• 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!

50 soldiers killed in ISIS attack on Egyptian Army's Sinai checkpoints

Well, it matters what he did, as we're now dealing with the results. Moreover, it's better to learn from the mistakes of the past so as not to repeat them.

Now, we have a few thousand truly evil people in the Middle East committing acts of savagery under the banner of ISIS. They are radicals who are not afraid to die for their cause, and who believe that their god will see to it that they succeed in their goal of world domination.

So, what do we do?

It is our problem to a degree, since we set the stage for the uprising and since we still rely on the region for oil. It seems to me that it is also the problem of a lot of other nations as well, including, of course, Egypt, the last one to have been attacked.

So, do we go in alone, guns blazing, to free the world from evil and set things right? Remember the learning from the past thing.

So you think it is a few thousand that took over territory in Iraq and Syria?

Muslim Statistics (Terrorism) - WikiIslam
 
ISIS extremists carry the seeds of their own destruction just like all other extremists groups have in the past. We wouldn't have these symptoms to deal with if Bush hadn't created the problem in the first place

That is your opinion but ignores the terrorist attacks in the 90's and in addition ignores the reality of 9/11 and the warning the U.S. got in the 1998 PDB given to Clinton
 
Oh come on now. This conflict had very little to do with oil but everything to do with power ..... in Washington DC

Well, when you say "this conflict", if you refer only to Iraq, you miss the point. Did you visit the link and read all of the senators comments? Our interest in the Middle East for YEARS has been the uninterrupted, free flow of oil to the world, which interrupted would mean huge financial instability globally. Beginning with the CIA's sabotage of the Iranian government in 1953, to protect British oil interests which were threatened to be nationalized, making Iranians the beneficiaries instead, to the desired regime change in Syria, oil is a center piece.

United States foreign policy in the Middle East has its roots as early as the Barbary Wars in the first years of the U.S.'s existence, but became much more expansive after World War II. American policy during the Cold War tried to prevent Soviet Union influence by supporting anti-communist regimes and backing Israel against Soviet-sponsored Arab countries. The U.S. also came to replace the United Kingdom as the main security patron of the Persian Gulf states in the 1960s and 1970s, working to ensure Western access to Gulf oil.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_policy_in_the_Middle_East
 
That is your opinion but ignores the terrorist attacks in the 90's and in addition ignores the reality of 9/11 and the warning the U.S. got in the 1998 PDB given to Clinton

What Iraqi terrorist attacks were made in the 90s ?
 
Really? how much of a tax cut did you get from Obama and is Iraq in the same or better shape than when Bush left office?

The subject was taxes.

And he not only kept the Bush cuts, but also cut payroll taxes. A large part of the "stimulus" was not spending, but tax cuts.

So, if Bush is a conservative, then so is Obama. Personally, I think they're both liberals, defined as seeking large government solution to problems, and they both look a lot like my avatar, but that's just my opinion.
 
What Iraqi terrorist attacks were made in the 90s ?

Please post for me the part of the Congressional resolution that claims the reason for any attack has to do with Iraq's involvement in 9/11
 
The subject was taxes.

And he not only kept the Bush cuts, but also cut payroll taxes. A large part of the "stimulus" was not spending, but tax cuts.

So, if Bush is a conservative, then so is Obama. Personally, I think they're both liberals, defined as seeking large government solution to problems, and they both look a lot like my avatar, but that's just my opinion.

So where is you outrage of cutting SS and Medicare? Keeping the Bush tax cuts? What was Obama's position on those tax cuts? It wasn't Obama that kept the Bush tax cuts but rather the Congress under Democrat control
 
Please post for me the part of the Congressional resolution that claims the reason for any attack has to do with Iraq's involvement in 9/11

9/11 wasn't in the 90s you brought up terror attacks in the 90s. I'm asking what those Iraqi terror attacks were in that decade ? :roll:
 
9/11 wasn't in the 90s you brought up terror attacks in the 90s. I'm asking what those Iraqi terror attacks were in that decade ? :roll:

Let me see if I can be clearer, there were a number of terrorists attacks on this country in the 90's, none of them initiated to the best of our knowledge from Iraq, and our actions or inactions to those attacks led to 9/11. Now Iraq was not attacked because of 9/11 as the resolution stated but again you refuse to read that resolution and stick by your false opinions and beliefs.
 
Let me see if I can be clearer, there were a number of terrorists attacks on this country in the 90's, none of them initiated to the best of our knowledge from Iraq, and our actions or inactions to those attacks led to 9/11. Now Iraq was not attacked because of 9/11 as the resolution stated but again you refuse to read that resolution and stick by your false opinions and beliefs.

So you actually believe Iraq would still have been attacked despite 9/11 ...... WOW thats quite a reach ! :lamo
 
The neocon ambition for regime change in Iraq predates 9/11. 9/11 merely served as a twisted excuse to advance that ambition.

Kristol and Kagan advocated regime change in Iraq throughout the Iraq disarmament crisis.[22][23] Following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, core members of the PNAC including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Zoellick, and John Bolton were among the signatories of an open letter initiated by the PNAC to President Bill Clinton calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
 
Is that what the resolution stated?

Is it what you believe, or do you intend to keep ducking and diving like this ad infinitum ? Cite where (in the resolution you keep hiding behind) invasion was sanctioned ? :waiting:
 
The neocon ambition for regime change in Iraq predates 9/11. 9/11 merely served as a twisted excuse to advance that ambition.

Kristol and Kagan advocated regime change in Iraq throughout the Iraq disarmament crisis.[22][23] Following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, core members of the PNAC including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Zoellick, and John Bolton were among the signatories of an open letter initiated by the PNAC to President Bill Clinton calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Apparently so did Bill Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, what did that Act propose?
 
Is it what you believe, or do you intend to keep ducking and diving like this ad infinitum ? Cite where (in the resolution you keep hiding behind) invasion was sanctioned ? :waiting:

You are brilliant, you know what I believe? Interesting. Please post where I ever said we invaded Iraq because of 9/11?
 
Apparently so did Bill Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, what did that Act propose?

I've repeatedly explained that there's a dimes thickness of difference in the two parties and been an advocate for the independent party. What's your point?
 
I've repeatedly explained that there's a dimes thickness of difference in the two parties and been an advocate for the independent party. What's your point?

My point is third party advocates like you are naïve and very gullible even though principled. There is no chance of success at the national level for a third party until you build it from the ground up. As has been seen and proven, 43% or so of the Democrats will vote for a Democrat regardless of his qualifications or no matter what he does, about 25% of Republicans are the same way, where does that leave an independent. The answer is always work from within and change from within, not from the outside. The choice is clear, the party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama or the Republicans. Looks simple to me
 
My point is third party advocates like you are naïve and very gullible even though principled. There is no chance of success at the national level for a third party until you build it from the ground up. As has been seen and proven, 43% or so of the Democrats will vote for a Democrat regardless of his qualifications or no matter what he does, about 25% of Republicans are the same way, where does that leave an independent. The answer is always work from within and change from within, not from the outside. The choice is clear, the party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama or the Republicans. Looks simple to me

Registered independents outnumber both democratic and republican voters. It's merely time for them to vote independent. ;)
 
Registered independents outnumber both democratic and republican voters. It's merely time for them to vote independent. ;)

Being registered and who you vote for are two different thing. Doesn't matter whether or not you register an independent for here is what you are missing

From Gallop

Americans are increasingly declaring independence from the political parties. It is not uncommon for the percentage of independents to rise in a non-election year, as 2013 was. Still, the general trend in recent years, including the 2012 election year, has been toward greater percentages of Americans identifying with neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party, although most still admit to leaning toward one of the parties
 
Registered independents outnumber both democratic and republican voters. It's merely time for them to vote independent. ;)

There is no Independent Party. These unaffiliated voters have diverse views and it's not clear that a single party could appeal to all of them.
 
Being registered and who you vote for are two different thing. Doesn't matter whether or not you register an independent for here is what you are missing

From Gallop

Yes of course they lean towards one or the other. But the whole reason that they have pulled their registration from the two dinosaurs is because of their disgust with them to begin with. What I'm saying is that they now need to vote independent and side line the two.
 
Back
Top Bottom