• 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?


  • Total voters
    36
Saudi Arabia's economy is 92.5 percent oil revenue.

Economy of Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if we were to transition from oil as a transportation fuel, then a lot fewer of our dollars would go to those who seek to funnel money to extremists.

We don't need to transition from oil, we got all the oil we need right here at home, open up federal lands. Further we have a friendly neighbor to the north that has plenty of oil, build Keystone. For you it's really about killing coal and oil.
 
Tragically the fact is that we can't run a 21st century economy on any green solution.
`
Tragically, that would be your opinion as I have found nothing to support that tired excuse. We have the technology to break the oil dependency cycle however are under the iron grasp of the oil/fossil fuel cartels whom also control all our politicians. The time to plan for this was four decades ago

No more blood for oil.

`
`


MDtGZpw.jpg
 
I say let the ISIS form their country.

It will make it easier to issue a declaration of war against a country instead of trying to pick out individual targets
 
Her read appears to be that this is just the three state solution asserting itself, with Sunni, Shia, and Kurds declaring and defending their own territory. It appears the (mostly) rational Kurds got the oil.

Why shouldn't we just ratify this?

Because that course of action would make turkey very angry.
 
`
Tragically, that would be your opinion as I have found nothing to support that tired excuse. We have the technology to break the oil dependency cycle however are under the iron grasp of the oil/fossil fuel cartels whom also control all our politicians. The time to plan for this was four decades ago

No more blood for oil.

`
`


MDtGZpw.jpg

My opinion reflects the reality. There isn't a conspiracy here, if the means existed, we wouldnt need BS chrontarded lefty subsidies, and a system would present itself.

Thats not the case, and the few promising solutions, like nuclear, are opposed, mostly by lefties.

Take a look at the energy demands (and more remarkably the output) of our economy. There IS NO substitute for oil.

And the irony of you sitting in front of a computer made of oil based products as you say this is particularly ironic.
 
I agree that reducing any dependence on the ME is a good thing. Tragically the fact is that we can't run a 21st century economy on any green solution. This is reality. So I think we should expand drilling and utilize other techniques here and amongst friendly nations. Even just historically speaking, there will almost certainly be effective advancements in energy, but we aren't there yet, so we should not rely on something that wont work.

Oil is fungible, so as long as we rely on it as our primary transportation fuel, we will be affected by whatever happens in the Middle East and in other hostile regions of the world. It's in our interest to set a goal of replacing our energy model. We've wasted too much time already, and the same thing is going to happen again and again.

As for taxes, its remarkable that the left only seems concerned with fiscal responsibility when it suits them. There is a radical islamist state forming as I type. If you would prefer to bury your head in the sand than do it.

No war without wartime tax rates. Whenever our troops are deployed, the marginal rates should be almost putative. This will serve two purposes . First, it will pay for the war itself, as well as corollary costs. Second, it will make the average American a lot less hawkish.
 
We don't need to transition from oil, we got all the oil we need right here at home, open up federal lands. Further we have a friendly neighbor to the north that has plenty of oil, build Keystone. For you it's really about killing coal and oil.

Incorrect. See my previous post.
 
I say let the ISIS form their country.

It will make it easier to issue a declaration of war against a country instead of trying to pick out individual targets

Thats cute. You think these combatants are going to put on uniforms and fight conventionally because they have hacked a self proclaimed border? These are the same terrorists we have been fighting in Iraq, and the same that have been fighting for years.

They are going to occupy the same civilian buildings, hide behind the same women and children while they fight, and use the same tactics.
Nothing will have changed.
 
I agree that reducing any dependence on the ME is a good thing. Tragically the fact is that we can't run a 21st century economy on any green solution. This is reality. So I think we should expand drilling and utilize other techniques here and amongst friendly nations. Even just historically speaking, there will almost certainly be effective advancements in energy, but we aren't there yet, so we should not rely on something that wont work.

As for taxes, its remarkable that the left only seems concerned with fiscal responsibility when it suits them. There is a radical islamist state forming as I type. If you would prefer to bury your head in the sand than do it.

let them form a country, it makes it easier for us to fight them.
 
Thats cute. You think these combatants are going to put on uniforms and fight conventionally because they have hacked a self proclaimed border? These are the same terrorists we have been fighting in Iraq, and the same that have been fighting for years.

They are going to occupy the same civilian buildings, hide behind the same women and children while they fight, and use the same tactics.
Nothing will have changed.

if they form a country, a declaration of war would effectively target all citizens of the country.

what good is a human shield when the entire country is fair game?
 
Her read appears to be that this is just the three state solution asserting itself, with Sunni, Shia, and Kurds declaring and defending their own territory. It appears the (mostly) rational Kurds got the oil.

Why shouldn't we just ratify this?

Amongst other reasons, the nations that they have taken this land from will not allow it. As for the Kurds, its a whole can of worms spread across multiple nations, and they would use that land to fight other nations to take back Kurdish lands. The Kurds would expect to get their ancestral lands much like you appear to think the Shia's and Sunni's do. Of course the problem is that those lines dont reflect modern borders, and in particular more secular arabs wont allow it.
 
if they form a country, a declaration of war would effectively target all citizens of the country.

what good is a human shield when the entire country is fair game?

So when the SAME innocent civilians are killed you will be fine with it? Because its a nation instead of a region? Really?
ISIS has stated clearly that it WILL target the US, so lets give them a place to make plans? Really?
When one side fights asymmetrically, western armies generally fight by different rules, to minimize innocents from suffering. If you are suggesting that this limitation will be lifted if they are granted nation status you are dreaming. And if it makes you sleep better because of that distinction, well thats worrisome.
 
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.
I voted "watch and wait." Not because I necessarily think that's what we ought to do, but because that's pretty typical of Obama. He'll get in a round of golf or 20, wait to see what happens, then do whatever he feels will help him out most, politically.
 
Oil is fungible, so as long as we rely on it as our primary transportation fuel, we will be affected by whatever happens in the Middle East and in other hostile regions of the world. It's in our interest to set a goal of replacing our energy model. We've wasted too much time already, and the same thing is going to happen again and again.



No war without wartime tax rates. Whenever our troops are deployed, the marginal rates should be almost putative. This will serve two purposes . First, it will pay for the war itself, as well as corollary costs. Second, it will make the average American a lot less hawkish.

Oil prices are largely set on the world stage, so even more local drilling is unlikely to drop costs significantly. What we DO have, is hundreds of years of oil, and the likelyhood that new reserves and harvesting techniques will be developed. And we can send money to our allies or at least not our geopolitical adversaries. Thats what we should be doing now. And beyond that, there is no substitute that even comes close to meeting our demands.

As far as the taxes, maybe instead of thinking how you can punish Americans to make them think more in line with you (how independent), instead think of the risks as they exist today. You know what makes people hawkish? A terrorist attack, as well as daily news about the constant violence from islamists.

ISIS was a more radical AQ, and they have been fighting for quite some time, all over the world. This is becoming a beacon for terrorists. Hit them there or they will hit us here. They openly state this as a goal.
 
So when the SAME innocent civilians are killed you will be fine with it? Because its a nation instead of a region? Really?
ISIS has stated clearly that it WILL target the US, so lets give them a place to make plans? Really?
When one side fights asymmetrically, western armies generally fight by different rules, to minimize innocents from suffering. If you are suggesting that this limitation will be lifted if they are granted nation status you are dreaming. And if it makes you sleep better because of that distinction, well thats worrisome.

i find it funny you are lecturing me about the morality of war.

let ISIS form a country, let them gather together out in the open, that way they lose one of their major advantages, their ability to hide in the shadows. when we declare war on isis we will not be fighting a limited war, we will be fighting A total war. no more trying to win wars cheaply, go for broke.
 
1)My opinion reflects the reality. 2) There isn't a conspiracy here, if the means existed, 3) we wouldnt need BS chrontarded lefty subsidies, and a system would present itself. 4) Thats not the case, and the few promising solutions, like nuclear, are opposed, mostly by lefties. 4) Take a look at the energy demands (and more remarkably the output) of our economy. There IS NO substitute for oil. 5) And the irony of you sitting in front of a computer made of oil based products as you say this is particularly ironic.

1) Statement is an oxymoron.

2) Misleading statement - No one said anything about a conspiracy...except for you.

3) Statement of opinion....not even a rational one at that.

4) Statement based on ignorance - Poster has not kept up with the latest clean, renewable technology.

5) Statement is irrelevant and immaterial. - We are talking energy by fossil fuel, not the by-products of oil such as plastics.
 
i find it funny you are lecturing me about the morality of war.

let ISIS form a country, let them gather together out in the open, that way they lose one of their major advantages, their ability to hide in the shadows. when we declare war on isis we will not be fighting a limited war, we will be fighting A total war. no more trying to win wars cheaply, go for broke.

You still dont understand. What determines high or low intensity or asymmetric warfare, or total war IS NOT an international border-its based on the tactics of the combatants involved.

These guys dont wear uniforms, and they aren't going to gather in the open-they have been fighting western (and arab) forces for decades-they know thats a quick way to get killed. Their military is a bunch of small arms, and some light vehicles, with a few tanks thrown in. Do you think they will go toe to toe with a modern military force? What happens when they FORCE locals to stay in cities as shields (a common tactic)? Do you think the US will somehow be absolved from reducing an entire city to ruins? Russia has done that in the past. We wont-we are held to a higher standard and should be.

I think American general support (air cover for emergencies, surveillance, etc) behind an Iraqi force which can fight using arab rules (See Syria) is the solution.
 
1) Statement is an oxymoron.

2) Misleading statement - No one said anything about a conspiracy...except for you.

3) Statement of opinion....not even a rational one at that.

4) Statement based on ignorance - Poster has not kept up with the latest clean, renewable technology.

5) Statement is irrelevant and immaterial. - We are talking energy by fossil fuel, not the by-products of oil such as plastics.

Read your initial post to me again. Its filled with bizarre delusions and silly phrases like no blood for oil. If you believe that as true, why would you use (and pay!) for a computer made of oil based products? Is it because you like blood? The oil used to make your computer didn't just magically appear, it had to be located, harvested, and refined. This applies to anything made of plastic in your home.

If you disagree with my comments regarding energy, kindly link to the current US energy demands, and show WHAT source, other than oil can meet that demand.
 
You still dont understand. What determines high or low intensity or asymmetric warfare, or total war IS NOT an international border-its based on the tactics of the combatants involved.

These guys dont wear uniforms, and they aren't going to gather in the open-they have been fighting western (and arab) forces for decades-they know thats a quick way to get killed. Their military is a bunch of small arms, and some light vehicles, with a few tanks thrown in. Do you think they will go toe to toe with a modern military force? What happens when they FORCE locals to stay in cities as shields (a common tactic)? Do you think the US will somehow be absolved from reducing an entire city to ruins? Russia has done that in the past. We wont-we are held to a higher standard and should be.

I think American general support (air cover for emergencies, surveillance, etc) behind an Iraqi force which can fight using arab rules (See Syria) is the solution.

the only way i can approve of american involvement in iraq is by issuing a proper declaration of war. because that is the only way we can get involved in iraq without violating the law.
 
Back
Top Bottom