• 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!

McCain: Obama 'directly responsible' for Orlando massacre

Glen Contrarian said:
And as I posted elsewhere too, the Iraqi president himself said the reason why Iraq would not allow our forces to stay was because they would not allow American troops to have immunity from Iraqi prosecution...and you know very well that such is a standard part of all SOFA's worldwide.

And concerning my link, no, it doesn't "make your point". It shows that terrorism's been around a long, long time...and the more access that low-level terrorists have to weapons or things that can be used as weapons, the more destruction they'll cause.
Click to expand...

BHO never went big enough to succeed in Iraq.

From your #148: Some experts said Iraqi leaders may not have been willing to take great political risk with their citizens in exchange for a relatively small American force.

As for terrorism, the change in characteristics and quantity in our time mark a sharp difference.
 
Jack Hays said:
Two separate questions: Iraq in 2011, Syria in 2012. My post was about Syria in 2012 and had nothing to do with Iraq.
Click to expand...

My bad - I got them mixed up.

Okay, concerning Syria. I don't doubt that you know of grown men who cried when Obama refused to extend extra help...but now we enter the realm of realpolitik. Obama believed that if we supported the rebels full-tilt, this might topple Syria, and this would endanger the possibility of a nuclear agreement with Iran.

Time has passed, Syria's still a hellhole of misery and injustice...but we have the nuclear agreement. Yeah, you probably believe that agreement's not worth the paper that it's written on...but a few days ago the announcement was also made that Iran's purchasing $25B worth of airliners from Boeing. Seeing how they've just now finalized the negotiations, you're cynical enough that you *know* that had to be a part of the agreement that was not made public.

Does this suck for Syria? Yes. Such is realpolitik. Obama had to make a decision - what's best for Syria...or what's best for America. He chose the latter. For Americans, looks like he did the right thing after all...especially since it means that not only did he strike a deal that means thousands more jobs for Americans and billions more dollars in revenue for Boeing, but also that we didn't get embroiled in yet another war in the Middle East.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
My bad - I got them mixed up.

Okay, concerning Syria. I don't doubt that you know of grown men who cried when Obama refused to extend extra help...but now we enter the realm of realpolitik. Obama believed that if we supported the rebels full-tilt, this might topple Syria, and this would endanger the possibility of a nuclear agreement with Iran.

Time has passed, Syria's still a hellhole of misery and injustice...but we have the nuclear agreement. Yeah, you probably believe that agreement's not worth the paper that it's written on...but a few days ago the announcement was also made that Iran's purchasing $25B worth of airliners from Boeing. Seeing how they've just now finalized the negotiations, you're cynical enough that you *know* that had to be a part of the agreement that was not made public.

Does this suck for Syria? Yes. Such is realpolitik. Obama had to make a decision - what's best for Syria...or what's best for America. He chose the latter. For Americans, looks like he did the right thing after all...especially since it means that not only did he strike a deal that means thousands more jobs for Americans and billions more dollars in revenue for Boeing, but also that we didn't get embroiled in yet another war in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

We would not have been embroiled. At that moment the rebels were poised to win if we had given them the tools. The years of war since then would not have happened. Is $25B enough for 500,000 dead? For a continued supply route for Hezbollah in Lebanon? Do you think Iran's nuclear timetable has really been retarded?
 
Jack Hays said:
BHO never went big enough to succeed in Iraq.

From your #148: Some experts said Iraqi leaders may not have been willing to take great political risk with their citizens in exchange for a relatively small American force.

As for terrorism, the change in characteristics and quantity in our time mark a sharp difference.
Click to expand...

"Some experts said"? We've gone down that road before, haven't we?
 
Jack Hays said:
We would not have been embroiled. At that moment the rebels were poised to win if we had given them the tools. The years of war since then would not have happened. Is $25B enough for 500,000 dead? For a continued supply route for Hezbollah in Lebanon? Do you think Iran's nuclear timetable has really been retarded?
Click to expand...

You can't say that. How many times have we armed this or that group with the world watching, where we got embroiled anyway? Such led to Vietnam, to Lebanon in 1983. You know the perils of mission creep, and it's disingenuous to make a blanket statement that "it wouldn't have happened".

