• 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!

Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threat?

Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threat?


  • Total voters
    67
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Youre either the policeman of the world or you arent. You cant just pick and choose and then say you are doing it for moral reasons, thats hypocrisy.

We can pick and choose which hot spots represent immediate threats to the US and it's allies. And you are the one using the term policemen. The only organization that is attempting to play policeman is that useless organization known as the "United Nations".
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

You bash Chamberlain but you know nothing about him. The Free World owes a great deal to the man who stalled to the point where Britain could survive a Nazi attack and serve as the largest naval carrier the world has ever seen. Neville Chamberlain flat out knew he was stalling for time. You don't sign an appeasement to Hitler and then order the largest military build up the UK has seen in its entire history if you aren't expecting a war. The UK was not ready and Neville Chamberlain knew it and unlike Rumsfeld, he didn't think going to war unprepared was a good idea.

You are making up history as you go along. If you want an objective history, read the book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William L Shirer. It is very specific on everything that went on and included everything Chamberlain attempted. It was not a stalling tactic. Chamberlain acted stupidly.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

What say you?

That's hardly necessary. We should continue our airstrikes against ISIS positions and our arming of the Kurds and the anti-ISIS Syrian rebels. Additionally, we should encourageboth sides of the Syrian conflict to conclude a truce so that they can both focus on ISIS, and - perhaps most importantly - we should pressure Turkey and the Gulf States to stop supporting ISIS financially and geographically.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

We were warned from the beginning that the war on terror was not going to be a quick victory. Bush was winning. Obama certainly is not. Obama stupidly assumed the war on terror was over the minute the US Navy Seals killed Osama Bin Laden. At that point his rhetoric became: We got Bin Laden, Al Queda is on the run. That's how his administration got into scandal trouble in Benghazi. He did not want to admit that the attacks that killed our ambassador were organized and planned. That's why they pushed the "Duheee...it was the video!" farce for over two weeks. It's also why Obama has been slow to react to ISIS.

Bush was winning? Then why are we still in Iraq? And why has lots of territory in the ME been seized by an organization which is rumored to be worse than Al Qeda?

Doesnt seem like a win at all.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

You bash Chamberlain but you know nothing about him. The Free World owes a great deal to the man who stalled to the point where Britain could survive a Nazi attack and serve as the largest naval carrier the world has ever seen. Neville Chamberlain flat out knew he was stalling for time. You don't sign an appeasement to Hitler and then order the largest military build up the UK has seen in its entire history if you aren't expecting a war. The UK was not ready and Neville Chamberlain knew it and unlike Rumsfeld, he didn't think going to war unprepared was a good idea.

Chamberlains core policy was appeasement, over years with Hitler. Records were found after the war that showed Hitlers military staff had decided just before invading poland that if ANY resistance was met at the border, they would retreat and find and kill Hitler. All it would have taken was a bit of resolve, but Chamberlain hung east europe out to dry.

Hitler owned him and it took war for him to swing around and support war. When he got back and gave his silly liberal "peace for our time" line (sounding like a John Kerry or Obama) he really thought he had achieved that. Churchill knew otherwise.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

When and where has that worked when fighting guerillas?

Latin America. Vietnam. Central africa. Thats one of the central aspects of COIN warfare. Note that leaving is the exact opposite.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Bush was winning? Then why are we still in Iraq? And why has lots of territory in the ME been seized by an organization which is rumored to be worse than Al Qeda?

Doesnt seem like a win at all.

Because Obama was elected, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and then went golfing.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Because Obama was elected, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and then went golfing.

Bush was a massive failure long before Obama came along. Both of them sucked as Presidents.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

You are making up history as you go along. If you want an objective history, read the book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William L Shirer. It is very specific on everything that went on and included everything Chamberlain attempted. It was not a stalling tactic. Chamberlain acted stupidly.

I have no desire reading an overtly partisan book advocated by an outrageously partisan member of this forum.

It is not up for debate that right after Chamberlain returned from the signing with Hitler he ordered the largest military buildup the UK has ever seen. That alone is definitive proof that Chamberlain knew war was coming and that the UK had to prepare. Furthermore, anyone who thinks that the UK was ready for war at that time is kidding themselves. Too bad Rummy didn't pay attention to the lessons Chamberlain taught us. We probably could have saved billions of dollars and thousands of lives not rushing to war with a military not ready for that conflict.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Chamberlains core policy was appeasement, over years with Hitler

Given the state of the UK's military, he had little choice. Only an extremely idiotic strategist would rush to war completely unready, lose the core of his nation's army and then be sitting duck for the counter attack. Chamberlain bought time, time the UK badly needed to build up its military for the coming storm. Extremely partisans fail to realize this because they have no sense of history at all. Anyone with a brain who's looked at the UK military before WWII knows they were weak, both in manpower and in kit.

Records were found after the war that showed Hitlers military staff had decided just before invading poland that if ANY resistance was met at the border, they would retreat and find and kill Hitler. All it would have taken was a bit of resolve, but Chamberlain hung east europe out to dry.

Excuse me if I don't actually believe you on this. You'll have to cite a reputable source, not some random blog you found in a dark corner of the internet. Second, how was Chamberlain to know this? You are blaming him for not acting with a vastly unready, poorly equipped force on something he knew nothing about. That makes you look extremely unreasonable. While we're at it, why don't we blame everything on the British soldier who couldn't bring himself to shoot an unarmed Hitler in WWI? Clearly he failed us all by not stopping Hitler. Of course he didn't know what would happen and shooting unarmed men is entirely without honor, but let's blame him because we know what he didn't. Jesus, you are one of the least reasonable people here.

Hitler owned him and it took war for him to swing around and support war. When he got back and gave his silly liberal "peace for our time" line (sounding like a John Kerry or Obama) he really thought he had achieved that. Churchill knew otherwise.

Way to completely ignore what actually happened. And Churchill won on the military Chamberlain ordered. You forget that. Because you are an extreme partisan.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

No I do not support putting boots on the ground (I can't stand that frigging term btw) again. We've paid enough in blood and treasure in that godforsaken land. Let them sort out their own problems.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

I consider this forum mostly right leaning. But then I consider Obama a centrist to right leaning democrat for the most part . Maybe I'm wrong, but I judge him by his actions on the economic front.


What planet are you from my left wing friend?
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

What planet are you from my left wing friend?

One where he does not define "leftist" as anyone who disagrees with him on anything.

Obama is Bush III and Bush II was a right leaning centrist.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Given the state of the UK's military, he had little choice. Only an extremely idiotic strategist would rush to war completely unready, lose the core of his nation's army and then be sitting duck for the counter attack. Chamberlain bought time, time the UK badly needed to build up its military for the coming storm. Extremely partisans fail to realize this because they have no sense of history at all. Anyone with a brain who's looked at the UK military before WWII knows they were weak, both in manpower and in kit.



Excuse me if I don't actually believe you on this. You'll have to cite a reputable source, not some random blog you found in a dark corner of the internet. Second, how was Chamberlain to know this? You are blaming him for not acting with a vastly unready, poorly equipped force on something he knew nothing about. That makes you look extremely unreasonable. While we're at it, why don't we blame everything on the British soldier who couldn't bring himself to shoot an unarmed Hitler in WWI? Clearly he failed us all by not stopping Hitler. Of course he didn't know what would happen and shooting unarmed men is entirely without honor, but let's blame him because we know what he didn't. Jesus, you are one of the least reasonable people here.



Way to completely ignore what actually happened. And Churchill won on the military Chamberlain ordered. You forget that. Because you are an extreme partisan.

I agree that Chamberlain bought time-but it was for Hitler, and more to Hitlers benefit. He knew how to give the run around to naive progressives.
I will see if I can find the quotes on killing hitler at the first sign of resistance, it came out recently through old soviet records.

But in the end-Chamberlain was a chump who was mugged by reality-cut from the same cloth as Obama in a world that respects power.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

I agree that Chamberlain bought time-but it was for Hitler, and more to Hitlers benefit. He knew how to give the run around to naive progressives.

How is someone who ordered the largest military build up the UK has ever seen a "naive progressives?" You won't answer that because it requires you to admit reality.

I will see if I can find the quotes on killing hitler at the first sign of resistance, it came out recently through old soviet records.

Which likely means you found it on a blog in the dark corner of the internet and it's almost certainty not true.

But in the end-Chamberlain was a chump who was mugged by reality-cut from the same cloth as Obama in a world that respects power.

Again, how does ordering the military Churchill used to help win the war make Chamberlain a chump?

Historically illiterate people such as yourself ignore what actually happened. Know what WOULD have made Chamberlain a total moron? Going to war against Germany with the military it had at the time.

Tell me, how do you think that the UK military under Chamberlain, both weak in manpower and kit would have done against the Axis powers? I don't think you're even going to try answer that.

You can tell a person has poorly thought out beliefs and ideology when they constantly run from simple questions, and you flee nearly every single time.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

One where he does not define "leftist" as anyone who disagrees with him on anything.

Obama is Bush III and Bush II was a right leaning centrist.


It must be Mars or Venus.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

That is silly reactionist thought. The Taliban and Al Queda were our enemies when we invaded....and they are our enemies now. That has not changed. Terrorists can always find fanatical morons to join their cause. And to be fair, we did obtain a real victory in Afghanistan. You do notice that the Afghan government is no longer run by the Taliban, don't you? They were tossed out of power in fairly short order. What we have not won is the peace after the victory. To do that, we are going to have to allow the US military to fight without having one hand tied behind their backs(in effect). The rules of engagement are far too restrictive. We should have learned that lesson in Vietnam.

We bombed those countries heavily and killed thousands of people but the quantity of our enemies is roughly the same or higher. There was no Al Qeda in Iraq until we got there. In both places we supported corrupt governments that screwed over a large portion of their people, which is a major cause of the current problems. The overall quantity of Islamist militants has increased and they have spread to more places. Our wars are their best recruitment tool. I don't believe the rules of engagement argument. We bombed the crap out of Viet Nam and killed thousands. The problem is that outside invaders can't win a foreign guerilla war or civil war without committing genocide and/or destroying the place.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Bush was winning? Then why are we still in Iraq? And why has lots of territory in the ME been seized by an organization which is rumored to be worse than Al Qeda?

Doesnt seem like a win at all.

I doubt that you know the difference. There were actually two victories in Iraq. The original goal was liberating Iraq from the Saddam Hussein regime. That occurred in a matter of weeks. The second victory was not quite that easy, however the surge strategy did eventually beat down the insurgency. The violence levels actually dropped down to a very low level. The ISIS threat is something new that popped up over 5 years into the Obama administration.....due to two Obama administration failures. First, he was too soft on pushing a S.O.F.A. agreement with Iraq that would have left a contingent of quick reaction US forces in Iraq....and second, Obama mucked it up so badly in Syria that he could not contain the ISIS threat there and keep it from spreading to Iraq.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

I have no desire reading an overtly partisan book advocated by an outrageously partisan member of this forum.

Again, you are making it up as you go along. No partisanship here. I am an a conservative independent who has little use for establishment politicians in either party. And your suggestion that the author of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" was a partisan is utterly hilarious. The author is dead and gone now, however in all probability he was a liberal. He was a journalist. He was in Germany most of the time WW2 was going on and he was a well respected war correspondant and historian. I suggest you read the book and perhaps avoid looking foolish in the future.

It is not up for debate that right after Chamberlain returned from the signing with Hitler he ordered the largest military buildup the UK has ever seen. That alone is definitive proof that Chamberlain knew war was coming and that the UK had to prepare. Furthermore, anyone who thinks that the UK was ready for war at that time is kidding themselves.

That was Chamberlains way of admitting that the UK was caught with it's pants down around it's ankles. There was a reason the UK was not ready for war. When war broke out, they had their military spread out all over the third world taking care of their colonies. That was a price that the UK paid for centuries of imperialism.


Too bad Rummy didn't pay attention to the lessons Chamberlain taught us. We probably could have saved billions of dollars and thousands of lives not rushing to war with a military not ready for that conflict.

Yet again, you are making it up as you go along. The US military was very much ready for war. It had the troops as well as the highest technology equipment available in modern times. What the US was not ready for and did not foresee was the level of the insurgency. However that had nothing to do with battle readiness. It was a matter of how long it took to plan and carry out the surge strategy.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Given the state of the UK's military, he had little choice. Only an extremely idiotic strategist would rush to war completely unready, lose the core of his nation's army and then be sitting duck for the counter attack. Chamberlain bought time, time the UK badly needed to build up its military for the coming storm. Extremely partisans fail to realize this because they have no sense of history at all. Anyone with a brain who's looked at the UK military before WWII knows they were weak, both in manpower and in kit..

Actually the Brits and the French had opportunities to stop WW2 before it started. They could have for instance stopped the Germans at the Maginot line. At the time the German Army was not ready or to stand up to the Brit and French military. It would have been the end of Hitler.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

We bombed those countries heavily and killed thousands of people but the quantity of our enemies is roughly the same or higher. There was no Al Qeda in Iraq until we got there. In both places we supported corrupt governments that screwed over a large portion of their people, which is a major cause of the current problems. The overall quantity of Islamist militants has increased and they have spread to more places. Our wars are their best recruitment tool. I don't believe the rules of engagement argument. We bombed the crap out of Viet Nam and killed thousands. The problem is that outside invaders can't win a foreign guerilla war or civil war without committing genocide and/or destroying the place.

I will restrict my response to your suggestion that there was no Al Queda in Iraq until we got there. My response is: Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

I wish that was so but its not.

Yet another poll not working out quite like you planned. Imagine that?
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

46-17 in favor of not sending troops in. That does not surprise me considering DP is a left leaning forum.

77.33.jpg

LOLOLOLOL You were so sure you would get support. Yet another epic fail.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

What say you?

Not with the current CIC, I don't. Hell no! He'll do more harm than good.
 
Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Given the state of the UK's military, he had little choice. Only an extremely idiotic strategist would rush to war completely unready, lose the core of his nation's army and then be sitting duck for the counter attack. Chamberlain bought time, time the UK badly needed to build up its military for the coming storm. Extremely partisans fail to realize this because they have no sense of history at all. Anyone with a brain who's looked at the UK military before WWII knows they were weak, both in manpower and in kit.



Excuse me if I don't actually believe you on this. You'll have to cite a reputable source, not some random blog you found in a dark corner of the internet. Second, how was Chamberlain to know this? You are blaming him for not acting with a vastly unready, poorly equipped force on something he knew nothing about. That makes you look extremely unreasonable. While we're at it, why don't we blame everything on the British soldier who couldn't bring himself to shoot an unarmed Hitler in WWI? Clearly he failed us all by not stopping Hitler. Of course he didn't know what would happen and shooting unarmed men is entirely without honor, but let's blame him because we know what he didn't. Jesus, you are one of the least reasonable people here.



Way to completely ignore what actually happened. And Churchill won on the military Chamberlain ordered. You forget that. Because you are an extreme partisan.

It was all a part of Chamberlain's master plan? Um...:lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom