• 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

Jack Hays said:
I have no party, but I know the sure way to make a bad situation worse is to ignore it.
Click to expand...

Its bad for someone.....


Not us though....

Unless you think our nation is so weak it can be threatened by people who have to resort to using swords to cut off heads.......
 
Caine said:
Its bad for someone.....


Not us though....

Unless you think our nation is so weak it can be threatened by people who have to resort to using swords to cut off heads.......
Click to expand...

I know, God help us with Los Zetas just at our southern border if ISIS is so threatening to us.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Sure that would have kept ISIS from taking over so much of the country... Had we just left a couple of thousand of our soldiers walled off in the green zone. That way not only would ISIS be taking over the county, they would use are presence as propaganda arguing they are liberating Iraq from the western imperialists. At which point we would either have to have another huge buildup for another surge to tamp down the Islamists in the country again, or just pack up and leave under worse circumstances than what we left under.
Click to expand...

It was our failure to take timely action in Syria, combined with our abdication in Iraq, that gave ISIS a safe haven.
 
Caine said:
Its bad for someone.....


Not us though....

Unless you think our nation is so weak it can be threatened by people who have to resort to using swords to cut off heads.......
Click to expand...

Those are the same people who flew airplanes into our buildings.
 
Jack Hays said:
It was our failure to take timely action in Syria, combined with our abdication in Iraq, that gave ISIS a safe haven.
Click to expand...

OH MY GOD!
It was not our failure to take action with meddling in the affairs of another sovereign nation.

Can you explain how it would have been within our right to take action in Syria when Syria was already taking action in Syria?

barack_obama_s_logic_on_syria_540.jpg
 
Jack Hays said:
Those are the same people who flew airplanes into our buildings.
Click to expand...

Really? Im pretty sure the guys who flew planes into our bulidings died with the planes..... but maybe I was wrong?


You can't continue to be at war with a religious ideology..... that can only end in genocide....or never end at all.
 
Jack Hays said:
It was our failure to take timely action in Syria, combined with our abdication in Iraq, that gave ISIS a safe haven.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, its always just the failure to enter into yet more wars that causes these terrorists groups to get safe havens. When have we heard that before? I believe it would have been back in 2002 with the run up to the war in Iraq. I wonder how many wars we need to get involved in to keep these terrorists from getting those "safe havens". Let's do the warmonger math:

1. Syria
2. Libya
3. Yemen
4. Nigeria
5. Iran (nuclear ambitions you know)
6. Pakistan

So we would have at least those countries for a start.
 
shortstackone said:
We should destroy Isis, if I was younger I would go fight with the Kurds.
Click to expand...

If in "We" you are referring to yourself as an Iraqi, then yes! You should!!!!!!

If in "We" you are referring to the United States.... then NO We should not!!!!!
 
Caine said:
OH MY GOD!
It was not our failure to take action with meddling in the affairs of another sovereign nation.

Can you explain how it would have been within our right to take action in Syria when Syria was already taking action in Syria?

barack_obama_s_logic_on_syria_540.jpg
Click to expand...

The Asad regime was a principal arms supplier and sponsor of the terror group Hezbollah, and the forward base of Iran's projection of influence in the Middle East. It's demise was distinctly in our interest but our failure to provide timely support to Syrian rebels (with not a single pair of US boots on the ground) led to the stalemate in which ISIS a was able to take root.
 
Caine said:
Really? Im pretty sure the guys who flew planes into our bulidings died with the planes..... but maybe I was wrong?


You can't continue to be at war with a religious ideology..... that can only end in genocide....or never end at all.
Click to expand...

They have more, and the war is not our choice. They are at war with us.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yes, yes, its always just the failure to enter into yet more wars that causes these terrorists groups to get safe havens. When have we heard that before? I believe it would have been back in 2002 with the run up to the war in Iraq. I wonder how many wars we need to get involved in to keep these terrorists from getting those "safe havens". Let's do the warmonger math:

1. Syria
2. Libya
3. Yemen
4. Nigeria
5. Iran (nuclear ambitions you know)
6. Pakistan

So we would have at least those countries for a start.
Click to expand...

None of those would require US combat forces.
 
Jack Hays said:
GWB won Iraq. BHO threw the victory away.
Click to expand...

Some victory that was. Oust one sectarian dictator and enemy of Iran and install another sectarian dictator who was a puppet of Iran. What could possibly go wrong?
 
Jack Hays said:
None of those would require US combat forces.
Click to expand...

Really? How do you figure? In all those cases the government is either so corrupt and ineffectual that terrorism thrives there or the government's support the terrorist organizations. So how would you deal with them without engaging in some sort of regime change? For example, lets say we start napalming Boku Haram's jungle hideouts, do you honestly think that Goodluck Jonathan will all of a sudden give up his corrupt ways that allowed a group like Boku Haram to thrive there in the first place?
 
Last edited:
US Conservative said:
Iraq war 1. :2wave: Arguably Iraq war 2 and Vietnam but in those cases democrats lost the peace.
Click to expand...

I believe the liberation of Kuwait was a true coalition effort costs and all. It does not count as a US victory for that reason, there were many other nations involved.. Iraq 2 was simply a regime change from one sectarian dictator to another and Vietnam....was Nixon a Democrat?
 
US Conservative said:
Last I checked Britain, Canada, France, and several arab nations were fighting in or over Iraq as well.
Click to expand...

And how has that worked out? Things have gotten worse since we invaded a sovereign nation under false pretenses.
 
jmotivator said:
"Caught training at a commercial aircraft flight school"? Is that a crime? He was arrested for overstaying his visa. It was the flight simulator software they recovered at his home that got the FBI agent to start thinking something more was going on. It was the request to dig into his laptop that was rejected by FISA.

Your quote from Tenet would be what is called "Monday Morning Quarterbacking". That he considered a connection after the attack says nothing about the ability to actually investigate the case before the crime was committed. The special investigative powers needed to dig into Moussaoui's life would fall under the FISA, and FISA rejected their request.
Click to expand...

When the FBI went to the Flight school they found out that Moussaoui only wanted to learn to fly and turn wide body jets and no take-offs and landings. That is what set off the red flags. They did not need FISA to investigate other flight schools either.
 
US Conservative said:
By arab terms after a major war there was-compare the number of attacks pre surge (that Obama and the left opposed-they were eager to lose the war for politics even then) to post, and pre withdrawal from post withdrawal.

Face it-Obama lost the war by withdrawing, and now he can't ignore the negative consequences of that.
Click to expand...

The "surge had nothing to do with the reduction in attacks, it was the "great awakening" of the Sunni tribes that rejected Al Qaeda and who were promised representation in the new Govt. which they never got. They are the same ones that allowed ISIS to take over much of their territory in Iraq after Maliki persecuted them. Bush's choice of Maliki was just one of a series of bad decisions that sealed Iraq's fate long before Obama had any say.
And before you say Maliki was elected I will remind you that he was first vetted and approved by the CIA and GW himself. Malaiki was a Shia terrorist with close ties to Iran but Bush was desperate to find anyone who would take the job before his terms were over.
 
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...

The surest way out of these costly, elective wars is to re-institute the draft.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yes, yes, its always just the failure to enter into yet more wars that causes these terrorists groups to get safe havens. When have we heard that before? I believe it would have been back in 2002 with the run up to the war in Iraq. I wonder how many wars we need to get involved in to keep these terrorists from getting those "safe havens". Let's do the warmonger math:

1. Syria
2. Libya
3. Yemen
4. Nigeria
5. Iran (nuclear ambitions you know)
6. Pakistan

So we would have at least those countries for a start.
Click to expand...

...and, of course, each war will result in a de-stabilized adjacent country that will also have to be attacked.
 
US Conservative said:
You must be the only one that thinks allowing terrorism to flourish, ceeding massive swathes of territory to them, and then not attacking them (because it will make more ya know) makes anyone but the terrorists safer.
Click to expand...

I would remind you again of the billons and billions spent training and equipping the Iraqi army for 10 years prior only to have Maliki turn them into a sectarian hit squad for Iran that would not defend Sunni areas from ISIS. You can never explain away the huge blunders that followed the illegal invasion of Iraq. An invasion that was rushed for political reasons causing more US and Iraqi casualties, and worst of all was done without a plan for the aftermath. It was a operation born to fail and fail it did. It will go down in history as the worst (and most expensive) foreign policy blunder in modern times.
 
Jack Hays said:
They have more, and the war is not our choice. They are at war with us.
Click to expand...

Of course it is our choice.

If we packed up our **** and left......the middle east and quit meddling..... we keep our counter terrorist operations and intelligence gathering, and there isn't a damned thing they can do to us.

If you think our military flexing some muscle and them spilling our blood in their backyard is preventing a terrorist attack, your deluded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom