• 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!

Are you for or against military action vs. ISIL?

Are you For or Against military action vs. ISIL?


  • Total voters
    42

Painter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
583
Reaction score
314
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There has been plenty of political discussion about "how" we take action against ISIL.
But I am curious how DP members would side on the issue if it was a choice between no action at all vs. action (of whatever type occurs.)

Personally I was completely against the Invasion of Iraq from day 1.
Yet I am very much for the annihilation of ISIL.
I am not sure if the beheading videos were meant to lure us into the fight or meant to scare us away.
Yet, even though I am aware that I am likely being manipulated to someone elses agenda... I do not even care.
I want blood. I want to see every ISIL member dead. If it was their goal to manipulate me... it worked.
 
Just keep them out of our country and out of our embassies. Which I suspect we can do without the military.

Anything that ISIL combatants do elsewhere should be handled by the governments who claim to control that territory.
 
I am for the limited but intense application of outright terror against them

heads exploding from a shot a mile away

ISIL members finding other members dead in the morning from a "Sicilian necktie"

drone strikes at midnight

disembowled ISIL members found in their beds
 
There has been plenty of political discussion about "how" we take action against ISIL.
But I am curious how DP members would side on the issue if it was a choice between no action at all vs. action (of whatever type occurs.)

Personally I was completely against the Invasion of Iraq from day 1.
Yet I am very much for the annihilation of ISIL.
I am not sure if the beheading videos were meant to lure us into the fight or meant to scare us away.
Yet, even though I am aware that I am likely being manipulated to someone elses agenda... I do not even care.
I want blood. I want to see every ISIL member dead. If it was their goal to manipulate me... it worked.

Which is why I do not watch the videos. We should stay the **** out of the middle east so I do not support military action against ISIL. If you are not on official government business and go these countries then you are ****ing moron. No black,gay,jewish person would go to a ku klux klan rally in the middle of the woods by themselves at night. No jew,cripple or some other person not liked by Nazis would have taken a trip to Nazi Germany. During the time of slavery in our country no free black person in the North would go on a vacation in Mississippi. But yet today we have morons who go to North Korea, we have former Muslim and christian morons who go to Islamo-fascist countries and morons who were kidnapped and later released going back to that same part of the world.
 
Im for more stern words from obama on this..basically a tongue lashing and a red line drawn in the sand.
 
Just keep them out of our country and out of our embassies. Which I suspect we can do without the military.

Anything that ISIL combatants do elsewhere should be handled by the governments who claim to control that territory.

I did vote for military action, but your post makes a lot of sense.
I am hoping that our air war will give ISIL's opponents the edge they need to deal with these psychotics.
Fingers crossed and hoping for the best.
 
Which is why I do not watch the videos. We should stay the **** out of the middle east so I do not support military action against ISIL. If you are not on official government business and go these countries then you are ****ing moron. No black,gay,jewish person would go to a ku klux klan rally in the middle of the woods by themselves at night. No jew,cripple or some other person not liked by Nazis would have taken a trip to Nazi Germany. During the time of slavery in our country no free black person in the North would go on a vacation in Mississippi. But yet today we have morons who go to North Korea, we have former Muslim and christian morons who go to Islamo-fascist countries and morons who were kidnapped and later released going back to that same part of the world.

James your post makes me very curious.
I thought Conservatives were always for war and in any way they can get it.
Clearly this is not the case for you.

I wonder... were you for or against the invasion and destruction of Iraq? And if against, were you against it from day 1 while also being a Republican?

For you is this merely an anti Obama thing or have your core principles changed over time?
 
The Fact is, We went into Iraq and destroyed the stable (albeit tyrannical) gov't that was in place. We created a void and it was filled by the exact people we have been trying to eliminate. We should have never gone into Iraq, but that ship has sailed. If we wan't to pretend to be nation builders then we need to finish the job. We never did, and now the Iraqi people are paying for that.
 
While many will chastise either President Bush or President Obama or both or other presidents too, but whatever they've decided previously is largely irrelevant now. We are at War. And personally, "degrading and destroying" ISIL is the right strategy. Their existence and actions require a military response, but not just a military response. A full-spectrum approach is necessary in dealing with ISIL, those who can and will be recruited into their ranks and ISIL's reaction to our actions. The hammer must be brought down.
 
i'm for it but it won't work.

The iraqi government has, for 10 years now, continually closed the sunni muslims off from the political process. No voices in parliament or government to speak for the sunnis in any meaningful way. This is why ISIS has a large population to recruit from in iraq. Some people don't know but iraq is as big as Poland and Czechoslovakia combined and it's got about 35mil people. A third of which are sunni. And the population is very young -> a lot of "army grade" men which is defined as ages between 16 and 25.

