• 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!

Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily[W:20]

And I'm simply saying the length of the war is probably a huge factor in people saying this.



Yes, I think there are polls at this time showing support for military operations. I bet, though, support for an invasion such as with Afghanistan and Iraq is much much smaller.



Agreed.



Agreed. The sheeple are easily (mis)led.

Do you think there is any role for the military in the ME? Or do you think it should be completely hands-off?

You may well be correct with your first point. I need to look at this poll further.

I would have said completely hands off from the beginning. But with decades of support now for militant Islamic groups, and the power vacuums that have been created in the last dozen years, we have, again, created for ourselves, and those poor citizens of the Middle East, a problem that is going to require the US military in some fashion. But I am personally sick of this, and want to see the US turn to policies that promote stability and containment of militant Islamists. Our policies have been counter to that with the most recent regime changes and the letting the IS out of the bag more recently. And now then our state department is blaming president Assad for IS when he's getting his ass kicked and has very little power and control left him. The US and other Western powers as well as at least two Arab States have been supporting the militant Islamic groups that president Assad has been fighting, and president Assad gets blamed for allowing IS to flourish and strengthen. So yeah, IS is a problem that our military is likely going to be used against, for me, begrudgingly, and only with the assurances that once we get the lid back on the ME, we begin to advance the policies referred to earlier. But what's the likelihood, I and others with this opinion, will get that? So you see my frustration.
 
The fact that he did/would not give the command to kill OBL when he had the chance alone makes him partially responsible does it not? IMO it does.

To claim that Clinton is responsible for 9/11 because he chose not to launch an airstrike against bin Laden in 1998 is tantamount to putting 2 and 2 together and getting 17.

Let's face facts: the only reason that any president feels obliged to be at all involved with the ME is to protect the oil operations that US companies run there. For as long as those operations are going on, there will always be militants wanting to damage US interests.
 
To claim that Clinton is responsible for 9/11 because he chose not to launch an airstrike against bin Laden in 1998 is tantamount to putting 2 and 2 together and getting 17.

Let's face facts: the only reason that any president feels obliged to be at all involved with the ME is to protect the oil operations that US companies run there. For as long as those operations are going on, there will always be militants wanting to damage US interests.

Note that I said partially responsible, not fully. To blame 9/11 on one person oversimplifies a very complicated issue. However, it can't be denied that if he had given that order there is a very good chance that 9/11 would have never taken place. OBL was the mastermind behind that. Without him, that attack most likely never happens
 
Note that I said partially responsible, not fully. To blame 9/11 on one person oversimplifies a very complicated issue. However, it can't be denied that if he had given that order there is a very good chance that 9/11 would have never taken place. OBL was the mastermind behind that. Without him, that attack most likely never happens

So some other high-level AQ leader would have planned an attack that was equally (or perhaps more) damaging. Can't rule out that scenario, either.
 
So some other high-level AQ leader would have planned an attack that was equally (or perhaps more) damaging. Can't rule out that scenario, either.

Hence my use of "most likely" and not definitely.
 
Back
Top Bottom