Has Iran's nuclear efforts been retarded? Probably. I don't know, and neither do you...but we both know that we've got a very active intel network there.

That said - and this is where I depart from my fellow liberals - I really don't care if Iran gets nukes. Why? Because Iran is Shi'a, and nuclear-armed Pakistan is Sunni...and I believe that once they both have nuclear swords of Damocles over their heads, they'll calm down a bit. And no, they won't use them to commit terrorist attacks, since every reactor has its own radioactive "signature"...and it wouldn't take long after a nuclear detonation to determine who did it...and whose nation would soon be a glass parking lot.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
You can't say that. How many times have we armed this or that group with the world watching, where we got embroiled anyway? Such led to Vietnam, to Lebanon in 1983. You know the perils of mission creep, and it's disingenuous to make a blanket statement that "it wouldn't have happened".

Has Iran's nuclear efforts been retarded? Probably. I don't know, and neither do you...but we both know that we've got a very active intel network there.

That said - and this is where I depart from my fellow liberals - I really don't care if Iran gets nukes. Why? Because Iran is Shi'a, and nuclear-armed Pakistan is Sunni...and I believe that once they both have nuclear swords of Damocles over their heads, they'll calm down a bit. And no, they won't use them to commit terrorist attacks, since every reactor has its own radioactive "signature"...and it wouldn't take long after a nuclear detonation to determine who did it...and whose nation would soon be a glass parking lot.
Click to expand...

Syria fit the profile of neither Vietnam nor Lebanon.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's from your link. Fact is BHO wasn't offering enough to make their risk worthwhile.
Click to expand...

And how many American soldiers have died in Iraq since we left? How many tens of billions in taxpayer dollars have we spent in Iraq since we left?

You seem to think that we were somehow morally obligated to "go the extra mile" with our blood and treasure for Iraq - but you know as well as I do that nations don't have friends, but nations have interests (yeah, you know that quote, too). We were no more morally obligated to stay in Iraq than we were to get more involved in Syria...and no more obligated than we were to go send in the Marines into the African jungles after Boko Haram, or to get involved with one side or the other in the civil wars in the Sudan or Eritrea or the C.A.R. or wherever.

In other words, just because something horrific is happening somewhere does NOT mean that we'd automatically make it better by spending our blood and treasure there.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And how many American soldiers have died in Iraq since we left? How many tens of billions in taxpayer dollars have we spent in Iraq since we left?

You seem to think that we were somehow morally obligated to "go the extra mile" with our blood and treasure for Iraq - but you know as well as I do that nations don't have friends, but nations have interests (yeah, you know that quote, too). We were no more morally obligated to stay in Iraq than we were to get more involved in Syria...and no more obligated than we were to go send in the Marines into the African jungles after Boko Haram, or to get involved with one side or the other in the civil wars in the Sudan or Eritrea or the C.A.R. or wherever.

In other words, just because something horrific is happening somewhere does NOT mean that we'd automatically make it better by spending our blood and treasure there.
Click to expand...

It was in our own interest to remain in Iraq.
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes. The rebels didn't want our people, only weapons.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Because when the weapons aren't enough, the government wouldn't be able to allow the rebels to be defeated ("We can't allow America to lose face by letting the people we supported lose - the rest of the world's nations would feel they couldn't count on us anymore!")...and so they would send in "military advisers". And when the military advisers wouldn't be enough, in would go the ground troops.

This is called "mission creep".
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Wrong. Because when the weapons aren't enough, the government wouldn't be able to allow the rebels to be defeated ("We can't allow America to lose face by letting the people we supported lose - the rest of the world's nations would feel they couldn't count on us anymore!")...and so they would send in "military advisers". And when the military advisers wouldn't be enough, in would go the ground troops.

This is called "mission creep".
Click to expand...

Wouldn't have gone that way. The rebels were winning, and they said our presence would hurt their cause. Refreshingly, they also said they wanted to win their own freedom.
 
JoeTrumps said:
John McCain: Obama 'directly responsible' for Orlando - CNNPolitics.com

first, remember when the left went after Trump for attacking McCain and they defended him? watch those some hypocrites bring out the long knives on McCain for this. It's going to be ugly(and kind of sad). they use, then discard, then destroy people at any political whim that comes along.

second, McCain made it very clear in his debate with Obama that the US needed to retain a presence in Iraq indefinitely, as we have in Japan, Korea, and throughout Europe. You liberals laughed it off, and voted for Obama and his cut and run policy. You have no one to blame but yourselves for ISIS. You can't defeat an enemy then go home and leave it a fractured tribal community to "figure it out". Arab Spring was squandered. Obama is a disgrace.
Click to expand...

Fault doesn't lie with Obama, fault lies with what Trump would call getting the right people. After an end to major combat operations, Bush appointed L. Paul Bremer to manage the middle eastern country. We can rest ISIS on his mismanaging shoulders. He did things that rippled, and they are rippling now. Obama has been dealing with the fallout, he campaigned on pulling out. Blaming him for fulfilling a campaign promise is absurd.

"Bremer is remembered for some controversial decisions that greatly affected the war, like his order to disband the Iraqi army after the invasion and remove members of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party from professional positions — alienating tens of thousands of unemployed Sunnis likely to join the budding insurgency." About the only thing he left them with is weapons...

"I did one thing that wasn't very smart, which was suggest to the staff meeting that I thought we should shoot the looters, that our military should have authority to shoot the looters, which they did not have at that time," Bremer said in the "Losing Iraq" documentary. "It wasn’t very smart to do because somebody on the staff immediately told the press that I had suggested shooting the looters, and we had a problem."

The Former Head Of The US Occupation In Iraq Did 2 Very Embarrassing Things On His First And Last Days On The Job


This is just another example of a current politician being blamed for something right before an election. Which makes no sense, Obama can not be re elected.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Wouldn't have gone that way. The rebels were winning, and they said our presence would hurt their cause. Refreshingly, they also said they wanted to win their own freedom.
Click to expand...

They were winning...but the Russians didn't want to give up their base. Russia wasn't about to allow the rebels to win.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
They were winning...but the Russians didn't want to give up their base. Russia wasn't about to allow the rebels to win.
Click to expand...

The Russians were a long way from getting in at that time, and there's no reason to assume the Russians would not have put out feelers to the rebels.
 
Texmex said:
Poor old McCain, he is becoming senile in his old age.
Click to expand...
Produce an official diagnosis or bug off!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm no fan of President Obama nor of Democrats but this McCain screed has nothing to do with the left or hypocrisy. McCain has made a stupid comment - perhaps he's unaware of what he term "direct" means. Clearly, many of us believe that President Obama's foreign policy has been feckless at best and perhaps dangerously inattentive, but to suggest he put a semi-automatic rifle into the hands of a radical Islamic homophobe is just idiocy. Perhaps McCain believes that inane bluster ala Donald Trump is a means to bring relevance back to his position - that's a big fail.
Click to expand...
That's not what he did. He clarified saying Obama policies did this.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Kobie said:
Funny, I always thought the person "directly responsible" for a crime was the one who committed it.
Click to expand...

And if you're the supplier for the person committing the crime, you're also responsible for it.
 
Do I also get to blame Bush for removing Saddam because these guys definitely wouldn't have seen the light of day if he was still in power.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Russians were a long way from getting in at that time, and there's no reason to assume the Russians would not have put out feelers to the rebels.
Click to expand...

Hm. Let's see here. If Assad fell, the Russians stood to lose their only base in the Med if the rebels decided against them due to their longtime support of Assad.

That tells me that no matter what, the Russians would have gotten involved. It would've taken but a few days for them to start combat ops.

No, Jack, while I do feel sorry for the rebels and especially the families, there was too much risk if America got involved, and lots of upside for us if we didn't get involved. This was a time for Realpolitik.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Hm. Let's see here. If Assad fell, the Russians stood to lose their only base in the Med if the rebels decided against them due to their longtime support of Assad.

That tells me that no matter what, the Russians would have gotten involved. It would've taken but a few days for them to start combat ops.

No, Jack, while I do feel sorry for the rebels and especially the families, there was too much risk if America got involved, and lots of upside for us if we didn't get involved. This was a time for Realpolitik.
Click to expand...

BHO had not yet erased his own red line. Russians were not as bold as they later became.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom