• 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

rocket88 said:
The fact that Clinton and Walker agree on it is completely lost on you. You can't jizz fast enough over Walker saying it, yet "Democrats want to let it get bigger" even though Clinton supports the same thing. Are you going to fall all over yourself to praise her position, or only Republicans?
Click to expand...

It shouldn't need to be pointed out that Clinton isn't currently holding any office. The current Democratic administration and the majority of Democrat supporters on this site have ruled out boots on the ground. Clinton is the exception, but since she is a Clinton I have no doubt she will change her position to appeal to the Democrat base in time for the elections anyway.
 
Gill said:
Ahhh, so Saddam "believed" them to be a threat. Now point out where ISIS tried to actually overthrow Saddam.

You are beating around the bush.
Click to expand...

No, you are. ISIS did not exist when Saddam was in power. Neither did Al Qaeda in Iraq. However the precursor to Al Qaeda in Iraq joined up with Kurdish Sunni Militants while Saddam were in power and those groups were hostile to Saddam.
 
US Conservative said:
I love the goalposts you lefties set. :doh
Click to expand...

If you think that the left cannot defeat ISIS, and you are a self professed member of the right, assuming you are between 18 and 50, why do go over to Iraq and fight with the Peshmerga against ISIS? Or do you just want others to fight your wars as is typical of the warmongering right.
 
US Conservative said:
Interesting I didn't know that betahistine raises blood sugar levels, were you taking steroids too?

Yeah medical terminology is kinda quirky, its based in greek but its not proper and often very badly translated-many of the fathers of medicine read latin and greek, but apparently not very well.

Sounds like you have a great friend in that doc. I was listening to a comedian the other day who was talking about how all of his friends in old age are docs because it saves him from having to get an appointment.
Click to expand...



Nope.


But I am on methatrexate, an immune suppressant for psoriasis, however we have found no connection, my dermatologist has me liver function test ever three months
But there is a white coat effect as well....or rather a comorbidity effect. The stress of keeping balance, headaches, etc and the suddenness of a meniere's attack raises sugar levels...the betahistine fuels it.

My doc and I go back 36 years. We were drinking buddies at the same pub, we chased women together and inhaled. He is a no nonsense guy and eats bureaucrats. Glad he had kids late so he still has to work.....

We worry about the big ones, heart, diabetes, cancer. I beat alcoholism, smoking, hypertension, a question mark about my heart and diabetes. My doc says I am criminally healthy considering where I've been and who I've done...

But I walk with a cane, I have mild osteo arthritis in my upper back [Voltaren Cream], have insomnia, some foot issues and other wear and tear for which there is no cure, only treatment and no sympathy. One day some years ago I was fighting what we thought was pink eye, was sleep deprived and sick, I learned at that visit that A) I was a diabetic. B, I had Iritis, an immune disorder where the body decrees your eye is a foreign object and must die and C X-rays of my back showed growing cracks etc in my upper vertebrea.....

Trying not to loose it I said "Am I going to live?"

His stone faced reply: "No"
 
jmotivator said:
The 16,000 troops requested by Gates were intended to carry out an ongoing training and support mission because we knew the Iraqi forces were not ready to defend themselves.

The fact that they were not ready to defend themselves is not an excuse for leaving them to the Barbarian hordes.
Click to expand...

No excuses. They've been fighting each other forever, they suddenly don't know how to defend themselves.

Lemme ax you this, if someone comes up and punches you in the nose, what do you do, run away, or do you stand up and defend yourself. Take all the time you want to answer.
 
This whole thing is simple.

Do you want to fight them now as they are?

Or do you want to wait and fight them as they will become?

There'll be no choice but to fight them eventually.
 
Caine said:
You don't seem to understand.

There isn't a "war" for us. This is up to Iraq.

We have to stop being the world police. Putting our assets and lives on the line for other people... and for what?

What is there to gain from this? Iraq will never be an "Ally" in the typical sense of the word.

That area of the world is too confused right now to have a permanent identity.....
Click to expand...



I challenge that...

There was never one discussion about building schools for the women of Afghanistan when Bush got solid congressional approval to invade. The deral was to hunt them and kill them to "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here."

And Iraq....that, you may recall was ALL about weapons of mass destruction and some playing cards the CIA said were bad guys...

The only words of "freedom" in all of that was the PR choice of what to brand it..."operation enduring freedom"......enduring for Americans obviously.

I would challenge even WWII and the perceived altruism there. The was had raged for nearly three years with Canada, Australia, India and a host of other nations who had not been directly attacked before the US got involved.

I do agree thought that world politics have grown too complex for the bread and butter presidents that are chosen. Bush was a nice guy fool, Obama is negligent and incompetent...

and things have grown to complex for the CIA.....
 
Caine said:
You don't seem to understand.

I don't give a **** what you think Obama wants to do.

I think about America. America is NOT Obama... Or Bush.... or Clinton.

All your partisan hackery in this thread is lost on me... Im not going to sit here and bitch back and forth between "Well Obama did this and Bush did that and wah wah wah" like you petty mongrels.

Regardless of who the President happens to be at the time.... America should not be meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern nations. Period.
Click to expand...

Pardon me for being a "petty mongrel" but we are here because Bush did this and Obama did that.....

I was with you in part until you starting insulting people because you disagree with them.

This mongrel is proud of the title, considering where it comes from, and if you don't like the cut and thrust of political debate what the **** are you doing on a political debate forum?

There is a good amateur writers forum I can recommend
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
No, you are. ISIS did not exist when Saddam was in power. Neither did Al Qaeda in Iraq. However the precursor to Al Qaeda in Iraq joined up with Kurdish Sunni Militants while Saddam were in power and those groups were hostile to Saddam.
Click to expand...

Where's the proof you keep demanding from me??
 
Fearandloathing said:
I challenge that...

There was never one discussion about building schools for the women of Afghanistan when Bush got solid congressional approval to invade. The deral was to hunt them and kill them to "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here."

And Iraq....that, you may recall was ALL about weapons of mass destruction and some playing cards the CIA said were bad guys...

The only words of "freedom" in all of that was the PR choice of what to brand it..."operation enduring freedom"......enduring for Americans obviously.

I would challenge even WWII and the perceived altruism there. The was had raged for nearly three years with Canada, Australia, India and a host of other nations who had not been directly attacked before the US got involved.

I do agree thought that world politics have grown too complex for the bread and butter presidents that are chosen. Bush was a nice guy fool, Obama is negligent and incompetent...

and things have grown to complex for the CIA.....
Click to expand...

I challenge anyone to back up any claim that terrorism..... an international crime at best......... can truely threaten our freedom.



If anything.... we have lost freedoms over the pursuit of international criminals.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Pardon me for being a "petty mongrel" but we are here because Bush did this and Obama did that.....

I was with you in part until you starting insulting people because you disagree with them.

This mongrel is proud of the title, considering where it comes from, and if you don't like the cut and thrust of political debate what the **** are you doing on a political debate forum?

There is a good amateur writers forum I can recommend
Click to expand...



Because you aren't debating the issue itself as much as you are being a jawjacking bandwagonner.

Hop on a bandwagon and throw "Dems and Libz and Clinton and Obama and Carter" around and you think that is debating?


Arguing back and forth about the decisions others made to get us where we are isn't what I am here for. Im here to debate what we should do, why we should do it, and what we have to gain from our losses.

Not whose "team" is better in some pathetic game of "One-Upmanship"
 
Caine said:
I challenge anyone to back up any claim that terrorism..... an international crime at best......... can truely threaten our freedom.



If anything.... we have lost freedoms over the pursuit of international criminals.
Click to expand...



I really do not care what you think.

I am a petty mongrel remember?
 
Caine said:
You don't seem to understand.

There isn't a "war" for us. This is up to Iraq.

We have to stop being the world police. Putting our assets and lives on the line for other people... and for what?
Click to expand...


Oh - oh. I can answer this:

A global system of trade that allows us to live in a nice, comfy, first world lifestyle.

The (slow, painful) exportation of liberal (classic) governance.

Stopping (occasionally), or slowing, or reversing the gains of those who would commit mass atrocities and take entire sections of the globes back into the dark ages.

Ah, what else... maintenance of the value of the US security guarantee... regional cooperation with global allies...
 
Caine said:
Because you aren't debating the issue itself as much as you are being a jawjacking bandwagonner.

Hop on a bandwagon and throw "Dems and Libz and Clinton and Obama and Carter" around and you think that is debating?


Arguing back and forth about the decisions others made to get us where we are isn't what I am here for. Im here to debate what we should do, why we should do it, and what we have to gain from our losses.

Not whose "team" is better in some pathetic game of "One-Upmanship"
Click to expand...

Yeah FandL, what's wrong with you???

We're not here to discuss the origins of ISIS and the mistakes made in the past by America's leaders on the best way to handle them. We are also not here to talk about Walker's ideas on how he would take care of the murderers if he is elected.

The only purpose of this discussion is to insult fellow posters. Get with the program.
 
cpwill said:
Oh - oh. I can answer this:

A global system of trade that allows us to live in a nice, comfy, first world lifestyle.

The (slow, painful) exportation of liberal (classic) governance.

Stopping (occasionally), or slowing, or reversing the gains of those who would commit mass atrocities and take entire sections of the globes back into the dark ages.

Ah, what else... maintenance of the value of the US security guarantee... regional cooperation with global allies...
Click to expand...

If that is our goal.... We're going to have to commit Genocide and replace the population with people who have some god damned common sense in order to attain it.


Doesn't seem worth it to me.

That region is too volatile to "bring into the fold", especially by the use of

amp-039-merican-freedom_o_1268287.jpg
 
AJiveMan said:
No excuses. They've been fighting each other forever, they suddenly don't know how to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

And the general rule in Middle East fights is the most savage side wins. Saddam kept power because he fed political opposition into plastic shredders and acid baths. To end this cycle the military force of Iraq needed to be converted to a professional, disciplined force in the western mold, not unlike the transformation that happened in Egypt over the last 40 years. The Iraqi army was no where near that state of readiness when we left. Left to itself Iraq will go the way of all Middle Eastern countries and revert to rule by the most bloodthirsty faction.

Lemme ax you this, if someone comes up and punches you in the nose, what do you do, run away, or do you stand up and defend yourself. Take all the time you want to answer.
Click to expand...

First, equating the wanton ISIS savagery in Northern Iraq to a punch in the nose is disgusting, callous and stupid.

So, lemme ax you this: You are a security guard on one of the floors of an office building when you hear screams, people come flooding into the office saying there are crazed men swarming through the building decapitating people, you call the police and the police say they aren't coming. You hear that several of your fellow guards have been beheaded in the building lobby, and many others have fled the building... what do you do?

Also, do you condemn the women and children of Iraq to rape, torture and murder simply because the Iraqi guards broke?
 
Caine said:
If that is our goal.... We're going to have to commit Genocide and replace the population with people who have some god damned common sense in order to attain it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, stupit Ay'rabs, amiright?! :roll:
 
jmotivator said:
And the general rule in Middle East fights is the most savage side wins. Saddam kept power because he fed political opposition into plastic shredders and acid baths. To end this cycle the military force of Iraq needed to be converted to a professional, disciplined force in the western mold, not unlike the transformation that happened in Egypt over the last 40 years. The Iraqi army was no where near that state of readiness when we left. Left to itself Iraq will go the way of all Middle Eastern countries and revert to rule by the most bloodthirsty faction.


First, equating the wanton ISIS savagery in Northern Iraq to a punch in the nose is disgusting, callous and stupid.

So, lemme ax you this: You are a security guard on one of the floors of an office building when you hear screams, people come flooding into the office saying there are crazed men swarming through the building decapitating people, you call the police and the police say they aren't coming. You hear that several of your fellow guards have been beheaded in the building lobby, and many others have fled the building... what do you do?

Also, do you condemn the women and children of Iraq to rape, torture and murder simply because the Iraqi guards broke?
Click to expand...