And ISIS is rich. It's also independently wealthy so it's not like you can dry out its money and thus, it's ability to recruit people and arm people. And it's not like even if they weren't rich that they couldn't raise an army, a lot of people would join up voluntarily for ideological reasons. But granted, money helps, a lot. And it also has very limited expenses. It has no social programs for the territory it governs, no real administrative costs, no costs associated with what a government would have that seeks to govern over a territory. It only has expenses for war.

The problem with ISIS is that it doesn't control the port that would open the doors to trading oil to asian countries like China. And yes, China would buy off their oil. And it's not like the US could do anything about it because it would be ships flying the chinesse flag that would do the transporting. It's one thing if it were ships flying the flag of ISIS or Iraq or any other country, but it's gonna be Chinesse fleet and yeah, that's troublesome.
But even without that opportunity that would greatly improve the wealth of ISIS, they still have tons of money coming in from the west.

I would put my left nut on the line and say that in many places in Europe and the USA, muslims are gathering and put together money, as much as they can, to support ISIS. I'm sure that Mosques are in it too. You think that this isn't a lot of money?
If every month, 500.000 people give 10Euros, that's 5mil euros a month. You think 500k is too much or that 10Euros is too much? I don't think so.

Hell, there is game called Star Citizen that had 10mil people crowdfunding it until today. Star Citizen made 54mil $ in about 18months. So... yeah, if a game can make it, you dont' think ideologically driven jihadi networks can't?
 
While many will chastise either President Bush or President Obama or both or other presidents too, but whatever they've decided previously is largely irrelevant now. We are at War. And personally, "degrading and destroying" ISIL is the right strategy. Their existence and actions require a military response, but not just a military response. A full-spectrum approach is necessary in dealing with ISIL, those who can and will be recruited into their ranks and ISIL's reaction to our actions. The hammer must be brought down.

I think we have to put their oil production out of commission too. ISIS is making 2 million a day selling oil. That should not be difficult from the air.
 
If done right, I'm for it. I just have no confidence that it will be done right because doing it right requires doing utter political suicide, we need to be willing to do things to ISIL that would never, ever, ever be acceptable. If we won't, then this problem will only continue to get worse. You can't reason with fanatics. You can't compromise with fanatics. The only thing you can do is kill fanatics. All of them.

We don't have the balls to do that.
 
The Fact is, We went into Iraq and destroyed the stable (albeit tyrannical) gov't that was in place. We created a void and it was filled by the exact people we have been trying to eliminate. We should have never gone into Iraq, but that ship has sailed. If we wan't to pretend to be nation builders then we need to finish the job. We never did, and now the Iraqi people are paying for that.

There wasn't any more we could do without just telling the Iraqis to go screw themselves and declaring it a colony. Which at this point, was probably the only way to salvage that mess. If anything the last ten years has shown us, it's that the Arabs can't be counted on to rule themselves without screwing things up.
 
There has been plenty of political discussion about "how" we take action against ISIL.
But I am curious how DP members would side on the issue if it was a choice between no action at all vs. action (of whatever type occurs.)

Personally I was completely against the Invasion of Iraq from day 1.
Yet I am very much for the annihilation of ISIL.
I am not sure if the beheading videos were meant to lure us into the fight or meant to scare us away.
Yet, even though I am aware that I am likely being manipulated to someone elses agenda... I do not even care.
I want blood. I want to see every ISIL member dead. If it was their goal to manipulate me... it worked.

I refuse to vote because the poll is too vague. Military action can range from military airstrikes (which are ineffective but what Obama is wanting to carry out) or ground troops (which would be effective in clearing out ISIS, but not something Obama seems willing to do).

Just keep them out of our country and out of our embassies. Which I suspect we can do without the military.

Anything that ISIL combatants do elsewhere should be handled by the governments who claim to control that territory.

How did that work with Afghanistan/Taliban/Al Qaeda and 9/11?

Which is why I do not watch the videos. We should stay the **** out of the middle east so I do not support military action against ISIL. If you are not on official government business and go these countries then you are ****ing moron. No black,gay,jewish person would go to a ku klux klan rally in the middle of the woods by themselves at night. No jew,cripple or some other person not liked by Nazis would have taken a trip to Nazi Germany. During the time of slavery in our country no free black person in the North would go on a vacation in Mississippi. But yet today we have morons who go to North Korea, we have former Muslim and christian morons who go to Islamo-fascist countries and morons who were kidnapped and later released going back to that same part of the world.

First off, your Nazi analogy is flawed because people did, and I'm sure he didn't regret it:



Second, if we're talking about the media, like it or not they play a vital role that often requires them to go into these hot spots to get the full story. And to Al Qaeda's credit, they at least will often do the interviews and not be butchers. At the very least, we now know what these people are capable of. We can't just stick our heads in the sand James and just pretend the world is great....
 
Last edited:
James your post makes me very curious.
I thought Conservatives were always for war and in any way they can get it.
Clearly this is not the case for you.

