• 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!

ISIS Strikes Deal With Moderate Syrian Rebels: Reports.....

donsutherland1 said:
I don't think the President is trying to make his Secretary of State look bad. Instead, I believe the issue is a far bigger one and illustrates the lack of serious thinking that was given to the planning. Hence, there is no consistent message, a broad alliance was assumed before efforts were made to put it into place (minimalist contributions were attained afterward but no roles clearly defined and NATO member Turkey has refused to help out despite its being a beneficiary of the NATO alliance and generous humanitarian assistance to deal with war refugees), FSA and other sectarian groups were viewed as a solution when, in fact, they are a big part of the problem, and states with large shared interests in defeating ISIS who could be helpful in this particular case (Russia and Iran) were largely or wholly excluded, etc. Aside from a reasonable end goal and some building blocks i.e., aid to the Kurdish forces, Iraqi forces, counterterrorism, and air strikes, what was laid out as a plan hasn't really been vetted meaningfully. Barring changes, that lack of vetting probably increases the probability of a muddled outcome in which ISIS will be dented but far from destroyed in the near-term and perhaps through the rest of the President's term.
Click to expand...

Long and protracted like some say. Now the largest force we armed makes a pact with Terrorists. Knowing exactly what they are. Already the Saud and others are ready to throw out the money.
 
upsideguy said:
... its a "lesson' that should have been "known" before we ever went into Iraq. I ALWAYS believed the invasion of Iraq was one of the biggest bonehead moves of American history (not just the decision to go, but the plan of occupation, which there apparently was none... and the exit strategy, which was also lacking).... I am now thinking it is one of the biggest bonehead moves of world history.....
Click to expand...

You have not learned the lesson grasshopper. The lesson was about the acceptance of tyranny and despots, not about the invasion of Iraq.
 
How much money do you think exchanged hands here?
MMC said:
It appears we now have a major problem with BO's plans for a coalition, and in giving arms and training to the MB Sunni back Rebels. How do you think this affects what BO and Kerry were stating with regards to Syria?
Click to expand...
Imagine the reaction of the MB Sunni backed rebels if Mr. Obama had listened to
McCain, Graham and the rest of the CheneyBots wanting fighting USA boots on the ground.

This so-called truce would have turned into a coalition between ISIL and MB Sunni backed rebels--
and GOP warhawks would be wailing on that also.

First you wanted war--now yer complaining about repercussions over less than the war you got.
You've really outdone yerself on this OP in talking out of every side of your mouth.

It's obviously transparent that the GOP and their posters will do anything to win an election and try to slam BHO on foreign policy,
including playing despicable politics with our soldier's lives .
 
NIMBY said:
How much money do you think exchanged hands here?

Imagine the reaction of the MB Sunni backed rebels if Mr. Obama had listened to
McCain, Graham and the rest of the CheneyBots wanting fighting USA boots on the ground.

This so-called truce would have turned into a coalition between ISIL and MB Sunni backed rebels--
and GOP warhawks would be wailing on that also.

First you wanted war--now yer complaining about repercussions over less than the war you got.
You've really outdone yerself on this OP in talking out of every side of your mouth.

It's obviously transparent that the GOP and their posters will do anything to win an election and try to slam BHO on foreign policy,
including playing despicable politics with our soldier's lives .
Click to expand...



Here, so you can have an idea as to what you are talking about.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-t...re-moderate-syrian-rebels.html#post1063753375


Oh and just so you know.....these were BO's top people who he didn't want to listen to. Not McCain, Graham or any GOP. So you will need to find some different tangent to come with.


Report: Obama Overruled 'Best Military Advice' on Ground Troops to Fight ISIS.....

The Washington Post reports today that when the president tasked military leaders with devising the best strategy to defeat ISIS, the Pentagon presented a plan that involved a limited number of combat "boots on the ground." They were rebuffed, in favor of a more politically-palatable light footprint approach:

Such a mission was not the U.S. military’s preferred option. Responding to a White House request for options to confront the Islamic State, Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, said that his best military advice was to send a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants, according to two U.S. military officials. The recommendation, conveyed to the White House by Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was cast aside in favor of options that did not involve U.S. ground forces in a front-line role, a step adamantly opposed by the White House...Recommitting ground combat forces to Iraq would have been highly controversial, and most likely would have been opposed by a substantial majority of Americans. But Austin’s predecessor, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, said the decision not to send ground troops poses serious risks to the mission. “The American people will once again see us in a war that doesn’t seem to be making progress,” Mattis said. “You’re giving the enemy the initiative for a longer period.”.....snip~

Report: Obama Overruled 'Best Military Advice' on Ground Troops to Fight ISIS - Guy Benson
 
MMC said:

Report: Obama Overruled 'Best Military Advice' on Ground Troops to Fight ISIS.....
Click to expand...

Ground troops against ISIL are widely unpopular with the public--thus the GOP trying to push your President into ground troops before the election.
Ground troops would have caused the moderates to form a coalition with ISIL.
Giving your team something else to falsely whine about--yet you advised this .
 
MMC said:
That's why I have been saying for months these terrorists need to be taken out by everyone else. As then they could not spread and or create any other alliances.
Click to expand...

We've been fighting Al Qaeda for over a decade and we have yet to take them out. Its obvious that a military solution isnt the answer and hasnt been for years.
 
MMC said:
That's why I have been saying for months these terrorists need to be taken out by everyone else. As then they could not spread and or create any other alliances.
Click to expand...
exactly correct. Obama uses the term "counter-terrorism" for Syria;
it's not - it's the same stale counter-insurgency (so called nation building)
Let the US supply air power, and weapons to the Kurds -directly to the Kurds. Iraq Army has to do much better. But the US/coalition can't do this from the outside.
For Syria the target is ISIL, not "assad must go". we can't control the outcome of the war, don't pretend we can. It will bite us if we do,
 
"Truces" don't really mean much in the Middle East. I find it unlikely that this ceasefire will last more than two or three weeks, and I wouldn't be surprised if ISIS is the first to break it.
 
MadLib said:
"Truces" don't really mean much in the Middle East. I find it unlikely that this ceasefire will last more than two or three weeks, and I wouldn't be surprised if ISIS is the first to break it.
Click to expand...

maybe the united states should try speeding up that process.
 
PoS said:
We've been fighting Al Qaeda for over a decade and we have yet to take them out. Its obvious that a military solution isnt the answer and hasnt been for years.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. Sure, we didn't eliminate al-Qaeda as an organization, but we smashed their ability to carry out terrorist attacks against America and caused them to break up into decentralized and quarreling factions that are too focused on local conflicts to pose a threat to the homeland. The central al-Qaeda leadership that planned 9/11 has virtually no credibility or strength at this point.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
maybe the united states should try speeding up that process.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The US should threaten to cut off all aid to the rebels unless they abandon their truce with ISIS. If that doesn't work, then I'm probably going to abandon my previous advocacy of supporting the rebels and advocate that we throw our support to the Kurds in the north or abandon Syria entirely.
 
MadLib said:
Agreed. The US should threaten to cut off all aid to the rebels unless they abandon their truce with ISIS. If that doesn't work, then I'm probably going to abandon my previous advocacy of supporting the rebels and advocate that we throw our support to the Kurds in the north or abandon Syria entirely.
Click to expand...

that was not what i was talking about, although it might be a better suggestion then what i had in my mind.

my suggestion was to make ISIS turn upon itself, by using deception and subterfuge.
 
PoS said:
We've been fighting Al Qaeda for over a decade and we have yet to take them out. Its obvious that a military solution isnt the answer and hasnt been for years.
Click to expand...

I could have told you that at the onset of the "War on Terror".

There are some military objectives you can achieve against terrorist networks. After all, they need some sort of infrastructure to coordinate attacks and such. But they're so rag-tag that there's only so much you can realistically do with a military.

The real threat is the ideas they embrace, and attempt to spread. A war on terror should be a war of ideology--not smart bombs and drones. We diminish the threat by removing causes for them to hate us, or even by giving them reasons to like us. Make it harder for al Qaeda's propaganda machine and their ranks will diminish, and the threat towards us will diminish.

This is also why I'm not all that against helping rebels when they choose to fight someone who really does treat them badly. Go in, support those people in their goals, then get out. Even if the country falls into chaos, the people will remember that we helped them. In other words, we should go where we're invited and leave when we're no longer welcome. The Middle East isn't our house. If we're there in irresponsible ways, we'll make enemies.
 
MadLib said:
I beg to differ. Sure, we didn't eliminate al-Qaeda as an organization, but we smashed their ability to carry out terrorist attacks against America and caused them to break up into decentralized and quarreling factions that are too focused on local conflicts to pose a threat to the homeland. The central al-Qaeda leadership that planned 9/11 has virtually no credibility or strength at this point.
Click to expand...

How do you know Al Qaeda isnt planning another attack on US soil? You dont. Since they are still around they will keep trying. It doesnt matter if it takes years, they have all the time in the world.

And the bombings in Boston means they have many sympathizers who can carry it out so America isnt any safer.

You want to put a stop to terrorism against America then stop meddling in other countries. Its as simple as that.
 
PoS said:
So now you probably have arms and money which has been supplied by the West will now filter over to ISIS. Wonderful. this is just another proof that everytime the West attempts to intervene in regional conflicts its going to come back and bite them in the @$$.

But quite a few posters in this forum will never get it, they will just keep agitating for more and more interventions. Some people never learn. :roll:
Click to expand...

You know ... I was just thinking the same thing about some of our isolationists who fail to recognize the failures of the current administration.
 
PoS said:
How do you know Al Qaeda isnt planning another attack on US soil? You dont. Since they are still around they will keep trying. It doesnt matter if it takes years, they have all the time in the world.

And the bombings in Boston means they have many sympathizers who can carry it out so America isnt any safer.

You want to put a stop to terrorism against America then stop meddling in other countries. Its as simple as that.
Click to expand...


You know what's sad? I think you actually believe this bullsh*t.
 
MMC said:
It appears we now have a major problem with BO's plans for a coalition, and in giving arms and training to the MB Sunni back Rebels. How do you think this affects what BO and Kerry were stating with regards to Syria? This alliance show Team BO and BO cannot trust who is on the ground in Syria. Which doesn't take into account how they want Assad gone as well. What will others in the newly formed Coalition say now? Will there be commitment? Can this be ignored and with Assad and Russia now knowing this bit of information? What say ye?



According to Agence France-Presse, ISIS and a number of moderate and hard-line rebel groups have agreed not to fight each other so that they can focus on taking down the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Other sources say the signatories include a major U.S. ally linked to the Free Syrian Army. The deal between ISIS and the moderate Syrian groups casts doubt over President Barack Obama's freshly announced strategy to arm and train the groups against ISIS. The AFP report cited information from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based group monitoring the Syrian civil war, which said parties to the agreement "promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy to be the Nussayri regime." The term Nussayri refers to the Alawite ethnic group that Assad and many of his supporters belong to. AFP said the agreement was signed in a suburb of the Syrian capital, where ISIS has a strong presence.

Charles Lister, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Doha Center, cited a report from the anti-regime Orient Net website to suggest on Twitter that the signatories of the ceasefire include a U.S.-backed coalition called the Syrian Revolutionary Front. According to the U.K.-based outlet Middle East Eye, that same Orient Net report says the ceasefire between groups described in the U.S. as "moderate rebels" and the Islamic State was mediated by the al-Nusra Front, al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria. This news suggests that partners will be hard to find. Lister said the pact is a product of failed U.S.-led Western policy in Syria."This underlines serious frustration w. lack of US-backing to [Free Syrian Army] opposition in fight vs Assad," he tweeted. If true, Landis said, the news of a ceasefire proves Washington does not know who it can support or trust within the fractured country.....snip~

ISIS Strikes Deal With Moderate Syrian Rebels: Reports
Click to expand...

If we supported them they would fight ISIS, they've more or less said as much for years now. It isn't surprising that beleaguered fighters would avail themselves of an opportunity to reduce pressure against them.
 
Why don't we make a deal with ISIS, we will give them someone to behead every week (some convicted murderer or serial pedophile or something) and they will leave everyone else alone (and we will find something else for Obama and the Neocons to keep their little hands busy).

I mean, why don't they just admit it...they don't care about religion or conquering territory...they just get off hacking people's heads off - it's their thing.

Heck, maybe America could contract out for a few to take the place of capital punishment.

Might act as a bit more of a deterrent for potential murderers in America.


:)
 
Last edited:
GBFAN said:
You know what's sad? I think you actually believe this bullsh*t.
Click to expand...

Whats sad is you dont. You still think we could somehow keep meddling in the Middle east and win.
 
GBFAN said:
You know what's sad? I think you actually believe this bullsh*t.
Click to expand...

I have two words for anyone who thinks that major terrorist acts can be eliminated from America by attacking ISIS.

Timothy McVeigh.
 
PoS said:
How do you know Al Qaeda isnt planning another attack on US soil? You dont. Since they are still around they will keep trying. It doesnt matter if it takes years, they have all the time in the world.

And the bombings in Boston means they have many sympathizers who can carry it out so America isnt any safer.

You want to put a stop to terrorism against America then stop meddling in other countries. Its as simple as that.
Click to expand...
It's too late for that. They see the west's weakness and will continue to recruit and expand.

The problem is not the 'meddling', it's leaving before the job is complete. This has been happening since WWI and continues to this day.

Because of all the halfway measures in the past we have arrived at the point where only by fighting terror with extraordinary measures can the west hope to win and finally put a halt to this.
 
PoS said:
We've been fighting Al Qaeda for over a decade and we have yet to take them out. Its obvious that a military solution isnt the answer and hasnt been for years.
Click to expand...
What would you do now?
 
donsutherland1 said:
I don't think the President is trying to make his Secretary of State look bad. Instead, I believe the issue is a far bigger one and illustrates the lack of serious thinking that was given to the planning. Hence, there is no consistent message, a broad alliance was assumed before efforts were made to put it into place (minimalist contributions were attained afterward but no roles clearly defined and NATO member Turkey has refused to help out despite its being a beneficiary of the NATO alliance and generous humanitarian assistance to deal with war refugees), FSA and other sectarian groups were viewed as a solution when, in fact, they are a big part of the problem, and states with large shared interests in defeating ISIS who could be helpful in this particular case (Russia and Iran) were largely or wholly excluded, etc. Aside from a reasonable end goal and some building blocks i.e., aid to the Kurdish forces, Iraqi forces, counterterrorism, and air strikes, what was laid out as a plan hasn't really been vetted meaningfully. Barring changes, that lack of vetting probably increases the probability of a muddled outcome in which ISIS will be dented but far from destroyed in the near-term and perhaps through the rest of the President's term.
Click to expand...
It's muddled because there is no leadership in the democracies and a perfect time for ISIS to expand and recruit. Perhaps the UK will supply some leadership now that they've lost a man, or the French could play a role, but without American leadership it will be difficult to organize a serious coalition of any sort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom