• 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!

US will supply military weapons to the Syrian rebels.

Bill Clinton said:
Democracies don't sponsor terrorism.

Just remember kiddies! It's always OK to contradict yourself, as long as it progresses your party!
 
Of course they never would do that!
View attachment 67149075


"War is good business, and business is good." The business can only get better if the people in the armaments business can get enough into the Al Queda types. If you don't have a war, start one. It's like selling yo-yos and giving better ones to some contestants and if they win, everybody else just has to have one of the better ones. Just business. In this case, the money is provided by hard working taxpayers, that'd be you, me and Grandma. The profits are Corporate and offshored to a tax haven, like Halliburton. Just business.
 
Some member claimed Al N is 6%. I don't remember who, pretty much a random person, but it's good enough to counter total idiocy.

You got a number?

No, it isn't. You're just throwing out ****. Even if you think he is, being just as silly doesn't help. The bigger point is really can't trust anyone to be nor remain friendly to us. We've made this mistake before.
 
I ain't made no mistake. I know wtf is goin' on. Abandon your confusion. Get on the right side.

now there's a compelling argument
PhD level debate


the national objective is to oust the current regime
then the question should be, will this approach, arming the opposition, achieve that objective
the answer to that question should reveal the legitimacy of the proposal
 
I ain't made no mistake. I know wtf is goin' on. Abandon your confusion. Get on the right side.

You even made a mistake reading my comment.:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
The best defense is having the good sense to avoid fights when fighting isn't actually necessary to preserve your personal life or liberty.

Sure, but when theres a clear threat, it makes more sense to kill them before they kill you.
 
And the worst defense is a bad offense, the latter in which the US military has plenty of experience.

On the contrary we rarely lose a war, vietnam being the only one I can think of, and that wasnt due to the military. The US has obvisously the best offense in the world.
 
On the contrary we rarely lose a war, vietnam being the only one I can think of, and that wasnt due to the military. The US has obvisously the best offense in the world.

if you believe we have "won" in afghanistan, then please tell us by what measure you have decided that
 
On the contrary we rarely lose a war, vietnam being the only one I can think of, and that wasnt due to the military. The US has obvisously the best offense in the world.

But they don't use it efficiently. Their defense now is largely spying on their fellow Americans and, in spite of the 4th Amendment, giving them body frisks and x-rays at all airports. In fact they won't even define the war on terror and do everything they can to avoid the term "Muslims", "Islamic" and "Terror" in the same sentence. This is not a sign of a confident nation. The Islamists don't share those same sensibilities, and why they appear to be the stronger horse, which is why they continue to attract young people. When the free world can't even define the enemy then the enemy will do the defining.
 
if you believe we have "won" in afghanistan, then please tell us by what measure you have decided that
The war was fought for revenge. We killed way more Afghanis than Afghanis killed New Yorkers, and we killed one guy in particular that we really hated. Revenge has been had, victory condition satisfied.

I'll acknowledge that the crappy democracy we've set up is going to thrive like a water lilly in Death Valley, but we didn't invade afghanistan because they weren't democratic enough. We only put in that Potemkin Democracy to make us feel better about ourselves, like using an adorable lace doilly to avoid looking at the murder weapon we just used.

So we had victory in the war in Afghanistan. Any democracy that enjoys rule of law and prevents future terrorists from training there is just gravy. That's gravy we've paid a pretty penny for and won't get anyway, but gravy.
 
I ain't made no mistake. I know wtf is goin' on. Abandon your confusion. Get on the right side.

Yeah.....I know as well. Course myself I am not stuck with the tunnelvision in believing that anything has to be done with Syria to deal with Iran. Such was always a false premise from the start. ;)
 
Sure, but when theres a clear threat, it makes more sense to kill them before they kill you.

What does Syria have to do with that?
 
What does Syria have to do with that?

We werent talking about Syria specifically. Although since they are state sponsor of terrorism against the US, we should have done something a long time ago.
 
Irrelevent.

Anything that cost that much in lives and money requires a really good goal and not a dumb ass one. I mean if you care at all fir the lives you but in harms way. So, I say relevant.
 
The goal in Iraq was to toppel the regime. We did that.

That was done in 2006. There was no need to stay after that, and soon it will be under Islamic rule. It will be the same in Afghanistan. That's the similarity. Many Americans died between 2006 and now for no good reason.

Both governments should have been overthrown and then left alone to organize themselves with fewer influences from the stone age.. They can keep terrorizing, and being overthrown if necessary, until they get it right.

"Leading from behind" means you'll always finish no better than second.
 
I can't tell if I am okay with this, or just having Vietnam/ Iraq syndrome.
 
Anything that cost that much in lives and money requires a really good goal and not a dumb ass one. I mean if you care at all fir the lives you but in harms way. So, I say relevant.

Irrelevant to the debate we were having about whether the US military is effective at offense and won the war. Pay attention.
 
Back
Top Bottom