You are thinking of neocons.Most of these neocons are nothing more than war crazy RINOs. These **** sucking degenerate scum want war any way they can get it.Just look at John McCain for example. That piece of **** is trying to get us into another war every time he opens his mouth.The only thing that bothered him about president Obama is the fact we are not involved in a dozen or so conflicts.


I wonder... were you for or against the invasion and destruction of Iraq? And if against, were you against it from day 1 while also being a Republican?
For you is this merely an anti Obama thing or have your core principles changed over time?
If I was for war any way I can get it conservative then would it matter who the president is?
 
You are thinking of neocons.Most of these neocons are nothing more than war crazy RINOs. These **** sucking degenerate scum want war any way they can get it.Just look at John McCain for example. That piece of **** is trying to get us into another war every time he opens his mouth.The only thing that bothered him about president Obama is the fact we are not involved in a dozen or so conflicts.

John McCain has never seen a foreign policy issue he doesn't think we can just bomb our way out of. Yet the bobblehead shows consistently roll his exhumed corpse out there to tell us how Things Would Be if he had won in 2008. He's a bitter, bitter old man and the sooner he just goes the **** away, the better.
 
First off, your Nazi analogy is flawed because people did, and I'm sure he didn't regret it:



A tiny handful of people doesn't prove you right.

Second, if we're talking about the media, like it or not they play a vital role that often requires them to go into these hot spots to get the full story. And to Al Qaeda's credit, they at least will often do the interviews and not be butchers. At the very least, we now know what these people are capable of. We can't just stick our heads in the sand James and just pretend the world is great....

I know the world is not great.Which is why it is ****en idiotic for normal sane people not on government business to that part of the world. If these animals attack the American homeland I will be more than happy to want the president to do everything under the sun to send those animals to hell.
 
I know the world is not great.Which is why it is ****en idiotic for normal sane people not on government business to that part of the world. If these animals attack the American homeland I will be more than happy to want the president to do everything under the sun to send those animals to hell.

But if no one goes over there and at least tries to do an interview, then they never have an opportunity to tell their side of the story. Isn't history littered with examples of misunderstanding or out right lies about the opposing side that have lead to armed conflict, and for the wrong reasons? We need to know why these people are doing it, as that can only help us in deciding the right course of action. After all, perhaps had we paid attention to Bin Laden and what he saying being in the 1990's to reporters, there may still be two skyscrapers in NYC where only beams of light are now.
 
For... but I'm not under any illusions that the fight in Syria/Iraq has anything to do with ISIS or terrorism or radical islam.

It's about laying the groundwork to topple Assad and convert Syria back to the petrodollar.... which is very important for our well being.
 
For... but I'm not under any illusions that the fight in Syria/Iraq has anything to do with ISIS or terrorism or radical islam.

It's about laying the groundwork to topple Assad and convert Syria back to the petrodollar.... which is very important for our well being.

Right... so that whole Arab Spring thing was....
 
I am completely FOR military action, but only if that military is from the countries in that region of the world.

As in, I see no reason why the US Military should be involved in any way.

At least not until many more Islamic run/dominated countries get far more military skin in the game.
Let them spearhead the initiative.
 
Right... so that whole Arab Spring thing was....

These so called moderate Islamist the morons in office decided to arm and train oppose Assad. These terrorists called ISIL/ISIS also oppose Assad. So we expect these "moderates" to attack a group who shares their goal in overthrowing Assad?
 
I am completely FOR military action, but only if that military is from the countries in that region of the world.

As in, I see no reason why the US Military should be involved in any way.

At least not until many more Islamic run/dominated countries get far more military skin in the game.
Let them spearhead the initiative.

So what you're saying is that, ISIS isn't a threat to the US then right?

These so called moderate Islamist the morons in office decided to arm and train oppose Assad. These terrorists called ISIL/ISIS also oppose Assad. So we expect these "moderates" to attack a group who shares their goal in overthrowing Assad?

Wait what? I was responding to the other guy who was (if I have his MO right) implying that nothing in the ME happens without some CIA operation or whatever. What are you talking about?
 
But if no one goes over there and at least tries to do an interview, then they never have an opportunity to tell their side of the story. Isn't history littered with examples of misunderstanding or out right lies about the opposing side that have lead to armed conflict, and for the wrong reasons? We need to know why these people are doing it, as that can only help us in deciding the right course of action.

When you go to these countries you enter at your own risk.Many of those people don't give two ****s why reporters are there.Nor do they care if Americans know their side of the story.

After all, perhaps had we paid attention to Bin Laden and what he saying being in the 1990's to reporters, there may still be two skyscrapers in NYC where only beams of light are now.

If we had not interfered in the middle east Bin Laden would be just another unknown Arab.
 
So what you're saying is that, ISIS isn't a threat to the US then right?

At this point in time, that's basically correct.

Their homelands, and the "theater" they operate in are currently confined to areas within the ME.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of their victims have been of ME and/or Muslim decent.
 
Back
Top Bottom