• 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

There is no Independent Party. These unaffiliated voters have diverse views and it's not clear that a single party could appeal to all of them.

Yes, I understand that there's many independent parties. My point is that in the independent world, good leadership is needed, and that they need a coalition working together to galvanize the similarities and marginalized the differences whereby a single independent party could be formed that would be able to threaten the ass and the elephant!;)
 
Yes, I understand that there's many independent parties. My point is that in the independent world, good leadership is needed, and that they need a coalition working together to galvanize the similarities and marginalized the differences whereby a single independent party could be formed that would be able to threaten the ass and the elephant!;)

IMO, you're raising a good topic for discussion, but it strays from the issue covered in this thread. As a result, the opportunity for a full discussion is probably limited in this thread. Perhaps you can start a thread in another forum for this discussion?

Having said that, we do agree about the importance of good leadership and an ability to work with others to effectively govern. Whether a strong third party is needed to bring about such an outcome is a matter of debate.

Finally, on the matter of Egypt, I believe the U.S. should be supportive of the Egyptian government's efforts given Egypt's strategic relationship with the U.S. and U.S. interests at stake. But aside from that, there's little the U.S. can do to materially change the situation e.g., sending U.S. military advisers or combat forces would probably do little and might actually make things worse.

This is an internal domestic matter and a complex one at that. It involves the Islamic State, but there is also overlap with some other Islamist movements, not to mention resentment among supporters of such movements tied to the current political situation in Egypt. Disentangling legitimate and extreme actors requires detailed and nuanced knowledge of the on-the-ground situation that the U.S. simply does not possess.
 
IMO, you're raising a good topic for discussion, but it strays from the issue covered in this thread. As a result, the opportunity for a full discussion is probably limited in this thread. Perhaps you can start a thread in another forum for this discussion?

Having said that, we do agree about the importance of good leadership and an ability to work with others to effectively govern. Whether a strong third party is needed to bring about such an outcome is a matter of debate.

Finally, on the matter of Egypt, I believe the U.S. should be supportive of the Egyptian government's efforts given Egypt's strategic relationship with the U.S. and U.S. interests at stake. But aside from that, there's little the U.S. can do to materially change the situation e.g., sending U.S. military advisers or combat forces would probably do little and might actually make things worse.

This is an internal domestic matter and a complex one at that. It involves the Islamic State, but there is also overlap with some other Islamist movements, not to mention resentment among supporters of such movements tied to the current political situation in Egypt. Disentangling legitimate and extreme actors requires detailed and nuanced knowledge of the on-the-ground situation that the U.S. simply does not possess.

What the Middle East needs is less not more US military adventurism. In fact, either the destabilization of the Middle East is USFP that transcends administrations, or we've had successive administrations that have been incompetent and simply utterly failed in the region, and neither are comforting!
 
What the Middle East needs is less not more US military adventurism. In fact, either the destabilization of the Middle East is USFP that transcends administrations, or we've had successive administrations that have been incompetent and simply utterly failed in the region, and neither are comforting!

Still waiting for your solution to the problem with ISIS since it does appear that you don't understand radical Islam at all and the goal of ISIS? Do you now what a Caliphate is and what the goal is of radical Islam?
 
Still waiting for your solution to the problem with ISIS since it does appear that you don't understand radical Islam at all and the goal of ISIS? Do you now what a Caliphate is and what the goal is of radical Islam?

US policy has made radical Islam a beneficiary, I'm not interested in your petty finger pointing. The failures in the Middle East are a bi-partisan effort over decades. Start thinking in terms of prevention and you won't have to loose sleep over your fear of terrorist organizations.
 
US policy has made radical Islam a beneficiary, I'm not interested in your petty finger pointing. The failures in the Middle East are a bi-partisan effort over decades. Start thinking in terms of prevention and you won't have to loose sleep over your fear of terrorist organizations.

Radical Islam is a cancer and has to be eradicated. Your belief that you can negotiate or treat evil is misguided at best. They want you dead or converted yet you continue to blame your own country. That is typical and also misguided. Our country has made mistakes but radical Islam has always been there and hasn't changed their charter. Learn about Radical Islam before blaming your country solely. Now give me your solution instead of being a Monday morning quarterback.
 
You are brilliant, you know what I believe? Interesting. Please post where I ever said we invaded Iraq because of 9/11?

And I asked you if you believed Iraq would have been invaded were it not for 9/11. You can play dodgeball here as long as you like but its obvious you are deep in denial.
 
And I said read the resolution which was after 9-11. No one knows if we would have invaded
 
And I said read the resolution which was after 9-11. No one knows if we would have invaded

Bush knew it would guarantee him his second term post 9/11 by sating the need for anti muslim vengeance with the US electorate . In the final analysis thats all that really mattered
 
Radical Islam is a cancer and has to be eradicated. Your belief that you can negotiate or treat evil is misguided at best. They want you dead or converted yet you continue to blame your own country. That is typical and also misguided. Our country has made mistakes but radical Islam has always been there and hasn't changed their charter. Learn about Radical Islam before blaming your country solely. Now give me your solution instead of being a Monday morning quarterback.

Your not going to eradicate extremist ideology. You keep blaming your own country every time you blame the current issue on Obama. It's when I point out the failures in the ME by both parties that you get defensive. Containment is the answer, and US policies for decades have done the opposite.
 
Instead of worrying about right and left perhaps you should care more about whats right and wrong. That war was most definitely wrong by what ever measure you choose to judge it by and I'm not using 20-20 hindsight here either
I notice there are a growing number of Saddam Hussein supporters as time drifts by, perhaps unaware of his genocide, invasions, mass graves, rape rooms, etc. If this keeps up he'll soon gain cult status, much like the murderous Mao did in the 1960' and 70's.
 
Please tell me why despite that more than two thirds of Americans once believed Hussein was directly involved ? Who fabricated the link
Do you have a reliable link to that claim?
 
So where is you outrage of cutting SS and Medicare? Keeping the Bush tax cuts? What was Obama's position on those tax cuts? It wasn't Obama that kept the Bush tax cuts but rather the Congress under Democrat control

but it was Obama, AKA Bush III, who proposed the payroll tax cuts.
 

Estimates average around 7% of the worlds Islamic population are engaged in some active form of terror activity, in some sort of active support, planning or implementing mode. 7% seems like a relatively small proportion. However, assuming a moderate estimate of 1.5 billion Muslims, even 5% would be what?

5% of 1.5 billion = "only" 75 million (75,000,000) are actvely involved in some phase of violent Jihad.

So, around 75 million Jihadis?

Run for the bomb shelters! They're coming!
 
I notice there are a growing number of Saddam Hussein supporters as time drifts by, perhaps unaware of his genocide, invasions, mass graves, rape rooms, etc. If this keeps up he'll soon gain cult status, much like the murderous Mao did in the 1960' and 70's.

I was referring to the war in Vietnam. As far as Hussein goes before pontificating so much lets remember who put him him into power in the first place

Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power
 
I notice there are a growing number of Saddam Hussein supporters as time drifts by, perhaps unaware of his genocide, invasions, mass graves, rape rooms, etc. If this keeps up he'll soon gain cult status, much like the murderous Mao did in the 1960' and 70's.

Welcome to leftism in the 21st century.

Even they know im right.
 
but it was Obama, AKA Bush III, who proposed the payroll tax cuts.

A payroll tax cut appeals to the Gruber electorate and ignores the problem Congress and the Presidents have created with SS and Medicare, and that is the poinit.
 
I was referring to the war in Vietnam. As far as Hussein goes before pontificating so much lets remember who put him him into power in the first place
Yes, the Brits and the US originally supported Saddam. What do you make of that?
 
Yes, the Brits and the US originally supported Saddam. What do you make of that?

and the US supported the Mujahadeen, forerunners to the Taliban, and deposed Salvador Allende in Chile, putting into place the dictator, Pinochet, and deposed a democratically elected government in Iran to install the Shaw, and befriended and still befriends dictators when it suits us.

So what? What do we make of that?

I know. Wait until the (bleep!) hits the fan somewhere in the world,then we can argue over which political party is to blame.
 
Barack Obama would get serious about this if his friends in the Muslim Brotherhood were still in charge of Egypt.
 
and the US supported the Mujahadeen, forerunners to the Taliban, and deposed Salvador Allende in Chile, putting into place the dictator, Pinochet, and deposed a democratically elected government in Iran to install the Shaw, and befriended and still befriends dictators when it suits us. So what? What do we make of that? I know. Wait until the (bleep!) hits the fan somewhere in the world,then we can argue over which political party is to blame.
Do you have any idea what might have happened had these actions not been taken? Either way they are irrelevant to the conversation.
 
That's what the Islamists are saying. Do you believe them or do you think they're still JayVees just kidding around?
I don't think they're "JayVees", nor do I believe that there are 75 million of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom