• 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

No, they don't, not with the approach you support. They just multiply. Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad did a far better job at containment of Islamic extremists than either Bush or Obama could ever hope to. And you, Mr Conservative, for all your tough man talk are but a pimple on an Islamic State fighters ass who would chop your head off while you were trying to figure out where the breech is on your weapon. :lamo

Im quite capable with weapons and own several-but Im not the one who will likely do the fighting-our military will need to be directed to fight ISIS on the ground-airstrikes by definition are not definitive.
 
I guess you've never seen gas thrown on a fire.

Yeah I have.....I also notice those who kind of become sidetracked with some little puddle and just the way it looks. Could be due to reflections. But then that would be just a guess.
 
The "territory" ISIS control is mostly desert... From the article, "The areas ISIS holds are mostly sparsely inhabited. ".

f3ceqa.png

Most of the middle east is sparsely populated. Do you need to see video's of their checkpoints, where they pull people out of vehicles and execute them?
 
Im quite capable with weapons and own several-but Im not the one who will likely do the fighting-our military will need to be directed to fight ISIS on the ground-airstrikes by definition are not definitive.

Americans are sick of ****ing with the Middle East, take up the cause if you've the stones.
 
If that's true, Obama would still insist we aren't losing the war against ISIS.

To admit his decisions and policies are losing the war would be to admit he's wrong. Which means its not going to happen until hes out of office-or there are atrocities (or another domestic attack) to cause a public backlash. And then theres the media doing its part in not reporting just how bad things are getting.
 
Americans are sick of ****ing with the Middle East, take up the cause if you've the stones.

We might be tired of the ME, but we aren't leaving. And we sure aren't leaving in defeat because of a weak POTUS like Obama.

Like it or not the war on terror isn't going away-in fact it will almost certainly outlast you.
 
Americans are sick of ****ing with the Middle East, take up the cause if you've the stones.

I'm sure everyone here appreciates the stones it takes to make juvenile personal attacks like that on the internet.
 
We might be tired of the ME, but we aren't leaving. And we sure aren't leaving in defeat because of a weak POTUS like Obama.

Like it or not the war on terror isn't going away-in fact it will almost certainly outlast you.

The "war on terror" is a junket for American defense contractors and big oil who have duped you into rah rah flag waving tuff man talking support of policies that exacerbate global terrorism to keep that wheel grinding. And it needs its stooges in order to perpetuate itself. Good job, you get a gold star. :joke:
 
I'm sure everyone here appreciates the stones it takes to make juvenile personal attacks like that on the internet.

It's not an attack. It's an, I'm finished with your failed policies that create more problems then they solve. If you disagree, then you may join him.
 
I'd disagree.

If Obama hadn't pulled the troops and achieve the needed SoF agreements, troop strength would have been such as to stop the ISIS growth before it came to the prominence that it has.

Remember, Obama inherited a fairly stable and fairly secure Iraq and Afghanistan, and then let those accomplishments slip away.

But wait! Our President was handcuffed by Bush's status-of-forces agreement! What could Mr. Obama have done, but throw up his hands? Don't you know that the only reason the U.S. was able to keep forces in South Korea after 1953 was that President Eisenhower asked the government there very nicely for permission, and it granted it? If they had been mean and raised their voices, I am sure Eisenhower would just have bowed his head, started to cry, and apologized for ever asking. I mean, what more can the president of a weak little country like the U.S. do?
 
It's not an attack. It's an, I'm finished with your failed policies that create more problems then they solve. If you disagree, then you may join him.

What you are finished with does not interest me, and I doubt it interests anyone else here either.
 
What you are finished with does not interest me, and I doubt it interests anyone else here either.

I could have sworn you engaged me not the other way around, lol.
 
Dude, you're not required to accept responsibility for Bush's mistakes. It's ok, take a breathe, relax, it's on him. Hell, it doesn't even matter if your patronizing eyes don't see it.

I have no idea what you are on about. The facts are pretty clear as I've laid them out. Obama and his administration blew it, and allowed ISIS to grow and expand.

Exactly. Seems the more the US fights AQ, the stronger they become. :shock:

No, the more the US withdraws (before the situation warranted withdrawing) creating a power vacuum the more ISIS expands and grows.
 
But wait! Our President was handcuffed by Bush's status-of-forces agreement! What could Mr. Obama have done, but throw up his hands? Don't you know that the only reason the U.S. was able to keep forces in South Korea after 1953 was that President Eisenhower asked the government there very nicely for permission, and it granted it? If they had been mean and raised their voices, I am sure Eisenhower would just have bowed his head, started to cry, and apologized for ever asking. I mean, what more can the president of a weak little country like the U.S. do?

You are sadly misinformed. Obama couldn't be bothered to achieve a SoF agreement with Maliki (Iraq).
To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away. The deal never materialized. To this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al-Qaeda’s resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country.
Leon Panetta: How the White House Misplayed Iraqi Troop Talks

Also same quote in Former defense secretary blames Obama - CNNPolitics.com
Panetta writes that “our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.”
Panetta memoir blames Obama for collapse in Iraq « Hot Air

Yet another recurring 'reality be dammed, full steam ahead with the ideology', that the world and this nation is going to pay dearly for.

Thanks Obama. Thanks for nothing.
 
I have no idea what you are on about. The facts are pretty clear as I've laid them out. Obama and his administration blew it, and allowed ISIS to grow and expand.



No, the more the US withdraws (before the situation warranted withdrawing) creating a power vacuum the more ISIS expands and grows.

Your wrong. The only reason we're talking about an Islamic State is because Bush and Obama have pursued failed policies in the ME. The 2006 NIE blames Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq for the rise in global terrorism and making America less safe. Both presidents have contributed to this.
 
Your wrong. The only reason we're talking about an Islamic State is because Bush and Obama have pursued failed policies in the ME. The 2006 NIE blames Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq for the rise in global terrorism and making America less safe. Both presidents have contributed to this.

Speaking specifically to the case of the rise of ISIS to predominance in the Middle East, those are Obama's failures. Had a SoF agreement been achieved (all he had to do was to lead a little bit), had he not pulled the US troops out (ideology over reality), had he not injected himself in the Syrian situation (who the hell knows WTF he was thinking on this one), it's highly likely that ISIS wouldn't have been able to rise to their now predominate position.

If you want to go back in history, had Clinton not fumbled his opportunity to kill Bin Laden, likely the 9/11 attack wouldn't have occurred.

Given the occurrence of the 9/11 attacks, what would you have had Bush do? Nothing? Granted, he's made his own fumbles in due course in the Middle East. I'm not denying that.
 
Who signed the SOFA TREATY, YUP that's Right, bring em on Bushie and the Iraq Government, funny how you Gopers try to blame Obama when he wasn't even in office yet, nice try but Fail!!

Dec 31, 2011 was the out date, hey besides Bushie DECLARED MISSION ACCOMPLISHED IN 2003 remember that, LOL, that was almost 6 long years before,;Obama even took office..

Remember Rummy dummy it will be a 2 month war, freedom fries, oh and my favorite BRING EM ON!!

Well ISIS Is bringing it, doing exactly what that old drunk said, and there would have NEVER BEEN AN ISIS, if that dumb**** had never invaded in the 1st place..

Gee whatever happened to those WMD"S, LOL...

Bush was the complete failure here, that's why the Dems cleaned house in 2006, and Obama won a landslide in 2008, over that warmonger McCain..
 
Agreed, and then theres the fact that ISIS is now in all 50 states, and the attack in texas a few weeks ago were by ISIS terrorists.
I think it would be hilarious if the people who attacked in Texas were trained and received funding from Americans.
 
I have no idea what you are on about. The facts are pretty clear as I've laid them out. Obama and his administration blew it, and allowed ISIS to grow and expand.



No, the more the US withdraws (before the situation warranted withdrawing) creating a power vacuum the more ISIS expands and grows.
Removing Saddam created the power vacuum.
 
Speaking specifically to the case of the rise of ISIS to predominance in the Middle East, those are Obama's failures. Had a SoF agreement been achieved (all he had to do was to lead a little bit), had he not pulled the US troops out (ideology over reality), had he not injected himself in the Syrian situation (who the hell knows WTF he was thinking on this one), it's highly likely that ISIS wouldn't have been able to rise to their now predominate position.

If you want to go back in history, had Clinton not fumbled his opportunity to kill Bin Laden, likely the 9/11 attack wouldn't have occurred.

Given the occurrence of the 9/11 attacks, what would you have had Bush do? Nothing? Granted, he's made his own fumbles in due course in the Middle East. I'm not denying that.

Come on man, nothing gets resolved that way. That's pure partisan bull****. It doesn't matter what you say. A consensus, not half or three quarters, all of our intelligence agencies concurred that the invasion and occupation of Iraq exacerbated global terrorism and made America less safe. Bush owns that, it doesn't matter what YOU say. Now certainly Obama's policies in the ME have made matters magnitudes worse, things are not getting better. It's obvious, only to the minority who are objective about this that USFP in the region for a dozen years or more is failed!! The majority of folks, the partisans, on the left insist that the problem of the Islamic State is entirely Bush's fault, while the partisan right, such as yourself, believe it's entirely Obama's fault, and you both are wrong, and neither position contributes one bit to solving anything.
 
Removing Saddam created the power vacuum.

Which was filled by the US and coalition military forces until the new Iraq government could be installed, and voted on by the people. The vacuum that resulted in the rise of ISIS to their predominant position was Obama's premature withdraw of the US troops.
 
Come on man, nothing gets resolved that way. That's pure partisan bull****. It doesn't matter what you say. A consensus, not half or three quarters, all of our intelligence agencies concurred that the invasion and occupation of Iraq exacerbated global terrorism and made America less safe. Bush owns that, it doesn't matter what YOU say. Now certainly Obama's policies in the ME have made matters magnitudes worse, things are not getting better. It's obvious, only to the minority who are objective about this that USFP in the region for a dozen years or more is failed!! The majority of folks, the partisans, on the left insist that the problem of the Islamic State is entirely Bush's fault, while the partisan right, such as yourself, believe it's entirely Obama's fault, and you both are wrong, and neither position contributes one bit to solving anything.

"Nothing get resolve that way" 'Believe what I want you to believe'. Err. No. It could have still all worked out, had the US forces remained in place some time longer. Th premature pull out of the troops and the resulting vacuum led to the rise of ISIS.
 
Obama is an amazing man. He actually was able to lose a war that we already won.

And ISIS storming through Syria and Iraq is a winning strategy. Lets not light our hair on fire.


When he trots Josh Ernest out there to say that the ISIS strategy is working, you almost have to wonder which side Obama is cheering for. :2wave:
 
Removing Saddam created the power vacuum.

There was NO power vacuum when Saddam was removed because the United States was immediately in power.

The only power vacuum that existed in Iraq was when we left. You libs need to stop with the revisionist history and BS.
 
"Nothing get resolve that way" 'Believe what I want you to believe'. Err. No. It could have still all worked out, had the US forces remained in place some time longer. Th premature pull out of the troops and the resulting vacuum led to the rise of ISIS.

No, not me, the nations intelligence agencies. What intelligence were you gathering, your opinion.

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

Published: September 24, 2006
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

This is what the intelligence agencies were saying long before the withdrawal was even an issue, but while Bush was prosecuting the war.

The group (the Islamic State) originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The group participated in the Iraqi insurgency, which had followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. In January 2006, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which in October 2006 proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom