• 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!

Has terrorism flourished under Obama?

Has terrorism flourished under Obama?

  • Im a right leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 9 37.5%

  • Im a left leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Im not American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Im a right leaning American, no.

    Votes: 4 16.7%

  • Im a left leaning American, no.

    Votes: 7 29.2%

  • Im not American, no.

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • Total voters
    24
iacardsfan said:
Again, I do not consider it weak to not invade sovereign countries.
Click to expand...

When that nation is being used to launch attacks against the US and its interests and the locals aren't taking care of it-I do.

Again-this is where libertarianism goes off the deep end-foreign policy. Its naive in the extreme.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Its been "exponentially expanding" since 2004... All data suggests this.


I dont vote in polls that are clear hackery. The rise of terrorism is bigger than one person. The supplying of Islamic jihadis in the 80's, the destabilization of the middle east is all to blame. At least 5 administrations can all share parts of the blame for this monstrous reaction of our policies.
Click to expand...

Look! All of the usual suspects line up to support the Islamofascist supporting golf player.
Iguana... coyote...kobie (no surprise there), and naturally fizz.

The Islamofascism supporter on the golf course has failed. What else is new?

The Idiot-in-Chief gave away a victory in Iraq. He is giving away a stalemate in Afghanistan. And he diminishes our allies while supporting our enemies. He is a ***** to those abroad (okay, he is very feminine) while aggressively damaging allies and citizens.

But the usual suspects come out to support his perfidy.
 
Misterveritis said:
Look! All of the usual suspects line up to support the Islamofascist supporting golf player.
Iguana... coyote...kobie (no surprise there), and naturally fizz.
Click to expand...
You take your crazy pills today?

The Islamofascism supporter on the golf course has failed. What else is new?

The Idiot-in-Chief gave away a victory in Iraq. He is giving away a stalemate in Afghanistan. And he diminishes our allies while supporting our enemies. He is a ***** to those abroad (okay, he is very feminine) while aggressively damaging allies and citizens.

But the usual suspects come out to support his perfidy.
Click to expand...

8wk3r8.jpg
 
US Conservative said:
When that nation is being used to launch attacks against the US and its interests and the locals aren't taking care of it-I do.

Again-this is where libertarianism goes off the deep end-foreign policy. Its naive in the extreme.
Click to expand...

As has been on display recently, even countries in Europe that we consider allies have problems with Islamists. They are present in almost every country around the world. The US has the most terrorist in the world. I support defending ourselves from threats, not causing them.
 
iacardsfan said:
As has been on display recently, even countries in Europe that we consider allies have problems with Islamists. They are present in almost every country around the world. The US has the most terrorist in the world. I support defending ourselves from threats, not causing them.
Click to expand...

Like I said, naive in the extreme.
 
iacardsfan said:
Naivety to me is continuing detrimental policies that have been used for over a decade.
Click to expand...

Thats nice. For the record there are several aspects of libertarianism that I like quite a bit-the ideology and the party need to figure out foreign policy, and Ron Pauls take isnt the way.
 
US Conservative said:
Thats nice. For the record there are several aspects of libertarianism that I like quite a bit-the ideology and the party need to figure out foreign policy, and Ron Pauls take isnt the way.
Click to expand...

It is quite normal for parts of libertarianism to appeal to some people while other parts turn them off, hence the lack of ability to gain national prominence.
 
US Conservative said:
Thats nice. For the record there are several aspects of libertarianism that I like quite a bit-the ideology and the party need to figure out foreign policy, and Ron Pauls take isnt the way.
Click to expand...
You mean reverting back to the founding fathers with a non interventionist policy isn't the way. Yea skrew George Washington he has no idea how to sustain a nation and oh that guy James Madison he was a true no body right?

Now George w. Bush he's an American all-star he's batting 1000 on wiping his ass wIth the constitution and giving a big middle finger to the founding fathers who believed in liberalism and freedom.
 
iacardsfan said:
It is quite normal for parts of libertarianism to appeal to some people while other parts turn them off, hence the lack of ability to gain national prominence.
Click to expand...
Yea which is why the party monopoly system really feels comfortable allowing then in the debates and the media really didn't give Ron Paul a media blackout did they
 
iacardsfan said:
It is quite normal for parts of libertarianism to appeal to some people while other parts turn them off, hence the lack of ability to gain national prominence.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and the problem for both the ideology and the party is that its never going to get anywhere in the worlds superpower with such a naive foreign policy views. If thats not addressed, its not going anywhere.
 
Libertie76 said:
You mean reverting back to the founding fathers with a non interventionist policy isn't the way. Yea skrew George Washington he has no idea how to sustain a nation and oh that guy James Madison he was a true no body right?

Now George w. Bush he's an American all-star he's batting 1000 on wiping his ass wIth the constitution and giving a big middle finger to the founding fathers who believed in liberalism and freedom.
Click to expand...

The founders had to deal with rebellions, muslim pirates, and native americans. You are substituting history for your political ideology.
 
Libertie76 said:
Yea which is why the party monopoly system really feels comfortable allowing then in the debates and the media really didn't give Ron Paul a media blackout did they
Click to expand...

I agree there is a movement, and to ignore it would be ignorant. But plainly put, lifelong Dems are not going to sacrifice their fiscal views and lifelong Republicans are not going to give on social and foreign policy. The best I can hope for is the next generation of Americans being made aware that there is more to politics than two parties.
 
US Conservative said:
The founders had to deal with rebellions, muslim pirates, and native americans. You are substituting history for your political ideology.
Click to expand...
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." George Washington

Does this policy sound like a play by play of George Bush or Obama
 
US Conservative said:
Indeed, and the problem for both the ideology and the party is that its never going to get anywhere in the worlds superpower with such a naive foreign policy views. If thats not addressed, its not going anywhere.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with you that the foreign policy is naive, but we have already been over this, so no need beating a dead horse. I highly doubt either of us will have a change of heart in regards to that.
 
iacardsfan said:
I agree there is a movement, and to ignore it would be ignorant. But plainly put, lifelong Dems are not going to sacrifice their fiscal views and lifelong Republicans are not going to give on social and foreign policy. The best I can hope for is the next generation of Americans being made aware that there is more to politics than two parties.
Click to expand...
Well it's because both of then are pro war and the military industrial complex maintains power over our crooked poliTicians. But I agree with you but I do see a lot of old time conservatives really waking up to the libertarian message too it just takes grass roots efforts
 
Libertie76 said:
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." George Washington

Does this policy sound like a play by play of George Bush or Obama
Click to expand...

We were a very different nation then, a small and young one. Which is all the more reason that libertarianism is completely unprepared to deal with the current state of the world. Perhaps one day there will be a world where every nation is libertarian, but thats getting as utopian as socialists.
 
Libertie76 said:
Well it's because both of then are pro war and the military industrial complex maintains power over our crooked poliTicians. But I agree with you but I do see a lot of old time conservatives really waking up to the libertarian message too it just takes grass roots efforts
Click to expand...

Conservatives aren't pro war-they merely recognize that they must sometimes be fought.
 
US Conservative said:
We were a very different nation then, a small and young one. Which is all the more reason that libertarianism is completely unprepared to deal with the current state of the world. Perhaps one day there will be a world where every nation is libertarian, but thats getting as utopian as socialists.
Click to expand...
Or it's just not longer acting like the constitution is a red headed step child on Christmas.

If we maintained commercial trade with every nation and seriously did not commit clandestine operations for over 70 years around the world killing democratically elected officials for the sole purpose of creating a monopoly on the nation's cash crop and seriously just listened to them would we be in this mess?

Why should we listen to only part of what the fathers said and theb completely ignore their warnings?
 
US Conservative said:
Conservatives aren't pro war-they merely recognize that they must sometimes be fought.
Click to expand...
Neo cons are every neo con in the past 40 years has either invaded a country or purposely prolonged war.

Traditionally conservatives aren't, Why? Because traditional conservatives are the actual libertarian party because of the messages of the enlightenment liberals became the conservatives during the progressive era. In the United States
 
Libertie76 said:
Neo cons are every neo con in the past 40 years has either invaded a country or purposely prolonged war.

Traditionally conservatives aren't, Why? Because traditional conservatives are the actual libertarian party because of the messages of the enlightenment liberals became the conservatives during the progressive era. In the United States
Click to expand...

I like old conservatism, I think its a good blend of conservatism and libertarianism. However, they too recognized that wars must sometimes be fought.
 
humbolt said:
Thats a requirement?
Click to expand...
US Conservative said:
I wish Rapid Alpaca was a bigger fan of free speech. :(
Click to expand...

Wtf? You really are as dense as I suspected. I asked you to explain what YOU would've done in Obama's place to make everything better. You then pretended to have no idea what I was asking, despite me asking it twice. Now you want to act like I'm violating your first amendment rights? Do you even know what the first amendment is? Please educate yourself before you open your mouth again.

If you want to ignore people who address your OP, that's fine, but don't act like you're a victim when someone asks you a question. I can see you'd rather whine and cry about Obama while providing absolutely zero input as to how you'd do it better.
 
US Conservative said:
ISIS, Paris, Africa, Asia-terrorist groups are rapidly expanding as is radical islam in general-even more disconcerting is they are becoming highly organized. Thousands around the world have died due to islamic terrorists just over the last few days. Despite Obama being POTUS, radical groups seem to be expanding.

Terror_incidents.png


Has terrorism flourished under Obama? In any case, kindly explain why.
Click to expand...

Well one can argue that terrorism has flourished under Obama, but may be not the reasons that one would assume. The US actively aids radical Islamists if it happens to aid the interests of the US. One only need to see this in Afghanistan in the 1980s and more recently in Libya and Syria. In addition to this, we must also note that one of the major funders of terrorism (and a major US ally) is Saudi Arabia. However, for some strange reason, we don't ever have any questions for them when it comes to fighting terrorism.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom