliefs, but instead does the opposite and tends to re-enforce and even expand their ideology. And in the case of ISIS, this has never been more true. They want US forces to come fight them in their land because that will prove in their minds and all that the gullible masses that follow them that their ideological beliefs are right. And I don't think we really want that, do you?
 
Last edited:
Yes, the threat is real and should not be ignored. But the threat isn't military might, it's extreme religious fundamentalism and no army can stop ideas or beliefs, but instead does the opposite and enforces their belief. And in the case of ISIS, this has never been more true. They want US forces to come fight them in their land because that will prove in their minds and all that the gullible masses that their ideological beliefs are right. And I really don't think we want that, do you?

Ok, apparently that is in our future. Unless we do fight them and destroy them this could happen here

74 children executed by ISIS for 'crimes' that include refusal to fast, report says | Fox News
 
Does it really matter? The question is what does this country do now about ISIS? I do know that ISIS controlled no property in Iraq while Bush was in the WH and none until our military left under Obama

Yeah it does matter.
We clearly have opposing views on a number of issues, but I do enjoy discussion. Never know what you may learn.

A clear example where we differ would be Bush going into Iraq. A massive strategic mistake.
 
Ok, apparently that is in our future. Unless we do fight them and destroy them this could happen here

74 children executed by ISIS for 'crimes' that include refusal to fast, report says | Fox News

No, what I described was the result of the Iraq invasion and occurring now. But then, so are you. By sending in more US troops, can you guarantee that it won't radicalize even more Muslims from all over the world in joining ISIS to fight Americans, not just in Syria but right here on our own soil with lone wolf sympathizers and making ISIS an even bigger, stronger, more formiddable foe than before?
 
Last edited:
Yeah it does matter.
We clearly have opposing views on a number of issues, but I do enjoy discussion. Never know what you may learn.

A clear example where we differ would be Bush going into Iraq. A massive strategic mistake.

Blaming Bush or Obama at this point may make you feel good but it serves no purpose. You cannot change the past only the future. The question remains what do we do about ISIS right now??

74 children executed by ISIS for 'crimes' that include refusal to fast, report says | Fox News
 
No, what I described was the result of the Iraq invasion. But then, so are you. By sending in more US troops, can you guarantee that it won't radicalize even more Muslims from all over the world in joining ISIS to fight Americans, not just in Syria but right here on our own soil with lone wolf sympathizers and making ISIS an even bigger, stronger, more formiddable foe than before?

What we can guarantee is what is happening right now and the fact that ISIS is killing randomly. How many have to die before ISIS becomes a problem for you? Too many people are reactive instead of being proactive and that always costs lives
 
What we can guarantee is what is happening right now and the fact that ISIS is killing randomly. How many have to die before ISIS becomes a problem for you? Too many people are reactive instead of being proactive and that always costs lives

How about Darfur for another area. But the resident Genocidal Leader in Chief is now cooperating with the US on terror information- intelligence. So the pressure from the US has lightened.
FFn sad eh.
 
Back
Top Bottom