You are making the same mistakes that Bush did. It was sectarian animosity not unpreparedness that allowed ISIS to take over the Sunni provinces so easily. Maliki with our help turned the army into a Shiite militia which was unwilling to fight for Sunni territory. We traded a Sunni led Govt. under Saddam for a Shiite Iranian junta that had no interest in strong and united Iraq. Even after Maliki was ousted there are still Shiite militia's murdering Sunnis. The idea that we should have stayed and supported the sectarian dictator/ Iranian pawn Maliki and kept him in power is typical of the foolishness that characterized the entire Iraqi debacle. This is what happens when idiots with no plan are left in charge of our govt and our military. Obama has been left with this mess and is dealing with it intelligently, something the right wingers can never understand. It is way past their pay grade.
 
Caine said:
If that is our goal.... We're going to have to commit Genocide and replace the population with people who have some god damned common sense in order to attain it.
Click to expand...

Hm. That's interesting. Apparently common sense is genetic in nature. What other intellectual capabilities do you think are determined by race, ethnicity, or religion?

That region is too volatile to "bring into the fold", especially by the use of

amp-039-merican-freedom_o_1268287.jpg
Click to expand...

1. That picture is awesome.

2. That region in particular is actually more likely to respond to violence. It's a language they understand, unlike western empathy.
 
jmotivator said:
Yeah, stupit Ay'rabs, amiright?! :roll:
Click to expand...

There is a real strain of immature "F You, Dad" in some libertarian positions - it reveals itself in interesting ways, not least of which is hyperbole.
 
cpwill said:
Hm. That's interesting. Apparently common sense is genetic in nature. What other intellectual capabilities do you think are determined by race, ethnicity, or religion?



1. That picture is awesome.

2. That region in particular is actually more likely to respond to violence. It's a language they understand, unlike western empathy.
Click to expand...

LOL you are right they enjoy violence and they are hoping we send troops for them to kill. It will bring them more fighters to the cause.
 
jmotivator said:
And the general rule in Middle East fights is the most savage side wins. Saddam kept power because he fed political opposition into plastic shredders and acid baths. To end this cycle the military force of Iraq needed to be converted to a professional, disciplined force in the western mold, not unlike the transformation that happened in Egypt over the last 40 years. The Iraqi army was no where near that state of readiness when we left. Left to itself Iraq will go the way of all Middle Eastern countries and revert to rule by the most bloodthirsty faction.



First, equating the wanton ISIS savagery in Northern Iraq to a punch in the nose is disgusting, callous and stupid.

So, lemme ax you this: You are a security guard on one of the floors of an office building when you hear screams, people come flooding into the office saying there are crazed men swarming through the building decapitating people, you call the police and the police say they aren't coming. You hear that several of your fellow guards have been beheaded in the building lobby, and many others have fled the building... what do you do?

Also, do you condemn the women and children of Iraq to rape, torture and murder simply because the Iraqi guards broke?
Click to expand...

That didn't answer my question.

If someone declares by physical violence upon you as a person, are you going to defend yourself, or run away from a fight?

Looks to me like Iraqis ran from a fight, and they had the most modern equipment to use against an insurgency.

After mission accomplished, weren't American and coalition forces training Iraqis to defend their homeland?
 
iguanaman said:
You are making the same mistakes that Bush did. It was sectarian animosity not unpreparedness that allowed ISIS to take over the Sunni provinces so easily. Maliki with our help turned the army into a Shiite militia which was unwilling to fight for Sunni territory. We traded a Sunni led Govt. under Saddam for a Shiite Iranian junta that had no interest in strong and united Iraq. Even after Maliki was ousted there are still Shiite militia's murdering Sunnis. The idea that we should have stayed and supported the sectarian dictator/ Iranian pawn Maliki and kept him in power is typical of the foolishness that characterized the entire Iraqi debacle. This is what happens when idiots with no plan are left in charge of our govt and our military. Obama has been left with this mess and is dealing with it intelligently, something the right wingers can never understand. It is way past their pay grade.
Click to expand...

Nope. Your whole argument falls apart on your phony demographics. The Iraqi 2nd Division that was the first to fall was predominantly Kurdish troops fight for a predominantly Kurdish population. The primary reason for the fall of Northern Iraq was a lack of ammunition and weapons and a crumbling supply chain (the stuff the US would have been handling). Most of the northern provinces were defended by soldiers with dwindling supplies.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom