• 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!

U.S. considering 'limited' military action as militants gain in northern Iraq

Montecresto said:
Are you volunteering for this war?
Click to expand...

That's a stupid argument for a few reasons.

1. Some cannot serve due to physical or mental disabilities.
2. One needn't volunteer to work for the Dolphins in order to talk about what they should do.
3. The military is under civilian control for a reason. What you are suggesting is that the military be autonomous, directed only by military members.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Enough to take over a whole country and then conquer almost all of Europe?
Click to expand...

He claimed we whipped Nazis off the face of the earth. Unfortunately we missed some. Anyone you know?
 
Luftwaffe said:
Incompetence, outside of oil the ME is just a sandy rock that means nothing to us, and I don't think ISIS wants to give us oil, and if they do, it's to get more money and to raise their power, which of course can then bite us in the ass.
Click to expand...

Isis would not have morphed into its present capabilities if Hussein, Mubarak, and Gaddafi were here, and if president Assad wasn't fighting a US backed war on terror, which has him at a disadvantage, so scorched earth policy, or incompetence, either way, US interference is resulting in, well, what China and Russia predicted/warned three years ago!
 
Montecresto said:
Isis would not have morphed into its present capabilities if Hussein, Mubarak, and Gaddafi were here, and if president Assad wasn't fighting a US backed war on terror, which has him at a disadvantage, so scorched earth policy, or incompetence, either way, US interference is resulting in, well, what China and Russia predicted/warned three years ago!
Click to expand...

And if the Soviet Union had not invaded Afghanistan there would have been no need for the u.s to aid the mujahadeen.
 
ecofarm said:
That's a stupid argument for a few reasons.

1. Some cannot serve due to physical or mental disabilities.
2. One needn't volunteer to work for the Dolphins in order to talk about what they should do.
3. The military is under civilian control for a reason. What you are suggesting is that the military be autonomous, directed only by military members.
Click to expand...

Wrong again hawk, Americans are fed up with US blood and treasure being squandered in the ME. You too, you get your boots and rifle and head on over.
 
Montecresto said:
Isis would not have morphed into its present capabilities if Hussein, Mubarak, and Gaddafi were here, and if president Assad wasn't fighting a US backed war on terror, which has him at a disadvantage, so scorched earth policy, or incompetence, either way, US interference is resulting in, well, what China and Russia predicted/warned three years ago!
Click to expand...

I take that as an agreement.
 
Top Cat said:
He claimed we whipped Nazis off the face of the earth. Unfortunately we missed some. Anyone you know?
Click to expand...

Nazis are no longer a threat to anyone. There may be a few fools who like to dress up like the SS and put swastikas on their arms, but they're no threat to anyone.

The ISIS, on the other hand, is a threat to the peace of the world.
 
Montecresto said:
Wrong again hawk, Americans are fed up with US blood and treasure being squandered in the ME. You too, you get your boots and rifle and head on over.
Click to expand...

Claiming someone must do something in order to talk about it is a typical intellectual coward argument. Employing such an "argument" destroys the credibility of the person proposing such and demonstrates their own emotional hysteria upon which their BS is based. Generally, the "argument" is employed by someone that lost a loved one and has not had a rational perception of the armed forces ever since.
 
Limited military action.


What the administration really means is 'we don't have a clue what we are doing...but we are trying desperately to look like we know exactly what we are doing.'
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
And if the Soviet Union had not invaded Afghanistan there would have been no need for the u.s to aid the mujahadeen.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, that time we created, empowered and armed a group, only to have to fight them on their own turf, where they turned the Russians back then, just as they are turning us back now.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Claiming someone must do something in order to talk about it is a typical intellectual coward argument. Employing such an "argument" destroys the credibility of the person proposing such and demonstrates their own emotional hysteria upon which their BS is based. Generally, the "argument" is employed by someone that lost a loved one and has not had a rational perception of the armed forces ever since.
Click to expand...

Another fallacious argument. Talking about it, is one thing, support for more US blood and treasure to be spent, should be accompanied with his commitment, yours too. Thankfully I haven't lost anyone personal, but like many Americans, the 70% that opposed military action in Syria, I'm fed up with US blood and treasure being used wasted in the ME. so if your all for it, be the first.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
Then get your damn boots and rifle and head east. Americans are sick of shedding blood and treasure in the ME!
Click to expand...
Air and/or Missile strikes are Not "Boots and rifle", NOR "shedding blood."
How Ridiculous.

