• 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!

ISIS controls half of Syrian territory, monitor says

This is exactly what Barack Obama and John McCain wanted. They wanted moderate rebels to take over the Syrian government and to oust Assad. But the warmongerers insisted that we destabalize the region and oust the government; a government I might add that was fighting to save the Christians from slaughter. I recall the neocons pissing and moaning about how Christians are under attack so it is bizarre that they demand that the government that was protecting said Christians be ousted.

As a matter of fact, regime change in Syria is a long time USFP ambition.

In a New York Times op-ed on Aug. 29, neocon Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham avoided the “r-c” phrase couching their words about Syria’s civil war in the vague language of resolving the conflict, but clearly meaning that Assad must go.

The hawkish pair wrote that thwarting ISIS “requires an end to the [civil] conflict in Syria, and a political transition there, because the regime of President Bashar al-Assad will never be a reliable partner against ISIS; in fact, it has abetted the rise of ISIS, just as it facilitated the terrorism of ISIS’ predecessor, Al Qaeda in Iraq.”

Though the McCain-Graham depiction of Assad’s relationship to ISIS and al-Qaeda is a distortion at best – in fact, Assad’s army has been the most effective force in pushing back against the Sunni terrorist groups that have come to dominate the Western-backed rebel movement – the op-ed’s underlying point is obvious: an initial step in the U.S. military operation against ISIS must be “regime change” in Damascus.

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/11/neocons-revive-syria-regime-change-plan/

From a 2005' article

Bush administration hawks pushing for regime change in Syria have been countermanded by diplomatic concerns that the secular Assad regime could be replaced by an even more threatening, fundamentalist leadership. Much of last winter's hope for Lebanon to expel Syrian intelligence operatives has evaporated.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10651208/ns/us_news-year_in_review/t/spies-charm-offensives-terrorists/
 
Last edited:
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064645284 said:
A near global coalition including the likes of Kerry and Hillary; the US has always led in world affairs until Obama became POTUS.

Now he "leads from behind" providing ISIS, a JV team, strongholds in two separate countries.

Additionally, libs just can't seem to grasp the irony of allowing a nation advanced nuclear capabilities that wishes "death to America."

Now that's really doltish, but what would one expect from the left?

I don't favor the vast majority of USFP projected by either party, but for the most part see very little difference. I don't have the partisan ambitions that you do. Occasionally, I agree with it though. Like I do with regards to Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. Iran that is at present anyway. I'm still having difficulty figuring out why it is that despite the fact that there will be six nations signatory to whatever Iran nuclear deal is agreed upon, the fringe right (and actually even some more moderates on the right) continue to frame this as though it's a unilateral Obama deal!!
 
I don't favor the vast majority of USFP projected by either party, but for the most part see very little difference. I don't have the partisan ambitions that you do. Occasionally, I agree with it though. Like I do with regards to Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. Iran that is at present anyway. I'm still having difficulty figuring out why it is that despite the fact that there will be six nations signatory to whatever Iran nuclear deal is agreed upon, the fringe right (and actually even some more moderates on the right) continue to frame this as though it's a unilateral Obama deal!!

I have ambitions for the US to remain the most powerful country in the world to protect our interests around the globe. If that's partisan to you then so be it, I don't really care how others view my thoughts and opinions on the role of the US in the world.

I also don't care about the other countries either, because if the US was actually leading in the world, the other countries wouldn't be inclined to make a deal with Iran either.

See what happens in the world with the likes of China, ISIS, Syria, and Russia when US foreign policy is weak?
 
Last edited:
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064645462 said:
I have ambitions for the US to remain the most powerful country in the world to protect our interests around the globe. If that's partisan to you then so be it, I don't really care how others view my thoughts and opinions on the role of the US in the world.

I also don't care about the other countries either, because if the US was actually leading in the world, the other countries wouldn't be inclined to make a deal with Iran either.

See what happens in the world with the likes of China, the ME, and Russia when US foreign policy is weak?

Hate to break it to you kid, but the days of US global leadership are trailing off. You can't abuse power and retain it.

The Real Reason the U.S. is Losing Its Dominance ? and No, It's Not the Shutdown - Mic

10 Ways America Is Losing Its Superpower Status to China
10 Ways America Is Losing Its Superpower Status to China - DailyFinance

The Decline of the West: Why America Must Prepare for the End of Dominance
The U.S. will remain powerful, yes, but the world is changing.

The Decline of the West: Why America Must Prepare for the End of Dominance - The Atlantic
 
Last edited:
Hate to break it to you kid, but the days of US global leadership are trailing off. You can't abuse power and retain it.

Yes it has, for almost eight years. You can't attain global leadership by leading from behind.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064645487 said:
Yes it has, for almost eight years. You can't attain global leadership by leading from behind.

This isn't just about Obama. Expand your knowledge.
 
Hate to break it to you kid, but the days of US global leadership are trailing off. You can't abuse power and retain it.

The Real Reason the U.S. is Losing Its Dominance ? and No, It's Not the Shutdown - Mic

10 Ways America Is Losing Its Superpower Status to China
10 Ways America Is Losing Its Superpower Status to China - DailyFinance

The Decline of the West: Why America Must Prepare for the End of Dominance
The U.S. will remain powerful, yes, but the world is changing.

The Decline of the West: Why America Must Prepare for the End of Dominance - The Atlantic

Its always interesting hearing what you'd like to be the case.
 
At this point it appears that Syria cannot recover from all ISIS has taken from them. Even if the Syrian government somehow survives with outside help, odds are the nation will be split up into pieces anyway.

Greetings, OrphanSlug. :2wave:

Does anyone know what Russia is doing?
 
Greetings, OrphanSlug. :2wave:

Does anyone know what Russia is doing?

Probably dealing with their own economic headaches, military desires, and keeping "western" influences away from their borders in the Ukraine/Crimea. Way too busy to deal with the disaster in Syria.
 
Greetings, OrphanSlug. :2wave:

Does anyone know what Russia is doing?

They are trying to make some money by selling weapons to who wants to buy them.
 
This isn't just about Obama. Expand your knowledge.

What you don't seem capable to comprehend is that it is about Obama and his lack of leadership.

You espouse as much bias as anyone at DP. But I don't expect you to possess the capacity for self-reflection.

Sacred cows blinded by the "Obama light" demonstrate the inability to think for themselves, as if it existed from birth.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064646186 said:
What you don't seem capable to comprehend is that it is about Obama and his lack of leadership.

You espouse as much bias as anyone at DP. But I don't expect you to possess the capacity for self-reflection.

Sacred cows blinded by the "Obama light" demonstrate the inability to think for themselves, as if it existed from birth.

Actually, I criticize Obama far more than you do, but America's been in decline far longer than Obama's presidency, and it will continue slipping, long after he's gone.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064646186 said:
What you don't seem capable to comprehend is that it is about Obama and his lack of leadership.

You espouse as much bias as anyone at DP. But I don't expect you to possess the capacity for self-reflection.

Sacred cows blinded by the "Obama light" demonstrate the inability to think for themselves, as if it existed from birth.

No this literally has nothing to do with Obama's leadership. Iraq is a hot topic the world over and several countries are struggling to approach this, just look at your presidential hopefuls stumble over the Iraq question. No one wants to put boots on the ground and no one has a better alternative.
 
Oh you mean after the MB, the Saud and Qatar all made the initial moves to remove Assad? Did you recall that too?
Yeah, and it was an internal matter for the ME. Those nations were using a scalpel. Then the U.S. declared "my wings are a hurricane" and decided to take a sledgehammer to the situation.
 
Yeah, and it was an internal matter for the ME. Those nations were using a scalpel. Then the U.S. declared "my wings are a hurricane" and decided to take a sledgehammer to the situation.

Without external interference from a couple Arab states and the US/West, president Assad would have crushed the Islamic extremists (who fooled John McCain masquerading as "moderates") who have wrecked havoc across the country on both Christians and non Sunni Muslims alike.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064645289 said:
You mean the "warmonger" in charge of the state department at the time?

Μολὼν λαβέ;1064646186 said:
What you don't seem capable to comprehend is that it is about Obama and his lack of leadership.
It's about Obama. No it's about the Warmongerer in the State Department. Who's it gonna be about next?
 
Yeah, and it was an internal matter for the ME. Those nations were using a scalpel. Then the U.S. declared "my wings are a hurricane" and decided to take a sledgehammer to the situation.

How was this so....when the Suad and Qatar began supplying weapons to the Syrian Rebels/Terrorists?

It took the Syrian MB to get all the Demonstrations back up and going against Assad. Just like they did with Assad's father. That internal matter turns out was the Sunni making a play for Syria.

Do you think Isolating Iran would have damaged their Operations outside their country?
 
Without external interference from a couple Arab states and the US/West, president Assad would have crushed the Islamic extremists (who fooled John McCain masquerading as "moderates") who have wrecked havoc across the country on both Christians and non Sunni Muslims alike.

Yeah, how John McCain hasn't been charged with treason is beyond me. He gave money and intelligence to Al-Qaida and gave key strategic information to ISIS when that duddering fool went on his "secret trip" to Syria.
 
How was this so....when the Suad and Qatar began supplying weapons to the Syrian Rebels/Terrorists?

It took the Syrian MB to get all the Demonstrations back up and going against Assad. Just like they did with Assad's father. That internal matter turns out was the Sunni making a play for Syria.

Do you think Isolating Iran would have damaged their Operations outside their country?

Yes. The Sauds and Qatari, the people who actually know the region, were giving weapons to the "good" rebels. The U.S. provided funding and money to "moderate" rebels who turned out to be ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
 
ISIS seems to be gaining a lot of momentum.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...ls-half-of-Syrian-territory-monitor-says.html

More than half of Syria’s territory is now controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria group after its westwards advance into the ancient city of Palmyra, a group monitoring the war said on Thursday. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights told Reuters the militant group has taken control of the city’s military air base and prison after storming them on Wednesday. ISIS followers posted a statement on Twitter saying it was in full control of the city, including the military installations, and that the retreating pro-government forces had left behind a large number of their dead.

Clashes since Wednesday had killed at least 100 pro-government fighters, the observatory said, which gains information through a network of sources on the ground. The capture of Palmyra is the first time ISIS has taken control of a city directly from the Syrian army and allied forces, which have already lost ground in the northwest and south to other insurgent groups in recent weeks. The central city, also known as Tadmur, is built alongside the remains of an oasis civilization whose colonnaded streets, temple and theatre have stood for 2,000 years

Indeed. The Islamic Caliphate is well on it's way to being formed. It's sure to export Islamic terrorism much like Al Qaeda did when it was resident in Afghanistan, only at a 100 fold.

Islamic State Solidifies Foothold in Libya to Expand Reach - WSJ


in other news.....


Seems that Obama was instrumental in the rise of the JV team!

The responsibility for the raise of ISIS and the Islamic Caliphate surely rests at Obama's and Hillary's feet. Prior to the Obama administration, both Iraq and Afghanistan were reasonably stable and reasonably secure. Only after Obama's decision to pull out the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, only after Obama decided to inject himself into the Syrian conflict, did ISIS raise and come to prominence. It's all his and hers.

There are 60 nations in a coalition against ISIS. Some are saying that if each contributed 10K troops into theater it would wipe ISIS off the map in a week. I'm inclined to agree, but without strong US leadership to do so, we are going to have to just accept that ISIS and their Caliphate will be exporting terrorists attacks on the West in a continuous and on going manner, as their goal is to make Islam the religion that dominates all others across the planet.

Welcome to nightmare Earth.
 
Yes. The Sauds and Qatari, the people who actually know the region, were giving weapons to the "good" rebels. The U.S. provided funding and money to "moderate" rebels who turned out to be ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

Yep, such is the desperation of the neocons that have wanted regime change in Syria for a very long time.
 
Indeed. The Islamic Caliphate is well on it's way to being formed. It's sure to export Islamic terrorism much like Al Qaeda did when it was resident in Afghanistan, only at a 100 fold.



The responsibility for the raise of ISIS and the Islamic Caliphate surely rests at Obama's and Hillary's feet. Prior to the Obama administration, both Iraq and Afghanistan were reasonably stable and reasonably secure. Only after Obama's decision to pull out the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, only after Obama decided to inject himself into the Syrian conflict, did ISIS raise and come to prominence. It's all his and hers.

There are 60 nations in a coalition against ISIS. Some are saying that if each contributed 10K troops into theater it would wipe ISIS off the map in a week. I'm inclined to agree, but without strong US leadership to do so, we are going to have to just accept that ISIS and their Caliphate will be exporting terrorists attacks on the West in a continuous and on going manner, as their goal is to make Islam the religion that dominates all others across the planet.

Welcome to nightmare Earth.

That's naive, while Obama and Hillary own as much, arguably more responsibility for the rise of the Islamic State, you cannot let Bush off the hook for his earlier contribution. This is a result of bi-partisan failure.
 
Yeah, how John McCain hasn't been charged with treason is beyond me. He gave money and intelligence to Al-Qaida and gave key strategic information to ISIS when that duddering fool went on his "secret trip" to Syria.


Oh, and what about this guy?



The US is to supply direct military aid to the Syrian opposition for the first time, the White House has announced.

President Obama made the decision after his administration concluded Syrian forces under Bashar al-Assad were using chemical weapons, a spokesman said.

US says it will give military aid to Syria rebels - BBC News


Obama Requests Money to Train ‘Appropriately Vetted ...
www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/world/middleeast/obama-seeks-500...
Jun 26, 2014 · ... members of the Syrian opposition, reflecting increased worry ... military aid to the rebels in the conflict in Syria, ... Obama’s request calls for ...


Obama moves to aid Syrian rebels in fight against ISIS ...
nypost.com/.../obama-moves-to-aide-syrian-rebels-in-fight-against-isis
Sep 10, 2014 · ... East by providing front-door military aid to Syrian rebels in an expanded ... Why ISIS is beating Obama's ... out in a prime-time speech ...



And, and it seems Hillary was all in with Syria.



"‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle".....


Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton drew a foreign policy line between herself and President Obama in an interview this week, saying the President should have assisted Syrian rebels early in the bloody three-year conflict there, and issuing a dig at his Administration’s minimalist doctrine.

The Obama Administration’s wariness about assisting rebels out of fear that aid would fall into the hands of extremists was misguided and ineffectual, Clinton said in an interview with the Atlantic, and allowed for the rise of Islamic extremists who are now threatening to take over wide swaths of Iraq. “The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad — there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle — the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said.

President Obama resisted calls to arm moderate Syrian rebels, and did not initially send nonlethal aid to opposition forces. Clinton said that vetting, training and equipping the moderate Free Syrian Army, who in the early days of the revolution were at the core of the uprising against President Bashar Assad, would have provided better insight into the war in Syria and would have helped bolster a “credible political opposition.”.....snip~

Hillary Clinton: 'Failure' to Aid Syrian Rebels Led to Rise of ISIS
 
Back
Top Bottom