• 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!

Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

  • Im a right leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 11 29.7%
  • Im a left leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 7 18.9%
  • Im not American, yes.

    Votes: 2 5.4%
  • Im a right leaning American, no.

    Votes: 6 16.2%
  • Im a left leaning American, no.

    Votes: 9 24.3%
  • Im not American, no.

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • Total voters
    37

US Conservative

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
33,522
Reaction score
10,826
Location
Between Athens and Jerusalem
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Obama has already had Special Forces in Iraq for months, and now in light of massacres of civilians we are scaling up our presence-including airstrikes against military targets. Obama has suggested this could go on for some time.

Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?
image-453387602.jpg
Al-Nusra-ISIS-Al-Qaeda-Merge-Obama-Sends-Housewarming.jpg

Iraq-Syria-ISIS-ISIL-Map-June-12-2014.jpg
 
Last edited:
At this point it doesnt matter what he does. He will be critizised anyways.

In his possition I would send in troops. because if ISIS gets to the Jizidis there will be a genozide with thousands of slaughterd civilians.

One of the latest reports I read says that ISIS overun a town of Jizidis, where they slaughterd the entire population except for the 300-400 women, who they took as slaves.

ISIS simply must be stoped.
 
At this point it doesnt matter what he does. He will be critizised anyways.

In his possition I would send in troops. because if ISIS gets to the Jizidis there will be a genozide with thousands of slaughterd civilians.

One of the latest reports I read says that ISIS overun a town of Jizidis, where they slaughterd the entire population except for the 300-400 women, who they took as slaves.

ISIS simply must be stoped.

Agreed-this is the biggest threat to humanity since the USSR and Nazi Germany.
 
Why is it that all of these polls intentionally cast out those that do not lean in either direction? I'm not left-wing, and I'm not right-wing. A bit of an off-topic rant, but it annoys me. :2razz:

In regards to the topic at hand, no. He ran a whole political campaign against the very action he is now doing. The American people elected him as President with the understanding that he was going to do certain things, and he hasn't. He is continuing the Bush era foreign policy and frankly, as someone who actually did support Obama in 2008, I'm quite disgusted.
 
Agreed-this is the biggest threat to humanity since the USSR and Nazi Germany.

picard-facepalm2.jpg


Oh, for goodness sakes...come on now.

Roughly 10,000 ISIS troops are the greatest threat to mankind since the U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany?

So the Khmer Rouge murdering millions of Cambodians was less of a threat?

So 800,000+ Rwandans hacked to death was less of a threat?

The Nigerian Civil War. Over 1 million and less of a threat to humanity then roughly 7-10,000 ISIS fighters?

North Korea could obliterate South Korea with nukes if it wanted to. India and Pakistan could do the same to each other.

All of these are less of a threat to humanity then roughly 10,000 ISIS troops running around in pickup trucks with a little artillery and ZERO airpower?


No offense, but your statement is totally ridiculous.


And as for Obama's moron plan of getting involved again...

even Reagan knew better then to get involved in the Middle East

'Lest we forget, after America's first encounter with jihadist violence in 1983 – when 241 US military personnel were killed – Reagan, to use the disparaging lingo of the neocons, chose to "cut and run". Every single soldier was pulled out of Lebanon within four months. "Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle," Reagan later wrote in his memoir, adding: "The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there … If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position ... those 241 marines would be alive today."'

Ronald Reagan was no hawk
 
Last edited:
Why is it that all of these polls intentionally cast out those that do not lean in either direction? I'm not left-wing, and I'm not right-wing. A bit of an off-topic rant, but it annoys me. :2razz:

In regards to the topic at hand, no. He ran a whole political campaign against the very action he is now doing. The American people elected him as President with the understanding that he was going to do certain things, and he hasn't. He is continuing the Bush era foreign policy and frankly, as someone who actually did support Obama in 2008, I'm quite disgusted.

Ditto.
 
picard-facepalm2.jpg


Oh, for goodness sakes...come on now.

Roughly 10,000 ISIS troops are the greatest threat to mankind since the U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany?

So the Khmer Rouge murdering millions of Cambodians was less of a threat?

So 800,000+ Rwandans hacked to death was less of a threat?

The Nigerian Civil War. Over 1 million and less of a threat to humanity then roughly 7-10,000 ISIS fighters?

North Korea could obliterate South Korea with nukes if it wanted to. India and Pakistan could do the same to each other.

All of these are less of a threat to humanity then roughly 10,000 ISIS troops running around in pickup trucks with a little artillery and ZERO airpower?


No offense, but your statement is totally ridiculous and nothing more then Neocon-style nonsense.


And as for Obama's moron plan of getting involved again...

even Reagan knew better then to get involved in the Middle East

'Lest we forget, after America's first encounter with jihadist violence in 1983 – when 241 US military personnel were killed – Reagan, to use the disparaging lingo of the neocons, chose to "cut and run". Every single soldier was pulled out of Lebanon within four months. "Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle," Reagan later wrote in his memoir, adding: "The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there … If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position ... those 241 marines would be alive today."'

Ronald Reagan was no hawk

Reagan was not perfect by any means, but in regards to the Middle East he hit the nail on the head. These people have been fighting since the beginning of time. Peace in the Middle East is actually a biblical sign of the end-times. Who, in their right mind, would suggest we get involved in centuries upon centuries of brutal conflict?
 
Reagan was not perfect by any means, but in regards to the Middle East he hit the nail on the head. These people have been fighting since the beginning of time. Peace in the Middle East is actually a biblical sign of the end-times. Who, in their right mind, would suggest we get involved in centuries upon centuries of brutal conflict?

Again....agreed.
 
picard-facepalm2.jpg


Oh, for goodness sakes...come on now.

Roughly 10,000 ISIS troops are the greatest threat to mankind since the U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany?

So the Khmer Rouge murdering millions of Cambodians was less of a threat?

So 800,000+ Rwandans hacked to death was less of a threat?

The Nigerian Civil War. Over 1 million and less of a threat to humanity then roughly 7-10,000 ISIS fighters?

North Korea could obliterate South Korea with nukes if it wanted to. India and Pakistan could do the same to each other.

All of these are less of a threat to humanity then roughly 10,000 ISIS troops running around in pickup trucks with a little artillery and ZERO airpower?


No offense, but your statement is totally ridiculous.


And as for Obama's moron plan of getting involved again...

even Reagan knew better then to get involved in the Middle East

'Lest we forget, after America's first encounter with jihadist violence in 1983 – when 241 US military personnel were killed – Reagan, to use the disparaging lingo of the neocons, chose to "cut and run". Every single soldier was pulled out of Lebanon within four months. "Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle," Reagan later wrote in his memoir, adding: "The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there … If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position ... those 241 marines would be alive today."'

Ronald Reagan was no hawk

Its not specifically ISIS thats the threat-its the threat from Islamists across the globe-and the impact they have on Western and other free nations. A 7th century ideology vs the modern wests ideology. The threats from this throwback to the dark ages on upcoming nations in Africa and Asia.

If anything, I'd modify my statement not just from Soviets, but communists in general.
 
Why is it that all of these polls intentionally cast out those that do not lean in either direction? I'm not left-wing, and I'm not right-wing. A bit of an off-topic rant, but it annoys me. :2razz:

In regards to the topic at hand, no. He ran a whole political campaign against the very action he is now doing. The American people elected him as President with the understanding that he was going to do certain things, and he hasn't. He is continuing the Bush era foreign policy and frankly, as someone who actually did support Obama in 2008, I'm quite disgusted.

The definition of Libertarian is not centrist-and even if it was its unlikely you are EXACTLY in the middle, not leaning either left nor right. If THATS the case, you are a unique case and should understand me not needing to name every possible political ideology.
 
Its not specifically ISIS thats the threat-its the threat from Islamists across the globe-and the impact they have on Western and other free nations. A 7th century ideology vs the modern wests ideology. The threats from this throwback to the dark ages on upcoming nations in Africa and Asia.

If anything, I'd modify my statement not just from Soviets, but communists in general.

You are entitled to your opinion.

I refer you once again to Reagan;s statements from his memoirs that I posted above.

He realized that staying neutral was the best course of action...and he was right.
 
You are entitled to your opinion.

I refer you once again to Reagan;s statements from his memoirs that I posted above.

He realized that staying neutral was the best course of action...and he was right.

If 9/11 or children being beheaded for being Christian Reagan happened would have been in there striking like the hand of god. Unlike the modern left, morality and doing what was right was not just something thrown around in election season.

Maybe you think since Im an evil conservative that you can use Reagan like some sort of holy water-but its not going to happen.
 
If 9/11 or children being beheaded for being Christian Reagan would have been in there striking like the hand of god. Unlike the modern left, morality and doing what was right was not just something thrown around in election season.

You have no idea what he would do. Neither do I.

But his memoirs strongly suggest he would NOT have invaded Iraq.

Attack Afghanistan to get bin Laden...sure. But not get involved in a quagmire...especially after bin Laden was killed.

You disagree? I suggest you consult a Ouija board and ask him...because there is zero chance you are changing my mind.


Good day.
 
I dont cater to the fringe for a general poll. If you dont lean right/left what exactly are you? Nevermind lets not distract from the thread-im done with this discussion.

Right, because centrism is totally fringe. :roll:

You can put "I'm not an American" as an option on a primarily American occupied forum, but you can't add one more option for people who refuse to be categorized in an intentionally simplistic political chart? Libertarians, centrists, independents, and "others" happen to make up the majority of this forum. Most people don't identify completely with the left/right paradigm.
 
You have no idea what he would do. Neither do I.

But his memoirs strongly suggest he would NOT have invaded Iraq.

Attack Afghanistan to get bin Laden...sure. But not get involved in a quagmire...especially after bin Laden was killed.

You disagree? I suggest you consult a Ouija board and ask him...because there is zero chance you are changing my mind.


Good day.

We aren't talking about the invasion of Iraq (over and done with) we are talking about what to do NOW, in light of recent developments.
The war on terror was NEVER about getting one man-and to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan worse than when we got there, with a newly forming terrorist state simply boggles the mind.

We are there to destroy our enemies and plant fear in their hearts, and to let them no that there is no timeline for this-as long as they bring it-death will be the response. We got quite good at fighting low intensity counter insurgency operations since 9/11-we need to keep it up and as importantly SUPPORT OUR ALLIES, instead of leaving them to the terrorist wolves-these thugs hate EVERYONE including fellow muslims and other nations who have nothing to do with them-its a pandemic.

This is what we should do-expose them to large amounts of kinetic energy and send em back to allah in style.
 
Right, because centrism is totally fringe. :roll:

You can put "I'm not an American" as an option on a primarily American occupied forum, but you can't add one more option for people who refuse to be categorized in an intentionally simplistic political chart? Libertarians, centrists, independents, and "others" happen to make up the majority of this forum. Most people don't identify completely with the left/right paradigm.

Even centrists lean. :roll: And I thought you were saying you weren't centrist either.

Heres your homework, lets see how "centrist" you are.
http://politics.beasts.org/scripts/survey
 
Last edited:
I think we should arm and train the Kurds and support them with airstrikes as we're doing. We spend money all around the world every year to help local governments fight terrorists using arms, training, and airstrikes, and the forces we help are often far more incompetent and corrupt then the Kurds. So why not help the Kurds in this way? The only reason that I can think of for why we'd help someone like the Nigerian government, but not the Kurds is the politics of American intervention in Iraq. Look, we might not be able to destroy Isis. The Shiites politicians might have damaged their cause beyond repair. The Gulf states might prefer jihadists to Iranian interests. The region may be screwed indefinitely. Yet, helping the Kurds is something simple we can do easily that gives the region a chance. After lavishing all that equipment on the Shiites only to see them abandon it and run, why not give some weapons to someone that actually wants to fight? And on top of that, we kind of owe the Kurds, and this might help prevent a humanitarian catastrophe.
 
Even centrists lean. :roll:

The whole point of centrism is that you don't lean.

And I thought you were saying you weren't centrist either

When did I say that? I'm definitely pretty centrist. I even straddle the fence on economics.

Heres your homework, lets see how "centrist" you are.

I took the quiz. I got "left-pragmatist" while trending very close to the center. I don't like that quiz though, I felt like alot of the questions were unnecessary and even one-sided at times.

Political Survey: Results
 
The whole point of centrism is that you don't lean.

Not true. With anything else, there is a spectrum. The spectrum of centrism, however you want to measure the spectrum, exists.
 
The whole point of centrism is that you don't lean.



When did I say that? I'm definitely pretty centrist. I even straddle the fence on economics.



I took the quiz. I got "left-pragmatist" while trending very close to the center. I don't like that quiz though, I felt like alot of the questions were unnecessary and even one-sided at times.

Political Survey: Results

So you lean left. Even if you consider yourself a centrist-there are left-leaning centrists. Take different polls to get a better idea-but think back to your earlier post in this thread-what are the odds you were exactly in the center? Very slim.

As for your "point of centrism" comment-wow. Are you saying you look at the spectrum and then form your views based on being in the "center" of them? How is that anything but purely reactionary?
 
Last edited:
I think we should arm and train the Kurds and support them with airstrikes as we're doing. We spend money all around the world every year to help local governments fight terrorists using arms, training, and airstrikes, and the forces we help are often far more incompetent and corrupt then the Kurds. So why not help the Kurds in this way? The only reason that I can think of for why we'd help someone like the Nigerian government, but not the Kurds is the politics of American intervention in Iraq. Look, we might not be able to destroy Isis. The Shiites politicians might have damaged their cause beyond repair. The Gulf states might prefer jihadists to Iranian interests. The region may be screwed indefinitely. Yet, helping the Kurds is something simple we can do easily that gives the region a chance. After lavishing all that equipment on the Shiites only to see them abandon it and run, why not give some weapons to someone that actually wants to fight? And on top of that, we kind of owe the Kurds, and this might help prevent a humanitarian catastrophe.

These are the Kurds of Iraq-why help them but not the sunni's or shiites? Why are we being sectarian, if thats the issue?
 
These are the Kurds of Iraq-why help them but not the sunni's or shiites? Why are we being sectarian, if thats the issue?

The Shiites screwed over the Sunnis after the last war. Consequently, the Sunnis are mostly with Isis now. We shouldn't help the Shiites until they get rid of Maliki. Otherwise, we'd be rewarding him for causing this mess. The Iraqi army of Sunnis and Shiites outnumbered Isis at least 15 to 1 and was better armed (with equipment we gave them) and they still fled. If we arm the Kurds, we at least know it's not going to be a complete waste.
 
We aren't talking about the invasion of Iraq (over and done with) we are talking about what to do NOW, in light of recent developments.
The war on terror was NEVER about getting one man-and to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan worse than when we got there, with a newly forming terrorist state simply boggles the mind.

We are there to destroy our enemies and plant fear in their hearts, and to let them no that there is no timeline for this-as long as they bring it-death will be the response. We got quite good at fighting low intensity counter insurgency operations since 9/11-we need to keep it up and as importantly SUPPORT OUR ALLIES, instead of leaving them to the terrorist wolves-these thugs hate EVERYONE including fellow muslims and other nations who have nothing to do with them-its a pandemic.

This is what we should do-expose them to large amounts of kinetic energy and send em back to allah in style.

You are falling in the same trap as Bush, these terrorists thrive on fear, it is their food. You want to feed them endlessly and then are surprised at how they multiply. There is no amount of military force that will stop desperate young men from becoming terrorists short of killing all the young men. That is genocide and not an option so we have to wait until they take up arms or strap a bomb to their chest. We have put ourself in the middle of a 1000 year old power struggle and must step carefully. That said, since ISIS is now in possession of many of the weapons we gave the Iraqi's it is now our responsibility to take out as many of them as we can. Since Maliki has never sent any arms to the Kurds we must also make sure they are now getting them either from Bagdad or us. The other part is the formation of a new inclusive Govt. that gives Sunnis a voice and will hopefully change their minds about ISIS like we changed their minds about Alqaeda in the "awakening".

With much of Iraq now besieged by an Al Qaeda splinter group called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Shibib is in no hurry to pick up his weapons again. To do so, he said, would be to defend a corrupt government that has cast aside or jailed his former fighters and systematically oppressed his fellow Sunnis.
“If ISIS were to show up here, I would step aside and point them in the direction of the Green Zone,” Shibib said, referring to the former U.S.-run enclave in central Baghdad that is now the seat of the Iraqi government. “If they have any quarrel, they can take it up with them.”

Onetime U.S. allies in Sunni Awakening sit out new Iraq conflict - LA Times

It was your man Bush who yelled "bring it on" and flew a fighter jet onto a carrier to give a speech behind a mission accomplished banner.
And today we see the results. Results matter...I think it is Fenton that always says that.

images
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom