• 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
DifferentDrummr said:
Either way, don't try to resurrect the myth that veterans are somehow more qualified to debate topics like these.
Click to expand...

They aren't, but as far as I'm concerned those who have faced enemy fire are the only ones who have the right to question others' courage.
 
Helix said:
it is a conflict between Sunni and Shia which has been going on for more than a thousand years. there is no role for the US in this holy war.
Click to expand...

And how many centuries did Europe fight it out? The world wars in the 20th centuries were only a taste.


ah, the bootstraps argument. i have no interest in this argument, as it is too simplistic to solve our current employment problems.
Click to expand...

Give a man a fish and you feed him for the night...teach him how to fish, you will feed him for life. Life's best lesson is self initiative.

this decade it is. there are areas of stability in the Middle East. they should address the areas of instability in the region.
Click to expand...

And they were stable decades before they were overrun by the Iraqis. Jordan has been stable for a while. The middle east can be stabilized. The fanatical Islamic terorrists do not represent the entire middle east.

as i've previously explained, the current Middle East is not analogous to twentieth century Europe. I will not explain this again the next time you Godwin.
Click to expand...

ISIS is merely in an earlier stage. They are working on one caliphate. Hitler nearly gained control of all of Europe.

i like that we have some points of agreement even though we are diametrically opposed on the central point. at least we can agree on part of it.
Click to expand...

At least it's honest agreement and disagreement. Thanks for the debate.
 
Jack Hays said:
They aren't, but as far as I'm concerned those who have faced enemy fire are the only ones who have the right to question others' courage.
Click to expand...

I would modify your statement to say that those who have faced enemy fire are the only ones who have the right to question the courage of others facing enemy fire. But when it comes to non-combat situations, being a combat vet is not necessarily the best qualification. For instance, a single mother sending her little child off to school on the first day requires a whole different set of courage, as does the determination she must show day after day, year after year, in providing for her child(ren). You may not agree with the comparison, but there's different kinds of courage...and there's no single type of courage that's best for all situations that require courage to be shown.
 
Jack Hays said:
In total their empire lasted around 600-700 years. Few have done better.
Click to expand...

still failed. trying to occupy too much land always does the empire in. also,

3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.

4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
Click to expand...
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Clearly you missed the part about "with or without the military."

Whether Joe is disabled or too old to enlist isn't the point, either. The only thing that matters is whether Joe is willing to fight regardless of his physical condition. If he believes in the worthiness of the action, he should be. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

But then you are not privy to what John is or is not willing to do if able. And most rational folks can work out that not everyone that is willing to fight will be accepted into the armed forces. Take myself for example. I am a 60 year old with glaucoma and arthritis. Willingness does not matter. If I tried to re-enlist into the armed forces, they would laugh at me. That does not mean I do not have a right to support war or the troops who fight it. Not even all the young, healthy and willing can get in. In today's professional military, they are very picky.


Again, not the point. The point was the underlying hypocrisy on your part.
Click to expand...

No hypocrisy on my part.
 
ObamacareFail said:
And how many centuries did Europe fight it out? The world wars in the 20th centuries were only a taste.
Click to expand...

the Middle East is more analogous to Europe in the Middle ages. it has to become stable on its own.

ObamacareFail said:
Give a man a fish and you feed him for the night...teach him how to fish, you will feed him for life. Life's best lesson is self initiative.
Click to expand...

there has to be a lake to fish in. i support guaranteeing access to that lake regardless of ability to pay.

ObamacareFail said:
And they were stable decades before they were overrun by the Iraqis. Jordan has been stable for a while. The middle east can be stabilized. The fanatical Islamic terorrists do not represent the entire middle east.
Click to expand...

and they need to be actively rejected by others in the region.

ObamacareFail said:
At least it's honest agreement and disagreement. Thanks for the debate.
Click to expand...

yep. that is why our debates actually go somewhere interesting instead of the usual "you're an evil wrong poopyhead" nonsense that everyone else does. thank you for an honest debate, as well.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I would modify your statement to say that those who have faced enemy fire are the only ones who have the right to question the courage of others facing enemy fire. But when it comes to non-combat situations, being a combat vet is not necessarily the best qualification. For instance, a single mother sending her little child off to school on the first day requires a whole different set of courage, as does the determination she must show day after day, year after year, in providing for her child(ren). You may not agree with the comparison, but there's different kinds of courage...and there's no single type of courage that's best for all situations that require courage to be shown.
Click to expand...

The context was one poster referring to others as chickenhawks.
 
ObamacareFail said:
But then you are not privy to what John is or is not willing to do if able.
Click to expand...
John is hypothetical; we can be privy to any of his thoughts that you want.

And most rational folks can work out that not everyone that is willing to fight will be accepted into the armed forces. Take myself for example. I am a 60 year old with glaucoma and arthritis. Willingness does not matter.
Click to expand...
It's all that matters. Once again, I said fight "with or without the military."

No hypocrisy on my part.
Click to expand...
Sure there is: you criticize others for using words that are "immature and small-minded" while indulging in the use of them yourself (specifically, "obamacarefail.") Even if the ACA is a failure, the phrase itself is immature.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
John is hypothetical; we can be privy to any of his thoughts that you want.


It's all that matters. Once again, I said fight "with or without the military."


Sure there is: you criticize others for using words that are "immature and small-minded" while indulging in the use of them yourself (specifically, "obamacarefail.") Even if the ACA is a failure, the phrase itself is immature.
Click to expand...

Nothing immature about my handle. Like I said, it expresses the majority opinion of obamacare. And now you are suggesting that Americans fight in the war on terror with or without the military? Oh my!
 
Jack Hays said:
The context was one poster referring to others as chickenhawks.
Click to expand...

Ah. Okay. If that's the case, then I would have to defer in most cases to those with actual combat experience. But please bear in mind the word 'most', because not so long ago we were led into an illegal and unprovoked war by a president who was kept protected by being part of a 'boutique' sqadron, and cheered on by a passel of conservative pundits, most of whose military experience seems to have been comprised of watching the movie "Patton".
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Ah. Okay. If that's the case, then I would have to defer in most cases to those with actual combat experience. But please bear in mind the word 'most', because not so long ago we were led into an illegal and unprovoked war by a president who was kept protected by being part of a 'boutique' sqadron, and cheered on by a passel of conservative pundits, most of whose military experience seems to have been comprised of watching the movie "Patton".
Click to expand...

Yes, and Abraham Lincoln's son was restricted to duty on US Grant's staff. Review the exchange and you'll see why I responded.
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes, and Abraham Lincoln's son was restricted to duty on US Grant's staff. Review the exchange and you'll see why I responded.
Click to expand...

Jack, I agree with you for the most part - and that "most part" is there because of how and by whom we got led into the Iraq War. I've got zero problem with a president's son - or a CIA director's son, or the son of any VIP whose position is as high and as influential - being kept out of harm's way, because having if such a leader has a child in theatre, such might adversely affect his or her decisions that affect operations in that theatre.

That said, when it comes to such discussions, the opinions of combat vets (and I am not a combat vet) would and should be given greater weight...but not absolutely so. Iraq should have taught us that. Sometimes they're wrong - see all the combat vets who were eager for us to invade Iraq, and who were angry with Obama getting us out of Iraq. But more often they're right. There was a famous combat vet who had been against taking down Saddam Hussein even when he - that vet - had the means at hand to do so. Of course you know I'm referring to the dad of the guy who did convince us all that we needed to invade Iraq. The longer I live, the higher regard in which I hold George H.W. Bush...even if he was hip-deep in Iran-Contra.
 
ObamacareFail said:
That's a very partisan speech. Do try to make the next one something closer to objective. Have a nice weekend.
Click to expand...

You don't think calling POTUS an idiot is partisan? :confused: For the record, I'm a Republican who voted for Reagan (twice), Big Bush (twice), Bob Dole, Little Bush (twice), McCain, and Romney. I watch a lot of Fox News. I like Glenn Beck. BUT a little less hubris and more honesty on the part of the people who walked away from Afghanistan while using a false pretense to enmesh us in a cluster**** in Iraq would be refreshing. I mean, they blame BOb for everything, up to and including genital warts. I'm all in favor of his drone campaign and his use of night raids to take out al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership, up to an including OBL. And I stopped counting when we got to al-Qaeda Operational Head #13. So his response in Afghanistan was certainly more forceful than Bush's, which was to essentially throw all of our muscle into Iraq and leave Afghanistan twisting in the wind. Regarding Syria, I think he did the right thing by not immediately sending arms to the so-called moderate Syrian rebels because of all of the confusion, lack of organization, and bickering among the various groups vying for political advantage. Initially, I opposed direct military aid on these grounds, but the watershed moment for me came with the beheadings of the two American free-lance journalists. It outlined for me in stark terms the evil we face. (And "evil" is the only appropriate word to use here.) Now I've come to the conclusion that Obama in on the right course in developing a multi-national coalition while training and arming Syrians, Kurds, and Iraqis to fight ISIS while hitting them from the air. I'd also support the use of special forces night raids similar to the ones we carried out in Afghanistan to take out the leadership of ISIS.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
George Bush did nothing of the sort, but there is no lack of dishonesty in the spin of those who refuse to report honestly but would rather spread flat out lies to the willing and gullible who continue to spread them.

Maureen Dowd in her syndicated May 14, 2003 column, was the one to spin that so dishonestly, and despite the fact that Andrew Sullivan and others thoroughly discredited the lie, the blindly partisan will just keep repeating it anyway.

What Dowd said was this:

Busy chasing off Saddam, the president and vice president had told us that Al Qaeda was spent. "Al Qaeda is on the run," President Bush said last week. "That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated... They're not a problem anymore."

What Bush actually said that you quoted accurately but interpreted as Dowd did was this:

Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top Al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they're not a problem anymore.

Obviously Bush was saying that those who had been jailed or killed were not a problem any more. He never, at any time, ever said that al Qaida is not a problem any more.

One wonders how we will ever achieve the common goal and purpose as a people to fight terrorism or for any other purpose when the politics of personal destruction are constantly placed ahead of everything else?
Click to expand...


The point being that just two months into what would be nearly a decade long conflict with Al Qaeda in Iraq, Bush was claiming that Al Qaeda was ON THE RUN, that group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but SURELY being decimated. Two months, TWO MONTHS, nevertheless we went on to fight and loose in the end 4,500 soldiers in Iraq and 30,000 wounded, and guess what, to this day, they (al qaeda) lives!!! They were used by the US in Libya to help topple Gaddafi and they are no problem to us in Syria because they are working to topple president Assad. Bush was wrong, and every diminishing comment Obama has made about Al Qaeda has been wrong as well.

al-Qaeda has the following direct affiliates:

AbdullahAzzam Briagdes
Ansar al-Islam
al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb
Al-Qaeda in Somalia
Egyptian Islamic Jihad
al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
al-Nusra Front in Syria and Lebanon
al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent
al-Qaeda has the following indirect affiliates:

East Turkestan Islamic Movement
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Taliban
Caucasus Emirate
Fatah al-Islam
Lashkar-e-Taiba
Jaish-e-Mohammed
Jemaah Islamiyah
Abu Sayyaf
Rajah Sulaiman movement
Islamic Jihad Union
Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa
Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group
al-Qaeda Kurdish Battalions
 
Last edited:
Glen Contrarian said:
Ah. Okay. If that's the case, then I would have to defer in most cases to those with actual combat experience. But please bear in mind the word 'most', because not so long ago we were led into an illegal and unprovoked war by a president who was kept protected by being part of a 'boutique' sqadron, and cheered on by a passel of conservative pundits, most of whose military experience seems to have been comprised of watching the movie "Patton".
Click to expand...

Your partisanship clouds any sense of objectivity. What exactly was illegal about the 2003 war? And Bush attempted to volunteer for Vietnam duty. Nobody was protecting him. If he wanted to avoid Vietnam altogether, he could have by simply not enlisting. Joining the Air National Guard is not exactly dodging combat duty. During Vietnam.....guard pilots were at great risk of being rotated to Vietnam.
 
Montecresto said:
The point being that just two months into what would be nearly a decade long conflict with Al Qaeda in Iraq, Bush was claiming that Al Qaeda was ON THE RUN, that group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but SURELY being decimated. Two months, TWO MONTHS, nevertheless we went on to fight and loose in the end 4,500 soldiers in Iraq and 30,000 wounded, and guess what, to this day, they (al qaeda) lives!!! They were used by the US in Libya to help topple Gaddafi and they are no problem to us in Syria because they are working to topple president Assad. Bush was wrong, and every diminishing comment Obama has made about Al Qaeda has been wrong as well.

al-Qaeda has the following direct affiliates:

AbdullahAzzam Briagdes
Ansar al-Islam
al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb
Al-Qaeda in Somalia
Egyptian Islamic Jihad
al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
al-Nusra Front in Syria and Lebanon
al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent
al-Qaeda has the following indirect affiliates:

East Turkestan Islamic Movement
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Taliban
Caucasus Emirate
Fatah al-Islam
Lashkar-e-Taiba
Jaish-e-Mohammed
Jemaah Islamiyah
Abu Sayyaf
Rajah Sulaiman movement
Islamic Jihad Union
Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa
Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group
al-Qaeda Kurdish Battalions
Click to expand...

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.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Your partisanship clouds any sense of objectivity. What exactly was illegal about the 2003 war? And Bush attempted to volunteer for Vietnam duty. Nobody was protecting him. If he wanted to avoid Vietnam altogether, he could have by simply not enlisting. Joining the Air National Guard is not exactly dodging combat duty. During Vietnam.....guard pilots were at great risk of being rotated to Vietnam.
Click to expand...

What was illegal about the 2003 invasion of Iraq? The fact that Iraq did not present a clear and present danger to America. Not only that, but what happened to those who pointed out the faults and fallacies in the Bush administration's claims about WMD's? The Downing Street Memo proves that the Bush administration had been informed that its intel was flawed, but that they were determined to go to war anyway.

And if you read my other comments with Jack, you'll see that I do not begrudge Bush remaining in that 'boutique squadron', nor do I begrudge his dad making sure he stayed there. But that doesn't mean that Bush the Younger was any more qualified to lead the nation.

You really should learn to be as cynical of your own people as you are of Dems...and to be as understanding of Dems as you are of your own people.
 
Helix said:
everyone should pay extra taxes when the country is at war.
Click to expand...

I agree that we should be more frugal about defense money, but I disagree with raising taxes for everyone. I think our military can see drastic spending cuts once we leave Afghanistan and still be able to accomplish our goals overseas - well-trained Special Forces and a powerful Navy and Air Force will be much more useful in the 21st century than a large standing army. Further, we should tax excess profits for defense contractors. It would also be a good idea to end the War on Drugs, slash funding for the prison system, and free those convicted of drug offenses, so that we have more money to work with.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
What was illegal about the 2003 invasion of Iraq? The fact that Iraq did not present a clear and present danger to America.
Click to expand...
I love your sense of humor! Where in the Constitution do you find a requirement that Congress declare war only if there is a clear and present danger? Congress can declare war for any reason or for no reason at all.

Not only that, but what happened to those who pointed out the faults and fallacies in the Bush administration's claims about WMD's?
Click to expand...
Who cares? All of the intelligence agencies were deceived. It happens. It is my opinion that we were deceived because Hussain was deceived. Very few people wanted their wives tossed alive into a wood chipper or their kids sent to Saddam's rape rooms. So they made it up.

The Downing Street Memo proves that the Bush administration had been informed that its intel was flawed, but that they were determined to go to war anyway.
Click to expand...
Who cares. There are many opinions about intelligence work. Not every one of my assessments was accepted by decision makers. It happens.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
What was illegal about the 2003 invasion of Iraq? The fact that Iraq did not present a clear and present danger to America. Not only that, but what happened to those who pointed out the faults and fallacies in the Bush administration's claims about WMD's? The Downing Street Memo proves that the Bush administration had been informed that its intel was flawed, but that they were determined to go to war anyway.
Click to expand...

You have not pointed out a single illegality. Just opinions. Try again.

And if you read my other comments with Jack, you'll see that I do not begrudge Bush remaining in that 'boutique squadron', nor do I begrudge his dad making sure he stayed there. But that doesn't mean that Bush the Younger was any more qualified to lead the nation.
Click to expand...

However you are still describing Bush's assignment based on your own partisan hatred of Bush. Bush did not ask for any special consideration and Bush Sr did not pull any strings for him. And there is no such thing as a boutique squadron in the Air National Guard. During Vietnam, it was quite common for pilots to be rotated to combat assignments. The Air National Guard is the last place anyone seeking to avoid Vietnam would go. And again Bush did attempt to volunteer for Vietnam. He was turned down because the plane he was trained to fly was not much in service at that point in the War......and the War was beginning to wind down at that point.

You really should learn to be as cynical of your own people as you are of Dems...and to be as understanding of Dems as you are of your own people.
Click to expand...

Who are you claiming are "my own people"? I am not a republican. I defend Bush where a line of partisan driven bull is being told about him and I criticize him where I believe he was wrong......for instance when he attempted to pass a comprehensive immigration bill without securing the borders first.
 
MadLib said:
I agree that we should be more frugal about defense money, but I disagree with raising taxes for everyone. I think our military can see drastic spending cuts once we leave Afghanistan and still be able to accomplish our goals overseas - well-trained Special Forces and a powerful Navy and Air Force will be much more useful in the 21st century than a large standing army. Further, we should tax excess profits for defense contractors. It would also be a good idea to end the War on Drugs, slash funding for the prison system, and free those convicted of drug offenses, so that we have more money to work with.
Click to expand...

i agree with most of your post. i believe, though, that when we are at war, everyone should have to chip in. then we will choose our wars more carefully, because the general public does not want to pay higher tax rates.
 
Helix said:
i agree with most of your post. i believe, though, that when we are at war, everyone should have to chip in. then we will choose our wars more carefully, because the general public does not want to pay higher tax rates.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Helix said:
i agree with most of your post. i believe, though, that when we are at war, everyone should have to chip in. because the general public does not want to pay higher tax rates.
Click to expand...

Everyone who pays taxes is already chipping in.

then we will choose our wars more carefully,
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom