• 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

Most of the middle east is sparsely populated.

Western Syria is relatively densely populated. Tell me, if one group controls half of a country and every other group controls the rest, but the first group mostly controls areas where no one lives while the other groups control most cities and towns and the vast majority of the country's population, is that really an impressive feat on the part of the first group?
 
Western Syria is relatively densely populated. Tell me, if one group controls half of a country and every other group controls the rest, but the first group mostly controls areas where no one lives while the other groups control most cities and towns and the vast majority of the country's population, is that really an impressive feat on the part of the first group?

It depends on how you define an impressive feat.

I live in an area that is less populated by California terms, but exceedingly highly populated by US terms. You tell me leftist.

After that, explain how numbers determine right or wrong.

I will wait, lefty.
 
Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad did a far better job at containment of Islamic extremists than either Bush or Obama could ever hope to.

Yeah, and that wasn't going to last forever. Relying on human beings with finite lifespans to control a dangerous ideology via torture, repression and murder is incredibly shortsighted. If we want to ensure lasting success in defeating jihadism, we should look for options other than two-bit psychopaths who generate more resentment in the long run.
 
It depends on how you define an impressive feat.

I live in an area that is less populated by California terms, but exceedingly highly populated by US terms. You tell me leftist.

After that, explain how numbers determine right or wrong.

I will wait, lefty.

What's with the lefty/leftist crap. You suppose that bolsters your position.
 
It depends on how you define an impressive feat.

I live in an area that is less populated by California terms, but exceedingly highly populated by US terms. You tell me leftist.
Well, if someone were to conquer Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco, that would be more worthy of notice than if they were to march across all of Alaska.


After that, explain how numbers determine right or wrong.

I will wait, lefty.
Right or wrong has nothing to do with it. It's simply that being able to walk across barren desert and claim it as your own doesn't make you particularly scary. ISIS taking Mosul back in June of last year is far more significant than them holding Syrian and Iraqi desert.
 
I suppose it bolsters reality. The left needs to meet it.

Gays are swinging from trees, kid. What side are you on?

How bigoted of you. I always knew that was lurking just beneath your surface.
 
Yeah, and that wasn't going to last forever. Relying on human beings with finite lifespans to control a dangerous ideology via torture, repression and murder is incredibly shortsighted. If we want to ensure lasting success in defeating jihadism, we should look for options other than two-bit psychopaths who generate more resentment in the long run.

Not even leftists are compromised by this-they simply raise junior statists.
 
Yeah, and that wasn't going to last forever. Relying on human beings with finite lifespans to control a dangerous ideology via torture, repression and murder is incredibly shortsighted. If we want to ensure lasting success in defeating jihadism, we should look for options other than two-bit psychopaths who generate more resentment in the long run.

How Saddam Hussein Made the Middle East Stable
The Fiscal Times


If there were feasible options for the United States, former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell, urged the United States not to take them. Powell did not urge restraint because he supported Assad. He said the United States should not act to depose him because the rebels he is fighting might be just as bad.

Colin Powell clearly realised guys like Assad, Gaddafi and Mubarak were best left in place.
 
Well, if someone were to conquer Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco, that would be more worthy of notice than if they were to march across all of Alaska.



Right or wrong has nothing to do with it. It's simply that being able to walk across barren desert and claim it as your own doesn't make you particularly scary. ISIS taking Mosul back in June of last year is far more significant than them holding Syrian and Iraqi desert.

Perhaps, and if they were to conquer a few counties that have more people than many states? Would "3 eastern US states being controlled by ISIS" get your attention?

ISIS is more than a bunch of backwards goat herders controlling hilltops. Even if it was-you'd be amazed at what changes the situation of history.
 
How Saddam Hussein Made the Middle East Stable
The Fiscal Times


If there were feasible options for the United States, former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell, urged the United States not to take them. Powell did not urge restraint because he supported Assad. He said the United States should not act to depose him because the rebels he is fighting might be just as bad.

Colin Powell clearly realised guys like Assad, Gaddafi and Mubarak were best left in place.

The article ignores the fact that such regimes create long-term anger, especially if the US is seen as propping them up but also if the people of the Middle East feel as if we are standing aside as they are being oppressed. When those leaders are deposed or weakened, there is nothing stopping such hatred from exploding in our faces. Therefore, our overarching policy should be to undermine these regimes and encourage democracy, which would reduce the need for Islamic fundamentalism as a means of opposing dictatorship. We've horribly mismanaged every country we've tried this in, however, so it may not appear to be fruitful at first.
 
The article ignores the fact that such regimes create long-term anger, especially if the US is seen as propping them up but also if the people of the Middle East feel as if we are standing aside as they are being oppressed. When those leaders are deposed or weakened, there is nothing stopping such hatred from exploding in our faces. Therefore, our overarching policy should be to undermine these regimes and encourage democracy, which would reduce the need for Islamic fundamentalism as a means of opposing dictatorship. We've horribly mismanaged every country we've tried this in, however, so it may not appear to be fruitful at first.

Solution to Iraq Quagmire Is Peace With Iran, Says Ex-Colin Powell Adviser
Lawrence Wilkerson
:"No peace can come to the region, unless Iran is a fully participating and cooperating party on the side of IS’s enemies."

For over a decade, I was a small part of a U.S. strategy to maintain the balance of power in the Persian Gulf, however ignominiously to the purer hearts of the world. In 2003, George W. Bush and the neoconservatives destroyed that balance.

Imagine my utter surprise, then, when I returned to government in 2000 and began to hear talk of destroying that relative stability by invading Iraq and taking out Saddam Hussein. Had I stumbled into an administration of neophytes in national security policy, lunatics, power-mad zealots, or what?

Solution to Iraq Quagmire Is Peace With Iran, Says Ex-Colin Powell Adviser | Alternet
 
The article ignores the fact that such regimes create long-term anger, especially if the US is seen as propping them up but also if the people of the Middle East feel as if we are standing aside as they are being oppressed. When those leaders are deposed or weakened, there is nothing stopping such hatred from exploding in our faces. Therefore, our overarching policy should be to undermine these regimes and encourage democracy, which would reduce the need for Islamic fundamentalism as a means of opposing dictatorship. We've horribly mismanaged every country we've tried this in, however, so it may not appear to be fruitful at first.

Colin Powell adviser, Lawrence Wilkerson:

From 1953 to 2000, we crafted and maintained a balance of power in the Persian Gulf, however ignominiously to the purer hearts of the world. In 2003, we destroyed that balance. We are now reaping the consequences. To thrust more military power into such a situation will only work if we remain indefinitely and massively deployed there—an extremely dangerous proposition. The only other solution is to craft a new balance of power. Iran just might be ready to assist.
 
You have no regard for the LGBT, don't feign that here.

Explain why I am for gay marriage, then.

I will wait.

After that-explain why you are supporting an outcome that will result in the mass executions of gays.

How many more must be thrown from rooftops for you to be happy?
 
Explain why I am for gay marriage, then.

I will wait.

After that-explain why you are supporting an outcome that will result in the mass executions of gays.

How many more must be thrown from rooftops for you to be happy?

Wrong, I've never supported any of the military adventurism that has destroyed the Middle East. Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad contained Islamic extremism, and gays WERE NOT being thrown from the rooftops.

The Islamic State jihadists are largely Sunni; while they claim many grievances, they are chiefly waging war against their fellow Muslims who are Shi'a. Saddam was a Sunni who cruelly repressed Shiites and granted special favors to Sunnis, but his iron-fisted rule kept the peace.

http://uexpress.com/as-i-see-it/2015/5/21/honor-our-armed-forces-by-avoiding
 
Wrong, I've never supported any of the military adventurism that has destroyed the Middle East. Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad contained Islamic extremism, and gays WERE NOT being thrown from the rooftops.

The Islamic State jihadists are largely Sunni; while they claim many grievances, they are chiefly waging war against their fellow Muslims who are Shi'a. Saddam was a Sunni who cruelly repressed Shiites and granted special favors to Sunnis, but his iron-fisted rule kept the peace.

Honor Our Armed Forces by Avoiding Unnecessary Wars, as I See It | uexpress

Gays are splattering on the ground, have you ever seen a "jumper" up close?

I have-why do you support fundamentalist theocracies that will lead to more of this?

Are you against gays?
 
Gays are splattering on the ground, have you ever seen a "jumper" up close?

I have-why do you support fundamentalist theocracies that will lead to more of this?

Are you against gays?

Actually read what you just quoted, and wipe that egg off your face. And what's this, now you've moved the goal posts again. US engagement in the Middle East is to protect the LGBT community suddenly. :sinking:
 
Actually read what you just quoted, and wipe that egg off your face. And what's this, now you've moved the goal posts again. US engagement in the Middle East is to protect the LGBT community suddenly. :sinking:

I never made that claim-I simply stated the reality.

Gays ARE dying. Women ARE dying, being raped, and being sold into slavery.

Men ARE dying.

Why do you want to allow this?
 
I never made that claim-I simply stated the reality.

Gays ARE dying. Women ARE dying, being raped, and being sold into slavery.

Men ARE dying.

Why do you want to allow this?

That's all happening because Bush broke the peace, and Obama :fueltofir:, so no, we've nothing else to do there. It's failed US policy that got things where they are. So no, we're not doing things your way anymore.
 
That's all happening because Bush broke the peace, and Obama :fueltofir:, so no, we've nothing else to do there. It's failed US policy that got things where they are. So no, we're not doing things your way anymore.

Nice try, but gays weren't being thrown from rooftops under Bush.

If you can't defend them, what else can you defend?
 
Nice try, but gays weren't being thrown from rooftops under Bush.

If you can't defend them, what else can you defend?

Thanks for making my point. Perhaps you should just pull the chain.
 
Nice try, but gays weren't being thrown from rooftops under Bush.

If you can't defend them, what else can you defend?

Thanks for making my point. Perhaps you should just pull the chain.
 
Back
Top Bottom