• 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 trust president Obama to do a good job fighting ISIS?

Do you trust president Obama to do a good job fighting ISIS?


  • Total voters
    66
:lamo :lamo :lamo

Oh....that's a good one.

I don't trust 100% of the politicians in Washington (it was about 95%, but Ron Paul retired).
 
She isn't mine, A and 2, where's your proof that he's the worst? That's been reserved for both Carter and Bush 2. Other then it being your opinion.

Where's the proof? Are you serious? Where have you been the last 6 months? That is my opinion and also the opinion of a lot of other people. Once again you may want to read , research and question. As I said before the MSNBC Hate-A-Thon will only ruin your mind.
 
It depends on why people voted no. For myself it was more that I don't believe that the Islamic state can be destroyed than it is a criticism of Obama's abilities. Bush couldn't destroy AQ either.
Bush didn't really try.
 
No, instead he launched an invasion of a secular state, thus creating a power vacuum leading to the rise of an even more radical group than AlQaeda.
Actually the power vacuum was caused by leaving, after the US (and allies?) replaced the former Iraq leadership with US/allied military force-supported leaders, thus pulling a significant portion of their support and leaving their collective ass hanging in the breeze.

Edit: Which is not to say that removing the former leadership was the best option in the first place, you understand. Or at least not to that extent.

Unless I misunderstand, basically we disbanded most/all iraq leadership organizations and then built new ones.

Edit 2: Or tried.
 
Actually the power vacuum was caused by leaving, after the US (and allies?) replaced the former Iraq leadership with US/allied military force-supported leaders, thus pulling a significant portion of their support and leaving their collective ass hanging in the breeze.

Edit: Which is not to say that removing the former leadership was the best option in the first place, you understand. Or at least not to that extent.

Unless I misunderstand, basically we disbanded most/all iraq leadership organizations and then built new ones.

Edit 2: Or tried.

I think "or tried" is correct.

The result of taking out Saddam Hussain, admittedly a dictator and a bad guy, and replacing him with (what? A government that was supposed to have been friendly to the West, but had no real power in Iraq?) then following a troop withdrawal plan that had been "negotiated" with that government was totally predictable. What has happened is we replaced bad with worse, and now are wondering just what to do next.
 
I think "or tried" is correct.

The result of taking out Saddam Hussain, admittedly a dictator and a bad guy, and replacing him with (what? A government that was supposed to have been friendly to the West, but had no real power in Iraq?) then following a troop withdrawal plan that had been "negotiated" with that government was totally predictable. What has happened is we replaced bad with worse, and now are wondering just what to do next.
Personally, I think removing Saddam was good, but we ****ed up everything else, from the management of the new government creation to the later withdrawal.

If we had done the government creation part right we might have been able to withdraw without the results we see now.
 
Personally, I think removing Saddam was good, but we ****ed up everything else, from the management of the new government creation to the later withdrawal.

If we had done the government creation part right we might have been able to withdraw without the results we see now.

If we had done the government creation right, then sure, but I'm not so sure that there was a right way to do it. Sometimes, it's best to let good enough alone, even when good enough isn't very good.
 
Personally, I think removing Saddam was good, but we ****ed up everything else, from the management of the new government creation to the later withdrawal.

If we had done the government creation part right we might have been able to withdraw without the results we see now.

The fact remains when we left Iraq in 2011 the country was stable.......Because we did not leave a residual force it is a total disaster now thanks to Obama..Don't give me this crap about a SOFA either...Something could have been worked out.
 
Where's the proof? Are you serious? Where have you been the last 6 months? That is my opinion and also the opinion of a lot of other people. Once again you may want to read , research and question. As I said before the MSNBC Hate-A-Thon will only ruin your mind.

Sure there are lots of people that think Obama is the worst president ever, just as there are lots of people that think Bush 2 was the worst president ever. In fact, it turns out its only a matter of opinion.
 
No, instead he launched an invasion of a secular state, thus creating a power vacuum leading to the rise of an even more radical group than AlQaeda.

With plenty of bi-partisan support, unfortunately.
 
Actually the power vacuum was caused by leaving, after the US (and allies?) replaced the former Iraq leadership with US/allied military force-supported leaders, thus pulling a significant portion of their support and leaving their collective ass hanging in the breeze.

Edit: Which is not to say that removing the former leadership was the best option in the first place, you understand. Or at least not to that extent.

Unless I misunderstand, basically we disbanded most/all iraq leadership organizations and then built new ones.

Edit 2: Or tried.

No, it wasn't. There was no al qaeda in Iraq until the US showed up. Hussein gave no quarters to al Qaeda or any other terrorist organizations. Hussein was the best containment tool. And Bush removed him. Furthermore, Obama was instructed by Americans to get the hell out of Iraq. And, the polls show that a majority of Americans now realize that the war in Iraq was a MISTAKE!
 
No, it wasn't. There was no al qaeda in Iraq until the US showed up. Hussein gave no quarters to al Qaeda or any other terrorist organizations. Hussein was the best containment tool. And Bush removed him. Furthermore, Obama was instructed by Americans to get the hell out of Iraq. And, the polls show that a majority of Americans now realize that the war in Iraq was a MISTAKE!
Personally, I am not yet convinced that removing Hussein was a mistake.

The WAY it was done, however, is what caused many of the long-term issues.
 
Personally, I am not yet convinced that removing Hussein was a mistake.

The WAY it was done, however, is what caused many of the long-term issues.

Well, I can't understand why you've yet to notice the fools errand of removing Hussein. He was no threat to the US, a requirement for legitimate use of our military. He had no connection with OBL, or Al Qaeda. Iraq was a secular country, Hussein gave no space to Muslim extremists. He hadn't the desire or the means to deliver a mushroom cloud over a US city nor was he a threat to our ally's. Due to all that, the 4,500 lost soldiers and 1.5 trillion dollars has been wasted blood and treasure, and the power vacuum created gave rise to the Islamic State in Iraq which took up house keeping in Syria, another place where a power vacuum is being created and so emboldening the Islamic State.
 
Well, I can't understand why you've yet to notice the fools errand of removing Hussein. He was no threat to the US, a requirement for legitimate use of our military. He had no connection with OBL, or Al Qaeda. Iraq was a secular country, Hussein gave no space to Muslim extremists. He hadn't the desire or the means to deliver a mushroom cloud over a US city nor was he a threat to our ally's. Due to all that, the 4,500 lost soldiers and 1.5 trillion dollars has been wasted blood and treasure, and the power vacuum created gave rise to the Islamic State in Iraq which took up house keeping in Syria, another place where a power vacuum is being created and so emboldening the Islamic State.
Which is why I said "WAY".
 
So..........you think he should have been assassinated instead?
Not particularly.

I don't know what would have been a better move, or for that matter, if removing him even WAS the best option.
I just know he was someone I wouldn't consider acceptable as a leader - perhaps we should have supported (ACTUALLY supported) a rebellion? But then civilian deaths, worse? Or better?

I dunno.

But the way we DID go about it basically guaranteed we'd be dealing with the consequences for decades to come.
 
With plenty of bi-partisan support, unfortunately.

Yes, with plenty of bi partisan support, a fact that Democrats now try to ignore, while Republicans bring it up. And why? Because both now recognize that having invaded Iraq was a bad idea. Back when the decision was being made, anyone who thought it was a mistake was simply a dang hippie peacenik.
 
Yes, with plenty of bi partisan support, a fact that Democrats now try to ignore, while Republicans bring it up. And why? Because both now recognize that having invaded Iraq was a bad idea. Back when the decision was being made, anyone who thought it was a mistake was simply a dang hippie peacenik.

I think I would have preferred being called a hippie peacenik to what I actually was called at the time, lol.
 
No, considering he can't even blame ISIS' beheadings on Islam.
 
No, considering he can't even blame ISIS' beheadings on Islam.
At most you could blame it on people who interpreted the Islamic faith to support their own twisted desires.

Or that's how I view it, anyways.


And, since the vast majority of Muslims show zero interest in becoming holy warriors and dieing/killing/murdering/etc. various persons, it seems to hold up under evidence.
 
Not sure at this point. His intentions might be pure, but I'm highly skeptical of his commitment to the fight at this point, in no small part due to his hesitancy to act as ISIS initially toppled key positions in Iraq. I sincerely hope that he reverses course in terms of seriousness and vowing to not send in troops no matter the circumstance. Ruling out a ground assault beforehand isn't an encouraging sign.

Good intentions, and I doubt they even exist, are worthless without the ability and/or willingness to do whatever it takes to win. As long as we approach things the way we're doing, we are not fighting to win but fighting not to lose. There is a difference and the latter will definitely result in losing.
 
This is a chance for Obama to prove to the world that he can be a great leader. No one wants a war but a war is what we have. When these child killers brag and say that they will see us in New York city and say that their flag will fly over the WH that should be considered a declaration of war by them. I by no means have been to any War College but it seems that these killers have no time line and will slowly do what they have to do to complete their caliphate of the world. It is also time to start playing their game. They want to kill children and rape women we should be just as brutal as they are. Please don't take me as being a war monger or being to brutal, but we have to fight fire with fire. Wash their dead bodies in pigs blood and then just burn their bodies along with the pig carcasses. Rant over.

Obama has already proven to me he isn't a leader.

Unless we are willing to fight the way we are being fought, we aren't fighting to win but to not lose. There is a difference. The problem with doing that is while there are those who say we need to stop the enemy, they aren't willing to accept what would have to be done to do it. Their view is like having a maximum balance on a credit card, paying only the minimum payment, then expecting that it will ever be paid off.
 
At most you could blame it on people who interpreted the Islamic faith to support their own twisted desires.

Or that's how I view it, anyways.


And, since the vast majority of Muslims show zero interest in becoming holy warriors and dieing/killing/murdering/etc. various persons, it seems to hold up under evidence.

No.

A majority of Islamic people are extremist. A while ago there was a cartoonist who made a cartoon of Allah. As I'm sure you remember there was a big uproar in the Muslim community. Did you know 78% of Muslims still believe the person that made this drawing should be punished? If that's not extremist, I don't know what is. I think its a very conservative 20% of Muslims believe in martyrdom. None of what ISIS has done or will do would've ever happened without Islam.

Dieing/killing/murdering/bombing/etc isn't the only form of religious extremism.
 
Obama has already proven to me he isn't a leader.

Unless we are willing to fight the way we are being fought, we aren't fighting to win but to not lose. There is a difference. The problem with doing that is while there are those who say we need to stop the enemy, they aren't willing to accept what would have to be done to do it. Their view is like having a maximum balance on a credit card, paying only the minimum payment, then expecting that it will ever be paid off.

Which would be what exactly?
 
Back
Top Bottom