• 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!

Back to Iraq?

Back to Iraq?

  • Yes, with some amount of troops.

    Votes: 2 5.6%

  • No, we'll stay out indefinitely.

    Votes: 16 44.4%

  • We'll do minimalist advisers, air force and/or drone attacks.

    Votes: 10 27.8%

  • It's a watch and wait situation for now.

    Votes: 8 22.2%

  • Other (explain).

    Votes: 3 8.3%
  • Total voters
    36
grip

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
33,000
Reaction score
13,973
Location
FL - Daytona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I predict from the News sources info on ISIL/ISIS, we'll definitely have to do air strikes at minimum and probably ground forces. They're gathering too much momentum, causing too much of a conflagration in the ME/Levant and rumoring they'll start terror attacks on the US and Israel. All that and their increasing ability to affect oil markets and drawing in other surrounding Arab nations will put pressure on the US to react.

They might settle down and organize the areas they have in control and leave it alone, but I doubt it because of their fundamentalist nature to spread extremism and conquer.

BAGHDAD — Winding up a day of crisis talks with Iraqi leaders, Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday that the Sunni militants seizing territory in Iraq had become such a threat that the United States might not wait for Iraqi politicians to form a new government before taking military action.

“They do pose a threat,” Mr. Kerry said, referring to the fighters from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. “They cannot be given safe haven anywhere.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/w...is-to-form-new-inclusive-government.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

President Obama said that the jihadist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria "poses a medium- and long-term threat" to the American people, but that other organizations present more imminent danger.

"Right now the problem with ISIS is the fact that they're destabilizing the country," Obama said. "That could spill over into some of our, you know, allies like Jordan and that they are engaged in wars in Syria where — in that vacuum that's been created — they could amass more arms, more resources."

Obama says ISIS ‘poses a medium- and long-term threat’ to Americans - The Washington Post
Click to expand...
 
nahhh.

Let it rott.

The shias and kurds will eventualy take care of buisness.
 
No. We'll ultimately do more harm and good, regardless of whether or not our intentions are genuine humanitarian concerns or corporate interests in protecting oil.
 
This thing will spread. It has been going for over 700 years and now even the Kurds are trying to grab land (oil bearing land) before it all gets claimed.

Our national interest is at stake here. Does that mean I'm in favor of another "invasion?" No, not by a long shot. However, we will have to deal with this one way or or another at some point.

Maybe The German is correct, and it will all work it's self out. We can only hope. But, given the history of the region, the fanaticism of the Islamist factions and 7th Century culture that in place there... I doubt it.

The problem is two fold; the region may very well become the next stronghold of Islamist extremist terrorism (hell, even Al Qaeda said ISIS/ISIL was too radical for them), and they're going to control the oil in that region.

Anyone that thinks that these people won't invade Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, and the rest of the Arabian Peninsula are deluding themselves. They currently have TWO BILLION DOLLARS. And, as they capture more oil fields and refineries, that number just grows exponentially. They have captured tanks, artillery and huge caches of ammunition... and even an old chemical weapons plant.

I have no idea what to do, but we will have to do something... sometime... and it only will get harder as time goes by.
 
Beaudreaux said:
This thing will spread. It has been going for over 700 years and now even the Kurds are trying to grab land (oil bearing land) before it all gets claimed.

Our national interest is at stake here. Does that mean I'm in favor of another "invasion?" No, not by a long shot. However, we will have to deal with this one way or or another at some point.

Maybe The German is correct, and it will all work it's self out. We can only hope. But, given the history of the region, the fanaticism of the Islamist factions and 7th Century culture that in place there... I doubt it.

The problem is two fold; the region may very well become the next stronghold of Islamist extremist terrorism (hell, even Al Qaeda said ISIS/ISIL was too radical for them), and they're going to control the oil in that region.

Anyone that thinks that these people won't invade Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, and the rest of the Arabian Peninsula are deluding themselves. They currently have TWO BILLION DOLLARS. And, as they capture more oil fields and refineries, that number just grows exponentially. They have captured tanks, artillery and huge caches of ammunition... and even an old chemical weapons plant.

I have no idea what to do, but we will have to do something... sometime... and it only will get harder as time goes by.
Click to expand...

These are my sentiments almost exactly. I don't believe anyone in the US wants us to go back, but it's a situation that will impact us more negatively if we don't. The oil markets are an aggregate and we still rely enough on it to keep a radical group from putting on the squeeze. Plus, they'll possibly destabilize the whole region even further for decades of constant, insurgent-terrorist style fighting.

There's not a good answer and as much as I hate sending troops, I think we need to go in 'hot & heavy' and stomp this out with authority. It will have a lasting effect on all the ME populations that America won't stand for a bunch of organized rebellious crap that destabilizes the world. Either that or we need to drill like crazy to augment our own sources and let the region descend into chaos, which I don't believe we'll do.
 
I support pulling all troops out of that part of the world, and then weaning ourselves off of oil.
 
Helix said:
I support pulling all troops out of that part of the world, and then weaning ourselves off of oil.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd settle for pulling our troops home and weaning ourselves off of foreign oil, then eventually all oil in 40-50 years.
 
Helix said:
I support pulling all troops out of that part of the world, and then weaning ourselves off of oil.
Click to expand...

I agree we should've been doing this since the 70's, when solar and electric technology was catching on. But we allowed the petroleum to dominate the energy needs of our nation, and now the time it will take to rebuild our infrastructure and switch everyone over to electric vehicles is years and years off.
 
Go...dont go...I will say support the presidents decisions...as long as he doesnt do something extraordinarily stupid like send in people to get slaughtered. If we go, we should go in significant enough force to accomplish the mission and we should have clear mission directives. If we dont go...OK...I'm cool with that too. Just dont do something stupid and for once just own your own decisions and stop blaming everyone else.
 
I'll say one thing about GHW Bush, he went in with 500K troops and beat the stuffing outta of the Iraqi military. That's how you do it to keep losses to a minimum and have a lasting effect.
 
Ockham said:
Well, I'd settle for pulling our troops home and weaning ourselves off of foreign oil, then eventually all oil in 40-50 years.
Click to expand...

that would probably be the way it would have to happen. of course, that would mean not exporting in the interim.
 
grip said:
I agree we should've been doing this since the 70's, when solar and electric technology was catching on. But we allowed the petroleum to dominate the energy needs of our nation, and now the time it will take to rebuild our infrastructure and switch everyone over to electric vehicles is years and years off.
Click to expand...

it will definitely be an investment. we will have to upgrade the grid significantly. i think that we should, though.
 
Helix said:
it will definitely be an investment. we will have to upgrade the grid significantly. i think that we should, though.
Click to expand...

We have to do it eventually, it's just of matter of the urgency at which we proceed. I believe natural gas will be a transition product for years, as ween off oil for power plants and switch automobiles into hybrids, fuel cells and electric.
 
grip said:
I predict from the News sources info on ISIL/ISIS, we'll definitely have to do air strikes at minimum and probably ground forces. They're gathering too much momentum, causing too much of a conflagration in the ME/Levant and rumoring they'll start terror attacks on the US and Israel. All that and their increasing ability to affect oil markets and drawing in other surrounding Arab nations will put pressure on the US to react.

They might settle down and organize the areas they have in control and leave it alone, but I doubt it because of their fundamentalist nature to spread extremism and conquer.
Click to expand...

To me, it doesn't look like the USA has made up its' mind "Who to support?" We sent arms from Benghazi, Libya to the ISIS in Syria. We armed al Maliki. We didn't provide satellite data or boots on the ground intelligence of this ISIS invasion beforehand and we certainly had that info. Kerry is talking to Kurds. Nobody is talking good about Maliki. The real deal is how it effects OIL production/supply/infrastructure to Western interests. That is what will actually determine the action taken. It will be whatever is the most profitable for Western Energy Corporations who are the people we went into Iraq to secure assets for. After all, bottom line, we are about CORPORATISM.
 
DaveFagan said:
To me, it doesn't look like the USA has made up its' mind "Who to support?" We sent arms from Benghazi, Libya to the ISIS in Syria. We armed al Maliki. We didn't provide satellite data or boots on the ground intelligence of this ISIS invasion beforehand and we certainly had that info. Kerry is talking to Kurds. Nobody is talking good about Maliki. The real deal is how it effects OIL production/supply/infrastructure to Western interests. That is what will actually determine the action taken. It will be whatever is the most profitable for Western Energy Corporations who are the people we went into Iraq to secure assets for. After all, bottom line, we are about CORPORATISM.
Click to expand...

That's actually the most frustrating part of that area that today's ally is tomorrows enemy. We should've stuck to manipulating their dictators for resource purposes instead of playing "nation building".

It's more about economic viability than just corporate interests. If people have to pay an absorbent amount at the pumps, it will tank the rest of the economic recovery. The gov't, corporations and populace are all intertwined, and though the executives think their wealth will insulate them from the effects of their greedy ways, it won't indefinitely.
 
grip said:
We have to do it eventually, it's just of matter of the urgency at which we proceed. I believe natural gas will be a transition product for years, as ween off oil for power plants and switch automobiles into hybrids, fuel cells and electric.
Click to expand...

you're probably right, but i sure hope not. NG should be used for home heating. the increase in demand if it's used more for transportation will cause the price to rise significantly, and will effectively be a regressive tax.
 
Helix said:
you're probably right, but i sure hope not. NG should be used for home heating. the increase in demand if it's used more for transportation will cause the price to rise significantly, and will effectively be a regressive tax.
Click to expand...

I've seen some cities use NG for their buses but I don't believe it would be used for most vehicles. Most likely it could be used in place of coal plants. Apparently, it's becoming a very abundant energy source with all the fracking.
 
Helix said:
I support pulling all troops out of that part of the world, and then weaning ourselves off of oil.
Click to expand...

And that will keep the terrorist from doing another 9-11 or worse.
 
grip said:
We have to do it eventually, it's just of matter of the urgency at which we proceed. I believe natural gas will be a transition product for years, as ween off oil for power plants and switch automobiles into hybrids, fuel cells and electric.
Click to expand...

And that will keep the terrorist from hating us and doing another 9-11.
 
I would have never guessed that a mere 13 years after 9/11 that Americans would have not only forgotten the impact of that day, but would actually sit by as the exact people who WILL attack us here established a state in the ME.

Obama has squandered our gains in Iraq, and by giving deadlines merely told the terrorists "tough it out until that time, and then its yours". He's doing nearly the same thing in Afghanistan. Actions which only embolden these terrorists, and which compel locals to make peace with them so as to avoid ending up in a ditch. 5 minutes on live leak or youtube will demonstrate the reality for those who oppose the caliphate.

His actions spit on the Americans who died defending this nation, and many times that number will die in those nations as Islamists shoot people for smoking cigarettes or sending little girls to school. Of course it wouldn't be the first time the dems cause us to lose a war. Politics trumps American lives to them.

And then there are the Americans here and abroad who will be killed in terrorist attacks. At the same times, our geopolitical adversaries like Iran (the largest state sponsor of terrorism) and Russia now stand to gain even more influence in the region, leading to further instability.

When you look at the ME, you are seeing back in time-to a much more brutal culture which is almost incomprehensible to the west. These people understand and respect one thing-force. Thats what they understand, so thats how they need to be addressed.
 
Born Free said:
And that will keep the terrorist from hating us and doing another 9-11.
Click to expand...

No, that will keep the air cleaner and not have us involved continuously in an area of the world that has been feuding with each other for 1000 years. They don't want our ways or our interference, and we don't need to waste anymore lives or valuable resources to secure an outdated energy supply. If we leave there completely and have little to do with them, over time, they'll have no real interests or reasons to attack us.
 
US Conservative said:
I would have never guessed that a mere 13 years after 9/11 that Americans would have not only forgotten the impact of that day, but would actually sit by as the exact people who WILL attack us here established a state in the ME.

Obama has squandered our gains in Iraq, and by giving deadlines merely told the terrorists "tough it out until that time, and then its yours". He's doing nearly the same thing in Afghanistan. Actions which only embolden these terrorists, and which compel locals to make peace with them so as to avoid ending up in a ditch. 5 minutes on live leak or youtube will demonstrate the reality for those who oppose the caliphate.

His actions spit on the Americans who died defending this nation, and many times that number will die in those nations as Islamists shoot people for smoking cigarettes or sending little girls to school. Of course it wouldn't be the first time the dems cause us to lose a war. Politics trumps American lives to them.

And then there are the Americans here and abroad who will be killed in terrorist attacks. At the same times, our geopolitical adversaries like Iran (the largest state sponsor of terrorism) and Russia now stand to gain even more influence in the region, leading to further instability.

When you look at the ME, you are seeing back in time-to a much more brutal culture which is almost incomprehensible to the west. These people understand and respect one thing-force. Thats what they understand, so thats how they need to be addressed.
Click to expand...

If you can get that all in one bag, you'll have one hell of a fertilizer business.
 
grip said:
No, that will keep the air cleaner and not have us involved continuously in an area of the world that has been feuding with each other for 1000 years. They don't want our ways or our interference, and we don't need to waste anymore lives or valuable resources to secure an outdated energy supply. If we leave there completely and have little to do with them, over time, they'll have no real interests or reasons to attack us.
Click to expand...

So you're plan will not keep terrorist from attacking us. Thank you.

The rest of your post is meaningless. You solved nothing regarding terrorist attacking us. Do you not know these terrorist have an ideology that has noting to do with our use of oil or any other supply of our energy. This thread has nothing to do with our clean air act. Nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom