• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh we're going to need some links for that.

Unless you are in Iraq, have a personal relationship with more than a few tribal leaders, we are going to need tons of documentation on that one.
 
Grant said:
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?
Click to expand...

And here we come to the crux of the matter.

This is about Islam for you, not about ISIL.

I'm not interested in your fascist opinions about muslims and it'll never pass constitutional muster so forget it, you will never get your wish to discriminate against innocent people based solely on their religion alone.

Your dreams of a fascist Canada will never be realized.
 
Jetboogieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Its not flimsy ground-its ground you dont like. Theres a difference.
 
Montecresto said:
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.
Click to expand...

And once again-what policies would those be? I want specifics.
 
SBu said:
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.
Click to expand...

I did not say or even suggest they are close to getting nukes. I was just wondering if you had a point in mind where you thought ISIS was enough of a threat to justify US intervention with ground troops.
But who knows. Iran is very close to getting nukes. Pakistan has nukes. It's not hard to imagine ISIS at some point getting their hands on nukes(not developing them).

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.
Click to expand...

The similarity is that we have let what started out as a small problem grow into a much bigger threat. In Germany, Most of Europe was too timid to take on the Nazi issue early on and the US stood back and said let them handle it...it's in their own back yard. Today the same thing is happening in regards to ISIS. Most of the middle eastern nations are too cow towed to respond seriously. And the US is again saying: "Let's just contain them." The problem is not going away until ISIS is destroyed as a viable military or terrorist organization.


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.
Click to expand...

As ISIS continues to gain ground and slaughter innocents.
 
Fearandloathing said:
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
Click to expand...

It used to be POTUS was the leader of the free world. Now what we have in the white house isnt a leader, let alone of the free world.
 
Jetboogieman said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

Not that I differ with that, but why in your opinion does ISIS want a ground war?
 
disneydude said:
She will.....
Click to expand...

Will the "she" you are talking about again regale us with stories about taking sniper fire in Bosnia? Or her daughter happening to be jogging around the world trade center towers when the jets hit them on 9/11/01? Or will she get mental health counseling?
 
Jetboogieman said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

The Japanese wanted war with the US when they struck the US, we gave it to them, how did that turn out?
If Iraq has to again be a lightning rod for terrorists so we can kill and defeat them so be it...its better for the US and world there and now than in more places later.

Yes, this means soldiers will die, and thats horrible but so is war. Its better than ISIS.
 
Jetboogieman said:
The enemy WANTS a ground war with America and the west, they WANT you to intervene, they're begging for a ground war.
Click to expand...
Really? Of course you have a source outlining their optimistic dreams, right? I'd really like to see it, if possible.
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.
Click to expand...
Is this actually a tryout for the vacancy in the Jon Stewart Show?
That remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
Do you sincerely believe that another 'shock and awe' campaign over their territory would not cripple ISL?
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.
Click to expand...
The first casualty of war and the succeeding fog. Let's really make sure. The Kurds, the people who suffered under Saddam's genocidal policy, need more help.
This fantasy notion that the airstrikes haven't worked at all is a fallacy.
Click to expand...
They have had limited success in some areas but not significant enough to eliminate. In fact, according to you, they are stronger than ever and itching for a larger fight.
 
Jetboogieman said:
And here we come to the crux of the matter.

This is about Islam for you, not about ISIL.

I'm not interested in your fascist opinions about muslims and it'll never pass constitutional muster so forget it, you will never get your wish to discriminate against innocent people based solely on their religion alone.

Your dreams of a fascist Canada will never be realized.
Click to expand...

Apparently its spin time. He said Islamists, not Islam.
 
Jetboogieman said:
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.

.
Click to expand...

It's what chickenhawks do.
 
SBu said:
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.
Click to expand...

What we're currently doing is ineffective. We can't even contain the way you want, with our current operations.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Will the "she" you are talking about again regale us with stories about taking sniper fire in Bosnia? Or her daughter happening to be jogging around the world trade center towers when the jets hit them on 9/11/01? Or will she get mental health counseling?
Click to expand...
What fascinates me about HRC is her unnecessary lying, like telling the people of New Zealand she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. This was just to ingratiate herself with the Kiwis, a group of people with no influence at all in American elections and very easily, and quickly, disproven. Unless, of course, The Rodham family had a premonition that, several years later, a Kiwi greengrocer would one day conquer Mt. Everest.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Oh we're going to need some links for that.

Unless you are in Iraq, have a personal relationship with more than a few tribal leaders, we are going to need tons of documentation on that one.
Click to expand...

Tribal makeup of Iraq: Arab tribes in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maliki trying to court Sunni tribes after he purged them from politics/military: To retake cities, Iraq turns to Sunni tribes - The Washington Post

Some Sunni tribes has aligned themselves with ISIS due to Baghdad's actions since our withdrawl: Did ISIS really take Mosul? (Plus a tip of the hat to Obama for no dithering on Iraq) | Foreign Policy

The Other Battle In Iraq: Winning Over Sunni Muslims : Parallels : NPR

This should get you started... I doubt you will read them, but to illustrate my sincerity.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I did not say or even suggest they are close to getting nukes. I was just wondering if you had a point in mind where you thought ISIS was enough of a threat to justify US intervention with ground troops.
But who knows. Iran is very close to getting nukes. Pakistan has nukes. It's not hard to imagine ISIS at some point getting their hands on nukes(not developing them).



The similarity is that we have let what started out as a small problem grow into a much bigger threat. In Germany, Most of Europe was too timid to take on the Nazi issue early on and the US stood back and said let them handle it...it's in their own back yard. Today the same thing is happening in regards to ISIS. Most of the middle eastern nations are too cow towed to respond seriously. And the US is again saying: "Let's just contain them." The problem is not going away until ISIS is destroyed as a viable military or terrorist organization.




As ISIS continues to gain ground and slaughter innocents.
Click to expand...



It also comes down to a matter of clear policy. There is none.

First Iraq is over, out of the minds of Americans enough they think it is won, and there have been sufficient posts making that claim. First, Obama was tough on terror, "I killed bin Laden" and his "heroism" in sleeping while Seal Team Six waited.

Then we have an immediate and pressing threat to US National Security that Obama is running around balthering about "red lines", his new SS waxing eloquent about "teeny attacks" all of which simply faded from the headlines in America, but left some simmering still in the land where bullets and bandages were making fortunes...

Then we had not a "teensy attack" but a vaguely described bombing campaign amid alerting the enemy to specifics like "no boots on the ground" giving them sufficient time to dig in. Then we have a lackluster effort where the enemy owns the airwaves enabling them to recruit worldwide as a force that is standing up to the great satan and winning. At the same time, terrorism is spreading throughout the ME and Obama sends no message, allowing his handling of Benghazi to stand as a "success" in the minds of Americans and the terrorists who did it at the same time.

Now we have a commitment to go to congress and do......does anyone know?
 
US Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think we need to go back to the pre-Vietnam mindset, where if we spill the blood of our troops to rid a nation of an evil regime, we should leave enough troops behind to guarantee the peace, at least until the new government's military can step up to the plate.
 
Fenton said:
At least Bush was a honest man which is far more than I can say for his critics and Obama.
Click to expand...

Dubya's lies are well documented. Someone could write a book about them. Oh wait, they already have.

51HQQ1jI10L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
 
ObamacareFail said:
I think we need to go back to the pre-Vietnam mindset, where if we spill the blood of our troops to rid a nation of an evil regime, we should leave enough troops behind to guarantee the peace, at least until the new government's military can step up to the plate.
Click to expand...

Indeed-especially after the price we paid.
 
apdst said:
What we're currently doing is ineffective. We can't even contain the way you want, with our current operations.
Click to expand...

This is a marathon, not a sprint. If you are looking for immediate effects, you won't find them.

I do slightly agree with you that we could be much more aggressive in containing this issue, but what can you do when the administration refuses to call the problem a problem.

I can see that there's no reason I can speak that will persuade you against sending in troops en masse. I however, still think that is a terrible idea.
 
Navy Pride said:
[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
Click to expand...

Why would Obama meet with them? He would have to admit he has no plan and is just waiting his time out so someone else can deal with the issue.
 
SBu said:
Tribal makeup of Iraq: Arab tribes in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maliki trying to court Sunni tribes after he purged them from politics/military: To retake cities, Iraq turns to Sunni tribes - The Washington Post

Some Sunni tribes has aligned themselves with ISIS due to Baghdad's actions since our withdrawl: Did ISIS really take Mosul? (Plus a tip of the hat to Obama for no dithering on Iraq) | Foreign Policy

The Other Battle In Iraq: Winning Over Sunni Muslims : Parallels : NPR

This should get you started... I doubt you will read them, but to illustrate my sincerity.
Click to expand...

Not one of which even makes the claim this war is tribal and not ISIS.

Thanks for playing, we're done here. Zero time for bull**** and games
 
Fearandloathing said:
It also comes down to a matter of clear policy. There is none.

First Iraq is over, out of the minds of Americans enough they think it is won, and there have been sufficient posts making that claim. First, Obama was tough on terror, "I killed bin Laden" and his "heroism" in sleeping while Seal Team Six waited.

Then we have an immediate and pressing threat to US National Security that Obama is running around balthering about "red lines", his new SS waxing eloquent about "teeny attacks" all of which simply faded from the headlines in America, but left some simmering still in the land where bullets and bandages were making fortunes...

Then we had not a "teensy attack" but a vaguely described bombing campaign amid alerting the enemy to specifics like "no boots on the ground" giving them sufficient time to dig in. Then we have a lackluster effort where the enemy owns the airwaves enabling them to recruit worldwide as a force that is standing up to the great satan and winning. At the same time, terrorism is spreading throughout the ME and Obama sends no message, allowing his handling of Benghazi to stand as a "success" in the minds of Americans and the terrorists who did it at the same time.

Now we have a commitment to go to congress and do......does anyone know?
Click to expand...

A leader would go before the American people and make his case. This means Obama wont.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom