• 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 still feel the same now about our middle east involvement...

Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement


  • Total voters
    54
I don't totally agree with that. Europe started two world wars in the 20th century. And the Bosnia conflict was not all that long ago. And the present uprising of fanatical islam is relatively recent.

the US has no role in a Middle Eastern holy war.


They should and hopefully they will. However at this point they cannot get it done without our help. At this pong we are the only force preventing a holocaust.

I ultimately support whatever it takes to end the threat that will eventually end up on our shores as it did on 9/11/01.

what if it takes significantly higher taxes?

You will just have to keep an air sickness bad handy for now. In the long run I believe Assad is going down. The uprising had a reason.

and now he's some sick version of an ally. i will not support helping him in any way. **** that asshole.

How do you know that. Do you have a military background?

i can see that Vietnamization didn't work in Vietnam or Iraq, and it's not working in Afghanistan. it won't work in Syria.

Perhaps, however it is not quite that simple. Most terrorism including with ISIS is financed by oil profits. That is why the present strategy might work in Syria as we are bombing their portable refineries...of which they are making profits of 2 million dollars a day on the black market. Cull their operating funds and you limit their capabilities. Part of the problem longterm is our addiction to Mideast oil. If the environmentalists in the US would get off our backs...the US could completely wean itself from Mideast oil and stop financing terrorism.

we need to work towards replacing oil as a transportation fuel. this would actually have a positive effect, as oil is fungible, and the terrorist groups use oil as a source of funds.
 
Age is irrelevant to me. Popular definitions aside, I consider anyone a chickenhawk who is unwilling to pick up a weapon, travel overseas, and fight personally.

The ole "If you don't beat down the recruiters door and demand to be sent to war, your a chickenhawk" slogan is a tired leftwing rant dating back to the 1991 war in Iraq. It is small minded.
 
the US has no role in a Middle Eastern holy war.

It's not a holy war. There is nothing holy about Islamic fanatical terrorism.

what if it takes significantly higher taxes?

Then cut spending elsewhere. I can make many suggestions.

and now he's some sick version of an ally. i will not support helping him in any way. **** that asshole.

I don't like him either. I would be delighted if an errant missile took him out.

i can see that Vietnamization didn't work in Vietnam or Iraq, and it's not working in Afghanistan. it won't work in Syria.

The bad guys in Vietnam were not financed by oil. They were supported by the Soviets. The only thing similar to todays conflicts is how we are putting limitations on rules of engagement. In Vietnam winning the war outright would have simply required cutting off their supply routes.

we need to work towards replacing oil as a transportation fuel. this would actually have a positive effect, as oil is fungible, and the terrorist groups use oil as a source of funds.

Agreed. However it's not going to happen overnight. In the meantime we need to pump our own oil. We actually have estimated reserves larger then Saudi Arabia. I do believe the children growing up now will live to see us get completely off the oil pig.
 
Let's send the homeless and the hungry. This will kill two birds with a single stone.

because of this comment, our conversation has concluded.
 
George Bush claimed that they were on the run and not a problem anymore in May of 2003 already, long before most people even knew who Barack Obama was. But, Al Qaeda went on to kill another 4,000 US soldiers. In fact, George Bush never did destroy Al Qaeda, they are still alive and well. What a partisan empty shirt.

Bush, May 5, 2003: Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they’re not a problem anymore.

George Bush did nothing of the sort, but there is no lack of dishonesty in the spin of those who refuse to report honestly but would rather spread flat out lies to the willing and gullible who continue to spread them.

Maureen Dowd in her syndicated May 14, 2003 column, was the one to spin that so dishonestly, and despite the fact that Andrew Sullivan and others thoroughly discredited the lie, the blindly partisan will just keep repeating it anyway.

What Dowd said was this:

Busy chasing off Saddam, the president and vice president had told us that Al Qaeda was spent. "Al Qaeda is on the run," President Bush said last week. "That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated... They're not a problem anymore."


What Bush actually said that you quoted accurately but interpreted as Dowd did was this:

Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top Al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they're not a problem anymore.

Obviously Bush was saying that those who had been jailed or killed were not a problem any more. He never, at any time, ever said that al Qaida is not a problem any more.

One wonders how we will ever achieve the common goal and purpose as a people to fight terrorism or for any other purpose when the politics of personal destruction are constantly placed ahead of everything else?
 
Last edited:
It's not a holy war. There is nothing holy about Islamic fanatical terrorism.

Iraq's Baghdadi calls for 'holy war' - Middle East - Al Jazeera English


Then cut spending elsewhere. I can make many suggestions.

i won't support cutting social programs to fund endless war. it is also apparent that even though you believe it's vitally important for us to engage in this war, you personally are not willing to pay more taxes to fund it. this is similar to conservatives who feel that it is utterly vital to address the deficit, but only through one sided austerity. i don't believe them, either.

I don't like him either. I would be delighted if an errant missile took him out.

he's a ****head of the highest order.

The bad guys in Vietnam were not financed by oil. They were supported by the Soviets. The only thing similar to todays conflicts is how we are putting limitations on rules of engagement. In Vietnam winning the war outright would have simply required cutting off their supply routes.

Vietnamization had nothing to do with oil. it was the training of South Vietnamese to fight the communists as we exited the war. we've tried this strategy several times since then, and this is our current strategy. it does not work.

Agreed. However it's not going to happen overnight. In the meantime we need to pump our own oil. We actually have estimated reserves larger then Saudi Arabia. I do believe the children growing up now will live to see us get completely off the oil pig.

i would compromise on this one. pump all of the oil you want as long as we have a public / private moonshot to replace oil as a transportation fuel in 20 to 30 years. first step : massively expand the electrical grid so that we can use electric as a transition. cut all red tape, and build a lot of nuclear (preferably thorium) and renewable power plants. oil is a finite resource, and i don't want my kids embroiled in a war over diminishing reserves.
 

Baghdadi is the leader of a fanatical Islamic terrorist group. His calling it a holy war does not make it a holy war.

i won't support cutting social programs to fund endless war. it is also apparent that even though you believe it's vitally important for us to engage in this war, you personally are not willing to pay more taxes to fund it. this is similar to conservatives who feel that it is utterly vital to address the deficit, but only through one sided austerity. i don't believe them, either.

If we do not get the entitlement state under control at some point, we going to end up like Greece. And there is nobody big enough to bail us out as Europe did Greece.You don't think there is any waste in entitlement spending?



he's a ****head of the highest order.

Agreed.

Vietnamization had nothing to do with oil. it was the training of South Vietnamese to fight the communists as we exited the war. we've tried this strategy several times since then, and this is our current strategy. it does not work.

Actually it did work in Vietnam. The South Vietnamese fought very well. Vietnam failed because we spent too much time limiting rules of engagement and making prime military targets off limits for the sake of morons at the Paris Peace talks arguing over whether they would have Caviar or Lobster Thermadore at lunch. The South Vietnamese could not hold it together after we left because the US congress stopped funding them.

i would compromise on this one. pump all of the oil you want as long as we have a public / private moonshot to replace oil as a transportation fuel in 20 to 30 years.

I agree with that. We do need to get off the oil pig and we can.

first step : massively expand the electrical grid so that we can use electric as a transition. cut all red tape, and build a lot of nuclear (preferably thorium) and renewable power plants. oil is a finite resources, and i don't want my kids embroiled in a war over diminishing reserves.

We will have to expand the electrical grid anyway. We have not built a new plant in decades. However in all likelihood the clean fuel that gets us off of oil will most likely be hydrogen fuel replacing gasoline. The technology already exists...it's just not yet cheap enough to mass produce the automobiles that run on it.

Shell offers free fill-ups for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles - Los Angeles Times
 
The ole "If you don't beat down the recruiters door and demand to be sent to war, your a chickenhawk" slogan is a tired leftwing rant dating back to the 1991 war in Iraq. It is small minded.

It dates back to the War of 1812, and it's true. If you want to send Americans into harm's way without being willing to go yourself, you disgust me.
 
Baghdadi is the leader of a fanatical Islamic terrorist group. His calling it a holy war does not make it a holy war.

you're really unaware of the sectarian conflict in the Middle East and how it is relevant?

Shia

If we do not get the entitlement state under control at some point, we going to end up like Greece. And there is nobody big enough to bail us out as Europe did Greece.You don't think there is any waste in entitlement spending?

i think that we should be hiring people to work. currently, there is an excess of labor due to our progression into a global / post labor economy. i would put them to work building domestic infrastructure, innovating new solutions to the energy problem, and ensure that they have access to higher education regardless of ability to pay. i would do so with tax dollars; some from new revenue streams, and others from rethinking our foreign policy.

Actually it did work in Vietnam. The South Vietnamese fought very well. Vietnam failed because we spent too much time limiting rules of engagement and making prime military targets off limits for the sake of morons at the Paris Peace talks arguing over whether they would have Caviar or Lobster Thermadore at lunch. The South Vietnamese could not hold it together after we left because the US congress stopped funding them.

it didn't work. almost the entirety of southeast Asia fell to communism. pressure for regional change has to come from inside the region.

I agree with that. We do need to get off the oil pig and we can.

we agree on this point.


We will have to expand the electrical grid anyway. We have not built a new plant in decades. However in all likelihood the clean fuel that gets us off of oil will most likely be hydrogen fuel replacing gasoline. The technology already exists...it's just not yet cheap enough to mass produce the automobiles that run on it.

Shell offers free fill-ups for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles - Los Angeles Times

i'm definitely interested in this and other non-oil technologies. i just don't want to wait for it to be profitable to innovate them. my position is to let the research be funded publicly and to let the market pick the winner. i'm also ok with new power plants being public / private partnerships. the government needs to cut a lot of red tape so that we can start building them.
 
Surges worked in both Afghanistan and Iraq. By 2008 Iraq was a victory that BHO has since thrown away. That and his hesitation in Syria gave rise to ISIS.

If by "work" you mean the surges destroyed the Taliban and the core of al-Qaeda in Iraq you're wrong. Mullah Omar is still very much alive, along the the Afghan Taliban, who just fled to Pakistan where they enjoy safe haven today and are just waiting for us to exit the country and are killing an increasing number of Afghan troops. All the surge in Iraq did was drive Sunni militants across the border into Syria; ISIS gained its core from Ansar-al-Islam and al-Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS' so-called caliph is Iraqi. Many of the organization's best fighters are veterans of the U.S. surge. Now they're back--bigger and badder than ever.
 
If by "work" you mean the surges destroyed the Taliban and the core of al-Qaeda in Iraq you're wrong. Mullah Omar is still very much alive, along the the Afghan Taliban, who just fled to Pakistan where they enjoy safe haven today and are just waiting for us to exit the country and are killing an increasing number of Afghan troops. All the surge in Iraq did was drive Sunni militants across the border into Syria; ISIS gained its core from Ansar-al-Islam and al-Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS' so-called caliph is Iraqi. Many of the organization's best fighters are veterans of the U.S. surge. Now they're back--bigger and badder than ever.

You are correct that safe havens in both Pakistan and Syria helped diminished remnant units to survive. Nonetheless both surges achieved their objectives.
 
You are correct that safe havens in both Pakistan and Syria helped diminished remnant units to survive. Nonetheless both surges achieved their objectives.

To me an objective is not allowing these Islamists to run across the border to a safe haven until the coast is clear. An example of an objective would be completely destroying Japan's ability to wage war by packing B-29s with incendiaries and then lighting up the entire country. When that doesn't work, start dropping nukes, and then don't worry about the morality of it.
 
To me an objective is not allowing these Islamists to run across the border to a safe haven until the coast is clear. An example of an objective would be completely destroying Japan's ability to wage war by packing B-29s with incendiaries and then lighting up the entire country. When that doesn't work, start dropping nukes, and then don't worry about the morality of it.

Thank you for your military insight.
 
Thank you for your military insight.

It's really not complicated. To paraphrase Curtis LeMay, you just keep killing them until they run out of people.
 
It dates back to the War of 1812, and it's true. If you want to send Americans into harm's way without being willing to go yourself, you disgust me.

I disgust you? Do grow up. I served in the military and was willing to go anywhere they sent me. It is asinine to suggest that one cannot morally support a military action without expressing a willingness to suit up and join the fight. Does that include the handicapped and elderly? Would you like to send your grandma and grandpa to war? How about a pregnant sister. Everyone is entitled to have whatever opinion they choose regarding war. Chickenhawk is a very childish term used by liberals who cannot make their points intellectually.
 
you're really unaware of the sectarian conflict in the Middle East and how it is relevant?

Shia

I am aware...however I still do not consider it a holy war. I consider it a war against terrorism.

i think that we should be hiring people to work. currently, there is an excess of labor due to our progression into a global / post labor economy. i would put them to work building domestic infrastructure, innovating new solutions to the energy problem, and ensure that they have access to higher education regardless of ability to pay. i would do so with tax dollars; some from new revenue streams, and others from rethinking our foreign policy.

I would simply make able bodied welfare recipients work for their entitlement benefits. It does not matter what kind of work they do. The benefit is that they would decide that if they have to work anyway, they will seek a better paying job. Not every welfare recipient is there because he/she cannot find a job. Some families have been on welfare entitlements/food stamps for as many as four generations.

it didn't work. almost the entirety of southeast Asia fell to communism. pressure for regional change has to come from inside the region.

What did not work was the US Congress leaving them on their own before they were ready.


i'm definitely interested in this and other non-oil technologies. i just don't want to wait for it to be profitable to innovate them. my position is to let the research be funded publicly and to let the market pick the winner. i'm also ok with new power plants being public / private partnerships. the government needs to cut a lot of red tape so that we can start building them.

You have no choice on the wait. The hydrogen fuel cell technology is developed. There are hydrogen powered cars on the road now.....in very small numbers. They will not replace gasoline powered cars until they are cheap enough for the average driver to own them. I agree with government cutting red tape....however red tape in not the biggest issue. Affordability is.
 
If by "work" you mean the surges destroyed the Taliban and the core of al-Qaeda in Iraq you're wrong. Mullah Omar is still very much alive, along the the Afghan Taliban, who just fled to Pakistan where they enjoy safe haven today and are just waiting for us to exit the country and are killing an increasing number of Afghan troops. All the surge in Iraq did was drive Sunni militants across the border into Syria; ISIS gained its core from Ansar-al-Islam and al-Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS' so-called caliph is Iraqi. Many of the organization's best fighters are veterans of the U.S. surge. Now they're back--bigger and badder than ever.

The surge is in fact working in Afghanistan according to the commanders on the battlefield. However in the long run it may not make any difference as the idiot in the white has already telegraphed his punches, loudly declaring when the US troops will pull out.
 
Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement, given the recent events with ISIS and current status of Afghanistan, that you did before?

Think back to your opinion when Bush II first invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Think back to when Obama withdrew from Iraq. Think about the current alleged wind down in Afghanistan. Doesn't really matter what your opinion was, just ask yourself if you feel the same now as you did then. And why do you feel the same or differently.

Please elaborate.


I did not approve before and I do not approve now. This is about money and big energy, the subliminal agendas of the CIA and Federal Reserve, and any War is a "TARP" for the MIC. It's a larger industry than the Auto Industry, so you know it is an agenda item, even if it is never discussed as such. National Defense, my ass. National Offense is the game plan militarily and economically.
"War is good busines, and business is good."
That's the true Washington mantra. If you don't have an enemy, create one. The CIA will help. All they need is money and weapons, don't ya' know? I don't support that agenda, and I don't remember seeing it on any ballots at election locations.
 
The surge is in fact working in Afghanistan according to the commanders on the battlefield. However in the long run it may not make any difference as the idiot in the white has already telegraphed his punches, loudly declaring when the US troops will pull out.

The U.S. has been in Afghanistan almost eleven years. It supported a corrupt government in one of the most corrupt countries on the planet and an ill-equipped, inept army of illiterates. It sent in large numbers of conventional troops tasked to win hearts and minds along a frontier in which its relentless, determined adversary was able to blend into the local populace and in which it had safe haven in a neighboring country. This sounds ever so familiar but, sadly, was never a recipe for success. Now we have to suffer the blathering of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and the military talking heads on Fox who were notably AWOL for years on Afghanistan once we'd departed to greener pastures in Iraq so that we could declare "Mission accomplished!"
 
Last edited:
I am aware...however I still do not consider it a holy war. I consider it a war against terrorism.

it doesn't matter how you decide to categorize it. it is a Middle Eastern holy war.

I would simply make able bodied welfare recipients work for their entitlement benefits. It does not matter what kind of work they do. The benefit is that they would decide that if they have to work anyway, they will seek a better paying job. Not every welfare recipient is there because he/she cannot find a job. Some families have been on welfare entitlements/food stamps for as many as four generations.

i have no problem with a new WPA to rebuild our nation. we should still end these wars.

What did not work was the US Congress leaving them on their own before they were ready.

what happened is that communism could not be prevented through external military force.

You have no choice on the wait. The hydrogen fuel cell technology is developed. There are hydrogen powered cars on the road now.....in very small numbers. They will not replace gasoline powered cars until they are cheap enough for the average driver to own them. I agree with government cutting red tape....however red tape in not the biggest issue. Affordability is.

i really don't care if a new technology is profitable initially. hence, public / private partnerships.
 
As long as we're in the realm of stupidity, why not send the Ebola patients from Africa, too?
Are we paying them massive amounts of welfare too? The hungry and homeless are on the federal payroll (dole in former terms). It is time we got our money's worth.
 
Back
Top Bottom