There also seems to be alot of IGNORANCE here that we would be doing this ONLY 'for Iraq'. We would be doing this for OUR and the Wests' Oil/economies as well as saving Kurds and Christians from being Butchered.

But Glad to see you disagree as your opinions are Wrong on EVERY issue I've seen you post on.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Limited military action.


What the administration really means is 'we don't have a clue what we are doing...but we are trying desperately to look like we know exactly what we are doing.'
Click to expand...

Following in the footsteps of those who knew exactly what THEY were doing. :screwy
 
Montecresto said:
Another fallacious argument. Talking about it, is one thing, support for more US blood and treasure to be spent, should be accompanied with his commitment, yours too.
Click to expand...

That's a BS argument generally employed by people emotionally scared by losing a loved one. There is no rational foundation for the argument, it's entirely emotional and intended to shut down a discussion via irrational nonsense.

According to the BS argument, no one can argue for helping any other country.

The same could be said of foreign aid and someone giving their own property. Pure emotional crap.

The same could be said about anything.

It's nothing more than an emotional belch intended to insulate someone from intellectual debate. Why would someone want to be insulated from intellectual debate? Because they can't deal with it.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Air and/or Missile strikes are Not "Boots and rifle", NOR "shedding blood."
How Ridiculous.

There also seems to be alot of IGNORANCE here that we would be doing this ONLY 'for Iraq'. We would be doing this for OUR and the Wests' Oil as well as saving Kurds and Christians from being Butchered.

But Glad to see you disagree as your opinion are Wrong on EVERY issue I've seen you post on.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see, you think that's where it ends. Hopefully a sufficient number of Americans have learned a lesson.
 
ecofarm said:
That's a BS argument generally employed by people emotionally scared by losing a loved one. There is no rational foundation for the argument, it's entirely emotional and intended to shut down a discussion via irrational nonsense.

According to the BS argument, no one can argue for helping any other country.
Click to expand...

Shut down? You're still talking! And, the US is creating crisis' in the ME. Not helping other countries. The way the US has helped in the ME is quite a joke.
 
Montecresto said:
Shut down? You're still talking! And, the US is creating crisis' in the ME. Not helping other countries. The way the US has helped in the ME is quite a joke.
Click to expand...

When you're willing to enter an intellectual debate, instead of presenting arguments that are nothing more than emotional barks intended to protect you from intellectual debate, let me know.
 
ecofarm said:
That's a BS argument generally employed by people emotionally scared by losing a loved one. There is no rational foundation for the argument, it's entirely emotional and intended to shut down a discussion via irrational nonsense.

According to the BS argument, no one can argue for helping any other country.

The same could be said of foreign aid and someone giving their own property. Pure emotional crap.

The same could be said about anything.

It's nothing more than an emotional belch intended to insulate someone from intellectual debate. Why would someone want to be insulated from intellectual debate? Because they can't deal with it.
Click to expand...

Actually, I've been working you over on the failures of US policy in the ME, that is not only widely recognized, but is being opposed at the UN.
 
ecofarm said:
When you're willing to enter an intellectual debate, instead of presenting arguments that are nothing more than emotional barks intended to protect you from intellectual debate, let me know.
Click to expand...

Cut and run.:lamo:2wave:
 
Montecresto said:
Actually, I've been working you over on the failures of US policy in the ME, that is not only widely recognized, but is being opposed at the UN.
Click to expand...

You're running from the truth of my evaluation of your position. You can't deal with intellectual debate in regard to intervention, so you present emotional BS that effectively excludes all opposing positions. Your claim is that the opposing position is not legitimate without the individual presenting the argument going off to war immediately. As your "standards" will never be met, you are free to (irrationally) presume that all opposing arguments are fake.

It's intellectual cowardice put forth by a turmoil of emotion. It's running away from the debate.
 
ecofarm said:
You're running from the truth of my evaluation of your position. You can't deal with intellectual debate in regard to intervention, so you present emotional BS that effectively excludes all opposing positions. Your claim is that the opposing position is not legitimate without the individual presenting the argument going off to war immediately.
Click to expand...

Why are you carrying on so, your position isn't being excluded, I haven't the powers of a Mod, post until your fingers are sore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom