• 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!

How Do We End The War on Terror?

What Should We Do To End The Terror War?

  • The West is doing the right thing.

    Votes: 4 7.5%
  • We need more WAAAUGH! We need to bomb more! Boots on the ground!

    Votes: 6 11.3%
  • The West needs to change their foreign policy. Stop meddling in other countries.

    Votes: 30 56.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 13 24.5%

  • Total voters
    53
responding to that:

1) How do you plan on doing that. It is impossible to distinguish a peaceful Muslim and a Terrorist

and

2) Even if we are able to wipe out all of ISIS, there are other groups. New ones pop up. Perpetual war.

Destroy all terrorist organizations wherever they pop up. Set up a coalition if you like, in the ME of roughly a 100,000 forces that will attack when need be. By the way this would be a permanent base payed for by Arab oil. Cut of all aid to Muslim controlled countries who have been found to fund ANY of these groups. Grind them into bits for a year or two then see where we stand? The problem is that the country's that fund these murdering bastards dont take us serious, and by us I mean the west. Let's play some serious hardball for a couple years instead of doing things like " we will not be putting boots on the ground" or telling your enemy when you're pulling out because no country does that and also wins a war. It's going to get ugly so hit it hard and take no prisoner's.
 
It is only naivete that allows you to believe that ... but then, it's all our fault, right?

It is. There was never in history a terrorist bombing in Iraq before the US invasion. This is not the only instance of this. The United States and its allies destabilized the middle east by drawing lines where they pleased, using the area for proxy wars, and propping up leaders that would play favorably to our interests. Now this is the results.
 
Destroy all terrorist organizations wherever they pop up. Set up a coalition if you like, in the ME of roughly a 100,000 forces that will attack when need be. By the way this would be a permanent base payed for by Arab oil. Cut of all aid to Muslim controlled countries who have been found to fund ANY of these groups. Grind them into bits for a year or two then see where we stand? The problem is that the country's that fund these murdering bastards dont take us serious, and by us I mean the west. Let's play some serious hardball for a couple years instead of doing things like " we will not be putting boots on the ground" or telling your enemy when you're pulling out because no country does that and also wins a war. It's going to get ugly so hit it hard and take no prisoner's.

That is an unrealistic plan. We have been in the area for 13 years plus fighting terrorism, yet they are stronger now then when we began. It is not for a lack of effort, time, money, lives, and resources that we are not able to wipe them out, it is because of flawed foreign policy.
 
It is. There was never in history a terrorist bombing in Iraq before the US invasion. This is not the only instance of this. The United States and its allies destabilized the middle east by drawing lines where they pleased, using the area for proxy wars, and propping up leaders that would play favorably to our interests. Now this is the results.

That is absolute nonsense ... depends on your definition of terrorist (or insurgent, if you will) ... your comment carries no historical context ...

But, then, that's no surprise.
 
That is an unrealistic plan. We have been in the area for 13 years plus fighting terrorism, yet they are stronger now then when we began. It is not for a lack of effort, time, money, lives, and resources that we are not able to wipe them out, it is because of flawed foreign policy.

I suppose this is where you tell me that Iraq hadn't been pacified under Bush ... and that Obama arbitrary refusal to negotiate a new SOFA didn't cause us to pull out ... and the ensuing vacuum didn't give the opportunity for the terrorist groups to recover.

Go ahead ... tell us.
 
Destroy all terrorist organizations wherever they pop up. Set up a coalition if you like, in the ME of roughly a 100,000 forces that will attack when need be. By the way this would be a permanent base payed for by Arab oil. Cut of all aid to Muslim controlled countries who have been found to fund ANY of these groups. Grind them into bits for a year or two then see where we stand? The problem is that the country's that fund these murdering bastards dont take us serious, and by us I mean the west. Let's play some serious hardball for a couple years instead of doing things like " we will not be putting boots on the ground" or telling your enemy when you're pulling out because no country does that and also wins a war. It's going to get ugly so hit it hard and take no prisoner's.

Exactly. They think we have no resolve (and the left sure does not, they surrender like they are French) but letting them know we are there until the trouble is over sends a very different message.
 
That is an unrealistic plan. We have been in the area for 13 years plus fighting terrorism, yet they are stronger now then when we began. It is not for a lack of effort, time, money, lives, and resources that we are not able to wipe them out, it is because of flawed foreign policy.

Sorry but Obama pulling out leaving a nation for the taking is NOT putting in the effort-and he did it all for votes.
 
Did you agree with Malliki that our soldiers had to be subject to Sharia law?
How did you like the cozy relationship Maliki had with Iran, while he pushed Sunnis into the ISIL camp ?
Sorry but Obama pulling out leaving a nation for the taking is NOT putting in the effort.
 
Those suggestions will work fine until there is another 9/11 on the homeland. At this point he strategy is containment, fighting proxy wars and tying up the enemies resources as far away from shore as possible. And it's worked for 13 years.

The only way to end the threat once for all, is to take a step that many aren't prepared to do, and that is to recolonize the middle east, fix the countries under our authority (not give it to them to mess things up and hand over to radicals). That's not something we're ready to do, nor do I think the threat warrants it. Though I do think that at some point in the future (possibly near), it will be something will have consider when a mushroom cloud forms over a major western city. Like I said though, for now, containment works.

There's a few people in Boston and London and Mumbai who would disagree. And numerous others. Nothing is contained.
As for 'recolonizing', that's what got you into this mess in the first place. Unless you think the 9-11 attacks were because 'they hate you because of your freedom'.
 
-and he did it all for votes.
The coward that does it for votes is Boehner.
Only the Speaker can call both chambers to a special session--as he follows the VP in succession.
Think Boehner is afraid of what his TEAloons might say ?
 
Did you agree with Malliki that our soldiers had to be subject to Sharia law?
How did you like the cozy relationship Maliki had with Iran, while he pushed Sunnis into the ISIL camp ?

Obama did not pull out because of sharia law, he pulled out because he insisted at the last minute that the Iraqi govt jump through hoops for him that they weren't willing to do-Obama KNEW this and pulled out anyway.

As for Maliki and Iran-Obama had 6 years to address this and did nothing. Obama lost the peace for votes in an election season.
 
Obama did not pull out because of sharia law, he pulled out because he insisted at the last minute that the Iraqi govt jump through hoops for him that they weren't willing to do-Obama KNEW this and pulled out anyway.

As for Maliki and Iran-Obama had 6 years to address this and did nothing. Obama lost the peace for votes in an election season.

What a steaming heap of lies. You have absolutely no shame.
 
Obama's actions have worsened the war on terror. Truth so pure.

In some ways, you may be right. In the ways you think you're right, you're wrong. You just heap lies on top of lies.

Keep on shillin'.
 
I may be the odd man out with my view..

If you look at history a large part of our meddling was a result of being caught with our pants down in regards to Germany and Japan during WWII. Our country shifted its position after the war from a largely isolated nation to being proactive in world affairs. Our leaders swore at the time to never let another world war sneak up on us and we were frankly very concerned and afraid of Stalin and his expansion of communism which we viewed as our next great threat. Unfortunately I believe our government has taken it well beyond simply staying informed about other nations to a mind set of "We must control the worlds governments from the shadows before our enemies do". In my opinion this has had decades of negative consequences for many people around the world and rightly some are sick of us budding into their affairs.

What would my solution be? I would become much more of an isolated country like we were prior to WWII and never ever interfere with anyone else on any level. I would however use the CIA as (imo) it was meant to be used and that is intelligence gathering only. I see no reason not to know what is going on in the world or finding potential threats that plan to invade US territory, however that is far different than meddling in the business of other countries. None of this national (corporate imo) interests abroad being used as an excuse to carry out military campaigns or government meddling in foreign countries. I would recall our military that is stationed abroad and use those resources to shore up our borders. Whatever happens 1 inch outside our borders is not our place to interfere with and I would not. I think in the long run our citizen would actually be under less threat by us taking a neutral role around the world.
 
I may be the odd man out with my view..

If you look at history a large part of our meddling was a result of being caught with our pants down in regards to Germany and Japan during WWII. Our country shifted its position after the war from a largely isolated nation to being proactive in world affairs. Our leaders swore at the time to never let another world war sneak up on us and we were frankly very concerned and afraid of Stalin and his expansion of communism which we viewed as our next great threat. Unfortunately I believe our government has taken it well beyond simply staying informed about other nations to a mind set of "We must control the worlds governments from the shadows before our enemies do". In my opinion this has had decades of negative consequences for many people around the world and rightly some are sick of us budding into their affairs.

What would my solution be? I would become much more of an isolated country like we were prior to WWII and never ever interfere with anyone else on any level. I would however use the CIA as (imo) it was meant to be used and that is intelligence gathering only. I see no reason not to know what is going on in the world or finding potential threats that plan to invade US territory, however that is far different than meddling in the business of other countries. None of this national (corporate imo) interests abroad being used as an excuse to carry out military campaigns or government meddling in foreign countries. I would recall our military that is stationed abroad and use those resources to shore up our borders. Whatever happens 1 inch outside our borders is not our place to interfere with and I would not. I think in the long run our citizen would actually be under less threat by us taking a neutral role around the world.

Lets say we do as you suggest, and leave everyone alone (as the worlds sole superpower). What happens when everyone else wont leave US alone? What then?
 
Lets say we do as you suggest, and leave everyone alone (as the worlds sole superpower). What happens when everyone else wont leave US alone? What then?

I do not believe we need to remain a superpower. We could scale our military back a large amount. In my view the only reason we maintain superpower status is so that we have the ability to meddle and police the world. To answer your question I would do just as we would do now. If you attack US soil we are going to take you out even if that mean dropping a nuke on your head. I believe that given enough time after we have stopped screwing with everyone that people would be less apt to have quarrel with us.
 
There is nothing you can do. It's deep-rooted in them that all non-believers should be killed.
 
I do not believe we need to remain a superpower. We could scale our military back a large amount. In my view the only reason we maintain superpower status is so that we have the ability to meddle and police the world. To answer your question I would do just as we would do now. If you attack US soil we are going to take you out even if that mean dropping a nuke on your head. I believe that given enough time after we have stopped screwing with everyone that people would be less apt to have quarrel with us.

I wasn't asking about if you feel we should remain a superpower although its interesting that you are eager to surrender that status. We still de facto have that status and it wont change if we try isolationism. We dont live in a vacuum and frankly I dont know that we could if we wanted to.
 
There is nothing you can do. It's deep-rooted in them that all non-believers should be killed.

I find it a bit shortsighted for some to presume that these ISIS animals dont have their own reason for doing things, besides hating the US.
They are beheading their fellow countrymen, they would do the same to us if they could and have said as much (in addition to attacking us).

Theres only one way to deal with that, and its not pretty. Still true though.
 
Obama's policies have demonstrably failed, Kobie. He's bad for America. Theres no need to make excuses.

I never said he was "good" for America; however, I believe our reasons differ as far as his impact.

But please, keep trying to ram your idiotic talking points down my throat. See how far that gets you.

Your marching orders are obvious.
 
Its been 13 years since 9/11 and yet it seems there are now more terrorists than ever before. Can this war be won? What are your thoughts on this? Are the governments of the West doing the right things or are they making the situation worse?

As for me, I dont want to see another American solider or civilian killed in a pointless war with no end. The West needs to stop minding the business of other countries. No more overseas military bases or occupation- if these Islamists want to live according to their religion then I say let them do it. These very governments like Saudi Arabia, who we are fighting with to maintain their status quo over there are the very people who bankroll these terrorists. The US has got the largest shale oil deposits in the world- more than the entire middle east combined, why not spend billions in developing these fields and get oil form then instead of letting the Arabs do it and paying them for it?

Encouraging poll results so far!!
 
Back
Top Bottom