• 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!

France, Russia pummel ISIS stronghold as critics blast US rules of engagement [W:353]

Μολὼν λαβέ;1065270972 said:
Bush could have lied just prior to reelection like Obama declaring ISIS a JV team and Al Qaeda is on the run. I'm sure he didn't say those things just to get reelected.

How about his comments ISIS had been contained the day before the Paris attack?

And this the day of the attack, "It is not yet clear who exactly perpetrated the Paris attack." I guess everyone else knew who was responsible except the current US administration.

One thing has become clear, when Obama declares victory, duck and cover.
Click to expand...

That's odd. So the multiple times we heard from the Bush administration that AQ was on the run, in the last throws, not a threat anymore and that they didn't concern themselves with OBL, the guy actually responsible for his reason to launch his phantom GWOT, get a chuckle and a pass from you, but doing similar by Obama equates to his total incompetence. Another example of useless commentary from a partisan hack.
 
Dragonfly said:
Every bombing mission costs the US how much money?
Each bombing mission actually kills how many people that are the intended target?
Each bombing mission kills how many people that are NOT the intended target? As in "innocent civilians"?
(of course I know that some people insist any person from "that area" can never be an "innocent civilian")
For each person killed by an American bomb, how many "new terrorists" are created?
Click to expand...


Stop, you're ruining everything. ;)
 
Dragonfly said:
I don't follow.
Click to expand...

The bombing runs are expensive and kill relatively few enemies, killing each with a rocket. That makes each successful kill expensive. (actually it doesn't compared with invasion forces. I realize that) The anger of the civilian population increases recruitment by ISIS and adds to the costs.

But it was not my best sentence.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I know like how Obama declared Mission Accomplished against ISIS long before it was defeated and created the greatest photo-op stunt in U.S. history while doing so. :roll:
Click to expand...

Oh look!

Strawman.jpg

A Strawman!
 
Dragonfly said:
1) Every bombing mission costs the US how much money?

2) Each bombing mission actually kills how many people that are the intended target?
Each bombing mission kills how many people that are NOT the intended target? As in "innocent civilians"?
(of course I know that some people insist any person from "that area" can never be an "innocent civilian")

3) For each person killed by an American bomb, how many "new terrorists" are created?
Click to expand...

1) What is the cost of not killing known terrorists/enemy forces?

2) What method of warfare does not generate civilian casualties and how many actual enemy supporters are now counted as "innocent" casualties?

3) The idea that killing terrorists/enemy forces creates more of them, while granting them free reign to do as they wish does not, fails to explain where the first terrorists/enemy forces came from or why they would not continue to be terrorists/enemy forces if that allows them the power (control?) that they seek.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
In response to a strawman.
Click to expand...

No, my point was that both Presidents send troops into harms way - only one of them actually bothered to support them to win while doing so.

Going into harms way in order to achieve mission success is the military's job. Bush sent us into harms way to achieve success. Obama sends us into harms way in order to reduce political pressure to Do Something, and then keeps us from achieving mission success.


Think of it as the difference between someone telling you "I want you to run into this burning building to save a child trapped in there." and someone telling you "I want you to run into this burning building so that I will look like the kind of person who orders others to run into burning buildings.". You're willing to do the former - the latter not so much.
 
radioman said:
Sure did.
It was the usual FOX News anti-Obama spin.
Also from your article.....
---------
"After receiving intelligence from the U.S., the French military said it independently hit command and recruitment centers, an ammunition storage base and one of the terror network's training camps in Raqqa -- and it released video of the moment French fighter jets took off from bases in Jordan and the United Arab Emirates."
--------
So the US and France ARE working together.
Did YOU even read your own article?
Click to expand...

If we already knew where a command center, a recruitment center, a training camp, and an ammunition storage base was........why was it still there for the French to blow up?
 
cpwill said:
No, my point was that both Presidents send troops into harms way - only one of them actually bothered to support them to win while doing so.

Going into harms way in order to achieve mission success is the military's job. Bush sent us into harms way to achieve success. Obama sends us into harms way in order to reduce political pressure to Do Something, and then keeps us from achieving mission success.


Think of it as the difference between someone telling you "I want you to run into this burning building to save a child trapped in there." and someone telling you "I want you to run into this burning building so that I will look like the kind of person who orders others to run into burning buildings.". You're willing to do the former - the latter not so much.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, both presidents sent troops into harms way, what else is new? LOL. It was a war that we had no chance of winning, Obama knew this, unlike the idiot known as bush. Yeah, bush was REAAAAALLLL successful, wasn't he? :lamo
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
In response to a strawman.
Click to expand...

Considering that the Iraq war caused an increase in global terror, made the world less safe and caused the formation of the Islamic State, and subsequent policies by Obama have netted gains for the Islamic State. We have two consecutive administrations that either intentionally have given rise to IS, or both are incompetent, neither of which is comforting.
 
David_N said:
Yes, yes, both presidents sent troops into harms way, what else is new? LOL. It was a war that we had no chance of winning, Obama knew this, unlike the idiot known as bush. Yeah, bush was REAAAAALLLL successful, wasn't he? :lamo
Click to expand...

Neither have been successful. It should be noted that the Islamic State today is larger and more powerful than they were when they organized in Bush's Iraq in October of 2006.
 
Montecresto said:
Neither have been successful. It should be noted that the Islamic State today is larger and more powerful than they were when they organized in Bush's Iraq in October of 2006.
Click to expand...

I agree that neither were successful, but who is responsible for diving head first and destabilizing? :)
 
David_N said:
I agree that neither were successful, but who is responsible for diving head first and destabilizing? :)
Click to expand...

Both! If you're relieving Obama of responsibility with that, he abandoned Mubarak in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, violated UNSCR 1973 to regime change Gaddafi, and smuggled arms confiscated from Gaddafi's army to the insurgents in Syria which have ended up in the Islamic States hands. The rise of the Islamic State has been a bi-partisan effort.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Very reasonable question, without a reasonable answer from the usual suspects. Like Saudi Arabia. Who claims to have over 230K "Front line Personnel," over 1200 tanks, and some 236 Strike Aircraft.
Click to expand...

All are resting and getting a tan under the Saudi sun. While the rest of the world is trying to deal with the extremist problem, on their neighborhood!
 
Montecresto said:
Both! If you're relieving Obama of responsibility with that, he abandoned Mubarak in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, violated UNSCR 1973 to regime change Gaddafi, and smuggled arms confiscated from Gaddafi's army to the insurgents in Syria which have ended up in the Islamic States hands. The rise of the Islamic State has been a bi-partisan effort.
Click to expand...

You brought up Iraq :shrug:
 
ttwtt78640 said:
1) What is the cost of not killing known terrorists/enemy forces?

2) What method of warfare does not generate civilian casualties and how many actual enemy supporters are now counted as "innocent" casualties?

3) The idea that killing terrorists/enemy forces creates more of them, while granting them free reign to do as they wish does not, fails to explain where the first terrorists/enemy forces came from or why they would not continue to be terrorists/enemy forces if that allows them the power (control?) that they seek.
Click to expand...

Much like the war on drugs, isn't the war on terror sort of the definition of insanity?

We keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect (hope) different results?

After a while, an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

We've been actively fighting terrorism for what, 15 years now, who is winning and who is losing? Or is it a stalemate?

Has it been "worth it"?

Is the world safer now?
Is the world more at risk now?
is the world basically unchanged from a safety/risk perspective?

I'm sure a lot of those answers depend on where you live and who you are.
 
cpwill said:
only one of them actually bothered to support them to win while doing so.
Click to expand...

^Straw man number 1.

Bush sent us into harms way to achieve success.
Click to expand...

^Straw man number 2.

Obama sends us into harms way in order to reduce political pressure to Do Something, and then keeps us from achieving mission success.
Click to expand...

^Straw man number 3.

Think of it as the difference between someone telling you "I want you to run into this burning building to save a child trapped in there." and someone telling you "I want you to run into this burning building so that I will look like the kind of person who orders others to run into burning buildings.". You're willing to do the former - the latter not so much.
Click to expand...

^Straw man number 4
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Straw man number 1.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. That is an actual response to a comparative statement between the two administrations.

Straw man number 2.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. That is an actual response to a comparative statement between the two administrations.

Straw man number 3.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. That is an actual response to a comparative statement between the two administrations.

^Straw man number 4
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. That is an actual response to a comparative statement between the two administrations.

All of those statements are accurate, and they are indeed relevant to the implication that Bush put us at risk while Obama doesn't.
 
radioman said:
From your article....

"While France and Russia tout their aggressive air campaign, the U.S. has carried out 95 percent of the airstrikes in Syria since the coalition air campaign against Islamic State militants began in August 2014."

Nice of France and Russia to get off their dead asses and lend a hand.
Click to expand...

This is a useless statistic as the US air campaign has been anemic to say the least. We have been "bombing" ISIS for over a year, and within 24 hours of the Paris attack the French are taking out known ISIS strongholds. Such things should no longer exist if the US was doing it right.

This US air campaign is so utterly useless that 75% of US planes that take off on bombing missions return to base still carrying their munitions.
 
David_N said:
You brought up Iraq :shrug:
Click to expand...

And now I'm bringing up Egypt, Libya and Syria. The polices these two administrations have pursued have been a direct jackpot for Islamic extremists.
 
cpwill said:
No, it isn't. That is an actual response to a comparative statement between the two administrations.



No, it isn't. That is an actual response to a comparative statement between the two administrations.



No, it isn't. That is an actual response to a comparative statement between the two administrations.



No, it isn't. That is an actual response to a comparative statement between the two administrations.

All of those statements are accurate, and they are indeed relevant to the implication that Bush put us at risk while Obama doesn't.
Click to expand...

Your comparative statements are all based on straw man arguments though. A more accurate comparative statement would be that right or wrong, the Bush Administration believed that we should have a policy of democratization in the Middle East via regime change and the use of overwhelming American force. Right or wrong, the Obama Administration believes that overwhelming military force in the Middle East results in too much collateral damage, particularly in regards to civil deaths, and thus breeds instability. So right or wrong they believe in more of very surgical strikes and the limited use of American force.

So far both Administrations actions and policies have largely been failures.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Your comparative statements are all based on straw man arguments though. A more accurate comparative statement would be that right or wrong, the Bush Administration believed that we should have a policy of democratization in the Middle East via regime change and the use of overwhelming American force. Right or wrong, the Obama Administration believes that overwhelming military force in the Middle East results in too much collateral damage, particularly in regards to civil deaths, and thus breeds instability.
Click to expand...

You are confusing an End State with a Tactical Restriction. Obama does not provide clear End States because it would cost more than he's prepared to spend to achieve them, so he prefers to deploy us just enough to get people to leave him alone, but not enough to actually do anything.

You can disagree with his assumptions, but Bush had actual mission accomplishment as a goal. Obama doesn't. Again, it's the difference between being told to run into a burning building to save a child's life, and being told to run into a burning building so that people will stop bugging me about it.

So far both Administrations actions and policies have largely been failures.
Click to expand...

On the contrary - the Iraqi Surge was a success because Bush made it clear that he was in it to win, and dedicated the resources to do so, and the locals responded accordingly. The inverse of that in the next administration is also why the Afghan Surge produced limited success.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
^Straw man number 1.

^Straw man number 2.


^Straw man number 3.


^Straw man number 4
Click to expand...

You clearly don't understand what a strawman is.

SouthernDemocrat said "I think we need to reduce welfare benefits to those that no longer need them"
MrAwesome said "SouthernDemocrat wants to push grandma over the cliff and hates widows & orphans."

MrAwesome's statement is a strawman.
 
Samhain said:
You clearly don't understand what a strawman is.

SouthernDemocrat said "I think we need to reduce welfare benefits to those that no longer need them"
MrAwesome said "SouthernDemocrat wants to push grandma over the cliff and hates widows & orphans."

MrAwesome's statement is a strawman.
Click to expand...

A straw man is a mischaracterization of another's position then arguing against that mischaracterization in order to defeat it. Which is exactly what he was doing.
 
Montecresto said:
The US and France have no authorization to be in Syria, Russia was invited by the Syrian government.
Click to expand...

The thing is that the "Syrian government" is only another mass murdering strongman that has gassed civilians to maintain personal power.
That man is a criminal against humanity and has no legitimate claim left. To say otherwise is bad mischief.

The only argument for him is the traditional one made for helping people like Uncle Joe or Augusto Pinochete. In their cases the argument was understandable maybe, though I have heard people criticize those short term alliances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom