• 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!

Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

Al-Qaeda is responsible for attracting the bombs. They oust our enemies the bombs will stop. They continue to allow them to remain and operate like they did before we were even in their country or bombing them then they should expect hell to rain down from above.

Thing is that if you bomb a country its people are unlikely to want to route out your enemies and will and will either want to support them or turn a blind eye to them, even if they are not their natural allies. Look at the surge in popularity of Hezbollah, even among some christians, after the 2006 war with Israel.
 
Thing is that if you bomb a country its people are unlikely to want to route out your enemies and will and will either want to support them or turn a blind eye to them, even if they are not their natural allies. Look at the surge in popularity of Hezbollah, even among some christians, after the 2006 war with Israel.

Look at the firebombing of Tokyo and dropping atom bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the subsequent 60 years of peace.
 
Look at the firebombing of Tokyo and dropping to atom bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the subsequent 60 years of peace.

Wouldn't be the same. Afghanistan and Pakistan could surrender, and still nothing would change. There are real differences that make those comparisons invalid.
 
Look at the firebombing Tokyo and dropping to atom bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the subsequent 60 years of peace.

Different situation. Terrorists are a small, covert (mostly) portion of a population in most cases.

Most of the population of Japan was prepared to fight invading forces.
 
Look at the firebombing of Tokyo and dropping atom bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the subsequent 60 years of peace.

Look at the rise in sucide bombings escalating things to that level would produce. Doesnt seam like the preferable option when such an escalation is unnecessary the first place. Surely its more rational to want to keep people on your side if they dislike your enemy anyway?
 
Wouldn't be the same. Afghanistan and Pakistan could surrender, and still nothing would change. There are real differences that make those comparisons invalid.

In WWII Japan could have surrendered and did and still there were those willing to continue fighting just as was the case in Germany.
 
Different situation. Terrorists are a small, covert (mostly) portion of a population in most cases.

Most of the population of Japan was prepared to fight invading forces.

I never said they weren't different situations.
 
Look at the rise in sucide bombings escalating things to that level would produce.

Show me something to actually look at and I will.
 
In WWII Japan could have surrendered and did and still there were those willing to continue fighting just as was the case in Germany.

Very few. Many connected with the government and saw it as over. Most did. Few if any did want would be done in these countries.
 
Look at the firebombing of Tokyo and dropping atom bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the subsequent 60 years of peace.

The atom bombs did decisively end the war, however, part of the reason for the 60 years of peace was due to our decades long efforts to build them back up and not leave the country hanging after the war.
 
Look at the rise in suicide bombings escalating things to that level would produce. Doesn’t seem like the preferable option when such an escalation is unnecessary the first place? Surely its more rational to want to keep people on your side if they dislike your enemy anyway?

As I understand it, Japan surrendered in WWII because they did not think it possible to win in the face of nuclear weapons (and perhaps large-scale firebombings?).

One could not significantly hurt terrorists with the use of large-scale bombings and/or nuclear weapons.

In fact, I would think rage among those affected against whoever used such methods would only increase terrorists’ numbers and support.
 
As I understand it, Japan surrendered in WWII because they did not think it possible to win in the face of nuclear weapons (and perhaps large-scale firebombings?).

One could not significantly hurt terrorists with the use of large-scale bombings and/or nuclear weapons.

In fact, I would think rage among those affected against whoever used such methods would only increase terrorists’ numbers and support.

Ive still yet to see what would be so bad about cooperating with the Yemenise. If someone wants to cooperate, then dont piss them off. :doh
 
Ive still yet to see what would be so bad about cooperating with the Yemenise. If someone wants to cooperate, then dont piss them off. :doh

From the sounds of the original article link, the military strikes under consideration would be in support of Yemen efforts, or something.
 
Maybe. As far as warfare goes. No, as far as Bush goes.

Well, this is your opinion and I assume it is based on your experiences. I have another and I assure you that it is based on my experiences. Nothing we have done since 9/11 should have cost so much and most of the dead would still be alive had they done things correctly. But the path was always going to be our destination. It was only a matter of time.


if you're talking about oil, and it has become this important, I suggest we find something else. We don't own the ME. And if we think we do, OBL is right about us.

Who said we own the Middle East? Last I checked we paid trillions of dollars for oil over the last 70 or so years. And until somebody finds a way to replace oil with something else, oil is the answer to all the world's oil based needs.

But you cannot beat King Cong but punching out Fay Wray. Al Qaeda doesn't care what we do to Iraq. But they can use Iraq to hurt us. Same with Afghanistan or any other nation you can invade, bomb, attack. You simply can't defeat them by beating up on someone else.

Iraq hasn't hurt us. We can always come home (which we are proving to do). Afghanistan will always be across the Atlantic, which makes it more of a European problem than ours. But I don't know what you mean about punching Fay Wray instead of King Kong. I know what you are saying, but I believe you are wrong. We have beat Al-Queda to a pulp in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Afghanistan and Iraq is not the only battle grounds. Beyond the military deployments to address dug in areas, the CIA and local governmnents have been active too. Their banking systems have been wrecked. Aside from Saddam Hussein, how have we not addressed King Kong? Hussein was merely a 12 year pain in the ass we ended. Need I remind you that even Bin Laden mentioned our mission to maintain the dictator as a justification for 9/11? He was right about that one.

I mean are we supposed to be Americans or Europeans? I, for one, am tired of belonging to a camp that seeks the Cold War and prior imperialisms as prescription for global order.

What we need to get through our think skulls is that nation building is pointless and stupid. Killing our enemies does not mean that we have to stick around to take care of those who won't even take care of themselves.
 
So you think you can just bomb the entire region into submission? Good with that

The entire region? No. Just those that deserve it and when they deserve it. If they allow their people to hide behind the idea that their terror is an act for God or true Islam then they are responsible for them.


Al-Qaeda supporters are hardly a majority in the region. But generally if you bomb someones country they will perceive you as an enemy (people are strange like that) how is making additional enemies in your interests? Alot of these people hate Al-Qaeda. Why alienate them?

They alienate themselves and already percieve us as that enemy. Al-Queda is not the entirely of their fanaticism. There are many organizations throughout the region and they receive moral and financial support from millions throughout the region.

Americans generally hate the KKK organizations. We don't allow them to do much.
 
Ive still yet to see what would be so bad about cooperating with the Yemenise. If someone wants to cooperate, then dont piss them off. :doh

There's nothing wrong with it. You just assume that this can't entail targets for American missiles. With the right pressure, this is exactly what is needed. These zealots and their organizations need to know without a doubt that they can't hide under Isamic governments and international sympathy.

...or can they?
 
Wouldn't be the same. Afghanistan and Pakistan could surrender, and still nothing would change. There are real differences that make those comparisons invalid.

He made a general statement which I proved wrong. There was no comparison.
 
Military strikes? From this President?

I thought the "whack a mole" strat so thrown about during Bush's terms was a no no?

You sure you leadership folk on the Left know what you're doing?
 
There's nothing wrong with it. You just assume that this can't entail targets for American missiles. With the right pressure, this is exactly what is needed. These zealots and their organizations need to know without a doubt that they can't hide under Isamic governments and international sympathy.

...or can they?

So Yemen is an Islamic state now:doh and if you want to prevent international sympathy......
 
any war on terror that failed to address saddam hussein would hardly be a war on terror

the baathist butcher was one of the world leaders in international terrorism for a quarter century

What about Omar Al Bashir or Kim Jong Il? One was involved in systemic killing while the other was much closer to getting WMD than Saddam was. Why did Bush ignore one, and engaged in talks with the other "terrorist"? What was his system for deciding which dictator to get rid of? You want to talk about incoherent, explain that.
 
What about Omar Al Bashir or Kim Jong Il? One was involved in systemic killing while the other was much closer to getting WMD than Saddam was. Why did Bush ignore one, and engaged in talks with the other "terrorist"? What was his system for deciding which dictator to get rid of? You want to talk about incoherent, explain that.


Why were most if not all demo's calling for Saddam's ouster a mere 18 months prior to Bush going in, then all of the sudden contracting amnesia about it from then on?


j-mac
 
Why were most if not all demo's calling for Saddam's ouster a mere 18 months prior to Bush going in, then all of the sudden contracting amnesia about it from then on?


j-mac


If we've got amnesia as you claim, I'm sure you can prove that by showing us the evidence of "demo" calling for an invasion of Iraq to get rid of Saddam "18 months prior to Bush going in" as you put it. I'll be waiting for the evidence.

And that has nothing to do with the point of the post. If taking out the dictator Saddam is essential to the "war on terror", then why not other equally horrendous and more dangerous dictators? What's the system the Bush administration used to decide which get the boot, which don't?
 
Imagine that. We now have a CIC that actually informs himself of all the options and ramifications of an air strike before committing. I knew he was too smart!

You forgot to mention he'll take the half-life of uranium to come to a conclusion tho........:shock:..........That doesn't amount to "too smart." ;)
 
He's gonna think about military strikes in Yemen?

Can we go to Iran on the way?
 
If we've got amnesia as you claim, I'm sure you can prove that by showing us the evidence of "demo" calling for an invasion of Iraq to get rid of Saddam "18 months prior to Bush going in" as you put it. I'll be waiting for the evidence.

And that has nothing to do with the point of the post. If taking out the dictator Saddam is essential to the "war on terror", then why not other equally horrendous and more dangerous dictators? What's the system the Bush administration used to decide which get the boot, which don't?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjgquIN4Rrw"]YouTube- What the Democrats Said About Saddam Hussein - Part 1[/ame]

Just a taste, but you know full well that in 1998, and forward that demo's themselves were calling for the removal of Saddam.


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom