• 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'

Oh, for ****'s sake.

The ONLY way we could have kept troops in Iraq would be to give up legal immunities to prosecution of American soldiers under Iraqi law, while we were fighting a war for them. I know you're not discussing said immunity issues, because you're willfully ignoring them, because it was a non-starter -- Iraq would never let us stay without them, we would never stay with them -- that demolishes your idiotic argument.

Kobie, I have repeatedly linked to citations where Al Maliki and others said they not only wanted us to stay, but would grant the protections desired-the PROBLEM, was getting approval in the Iraqi parliament. But that said-there were ways around that that Obama COULD HAVE TAKEN BUT DID NOT, despite being advised of the consequences of a withdrawal. And then Obama had the gall to say "mission accomplished" anyway-for votes.

2013 iraq revealed this folly, and by early 2014 ISIS had major Iraqi cities. This is entirely Obama's 2nd term baby.
 
You haven't demolished anything, except in your overactive imagination. I can see your weak-sister messiah's current troubles are making you and his other acolytes more and more desperate to cook up far-fetched excuses for him. In fact the excuses coming from you and other members of his rear guard sound much like his own--and are just about as believable.

The notion the U.S. had no choice but to hang its head meekly and do whatever Maliki's government told it to is laughable. That pisspot government was in no position to tell the U.S. anything--it never even would have existed if this country had not invaded and driven Hussein's regime from power. It was Mr. Obama who was determined to withdraw all U.S. forces, because he thought it would gain him a political advantage. He found it convenient to hide his own wish to throw in the towel behind the claim that Bush and Maliki had left him no choice. That was just one more of his lies.

Your attempt to cover President Limpwrist's fanny isn't fooling anyone. Are you so ignorant of postwar history that you really imagine U.S. Presidents haven't sometimes had to ignore loud resistance from countries where U.S. troops were stationed, and insist on keeping them there, when they were sure it was in our national interest? Next you'll be claiming that the tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Korea were only able to stay there all these years because from 1953 on, South Koreans and their leaders unfailingly loved the U.S. and wanted it there.

I suppose that if any South Korean leader had ever so much as raised his voice or wagged a finger, President Eisenhower would never have told them very clearly how things were going to be. No doubt Ike would have burst into tears, fallen all over himself apologizing for being so intrusive and insensitive, and explained to Americans that he had no choice but to pull all our troops out right away. And then, if a new Korean War had broken out as a result, I suppose Eisenhower would have shrugged helplessly and told the nation, "It's not my fault. Those mean South Koreans made me do it--they said we had to go, or they would punish our soldiers in their courts when they got into trouble in a bar or something! What else could I do but comply?"

Your hypothetical describes reality through the lefts eyes. No idea of reality.
 
So, if I'm reading you right, the United States should have just told Iraq to go screw itself, even though a vast majority of people both here and there didn't want us there, and because Obama didn't do that (never mind that he would have been skewered both domestically and internationally if he had), everything that's happened since in that region is all his fault. Wow, you drive a hard bargain.

The Bush Administration negotiated a leave date. The Obama administration adhered to those terms, and didn't budge off a complete non-starter that you know damn well would have made you apoplectic, so anything that's happened since is his fault. Not Maliki's in any way ... just his. Amazing.

Shove your "messiah" talk directly up your own ass. Leaving American troops fighting a war on behalf of a puppet government subject to the edicts of said government is out of the question and you damn well know it.

Kobie, in your first "question" you reveal your willingness to fight wars for politics over all else. Shame on you.
Then you seek an out by blaming Bush. Shame on you.
Finally you present a strawman and ignore the facts of the issue. Shame on you.

Nothing in Utica can correct your flawed logic.
 
How has our President been weak in terms of handling ISIS, and what does it mean to get serious?

His bombing campaign has been ineffective in stopping the group.
 
His bombing campaign has been ineffective in stopping the group.

How air bombings and drone strikes weak and how is something like that not serious?
 
Kobie, in your first "question" you reveal your willingness to fight wars for politics over all else. Shame on you.
Then you seek an out by blaming Bush. Shame on you.
Finally you present a strawman and ignore the facts of the issue. Shame on you.

Nothing in Utica can correct your flawed logic.

1. I don't live in Utica, kid. I used to. I'm not sure why you continue to mention it ... you must see some relevance in it.
2-4. I see no denial of facts, which means you must accept them, yet still continue your blatant shilling.
 
Why do your good ideas only involve supplication and surrender?

Why do you continue to display your blatant ignorance of how the world actually functions? Do you think killing Maliki (as was suggested) would have been a good idea?
 
How air bombings and drone strikes weak and how is something like that not serious?

I said they are ineffective, is that not clear enough? Listen to the news, it's common knowledge.
 
The only people who can clean up that neighborhood are the people who live in it. If they don't want to do it, we're wasting our time and money trying to help them. :roll:

That is why we can help them, but not shoulder the responsibility. We must, however, protect ourselves and national interests.
 
You need the whole list or just the fop few?

So what is your solution to this problem? And please don't give the idiotic response (replace Obama). Give a detailed summary of what actions you think are needed NOW. The problem with most Cons is they are too busy bitching, but they rarely come up with anything better as a solution. Remember, conservatives say we cannot afford anymore spending, so you need to go off that point as well.
 
So what is your solution to this problem? And please don't give the idiotic response (replace Obama). Give a detailed summary of what actions you think are needed NOW. The problem with most Cons is they are too busy bitching, but they rarely come up with anything better as a solution. Remember, conservatives say we cannot afford anymore spending, so you need to go off that point as well.

Should have left a residual force. Should not have lied about the rise if ISIS. Should call them ISIS, not ISL. Should have met them head on with a quick strike force. Those are just for a start.
 
Should have left a residual force. Should not have lied about the rise if ISIS. Should call them ISIS, not ISL. Should have met them head on with a quick strike force. Those are just for a start.

Lots of "should of" there, I asked what we need to do NOW. Remember, we cannot afford any extra spending according to conservatives. This is turning out like I thought, not constructive in the least and is simply a bitch session by cons. They have no ideas on what to do NOW, they can only bitch about "should of".
 
The immunities issue was always a condition of United States forces remaining in Iraq. Why can you not comprehend this?

Now, if your argument is that we should have stayed, extraterritoriality be damned, then fine, make the argument. It's a dumb argument, but at least it's an argument, not a steadfast denial of facts that are in your own source.
I am surprised that no one on this board is familiar with negotiations. The Iraqis had an excellent bargaining chip. They failed to realize that Obama was not a leader. He was an empty suit best suited to lying to his own stupid supporters that securing a lasting peace in Iraq.

Obama's chickens are coming home to roost.
 
Lots of "should of" there, I asked what we need to do NOW. Remember, we cannot afford any extra spending according to conservatives. This is turning out like I thought, not constructive in the least and is simply a bitch session by cons. They have no ideas on what to do NOW, they can only bitch about "should of".
Its either one of two things. Go back and retake all lands from ISIS or turn our backs and never look back.
 
So what is your solution to this problem? And please don't give the idiotic response (replace Obama). Give a detailed summary of what actions you think are needed NOW. The problem with most Cons is they are too busy bitching, but they rarely come up with anything better as a solution. Remember, conservatives say we cannot afford anymore spending, so you need to go off that point as well.
We have plenty of money if we simply eliminate every program that lacks a Constitutional basis. That is most of the current federal spending.
 
Its either one of two things. Go back and retake all lands from ISIS or turn our backs and never look back.

But according to cons we can't afford the spending. So, are you saying we CAN afford it, thus back peddling from the con rhetoric, or are you still sticking to your guns we can't afford the spending? What are you saying here then?
 
I am surprised that no one on this board is familiar with negotiations. The Iraqis had an excellent bargaining chip. They failed to realize that Obama was not a leader. He was an empty suit best suited to lying to his own stupid supporters that securing a lasting peace in Iraq.

Obama's chickens are coming home to roost.

Ah, so now the Iraqis wouldn't let that go because it was Obama in the first place. The man's very existence led them to that stance.

Well, that's a new one. While I do enjoy watching you guys twist yourselves into rhetorical pretzels to blame all of our problems on Obama, it's kinda getting boring.
 
We have plenty of money if we simply eliminate every program that lacks a Constitutional basis. That is most of the current federal spending.

Your opinion noted, but the reality is the GOP supports many of that federal spending.
 
But according to cons we can't afford the spending. So, are you saying we CAN afford it, thus back peddling from the con rhetoric, or are you still sticking to your guns we can't afford the spending? What are you saying here then?

We can afford it. "I" never said we couldn't.
 
We can afford it. "I" never said we couldn't.

So then the conservative rhetoric from the tea party about we can't afford the spending is BS then. Thank you for your confirmation.
 
If it were my decision alone. I would drop it and leave. We trained and supplied them for 10 years. They cut and ran when faced with a determined force. Sucks to be them.
 
So then the conservative rhetoric from the tea party about we can't afford the spending is BS then. Thank you for your confirmation.

Sorry if you thought I was in lock step with any politician on every issue.
 
"I am surprised that no one on this board is familiar with negotiations. The Iraqis had an excellent bargaining chip. They failed to realize that Obama was not a leader. He was an empty suit best suited to lying to his own stupid supporters that securing a lasting peace in Iraq.

Obama's chickens are coming home to roost."
Ah, so now the Iraqis wouldn't let that go because it was Obama in the first place. The man's very existence led them to that stance.

Well, that's a new one. While I do enjoy watching you guys twist yourselves into rhetorical pretzels to blame all of our problems on Obama, it's kinda getting boring.
I am not surprised that you missed the point.

Had Obama been a leader he could have negotiated a reasonable arrangement to secure peace in Iraq. But Obama has never been a leader. He is an agitator and propagandist.
 
Back
Top Bottom