• 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

Looks like Walker is the first Republican primary candidate to start the wacky comments that they will try ans walk back in a general election. That is the best take, the other possibility is he really believes it which would be much worse.

You're free to vote for Hillary... you know the lady that voted for the Iraq war, made of mess of our relations with Russia, got an American Ambassador killed, etc., etc., etc.
 
He's a liberal. He believes that if it were Obama he would have been taking out potential hijackers with flying side kicks and nun chucks before the sunset on the day Moussaoui was arrested.

well, he's no "liberal" but I imagine you are right.....

However the case they make kind of suggests Obama is one of the fat kids at the back of the room voting "present" until hew knows where his bread is buttered.

Now which is more realistic considering his voting record?
 
This is patently false. Moussaoui was picked up for immigration violations by the FBI and the agents requested that his laptop be searched on a hunch by the investigating agents. What kept that from happening was FISA restrictions. The FBI agent therefor never had more than a hunch and at the time Moussaoui was nothing more than an illegal alien with an interest in flight simulators.

What did you want the FBI to do on a hunch? Round up all of his acquaintances and throw them in prison?



Isn't the Obama administration's policy on illegal immigrants is "amnesty"?

Wow, now they're suggesting Bush was a failure because he didn't do what they themselves have fought, kicked and screamed about not to do......

How the **** to people get that confused without substances?
 
Isn't the Obama administration's policy on illegal immigrants is "amnesty"?

Wow, now they're suggesting Bush was a failure because he didn't do what they themselves have fought, kicked and screamed about not to do......

How the **** to people get that confused without substances?

There was one of those political bias studies done a few years ago, the kind that tries to show the real differences between the "liberal" and "conservative" minds. I found this one interesting because it stated that "liberals" have the ability to maintain two contradictory beliefs at the same time. While the discussion boards I frequented then had liberals trumpeting the findings as proof of the complexity of liberal thought I couldn't help but see the hilarious irony of them trumpeting a study that essentially called liberals hypocrites. :lamo

But yeah, iguanaman essentially demands that the Bush administration act contrary to the liberal line on immigration, and contrary to the liberal line of FISA courts in order to stop the 9/11 attack based on the hunch of an FBI agent. It's like in iguanaman's mind the show 24 is a documentary.
 
There was one of those political bias studies done a few years ago, the kind that tries to show the real differences between the "liberal" and "conservative" minds. I found this one interesting because it stated that "liberals" have the ability to maintain two contradictory beliefs at the same time. While the discussion boards I frequented then had liberals trumpeting the findings as proof of the complexity of liberal thought I couldn't help but see the hilarious irony of them trumpeting a study that essentially called liberals hypocrites. :lamo

But yeah, iguanaman essentially demands that the Bush administration act contrary to the liberal line on immigration, and contrary to the liberal line of FISA courts in order to stop the 9/11 attack based on the hunch of an FBI agent. It's like in iguanaman's mind the show 24 is a documentary.



You have been hoodwinked.

There are NO liberals in the US. Maybe six.

Liberal has been hijacked by socialists to disguise what it is they really are. It started in the 20's, there is a post somewhere in here of Ronald Reagan making that case....

What you have in the US are convenient socialist-populists [Hollywood stars still want their SUV's] with the rest of the country divided into varying degrees of conservative.

If you change the word "liberal" to "socialist" it is actually a quote from Winston Churchill.

It is classic, by the way, for the socialist/communist to argue cyclically causing a great deal of Irony. But, but stretching and actually reversing the very meanings of words, yes, any socialist can demand of their opponents that which they say they oppose.

The truth is, there is no progress in progressive. We have had these ideas in Canada, exactly as prescribed by the wonders of Obamaland around sine the 1910's, wqhen the first official socialist-communist party was formed - the "Cooperative Commonwealth Federation", who stood for higher minimum wage ....and, not really mentioned, the nationalization of all non-farm land!

There is no Affordable in the ACA, there is no Progress in progressive and no "liberal" as in tolerant, accepting and willing to compromise anywhere in the US
 
Bush didn't leave Iraq, Obama did. Are you saying Obama left an unstable Iraq?

Bush signed the agreement that got us out of Iraq. Obama tried to get it extended but Maliki would not.
 
This is patently false. Moussaoui was picked up for immigration violations by the FBI and the agents requested that his laptop be searched on a hunch by the investigating agents. What kept that from happening was FISA restrictions. The FBI agent therefor never had more than a hunch and at the time Moussaoui was nothing more than an illegal alien with an interest in flight simulators.

What did you want the FBI to do on a hunch? Round up all of his acquaintances and throw them in prison?

Hunch?
On August 16, 2001, Moussaoui was arrested in Minnesota by the FBI and charged with an immigration violation. He aroused suspicion over his flight training courses that he took in Eagan, Minnesota.

Zacarias Moussaoui - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
What the hell difference does that make???

They were still a terrorist organization well before the second Iraq war started.

They were a terrorist organization whose goal was the overthrow of Saddam. What they became as a result of our going into Iraq is a much, much stronger terrorist organization that is a threat to us. So yeah, it makes a difference.
 
He's a liberal. He believes that if it were Obama he would have been taking out potential hijackers with flying side kicks and nun chucks before the sunset on the day Moussaoui was arrested.

Are you saying that the FBI should not have checked the records of the other flight schools when the CIA had already given warnings that "Al Qaeda was determined to strike the US" and when Bush's daily brief included this ominous quote " We have not been able to coorborate some of the more sensational threat reporting such as that from a ----- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack US aircraft...."

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf
 
Bush signed the agreement that got us out of Iraq. Obama tried to get it extended but Maliki would not.

Also a complete and utter lie. The results of the US pullout of Iraq laid entirely on Obama's administration. In fact Maliki wanted more troops to remain in Iraq, but Obama offered fewer troops and a misguided attempt at power sharing. Gates and Maliki wasn't something closer to 16,000 troops, Obama pushed Gates to back 10,000, and then out of the blue Obama dropped the offer to 1,500 troops. This would force Maliki into a position where he would have to deal with the hardliners in Parliament for keeping American troops while getting no one of the security benefits Maliki knew he needed.

Obama killed the negotiations. Nobody else. Read the NYT account. Obama's abysmal performance is detailed in the section "Another Obstacle" (aka. President Obama)
 
Are you saying that the FBI should not have checked the records of the other flight schools when the CIA had already given warnings that "Al Qaeda was determined to strike the US" and when Bush's daily brief included this ominous quote " We have not been able to coorborate some of the more sensational threat reporting such as that from a ----- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack US aircraft...."

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf

Hmmm... does the phrase "we have not been able to corroborate" mean something different in your language?
 
Bush didn't leave Iraq, Obama did. Are you saying Obama left an unstable Iraq?

Obama left Iraq on the time table that Bush agreed to. I suspect that we would have left by the terms of that agreement, regardless of who was POTUS.

Obviously Iraq was still somewhat unstable, but no one was predicting that ISIS would move in like they did.
 
Also a complete and utter lie. The results of the US pullout of Iraq laid entirely on Obama's administration. In fact Maliki wanted more troops to remain in Iraq, but Obama offered fewer troops and a misguided attempt at power sharing. Gates and Maliki wasn't something closer to 16,000 troops, Obama pushed Gates to back 10,000, and then out of the blue Obama dropped the offer to 1,500 troops. This would force Maliki into a position where he would have to deal with the hardliners in Parliament for keeping American troops while getting no one of the security benefits Maliki knew he needed.

Obama killed the negotiations. Nobody else. Read the NYT account. Obama's abysmal performance is detailed in the section "Another Obstacle" (aka. President Obama)

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.
Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com
 
Hunch?
On August 16, 2001, Moussaoui was arrested in Minnesota by the FBI and charged with an immigration violation. He aroused suspicion over his flight training courses that he took in Eagan, Minnesota.

Zacarias Moussaoui - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He was arrested for immigration violations, and FISA regulations prohibited the FBI from going any further in pulling information from Moussaoui's personal items.

In fact, it was this stone wall that would later lead to the FISA court changes in the PATRIOT Act.
 

Time got it wrong and the New York Times got it right. The problem was that Obama at the last minute offered Maliki only 10% of the troops that he and US SecDef thought would be needed. Obama killed the negotiation with radical demands.

But then this is Obama's bull**** modus operandi. When he wants to kill a negotiation he makes crazy offers, backs out of agreements, and then blames the other side for killing the negotiations (he did this with the Republicans on the "big budget deal" a few years back). He is a wholly unscrupulous negotiator who can't be trusted. This is why he has been unable to accomplish anything of value since losing the House in 2010.
 
Obama left Iraq on the time table that Bush agreed to. I suspect that we would have left by the terms of that agreement, regardless of who was POTUS.

Obviously Iraq was still somewhat unstable, but no one was predicting that ISIS would move in like they did.

*sigh* Obama left Iraq because B-b-booooosh. :roll:


So tell me, if this was all about Bush's negotiation then why was Obama negotiating a SOF with Iraq? How many troops did the Booosh administration agree to leave in the country?
 
Last edited:
Are you saying that the FBI should not have checked the records of the other flight schools when the CIA had already given warnings that "Al Qaeda was determined to strike the US" and when Bush's daily brief included this ominous quote " We have not been able to coorborate some of the more sensational threat reporting such as that from a ----- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack US aircraft...."

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf

Who would have ever thought a terrorist group would try to highjack an airplane. That is crazy talk.
 
Outside of Kurdish controlled areas, it wasn't operating in Iraq until 2004. In fact, Saddam was hostile to the group:

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Saddam Hussein was hostile to every terror sponsored group, because he wanted to control Iraq, totally.

I did a Google search using this simple phrase (how bush destabilized the middle east) and this is one of the articles found in the search;
Snip
He took us to war based on a lie, with no plan on what to do after Saddam was out of power, and absolutely no exit strategy. And after he signed the SOFA agreement requiring all of our troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011, it was only a matter of time before some radical Islamic group tried to take over Iraq. - See more at: ISIS is Just Another Problem Caused by Bush that Republicans are Blaming on Obama

So basically, removing Saddam Hussein was the beginning of the ruination of Iraq. One big mistake.
 
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.

The difference it makes, is that most civilians can't appreciate the importance of swift, decisive action. It doesn't mean there's anything wrngnwith them, but they lack the vision and experience to opine from an informed position.

Had we acted decisively back in June, we might not be having this conversation. We passed up a damn good opportunity to destroy the ISIS main body, as it invaded Iraq.

Ultimately, the point is, we have people screaming for inaction, but if--when--that course turns out to be the wrong one, none of those people are going to have to face the consequences. They're certainly willing to accept the city compounded consequences of waiting, since they know their kids D's won't ever be in the line of fire. You think the isolationists of the 1930's sent their kids to WW2, after things had blown up to the point that 400,000 Americans had to die to wrap things up? Why hell no!
 
Saddam Hussein was hostile to every terror sponsored group, because he wanted to control Iraq, totally.

I did a Google search using this simple phrase (how bush destabilized the middle east) and this is one of the articles found in the search;
Snip


So basically, removing Saddam Hussein was the beginning of the ruination of Iraq. One big mistake.

Not every terrorist group.
 
Saddam Hussein was hostile to every terror sponsored group, because he wanted to control Iraq, totally.

I did a Google search using this simple phrase (how bush destabilized the middle east) and this is one of the articles found in the search;
Snip


So basically, removing Saddam Hussein was the beginning of the ruination of Iraq. One big mistake.

Funny, a Progressive website misses entirely that the final SOF agreement fell on Obama to negotiate. :roll:

A quick question: If the Bush SOF that he negotiated in 2008 had orders to leave 16,000 troops in Iraq do you think Obama would have kept 16,000 troops in Iraq?

Bush stated at the time that he was negotiating a SOF agreement that would leave the SOF in place for the next President. Obama actually used that statement at the time to target McCain as a Bush lackey. Obama wanted to get the troops out of Iraq, he said so. The only reason they were there in 2011 was because he needed to do it closer to his second election run. He submarined the SOF negotiation so that he could keep his promise even while all the grown ups in the room were urging a larger force in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Saddam Hussein was hostile to every terror sponsored group, because he wanted to control Iraq, totally.

I did a Google search using this simple phrase (how bush destabilized the middle east) and this is one of the articles found in the search;
Snip


So basically, removing Saddam Hussein was the beginning of the ruination of Iraq. One big mistake.

Well I don't think Obama has done a very good job of handling the problem at all. However, I am sure as hell not stupid enough to trust the same bunch that got use into this mess in the first place with it.
 
Back
Top Bottom