• 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!

Are you for or against military action vs. ISIL?

Are you For or Against military action vs. ISIL?


  • Total voters
    42
When you go to these countries you enter at your own risk.Many of those people don't give two ****s why reporters are there.Nor do they care if Americans know their side of the story.


If we had not interfered in the middle east Bin Laden would be just another unknown Arab.

And take the risk of Saddam to control the world's oil supply? Also, if we are really boiling down to the fact that Bin Laden didn't like the fact that he wasn't picked to defend Saudi Arabia, and that is the justification for killing 3000 on 9/11, it's a little petty you must admit....

At this point in time, that's basically correct.

Their homelands, and the "theater" they operate in are currently confined to areas within the ME.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of their victims have been of ME and/or Muslim decent.

I agree completely with you.... but what about in the future?
 
I agree completely with you.... but what about in the future?

What about it?

You could say the same thing for Iran, North Korea, your next door neighbor, the lawn care crews that come cut your grass, the police officer at your kids school, ......

If we start going to war with "potential future threats" ......... well, that's just a place I can't justify we go.
 
There has been plenty of political discussion about "how" we take action against ISIL.
But I am curious how DP members would side on the issue if it was a choice between no action at all vs. action (of whatever type occurs.)

Personally I was completely against the Invasion of Iraq from day 1.
Yet I am very much for the annihilation of ISIL.
I am not sure if the beheading videos were meant to lure us into the fight or meant to scare us away.
Yet, even though I am aware that I am likely being manipulated to someone elses agenda... I do not even care.
I want blood. I want to see every ISIL member dead. If it was their goal to manipulate me... it worked.

Okaaaaaaaaay.

Maybe some sort of new hobby is in order?

Jogging? Weight lifting?

That's what I do.

Speaking of which...
 
What about it?

You could say the same thing for Iran, North Korea, your next door neighbor, the lawn care crews that come cut your grass, the police officer at your kids school, ......

If we start going to war with "potential future threats" ......... well, that's just a place I can't justify we go.

On the other hand, had we of taken that view of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11, 3000 Americans might still be alive. Also, the examples you list aren't the same in this instance. Say what you want about Iran and North Korea, they haven't actually threatened us like ISIS has. Well, NK does but no one takes them seriously anymore (even when they actually back it up). And up to this point, Iran has been adamant that their Nuclear Program is for peaceful purposes.

At some point, if you do acknowledge that they are a threat, and not just a strategic adversary (as I would classify NK and Iran), shouldn't something be done about it now when they are in their infancy?
 
On the other hand, had we of taken that view of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11, 3000 Americans might still be alive. Also, the examples you list aren't the same in this instance. Say what you want about Iran and North Korea, they haven't actually threatened us like ISIS has. Well, NK does but no one takes them seriously anymore (even when they actually back it up). And up to this point, Iran has been adamant that their Nuclear Program is for peaceful purposes.

At some point, if you do acknowledge that they are a threat, and not just a strategic adversary (as I would classify NK and Iran), shouldn't something be done about it now when they are in their infancy?

Hindsight is 20/20.

There's no way to know what could have prevented 9/11, and to suggest we could have stopped that is rather simple don't you think?

You can't forge peace and understanding with smart bombs, drones, and death. Not when it comes to generations and generations of cultural hatred.

We need Islamic countries to stand up to fanatical Islamic hatred.
Western countries dropping bombs and forcing a military occupation of Islamic countries isn't going to spread peace and tranquility.

There's no way to "win" the "war on terror" through use of "brute force" and "military occupation from the west".

Not without turning the west into a genocidal machine that's willing to basically start world war 3 and risk almost complete destruction of mankind as we know it.

The US can't police the ME.
The US can't "kill terrorism".
 
Hindsight is 20/20.

There's no way to know what could have prevented 9/11, and to suggest we could have stopped that is rather simple don't you think?

You can't forge peace and understanding with smart bombs, drones, and death. Not when it comes to generations and generations of cultural hatred.

We need Islamic countries to stand up to fanatical Islamic hatred.
Western countries dropping bombs and forcing a military occupation of Islamic countries isn't going to spread peace and tranquility.

There's no way to "win" the "war on terror" through use of "brute force" and "military occupation from the west".

Not without turning the west into a genocidal machine that's willing to basically start world war 3 and risk almost complete destruction of mankind as we know it.

The US can't police the ME.
The US can't "kill terrorism".

Sure we go, after all, there hasn't been another major attack on the homeland since 9/11. You attack Al Qaeda, disrupt their network, and hurt their ability to pull off a spectacular scale attack. Simple, don't you think?

Also, Islamic countries have proven since the Arab Spring that when left on their own, they generally go towards the fanatical ones. Heck, Iraq was a pretty functioning government until Maliki had to get all religious up in there.

My point being is that we can either wait around for the next (inevitable) attack, one that might involve WMD, or we can cripple these organizations when they spring up. I've given up on salvaging the ME at this point anyways.
 
Just keep them out of our country and out of our embassies. Which I suspect we can do without the military.

Anything that ISIL combatants do elsewhere should be handled by the governments who claim to control that territory.

ISIL claims to be just that - a gov't in control of territory. ;)
 
Hindsight is 20/20.

There's no way to know what could have prevented 9/11, and to suggest we could have stopped that is rather simple don't you think?

You can't forge peace and understanding with smart bombs, drones, and death. Not when it comes to generations and generations of cultural hatred.

We need Islamic countries to stand up to fanatical Islamic hatred.
Western countries dropping bombs and forcing a military occupation of Islamic countries isn't going to spread peace and tranquility.

There's no way to "win" the "war on terror" through use of "brute force" and "military occupation from the west".

Not without turning the west into a genocidal machine that's willing to basically start world war 3 and risk almost complete destruction of mankind as we know it.

The US can't police the ME.
The US can't "kill terrorism".

Well put, imo.
 
Military action has been unable to take out Al Qaeda and it will also fail against ISIS/ISIL.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

Its clear that we arent learning from our mistakes nor are we learning from history because we keep repeating the same errors each time. :roll:
 
Military action has been unable to take out Al Qaeda and it will also fail against ISIS/ISIL.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

Its clear that we arent learning from our mistakes nor are we learning from history because we keep repeating the same errors each time. :roll:

Because as soon as it looks like we might win, we stop. We never follow through.
 
I think we have to put their oil production out of commission too. ISIS is making 2 million a day selling oil. That should not be difficult from the air.

I agree that their monetary sources need to be squeezed off, however, I don't believe using airstrikes on an oil platform/well is sound strategy, as the oil will burn, which causes less oil to be out on the market and its impact upon the environment and the non-ISIL people around it (smoke cloud).
 
We are spending more millions creating more enemies. Welcome to endless war.
 
It is not that simple.

What is the leadership like (don't trust Obama)? What strategy? Is it going to be just air strikes and drones?

I see no moral problem with it, if it is done correctly. If we are not going to do the job right and until the end, then stay out of it.
 
I think we have to put their oil production out of commission too. ISIS is making 2 million a day selling oil. That should not be difficult from the air.

You realize oil is a nonrenewable resource? That probably won't happen.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063789837 said:
You realize oil is a nonrenewable resource? That probably won't happen.

Oil gets to market by pipeline. Blowing up a pipeline will not waste much oil but it will keep it off the market.
 
I think we have to put their oil production out of commission too. ISIS is making 2 million a day selling oil. That should not be difficult from the air.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1063789837 said:
You realize oil is a nonrenewable resource? That probably won't happen.

Oil gets to market by pipeline. Blowing up a pipeline will not waste much oil but it will keep it off the market.

Look at your first statement. It has nothing to do with the transportation of oil.

Destroying their oil production facilities (oil wells) will waste a whole lot more valuable resource than destroying their ability to send it to a buyer.
 
Undoubtedly for. Complacency is plainly irresponsible in light of their stated goals and gains made in such a short period of time.
 
I have yet to see anybody discuss what the "endgame" situation in Syria and Iraq should look like, much less how to achieve it militarily.
 
I have yet to see anybody discuss what the "endgame" situation in Syria and Iraq should look like, much less how to achieve it militarily.

There is no "endgame", militarily or otherwise. The only possible "endgame" is to utterly eliminate extremist Islam from the face of the planet. Since that is not an option, or even a possibility, we're just putting off the inevitable and this will continue to come back and bite the planet in the ass forever.
 
Khorasan, an offspring of Al Q is apparently a greater threat and is concentrating on bomb making. exterminating bomb makers and bombers before they can strike should be a high priority. same with extreme retribution upon any area that harbors such scum knowingly
 
There is no "endgame", militarily or otherwise. The only possible "endgame" is to utterly eliminate extremist Islam from the face of the planet. Since that is not an option, or even a possibility, we're just putting off the inevitable and this will continue to come back and bite the planet in the ass forever.

maybe that means eliminating any area that harbors it?
 
There is no "endgame", militarily or otherwise. The only possible "endgame" is to utterly eliminate extremist Islam from the face of the planet. Since that is not an option, or even a possibility, we're just putting off the inevitable and this will continue to come back and bite the planet in the ass forever.

It might not last more than another 50 years, a generation or 2, but it depends more on how we deal with it than how many terrorists we kill. The terrorists have a strategy and every strategy has a solution to circumvent it. Things like how they used religious guilt and fear to con the Saudi's out on the money to fund the Taliban schools in Pakistan are key to stopping extremists before they exist. We need to use our head as well as our fist.
 
Because as soon as it looks like we might win, we stop. We never follow through.

How do you exactly expect to "win" or follow through with at this?
 
maybe that means eliminating any area that harbors it?

And how do you do that? It's an insidious virus that hides within civilian populations everywhere that it's allowed to fester. Unfortunately, because most of these countries don't have a moderating secular influence, the fanatics can act, largely with impunity, and recruit from the larger Muslim population. If we can't even stop our own people from going overseas to fight with ISIL, how can we hope to stop it from happening in a culture where we have virtually no influence?
 
Back
Top Bottom