• 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 promises Syria ‘won’t be another Afghanistan’

jmotivator said:
The problem is that Bush used the term in the small "c" sense and Medusa is trying to spin it as him using it in the large C sense, or using them interchangeably.
Click to expand...

So? As I already explained she is from the Middle East, is likely a muslim, and perceives our actions the same way most of her peers in that segment of the world do. This is a "truth" to them, regardless of how we see it. Ignore it and focus on the issue is all I am saying.
 
Captain Adverse said:
So? As I already explained she is from the Middle East, is likely a muslim, and perceives our actions the same way most of her peers in that segment of the world do. This is a "truth" to them, regardless of how we see it. Ignore it and focus on the issue is all I am saying.
Click to expand...

It's really not that easy, CA. You can't focus on the real issues if there is no common understanding. If Medusa is bound and determined to see US actions in the ME as some extension of the Crusades then it really doesn't matter what the real issues are because we likely have very different ideas of what the real issues are even if we use the same words.
 
jmotivator said:
It's really not that easy, CA. You can't focus on the real issues if there is no common understanding. If Medusa is bound and determined to see US actions in the ME as some extension of the Crusades then it really doesn't matter what the real issues are because we likely have very different ideas of what the real issues are even if we use the same words.
Click to expand...

The problem lies in our understanding too. We think of our actions as political responses to political actions. THEY think they are engaged in a holy war against us caused by what appears to be our constant interference in their "purely religious" disputes. IMO ignoring that is part of the communication problem.
 
Ari said:
Sorry, but adding "crusade" to "the war on terror" doesn't make the war on terror a crusade.
Click to expand...

Extended military expedition by a Christian nation against Muslim nations pretty closely fits the definition.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Medusa is Turkish, and has some difficulty with the English language although she does her best. Also, it seems likely that she is muslim (although I am not sure of this) and sees our repeated actions in the Middle East as a war against Islam labeled as a war on terror having some foundation:



Europe cringes at Bush 'crusade' against terrorists - CSMonitor.com

We may have overlooked Bush Jr’s statements, but the rest of the world hasn’t. I think we should cut her some slack and focus on the issue... :)

I also agree that instead of making a grand production out of it the best use of Presidential war powers are quick and deadly surgical strikes on clearly defined targets. I’ve already said as much in a reply to an armchair general in a different thread.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...eting-war-authorization-2.html#post1062293419
Click to expand...


where do you think l had a problem in this thread ?
:lol:
interesting

okay l read your other posts and" liked" it.:cool:
 
Ari said:
A crusade is a medieval military expedition, one of a series made by Europeans to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. You're falsely calling the war on terror something it's obviously not. Both the crusades and TWOT both have imperialistic aspects, but that doesn't make the war on terror imperialistic.
Click to expand...


It's a legitimate comparison, that's all. Read on further in the definition.
 
Ari said:
A crusade is a medieval military expedition, one of a series made by Europeans to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. You're falsely calling the war on terror something it's obviously not. Both the crusades and TWOT both have imperialistic aspects, but that doesn't make the war on terror imperialistic.
Click to expand...

really ?

l had no idea what it was

:2razz:

but l have to say that many of these wars were really made to kick turks out of anatolia

not for any holy land

wars are always used for political aims

but lets make peace again :peace

l know you are kind :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Ari said:
He shouldn't take any sides he should stay out of it unless there's a UN resolution.
Click to expand...

Anybody in our country that is on the side of military action in Syria wants to attack president Assad and his forces in support of the Islamic extremist factions.
 
Ari said:
Different perspectives. I see it as a war on terrorists with too much collateral damage.
Click to expand...

But you acknowledge Bush's defining of it as a crusade?
 
Captain Adverse said:
The problem lies in our understanding too. We think of our actions as political responses to political actions. THEY think they are engaged in a holy war against us caused by what appears to be our constant interference in their "purely religious" disputes. IMO ignoring that is part of the communication problem.
Click to expand...


Well, I agree with you to a point, but the problem is that only one side seems intent on trying to understand the other side. All we are doing is accepting the "truth" on their terms, thereby reinforcing their incorrect interpretation of our side and painting all future interpretations by them of our side. Words matter deeply in the ongoing struggle, and as long as even the more moderate ME inhabitants hold the view that we are engaged in a holy war against Islam with so much as a challenge to that view from our side there a solution to all the real issues is completely impossible.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, I agree with you to a point, but the problem is that only one side seems intent on trying to understand the other side. All we are doing is accepting the "truth" on their terms, thereby reinforcing their incorrect interpretation of our side and painting all future interpretations by them of our side. Words matter deeply in the ongoing struggle, and as long as even the more moderate ME inhabitants hold the view that we are engaged in a holy war against Islam with so much as a challenge to that view from our side there a solution to all the real issues is completely impossible.
Click to expand...


I grant many of your points, however my argument is that we have been interfering in this region for decades based on claims of "national interest" while ignoring the effects this has had on our relationships with the people living there. We are concerned with OIL and ISRAEL and we have been willing to prop up dictators to protect our Oil access, while undermining them to protect our interests in Israel.

We have literally created the mess we are in and refuse to extricate ourselves from it. Major military intervention has never been the answer. After 9/11 if we had simply let our elite units deal with it undercover, not only Osama but his entire organization would have been dust back in 2002. Here it is almost 2014 and not only are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan but we've managed to piss off Pakistan, have a major enemy in Iran, and we want to "do something about" Syria.

We need to pull back and re-evaluate our "interests" in this region, not delve more deeply into it militarily.
 
Last edited:
American said:
Obama has never kept a promise yet.
Click to expand...

ACA was passed wasn't it? That was a promise he made and kept. Care to eat that crow now or later?
 
Captain Adverse said:
I grant many of your points, however my argument is that we have been interfering in this region for decades based on claims of "national interest" while ignoring the effects this has had on our relationships with the people living there. We are concerned with OIL and ISRAEL and we have been willing to prop up dictators to protect our Oil access, while undermining them to protect our interests in Israel.
Click to expand...


There are negative effects with the people of that region no matter what we do. We need to understand that what the radicals in the ME oppose is not our bombs and bullets... that is actually all they really understand. What they oppose is modernity and tolerance. Radicalism breeds off the message of wanton hedonistic evil they attribute to the West, and to America in particular as the most powerful western power. If there is a movement for moderation in the ME we are to blame regardless of our involvement. Israel is hated because it is seen as a Western puppet in their midst. It is a threat to Radical Islam because it is successful and prosperous while they remain at bare subsistence. It is a challenge to their dogma and it's right next door.


We have literally created the mess we are in and refuse to extricate ourselves from it. Major military intervention has never been the answer. After 9/11 if we had simply let our elite units deal with it undercover, not only Osama but his entire organization would have been dust back in 2002. Here it is almost 2014 and not only are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan but we've managed to piss off Pakistan, have a major enemy in Iran, and we want to "do something about" Syria.
Click to expand...


You make it sound so easy. For every Bin Laden raid you have a Somalia, and killing bin Laden wouldn't have been the end of the threat any more than killing bin Laden has been the end of it.

Also, keeping any retaliation a secret is a non-starter. 9/11 required a visible and tangible response because the lack of a visible response would only embolden Islamic radicals, and be politically untenable at home. The time to kill bin Laden quietly was in the 1990s.



We need to pull back and re-evaluate our "interests" in this region, not delve more deeply into it militarily.
Click to expand...


Well, I oppose getting involved in Syria because there is no upside for the US. Neither side is in our best interest. The Syrian Government is in bed with Iran and the Russians, the opposition is beheading, civilian murdering, heart eating barbarians. There is no good side to support.

We miss the golden opportunities in the region unerringly. The Green Revolution in Iran was the best opportunity we may ever have to truly change the course of the Middle East but we sat back and allowed it to be crushed by the Islamist theocracy. We did the same during the Iraqi uprising following the Gulf War where we left hundreds of thousands of pro-western Iraqis, the left overs from the days of US cooperation in the country, to be slaughtered by Saddam.
 
jmotivator said:
You make it sound so easy. For every Bin Laden raid you have a Somalia, and killing bin Laden wouldn't have been the end of the threat any more than killing bin Laden has been the end of it.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

He became a PR piece for both sides, while alive and then when dead. And that's about it. Giving people the idea that we "won" when our troops killed him was a big mistake.
 
TheNextEra said:
ACA was passed wasn't it? That was a promise he made and kept. Care to eat that crow now or later?
Click to expand...

That promise is nothing to be proud of since both sides of the aisle hate it. But you go ahead and own that baby, it's all yours. Oh yeah, he kept that one. He sure did.
 
WCH said:
There was something about promising his kids they could have a dog....
Click to expand...

And a V-22 to fly it around in. :lol:
 
American said:
We're still waiting for him to make jobs his priority, that's what he campaigned on last time? Remember, the whole campaign was about JOBS.
Click to expand...

He can't force companies to hire people so how do you propose he create jobs?
 
BMCM said:
He can't force companies to hire people so how do you propose he create jobs?
Click to expand...

This is the kind of question that makes you want to almost give up. The govt doesn't actually create jobs, they create an environment through the right tax policies, environment policies, trade policies, employment policies, so that businesses in this country are free to excel on their own. And when expand they create the jobs. He needs to have a more pro-business agenda, instead of the anti-business agenda he pushes. For instance, he thinks businesses should be taxed more. That isn't going to work.
 
American said:
This is the kind of question that makes you want to almost give up. The govt doesn't actually create jobs, they create an environment through the right tax policies, environment policies, trade policies, employment policies, so that businesses in this country are free to excel on their own. And when expand they create the jobs. He needs to have a more pro-business agenda, instead of the anti-business agenda he pushes. For instance, he thinks businesses should be taxed more. That isn't going to work.
Click to expand...

Then shouldn't you be as upset with Congress. They make the laws, levy taxes. I just find it funny that people think any president has so much power, they really don't. Congress and the Senate are bigger problems to this country then the President.
 
BMCM said:
Then shouldn't you be as upset with Congress. They make the laws, levy taxes. I just find it funny that people think any president has so much power, they really don't. Congress and the Senate are bigger problems to this country then the President.
Click to expand...

Really, LOL they're still blaming Bush.
 
Medusa said:
l dont know why people want to ignore this
President Bush declares a crusade or... Stock Footage & Video Clips | NBCUniversal Archives

Long Description:
EXT DAY MCU President George W. Bush declares a crusade or a war on terror following 9/11 terrorist attacks. George Bush state, "This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient, I am going to be patient." On September 11th 2009, nineteen Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners and crashed them into either the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. One plane crashed into a field in rural Pennsylvania after some of its passengers and flight crew attempted to retake control of the plane.
Colour: COLOR


modern crusaders ...............
Click to expand...

Mistake to carefully examine the words that GW uses because he doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom