• 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!

George W. Bush Is Intervening in Iraq—Again

SBu said:
So your carefully constructed analysis of the situation in the ME is that it is exactly as that of Nazi Germany? Therefore if we fight it just like Nazi Germany we will win? Do I have that right?

As McCain would say, this sounds like more of a goal than a strategy.

I tend to view Islam as a cancer to western liberalism, very similar to communism during the cold war. You deal with ideological cancers by isolating them and containing their spread. The cancer then eats itself. After eating itself, we could perhaps reengage with rational players again.
Click to expand...

The objective of any military operation is to destroy the enemy's ability to make war. A strategy should always be built around that ibjective.
 
US Conservative said:
No. It used to be (before Obama certainly but hes been highly destructive as leftism is) we would fight evil based on ideology as well.
We like freedom, not subjugation and terror.

We rightly start with our own best interests, as all nations do.

There is no shortage of reasons to go back in. And perhaps even worse if we dont-we set a precedence.

Some things are worth fighting for-eradicating ISIS is one of those things.
Click to expand...

So is freeing North Korea, Eritrea, Turkmenistan, Equatorial Guinea etc....

Those places are pretty evil to their people in my opinion.

The fact of the matter is at this time there are not many reasons to go back in except Conservative Bravado to score cheap political points against Obama.

Confronting evil lol, you can't even confront the evil on your own doorstep let alone do it across the world.
 
apdst said:
The objective of any military operation is to destroy the enemy's ability to make war. A strategy should always be built around that ibjective.
Click to expand...

If that is the case, then I think doing what you suggest is the exact opposite of your objective.
 
SBu said:
I think it is a mistake to compare Nazi Germany (a large country, with a powerful military, a singular national vision of conquest, etc) to the chaotic disjointed situation of the ME. I really don't see any reason for us to go into the ME and try to 'fix' it. It is possible to contain the problem if the world works together to do so. I think that would be more effective and cost us less in manpower and financial cost. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be involved in the region, it just means that there is no military solution to an ideological problem.
Click to expand...

I suggest that you take the time to read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer. When the Nazi problem started, Germany still not recovered from WW! did not have a powerful military. In the early stages of that conflict, France and Great Britain could have whipped Germany. They just did not take the threat seriously until it was on their doorsteps. Millions of innocent jews were getting slaughtered while so-called "containment" option was going on. ISIS is now beheading innocent women, children, and even infants. How bad are you suggesting we let it get before we take the threat seriously? ISIS and Al Queda with nukes?
 
Fearandloathing said:
Oh that was a huge part of the reason for the war..

Come on. You are comparing a honor code in the Japanese culture with Islamic extremism and the wholesale slaughter of women, children and innocents for the terror value. I missed the part where the Japanese only targeted civilians like AL-Qaeda, ISIS and all of them.....
Click to expand...

Only in the sense that religion did indeed play a role in both, but they are very different obviously.

And Japan did indeed target civilians at times, for example the rape of nanking.
 
Montecresto said:
Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight

Network News

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Note the date, and stop peddling lies!!


The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has increased the number of terrorist groups worldwide and "made the overall terrorism problem worse," a U.S. intelligence official said in a secret study.

Report: Iraq War Made Terror 'Worse' - CBS News
Click to expand...

Help me out here...

An eight year old CBS news item about "reports" from an unidentified agent is proof of what exactly? There has been eight years for their to have been some proof of this "report", where is it?

I am absolutely certain the war on terror creates terrorists, but you have provided nothing concrete to show that.

And in doing so, can we maybe look at what has happened in the last 7 years? Obama had wars on two fronts, one he declared 'won' and brought the troops home for his coronation. Since then, we have a renewed, far more serious war in Iraq and the war on terror has spread from one country to Libya, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and is no where near declining in Afghanistan.

How is George Bush responsible for that? And if he is, how is it that in 7 years hasn't been able to undo the alleged damage Obama has wrought?
 
Jetboogieman said:
So is freeing North Korea, Eritrea, Turkmenistan, Equatorial Guinea etc....

Those places are pretty evil to their people in my opinion.

The fact of the matter is at this time there are not many reasons to go back in except Conservative Bravado to score cheap political points against Obama.

Confronting evil lol, you can't even confront the evil on your own doorstep let alone do it across the world.
Click to expand...

Did you miss where I said we start where it suits our own best interests as all nations do?

Guinea? For reals?

The left has a real problem with even recognizing evil exists-its part of the charm of moral relativism.

Thats the bad news-the good news is that Obama's term is running down and once he's gone (and perhaps earlier if the political winds dictate) we are going back in to kill those mofo's.
 
US Conservative said:
Yeah we all know the left wanted to cut and run in 06 as well. Bush actually led, and defeated them, passing that on to Obama until he left for politics.

This is the same situation. You dont fight evil by appeasing it, and ISIS is the most evil thing Ive seen in my lifetime.

Courage-get some.
Click to expand...

US spy agencies are all on the left too now, lol. What a failure at critical thinking. Not arm chair warriors such as yourself, but boots on the ground agencies, working at the pleasure of George Bush, produced report after report that US intervention in the Middle East was exacerbating terrorism, and indeed it is far more rampant today then it was in 2000.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Help me out here...

An eight year old CBS news item about "reports" from an unidentified agent is proof of what exactly? There has been eight years for their to have been some proof of this "report", where is it?

I am absolutely certain the war on terror creates terrorists, but you have provided nothing concrete to show that.

And in doing so, can we maybe look at what has happened in the last 7 years? Obama had wars on two fronts, one he declared 'won' and brought the troops home for his coronation. Since then, we have a renewed, far more serious war in Iraq and the war on terror has spread from one country to Libya, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and is no where near declining in Afghanistan.

How is George Bush responsible for that? And if he is, how is it that in 7 years hasn't been able to undo the alleged damage Obama has wrought?
Click to expand...

To the bolded, WOW,
 
US Conservative said:
Only in the sense that religion did indeed play a role in both, but they are very different obviously.

And Japan did indeed target civilians at times, for example the rape of nanking.
Click to expand...

Well yeah...

Religion played a part in Europe too....the Vatican and Mussolini, Hitler and his hatred for anything not him...all that is part of it.

Nan Keng was indeed the targeting of civilians, as was the Philipine occupation. But if you want a parallel to 911 and THAT act of terror, perhaps Nagasaki or Hiroshima..

Please, Nan Keng was not targeted because of religious affiliation and neither was the Philipines,
 
Fearandloathing said:
Help me out here...

An eight year old CBS news item about "reports" from an unidentified agent is proof of what exactly? There has been eight years for their to have been some proof of this "report", where is it?

I am absolutely certain the war on terror creates terrorists, but you have provided nothing concrete to show that.

And in doing so, can we maybe look at what has happened in the last 7 years? Obama had wars on two fronts, one he declared 'won' and brought the troops home for his coronation. Since then, we have a renewed, far more serious war in Iraq and the war on terror has spread from one country to Libya, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and is no where near declining in Afghanistan.

How is George Bush responsible for that? And if he is, how is it that in 7 years hasn't been able to undo the alleged damage Obama has wrought?
Click to expand...

A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.html
 
ObamacareFail said:
I suggest that you take the time to read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer. When the Nazi problem started, Germany still not recovered from WW! did not have a powerful military. In the early stages of that conflict, France and Great Britain could have whipped Germany. They just did not take the threat seriously until it was on their doorsteps. Millions of innocent jews were getting slaughtered while so-called "containment" option was going on. ISIS is now beheading innocent women, children, and even infants. How bad are you suggesting we let it get before we take the threat seriously? ISIS and Al Queda with nukes?
Click to expand...

Clearly if they would be able to get close to getting nukes, that would force our hand. But that is not the case. To suggest that they are close to getting nukes is irresponsible and doesn't help us clearly work our way through the problem.

The threat Europe faced in Germany at that time is much more similar to the Russian threat today, and not ISIS. ISIS is really not similar at all to Nazi Germany other than they we both willing to commit atrocities. The powers in the region are capable of dealing with this threat so long as we support them. I still think containment here is the best strategy.
 
Montecresto said:
To the bolded, WOW,
Click to expand...

You know I continue to politely ask you to back up your constant bull**** about George Bush and all I get back is **** like this.

Wow indeed....as I said before "nice list" 15 request for information and 37 insults

I think there is a word for that practice -- trolling
 
US Conservative said:
Did you miss where I said we start where it suits our own best interests as all nations do?

Guinea? For reals?

The left has a real problem with even recognizing evil exists-its part of the charm of moral relativism.

Thats the bad news-the good news is that Obama's term is running down and once he's gone (and perhaps earlier if the political winds dictate) we are going back in to kill those mofo's.
Click to expand...

I recognize evil exists, I just don't think it's my personal job to extinguish all evil in the world.

If you try to justify Iraq on humanitarian grounds alone then there's plenty of other places that could use your help... the list above is where I'd like you to start since you're now the moral arbiter and policemen of the world.
 
Montecresto said:
US spy agencies are all on the left too now, lol. What a failure at critical thinking. Not arm chair warriors such as yourself, but boots on the ground agencies, working at the pleasure of George Bush, produced report after report that US intervention in the Middle East was exacerbating terrorism, and indeed it is far more rampant today then it was in 2000.
Click to expand...

For the moment lets say thats true-then what? Walk on eggshells? Cede Iraq to terrorists and Iran? Appease evil?

Not good enough.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Well yeah...

Religion played a part in Europe too....the Vatican and Mussolini, Hitler and his hatred for anything not him...all that is part of it.

Nan Keng was indeed the targeting of civilians, as was the Philipine occupation. But if you want a parallel to 911 and THAT act of terror, perhaps Nagasaki or Hiroshima..

Please, Nan Keng was not targeted because of religious affiliation and neither was the Philipines,
Click to expand...

Im saying there was a similarity, they aren't the same.
 
Fearandloathing said:
You know I continue to politely ask you to back up your constant bull**** about George Bush and all I get back is **** like this.

Wow indeed....as I said before "nice list" 15 request for information and 37 insults

I think there is a word for that practice -- trolling
Click to expand...

Go back to the thread in which you said "nice list" and take a look at the very nice list I provided you.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I suggest that you take the time to read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer. When the Nazi problem started, Germany still not recovered from WW! did not have a powerful military. In the early stages of that conflict, France and Great Britain could have whipped Germany. They just did not take the threat seriously until it was on their doorsteps. Millions of innocent jews were getting slaughtered while so-called "containment" option was going on. ISIS is now beheading innocent women, children, and even infants. How bad are you suggesting we let it get before we take the threat seriously? ISIS and Al Queda with nukes?
Click to expand...

Now that is a perfectly appropriate parallel. Your assertions are further supported in later works by Shirer and especially a biography of Chamberlain.

It has also been asserted that even Shirer was mistaken about the power of the third Reich even after the invasion of Poland in 1939.
 
US Conservative said:
For the moment lets say thats true-then what? Walk on eggshells? Cede Iraq to terrorists and Iran? Appease evil?

Not good enough.
Click to expand...

How about Americans install some brains in the WH for once that might advance sound policy, rather than knuckle draggers that keep doing things that create situations that so many think have only a military response.
 
Jetboogieman said:
I recognize evil exists, I just don't think it's my personal job to extinguish all evil in the world.

If you try to justify Iraq on humanitarian grounds alone then there's plenty of other places that could use your help... the list above is where I'd like you to start since you're now the moral arbiter and policemen of the world.
Click to expand...

Extinguish ALL evil? I dont believe thats possible, but here and now-with ISIS is indeed where we need to fight-because we have the means and ISIS is evil. And no, Im not "justifying" Iraq on humanitarian grounds alone-If I was I'd advocate for the UN to go in (meaning nothing would happen).
 
apdst said:
How so?
Click to expand...

The objective of any military operation is to destroy the enemy's ability to make war.
Click to expand...

If this is the case, then your strategy provides all of the fuel that enables ISIS to make war against us. Now, ISIS doesn't have that capability. They are limited in their ability to attack the west by disillusioned misfits that have failed to adjust and then go on a lone wolf rampage; or by capturing naive individuals that go to Syria for humanitarian/journalistic reasons. If you send a whole bunch of troops to go fight ISIS, you are handing them a present in their lap, which is the ability to directly engage American troops, and create propaganda. You've just given them the ability to make war. Second, you have given them the ability to recruit a lot more and possibly even unite disaffected groups to oppose American military intervention.

I don't see how this strategy would be better than what we are currently doing. It would cost more, aid the enemy, enable the enemy, and put many more American lives in danger.
 
Montecresto said:
Go back to the thread in which you said "nice list" and take a look at the very nice list I provided you.
Click to expand...

No, go back to my post about the last seven years. Let's discuss today instead of your deliberately distorted version of history. Let's for once in your life answer a ****ing question without resorting to childish insults.

What about the fact Obama has more wars now than Bush did at his peak. However, we have seen enough to know that you won't pony up to the bar
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom