• 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!

Gov. Scott Walker: Don't Rule Out 'Boots on the Ground' Against ISIS

US Conservative said:
I am not eager-I recognize that evil will not be appeased and it will make it worse to do so.

You fight until the war is won, not until liberals cry thats uncle.
Click to expand...

Except YOU won't be doing the fighting only the tough talk. Talk is cheap. The reality is that until we allow the people that live in the ME to fight their own wars it will never end. There are armies surrounding ISIS right now but instead you suggest that we should come halfway around the world and fight instead of them. How smart is that?
 
imagep said:
9/11 was nearly 14 years ago. It's not like they do that on a regular bases.
Click to expand...

So if if the Militant Islamic Fundamentalists only kill 3,000 innocent civilians on US soil say once every 15 years, then that would be OK? We should just absorb those infrequent losses, and carry on?

Somehow I don't think that's what you are really saying. Or is it?

imagep said:
I'm not sure if the Boston incident was ever connected to anything other than the two brothers.

**** happens, and it's going to continue to happen, regardless of what we do in the middle east. I suspect that it's our actions in the middle east that tends to provoke it.
Click to expand...

True. Nut jobs are going to do terrible things and potentially hut or kill many people. But you don't 'deal' with cancer by letting it grow larger and more powerful. Earlier is better.
 
imagep said:
If Iraq warplanes were flying over the US, don't you think we would be shooting at them?

Which part of the constitution says that we should be "enforcing the no fly zones...in Iraq"?

And we wonder why those people hate us so much.
Click to expand...

If we were gassing a kurdish minority, would anyone blame those enforcing the no-fly zone protecting them?

You said Iraq didn't attack us. Our forces (with the UK and France) were under daily assault, while under the terms of a cease fire. The 1991 gulf war never really ended. Saying "Iraq never attacked us" is just painfully wrong.
 
iguanaman said:
Except YOU won't be doing the fighting only the tough talk. Talk is cheap. The reality is that until we allow the people that live in the ME to fight their own wars it will never end. There are armies surrounding ISIS right now but instead you suggest that we should come halfway around the world and fight instead of them. How smart is that?
Click to expand...

When does anyone but the military do the fighting? And since when do they decide when to go to war?

You are right about one thing-lefty talk is quite cheap. Dont you have a UN resolution to push?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
If we were gassing a kurdish minority, would anyone blame those enforcing the no-fly zone protecting them?

You said Iraq didn't attack us. Our forces (with the UK and France) were under daily assault, while under the terms of a cease fire. The 1991 gulf war never really ended. Saying "Iraq never attacked us" is just painfully wrong.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And a ceasefire isnt peace-youve just stopped firing. We would have been justified going back in at any time.
 
Just look at these saber rattlers anxious and chomping at the bit to get embroiled in some other country's battles. Just goes to show the anti war people just how far they'd go to spill more American blood. Gotta keep America's was machine well greased and oiled.
 
imagep said:
If that is what your government chooses do do, then have at it.

The US constitution certainly doesn't provide for any requirement for the US to defend Iraq.
Click to expand...

There's never a "requirement" to do the right thing. People have avoided doing the right thing throughout history, usually with less than desirable results. As Obamacarefail noted, governments avoided doing the right thing in the lead up to WW2 - nothing required them to do so.
 
AJiveMan said:
Just look at these saber rattlers anxious and chomping at the bit to get embroiled in some other country's battles. Just goes to show the anti war people just how far they'd go to spill more American blood. Gotta keep America's was machine well greased and oiled.
Click to expand...

Yeah thats it alright. :roll:

In the mean time, Obama put us back in.
 
apdst said:
Not nearly as bad as you offering up thousands of innocents to prove your Liberal cowardice.
Click to expand...

How about their own young men get off their cowardly asses and fight for their innocents. Why does it have to be ours?
 
apdst said:
What unit did you serve in?
Click to expand...

If he served what difference does it makes? At least he's not a chickenhawk.

We live in weird times. Unlike Vietnam the civilians kiss our arses and say everbody in uniform is a hero, or thank us for serving, or put worthless yellow ribbons on their car windows. But our fellow veterans treat each other like crap at times.
 
Last edited:
EnigmaO01 said:
If he served what difference does it makes? At least he's not a chickenhawk.

