• 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!

Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement...

Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement


  • Total voters
    54
Higher tax rates make sense if we're planning on engaging on an occupation or a conventional war (like Iraq). Lately, military conflicts have only needed a few airstrikes and/or arming and training proxy troops, and I see no reason to raise taxes in those situations unless they become more expensive; it's just not the same level of commitment.

taxes should go up during any military action. this will make us think twice about entering a war.
 
Everyone who pays taxes is already chipping in.



Actually what's important is that if we do get into a war, we should treat it as one and turn the military loose to win it. When we do that, wars do not drag on and on and on.

i would be more comfortable if there were no military actions without a declaration of war. war is war, not a "police action." this would also be another step between peace and war, and i think that it's appropriate for multiple branches of government to weigh in.
 
i would be more comfortable if there were no military actions without a declaration of war. war is war, not a "police action." this would also be another step between peace and war, and i think that it's appropriate for multiple branches of government to weigh in.

That depends on what you mean by military action. When Reagan bombed Libya over the disco bombing. It was all over in a few hours. I don't think a declaration should be needed for that. The same with Grenada...it was over in just a few days. Both actions were pin prick. I agree that any large scale invasion like Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, etc should be a declared war. We need to get back to that. Perhaps then wars will less likely be politicized. And the objectives will not be in doubt.
 
That depends on what you mean by military action. When Reagan bombed Libya over the disco bombing. It was all over in a few hours. I don't think a declaration should be needed for that. The same with Grenada...it was over in just a few days. Both actions were pin prick. I agree that any large scale invasion like Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, etc should be a declared war. We need to get back to that. Perhaps then wars will less likely be politicized. And the objectives will not be in doubt.

the current war is not likely to be completed in hours. the US will most likely be mired down for years, looking for an exit strategy. either that, or we will just bomb and drone a bunch of places, and then gradually ease out of it.

it's the job of the regional hegemons, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. not the US.
 
To me an objective is not allowing these Islamists to run across the border to a safe haven until the coast is clear. An example of an objective would be completely destroying Japan's ability to wage war by packing B-29s with incendiaries and then lighting up the entire country. When that doesn't work, start dropping nukes, and then don't worry about the morality of it.

It's the extremes people have gone to defend failed policy. The phony "war on terror" cannot be won, has not been won and will not be won no matter what party is in the White House. But it's job security for the military and the defense contractors as well as other big businesses.
 
it was not erroneous. the Middle East cannot be stabilized by external military force. and most of the neoconservatives who see to think it can are not willing to pay more in taxes to fund the endless state of war, so the argument is pointless anyway.

The Ottoman Empire was a different age, for one, all circumstances vastly different, and to control that empire, they occupied all of it. Our Middle East policy has been such a colossal failure it's hard to know what our leadership has been thinking. But many of them have stated more than frankly that it's been about oil, including our current Secretary of Defence. And yet, to this moment, that notion finds ridicule, here and everywhere else.

"People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs".

Chuck Hagel
 
Bush's account of al Qaida in that particular speech at that particular time was absolutely 100% correct and is verifiably so. He did not at any time say that al Qaida was no longer dangerous or that we should let up the pressure. But the damage done to al Qaida at that time was real, all the leaders were scrambling for cover and trying to be invisible or unfindable, and the organization was weakened and unable to operate in the open or to initiate anything approaching their success obtained on 9/11. He made no claims that were not supported with the evidence available at that time. What he did claim has been oft misquoted or misrepresented by Bush-haters on the left.

I hope to live long enough to see a society return to a culture that doesn't focus on the politics of personal destruction and demonizing somebody instead of looking honestly at successes, mistakes, and how we might do it better.

Well then, if you want to preach to me about ethics, form and honesty. Let's talk again about the entire war that we had in Iraq which was sold to America by a president devoid of such. Then we wouldn't even be talking about his foolish and very inaccurate statement two months into it, that Al Qaeda was DECIMATED. I just proved to you that Al Qaeda, and their ideology, is very much alive, and they have actually been the beneficiaries of US policy in the Middle East.

So, while we're hoping, I hope I live long enough to see a rational policy advanced in the Middle East that brings containment to extremists, security and peace to the folk that live there, and a little bit of happiness to them as well. Instead of an energy driven policy that keeps our pentagon busy destroying property and killing people. But that will depend on how long Americans keep supporting the failed policy.
 
Do you realize that if you claim AQ was the enemy in Iraq then you are an ally of Dick Cheney?

So! I suppose in that case it would make me an ally of George Bush on that issue as well. He's the one that stated two months into the war in Iraq that Al Qaeda was decimated. Guess he didn't know who he was fighting.
 
Well then, if you want to preach to me about ethics, form and honesty. Let's talk again about the entire war that we had in Iraq which was sold to America by a president devoid of such. Then we wouldn't even be talking about his foolish and very inaccurate statement two months into it, that Al Qaeda was DECIMATED. I just proved to you that Al Qaeda, and their ideology, is very much alive, and they have actually been the beneficiaries of US policy in the Middle East.

So, while we're hoping, I hope I live long enough to see a rational policy advanced in the Middle East that brings containment to extremists, security and peace to the folk that live there, and a little bit of happiness to them as well. Instead of an energy driven policy that keeps our pentagon busy destroying property and killing people. But that will depend on how long Americans keep supporting the failed policy.

Setting aside that you completely missed the point made and went straight to ad hominem and then charged off to a different subject, I will wish you a pleasant day.
 
Nothing immature about my handle. Like I said, it expresses the majority opinion of obamacare.
Do you honestly think that the majority is never immature or small-minded?

And now you are suggesting that Americans fight in the war on terror with or without the military? Oh my!
Not at all; just that they have to be willing to do so if they want to earn the right to support the war.
 
It dates back to the War of 1812, and it's true. If you want to send Americans into harm's way without being willing to go yourself, you disgust me.

You want a military not controlled by civilians? You do realize a military that doesn't answer to civilian authority is a bad idea, right?
 
My views haven't changed. I supported the Iraq war because of Saddam's unwillingness to follow UN guidelines, his killing and mismanagement of his own population, and his invasion of neighboring countries. I believe that the record speaks for itself and the Iraq war saved lives of Iraqis, looking at the demographic data on death rates, population growth, infant mortality rates, etc.. It was a major mistake to pull out and not reach an agreement to maintain forces there. The Congressional Authorizaton for war there listed the 23 reasons, most of which were valid.

I was always opposed to Afghanistan, never saw the purpose of the war there, and do not think a war there is winnable in any sense. I thought that Bush's plan was sound, however, in the use of special forces, CIA, and Afghani troops. A major mistake to escalate and expose so many conventional troops as targets. I guess that the reason for invading was that Saudis and a few others trained there as well as in Germany and the US and did 9/11 but the life of Osama is certainly not worth the lives of 2,700 Americans or the lives of all the Pakistani and Afghani civilians.
 
Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement, given the recent events with ISIS and current status of Afghanistan, that you did before?

Think back to your opinion when Bush II first invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Think back to when Obama withdrew from Iraq. Think about the current alleged wind down in Afghanistan. Doesn't really matter what your opinion was, just ask yourself if you feel the same now as you did then. And why do you feel the same or differently.

Please elaborate.

I was strongly against the Iraq War in 2003, because I was afraid it would be a huge mistake. Now I feel frustrated because all my fears have been confirmed. On the long run, that war created even a much bigger mess than it was supposed to end.

I feel differently about Afghanistan now. I felt in 2001 and the years on that it was a justified war, and was optimistic about the outcome, that some kind of nation building was possible and would be successful. Now, not anymore.

I was ambivalent about Obama's withdrawal from Iraq. On one side, I found it a good and necessary step, but wasn't sure if the job was really done. And I ultimately knew too few about the situation to make an educated guess whether the time was right or not. Now I feel it was a mistake.
 
You want a military not controlled by civilians? You do realize a military that doesn't answer to civilian authority is a bad idea, right?

FWIW, in every Presidential election in my lifetime, going back to 1945, at least one candidate served in the military, until 2012. Civilian control of the military is one thing but it is helpful when the civilian has some understanding of the military.
 
Civilian control of the military is one thing but it is helpful when the civilian has some understanding of the military.

Civilian control of the military goes beyond the President.

Everyone has a right to geopolitical positions, regardless of having served or not. The old "if you are not volunteering right now, you cannot advocate military action" is clearly a weak-minded retreat from debate. Might as well claim "if you are not trying out for the Dolphins, you cannot comment on what they should do".
 
Civilian control of the military goes beyond the President.

Everyone has a right to geopolitical positions, regardless of having served or not. The old "if you are not volunteering right now, you cannot advocate military action" is clearly a weak-minded retreat from debate. Might as well claim "if you are not trying out for the Dolphins, you cannot comment on what they should do".

Of course that has nothing to do with what I wrote. I simply prefer that someone have some knowledge about the military, either gained through service or through academic study. I worry about dilettantes who have zero knowledge about the philosophy of warfare making decisions. Obama is famous for thinking that he could do any job better than the person that he has doing that job. Such hubris is not conducive to effective policy decisions.
If you know nothing about football you probably should not comment about what the Dolphins should do. You don't have to have tried out. Condoleeza Rice probably would make a good commissioner simply due to her interest even if she never played football.
 
Of course that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

I don't remember requesting that you interrupt my comment to someone else.

I object to the nonsense often spewed by some to the effect of "if you are not volunteering, you cannot support military action".

I, of course, recognize the benefit of experience; there's no need for such a platitude.
 
Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement, given the recent events with ISIS and current status of Afghanistan, that you did before?

Think back to your opinion when Bush II first invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Think back to when Obama withdrew from Iraq. Think about the current alleged wind down in Afghanistan. Doesn't really matter what your opinion was, just ask yourself if you feel the same now as you did then. And why do you feel the same or differently.

Please elaborate.

Yes I do. I was still a mistake to recklessly invade these countries, especially Iraq. It was our imperialistic overreach that opened the door for ISIS. The question is will we learn form or mistake or keep making it?
 
Have always been against direct military involvement in the Middle East and I still believe that.
 
You want a military not controlled by civilians? You do realize a military that doesn't answer to civilian authority is a bad idea, right?

What makes you think I'd want that? I'm perfectly happy with the structure of a civilian Commander in Chief, thank you.
 
Setting aside that you completely missed the point made and went straight to ad hominem and then charged off to a different subject, I will wish you a pleasant day.

Ad hominem!?!? Ok, well thank you for that, but do remember that you are the one that rushed me with the accusation of dishonesty to begin with. Otherwise, you and I wouldn't even be speaking!
 
Yes I do. I was still a mistake to recklessly invade these countries, especially Iraq. It was our imperialistic overreach that opened the door for ISIS. The question is will we learn form or mistake or keep making it?

Well of course we'll keep making them because these types of "mistakes" are beneficial to some!!
 
What makes you think I'd want that? I'm perfectly happy with the structure of a civilian Commander in Chief, thank you.

It's not only okay for the President. It's okay for any civilian to comment on military action and support any position therein.

"If you don't volunteer, you cannot support military action" is pathetic BS.
 
Back
Top Bottom