• 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!

What should we do about Iraq?

What should we do about Iraq?


  • Total voters
    59
Yeah, but the red line was the catalyst. It would be hard to argue against that.

yup, when Obama says "jump".. Putin says " how high" :lol:

the Russian plan was already "unofficially" approved before Obama spoke about "red lines" ( sept 6 versus sept 13)... the US was still seeking authorization to use military force ( which Russia blocked in the UN) a short time later, Putin and Obama talked at the G20 summit.. putin's plan was to bring the weapons under international control... he didn't want military intervention to occur, especially unilateral US military force.

Obama did his part, for which he gets Kudos.. but this whole thing was the Putin show... unfortunately.
 
We shouldn't forget what happened in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983 when Reagan was president.

299 American and French servicemen were killed by 2 terrorist truck bombs in the Beirut Barracks bombing on October 23, 1983.

Who wants to bet that we won't see some similar incidents in Iraq?



I think a Blackhawk down scenario more likely....
 
Obama's red line produced tangible results in Syria...

Tangible maybe. Robust? Possibly. It also showed that the US might have a big stick, but talks about it in a loud voice about using it, when it won't.
 
Tangible maybe. Robust? Possibly. It also showed that the US might have a big stick, but talks about it in a loud voice about using it, when it won't.

Thankfully, Obama only threatened to use that stick, rather than beating a hornet's nest with it.
 
Thankfully, Obama only threatened to use that stick, rather than beating a hornet's nest with it.

The thing is, that he already hit a hornets' nest by threatening. That is, what he seems not to have understood.
 
I am a person who is generally optimistic, but I'll be amazed if anything good happens in Iraq in the near future.

Nothing points in that direction.

Children will be born and mothers will be saved.
 
The thing is, that he already hit a hornets' nest by threatening. That is, what he seems not to have understood.

No, hitting the hornet's nest is doing just that; a military action in which America would have been responsible for the repercussions. Threatening military action caused Syria to give up its chemical weapons.
 
No, hitting the hornet's nest is doing just that; a military action in which America would have been responsible for the repercussions. Threatening military action caused Syria to give up its chemical weapons.

Probably true.

It also gave the opposition the feeling it was supported and drove resistance onward. When the help didn't come the terrorist elements that had gathered in the mayhem had persuasive arguments they would otherwise not have had.

It is funny, that people see only the impacts they feel happy with.
 
Probably true.

It also gave the opposition the feeling it was supported and drove resistance onward. When the help didn't come the terrorist elements that had gathered in the mayhem had persuasive arguments they would otherwise not have had.

It is funny, that people see only the impacts they feel happy with.

It's also 'funny' that people blame Obama for everything bad that happens in the Middle East. Clearly Obama should keep his mouth shut, since the world ebbs and flows by the power of his words.
 
It's also 'funny' that people blame Obama for everything bad that happens in the Middle East. Clearly Obama should keep his mouth shut, since the world ebbs and flows by the power of his words.

There are probably people that do that. Personally I only fault him with the things he does himself. After all, he did not start the fire. He only through a little kerosene on it, when it was smoldering.
 
There are probably people that do that. Personally I only fault him with the things he does himself. After all, he did not start the fire. He only through a little kerosene on it, when it was smoldering.

Imagine what the accelerant analogy would have been if Obama had bombed Syria.
 
Imagine what the accelerant analogy would have been if Obama had bombed Syria.

It was not Obama's problem. It was that of the UN and the neighbors. Obama should have only asked them to solve it and to have told them he would back them up and help.
 
Lets say We "stay out of it"

A) ISIS takes over Iraq and sets up a Caliphate and now uses the economy of Iraq to wage global Jihad
or
B) Iran jumps in wipes out the Sunni opposition and Iraq becomes essentially an expanded Iran

Either way there is going to be massive ethnic cleansing.

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
 
I am a person who is generally optimistic, but I'll be amazed if anything good happens in Iraq in the near future.

Nothing points in that direction.



Well, let's be optimistic...Apparently some assessment has already been made for the President to find it necessary to send a few more troops to protect our embassy.. Right now it looks impossible to stop these terrorists, but I don't think they can take Bagdad....It is not going to be easy to eliminate them tho...but they must be eliminated. I will admit tho, that it is a slippery slope..
 
Lets say We "stay out of it"

A) ISIS takes over Iraq and sets up a Caliphate and now uses the economy of Iraq to wage global Jihad
or
B) Iran jumps in wipes out the Sunni opposition and Iraq becomes essentially an expanded Iran

Either way there is going to be massive ethnic cleansing.

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
It would be best to use a combination of diplomatic and economic carrots, targeted military strikes, and intelligence-gathering ops to ensure that neither side wins outright given domestic opposition to an occupation of any kind.
 
Back
Top Bottom