Total Posts:102|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

ISIS Beheads Children

YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 9:57:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.independent.co.uk...

Isis have beheaded four Christian children in Iraq for refusing to convert to Islam, a British vicar based in the country has claimed... [ISIS] chopped their heads off, and they moved north and it was so terrible what happened"...."The children, all under 15, four of them, said no, we love Yeshua, we have always loved we have always followed Yeshua, Yeshua has always been with us. "[ISIS] said: "Say the words." [The children] said "No, we can"t." [ISIS] chopped all their heads off. How do you respond to that? You just cry."

There is nothing I would like more, in the arena of international politics, than to see the United States descend upon all those members of ISIS and kill them in the fashion that the the Hebrews did to Jericho. The group that beheads children is the group that rightfully ought to be purged from this earth, and any who may sympathize with ISIS as would incline them to execute children in the name of their bastardized religion deserves to meet a similar fate.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 10:03:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I never thought I'd say this...but after seeing this story, and looking at how much territory they control: it's time we go back to Iraq. End their existence as quickly as possible.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 10:05:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And I want to be clear about something, because it's come to my attention that some labor under the impression that I hate all Muslims.

I do not hate Muslims. I have many Islamic friends, and there are several aspects of Islamic culture that the west would be wise to emulate (like banking), and I also do not hate Islam.

I hate ISIS. ISIS is not Islam. It's the fvcked up ideology of wannabe terrorists who picked up guns together instead of perpetrating acts of terrorism alone.

What is happening in the Middle East right now will grow to be worse than any genocide Africa has ever seen, and it destroys me to see it. Like, I don't even watch the news anymore because seeing stories like that physically affects me in a way that nothing I have ever seen on the news ever has.

ISIS is apocalyptically evil, and all that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. So far, the world has sat back and watched...
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 10:05:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 10:03:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I never thought I'd say this...but after seeing this story, and looking at how much territory they control: it's time we go back to Iraq. End their existence as quickly as possible.

This is ultimately why Bush never wanted to pull out of Iraq. It's because he understood that pulling out would result in the catastrophe that Obama has allowed to happen.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 10:10:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 10:05:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:03:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I never thought I'd say this...but after seeing this story, and looking at how much territory they control: it's time we go back to Iraq. End their existence as quickly as possible.

This is ultimately why Bush never wanted to pull out of Iraq. It's because he understood that pulling out would result in the catastrophe that Obama has allowed to happen.

I think that Iraq never should've been invaded in the first place, but since we can't change history here (and for as much of a despicable person Saddam Hussein was, the Middle East was better off with him in power in Iraq): I can partially agree with that.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 10:15:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 10:10:00 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:05:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:03:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I never thought I'd say this...but after seeing this story, and looking at how much territory they control: it's time we go back to Iraq. End their existence as quickly as possible.

This is ultimately why Bush never wanted to pull out of Iraq. It's because he understood that pulling out would result in the catastrophe that Obama has allowed to happen.

I think that Iraq never should've been invaded in the first place, but since we can't change history here (and for as much of a despicable person Saddam Hussein was, the Middle East was better off with him in power in Iraq): I can partially agree with that.

I have mixed feelings about whether Iraq should have been invaded in the first place; there were old problems that HW left unresolved and which Clinton ignored. But, the Middle East is a nasty and complicated place.

I agree that regime changes are almost always bad, but Saddam was better than ISIS. Of that, there is no question. Bashir al Assad is better than ISIS, too.

When I was getting my hair cut one time, I was talking to this lady from Syria who still had family there. She described what happened on the ground, and I asked her about it in depth. This was when Obama was considering arming the Syrian rebels, btw.

What she said is that Assad was gassing people, and killing lots of civilians. But, the civilians he was killing, generally, were the rebels who wanted to kill other civilians and turn Syria into an Islamic caliphate.

Basically, the "civilians" that Assad was gassing (and he was) were the radical muslims who were killing moderate muslims and Christians. That sort of changes the perspective, a bit.

I don't know whether that's accurate or not, but I know that it got me to think twice about how little I knew about Assad.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 10:17:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 10:15:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:10:00 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:05:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:03:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I never thought I'd say this...but after seeing this story, and looking at how much territory they control: it's time we go back to Iraq. End their existence as quickly as possible.

This is ultimately why Bush never wanted to pull out of Iraq. It's because he understood that pulling out would result in the catastrophe that Obama has allowed to happen.

I think that Iraq never should've been invaded in the first place, but since we can't change history here (and for as much of a despicable person Saddam Hussein was, the Middle East was better off with him in power in Iraq): I can partially agree with that.

I have mixed feelings about whether Iraq should have been invaded in the first place; there were old problems that HW left unresolved and which Clinton ignored. But, the Middle East is a nasty and complicated place.

I agree that regime changes are almost always bad, but Saddam was better than ISIS. Of that, there is no question. Bashir al Assad is better than ISIS, too.

When I was getting my hair cut one time, I was talking to this lady from Syria who still had family there. She described what happened on the ground, and I asked her about it in depth. This was when Obama was considering arming the Syrian rebels, btw.

What she said is that Assad was gassing people, and killing lots of civilians. But, the civilians he was killing, generally, were the rebels who wanted to kill other civilians and turn Syria into an Islamic caliphate.

Basically, the "civilians" that Assad was gassing (and he was) were the radical muslims who were killing moderate muslims and Christians. That sort of changes the perspective, a bit.

I don't know whether that's accurate or not, but I know that it got me to think twice about how little I knew about Assad.

Yeah...I've heard about accounts of the rebels being the ones we should be against...I'm not too surprised.

Misinformation is the name of the game that is Middle East politics.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 10:27:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 10:17:52 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:15:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:10:00 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:05:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:03:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I never thought I'd say this...but after seeing this story, and looking at how much territory they control: it's time we go back to Iraq. End their existence as quickly as possible.

This is ultimately why Bush never wanted to pull out of Iraq. It's because he understood that pulling out would result in the catastrophe that Obama has allowed to happen.

I think that Iraq never should've been invaded in the first place, but since we can't change history here (and for as much of a despicable person Saddam Hussein was, the Middle East was better off with him in power in Iraq): I can partially agree with that.

I have mixed feelings about whether Iraq should have been invaded in the first place; there were old problems that HW left unresolved and which Clinton ignored. But, the Middle East is a nasty and complicated place.

I agree that regime changes are almost always bad, but Saddam was better than ISIS. Of that, there is no question. Bashir al Assad is better than ISIS, too.

When I was getting my hair cut one time, I was talking to this lady from Syria who still had family there. She described what happened on the ground, and I asked her about it in depth. This was when Obama was considering arming the Syrian rebels, btw.

What she said is that Assad was gassing people, and killing lots of civilians. But, the civilians he was killing, generally, were the rebels who wanted to kill other civilians and turn Syria into an Islamic caliphate.

Basically, the "civilians" that Assad was gassing (and he was) were the radical muslims who were killing moderate muslims and Christians. That sort of changes the perspective, a bit.

I don't know whether that's accurate or not, but I know that it got me to think twice about how little I knew about Assad.

Yeah...I've heard about accounts of the rebels being the ones we should be against...I'm not too surprised.

Misinformation is the name of the game that is Middle East politics.

I don't like Assad, to be sure, but we probably should have allowed him to kill whoever he wanted to kill.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 11:58:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Heres the thing: the USA does not have the resources to be the global policeman, and many would argue we don't even have the right to do so. It makes no sense to waste our tax dollars and soldiers lives halfway across the globe when there are human rights violations happening closer to home (for example, Latin America). We can't just invade countries randomly because they are oppressing their own citizens. It would be one thing if we had a treaty or alliance with a country that is being invaded, but in most cases we don't.

Otherwise, how do we choose which conflicts to get involved in? Rwanda, Iraq, Nepal, Afghanistan, Israel, Mexico, Sudan, Bosnia... The list goes on and on, and we simply cannot pacify all these regions unilaterally. Can't be done, shouldn't be done.

This country has colonized enough lands already. We need to focus on building up our own part of the world and leave the foreign civil wars to fight themselves. None of these countries is expanding like the Axis powers in early WWII, so they're not a threat to our sovereignty either.

Does it suck that people are killing each other in other countries? Yes. Is it our responsibility to go there and throw soldiers at the problem? No. No foreign countries intervened in our civil war, even though the South was guilty of massive human rights violations. And I think most Americans today are glad that other powers didn't try to meddle with us back then. Really, we shouldn't have gotten into any of the wars we fought since WWII. Even Afghanistan could have been avoided with a covert operation to assassinate bin laden.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 12:41:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 10:05:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:03:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I never thought I'd say this...but after seeing this story, and looking at how much territory they control: it's time we go back to Iraq. End their existence as quickly as possible.

This is ultimately why Bush never wanted to pull out of Iraq. It's because he understood that pulling out would result in the catastrophe that Obama has allowed to happen.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 12:41:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 11:58:47 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Heres the thing: the USA does not have the resources to be the global policeman, and many would argue we don't even have the right to do so. It makes no sense to waste our tax dollars and soldiers lives halfway across the globe when there are human rights violations happening closer to home (for example, Latin America). We can't just invade countries randomly because they are oppressing their own citizens. It would be one thing if we had a treaty or alliance with a country that is being invaded, but in most cases we don't.

You can say that about every war. Our debt skyrocketed during World War 2, but it was no doubt worth the fight. No we can't control all human rights violations, but there have to be ones we must address and that is the case with ISIS. This group is out of control.

Otherwise, how do we choose which conflicts to get involved in? Rwanda, Iraq, Nepal, Afghanistan, Israel, Mexico, Sudan, Bosnia... The list goes on and on, and we simply cannot pacify all these regions unilaterally. Can't be done, shouldn't be done.

We choose which is the most dire (Iraq) and focus on that. We are rich country, so we have plenty of resources despite the debt. There are times it is worth going into debt and that is the case with wars. In fact, a strong U.S. power is the best guarantee of wealth and prosperity. We aren't the first to be a policeman either, which I really don't mind. I'm going to put up a video explaining this further.

This country has colonized enough lands already. We need to focus on building up our own part of the world and leave the foreign civil wars to fight themselves. None of these countries is expanding like the Axis powers in early WWII, so they're not a threat to our sovereignty either.

If by colonize you mean Puerto Rico and Guam, then we aren't anywhere close to major empires. What matters in other parts of the world can matter here. ISIS is clearly a firm enemy of the United States and threaten global markets in the oil-rich region of the nation. I don't see how ISIS is not expanding like the Axis, it is taking territory in both Iraq and Syria and continues to grow. Also, one of the best policies is containment so enemies don't rise to Axis levels.

Does it suck that people are killing each other in other countries? Yes. Is it our responsibility to go there and throw soldiers at the problem? No. No foreign countries intervened in our civil war, even though the South was guilty of massive human rights violations. And I think most Americans today are glad that other powers didn't try to meddle with us back then. Really, we shouldn't have gotten into any of the wars we fought since WWII. Even Afghanistan could have been avoided with a covert operation to assassinate bin laden.

The Truman doctrine gives us a right to intervene as we wish. Foreign countries didn't intervene because our civil war did not threaten the world. The civil war in the Middle East does. Foreign powers actually did meddle with us many times. The British and French both tried to bully the USA. So, we shouldn't have intervened in any wars since World War 2? You are aware that there was another power on the other side of the world that was intending to expand. I don't think most people hear would want to see North Korea governing a whole Korea. Thinks could have went differently in Vietnam and Afghanistan, yes, and that gives us reference for future operations.

https://www.youtube.com...
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 12:45:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I should say... There were 12 majors issues for entering Iraq. Among this are:

- They were shooting down UN aircraft.
- They had broken every aspect of the Iraq-Iran treaty they had signed.
- They claimed to have WMDs, which the inspectors absolutely agreed with despite not finding any, because of the suspicious means in which they were walked through the nation's store houses.

All of which are viable reasons to invade (especially the first two).
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 8:26:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 11:58:47 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Heres the thing: the USA does not have the resources to be the global policeman, and many would argue we don't even have the right to do so. It makes no sense to waste our tax dollars and soldiers lives halfway across the globe when there are human rights violations happening closer to home (for example, Latin America). We can't just invade countries randomly because they are oppressing their own citizens. It would be one thing if we had a treaty or alliance with a country that is being invaded, but in most cases we don't.

Otherwise, how do we choose which conflicts to get involved in? Rwanda, Iraq, Nepal, Afghanistan, Israel, Mexico, Sudan, Bosnia... The list goes on and on, and we simply cannot pacify all these regions unilaterally. Can't be done, shouldn't be done.

This country has colonized enough lands already. We need to focus on building up our own part of the world and leave the foreign civil wars to fight themselves. None of these countries is expanding like the Axis powers in early WWII, so they're not a threat to our sovereignty either.

Does it suck that people are killing each other in other countries? Yes. Is it our responsibility to go there and throw soldiers at the problem? No. No foreign countries intervened in our civil war, even though the South was guilty of massive human rights violations. And I think most Americans today are glad that other powers didn't try to meddle with us back then. Really, we shouldn't have gotten into any of the wars we fought since WWII. Even Afghanistan could have been avoided with a covert operation to assassinate bin laden.

The fundamental flaw of your argument is that you assume arbitrary characteristics such as distance and borders make us more or less responsible for ignoring atrocities, sure we have some problems domestically but if we take this to the extreme we will end up like Europe (which I'm sure some people on this website would love but leave me out of it) where the complaints evolve from "We are sending troops to foreign wars while people at home are still homeless to "We are sending troops to foreign wars while people in our own country still don't have healthcare" to "We are sending troops to foreign wars while people in our own country have 40 hour workweeks", the main point is poverty or suffering is relative based on the county you live in, what American poverty is having to take the bus to work whether than driving, or living in a one bedroom apartment, or not having hot water, African, Middle Eastern, South American, and some east asian country's poverty is living in shacks made of tin, and dying from easily curable diseases that would cost three american dollars to treat like malaria.

Of course the government ought to have an obligation to its own people before others but there has to be a middle ground, when we take our own collective self interest to such extremes that we demand 40 hour workweeks and universal healthcare and prioritize it over saving Iraqi children from beheadings and genocide we become Europe. We have to remember that the only thing separating us from the impoverished african masses and the religious minorities in the middle east that live in constant fear is distance, borders, and luck. You don't get to choose where you are born, you were lucky to be born in a first world country where you will never starve to death, you'll probably never die from easily preventable diseases, and you'll probably never have to worry about being slaughtered for what you believe in, you didn't earn any of this you were born in to it and could have just as easily been born in a nation where you would have these concerns. What you can do to earn this privileges make it available to other people outside of your own borders and not practicing collective self interest, your 35 hour work week can wait.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:01:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 8:26:17 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/9/2014 11:58:47 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Heres the thing: the USA does not have the resources to be the global policeman, and many would argue we don't even have the right to do so. It makes no sense to waste our tax dollars and soldiers lives halfway across the globe when there are human rights violations happening closer to home (for example, Latin America). We can't just invade countries randomly because they are oppressing their own citizens. It would be one thing if we had a treaty or alliance with a country that is being invaded, but in most cases we don't.

Otherwise, how do we choose which conflicts to get involved in? Rwanda, Iraq, Nepal, Afghanistan, Israel, Mexico, Sudan, Bosnia... The list goes on and on, and we simply cannot pacify all these regions unilaterally. Can't be done, shouldn't be done.

This country has colonized enough lands already. We need to focus on building up our own part of the world and leave the foreign civil wars to fight themselves. None of these countries is expanding like the Axis powers in early WWII, so they're not a threat to our sovereignty either.

Does it suck that people are killing each other in other countries? Yes. Is it our responsibility to go there and throw soldiers at the problem? No. No foreign countries intervened in our civil war, even though the South was guilty of massive human rights violations. And I think most Americans today are glad that other powers didn't try to meddle with us back then. Really, we shouldn't have gotten into any of the wars we fought since WWII. Even Afghanistan could have been avoided with a covert operation to assassinate bin laden.


The fundamental flaw of your argument is that you assume arbitrary characteristics such as distance and borders make us more or less responsible for ignoring atrocities, sure we have some problems domestically but if we take this to the extreme we will end up like Europe (which I'm sure some people on this website would love but leave me out of it) where the complaints evolve from "We are sending troops to foreign wars while people at home are still homeless to "We are sending troops to foreign wars while people in our own country still don't have healthcare" to "We are sending troops to foreign wars while people in our own country have 40 hour workweeks", the main point is poverty or suffering is relative based on the county you live in, what American poverty is having to take the bus to work whether than driving, or living in a one bedroom apartment, or not having hot water, African, Middle Eastern, South American, and some east asian country's poverty is living in shacks made of tin, and dying from easily curable diseases that would cost three american dollars to treat like malaria.

I have absolutely no problem with sending tax dollars as foreign aid to help cure diseases, or provide drinking water, or improve their housing quality. These things are not nearly as expensive as putting boots on the ground, and they never result in Americans dying. What I am against is sending troops to intervene militarily. First because it is not our place, (remember how we didnt want Europe messing with us back when slavery and lynching were commonplace in this country?) And second because there is no way to stabilize these regions permanently without basically occupying them indefinitely. Look at Korea, look at Vietnam, look at Iraq. All of these places we wasted tons of money and blood, and got nothing out of it.

Of course the government ought to have an obligation to its own people before others but there has to be a middle ground, when we take our own collective self interest to such extremes that we demand 40 hour workweeks and universal healthcare and prioritize it over saving Iraqi children from beheadings and genocide we become Europe. We have to remember that the only thing separating us from the impoverished african masses and the religious minorities in the middle east that live in constant fear is distance, borders, and luck. You don't get to choose where you are born, you were lucky to be born in a first world country where you will never starve to death, you'll probably never die from easily preventable diseases, and you'll probably never have to worry about being slaughtered for what you believe in, you didn't earn any of this you were born in to it and could have just as easily been born in a nation where you would have these concerns. What you can do to earn this privileges make it available to other people outside of your own borders and not practicing collective self interest, your 35 hour work week can wait.

It is very true that we are lucky to live here instead of a third world country. And you are absolutely right that nobody earns that. This is one of the reasons that I am in favor of a much more open immigration system, so we can integrate people from other countries who want to build a life here in America. This has been mutually beneficial to immigrants and our country for hundreds of years, by the way. But if we send soldiers to every country that has human rights violations, we will need to bring back the draft, and even then we will likely be short handed. As much as we might like to try, it is just too idealistic to think American troops can end the generations long feuds between Muslims and Jews, Sunnis and Kurds, Hutu and Tutsi, Chinese and Nepal, etc. What happens instead is the region becomes dependent on our military presence in order to not explode back into sectarian violence. Remember, we are just now abandoning bases in Europe from WWII. And those were the most peaceful countries we have occupied.

I don't know what you're going on about with workweeks but I'm not talking about that at all.
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:14:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 8:26:17 AM, Objectivity wrote:

The fundamental flaw of your argument is that you assume arbitrary characteristics such as distance and borders make us more or less responsible for ignoring atrocities, sure we have some problems domestically but if we take this to the extreme we will end up like Europe (which I'm sure some people on this website would love but leave me out of it) where the complaints evolve from "We are sending troops to foreign wars while people at home are still homeless to "We are sending troops to foreign wars while people in our own country still don't have healthcare" to "We are sending troops to foreign wars while people in our own country have 40 hour workweeks", the main point is poverty or suffering is relative based on the county you live in, what American poverty is having to take the bus to work whether than driving, or living in a one bedroom apartment, or not having hot water, African, Middle Eastern, South American, and some east asian country's poverty is living in shacks made of tin, and dying from easily curable diseases that would cost three american dollars to treat like malaria.

Of course the government ought to have an obligation to its own people before others but there has to be a middle ground, when we take our own collective self interest to such extremes that we demand 40 hour workweeks and universal healthcare and prioritize it over saving Iraqi children from beheadings and genocide we become Europe. We have to remember that the only thing separating us from the impoverished african masses and the religious minorities in the middle east that live in constant fear is distance, borders, and luck. You don't get to choose where you are born, you were lucky to be born in a first world country where you will never starve to death, you'll probably never die from easily preventable diseases, and you'll probably never have to worry about being slaughtered for what you believe in, you didn't earn any of this you were born in to it and could have just as easily been born in a nation where you would have these concerns. What you can do to earn this privileges make it available to other people outside of your own borders and not practicing collective self interest, your 35 hour work week can wait.

First, I hope you don't think we got involved in the Middle East because of altruism. There are other places in the world that need more US support but we've turned a blind eye. Look at Liberia which was named after us but our aid to Middle East dwarfs what we do for them.

Second, staying out of the affairs is usually more constructive than involvement. The people in the Middle East not only despise us because of our involvement but also our involvement has the opposite intended effect. Look at USSR, China, Vietnam, etc. They all would have turned towards capitalism eventually but our involvement cost misery and millions of lives.

I don't mean to sound patronizing but you're brainwashed. American history has been rewritten to spin America in a positive light. American exceptionalism is what was taught the past few decades (although school curriculum is now changing). But, our actual history is characterized by imperialism and self-service.
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:21:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 12:45:12 AM, donald.keller wrote:
I should say... There were 12 majors issues for entering Iraq. Among this are:

- They were shooting down UN aircraft.
- They had broken every aspect of the Iraq-Iran treaty they had signed.
- They claimed to have WMDs, which the inspectors absolutely agreed with despite not finding any, because of the suspicious means in which they were walked through the nation's store houses.

All of which are viable reasons to invade (especially the first two).

Cmon'. Don't kid yourself. You don't commit trillions of our dollars for such reasons. Those certainly were the pretexts for war but they weren't the real reasons.

Far worse things happen all over the world and I notice that we don't get involved in them. For example, in the Russian/Ukraine incident, Russia did far worse.

At the end of the day, you will never know what George Bush was discussing behind closed doors with his cabinet members but it's naive to think we got involved due to altruism/justice.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:27:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:01:25 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 12/10/2014 8:26:17 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/9/2014 11:58:47 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Heres the thing: the USA does not have the resources to be the global policeman, and many would argue we don't even have the right to do so. It makes no sense to waste our tax dollars and soldiers lives halfway across the globe when there are human rights violations happening closer to home (for example, Latin America). We can't just invade countries randomly because they are oppressing their own citizens. It would be one thing if we had a treaty or alliance with a country that is being invaded, but in most cases we don't.

Otherwise, how do we choose which conflicts to get involved in? Rwanda, Iraq, Nepal, Afghanistan, Israel, Mexico, Sudan, Bosnia... The list goes on and on, and we simply cannot pacify all these regions unilaterally. Can't be done, shouldn't be done.

This country has colonized enough lands already. We need to focus on building up our own part of the world and leave the foreign civil wars to fight themselves. None of these countries is expanding like the Axis powers in early WWII, so they're not a threat to our sovereignty either.

Does it suck that people are killing each other in other countries? Yes. Is it our responsibility to go there and throw soldiers at the problem? No. No foreign countries intervened in our civil war, even though the South was guilty of massive human rights violations. And I think most Americans today are glad that other powers didn't try to meddle with us back then. Really, we shouldn't have gotten into any of the wars we fought since WWII. Even Afghanistan could have been avoided with a covert operation to assassinate bin laden.


The fundamental flaw of your argument is that you assume arbitrary characteristics such as distance and borders make us more or less responsible for ignoring atrocities, sure we have some problems domestically but if we take this to the extreme we will end up like Europe (which I'm sure some people on this website would love but leave me out of it) where the complaints evolve from "We are sending troops to foreign wars while people at home are still homeless to "We are sending troops to foreign wars while people in our own country still don't have healthcare" to "We are sending troops to foreign wars while people in our own country have 40 hour workweeks", the main point is poverty or suffering is relative based on the county you live in, what American poverty is having to take the bus to work whether than driving, or living in a one bedroom apartment, or not having hot water, African, Middle Eastern, South American, and some east asian country's poverty is living in shacks made of tin, and dying from easily curable diseases that would cost three american dollars to treat like malaria.

I have absolutely no problem with sending tax dollars as foreign aid to help cure diseases, or provide drinking water, or improve their housing quality. These things are not nearly as expensive as putting boots on the ground, and they never result in Americans dying. What I am against is sending troops to intervene militarily. First because it is not our place, (remember how we didnt want Europe messing with us back when slavery and lynching were commonplace in this country?) And second because there is no way to stabilize these regions permanently without basically occupying them indefinitely. Look at Korea, look at Vietnam, look at Iraq. All of these places we wasted tons of money and blood, and got nothing out of it.

To start, I am not particularly interested in putting a price tag on morality, if you have no problem spending money to prevent human suffering in the form of poverty I don't see why you are against spending money to prevent or stop war and death. And yes, obviously we can only do what we can with what we have which is why different situations should be addressed with different measures, when we have an extremist group like ISIS where the only language they know is force, we ought to use force. When we have a large, economically powerful nation like China that violates human rights we obviously shouldn't invade them, but if we have to sacrifice some economic interests with trade restrictions on china for human rights violations I have no problem with that, I also have no problem empowering and strengthening the military's of nations that China attempts to bully in to submission on a regular basis like Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Japan. I suppose I agree that we shouldn't sacrifice our lives for others lives, but we could do a lot in the current situation in ISIS with minimal human sacrifice through our air force and drones, and of course imposing embargoes on nations like Qatar that fund ISIS.

Of course the government ought to have an obligation to itis own people before others but there has to be a middle ground, when we take our own collective self interest to such extremes that we demand 40 hour workweeks and universal healthcare and prioritize it over saving Iraqi children from beheadings and genocide we become Europe. We have to remember that the only thing separating us from the impoverished african masses and the religious minorities in the middle east that live in constant fear is distance, borders, and luck. You don't get to choose where you are born, you were lucky to be born in a first world country where you will never starve to death, you'll probably never die from easily preventable diseases, and you'll probably never have to worry about being slaughtered for what you believe in, you didn't earn any of this you were born in to it and could have just as easily been born in a nation where you would have these concerns. What you can do to earn this privileges make it available to other people outside of your own borders and not practicing collective self interest, your 35 hour work week can wait.

It is very true that we are lucky to live here instead of a third world country. And you are absolutely right that nobody earns that. This is one of the reasons that I am in favor of a much more open immigration system, so we can integrate people from other countries who want to build a life here in America. This has been mutually beneficial to immigrants and our country for hundreds of years, by the way. But if we send soldiers to every country that has human rights violations, we will need to bring back the draft, and even then we will likely be short handed. As much as we might like to try, it is just too idealistic to think American troops can end the generations long feuds between Muslims and Jews, Sunnis and Kurds, Hutu and Tutsi, Chinese and Nepal, etc. What happens instead is the region becomes dependent on our military presence in order to not explode back into sectarian violence. Remember, we are just now abandoning bases in Europe from WWII. And those were the most peaceful countries we have occupied.

I don't think the solution to ending human suffering is to take in millions of people in our own country, which is detrimental to our security, economy and will never help better the world as a whole by empowering individual nations to improve on their own. Therefore as stated, if we have the stated goal of bettering the world we should empower other nations whenever possible to improve, whether than encouraging the people of those nations to come here. I already responded to your argument that we can't end every conflict in the world (Different situations merit different responses). Also, using examples like vietnam and Iraq isn't really valid since I never said we should militarily occupy nations, I would advocate a foreign policy that upholds human rights by empowering nations and groups of people that uphold human rights.

I don't know what you're going on about with workweeks but I'm not talking about tha
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:33:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 10:10:00 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:05:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:03:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I never thought I'd say this...but after seeing this story, and looking at how much territory they control: it's time we go back to Iraq. End their existence as quickly as possible.

This is ultimately why Bush never wanted to pull out of Iraq. It's because he understood that pulling out would result in the catastrophe that Obama has allowed to happen.

I think that Iraq never should've been invaded in the first place, but since we can't change history here (and for as much of a despicable person Saddam Hussein was, the Middle East was better off with him in power in Iraq): I can partially agree with that.

I disagree. In the short term, Saddam Hussein definitely led to less misery and suffering but in the long-term, it's better that a monarchy was replaced with a quasi-democracy.

Does it mean I support the invasion? I do not. Saddam's monarchy wasn't a good thing but the invasion wasn't the best way to do it.

Neither do I think the sanctions were correct. Our sanctions against Saddam only strengthened his power and engendered resentment against the US by the Iraq people as they starved. Our sanctions did not make Saddam suffer. He still lived in his numerous palaces. The ones that suffered were the common folk which made it harder for them to ever prosper and eventually speak out.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:45:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
To continue, I certainly would concur with you that America can't single handedly end fueds that have existed for hundreds, if not thousands of years, and that shouldn't be the goal of an intervention in the middle east either, it should be the protection of innocents. I can agree that we will never stop conflict in the Middle East but when it occurs our goal should be the protection of innocents, as stated this could be done in many ways in the current state of affairs with ISIS, it could have been done in Ukraine, and a lot of other situations where the USA didn't act for fear of being branded the 'world police'. 'World Police' has only become an insult because we let isolationists and left wing "anti imperialists" make it such, there is nothing wrong with the concept that we should protect innocent people from unjust harm and that we have an obligation to more than just the people within our borders, which are at times used to justify very cold and self interested policies towards people outside them.

To conclude with your point on immigration, no I don't think we should empower humanity by making our country the international junkyard of the world where countries send everyone they can't afford to take care of. That isn't a permanent solution to world stability or sustainability since eventually the junkyard will overflow. We ought to as I said empower individual nations to better their conditions.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:59:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:14:47 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/10/2014 8:26:17 AM, Objectivity wrote:

The fundamental flaw of your argument is that you assume arbitrary characteristics such as distance and borders make us more or less responsible for ignoring atrocities, sure we have some problems domestically but if we take this to the extreme we will end up like Europe (which I'm sure some people on this website would love but leave me out of it) where the complaints evolve from "We are sending troops to foreign wars while people at home are still homeless to "We are sending troops to foreign wars while people in our own country still don't have healthcare" to "We are sending troops to foreign wars while people in our own country have 40 hour workweeks", the main point is poverty or suffering is relative based on the county you live in, what American poverty is having to take the bus to work whether than driving, or living in a one bedroom apartment, or not having hot water, African, Middle Eastern, South American, and some east asian country's poverty is living in shacks made of tin, and dying from easily curable diseases that would cost three american dollars to treat like malaria.

Of course the government ought to have an obligation to its own people before others but there has to be a middle ground, when we take our own collective self interest to such extremes that we demand 40 hour workweeks and universal healthcare and prioritize it over saving Iraqi children from beheadings and genocide we become Europe. We have to remember that the only thing separating us from the impoverished african masses and the religious minorities in the middle east that live in constant fear is distance, borders, and luck. You don't get to choose where you are born, you were lucky to be born in a first world country where you will never starve to death, you'll probably never die from easily preventable diseases, and you'll probably never have to worry about being slaughtered for what you believe in, you didn't earn any of this you were born in to it and could have just as easily been born in a nation where you would have these concerns. What you can do to earn this privileges make it available to other people outside of your own borders and not practicing collective self interest, your 35 hour work week can wait.

First, I hope you don't think we got involved in the Middle East because of altruism. There are other places in the world that need more US support but we've turned a blind eye. Look at Liberia which was named after us but our aid to Middle East dwarfs what we do for them.

Second, staying out of the affairs is usually more constructive than involvement. The people in the Middle East not only despise us because of our involvement but also our involvement has the opposite intended effect. Look at USSR, China, Vietnam, etc. They all would have turned towards capitalism eventually but our involvement cost misery and millions of lives.

I don't mean to sound patronizing but you're brainwashed. American history has been rewritten to spin America in a positive light. American exceptionalism is what was taught the past few decades (although school curriculum is now changing). But, our actual history is characterized by imperialism and self-service.

I do not share your rejection of interventionism or the almost completely unfounded belief that all US interventions in recent history have been fueled by ulterior motives. Secondly, you make the wholly flawed assumption that my defense of humanitarian intervention, whether than be militarily or economically or through other means is a defense of the current status quo by bringing up examples of supposedly failed interventions like USSR, China, Vietnam and the fact that we don't assist Liberia as much as we ought to. First I'd like to state that the assertion that the USSR would have turned towards capitalism eventually is just that.. an assertion. If they stood unopposed by the other major power in the world something makes me doubt they would have turned towards capitalism if they successfully took over Europe and most of the world. Vietnam still hasn't turned towards capitalism so I'm not exactly sure what you are on about there. And we never really intervened in the Chinese Civil War so I'm not sure what you are going on about there, I mean sure we funded the Nationalist government during WWII, but that is because they were the dominant force at the time.

Secondly, the assertion that the people in the Middle East despise us is wholly unfounded, and only a half truth when looked in to. The Iraqis only opposed us staying and occupying Iraq for an excessive period of time, you'll see that 77% of Iraqis said that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth the hardships brought on by the war, and you're going to see that in 2006 51% of Iraqi's said US withdraw from Iraq would have a negative effect. Maybe invading Iraq was wrong and maybe it wasn't but we can clearly see that the 51% of people polled in 2006 were right, as US withdraw has been catastrophic.

I don't mean to sound patronizing but your username clearly contradicts "Trying to be open minded" since your only responses to my proposals and ideas were either attacks against things I don't believe in or half truths.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 12:11:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Islam is a religion of murder, founded by Mohamed who adopted the most popular middle eastern pagan god of his time, Allah the moon good, and proclaimed himself as the prophet of this god who changed all of God's promises for Israel and the blessing of all the families of the earth through Jesus Christ. Mohammed forced his new religion on Mecca and used it as a litmus test by which he claimed the right to kill anybody who opposed him. Islam is nothing but murder sold to Arabs by a liar who knew the Arabs would buy it because of their hatred against Israel. The Jihadists are acting out the Muslim faith in full accordance to the Koran. If a "moderate Muslim" had a shred of decency is his or her bones, they would renounce Islam completely and never again say they believe God's name is Allah.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 1:52:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 12:11:49 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:

Go. Away.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 2:16:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:59:30 AM, Objectivity wrote:

I do not share your rejection of interventionism or the almost completely unfounded belief that all US interventions in recent history have been fueled by ulterior motives. Secondly, you make the wholly flawed assumption that my defense of humanitarian intervention, whether than be militarily or economically or through other means is a defense of the current status quo by bringing up examples of supposedly failed interventions like USSR, China, Vietnam and the fact that we don't assist Liberia as much as we ought to. First I'd like to state that the assertion that the USSR would have turned towards capitalism eventually is just that.. an assertion. If they stood unopposed by the other major power in the world something makes me doubt they would have turned towards capitalism if they successfully took over Europe and most of the world. Vietnam still hasn't turned towards capitalism so I'm not exactly sure what you are on about there. And we never really intervened in the Chinese Civil War so I'm not sure what you are going on about there, I mean sure we funded the Nationalist government during WWII, but that is because they were the dominant force at the time.

Secondly, the assertion that the people in the Middle East despise us is wholly unfounded, and only a half truth when looked in to. The Iraqis only opposed us staying and occupying Iraq for an excessive period of time, you'll see that 77% of Iraqis said that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth the hardships brought on by the war, and you're going to see that in 2006 51% of Iraqi's said US withdraw from Iraq would have a negative effect. Maybe invading Iraq was wrong and maybe it wasn't but we can clearly see that the 51% of people polled in 2006 were right, as US withdraw has been catastrophic.

I don't mean to sound patronizing but your username clearly contradicts "Trying to be open minded" since your only responses to my proposals and ideas were either attacks against things I don't believe in or half truths.

Try reading Howard Zinn's books or Oliver Stone's book. You can also watch Stone's documentary which is the same thing. Or you can take a couple of college courses on this subject. You'll realize that countries aren't motivated by justice and honor. They all have their own selfish reasons for their actions. Nations are cruel and brutal and the US is no different. American kids have been brought up in the context of American exceptionalism but unfortunately, reality is not ice cream and candy. Just as the Japanese has rewrote their history books to omit the bad things, we have committed the same exact thing to make us feel better about ourselves.

Now, going back to intervention, of course, my theory that "non-involvement would have been better" is just that - a theory but I think it's very compelling given the historical evidence. And, you've definitely have some history wrong.

- China. We never fought them directly but historically, we've been against each other and relations have always been tense. But, US pressure did not make them finally cave. Instead, China could not support their people and they eventually had to revert to free markets. They had no choice. Now, they are on their way to a capitalistic economic system and I strongly believe that a change in politics will occur over the next few decades.

- Vietnam. You said that vietnam didn't turn to capitalism? Where have you been the last 20 years?>?! They also were starving and poor. They also had to turn to reform in order to survive. Now, they are kicking azz.

- USSR. Of course, I'm not saying don't stop them if they actually start taking over other countries but we should have stayed out of/meddled with Vietnam, North Korea, etc. My theory is that they would have all turned toward free markets eventually. Read the writings of Gorbachev. He initiated reform not because US pressure. Actually, US pressure probably made him hate us. But, he changed because he visited the US and saw the vast abundance at a simple grocery story (in stark contrast to the poverty in his own country). He was sad and ashamed.

- Middle East. The middle east is different. It's not communism but a monarchy so the economy isn't so bad. So, it's going to be tougher to change. But, even without outside intervention, I think that they will eventually revert to democracy. How do you think Europe did it after thousands of years of fighting? How about the recent Arab Spring? That wasn't directly caused by us. Actually, I believe it was caused by us indirectly through proliferation of culture like movies which the youth watch. I think this is the way for revolution. Not guns and tanks.

My point is that our relationship doesn't have to be antagonistic. It doesn't have to be us or them. Neither do we have to directly intervene (or meddle). (Did you know that we supported Saddam Hussein for 10 years and provided him with the chemical weapons that he used against his own people?) I'm saying we can step back and simply be nice. SHOW them that our way is better and let them figure it out themselves. Our meddling has only made the world hate us.

For example, look at Kim Jong-Un of North Korea. Our policy has only made him hate us with a passion. And, our sanctions only made him stronger because it makes the people poorer and less educated. I seriously doubt North Korea will ever turn in his lifetime. He's too strong and he hates us.

Now, look at Castro of Cuba. He hated us too. There was no way Cuba will turn while he lives. Hatred will make you do crazy things. But, his brother is different and sees the light.

Solution? For North Korea, I propose we invite Kim Jong-Un's sons and try to educate them in the US. So, he can see the beauty of capitalism. If you examine the history, it's the succeeding generation who isn't encumbered by hate and bias that initiates reform. And, I know this sounds sappy but I think you can change things through love.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 2:47:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 9:57:17 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...


Isis have beheaded four Christian children in Iraq for refusing to convert to Islam, a British vicar based in the country has claimed... [ISIS] chopped their heads off, and they moved north and it was so terrible what happened"...."The children, all under 15, four of them, said no, we love Yeshua, we have always loved we have always followed Yeshua, Yeshua has always been with us. "[ISIS] said: "Say the words." [The children] said "No, we can"t." [ISIS] chopped all their heads off. How do you respond to that? You just cry."


There is nothing I would like more, in the arena of international politics, than to see the United States descend upon all those members of ISIS and kill them in the fashion that the the Hebrews did to Jericho. The group that beheads children is the group that rightfully ought to be purged from this earth, and any who may sympathize with ISIS as would incline them to execute children in the name of their bastardized religion deserves to meet a similar fate.

The US is more of a danger than ISIS is, even though both are evil. Considering the US's track record in the Third World, the last thing I would want is for the US to go back into the Middle East. You hear about all the things that the US's enemies do more than you hear about what the US does, and that's for a reason. Even when die-hard Americans find out about their government's atrocities, they're often inclined to deny things. The things our government has done in the past in the name of "democracy" or "liberty" are truly despicable. Which is not to endorse ISIS at all.
You can call me Mark if you like.
pricklymoon
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 3:39:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 10:05:11 PM, YYW wrote:
And I want to be clear about something, because it's come to my attention that some labor under the impression that I hate all Muslims.

I do not hate Muslims. I have many Islamic friends, and there are several aspects of Islamic culture that the west would be wise to emulate (like banking), and I also do not hate Islam.

I hate ISIS. ISIS is not Islam. It's the fvcked up ideology of wannabe terrorists who picked up guns together instead of perpetrating acts of terrorism alone.

What is happening in the Middle East right now will grow to be worse than any genocide Africa has ever seen, and it destroys me to see it. Like, I don't even watch the news anymore because seeing stories like that physically affects me in a way that nothing I have ever seen on the news ever has.

ISIS is apocalyptically evil, and all that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. So far, the world has sat back and watched...

I am glad to hear you do not hate ALL Muslims, if you have many Muslim friends, I am sure you have taken the time to study the religion. Therefore you will understand what the caliphate is supposed to represent. Not suggesting that ISIS is that at all, before you spit bile.
My question is , I am assuming you are American, have you considered for one second the part your government played in the creation of ISIS in the first place? You are familiar with the concept that one man's terrorist is another man's hero ?
You mention genocide? What about the genocide committed in the creation of your great country against the native population? The fact is that the USA and its minions are the greatest terrorists the world has ever seen to date.
Will you and your ilk EVER pause to consider that you have no right to impose your society on the rest of the world, wading in with all gun blazing whenever there seems to be a buck to be made, and the fact you do so CREATES many of the problems that we see arising in the middle east and else where. Perish the thought it may be deliberate as a means to an end?
On a happier note, I am glad you do not watch the news any more. Because you will be less indoctrinated to believe the BS. Hopefully you will do your own research and find out the truth now. (even a simple search will bring you this http://en.wikipedia.org...)
I have no words to elucidate how wrong you are in thinking ISIS are simply "wannabe terrorists" that statement explains so much! And no, I am not defending ISIS at all, I was just commenting on your warped thinking that the great USA/UK can solve everything by yet more violence. (which I know you deplore)
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 3:48:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 3:39:11 PM, pricklymoon wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:05:11 PM, YYW wrote:
And I want to be clear about something, because it's come to my attention that some labor under the impression that I hate all Muslims.

I do not hate Muslims. I have many Islamic friends, and there are several aspects of Islamic culture that the west would be wise to emulate (like banking), and I also do not hate Islam.

I hate ISIS. ISIS is not Islam. It's the fvcked up ideology of wannabe terrorists who picked up guns together instead of perpetrating acts of terrorism alone.

What is happening in the Middle East right now will grow to be worse than any genocide Africa has ever seen, and it destroys me to see it. Like, I don't even watch the news anymore because seeing stories like that physically affects me in a way that nothing I have ever seen on the news ever has.

ISIS is apocalyptically evil, and all that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. So far, the world has sat back and watched...

I am glad to hear you do not hate ALL Muslims, if you have many Muslim friends, I am sure you have taken the time to study the religion. Therefore you will understand what the caliphate is supposed to represent.

Yup.

My question is , I am assuming you are American, have you considered for one second the part your government played in the creation of ISIS in the first place?

America has given military aid to the Saudis who have then passed that along to the ISIS terrorist-rebel-hellions. That aid needs to stop, and I would like nothing more than to cut relations with the Saudis. They can not be trusted, and I'm sick of them paying us lip service. This is one of among several reasons why fracking in North Dakota is so important.

You are familiar with the concept that one man's terrorist is another man's hero ?

I'm familiar with the concept, but I think it's stupid.

You mention genocide? What about the genocide committed in the creation of your great country against the native population?

That was 300 years ago. We've moved on.

On a happier note, I am glad you do not watch the news any more. Because you will be less indoctrinated to believe the BS.

I never said the US was perfect; but it's a much better place than any country in the Middle East.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 3:54:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:21:05 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/10/2014 12:45:12 AM, donald.keller wrote:
I should say... There were 12 majors issues for entering Iraq. Among this are:

- They were shooting down UN aircraft.
- They had broken every aspect of the Iraq-Iran treaty they had signed.
- They claimed to have WMDs, which the inspectors absolutely agreed with despite not finding any, because of the suspicious means in which they were walked through the nation's store houses.

All of which are viable reasons to invade (especially the first two).

Cmon'. Don't kid yourself. You don't commit trillions of our dollars for such reasons. Those certainly were the pretexts for war but they weren't the real reasons.

You do when you think it won't cost that much. See... You assume the US knew Iraq would be a 10 year thing with trillions in expenses. The war itself only took a few months.

Far worse things happen all over the world and I notice that we don't get involved in them. For example, in the Russian/Ukraine incident, Russia did far worse.

Because "far worse things" that happen to others usually don't involve the US... Shooting down UN aircraft and breaking a treaty that the US was involved with does. Besides, your case doesn't really help you. It could just as easily mean the US should get more involved.

At the end of the day, you will never know what George Bush was discussing behind closed doors with his cabinet members but it's naive to think we got involved due to altruism/justice.

You know the UN was the major pusher for war, right? The reasons for war was written down and accepted by the UN... France, Britain, Canada... They all went to war with the US. It was practically a UN war more than a US war.

Although, I must praise your willingness to assume we can't know, instead of the typical "Bush wanted oil" bit...
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:05:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 2:47:33 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/9/2014 9:57:17 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...


Isis have beheaded four Christian children in Iraq for refusing to convert to Islam, a British vicar based in the country has claimed... [ISIS] chopped their heads off, and they moved north and it was so terrible what happened"...."The children, all under 15, four of them, said no, we love Yeshua, we have always loved we have always followed Yeshua, Yeshua has always been with us. "[ISIS] said: "Say the words." [The children] said "No, we can"t." [ISIS] chopped all their heads off. How do you respond to that? You just cry."


There is nothing I would like more, in the arena of international politics, than to see the United States descend upon all those members of ISIS and kill them in the fashion that the the Hebrews did to Jericho. The group that beheads children is the group that rightfully ought to be purged from this earth, and any who may sympathize with ISIS as would incline them to execute children in the name of their bastardized religion deserves to meet a similar fate.

The US is more of a danger than ISIS is, even though both are evil. Considering the US's track record in the Third World, the last thing I would want is for the US to go back into the Middle East. You hear about all the things that the US's enemies do more than you hear about what the US does, and that's for a reason. Even when die-hard Americans find out about their government's atrocities, they're often inclined to deny things. The things our government has done in the past in the name of "democracy" or "liberty" are truly despicable. Which is not to endorse ISIS at all.

More of a threat? For real? The US isn't cutting off children's heads. Even Al Qaeda hates ISIS more than they hate the US... Iran even considered working with the US to stop ISIS... Besides, there is a HUGE difference in the causalities of war, and the causalities of civilian massacres. The two aren't comparable. Anyone should know that.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:10:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:05:24 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/10/2014 2:47:33 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/9/2014 9:57:17 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...


Isis have beheaded four Christian children in Iraq for refusing to convert to Islam, a British vicar based in the country has claimed... [ISIS] chopped their heads off, and they moved north and it was so terrible what happened"...."The children, all under 15, four of them, said no, we love Yeshua, we have always loved we have always followed Yeshua, Yeshua has always been with us. "[ISIS] said: "Say the words." [The children] said "No, we can"t." [ISIS] chopped all their heads off. How do you respond to that? You just cry."


There is nothing I would like more, in the arena of international politics, than to see the United States descend upon all those members of ISIS and kill them in the fashion that the the Hebrews did to Jericho. The group that beheads children is the group that rightfully ought to be purged from this earth, and any who may sympathize with ISIS as would incline them to execute children in the name of their bastardized religion deserves to meet a similar fate.

The US is more of a danger than ISIS is, even though both are evil. Considering the US's track record in the Third World, the last thing I would want is for the US to go back into the Middle East. You hear about all the things that the US's enemies do more than you hear about what the US does, and that's for a reason. Even when die-hard Americans find out about their government's atrocities, they're often inclined to deny things. The things our government has done in the past in the name of "democracy" or "liberty" are truly despicable. Which is not to endorse ISIS at all.

More of a threat? For real? The US isn't cutting off children's heads. Even Al Qaeda hates ISIS more than they hate the US... Iran even considered working with the US to stop ISIS... Besides, there is a HUGE difference in the causalities of war, and the causalities of civilian massacres. The two aren't comparable. Anyone should know that.

What's the difference between killing people and killing people?
You can call me Mark if you like.