We live in weird times. Unlike Vietnam the civilians kiss our arses and say everbody in uniform is a hero, or thank us for serving, or put worthless yellow ribbons on their car windows. But our fellow veterans treat each other like crap at times.
Click to expand...

Man has always lived in weird times kid.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Must be really heroic for you to offer up other peoples sons and daughters in some pathetic attempt at showing off your Conservative Bravado.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking they volunteered.
 
haymarket said:
They never are. And that is the pity of it all.
Click to expand...

Perhaps "boots on the ground" isn't the solution. What do you recommend, Haymarket? What is your strategy for dealing with ISIS, which is becoming ever more bold and dangerous?
 
The fact we have ISIS to contend with today is a direct result of our putting "boots on the ground" in Iraq in the first place back in 2003. ISIS is estimated to be about 30,000 fighters or so. The Iraqi Armed Forces has 271,500 active members and over 500,000 in reserve. So why can't they defeat ISIS in their own country? It is because the Iraqi government is so corrupt and ineffectual that they can't. We could go in there and somehow miraculously kill every member of ISIS overnight, and in a little time another bunch of Islamists would spring up and take their place. Gosh if only Iraq were ruled by some brutal strongman dictator that could brutally suppress groups like ISIS before they gained any power…..
 
nota bene said:
Perhaps "boots on the ground" isn't the solution. What do you recommend, Haymarket? What is your strategy for dealing with ISIS, which is becoming ever more bold and dangerous?
Click to expand...

I have not yet seen any published or aired strategy that I could support.
 
haymarket said:
I have not yet seen any published or aired strategy that I could support.
Click to expand...

Post # 117 just about covers the chickenhawk syndrome some people have, people in that area of the world cut and run in the face of battle, and want America to be their police force. We gave them what they needed to defend themselves, and they laid down the arms and equipment and ran away.

We should never have gone there in the first place. But it was mission accomplished, whatever the **** that meant.
 
AJiveMan said:
Post # 117 just about covers the chickenhawk syndrome some people have, people in that area of the world cut and run in the face of battle, and want America to be their police force. We gave them what they needed to defend themselves, and they laid down the arms and equipment and ran away.

We should never have gone there in the first place. But it was mission accomplished, whatever the **** that meant.
Click to expand...

Obama lied, innocent people died.
 
Crosscheck said:
So you are taking at jabs if someone doesn't have any family members ever in the service and yet you have no problem supporting Romney who far as I know has never had any member in the military.
You just keep those goalposts on wheels I suppose.

What a joke.
Click to expand...

No, I'm addressing people who use, "kill other people's kids", argument to excuse inaction. The situation in the ME is only going to get worse. The longer we wait, the more people will die dealing with it. That's fine for those folks, because their kids won't ever be the ones dealing with it. Doing something now will save lives later.
 
nota bene said:
Perhaps "boots on the ground" isn't the solution. What do you recommend, Haymarket? What is your strategy for dealing with ISIS, which is becoming ever more bold and dangerous?
Click to expand...

What do you recommend we do about Boko Haram in Nigeria which is becoming ever more bold and dangerous? What do you recommend we do about groups like the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda and DR Congo which have become ever more bold and dangerous? What should we do about the narcotics gangs in Mexico? They behead more people than ISIS, should we go into Mexico with boots on the ground? What about the drug cartels in Columbia? Depending on the year violence is either the number 1 or number 2 cause of death in Columbia so should we go in there? As a comparison violence still doesn't even make the top 20 causes of death in Iraq.

Point being the world is still a place that has a lot of very dangerous groups in it, many of them of them so brutal they make ISIS practically look like peaceniks. So why do we need to significantly intervene in Iraq again but not these other places?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
What do you recommend we do about Boko Haram in Nigeria which is becoming ever more bold and dangerous? What do you recommend we do about groups like the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda and DR Congo which have become ever more bold and dangerous? What should we do about the narcotics gangs in Mexico? They behead more people than ISIS, should we go into Mexico with boots on the ground? What about the drug cartels in Columbia? Depending on the year violence is either the number 1 or number 2 cause of death in Columbia so should we go in there? As a comparison violence still doesn't even make the top 20 causes of death in Iraq.

Point being the world is still a place that has a lot of very dangerous groups in it, many of them of them so brutal they make ISIS practically look like peaceniks. So why do we need to significantly intervene in Iraq again but not these other places?
Click to expand...

Because **** evil appeaser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom