• 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!

ISIS massacres 90 Yazidis in Northern Iraq

Like I care what you think.

What event are you blaming Bush for? You're blaming him for 9/11. You're blaming a victim for a crime because they failed to avoid it. That's disgusting.

Do you blame women for rape that they fail to avoid?

Well, since you don't care what I think, I won't be answering you anymore, and you won't be caring that I don't.
 
Well, since you don't care what I think, I won't be answering you anymore, and you won't be caring that I don't.

I'll take that as a yes?
 
One things certain, there is no military option, unless Americans are up to the price.

as much air support as possible, but no,it has to be done on the ground and we are not going to do that -nor should we
 
First off, the remark of you not having compassion, was in direct response to the pink ribbon comment. The "tomahawks" would be aimed in that situation at ISIS fighters, not a particular city you know? Also, did we start the Syrian Civil War or not? Because that seems to be an important step along the way in determining just who is responsible for what in destabilizing the middle east.

The Syrian protests that led to the militant uprising would have been crushed by president Assad early on, but due to US support and training of the militants, whose ranks swelled with MB/AQ/al Nusra fighters during the course of time, the rebels were strengthened and emboldened creating enough opposition to president Assad to last into a three and a half year conflict in which 160,000 civilians have been caught between the two fighting forces and are gone, blood on US hands as well. Now IS comes out of Syria and into Iraq, and your still trying to figure out who's responsible.
 
as much air support as possible, but no,it has to be done on the ground and we are not going to do that -nor should we

Yeah, my point. These people mingle too much. Air support creates too many dead civilians (I'm suppose to call that collateral damage but I'm rebellious) and a ground campaign against IS may prove more costly in US blood and treasure then fighting al Qaeda there last decade. Oh btw, the same al Qaeda that we then used to help topple Gaddafi and then used in Syria in an attempt to topple Assad.
 
The Syrian protests that led to the militant uprising would have been crushed by president Assad early on, but due to US support and training of the militants, whose ranks swelled with MB/AQ/al Nusra fighters during the course of time, the rebels were strengthened and emboldened creating enough opposition to president Assad to last into a three and a half year conflict in which 160,000 civilians have been caught between the two fighting forces and are gone, blood on US hands as well. Now IS comes out of Syria and into Iraq, and your still trying to figure out who's responsible.

The US did not supply extremists. Strange how you forget Iran.
 
As per usual, this isn't the whole story. Obama declared "mission accomplished" (which he kinda sorta did but not really?) regarding the ISIS airstrikes in Sinjar. This latest massacre occurred elsewhere in Iraq. Did you honestly think Obama was claiming that the ISIS threat, even in regards to the Yazidis, was over two days ago?

The "Obama lied, people died" meme is cute, and it's really nice of you to attempt to make political hay off some very real atrocities happening to some very real people in the Middle East.

Less than 10 miles from Sinjar.
 
The US did not supply extremists. Strange how you forget Iran.
lots of surrogate states - Qatar/SA/Iran (?more) are the bigger ones.

we did a bit of supplies - they were usually glommed up by the Islamists ( so called weapons diversions) - but you are correct we aren't by any means the arms supplies to the proxies.
 
lots of surrogate states - Qatar/SA/Iran (?more) are the bigger ones.

we did a bit of supplies - they were usually glommed up by the Islamists ( so called weapons diversions) - but you are correct we aren't by any means the arms supplies to the proxies.

The US was careful to supply limited weaponry to moderate elements. Iran supplied Hez. And the US is to blame for terrorists getting weapons? Nonsense.

Iran is ignored for a reason: to blame the US for it is the Great Satan.
 
The US was careful to supply limited weaponry to moderate elements. Iran supplied Hez. And the US is to blame for terrorists getting weapons? Nonsense.

Iran is ignored for a reason: to blame the US for it is the Great Satan.

US did not aid moderate elements.
Rebels in Libya and Syria weren't moderate at all.
 
Thanks for the link.

In any case, the violent phase of the PKK conflict has ended, so it's unlikely that this will cause regional instability. Allowing the PKK to indirectly pick up weapons and fight alongside Peshmerga is preferable to allowing ISIS to run rampant.

The violent phase of the PKK has ended? Too funny, I guess that would be because they're fighting the somewhat more violent IS.
 
The US was careful to supply limited weaponry to moderate elements. Iran supplied Hez. And the US is to blame for terrorists getting weapons? Nonsense.

Iran is ignored for a reason: to blame the US for it is the Great Satan.
agree. but those "moderate elements"(SNC) couldn't hold their weapons, much like Islamic State glommed up Iraqi weapons
 
US did not aid moderate elements.
Rebels in Libya and Syria weren't moderate at all.

Of course they weren't. They are Islamic jihadists that the US is using to drown the ME in sectarian violence.
 
agree. but those "moderate elements"(SNC) couldn't hold their weapons, much like Islamic State glommed up Iraqi weapons

Well that's the whole point. Besides, give me a strict definition of "moderate" rebels fighting to overthrow a government. Also, Iran IS part of the problem, but if I was Iranian, I'd bitch at the Iranian government. John McCain posed with the jihadists in Syria just as he posed with the nazis in Kiev.
 
agree. but those "moderate elements"(SNC) couldn't hold their weapons, much like Islamic State glommed up Iraqi weapons

Some weapons have been lost. However, Iran did not lose weapons. It trained, supplied and even manned Hez and other extremist elements. Given Iran's material contribution, intended or otherwise, was far greater than the US, don't you find it strange that they are forgotten?

Why are they forgotten? Because the only real point in trying to blame the US is 'Great Satan'. Blame the US for 9/11, blame them for Saddam, blame them for Iran and Assad and ISIS.

It doesn't take long to notice a manic narrative.
 
During an early-August raid on an army depot in a Damascus suburb, rebel militias acquired hundreds of wire-guided anti-tank missiles, including French-made Milans and Russian Konkurs, analysts confirmed. Videos posted on YouTube showed gleeful rebels hauling away boxes of missiles as well as rocket-propelled grenades. Weapons experts say the highly accurate missiles are capable of destroying any tank in the Syrian military’s inventory.

Within days of that event, a combined force of Islamist and Free Syrian Army rebel units succeeded in overrunning the defenders of the Menagh air base after crashing though the perimeter wall with an armored personnel carrier packed with explosives

In Syria, seized weapons caches boost rebels

difficult to keep track of all this....
 
difficult to keep track of all this....

We know one thing: the US, France and Russia did not supply terrorists on purpose - Iran does.

Unless you believe, as Monte does, that the US supplies (meaning on purpose) terrorists. Do you believe that?
 
We know one thing: the US, France and Russia did not supply terrorists on purpose - Iran does.

Unless you believe, as Monte does, that the US supplies terrorists on purpose. Do you believe that?

That Iran is satan we know pretty much well. No one say the inverse I guess.
Also, saying that weapons "just lost" doesn't make sense as well. We're talking about weapons and not candy.

However, point is not to make the US as "Satan". We're just suggesting that doing like this will just make it worse.
Because so far, all the groups US have supplied, were called terrorists group later on.
You can't supply moderates (even if you're willing to) because they do not fight the way these groups are doing today.
 
During an early-August raid on an army depot in a Damascus suburb, rebel militias acquired hundreds of wire-guided anti-tank missiles, including French-made Milans and Russian Konkurs, analysts confirmed. Videos posted on YouTube showed gleeful rebels hauling away boxes of missiles as well as rocket-propelled grenades. Weapons experts say the highly accurate missiles are capable of destroying any tank in the Syrian military’s inventory.

Within days of that event, a combined force of Islamist and Free Syrian Army rebel units succeeded in overrunning the defenders of the Menagh air base after crashing though the perimeter wall with an armored personnel carrier packed with explosives

In Syria, seized weapons caches boost rebels

difficult to keep track of all this....

The US most certainly DID supply terrorist groups with weapons. And in an attempt to stave off culpability, the arms were the ones pilfered from Gaddafi's military smuggled from the Benghazi annex to Turkey and then into Syria. Of course the State depart continued to ensure everyone that they were only going to good rebel fighters, lol.
 
That Iran is satan we know pretty much well. No one say the inverse I guess.
Also, saying that weapons "just lost" doesn't make sense as well. We're talking about weapons and not candy.

However, point is not to make the US as "Satan". We're just suggesting that doing like this will just make it worse.
Because so far, all the groups US have supplied, were called terrorists group later on.
You can't supply moderates (even if you're willing to) because they do not fight the way these groups are doing today.

Obama even adjusted the rules for not arming terrorists groups, so as to retain some sort of legality.
 
Obama even adjusted the rules for not arming terrorists groups, so as to retain some sort of legality.

he even broke the rule "never negotiate with the terrorists"
 
That Iran is satan we know pretty much well. No one say the inverse I guess.
Also, saying that weapons "just lost" doesn't make sense as well. We're talking about weapons and not candy.

However, point is not to make the US as "Satan". We're just suggesting that doing like this will just make it worse.
Because so far, all the groups US have supplied, were called terrorists group later on.
You can't supply moderates (even if you're willing to) because they do not fight the way these groups are doing today.

You claim there are no human rights in the US and the West, while Albania is a pile of **** - so spare us.
 
The US most certainly DID supply terrorist groups with weapons. And in an attempt to stave off culpability, the arms were the ones pilfered from Gaddafi's military smuggled from the Benghazi annex to Turkey and then into Syria. Of course the State depart continued to ensure everyone that they were only going to good rebel fighters, lol.

That's an attempt to justify Benghazi.
 
Back
Top Bottom