• 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

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.

What "sound policies" would solve the ISIS problem? This will be good.
 
I recognize evil exists, I just don't think it's my personal job to extinguish all evil in the world.
Seriously, no one would expect you to. Leftists care about abortion, climate change and higher welfare payments.
If you try to justify Iraq on humanitarian grounds alone then there's plenty of other places that could use your help...
No doubt. But politics is 'the art of the possible' and in the case of Iraq, what could provide the longest long term benefits.

the list above is where I'd like you to start since you're now the moral arbiter and policemen of the world.
The man has morals whereas the lefts morals remain obscure. And unless you support terrorism you should fight against it but, as usual, leftists remain part of the problem rather than offering a solution.
 
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).

Then what other reason is there to go in?

By evil I'm assuming you mean the atrocities they have committed...
 
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.

i'm sure the list of evils that you don't support fighting is lengthy, but are there any on the list you would actually support opposing?
 
Then what other reason is there to go in?

By evil I'm assuming you mean the atrocities they have committed...

Not just the atrocities-but rather that ideology-thats its ok to forcibly suppress, to murder, to commit genocide, to terrorize-where that mindset and capacity exists-support intervention. You are looking at the symptoms rather than the disease.
 
The man has morals whereas the lefts morals remain obscure. And unless you support terrorism you should fight against it but, as usual, leftists remain part of the problem rather than offering a solution.

The man has morals because he's willing to put other peoples lives on the line to make a point about how "Tough on terrorism" he is?

Let me tell you this, if you've just been through two major wars that have lasted over a decade and cost you an arm and a leg and you have a chance to solve a problem using relatively cheaper air strikes and supporting local allies why wouldn't you take it?

Why are you guys in such a rush to throw troops into the mix.

The reason I care so much is Harper is gonna get us involved and Canada will lose more sons and daughters to appease American far right extremists who think war is the answer to everything and I think that's a bunch of bull****.
 
[h=1]George W. Bush Is Intervening in Iraq—Again[/h] When Iraqi tribal leaders came to D.C. looking for help against ISIL, the White House refused. Then the former president made a call.

By MARK PERRY
February 12, 2015



Well, of course Bush had to step in, Obama was too busy taking selfies at BuzzFeed.
 
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

What insults?

Obama does have more wars than Bush, and taken a troubled Middle East and made it WORSE! When have I denied that.

And why won't you return to the thread you chicken ****ted out of the other day and look at the list I posted that you asked for, hmm big guy?
 
Not just the atrocities-but rather that ideology. You are looking at the symptoms rather than the disease.

North Korea has a pretty evil ideology... you know there are 200, 000 North Korean languishing in Prison Camps as we speak, women and children are subjected to sexual abuse of the very worst kind and people are starved, beaten and tortured often having no idea why they are even there.

That's pretty evil too...

But for whatever reason you want to focus on this one evil and throw troops into a meat grinder for what exactly?
 
What "sound policies" would solve the ISIS problem? This will be good.

Presidents, plural, have contributed to the destabilisation of the Middle East. I'd like to see Americans kick both dinosaurs to the curb and put an independent party president in the WH that won't do what our own NIE's have proven cause Islamic extremism in the first place.
 
Good. Since we currently don't have an active president, I'm glad that President Bush is stepping up and taking some of the presidential duties on his own shoulders, even though he doesn't have to.
 
What insults?

Obama does have more wars than Bush, and taken a troubled Middle East and made it WORSE! When have I denied that.

And why won't you return to the thread you chicken ****ted out of the other day and look at the list I posted that you asked for, hmm big guy?

never mind.

Insult away and bash Bush.
 
North Korea has a pretty evil ideology... you know there are 200, 000 North Korean languishing in Prison Camps as we speak, women and children are subjected to sexual abuse of the very worst kind and people are starved, beaten and tortured often having no idea why they are even there.

That's pretty evil too...

But for whatever reason you want to focus on this one evil and throw troops into a meat grinder for what exactly?

and what is your solution to north Korea?...
 
never mind.

Insult away and bash Bush.

Yes, I knew you wouldn't be able to address the list that I posted that you asked me for, because it destroyed your strawman argument. It's the second time in two weeks. I wonder how long before we see that again.
 
The man has morals because he's willing to put other peoples lives on the line to make a point about how "Tough on terrorism" he is?
You don't seem to understand the role of the military and what they are trained to do. It would be the ISL terrorists whose lives would be on the line.
Let me tell you this, if you've just been through two major wars that have lasted over a decade and cost you an arm and a leg and you have a chance to solve a problem using relatively cheaper air strikes and supporting local allies why wouldn't you take it?
Because it is ineffective and thus will cost more lives over the long term. Responding in a halfassed way will never win a war, as history clearly indicates.

Why are you guys in such a rush to throw troops into the mix.
The Military itself advised that 30-40,000 troops remain in Iraq. Had that happened, and Obama not ordered a retreat, this wouldn't be happening now.
The reason I care so much is Harper is gonna get us involved and Canada will lose more sons and daughters to appease American far right extremists who think war is the answer to everything and I think that's a bunch of bull****.
It's an international problem and the international community needs to be involved. You think Canadians haven't suffered from terrorism and won't again the future? You want to cower in a corner and be for 'peace', and suspicious of 'the right wing'? Which wing do you suppose the terrorists are on?
 
The man has morals because he's willing to put other peoples lives on the line to make a point about how "Tough on terrorism" he is?

Let me tell you this, if you've just been through two major wars that have lasted over a decade and cost you an arm and a leg and you have a chance to solve a problem using relatively cheaper air strikes and supporting local allies why wouldn't you take it?

Why are you guys in such a rush to throw troops into the mix.

The reason I care so much is Harper is gonna get us involved and Canada will lose more sons and daughters to appease American far right extremists who think war is the answer to everything and I think that's a bunch of bull****.

I dont need to be in the military to support military intervention and even if I was, the military does not make such policy-civilian politicians do.
We have already provided aid, and are conducting airstrikes-they aren't substantive.

That leaves us with either boots on the ground, or fighting a war that can't be won.

Buck up-show some courage-we need to fight them even if you dont want to.
 
and what is your solution to north Korea?...

That's not my point Thrilla.

I'm saying that people are trying to justify intervening in Iraq... AGAIN on very flimsy ground.

There's alot of wrong in this world and it's not our job to put it all right.

It'd be very nice if we could... but we can't and the current strategy has contained the situation and ISIS is losing ground... why choose now to get involved and spend more blood and treasure trying to stop evil in a place that's rife with it.

Some of the militias the Iraqi government is using to push back against ISIS is committing atrocities themselves... so who do we support that doesn't commit evil.
 
That's not my point Thrilla.

I'm saying that people are trying to justify intervening in Iraq... AGAIN on very flimsy ground.

There's alot of wrong in this world and it's not our job to put it all right.

It'd be very nice if we could... but we can't and the current strategy has contained the situation and ISIS is losing ground... why choose now to get involved and spend more blood and treasure trying to stop evil in a place that's rife with it.

Some of the militias the Iraqi government is using to push back against ISIS is committing atrocities themselves... so who do we support that doesn't commit evil.

The people who advocate going to war with ISIS on the ground, don't understand that this is a sectarian civil war and each tribe is simply trying to fight for who they think is going to win in their local area. To get involved in something like that is stupid in the first place, and really stupid when you consider what the benefit is in this case...which there is none. 'A better ME?' I don't give a damn about a better ME, and it has been proven that our presence there does not in fact make it better.
 
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.


First, may I ask where is your line when it comes to evil? Does it come into play before your child is raped or after?

No one has ever carried the burden nor expectation that he is responsible for evil, the comment is absurd.

And why even ask about North Korea etc. I missed the part where the US recently invaded North Korea and left a mess. I missed the part where Obama made a huge case over a "red line" and then backed away.

I would suggest that a step in eliminating evil would be getting Obama out of the Oval Office
 
You don't seem to understand the role of the military and what they are trained to do. It would be the ISL terrorists whose lives would be on the line.

The enemy WANTS a ground war with America and the west, they WANT you to intervene, they're begging for a ground war.

That should tell you something, they will be able to kill scores of Western soldiers... if you think that's not the case and that only ISIS soldiers will be killed you're kidding yourself.

Because it is ineffective and thus will cost more lives over the long term. Responding in a halfassed way will never win a war, as history clearly indicates.

That remains to be seen.

Iraqi government militias and the kurds have pushed forward and its been reported that many members of ISIS are going AWOL and they no longer have the ability to move in large numbers to reinforce their positions across their territory leading to losses.

This fantasy notion that the airstrikes haven't worked at all is a fallacy.
 
The man has morals because he's willing to put other peoples lives on the line to make a point about how "Tough on terrorism" he is?

Let me tell you this, if you've just been through two major wars that have lasted over a decade and cost you an arm and a leg and you have a chance to solve a problem using relatively cheaper air strikes and supporting local allies why wouldn't you take it?

Why are you guys in such a rush to throw troops into the mix.

The reason I care so much is Harper is gonna get us involved and Canada will lose more sons and daughters to appease American far right extremists who think war is the answer to everything and I think that's a bunch of bull****.

Rush to throw troops into the mix? It was the premature desire to remove troops that got us into this mess with ISIS.

Stand and fight.
 
Well, of course Bush had to step in, Obama was too busy taking selfies at BuzzFeed.

As Iraq burns...
obama-selfie-stick-2.gif

This is probably a typical day at the whitehouse. :cool:
 
That's not my point Thrilla.

I'm saying that people are trying to justify intervening in Iraq... AGAIN on very flimsy ground.

There's alot of wrong in this world and it's not our job to put it all right.

It'd be very nice if we could... but we can't and the current strategy has contained the situation and ISIS is losing ground... why choose now to get involved and spend more blood and treasure trying to stop evil in a place that's rife with it.

Some of the militias the Iraqi government is using to push back against ISIS is committing atrocities themselves... so who do we support that doesn't commit evil.
In fact Islamism is gaining ground with ISL being just one faction.

You understand that this 'evil' you speak of is being spread throughout the world? What do you suppose the world do in response? Curtail Muslim immigration? Deport Muslims back to some Islamic country like Afghanistan? Destroy their mosques? Or do you advise we continue along the same path as now, using a non-existent strategy?
 
North Korea has a pretty evil ideology... you know there are 200, 000 North Korean languishing in Prison Camps as we speak, women and children are subjected to sexual abuse of the very worst kind and people are starved, beaten and tortured often having no idea why they are even there.

That's pretty evil too...

But for whatever reason you want to focus on this one evil and throw troops into a meat grinder for what exactly?

North Korea is also largely marginalized, and we have powerful allies in the region.

Cant say that about NK right now-but when they start invading other nations and beheading people get back to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom