• 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!

Iran vs. al-Qaeda

Which should we focus on weakening?

  • We should fight al-Qaeda

    Votes: 1 12.5%

  • We should weaken Iran

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • We should focus equally on both of them

    Votes: 1 12.5%

  • We should not fight either of them

    Votes: 1 12.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 5 62.5%
  • Total voters
    8
MadLib

MadLib

monstrous vermin
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
2,439
Location
Upstate New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
When pursuing our foreign policy objectives, which malevolent entity should we focus most on weakening? Al-Qaeda has been pursuing a campaign of terror against the United States for almost two decades, and although it has been severely crippled in its strongholds, it shows no signs of relenting. Iran, on the other hand, appears to be developing a nuclear weapon in contravention of international law, and it supports anti-US and anti-Israel dictators and death squads across the Arab World - but it has been decades since it last was openly hostile to the US. So when it comes down to fighting one or the other, who should we choose?

NOTE: this is not an implicit reference to the conflict in Syria or anywhere else, I'm just curious to see what the opinion will be.
 
First AlQ, it's easier. Then the Iranian regime, to also bring down Assad, Hez and Hamas.
 
It's like fighting a hydra.

There are so many heads to the beast, selecting just one has little effect.

As to where to start, my first choice for a battlefield would actually be Europe were it up to me. London and Malmo would be good places to begin the real fight.
 
One cannot 'combat terrorism' while prevailing global conditions absolutely guarantee its survival. To claim to be invested thus is only to write oneself another blank cheque. Iran is no more a threat to the established order than anyone other nation. Is anyone seriously still waiting for the flashpoint in North Korea? Any state will 'contravene' international statute where its interests dictate it must. We are awash with precedent to this effect.

Our immediate problems lie within our own borders. Such as education, health and the economy are many times more immediately pressing than ghosts and ghoulies from foreign lands.
 
MadLib said:
When pursuing our foreign policy objectives, which malevolent entity should we focus most on weakening? Al-Qaeda has been pursuing a campaign of terror against the United States for almost two decades, and although it has been severely crippled in its strongholds, it shows no signs of relenting. Iran, on the other hand, appears to be developing a nuclear weapon in contravention of international law, and it supports anti-US and anti-Israel dictators and death squads across the Arab World - but it has been decades since it last was openly hostile to the US. So when it comes down to fighting one or the other, who should we choose?

NOTE: this is not an implicit reference to the conflict in Syria or anywhere else, I'm just curious to see what the opinion will be.
Click to expand...

Today, Al Queda are our friends and allies. We supply and train them .. and we send them lots of American taxpayer cash.

Iran will acquire a nuke just like everybody else who has them has.

How about taking on the MIC and the corporatists who own both American political parties and run this country?

At what point will 'warriors' find the courage to do that?
 
Gardener said:
As to where to start, my first choice for a battlefield would actually be Europe were it up to me. London and Malmo would be good places to begin the real fight.
Click to expand...

When I was in those cities, 2001-3, 05, they were nice. I lived in Lund and Helsingborg. I think the problem with Malmo (and Helsingborg) is this unfortunate idea of muliculturalism. Interculturalism (a melting pot) is what really provides integration. Unfortunately, the immigrants (fine people, all that I met) are segregated by Sweden culturally, socially and economically. The segregation results in poverty and alienation.
 
Last edited:
Well Iran will probably take care of itself, when you have so many unemployed youth something is bound to happen.
 
ecofarm said:
When I was in those cities, 2001-3, 05, they were nice. I lived in Lund and Helsingborg. I think the problem with Malmo (and Helsingborg) is this unfortunate idea of muliculturalism. Interculturalism (a melting pot) is what really provides integration. Unfortunately, the immigrants (fine people, all that I met) are segregated by Sweden culturally, socially and economically. The segregation results in poverty and alienation.
Click to expand...

Multiculturalism does work but the rest of the population needs to be accepting, multiculturalism works and has worked for decades here in Canada. Our culture is multiculturalism.
 
Carjosse said:
Multiculturalism does work but the rest of the population needs to be accepting, multiculturalism works and has worked for decades here in Canada. Our culture is multiculturalism.
Click to expand...

Integration requires the end of segregation. French Canadians are yucky.
 
ecofarm said:
Integration requires the end of segregation. French Canadians are yucky.
Click to expand...

It is rather hard to have integration when there is nothing for them to integrate into. Our only requirement for integration into Canadian society is language and acceptance of social values. Quebeckers will accept you as long as you speak French and eat poutine.
 
Carjosse said:
It is rather hard to have integration when there is nothing for them to integrate into. Our only requirement for integration into Canadian society is language and acceptance of social values. Quebeckers will accept you as long as you speak French and eat poutine.
Click to expand...

I think it's funny how Canadians, with no more claim to European heritage than the US, gets all snooty about being Brit or French. And who, in the world, wants to speak French (except perhaps the hotel industry, because even French people cannot stand to be there).
 
ecofarm said:
I think it's funny how Canadians, with no more claim to European heritage than the US, gets all snooty about being Brit or French. And who, in the world, wants to speak French (except perhaps the hotel industry, because even French people cannot stand to be there).
Click to expand...

It is a rather long history lesson about why lines were drawn. A quick summary is: Quebec used to be ruled by Anglophones until the Quiet Revolution (60s) which brought the Quebec identity to the forefront (and very secular Liberal politics) and Francophones finally ruled the province and they wanted to ensure that primarily their unique language (within North America anyways) remained. Anglophones are still rather wealthy and a political force in Quebec (mainly through the Quebec Liberal party) though they do not rule it. French is a very nice language especially if you like literature it is a must as France produced a lot of great authors and playwrights. French is an very culturally rich language. I would rather speak French than Spanish because it sounds better and is more culturally rich.
 
My point was, in Florida there is more integration, with a higher percentage of foreign (non-EU, in the case of Europe) born immigrants.

Regarding language. Texas and CA are about the size of France with about 1/3 and 1/2 the population, respectively. What if either wanted to speak a different language. Absurd. Sweden is 10m people. Separate language as a state in the US? Absurd.
 
MadLib said:
When pursuing our foreign policy objectives, which malevolent entity should we focus most on weakening? Al-Qaeda has been pursuing a campaign of terror against the United States for almost two decades, and although it has been severely crippled in its strongholds, it shows no signs of relenting. Iran, on the other hand, appears to be developing a nuclear weapon in contravention of international law, and it supports anti-US and anti-Israel dictators and death squads across the Arab World - but it has been decades since it last was openly hostile to the US. So when it comes down to fighting one or the other, who should we choose?

NOTE: this is not an implicit reference to the conflict in Syria or anywhere else, I'm just curious to see what the opinion will be.
Click to expand...
Even this establishment's tralalaika knows who created Al Qaeda:

 
pvsi said:
Even this establishment's tralalaika knows who created Al Qaeda:

Click to expand...


The "people we're fighting" refers to the Taliban, not al-Qaeda. There is little evidence to support the notion that we supported Arab mujahideen (who compose al-Qaeda), but we did fund the Afghan mujahideen, some of which broke of to become al-Qaeda (those that didn't fought the Taliban and al-Qaeda as the Northern Alliance). Besides, the Pakistanis share the largest responsibility in the matter, as they openly aligned themselves with al-Qaeda right up until 9/11.

There's a whole forum for conspiracy theories like this. Take this stuff there, I want legitimate opinions on how we should align our foreign policy.
 
ecofarm said:
I think it's funny how Canadians, with no more claim to European heritage than the US, gets all snooty about being Brit or French. And who, in the world, wants to speak French (except perhaps the hotel industry, because even French people cannot stand to be there).
Click to expand...
lulz

+1
 
Tothian said:
We should stand against the illuminati.
Click to expand...
We should stand against most of what our respective governments do, but we don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom