• 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 hostage Kassig 'killed by IS'

You mentioned the EPA but even most of those you name wouldn't laugh if they had a clue as to what's going on. Power Plant Closures - IER

This regime has maintained the pace of their relentless attack against the American people. ISIS cannot do as much damage to this nation as the Obama regime has and continues to do.
 
So you are talking about ISIS in Iraq now and not in 2100. I wasn't sure what 'corrupt regime you were referring to because, in the ME, there is no other kind.
Islamism is a great deal more than 'a civil war'. Just this thread should alert everyone to that.

I agree completely yet we have "allies" that are, basically, all in on the idea of having Islamic state(s). While we (the west) see church and state as separate entities the Islamists do not. We will, eventually, have to fight the great Jihad but, hopefully, after I am dead,
 
I agree completely yet we have "allies" that are, basically, all in on the idea of having Islamic state(s). While we (the west) see church and state as separate entities the Islamists do not. We will, eventually, have to fight the great Jihad but, hopefully, after I am dead,
It would have been better to do it sooner than later. The presidential passing of the buck is not what Truman would have done.
 
Using a new label du jour for those bad guys wanting to establish a caliphate changes nothing. Iraq is wide open because Iraq is no longer under the thumb of a powerful dictator with a strong security force. Our acting as that strong security force "works" only so long as we keep doing so. There is no exit strategy for Iraq, just as there is none for Afghanistan - Vietnamization does not work.

Do I need to post the number of terror attacks by month in Iraq again? They suddenly spike and stay high right about when Obama pulled out of iraq. THAT has nothing to do with Saddam, but you are right-the "exit strategy" was apparently leave and hope nothing happens. Thats what obama did, and thats why Obama is responsible. You can't run on pulling out of Iraq and then once you've done it and it blows up claim that its not your fault. He did this.

Where we are-is that you are willing to allow terrorism to flourish and I am not.
Casualties_in_the_Iraq_insurgency_post-U.S._withdrawal_(by_month).jpg

Iraq_civilian_casuatlies.png

_72103266_iraq_deaths_v8_624gr.gif
 
Last edited:
Do I need to post the number of terror attacks by month in Iraq again? They suddenly spike and stay high right about when Obama pulled out of iraq. THAT has nothing to do with Saddam, but you are right-the "exit strategy" was apparently leave and hope nothing happens. Thats what obama did, and thats why Obama is responsible. You can't run on pulling out of Iraq and then once you've done it and it blows up claim that its not your fault. He did this.

Where we are-is that you are willing to allow terrorism to flourish and I am not.

If the most powerful military on the planet cannot defeat an enemy with no air force, no navy and a rag-tag, at best, army in under a decade then we have a terrible battle plan. Remember that our very presence (mere existence?) is seen as an act of aggression to these Jihadists. Just how many decades of "war on terror" are you willing to accept?
 
It's so incredibly lazy that you just waltz in here to hurl insults at Obama but can't seem to lay out what should be done. I mean is that all you people do around here? Whine about Obama without providing any kind of substance?

Did you realize there were beheadings under Bush? Did you cry about him being weak? Selective outrage.

Yeah, that fee speech thingy can be a real bitch when you won't consider the content....Obama a military strategist....


seriously?
 
ISIS isn't a country, it's a terrorist group that didn't exist before G.W. Bush invaded Iraq.


It didn't exist before Obama pulled out of Iraq either, so your point is moot.

One not need be a country to be a nation. In that regard I would say they do just as much as the Palestinians qualify as a nation, like how American natives qualify as nations etc.
 
If the most powerful military on the planet cannot defeat an enemy with no air force, no navy and a rag-tag, at best, army in under a decade then we have a terrible battle plan. Remember that our very presence (mere existence?) is seen as an act of aggression to these Jihadists. Just how many decades of "war on terror" are you willing to accept?

We do have a terrible battle plan beacause-WE AREN'T FIGHTING. And to make that worse, we TELL our enemy when we are going to leave.

Im willing to fight terror as long as it takes, Im NOT willing to surrender to evil, and it appears you are. Thats the difference.
 
Do you even HEAR yourself? You read about a successful attack on 10 ISIS leaders and your first thought was that he did it wrong.

Dood...seriously. Maybe its you.

No, it's you-- seriously. Obviously something was done wrong, when the two most valuable targets, by far, were allowed to get away to murder more people. The only way that could have happened is for someone--and for an operation this important that can only have been Mr. Obama--to have restrained the military commanders from using enough force to be sure of killing every single person in, under, or near that house.
 
If the most powerful military on the planet cannot defeat an enemy with no air force, no navy and a rag-tag, at best, army in under a decade then we have a terrible battle plan. Remember that our very presence (mere existence?) is seen as an act of aggression to these Jihadists. Just how many decades of "war on terror" are you willing to accept?

That has amazed me and more and more raises the Eisenhower "military industrial complex" idea. Almost a decade and a half ago the US led an international force into a middle ages country where they launched 1980's rockets from horseback. Now, after most of the allies have left, there is no real "end" in sight, but I do see a Vietnam style pull out. Some say another ten years, Canadian soldiers who fought in Kandhar tell me it can't be "won" in the traditional sense.

The the US invaded Iraq, with no reason, which certainly made every Iraqi a stars and stripes waving fan of the US. Now the US is re-entering that conflict with "no boots on the ground " except for those 1,500 Obama sent the day after the election.

So how long this time? Obama said, I think, four years, which in Obama speak is never since he will have no say, but his successor will have "inherited this mess."

So, as you ask, when? When, if ever, is there to be an end to the US waging war? is there supposed to be an end? Ever?

And as we ask, let's also ask who is making the most money in these wars? The military industrial complex?

Not a chance.......now where's that remote...?
 
We do have a terrible battle plan beacause-WE AREN'T FIGHTING. And to make that worse, we TELL our enemy when we are going to leave.

Im willing to fight terror as long as it takes, Im NOT willing to surrender to evil, and it appears you are. Thats the difference.

We are not even willing to fight terror, in the form of gang violence, in Chicago.

These ISIS slugs are quite willing to die for a cause, yet hide behind masks and use their women and children as human shields to hide behind. We lack the will to take out a village or city block to get them yet they will wipe out entire family trees of those that dare to report their location. It is an endless game of whack-a-mole. The "good Muslims" are worthless, spineless, maggots that are unworthy of our protection and seem to demand to be paid to let us try to fight for them.
 
For ****'s sake, the Bush Administration helped create ISIS. :doh

My sincere condolences to the friends and family of Mr. Kassig.


Yes, when they pulled out any and all semblance of a stabilizing American Military presence in Iraq and then blamed it all on Clinton... .

Wait, thats not right.

If Bush created ISIS, did Clinton create Al Qaeda ?
 
What's really bothering me about the whole thing is that we have spent more than a decade and trillions of dollars on our campaigns in the Middle East, and yet it can still produce foes to be reckoned with like ISIS. The original military strategists who examined the situation in Afghanistan told our government and allies (and the public) that the strategy to take and hold onto our ME assets would only succeed if we won the hearts and minds of the people there. The problem is that it would always be extremely difficult because despite having centralized governments, many of these countries are still heavily divided into tribal factions who will never answer to anyone.

I think what we're seeing here is what has always plagued any attempts to dominate and empire build in the ME. The tribes there hate one another but they hate foreigners even more, and they're consolidating. I don't see how we can hold our own long enough to create a stable situation where we're on top. These wars are pretty much bankrupting us as a nation. Of course, the military industrial complex is making a crap load of money off it.
 
You accused someone of a personal attack after you just claimed to have forgotten more than they know. Do you know the definition of the word, hypocrite?

What I said was in no way a personal attack. It was an answer to a really dumb question.

in your case, a sharp tongue is no indication of a keen mind.
 
What's really bothering me about the whole thing is that we have spent more than a decade and trillions of dollars on our campaigns in the Middle East, and yet it can still produce foes to be reckoned with like ISIS. The original military strategists who examined the situation in Afghanistan told our government and allies (and the public) that the strategy to take and hold onto our ME assets would only succeed if we won the hearts and minds of the people there. The problem is that it would always be extremely difficult because despite having centralized governments, many of these countries are still heavily divided into tribal factions who will never answer to anyone.

I think what we're seeing here is what has always plagued any attempts to dominate and empire build in the ME. The tribes there hate one another but they hate foreigners even more, and they're consolidating. I don't see how we can hold our own long enough to create a stable situation where we're on top. These wars are pretty much bankrupting us as a nation. Of course, the military industrial complex is making a crap load of money off it.

It was precisely the lack of action that allowed ISIS to flourish. And yes, without a sustained and committed presence they will come back. Welcome to vigilance in the war on terror.
 
We are not even willing to fight terror, in the form of gang violence, in Chicago.

These ISIS slugs are quite willing to die for a cause, yet hide behind masks and use their women and children as human shields to hide behind. We lack the will to take out a village or city block to get them yet they will wipe out entire family trees of those that dare to report their location. It is an endless game of whack-a-mole. The "good Muslims" are worthless, spineless, maggots that are unworthy of our protection and seem to demand to be paid to let us try to fight for them.

We aren't talking about (Obama's) Chicago. WE dont lack the will-YOU lack the will. You are content with ISIS flourishing and I am not. Just admit the difference, is it that hard?
 
What I said was in no way a personal attack. It was an answer to a really dumb question.

in your case, a sharp tongue is no indication of a keen mind.

On second thought, I agree with you. I do think you've forgotten more than he knows.
 
We aren't talking about (Obama's) Chicago. WE dont lack the will-YOU lack the will. You are content with ISIS flourishing and I am not. Just admit the difference, is it that hard?

You refuse to admit the basic reality that each Muslim country that we enter we can never exit or these maggots simply pop up again. Using your stay until the threat is gone plan we will spend ourselves into the ground. Whirled peas is a noble goal but let's have our NATO allies help (including paying for) defend us for a change. This coalition forces nonsense is getting far too expensive, especially when coupled with the required nation building costs.

The Iraq war by numbers - Business Insider
 
Last edited:
No, it's you-- seriously. Obviously something was done wrong, when the two most valuable targets, by far, were allowed to get away to murder more people. The only way that could have happened is for someone--and for an operation this important that can only have been Mr. Obama--to have restrained the military commanders from using enough force to be sure of killing every single person in, under, or near that house.
The very fact is they are DOING something about it. They killed 10 high value targets and wounded several others. Who else in the WORLD right now is acting to stop ISIS?

Its you and people like you.
 
That war was lost in 2011 when Obama retreated and there is no going back. Islamists have gained remarkably since Obama's retreat and they will continue to make gains on several fronts. Here's another more benign, yet effective, method. If it was Christianity being taught in the school perhaps a bigger fuss might have been made. http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/...for-proselytizing-for-islam-in-the-classroom/

I have said he screwed up during the negotiated withdrawal. You cant unbreak ****...all you can do is try to fix it. Obama is at least engaging ISIS. Who else is?
 
If the most powerful military on the planet cannot defeat an enemy with no air force, no navy and a rag-tag, at best, army in under a decade then we have a terrible battle plan. Remember that our very presence (mere existence?) is seen as an act of aggression to these Jihadists. Just how many decades of "war on terror" are you willing to accept?
The US may have the strongest military in the world but the have an anti-military media which leads to a largely uncertain and confused public turning in on themselves. And of course it is not a matter of how many decades the US is prepared to accept but how long they will be under attack by terrorists. That is out of American hands.

Obama could not possibly 'end the war in Iraq' as he claimed, and had his followers believing. Islamists will simply continue the war militarily and other fronts and, of course, as OBL said, the people will follow the stronger horse. We can see why ISIS recruiting is up.

Everyone outside the USA understands Obama is weak and the subject of derision, and that spells long term problems for the American people and all the western democracies. As much as many Americans would rightly want others to take over world leadership it is quite impossible. There is no one else.
 
I have said he screwed up during the negotiated withdrawal. You cant unbreak ****...all you can do is try to fix it. Obama is at least engaging ISIS. Who else is?
We'll see how long his engagement works and how the media covers it.

I doubt it will be genuinely fixed until a new President is elected. No world leader can possibly trust the whimsical leadership of Barrack Obama but, I believe, they will respond after 2016. We can hope that minimal harm is done before that time because the Islamists are aware of that date also. The Islamists are, oddly enough, also winning the propaganda wars.
 
Back
Top Bottom