• 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!

Iraqi Sunnis Trained by U.S. Return to al Qaeda

No, we kill off the insurgents, until al Qaeda is a dirty word, just like Nazi is in Germany and Facisimi is in Italy.

Wars can't be won politically The only way to win a war, is to kill the enemy, with the maximum amount of violence. Had we done that in 2003, we wouldn't still be talking about this. There damn sure wouldn't be an insurgent presence in Iraq.

Your idiotic invocation of Godwin aside, you can't compare the Nazis to the insurgents simply because the Nazis weren't fighting a guerrilla war and the insurgents are.

The problem isn't killing the enemy. The problem is locating the enemy.

How are we to recognize that threat? After Americans get killed, or before?

The same way we recognized the threat that was used to justify the invasion to begin with, I guess.

In other words, neither! :lol:
 
Some people the United States trained, turned on them!?

Well colour me Purple and call me barney, this **** never happens!
 
Used it all for your Name Tag on DP?

downsrim.gif
Exactly.
 
Chances are there were no defections only deceptions involved here. It is taught to all who follow Islam that the use of deception is not only permissible but encouraged in pursuit of their goals.

It is naive and could be damn stupid to ever fall for the BS that some Islamic group is moderate or peaceful right after or during a conflict involving their sect or group call it what you like.

I truly believe there is NO such thing as a lasting peaceful solution when dealing with the CULT that is Islam.

As I see it there are two choices.

#1. Beat the enemy down enough reduce there threat outside of there borders and enforce a strict embargo on anything that could used or made into something that could be used as a weapon and contain them 100% by use of what ever force is required, mostly drones and heavily armed and armored border controls.

#2. Annihilate the enemy to a man. But that might raise a few eyebrows in the World community.

This means we have one choice unless some controlling forces within Iraq step up and miraculously become effective and take solid control.

As an incentive I believe we need to give the current Gov, Leadership the word in no uncertain terms what we expect and when we expect it and no more of this wishful thinking like President George W. Bush or coming at everything from a position of weakness and Appeasement like Obama has done.
 
Yeah, I don't see the point in wrapping the country or our soldiers in bubble wrap.

The only responsible thing to do is bring the resistance in Iraq to its knees, and then either rule it directly or install a ruler in line with our interests.
Isn't that pretty much how we got Hussein in th 1st place?
 
Your idiotic invocation of Godwin aside, you can't compare the Nazis to the insurgents simply because the Nazis weren't fighting a guerrilla war and the insurgents are.

I didn't Godwinize anything. I only gave you an historical comparison, which to go by.

The problem isn't killing the enemy. The problem is locating the enemy.

True, an enemy that hides among the population is harder to find. That just means that it will take a little longer to find him, but when we do, we hit him with an extreme amount of violence, killing him and anyone that supports him.



The same way we recognized the threat that was used to justify the invasion to begin with, I guess.

In other words, neither! :lol:

IOW, you don't have a single clue as what to do; only your Liberal posturing?
 
I didn't Godwinize anything. I only gave you an historical comparison, which to go by.

Sure, sure, whatever you say. It was a terrible comparison designed to evoke a particular emotional response. Godwin.

True, an enemy that hides among the population is harder to find. That just means that it will take a little longer to find him, but when we do, we hit him with an extreme amount of violence, killing him and anyone that supports him.

A little longer? It's been several years, and we still suck at it.

IOW, you don't have a single clue as what to do

No -- with good old-fashioned intelligence, the way we catch a lot of things -- both real and imagined. Ergo, you catch them neither before nor after they kill Americans.

only your Liberal posturing?

As I have both said and demonstrated on a number of occasions, I am not a liberal. Please stop lying about me.
 
Sure, sure, whatever you say. It was a terrible comparison designed to evoke a particular emotional response. Godwin.

No, it's a historical fact, that Allied Forces brought down so much pain on the German people that Facism is illegal. The, "zeig heil", thing? Yeah, it's a crime to execute that salute. We should have brought down the same amount of pain in Iraq and Afghanistan, so as to make, "al Qaeda", a dirty word.

If you can't handle historical relevancy, then prhaps you should find something else to do with your spare time, other than debating politics online.



A little longer? It's been several years, and we still suck at it.

We do? Please, show how we suck at it. Can't wait to hear how you explain to us how American soldiers suck at defeating the enemy.



No -- with good old-fashioned intelligence, the way we catch a lot of things -- both real and imagined. Ergo, you catch them neither before nor after they kill Americans.

So, you'll support a pre-emptive strike by any president--regardless of political persuasion--based on the intel that he has at that time? Be honest!



As I have both said and demonstrated on a number of occasions, I am not a liberal. Please stop lying about me.

Ok, you've said it, but you've never once--that I've seen--taken a Right Wing stance on anything. Judging from your monicker, I'm guessing you're a big time 2nd Amendment guy, but I think that's where you're Right Wing'ness ends.
 
Well, tactically speaking, the enemy was getting his ass handed to him. So...yes.

Tactics win battles, strategy wins wars. An occupation is a long-term large-scale conflict, which most people simply call "war". Tactics mean nothing in an occupation.

Nobody is denying that the military invasion in 2003 went splendidly -- unequal warfare almost always ends with a quick declaration of victory from the more powerful aggressor. But it then gives way to occupation, which is often disastrous for the more powerful aggressor.

So, then, no, the occupation was not going splendidly.
 
Tactics win battles, strategy wins wars. An occupation is a long-term large-scale conflict, which most people simply call "war". Tactics mean nothing in an occupation.

Well, if this a question of tactics, then it not actually an, "occupation".

Nobody is denying that the military invasion in 2003 went splendidly -- unequal warfare almost always ends with a quick declaration of victory from the more powerful aggressor. But it then gives way to occupation, which is often disastrous for the more powerful aggressor.

The low level of violence, is the reason for the insurgency.

So, then, no, the occupation was not going splendidly.

"Occupation", is just another one of those catch phrases the anti-war leftists use to poorly attempt to make some kinda point at, whatever.
 
Well, if this a question of tactics, then it not actually an, "occupation".



The low level of violence, is the reason for the insurgency.



"Occupation", is just another one of those catch phrases the anti-war leftists use to poorly attempt to make some kinda point at, whatever.

I'm saying that it's not a matter of tactics BECAUSE it's an occupation, you halfwit.

At any rate, the word "occupation" is really, really not some sort of "anti-war leftist phrase". It is in full military parlance, and it is the correct term for the 2003-2010 period of American involvement in Iraq.

There were no staged battles, there were no front lines, there wasn't even an opposing army -- insurgents fought against occupying American and NATO troops -- thus making it an occupation. This is really not up for debate.
 
No, it's a historical fact, that Allied Forces brought down so much pain on the German people that Facism is illegal. The, "zeig heil", thing? Yeah, it's a crime to execute that salute. We should have brought down the same amount of pain in Iraq and Afghanistan, so as to make, "al Qaeda", a dirty word.

If you can't handle historical relevancy, then prhaps you should find something else to do with your spare time, other than debating politics online.

What you're leaving out is that, by and large, individual soldiers serving under the Nazi flag had all sorts of uniforms, decals, equipment, and a bunch of other things identifying them as Nazi soldiers.

The insurgents do no such thing.

The only way to bring down that kind of hurt on them would be to indiscriminately slaughter civilians alongside the insurgents, thus manufacturing more insurgents as we go.

Ergo, a terrible comparison.

We do? Please, show how we suck at it. Can't wait to hear how you explain to us how American soldiers suck at defeating the enemy.

Iraq.

There, that was fast. :lol:

So, you'll support a pre-emptive strike by any president--regardless of political persuasion--based on the intel that he has at that time? Be honest!

Honestly, not all the time. If the threat is the kind of thing where to make a mistake is to mean the certain death of hundreds of thousands of Americans (nuclear of biological attack) then definitely. If not, then definitely not -- there are more intelligent ways to handle that kind of threat than beating them to the punch.

Ok, you've said it, but you've never once--that I've seen--taken a Right Wing stance on anything.

If you haven't seen me do it, that's really not my fault. It's happened often enough.

Judging from your monicker, I'm guessing you're a big time 2nd Amendment guy, but I think that's where you're Right Wing'ness ends.

My moniker has nothing whatsoever to do with my politics, but I appreciate the effort.

I simultaneously believe the Constitution was one of the best governmental structures ever invented, and that it had just as many flaws as the founders that put it together.

I think we need a much smaller government, but I also think we need to work our way there.

I think that the Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame for the mess we're in, and I'm sick and tired of the two major parties getting away with having a veritable monopoly on political power from coast to coast.

I don't think the Tea Party movement is the answer to that conundrum, but I applaud the sentiment.

Ta-da!
 
I'm saying that it's not a matter of tactics BECAUSE it's an occupation, you halfwit.

At any rate, the word "occupation" is really, really not some sort of "anti-war leftist phrase". It is in full military parlance, and it is the correct term for the 2003-2010 period of American involvement in Iraq.

There were no staged battles, there were no front lines, there wasn't even an opposing army -- insurgents fought against occupying American and NATO troops -- thus making it an occupation. This is really not up for debate.

While I agree with you, I'd thank you not to do this:

you halfwit

It's one thing to call someone a liar if in fact they are lying. It's another to insult them.

You are contributing to the very cancer that eats away at the political discourse on this board every day.

I'm not saying I never do, but I'm trying to fix that. I'd appreciate it if you'd try too.
 
"Occupation", is just another one of those catch phrases the anti-war leftists use to poorly attempt to make some kinda point at, whatever

Oh those lefties at the dictionary...

oc·cu·pa·tion audio (ky-pshn) KEY

NOUN:

1.
1. An activity that serves as one's regular source of livelihood; a vocation.
2. An activity engaged in especially as a means of passing time; an avocation.
2.
1. The act or process of holding or possessing a place.
2. The state of being held or possessed.

3.
1. Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
2. The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.

occupation - Definition of occupation at Define.com Dictionary and Thesaurus (define occupation)

occupation

noun

1: the principal activity in your life that you do to earn money; "he's not in my line of business" [syn: {business}, {job}, {line of work}, {line}]

2: the control of a country by military forces of a foreign power [syn: {military control}]

3: any activity that occupies a person's attention; "he missed the bell in his occupation with the computer game"

4: the act of occupying or taking possession of a building; "occupation of a building without a certificate of occupancy is illegal" [syn: {occupancy}, {taking possession}, {moving in}]

5: the period of time during which a place or position or nation is occupied; "during the German occupation of Paris"

Yeah... the dictionary is full of lefties... and so are 1940s newspapers about the German occupation....

image080.jpg


No, no. I think it's you who is wrong.
 
What you're leaving out is that, by and large, individual soldiers serving under the Nazi flag had all sorts of uniforms, decals, equipment, and a bunch of other things identifying them as Nazi soldiers.

The insurgents do no such thing.

The only way to bring down that kind of hurt on them would be to indiscriminately slaughter civilians alongside the insurgents, thus manufacturing more insurgents as we go.

Ergo, a terrible comparison.

So, when Allied bombers bombed Bremen, Berlin, Stuttgart, Whihelmshlavin, Munich and Dresden created more Nazis, or did it tear down morale?

Perfect comparison, actually.



Iraq.

There, that was fast. :lol:

oh, please, be more specific about how our soldiers did a crappy job of fighting the insurgents.



Honestly, not all the time. If the threat is the kind of thing where to make a mistake is to mean the certain death of hundreds of thousands of Americans (nuclear of biological attack) then definitely. If not, then definitely not -- there are more intelligent ways to handle that kind of threat than beating them to the punch.

So, as long as we can, "absorb an attack"--in the words of The One--we should turn the other cheek?



If you haven't seen me do it, that's really not my fault. It's happened often enough.

Name one!





I simultaneously believe the Constitution was one of the best governmental structures ever invented, and that it had just as many flaws as the founders that put it together.

I think we need a much smaller government, but I also think we need to work our way there.

I think that the Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame for the mess we're in, and I'm sick and tired of the two major parties getting away with having a veritable monopoly on political power from coast to coast.

I don't think the Tea Party movement is the answer to that conundrum, but I applaud the sentiment.

Ta-da!

Yeah, whatever! Which Obama policies do you oppose? Again, name one!
 
While I agree with you, I'd thank you not to do this:



It's one thing to call someone a liar if in fact they are lying. It's another to insult them.

You are contributing to the very cancer that eats away at the political discourse on this board every day.

I'm not saying I never do, but I'm trying to fix that. I'd appreciate it if you'd try too.

Fair enough, you're absolutely right. Sometimes, emotion gets the best of all of us, eh?
 
So, when Allied bombers bombed Bremen, Berlin, Stuttgart, Whihelmshlavin, Munich and Dresden created more Nazis, or did it tear down morale?

Perfect comparison, actually.

No, it's really not, because that was what most people would consider "traditional" warfare. This is guerrilla warfare. We don't lower the morale of the enemy if citizens get caught in the crossfire -- we turn civilians into eager combatants.

Just like if someone did it to us.

oh, please, be more specific about how our soldiers did a crappy job of fighting the insurgents.

We haven't won yet, not by a long shot.

It's not because our soldiers aren't good, but because we're not good at this kind of warfare.

So, as long as we can, "absorb an attack"--in the words of The One--we should turn the other cheek?

Show me where I said anything such thing.

Name one!

Wait, so now it's on me if you haven't been paying attention to my posts. Oh, no. If you want to accuse me of something, it's on you to prove it.

I won't do your homework for you. Especially not after I clearly outlined the basics of my political beliefs.
 
Back
Top Bottom