• 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 FAVOR or OPPOSE the actions taken in ISIS by the US?

Do you FAVOR or OPPOSE the actions taken in ISIS by the US?

  • I am a REPUBLICAN and I FAVOR the actions taken AND support grounded troops

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • I am a DEMOCRAT and I FAVOR the actions taken AND support grounded troops

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • I am INDEPENDENT and I FAVOR the actions taken AND support grounded troops

    Votes: 5 22.7%
  • I am a REPUBLICAN and I FAVOR the actions taken BUT do not support grounded troops

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • I am a DEMOCRAT and I FAVOR the actions taken BUT do not support grounded troops

    Votes: 2 9.1%
  • I am INDEPENDENT and I FAVOR the actions taken BUT do not support grounded troops

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • I am a REPUBLICAN and I OPPOSE the actions taken

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • I am a DEMOCRAT and I OPPOSE the actions taken

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • I am INDEPENDENT and I OPPOSE the actions taken

    Votes: 5 22.7%

  • Total voters
    22
Regardless of ideology and whether this a Bush screw up or Obama's, I oppose the actions of the US. Like so many past engagements of limited warfare, it is unlikely to be effective in the way it is being waged.

Clearly Obama is very reluctant to even do this for obvious personal political reasons, he again is going against the advice of his military advisers despite the fact in doing so previously he allowed the formation of ISIS, his dithering and "red line" blather only helped the image of ISIS as stronger than the US. By announcing the bombing weeks in advance, the enemy has dug in a prepared. They are counting on a high rate of civilian deaths to further rally the populace against the US.

Now that the pre-withdrawal stability has been lost, it will have to be reclaimed the hard way, troops on the ground in a multinational force, something Obama has been entirely unable to put together. Then, as with the greatest war successes in America's history, install a Marshal plan like recovery. It's how the US made two of its strongest allies, Germany and Japan.

Massacring thousands of people, as is being called for by some for will only create twice as many new terrorists.

Greetings, F&L. :2wave:

How can this be handled now and still pacify everyone in this Country, while simultaneously attempting to save whatever face we have left on the world stage? ISIS and the other terrorists apparently have us checkmated! :2mad:
 
Greetings, F&L. :2wave:

How can this be handled now and still pacify everyone in this Country, while simultaneously attempting to save whatever face we have left on the world stage? ISIS and the other terrorists apparently have us checkmated! :2mad:


Oh pooh!

Aren't we talking about the United States?

This is the country that had more than half it's Pacific fleet destroyed in one day and rebounded to, within months, kick the living **** out of the Japanese Navy, and then joined the fray in Europe AGAINST the wishes of more than 50% of the nation.

What NEEDS to change is the idea that to "pacify everyone in this Country" is an objective. With the nation as I see it from here more divided even than the 60's, I doubt ANYONE is going to be pacified. The US has to stop waging war for political reasons and conducting them to appease the talking heads on TV. That's how you got into this mess in the first place, both Bush's got soaring numbers in waging war. Obama tried to be a rock star while ignoring his military advisers.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, one of the most underrated presidents IMO, said it best. Once the politics have failed, it becomes a military matter and the military is the only faction that knows war, the politicians need to shut up....or something close to that.

So, you need that ill defined, but critical thing called leadership, and like FDR, Kennedy, Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt, true leadership often means doing what is unpopular. But by doing it well and achieving measurable results, the nation, at least the United States, has always regrouped around it's leader.

I am far from a military strategist, I lose at paint ball and board games, so it would be ludicrous for me to suggest how to wage this war. However, if it is going to be 'won' it has to have a plan with clear objectives, and it has to be waged all out regardless of opinion at home.
 
But the old type of terrorist was pretty savage, ideological and bloodthirsty and brought it home to the US on 9/11. They resided in Afghanistan and going in there to get them is exactly the type of war the US should be involved in.

Yeah, and they weren't beheading people in NYC. There is a psychological difference between someone who is willing to fly an airplane into a skyscraper, and someone who is willing to cut off someone's head up close and personal. THe former is impersonal. It kills, but there is a mindlessness to the psychological aspect. Beheading is a special type of savagery.
 
Why do you say that? Other than a few beheadings, have they attacked us at home?

You don't seriously believe that they are massing troops at the US-Mexico border do you?

Not our home, as in our location. Into our cultural mind.
 
I'm not American (but German), politically independent but leaning to the left on many questions, and this is my opinion (in case it matters for your research):

More important than what is done, is *how* it is done. I am glad the US (and several other NATO countries such as Germany) are reacting to some extent, but it matters that there is a broad coalition against ISIS that does not just encompass Western states. Insofar, I am satisfied that Obama has found agreement with several Arab states as well on this matter (as problematical as this is, for various reasons). Turkey must surely be on board as well.

Not sure if ground troops are really worth the effort (I'm all for it, if experts tell me we can seriously expect them to solve the problem, which I doubt), since I'm afraid even with ground troops, we (the West) won't solve the problem, but push it under the rug for a short while at best. And the costs, both financial and blood, are just way too high for this minimal, temporary effect.

So I guess for the time being, unless an effort can be made by all important powers in the region including those we still consider enemies today, to find a new, lasting order for the entire ME, there should be no ground troops. Bombing is fine, even when that means ISIS will not be destroyed, but just kept from slaughtering even more Kurdish and Syrian civilians than they already do.
 
Ha... you politically brainwashed people make me chuckle. All of you! Who are all lined up in and told by your political leaders what to think and who to identify yourself as.

naw. People arguing in favor of delaying or averring action in favor of "meaningful exchange" are invariably left wing, as are those who adopt technocratic non-partisan tropes. It's just part of the common self-perception over there; although to be fair it's hardly monolithically theirs.

However, you are overreacting to me joshing you - you'll notice the ";)"?

And of course, try to put other people in political boxes as well in order to make any real discussion on the issue, impossible. Its nonsensical drivel like this that divides this nation, raises an uneducated populace because you don't have to think for yourself.

:yawn: spare me childlike insistence that everyone is somehow unable/willing to think and/or brainwashed and that you - only you brave few - dare come to conclusions or weigh evidence. It's cute (if annoying) when a high schooler does it thinking he's the reincarnation of Oh Captain My Captain, but left checked it metastasizes rapidly into one of the variants of college-know-it-all-hippyism.

Here is your label.... This is what we believe, and this is our church, no need to think! We have the answers for you! If your with us, we will show you who to hate... I am so sick of politics!

:shrug: feel free to check out of the human race then. Because this:

I agree with military intervention in the Middle East. But its intervention very few if any Americans would ever support. 500-750K troops, with more on standby. A war of overwhelming and decisive force to rid the ME of its extremists and free its populace so that society there could reach its full potential

...is all politics. Through and through.
 
Thank you all for the responses! These responses have been very helpful to me.

&... for those jumping on the negativity bandwagon about my thread (assuming their cockiness has taken over their integrity), yes... the public opinion poll was exactly what was asked for to complete this assignment.
 
Oh pooh!

Aren't we talking about the United States?

This is the country that had more than half it's Pacific fleet destroyed in one day and rebounded to, within months, kick the living **** out of the Japanese Navy, and then joined the fray in Europe AGAINST the wishes of more than 50% of the nation.

What NEEDS to change is the idea that to "pacify everyone in this Country" is an objective. With the nation as I see it from here more divided even than the 60's, I doubt ANYONE is going to be pacified. The US has to stop waging war for political reasons and conducting them to appease the talking heads on TV. That's how you got into this mess in the first place, both Bush's got soaring numbers in waging war. Obama tried to be a rock star while ignoring his military advisers.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, one of the most underrated presidents IMO, said it best. Once the politics have failed, it becomes a military matter and the military is the only faction that knows war, the politicians need to shut up....or something close to that.

So, you need that ill defined, but critical thing called leadership, and like FDR, Kennedy, Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt, true leadership often means doing what is unpopular. But by doing it well and achieving measurable results, the nation, at least the United States, has always regrouped around it's leader.

I am far from a military strategist, I lose at paint ball and board games, so it would be ludicrous for me to suggest how to wage this war. However, if it is going to be 'won' it has to have a plan with clear objectives, and it has to be waged all out regardless of opinion at home.

Good points dude. I would add that while quoting Eisenhower it would be worth while to point to his comments and concerns of an industry he watched grow out of World War Two that was a threat to America. An industry that would be dependent upon perpetual war. An industry so far, the biggest beneficiary to this no end in sight war on an ideology that is propped up in one place to be knocked down in another in perpetuity. Also known as the nebulous "war on terror".
 
Good points dude. I would add that while quoting Eisenhower it would be worth while to point to his comments and concerns of an industry he watched grow out of World War Two that was a threat to America. An industry that would be dependent upon perpetual war. An industry so far, the biggest beneficiary to this no end in sight war on an ideology that is propped up in one place to be knocked down in another in perpetuity. Also known as the nebulous "war on terror".

I was hoping someone would catch that. One of the greatest military leaders the US ever produced, genius enough to win the confidence of the British and the allies to appoint him head of the show. What we have been watching since 911 is the 'perfect war', finer than Orwel's 1984, one with an undefined enemy and one that cannot ever be beaten. Since the invention of the "limited war" and the great ratings success of Operation Desert Storm, no sector has benefited greater than the MIC. Not only do they get guaranteed work but simply must also serve to arm America's ever changing allies. In 1984 it was the enemy that changed making necessary the "Ministry of Truth" which had to rewrite history ever time alliances changed.

Deja Vu?
 
Yeah, and they weren't beheading people in NYC. There is a psychological difference between someone who is willing to fly an airplane into a skyscraper, and someone who is willing to cut off someone's head up close and personal. THe former is impersonal. It kills, but there is a mindlessness to the psychological aspect. Beheading is a special type of savagery.

I think beheading is one of the scariest forms of killing. It's almost symbolic of removing the mind of the victim. You also have to be very close and personal. Once the hijackers distanced themselves from the innocent people on the planes, they didn't have to confront them and view them as people. It's like shooting someone as opposed to strangling someone or stabbing someone. Those are deeply personal acts requiring you to acknowledge that your victim is a person.

To the OP, I'm a right leaning libertarian who normally opposes war and definitely opposes attacking a country/group who doesn't attack us first, but in the case of ISIS, I'm all for pre-emptive action.
 
I was hoping someone would catch that. One of the greatest military leaders the US ever produced, genius enough to win the confidence of the British and the allies to appoint him head of the show. What we have been watching since 911 is the 'perfect war', finer than Orwel's 1984, one with an undefined enemy and one that cannot ever be beaten. Since the invention of the "limited war" and the great ratings success of Operation Desert Storm, no sector has benefited greater than the MIC. Not only do they get guaranteed work but simply must also serve to arm America's ever changing allies. In 1984 it was the enemy that changed making necessary the "Ministry of Truth" which had to rewrite history ever time alliances changed.

Deja Vu?

Greetings, F&L. :2wave:

And in 1984, the audiences watching the mandatory presentation all left the auditorium hating the new enemy, even though they were a friend the week before! Is that the goal of being successful at propaganda- the government is the only one who knows what's best?

If you recall the scenery which showed the slums that most people lived in, it's obvious which segment of the population is being targeted in the movie! I guess it's easy to do when you have people with a grudge against their life in general - it gives them something to focus on to blame instead of themselves? Today, "income inequality" seems to be the mantra, and "tax the rich more" is being used, even though the wealthy already pay over 70 percent of the taxes collected in this country, while the unhappy ones pay nothing at all! Disgusting!
 
Hi, I am doing an assignment for my sociology class, and I would like to hear from the League community about what they think about what's been going on in the Middle East currently. So my question is,

1. Do you Favor or Oppose the military action the United States is taking in Iraq and Syria against Islamic Militants commonly known as ISIS?

Also,
2. Would you Favor or Oppose the United States sending ground troops to Iraq and Syria in order to assist groups in those countries that are fighting the Islamic Militants commonly known as ISIS?

Also, state if you are a Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

If you are unfamiliar with the current issue (which in these forums, I'd hope it's unlikely), here are some fast facts you can catch up with on CNN
ISIS Fast Facts - CNN.com

I am a member of the Reform Party so you can classify me as you wish. I back the president in his bombing campaign, but and there is always a but. I do not think it goes far enough. Limited air strikes as has been going on is probably doing nothing more than getting ISIS dander up. Remember we tried this graduated stuff during the Vietnam War, it didn't work then.

I think to be successful we must make nice with Assad, he has the ground force we need if we are not going to send in our own. It is decision time, which is the most evil, Assad or ISIS and those groups allied or affiliated with AQ and terrorism.

Now I could be wrong about this, I think the reason why we are only doing limited air strikes is that we, this administration, the president, still wants to do away with both ISIS and Assad. He knows to degrade ISIS too fast would only make Assad stronger. I am backing the president in hopes that finally he may realize at sometime in the near future that the only hope of limited air strikes to work, he must have those boots on the ground and the only place in the near future, the next year or two anyway they may come from is Assad. That is unless Turkey turns their army loose in Syria, but I suspect if they do it will only to be used to create a buffer zone. There is no love between Turkey and Assad.
 
Greetings, F&L. :2wave:

And in 1984, the audiences watching the mandatory presentation all left the auditorium hating the new enemy, even though they were a friend the week before! Is that the goal of being successful at propaganda- the government is the only one who knows what's best?

If you recall the scenery which showed the slums that most people lived in, it's obvious which segment of the population is being targeted in the movie! I guess it's easy to do when you have people with a grudge against their life in general - it gives them something to focus on to blame instead of themselves? Today, "income inequality" seems to be the mantra, and "tax the rich more" is being used, even though the wealthy already pay over 70 percent of the taxes collected in this country, while the unhappy ones pay nothing at all! Disgusting!



I have vague memory of the movie but the book is read often. The dissatisfaction/fear of the populace is key, and crucial, but it is not Orwellian. It is actually the stuff of Machiavelli, where not only does "the Prince" manipulate fear, creating false enemies, but he labors at division, both along sectarian lines, but economic and racial as well.

It should be required study, not just reading in US schools, The Prince is the hand book of tyranny in varying forms, practiced through intense propaganda through the cold war where, to this day, "commies" remain a threat if only through the tiny island of Cuba.
 
I was hoping someone would catch that. One of the greatest military leaders the US ever produced, genius enough to win the confidence of the British and the allies to appoint him head of the show. What we have been watching since 911 is the 'perfect war', finer than Orwel's 1984, one with an undefined enemy and one that cannot ever be beaten. Since the invention of the "limited war" and the great ratings success of Operation Desert Storm, no sector has benefited greater than the MIC. Not only do they get guaranteed work but simply must also serve to arm America's ever changing allies. In 1984 it was the enemy that changed making necessary the "Ministry of Truth" which had to rewrite history ever time alliances changed.

Deja Vu?

Amen to that bro!
 
I favor our actions so far but I don't think they go far enough. I think to fight homespun terror groups, in general, it serves the mission to impart more serious consequences for cooperation with ISIS to the general population. If ISIS hides its assets in civilian areas, bombs should still fall on the targets after a pamphlet, in the predominate language, is dropped telling the population it's going to happen in 1 hour. Every location ISIS uses as a base should be razed to the ground after extermination of ISIS operatives and a civic building built in its place. Anyone caught shielding ISIS by choice should be exterminated along with ISIS. Any investigation should be highly prejudiced against the suspect. Make connection to or cooperation with ISIS more dangerous than ISIS itself. If the people turn on ISIS, ISIS has nowhere to hide.
 
I favor our actions so far but I don't think they go far enough. I think to fight homespun terror groups, in general, it serves the mission to impart more serious consequences for cooperation with ISIS to the general population. If ISIS hides its assets in civilian areas, bombs should still fall on the targets after a pamphlet, in the predominate language, is dropped telling the population it's going to happen in 1 hour. Every location ISIS uses as a base should be razed to the ground after extermination of ISIS operatives and a civic building built in its place. Anyone caught shielding ISIS by choice should be exterminated along with ISIS. Any investigation should be highly prejudiced against the suspect. Make connection to or cooperation with ISIS more dangerous than ISIS itself. If the people turn on ISIS, ISIS has nowhere to hide.

If we pamphlet the area, then wouldn't the ISIS folks leave just like the "good guys"?

Regardless, emotionally, I with you on all of that. But it also may be possible that we are already doing all that we should do...

Really, I'm not at all sure that any of these people are good guys. Seems to me it's just a matter of degree of bad. With no immediate homeland threat from ISIS, I'm not so sure that we have to be in a rush with this thing. Nor do I feel confident that saving a hundred Iraqis is worth the life of one US soldier. Few of those people are willing to fight ISIS, and those who do don't do it as Iraq citizens, they do it for religious reasons. Seems to me that this is a religious war more than anything, and unless we can figure out how to end radical religion, it's pointless to waste American lives, as the next radical religious group will just fill the void of ISIS or the Taliban, or whoever we are fighting against.

I'm thinking that maybe the US is better off letting those people kill each other, rather than us expending great resources killing them. I don't mind us helping in the fight against ISIS, just to contain it so that it doesn't spread too rapidly or become too strong (as in an actual threat to the US homeland), and I'm think that keeping them tied up over there may be a better option than having to fight them here.
 
If we pamphlet the area, then wouldn't the ISIS folks leave just like the "good guys"?

Regardless, emotionally, I with you on all of that. But it also may be possible that we are already doing all that we should do...

Really, I'm not at all sure that any of these people are good guys. Seems to me it's just a matter of degree of bad. With no immediate homeland threat from ISIS, I'm not so sure that we have to be in a rush with this thing. Nor do I feel confident that saving a hundred Iraqis is worth the life of one US soldier. Few of those people are willing to fight ISIS, and those who do don't do it as Iraq citizens, they do it for religious reasons. Seems to me that this is a religious war more than anything, and unless we can figure out how to end radical religion, it's pointless to waste American lives, as the next radical religious group will just fill the void of ISIS or the Taliban, or whoever we are fighting against.

I'm thinking that maybe the US is better off letting those people kill each other, rather than us expending great resources killing them. I don't mind us helping in the fight against ISIS, just to contain it so that it doesn't spread too rapidly or become too strong (as in an actual threat to the US homeland), and I'm think that keeping them tied up over there may be a better option than having to fight them here.

I would be perfectly ok with using the same tactics Mathias the Great and the Tepes line used to deter them from getting too uppity with us or their neighbors but that wouldn't fly in today's world.
 
We have the worlds fourth largest military on one side of the Islamic State and the second largest military in NATO on the other side of the Islamic State, and neither of them are doing a damn thing. I'm sick of the ME being a US blood and money pit!
 
Back
Top Bottom