• 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

ISIS is the new name for Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist until we deposed Saddam and attempted to democratize Iraq.

If I recall, even after the deposing of Saddam, Al Qaeda in Iraq wasn't a factor. The main combatants against the coalition forces were the Baath party. ISIS came to rise only after the power vacuum when the Status of Forces agreement between the US and Iraq wasn't achieved and the retreat of the incompetent and politically appointed leaders of the Iraqi security forces.

Had the Status of Forces agreement been achieved, and US forces left in Iraq, likely that the Iraqi based ISIS wouldn't have taken as much land or forces as they ended up taking.
 
Please name these undefined members of the "right" that you are referring to.
`
I could be anyone not associated with the left. Hard to tell. The articles I read don't specify.
 
Thought so.

Oh please. I said the "right wing" because that's the way news gets reported. It didn't qualify it by stating "some", "many", "a few", one thousand, etc. What I did not say was "ALL" the right wing. Now, one of your libertarian friends here made this statement;

Almost everyone, Democrat or Republican.......

That qualifies the statement to mean over 75% (+/-) which is blatantly misleading as no proof was offered.

Get used to the fact that when using English in the vernacular, it is perfectly acceptable to be vague when the exact amount of anything, is unknown.
 
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?

So you don't have an answer? Why should we keep fighting their wars for them? Bush spent billions training and equipping the Iraqi's and for what? The Saudi's have the largest army in the ME and ISIS is after them but you want to send our men instead. When will we learn?
 
Oh please. I said the "right wing" because that's the way news gets reported. It didn't qualify it by stating "some", "many", "a few", one thousand, etc. What I did not say was "ALL" the right wing. Now, one of your libertarian friends here made this statement;



That qualifies the statement to mean over 75% (+/-) which is blatantly misleading as no proof was offered.

Get used to the fact that in using English in the vernacular, it is perfectly acceptable to be vague when the exact amount of anything, is unknown.

I think it was fair to ask you to name a few members of the "right" that you are referring to. Surely you could do that easily since it was you that made the claim.

"Vague" is putting it mildly when discussing your claims.
 
So you don't have an answer? Why should we keep fighting their wars for them? Bush spent billions training and equipping the Iraqi's and for what? The Saudi's have the largest army in the ME and ISIS is after them but you want to send our men instead. When will we learn?

Its our war too.
Obama appears to think so.
 
So you don't have an answer? Why should we keep fighting their wars for them? Bush spent billions training and equipping the Iraqi's and for what? The Saudi's have the largest army in the ME and ISIS is after them but you want to send our men instead. When will we learn?

Not even close. Iran has twice as many active duty military as Saudi Arabia.
 
If I recall, even after the deposing of Saddam, Al Qaeda in Iraq wasn't a factor. The main combatants against the coalition forces were the Baath party. ISIS came to rise only after the power vacuum when the Status of Forces agreement between the US and Iraq wasn't achieved and the retreat of the incompetent and politically appointed leaders of the Iraqi security forces.

Had the Status of Forces agreement been achieved, and US forces left in Iraq, likely that the Iraqi based ISIS wouldn't have taken as much land or forces as they ended up taking.

ISIS had its start in Syria, how would us staying in Iraq prevented that? We were told that Bush left a stable Iraq under Maliki are you saying he lied?
 
ISIS had its start in Syria, how would us staying in Iraq prevented that? We were told that Bush left a stable Iraq under Maliki are you saying he lied?

It was stable until Obama made a mess of it in both Iraq and Syria.

He also made a mess of Egypt and Libya. O has a great track record in the middle east.
 
I think it was fair to ask you to name a few members of the "right" that you are referring to. Surely you could do that easily since it was you that made the claim."Vague" is putting it mildly when discussing your claims.
`
Perhaps you should have asked me for proof instead as playing with semantics.
 
`
Perhaps you should have asked me for proof instead as playing with semantics.

Asking you to name some of the legions of the "right" you claim WAS asking for proof.

But you knew that.
 
Must be really heroic for you to offer up other peoples sons and daughters in some pathetic attempt at showing off your Conservative Bravado.



Ah I forget when it was the current stock of Republicans set the terms for Obama's war.

It was Obama who said "no boots on the ground". So instead of making this about Republicans again, let's maybe focus on the guy who has the power and has been sending Americans to their death for seven years....

And that would be your Barrack Hussein Obama, the same man who allowed the assassination of a sitting US diplomat to pass without ado of any kind and the stupid **** who has admitted he knew ISIS was on the rise BEFORE he decided to get those political pawns hew calls troops home for his re-coronation.

As much as you hate to admit it, Republicans are better at war than Democrats.....at least they know when to hold and when to fold. Obama cashes in then has to ante up all over again...

His only strategy is blame Republicans and get his info on terrorism "just like you do" from TV.

Yeah, seven years later this is still a Republican mess and Obama is, as usual faultless because of his skin color.
 
Its our war too.
Obama appears to think so.

Obama is using our air support to help the Iraqi's not our troops. He agrees with me that the locals need to be the ones to stop ISIS on the ground. Otherwise it will be constant war.
 
If I recall, even after the deposing of Saddam, Al Qaeda in Iraq wasn't a factor. The main combatants against the coalition forces were the Baath party. ISIS came to rise only after the power vacuum when the Status of Forces agreement between the US and Iraq wasn't achieved and the retreat of the incompetent and politically appointed leaders of the Iraqi security forces.

Had the Status of Forces agreement been achieved, and US forces left in Iraq, likely that the Iraqi based ISIS wouldn't have taken as much land or forces as they ended up taking.

Al Qaeda in Iraq was quite active in the early 2000s after we deposed Saddam.

Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (Al-Qaeda in Iraq) - Council on Foreign Relations
 
And Al Qaeda in Iraq's predecessor was Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, which was formed in 1999.

If I remember correctly, Clinton was president then.

That group started in Jordan. It never became a problem for us until 2004, after we went into Iraq when they started to become part of the insurgency.
 
And we weren't attacked by Iraq when Clinton was POTUS. Of course we weren't attacked or even provoked by Iraq when Bush was POTUS either, yet he decided to go to war against Iraq.

If Bush didn't attack Iraq a dozen years ago, do you think we would have any business in Iraq today?


you forget Clintons started the Iraq war and trumped it up to cover Cigargate..
 
Ah I forget when it was the current stock of Republicans set the terms for Obama's war.

It was Obama who said "no boots on the ground". So instead of making this about Republicans again, let's maybe focus on the guy who has the power and has been sending Americans to their death for seven years....

And that would be your Barrack Hussein Obama, the same man who allowed the assassination of a sitting US diplomat to pass without ado of any kind and the stupid **** who has admitted he knew ISIS was on the rise BEFORE he decided to get those political pawns hew calls troops home for his re-coronation.

As much as you hate to admit it, Republicans are better at war than Democrats.....at least they know when to hold and when to fold. Obama cashes in then has to ante up all over again...

His only strategy is blame Republicans and get his info on terrorism "just like you do" from TV.

Yeah, seven years later this is still a Republican mess and Obama is, as usual faultless because of his skin color.

You got one thing right. Republicans are better at getting us into endless wars that make our country less safe.
 
ISIS had its start in Syria, how would us staying in Iraq prevented that? We were told that Bush left a stable Iraq under Maliki are you saying he lied?

Yes, ISIS started in Syria, and spilled over, taking huge tracts of land. Had US troop presence been maintained, especially FACs, my thinking is that ISIS wouldn't have been take to take and hold that land, cutting off their supply of militants as well as the US equipment the Iraqi's ran away from.

There's a difference between a stable and reenforced with US troops Iraq and one that's been abandoned due to lack of SoF.
 
So you don't have an answer? Why should we keep fighting their wars for them? Bush spent billions training and equipping the Iraqi's and for what? The Saudi's have the largest army in the ME and ISIS is after them but you want to send our men instead. When will we learn?

Uh Oh, here we are with our "lefty talk" again. :roll:
 
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.

The more of them we kill, the more of them we make.

Our prolonged presence and meddling in the affairs of the Middle East is what has grown this problem.
 
`
Perhaps you should have asked me for proof instead as playing with semantics.

This is their meme.

Now, let's send some ground forces and search for IED's and swat some flies, we have the money to oil our military machine, and young people looking for combat experience, if we don't then we'll just reinstate the draft and make 'em go.

57ed6d4d86aca63889ad9998acfa3f61d9591a10d6ce8ab680274704398a8abf.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom