• 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
Ahlevah said:
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!"
Click to expand...

That's a very partisan speech. Do try to make the next one something closer to objective. Have a nice weekend.
 
Helix said:
it doesn't matter how you decide to categorize it. it is a Middle Eastern holy war.
Click to expand...

Nothing holy about it.

i have no problem with a new WPA to rebuild our nation.
Click to expand...

I am not for make work jobs. We have too many civil service jobs already. I am in favor of making able bodied welfare recipients work for their benefits. It has been tried by some states at different times with great success. A workfare bill was actually passed during the Clinton administration. However Obama, Reid and Pelosi effective shredded it.

we should still end these wars.
Click to expand...

Yes....by winning them. Just pulling out the troops will send the wrong message.

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

Actually in Vietnam it could have. All it would have required was turning the US military and the south Vietnamese army loose and allowing them to win. Putting prime military targets off limits for the sake of peace talks that never produced anything until Nixon finally said "$%^& @#!" and started carpet bombing all prime north Vietnamese military targets and mined Haiphong Harbor is not the way to carry out a war.

i really don't care if a new technology is profitable initially. hence, public / private partnerships.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. It's not going to happen on a large scale until people can buy automobiles powered by hydrogen fuel cells at about the same price they pay for gasoline powered automobiles. That's the reality.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Nothing holy about it.
Click to expand...

they look at it that way, and have looked at it that way since 632. we have no role in this war.

ObamacareFail said:
I am not for make work jobs. We have too many civil service jobs already. I am in favor of making able bodied welfare recipients work for their benefits. It has been tried by some states at different times with great success. A workfare bill was actually passed during the Clinton administration. However Obama, Reid and Pelosi effective shredded it.
Click to expand...

a compromise position would be to look at what we need people to do, and then ensure that they have free access to higher education and job training. after they complete their education / training, guarantee them a job, public or private.

ObamacareFail said:
Yes....by winning them. Just pulling out the troops will send the wrong message.
Click to expand...

i don't believe that the Middle East can be stabilized through any amount of external military force.

ObamacareFail said:
Actually in Vietnam it could have. All it would have required was turning the US military and the south Vietnamese army loose and allowing them to win. Putting prime military targets off limits for the sake of peace talks that never produced anything until Nixon finally said "$%^& @#!" and started carpet bombing all prime north Vietnamese military targets and mined Haiphong Harbor is not the way to carry out a war.
Click to expand...

i don't believe that Vietnam could have been made into a democracy via external military force, either.

ObamacareFail said:
Doesn't matter. It's not going to happen on a large scale until people can buy automobiles powered by hydrogen fuel cells at about the same price they pay for gasoline powered automobiles. That's the reality.
Click to expand...

what i support is innovating several alternatives privately and publicly. in the interim, we need to massively upgrade our electrical grid. this is a good way to put people to work, too.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Ottoman Turks managed it for 500 years.
Click to expand...

and it didn't work.

so, in your opinion, we should occupy the Middle East for five hundred years? how much extra in taxes are you willing to pay to fund that occupation? also, what does that look like?
 
Helix said:
and it didn't work.

so, in your opinion, we should occupy the Middle East for five hundred years? how much extra in taxes are you willing to pay to fund that occupation? also, what does that look like?
Click to expand...

I was merely replying to your erroneous assertion the the Middle East cannot be pacified by external force by pointing out that it has been done before. It worked very well for 500 years. I have little interest in the discussion beyond seeing to it that factual accuracy is respected.
 
Helix said:
they look at it that way, and have looked at it that way since 632. we have no role in this war.
Click to expand...

I don't really care how they look at it. There is nothing holy about ISIS or terrorism.

a compromise position would be to look at what we need people to do, and then ensure that they have free access to higher education and job training. after they complete their education / training, guarantee them a job, public or private.
Click to expand...

There are no guarantees. Some of it has to be a persons own initiative.

i don't believe that the Middle East can be stabilized through any amount of external military force.
Click to expand...

Not external force alone, but external force is sometimes necessary. Kuwait seems to be doing fine.

i don't believe that Vietnam could have been made into a democracy via external military force, either.
Click to expand...

We left them on their own and they ended up under communism. We stopped supporting them militarily and financially. The Soviets continued military and financial support to the north Vietnamese. Imagine if we had left Europe on it's own to deal with Hitler.

what i support is innovating several alternatives privately and publicly. in the interim, we need to massively upgrade our electrical grid. this is a good way to put people to work, too.
Click to expand...

We are in agreement on the electrical grid.
 
ObamacareFail said:
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.
Click to expand...

My reference was to the abstract 'you,' not you specifically, Mr. Fail.
 
Jack Hays said:
I was merely replying to your erroneous assertion the the Middle East cannot be pacified by external force by pointing out that it has been done before. It worked very well for 500 years. I have little interest in the discussion beyond seeing to it that factual accuracy is respected.
Click to expand...

The Ottomans were right next door and had hugely better technology. Neither advantage applies today.

And remember what Bismarck said: "You can do anything with a bayonet but sit on it."
 
DifferentDrummr said:
My reference was to the abstract 'you,' not you specifically, Mr. Fail.
Click to expand...

My point holds. The term "chickenhawk" is small minded and immature....not to mention unrealistic. Or do you expect for instance in my case...a 60 year old with arthritis to run down to the recruiters office and demand to be sent to battle?
 
Jack Hays said:
The Ottoman Turks managed it for 500 years.
Click to expand...
Obviously the context is a non-Muslim foreign military. The Ottomans were Muslims reigning over primarily Muslim territories.
 
