• 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

The source isn't trustworthy.

Oh now its the source. :roll: Typical, is that the best you got? Why.....didn't jive with all that BS that you propagandize with so you can dump on the US like always?

Did you want what the MS Media put up about it? As they do have quite a bit on what Bin Laden had put out. Although, I am sure you are quite aware there is more out there.

You didn't want to say that Bin Laden never stated that he saw the defeat of AQ in Iraq, did you?
 
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?



Its because he can't come up with any excuses to help the Shia and Sunni be responsible like.....its why he can never fault them for what they do. Their own behaviors and actions. See when they do something and if the US says anything. According to Monte its our fault. Were suppose to let those who live with the chaos theory, do whatever to our people. Screw up any of our interests. Make threats to us and we are suppose to roll over and just let them keep on doing it.

Now that's just the way the sell out works.
 
Its because he can't come up with any excuses to help the Shia and Sunni be responsible like.....its why he can never fault them for what they do. Their own behaviors and actions. See when they do something and if the US says anything. According to Monte its our fault. Were suppose to let those who live with the chaos theory, do whatever to our people. Screw up any of our interests. Make threats to us and we are suppose to roll over and just let them keep on doing it.

Now that's just the way the sell out works.

The US has no business there. As demonstrated enough by our intel community, Bush's policy just made worse what it was suppose to fix, while Obama's policies did even greater damage. Obviously the US should have left well enough alone. All our policies have been is favourable to the empowerment of the Islamic State.
 
The US has no business there. As demonstrated enough by our intel community, Bush's policy just made worse what it was suppose to fix, while Obama's policies did even greater damage. Obviously the US should have left well enough alone. All our policies have been is favourable to the empowerment of the Islamic State.


Well then the Sunni and Shia should have quit asking for business to be conducted with them.....also the Sunni and Shia, should have quit asking for help and making alliances. Should have quit asking for help with all they couldn't handle with each other. Should also quit asking for American Goods and products.

Then they should never have created any incidents with us. Since they can't handle each other. Then hoping our involvement we would be constrained by our own laws.

Note how all that begins with who the real problem is.....and who started it all. With their own words and actions. Which as a matter of fact they have done the same exact thing with any others they have communicated with. All by their own actions and words. That which is the sum of them.

That you can't place on any others.....but them.
 
Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad did a far better job at containment of Islamic extremists than either Bush or Obama could ever hope to.

So that means we should excuse the millions they killed during the reigns?

During Gaddafi's last days, his forces destroyed entire rebel-occupied towns and killed many innocents with snipers in several others. But Monte says he was a great guy because he kept a lid on Islamic Terrorists, so i guess we can forgive him for all that!
 
You have no regard for the LGBT, don't feign that here.

However, i'm sure US Conservative doesn't advocate tossing gays off rooftops like ISIS does.

He may not like gays, but that doesn't necessarily put him in the same catagory as ISIS.
 
Nah, I am all for the Kurds taking those Two Cities and then controlling that area and keeping ISIS out. Thats who all should be trying to help. The Kurds.....tell Turkey to STFU and stay out of the way. Same with the Abadi in Iraq.....and he needs to allow the weapons to be delivered to the Kurds as was promised.
forget Abadi..we should arm them directly..
It's some law about sending arms t an unrecognized nation thatis supposedly stopping it ( too lazy to source..it's just what I read).

The Kurds need heavy weapons,and Baghdad routinely holds them up.
 
So that means we should excuse the millions they killed during the reigns?

During Gaddafi's last days, his forces destroyed entire rebel-occupied towns and killed many innocents with snipers in several others. But Monte says he was a great guy because he kept a lid on Islamic Terrorists, so i guess we can forgive him for all that!
works for me.. I agree with Monte..have you any clue just how bad Libya is, and who caused this?

ISIS getting money from human smuggling ( African migrants/Syria) is just the latest.
ISIL Affiliate in Libya ..All of which Qadaffi specifically warned would happen if NATO would/ and did assassinate him

I document much of it here Libyan civil war? - Page 32
 
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.
you can add Hillary's "Friends of Syria" initiative to that..

around 4:00
 
forget Abadi..we should arm them directly..
It's some law about sending arms t an unrecognized nation thatis supposedly stopping it ( too lazy to source..it's just what I read).

The Kurds need heavy weapons,and Baghdad routinely holds them up.

Heya AT. :2wave: It was the Iraqis Shia and Sunni Tribes that don't want the Kurds armed directly. Turkey too.

I agree.....we should support them and then support them for statehood like the Euros are doing for Palestine.
 
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.
The Civil War started over food riots, an out growth of the Arab Spring. Yes Qatar, and Iran et all kept it going as a proxy civil war
and I don't think the west meddling was a turning point, even if it was stupid.
 
Heya AT. :2wave: It was the Iraqis Shia and Sunni Tribes that don't want the Kurds armed directly. Turkey too.
I agree.....we should support them and then support them for statehood like the Euros are doing for Palestine.
Thanks for that..
I'm done listening to the Iraqis - I mean the place is almost surely going to self-partition...
What I am worried about is what the heck to do with the Sunnis in Anbar, Iran will colonize Baghdad,and it's government -
like it already has and that shuts the Sunnis out.

This is already what is happening, and why ISIL is making such big gains - we can't let that become another terrorist state.
Arming the Kurds has to be part of that.
 
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
You gotta give credit to el_Sisis though -shut out the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood , working on clearing out the Sinai from all the terrorists Morsi let accumulate there,and even his idea for a regional force.. Plus his New Years Day speech ( the Prophet's B-day) calling out the clerics..

He's a lot better then Mubarak! Morsi was a cancer.
A New Year in Egypt: The Significance of President Sisi's Speech | The American Spectator
 
Thanks for that..
I'm done listening to the Iraqis - I mean the place is almost surely going to self-partition...
What I am worried about is what the heck to do with the Sunnis in Anbar, Iran will colonize Baghdad,and it's government -
like it already has and that shuts the Sunnis out.

This is already what is happening, and why ISIL is making such big gains - we can't let that become another terrorist state.
Arming the Kurds has to be part of that.



Yeah BO was trying to say its a success going on with ISIS.....but the reality on the ground says otherwise. Even his own people can't get around what BO has done himself with Iraq.



Defense chief: After Ramadi, Iraq's 'will to fight' at issue.....


The Islamic State group's takeover of the provincial capital of Ramadi is stark evidence that Iraqi forces lack the "will to fight," Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in a TV interview that aired Sunday. The harsh assessment raised new questions about the Obama administration's strategy to defeat the extremist group that has seized a strategically important swath of the Middle East. Although Iraqi soldiers "vastly outnumbered" their opposition in the capital of Anbar province, they quickly withdrew last Sunday without putting up much resistance from the city in Iraq's Sunni heartland, Carter said on CNN's "State of the Union."

The Iraqis left behind large numbers of U.S.-supplied vehicles, including several tanks, now presumed to be in Islamic State hands. "What apparently happened is the Iraqi forces just showed no will to fight," Carter said. "They were not outnumbered; in fact, they vastly outnumbered the opposing force. That says to me, and I think to most of us, that we have an issue with the will of the Iraqis to fight ISIL and defend themselves."

American intelligence officials have assessed for some time that Iraq is unlikely ever again to function as the multi-ethnic nation-state it once was, and that any future political arrangement would have to grant significant local autonomy to the three main groups,_Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. But the Obama administration has continued to pursue a "one Iraq" policy, routing all assistance through Baghdad.....snip~

Defense chief: After Ramadi, Iraq's 'will to fight' at issue
 
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.
couldn't disagree with you more about undermining "dictators" forr "democracy"

It doesn't reduce Salafi jihad (ISIL) , it doesn't translate into "democracy" anywhere I can remember either.

I much respect your ideas/research, but that is a basic neo-con flawed argument..
Best to think of the Powell Doctrine ("Pottery Barn Rule") instead: "you break it you own it"
 
Last edited:
Yeah BO was trying to say its a success going on with ISIS.....but the reality on the ground says otherwise. Even his own people can't get around what BO has done himself with Iraq.



Defense chief: After Ramadi, Iraq's 'will to fight' at issue.....


The Islamic State group's takeover of the provincial capital of Ramadi is stark evidence that Iraqi forces lack the "will to fight," Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in a TV interview that aired Sunday. The harsh assessment raised new questions about the Obama administration's strategy to defeat the extremist group that has seized a strategically important swath of the Middle East. Although Iraqi soldiers "vastly outnumbered" their opposition in the capital of Anbar province, they quickly withdrew last Sunday without putting up much resistance from the city in Iraq's Sunni heartland, Carter said on CNN's "State of the Union."

The Iraqis left behind large numbers of U.S.-supplied vehicles, including several tanks, now presumed to be in Islamic State hands. "What apparently happened is the Iraqi forces just showed no will to fight," Carter said. "They were not outnumbered; in fact, they vastly outnumbered the opposing force. That says to me, and I think to most of us, that we have an issue with the will of the Iraqis to fight ISIL and defend themselves."

American intelligence officials have assessed for some time that Iraq is unlikely ever again to function as the multi-ethnic nation-state it once was, and that any future political arrangement would have to grant significant local autonomy to the three main groups,_Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. But the Obama administration has continued to pursue a "one Iraq" policy, routing all assistance through Baghdad.....snip~

Defense chief: After Ramadi, Iraq's 'will to fight' at issue
yes. thanks for that I''ve been working an missed it - time for a major re-assessment.
Assad looks very wobbly,and that "Syrian moderate" training in S.Arabia (etc.)is never going to pan out.
Iraq as a state is just lines on a map now
 
-- Even his own people can't get around what BO has done himself with Iraq.--

I'm halfway in a conversation but I don't get what you mean - especially when you throw in the (very accurate) assessment of the willingness of the Iraqi forces to defend their own homeland?
 
I'm halfway in a conversation but I don't get what you mean - especially when you throw in the (very accurate) assessment of the willingness of the Iraqi forces to defend their own homeland?

Heya IC. :2wave: The bolded put that in perspective.



But the Obama administration has continued to pursue a "one Iraq" policy, routing all assistance through Baghdad.....snip~
 
couldn't disagree with you more about undermining "dictators" forr "democracy"

It doesn't reduce Salafi jihad (ISIL) , it doesn't translate into "democracy" anywhere I can remember either.

I much respect your ideas/research, but that is a basic neo-con flawed argument..
Best to think of the Powell Doctrine ("Pottery Barn Rule") instead: "you break it you own it"

The way I see it, any policy that relies on intimidation and repression to work is going to fail in the long run. Consider how in Yugoslavia, Tito was unable to prevent eventual ethnic strife despite decades of fairly benevolent dictatorship. Authoritarian regimes may provide stability and even peace while they exist, but all they serve to do is create more violent extremists. They cannot and should not be permanent solutions to Islamist tendencies. I'm hardly a neocon, but I recognize that representative government is the only way to reduce the grievances of people who may otherwise turn to groups like ISIS to feel like they have power over their own lives.
 
Heya IC. :2wave: The bolded put that in perspective.



But the Obama administration has continued to pursue a "one Iraq" policy, routing all assistance through Baghdad.....snip~

Evening MMC; I think the single Iraq policy was there before Obama. I seem to remember a discussion years ago on DP and I believed then that it should split into separate sectors. I make no anti Bush or anti Obama point - just that it seemed general US policy and it also confirms that the US would not wish to see billions spent and lives sacrificed as a wasted effort.

Time to rethink US policy in Iraq

Washington’s policy toward Iraq has been consistently focused on and committed to a unified Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003. America has poured billions of dollars and thousands of lives into ensuring the survival of this artificial, unworkable state.

The question is: how much time and resources do you invest in something that does not work? By doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, US policy in Iraq is subscribing to Einstein’s definition of insanity. It is pouring more arms and financial aid into Baghdad, hoping for a different outcome only to prove its vision for the future of Iraq.

--snip--

Reinforcing Iraq’ unity by forcing Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders to work for a goal they don’t believe in, has led to further polarization of society and extreme animosity toward an “Iraqi identity” that continues to be imposed on various ethnicities and sects.

Link
 
The way I see it, any policy that relies on intimidation and repression to work is going to fail in the long run. Consider how in Yugoslavia, Tito was unable to prevent eventual ethnic strife despite decades of fairly benevolent dictatorship. Authoritarian regimes may provide stability and even peace while they exist, but all they serve to do is create more violent extremists. They cannot and should not be permanent solutions to Islamist tendencies. I'm hardly a neocon, but I recognize that representative government is the only way to reduce the grievances of people who may otherwise turn to groups like ISIS to feel like they have power over their own lives.
yes. Yugoslavia - but that was so called "balkanization" -
long term cobbling together of disparate regions. or even nations.
I know you're not a neo-con,and it wasn't meant that way - except to point out the idea that overthrowing any gov't just to impose democracy is exactly that idea.

I remember talking to you about Libya a long time ago, and that is a good ex. of why overthrowing dictators for humanitarian grounds is a bad idea.
If nothing else that "Pottery barn Rule" does come into play - also it's best for the peoples of any nation to take their own fate into their hands - they then take ownership of their future.
I don't want to go over each point with you,other then to speak in the general ideas of why nation building seldom works.
Feel free to disagree however, and i'll try to get back to you..
 
Evening MMC; I think the single Iraq policy was there before Obama. I seem to remember a discussion years ago on DP and I believed then that it should split into separate sectors. I make no anti Bush or anti Obama point - just that it seemed general US policy and it also confirms that the US would not wish to see billions spent and lives sacrificed as a wasted effort.

It was.....but then BOs own Team have been telling him since 2013. Moreover the Shia Militias have declared us an Enemy, again.



American intelligence officials have assessed for some time that Iraq is unlikely ever again to function as the multi-ethnic nation-state it once was, and that any future political arrangement would have to grant significant local autonomy to the three main groups,_Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran, cast doubt on the U.S. preference to deal only with the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad, calling instead for directly arming both the Kurds in the north and Sunni tribes that have asked for help in beating back the Islamic State group.

"These Iraqi security forces have cut and run," Gabbard said. She criticized Baghdad's close links with Iran-backed Shiite militias that have declared themselves enemies of the United States....snip~
 
It was.....but then BOs own Team have been telling him since 2013. Moreover the Shia Militias have declared us an Enemy, again.



American intelligence officials have assessed for some time that Iraq is unlikely ever again to function as the multi-ethnic nation-state it once was, and that any future political arrangement would have to grant significant local autonomy to the three main groups,_Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran, cast doubt on the U.S. preference to deal only with the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad, calling instead for directly arming both the Kurds in the north and Sunni tribes that have asked for help in beating back the Islamic State group.

"These Iraqi security forces have cut and run," Gabbard said. She criticized Baghdad's close links with Iran-backed Shiite militias that have declared themselves enemies of the United States....snip~

Agreed, but in recent years I think the US has spent too much financially and in terms of the blood of its own to walk away or change tactics. That goes for whichever politician and party your next president comes from too. It won't be down to party politics to change tack.

Those Iran backed Shiite militias are also the only ones capable of standing up to ISIS or even removing them from some of the territory ISIS took. There's too much bad history for the US to work openly with Iran now - just look at the hatred poured on Obama for talking to the Iranians about their nuclear ambitions.
 
Back
Top Bottom