ObamacareFail said:
My point holds. The term "chickenhawk" is small minded and immature....not to mention unrealistic. Or do you expect for instance in my case...a 60 year old with arthritis to run down to the recruiters office and demand to be sent to battle?
Click to expand...

I'm going to put this as simply as I can.

John Doe is an American citizen. The US is considering military action. Should John support this action?

If John Doe is willing, in his heart of hearts, to travel over to the action (with or without the military), fight the enemy, and sacrifice his own life, then yes: John should support the cause. If John doesn't feel this way, the only genuine thing left for him to do is oppose the cause.

However, if John is happy to let a bunch of teenage boys get killed and maimed in country, during which time John stays home chanting "USA! USA!" while driving his SUV and eating pork rinds, then guess what: John is a chickenhawk for "supporting" the war.

P.S.: Someone whose handle is "obamacarefail" calling any other label "small minded and immature" gives that pot/kettle thing a whole new lease on life.
 
Jack Hays said:
I was merely replying to your erroneous assertion the the Middle East cannot be pacified by external force by pointing out that it has been done before. It worked very well for 500 years. I have little interest in the discussion beyond seeing to it that factual accuracy is respected.
Click to expand...

it was not erroneous. the Middle East cannot be stabilized by external military force. and most of the neoconservatives who see to think it can are not willing to pay more in taxes to fund the endless state of war, so the argument is pointless anyway.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
I'm going to put this as simply as I can.

John Doe is an American citizen. The US is considering military action. Should John support this action?

If John Doe is willing, in his heart of hearts, to travel over to the action (with or without the military), fight the enemy, and sacrifice his own life, then yes: John should support the cause. If John doesn't feel this way, the only genuine thing left for him to do is oppose the cause.

However, if John is happy to let a bunch of teenage boys get killed and maimed in country, during which time John stays home chanting "USA! USA!" while driving his SUV and eating pork rinds, then guess what: John is a chickenhawk for "supporting" the war..
Click to expand...

And what if John is handicapped or past the age of enlistment? To put it as lightly as I can, your suggestion that one cannot morally support a military action unless he/she is willing to put on a uniform and go join in the fighting impractical, small minded, and unrealistic. And using your logic, your buddy, Obama is a chickenhawk.

P.S.: Someone whose handle is "obamacarefail" calling any other label "small minded and immature" gives that pot/kettle thing a whole new lease on life.
Click to expand...

My handle is an expression of how most Americans see Obamacare. You will get over it.
 
Helix said:
it was not erroneous. the Middle East cannot be stabilized by external military force. and most of the neoconservatives who see to think it can are not willing to pay more in taxes to fund the endless state of war, so the argument is pointless anyway.
Click to expand...

Feel free to pay extra taxes if you like.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I don't really care how they look at it. There is nothing holy about ISIS or terrorism.
Click to expand...

it is a conflict between Sunni and Shia which has been going on for more than a thousand years. there is no role for the US in this holy war.

ObamacareFail said:
There are no guarantees. Some of it has to be a persons own initiative.
Click to expand...

ah, the bootstraps argument. i have no interest in this argument, as it is too simplistic to solve our current employment problems.

ObamacareFail said:
Not external force alone, but external force is sometimes necessary. Kuwait seems to be doing fine.
Click to expand...

this decade it is. there are areas of stability in the Middle East. they should address the areas of instability in the region.

ObamacareFail said:
We left them on their own and they ended up under communism. We stopped supporting them militarily and financially. The Soviets continued military and financial support to the north Vietnamese. Imagine if we had left Europe on it's own to deal with Hitler.
Click to expand...

as i've previously explained, the current Middle East is not analogous to twentieth century Europe. I will not explain this again the next time you Godwin.

ObamacareFail said:
We are in agreement on the electrical grid.
Click to expand...

i like that we have some points of agreement even though we are diametrically opposed on the central point. at least we can agree on part of it.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
The Ottomans were right next door and had hugely better technology. Neither advantage applies today.

And remember what Bismarck said: "You can do anything with a bayonet but sit on it."
Click to expand...

The bayonet quote is from Metternich. Our technology is hugely better than that of anyone else in the ME except the Israelis.
 
Helix said:
it was not erroneous. the Middle East cannot be stabilized by external military force. and most of the neoconservatives who see to think it can are not willing to pay more in taxes to fund the endless state of war, so the argument is pointless anyway.
Click to expand...

Of course it was erroneous. The Turks did what you said could not be done. As for taxes, I agree that failure to raise taxes was GWB's worst mistake. I would support a tax increase today.
 
Jack Hays said:
Of course it was erroneous. The Turks did what you said could not be done. As for taxes, I agree that failure to raise taxes was GWB's worst mistake. I would support a tax increase today.
Click to expand...

it failed, as empires tend to do.
 
ObamacareFail said:
And what if John is handicapped or past the age of enlistment? To put it as lightly as I can, your suggestion that one cannot morally support a military action unless he/she is willing to put on a uniform and go join in the fighting impractical, small minded, and unrealistic.
Click to expand...
Clearly you missed the part about "with or without the military."

Whether Joe is disabled or too old to enlist isn't the point, either. The only thing that matters is whether Joe is willing to fight regardless of his physical condition. If he believes in the worthiness of the action, he should be. Simple as that.

And using your logic, your buddy, Obama is a chickenhawk.
Click to expand...
He may or may not be. Since I'm not his "buddy," he doesn't let me in on his deepest thoughts and feelings.

My handle is an expression of how most Americans see Obamacare. You will get over it.
Click to expand...
Again, not the point. The point was the underlying hypocrisy on your part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom