Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

US Strategy in Combating ISIS

Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 10:56:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.c-span.org...
(watch 1:01:00--1:09:00)
You can watch this video from C-Span where Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter (who, if you'll remember, replaced the only Republican in the presidential cabinet, Chuck Hagel, earlier this year) and General Martin Dempsy answer questions about the current plan for action in the Middle East.

They talk about how the on-the-ground efforts assisted by the U.S. will be the likeliest permanent solution, and it seems like Carter is right in saying so. I say this because just yesterday US backed Kurdish fighters in Syria have actually helped cut off ISIS's supply routes and are planning to attack Raqqa [1], tackling the "military assets" Rep. Doug Lamborn was complaining that we were ignoring.

I think this plan of arming the Kurds and supporting them in their fight against ISIS is quite a good idea, because if the Kurds win against them, we will likely have a more stabilized situation in the Middle East given the fact that Kurdish people are generally a very civil people with modern values [2]. If we're going to be helping anyone in this conflict, it should be them.

But that's just me-- what do you guys think the best strategy is?

[1] http://www.wsj.com...
[2] https://www.youtube.com...
ironslippers
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 7:02:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The BEST policy would be for the world to sanction a middle east arms embargo. When they run out of amunition everyone can go home and we can be friends
Everyone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan Krusemark
Its easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 5:58:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 10:56:54 AM, Harper wrote:
http://www.c-span.org...
(watch 1:01:00--1:09:00)
You can watch this video from C-Span where Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter (who, if you'll remember, replaced the only Republican in the presidential cabinet, Chuck Hagel, earlier this year) and General Martin Dempsy answer questions about the current plan for action in the Middle East.

They talk about how the on-the-ground efforts assisted by the U.S. will be the likeliest permanent solution, and it seems like Carter is right in saying so. I say this because just yesterday US backed Kurdish fighters in Syria have actually helped cut off ISIS's supply routes and are planning to attack Raqqa [1], tackling the "military assets" Rep. Doug Lamborn was complaining that we were ignoring.

I think this plan of arming the Kurds and supporting them in their fight against ISIS is quite a good idea, because if the Kurds win against them, we will likely have a more stabilized situation in the Middle East given the fact that Kurdish people are generally a very civil people with modern values [2]. If we're going to be helping anyone in this conflict, it should be them.

But that's just me-- what do you guys think the best strategy is?

[1] http://www.wsj.com...
[2] https://www.youtube.com...

no fk u. So accordingly to you, we should support the Kurds because "a very civil people with modern values?" Oh fk yes, so modern in fact that a messed up Commie-inspired ideology, so messed up in fact that some factions of the fkin Kurdish forces have been recognized as terrorists by *the US.*(https://en.wikipedia.org...) Apart from this, although the Kurds are advancing on Raqqah, do you not care about the advances in Iraq and Syria? Currently, J. al-Nusra, a group as radical as IS, is launching repeated attacks and has massacred Druze and, if Assad falls, other people. If you guys should be helping anyone, help the Free Syrian Army and the Iraqi Army-the Kurds have already gotten enough help from the US.
praise the lord Chin Chin
no1special
Posts: 56
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 6:11:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't like your justification for supporting the Kurds. There are much better and more obvious reasons and it is headed towards a cultural superiority argument which is always a weak one because no culture develops in a vacuum, and any has the potential to be civil or militaristic should it suit their interests. That being said, I agree we should be arming those fighting ISIS but I abhor the idea of engaging them directly on the ground or otherwise. Our foreign policy is a major cause of this mess, and besides the loss of life it would necessarily bring, we don't need to inadvertently encourage people to sympathize with ISIS by occupying or reoccupying other states and making those people choose between the lesser of two evils (hopefully they'd choose wisely but like I said, our track record in the region is not a great one).
no1special
Posts: 56
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 3:34:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 1:43:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
The culture with the guns is superior.

What you meant to say is that the side which is better armed has a tactical advantage.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 3:40:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 6:47:18 PM, you_have_been_censored3 wrote:
ISIS is a very violent and offensive organization, this thread has been reported.

YES.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 3:42:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is no U.S strategy in defeating ISIS. How can you go about "defeating" something that you've directly created? A broken Iraq with no *real* form of government benefits the U.S.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 4:41:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 3:34:45 PM, no1special wrote:
At 6/18/2015 1:43:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
The culture with the guns is superior.

What you meant to say is that the side which is better armed has a tactical advantage.

You're not the boss of me.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 5:41:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 10:56:54 AM, Harper wrote:
http://www.c-span.org...
(watch 1:01:00--1:09:00)
You can watch this video from C-Span where Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter (who, if you'll remember, replaced the only Republican in the presidential cabinet, Chuck Hagel, earlier this year) and General Martin Dempsy answer questions about the current plan for action in the Middle East.

They talk about how the on-the-ground efforts assisted by the U.S. will be the likeliest permanent solution, and it seems like Carter is right in saying so. I say this because just yesterday US backed Kurdish fighters in Syria have actually helped cut off ISIS's supply routes and are planning to attack Raqqa [1], tackling the "military assets" Rep. Doug Lamborn was complaining that we were ignoring.

I think this plan of arming the Kurds and supporting them in their fight against ISIS is quite a good idea, because if the Kurds win against them, we will likely have a more stabilized situation in the Middle East given the fact that Kurdish people are generally a very civil people with modern values [2]. If we're going to be helping anyone in this conflict, it should be them.

But that's just me-- what do you guys think the best strategy is?

[1] http://www.wsj.com...
[2] https://www.youtube.com...

- Horrible terrible idea. You mean if you arm the Kurds the Middle East will be more stable?! LoL, good one.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 8:01:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 5:47:28 PM, Mirza wrote:
The US strategy should be the following: the opposite of what Republicans suggest.

Both Democrats and Republicans believe that there should be an AUMF against ISIS

http://www.motherjones.com...
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 8:08:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 3:42:41 PM, Emilrose wrote:
There is no U.S strategy in defeating ISIS. How can you go about "defeating" something that you've directly created?

ISIS was formed in 1999 and was aligned with al Qaeda from 2004 until around 2014. They were always the extremists within al Qaeda. Should Saddam been allowed to keep power? That's another question altogether. But, keep in mind, he led a sectarian dictatorship and brutally suppressed his citizens (his Ba'ath party was all about Arab nationalism). He was also against the west. So, somebody would have eventually put together an effective force to oppose Saddam's rule, which likely would have led to a scenario similar to the Syrian civil war which we are seeing today (that's what happens to most brutal sectarian dictators).

A broken Iraq with no *real* form of government benefits the U.S.

No. An Iraq with a government aligned with the US benefits the US. The US can't influence an area effectively without a friendly government there.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 8:38:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 8:01:44 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/18/2015 5:47:28 PM, Mirza wrote:
The US strategy should be the following: the opposite of what Republicans suggest.

Both Democrats and Republicans believe that there should be an AUMF against ISIS

http://www.motherjones.com...
What a shame. Still better to go with the opposite option.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 10:58:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 7:02:20 PM, ironslippers wrote:
The BEST policy would be for the world to sanction a middle east arms embargo. When they run out of amunition everyone can go home and we can be friends

A little unrealistic if you ask me, since many countries in the Middle East have allies elsewhere in the world (like Russia, for example). Additionally, disarming an entire populace might make it easier for other countries to prey on them.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 11:15:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 5:58:49 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 6/17/2015 10:56:54 AM, Harper wrote:
http://www.c-span.org...
(watch 1:01:00--1:09:00)
You can watch this video from C-Span where Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter (who, if you'll remember, replaced the only Republican in the presidential cabinet, Chuck Hagel, earlier this year) and General Martin Dempsy answer questions about the current plan for action in the Middle East.

They talk about how the on-the-ground efforts assisted by the U.S. will be the likeliest permanent solution, and it seems like Carter is right in saying so. I say this because just yesterday US backed Kurdish fighters in Syria have actually helped cut off ISIS's supply routes and are planning to attack Raqqa [1], tackling the "military assets" Rep. Doug Lamborn was complaining that we were ignoring.

I think this plan of arming the Kurds and supporting them in their fight against ISIS is quite a good idea, because if the Kurds win against them, we will likely have a more stabilized situation in the Middle East given the fact that Kurdish people are generally a very civil people with modern values [2]. If we're going to be helping anyone in this conflict, it should be them.

But that's just me-- what do you guys think the best strategy is?

[1] http://www.wsj.com...
[2] https://www.youtube.com...

no fk u. So accordingly to you, we should support the Kurds because "a very civil people with modern values?" Oh fk yes, so modern in fact that a messed up Commie-inspired ideology, so messed up in fact that some factions of the fkin Kurdish forces have been recognized as terrorists by *the US.*
I should have added "relatively". Yes, they are messed up, but arguably less messed up than the other players.

(https://en.wikipedia.org...) Apart from this, although the Kurds are advancing on Raqqah, do you not care about the advances in Iraq and Syria?
What advances in Iraq and Syria, specifically? I ask this because Raqqa itself is in Syria so I really don't know what your issue is.

Currently, J. al-Nusra, a group as radical as IS, is launching repeated attacks and has massacred Druze and, if Assad falls, other people. If you guys should be helping anyone, help the Free Syrian Army and the Iraqi Army-the Kurds have already gotten enough help from the US.
It seems as though the Kurds are already fighting al-Nusra.
(https://en.wikipedia.org...(2013%E2%80%93present))

And the Iraqi army has already been given support, notably in their victory in Tikrit. (https://en.wikipedia.org...(March%E2%80%93April_2015)).

I really don't think there is an FSA to support in the first place, anymore (partially because of a sense of being cheated by countries that promised support, but didn't fulfill such promises...)
(http://www.ibtimes.com...
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 11:20:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 6:11:16 AM, no1special wrote:
I don't like your justification for supporting the Kurds. There are much better and more obvious reasons and it is headed towards a cultural superiority argument which is always a weak one because no culture develops in a vacuum, and any has the potential to be civil or militaristic should it suit their interests.
Right, but there's a clear difference in goals in many of the groups. The Kurds, at least according to the Vice documentary I posted, are aiming to create a secular, democratic state, which is much better for the U.S. to support than a group that wants theocratic rule.

That being said, I agree we should be arming those fighting ISIS but I abhor the idea of engaging them directly on the ground or otherwise.
Does that include training the fighters?

Our foreign policy is a major cause of this mess, and besides the loss of life it would necessarily bring, we don't need to inadvertently encourage people to sympathize with ISIS by occupying or reoccupying other states and making those people choose between the lesser of two evils (hopefully they'd choose wisely but like I said, our track record in the region is not a great one).
Agreed. ISIS regularly uses the war crimes the U.S. has committed as a recruiting device. If we really want to keep the U.S. safe in the long term, we should not be giving them any reason to be biased against us.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 11:23:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 3:42:41 PM, Emilrose wrote:
There is no U.S strategy in defeating ISIS. How can you go about "defeating" something that you've directly created? A broken Iraq with no *real* form of government benefits the U.S.
How does it benefit the U.S.? If anything our intervention in Iraq was a great mistake for national security, because of the fact that terrorist groups, like ISIS, use it as a recruitment tool. They are *empowered* by the destruction of Iraq's government.
And what do you mean by "created"? Because it is certainly true that ISIS is a result of U.S. intervention, but I wouldn't necessarily use the word "created".
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 11:27:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 5:41:43 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 6/17/2015 10:56:54 AM, Harper wrote:
http://www.c-span.org...
(watch 1:01:00--1:09:00)
You can watch this video from C-Span where Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter (who, if you'll remember, replaced the only Republican in the presidential cabinet, Chuck Hagel, earlier this year) and General Martin Dempsy answer questions about the current plan for action in the Middle East.

They talk about how the on-the-ground efforts assisted by the U.S. will be the likeliest permanent solution, and it seems like Carter is right in saying so. I say this because just yesterday US backed Kurdish fighters in Syria have actually helped cut off ISIS's supply routes and are planning to attack Raqqa [1], tackling the "military assets" Rep. Doug Lamborn was complaining that we were ignoring.

I think this plan of arming the Kurds and supporting them in their fight against ISIS is quite a good idea, because if the Kurds win against them, we will likely have a more stabilized situation in the Middle East given the fact that Kurdish people are generally a very civil people with modern values [2]. If we're going to be helping anyone in this conflict, it should be them.

But that's just me-- what do you guys think the best strategy is?

[1] http://www.wsj.com...
[2] https://www.youtube.com...

- Horrible terrible idea. You mean if you arm the Kurds the Middle East will be more stable?! LoL, good one.
Instead of laughing, please present an alternative view. This forum is for political discussion, not ridicule.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 11:30:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 5:47:28 PM, Mirza wrote:
The US strategy should be the following: the opposite of what Republicans suggest.
Given the fact that Ashton Carter is a Democrat, I think his strategy falls perfectly in line with your position, lol.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 11:43:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 11:25:56 AM, Harper wrote:
At 6/18/2015 1:43:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
The culture with the guns is superior.
Max Stirner, is that you?

More like Thrasymachus.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 11:49:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 11:43:11 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/19/2015 11:25:56 AM, Harper wrote:
At 6/18/2015 1:43:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
The culture with the guns is superior.
Max Stirner, is that you?

More like Thrasymachus.
He was right, in a way. Justice, as it it commonly used, is merely a tool for those in power.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 11:32:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 11:27:07 AM, Harper wrote:

Instead of laughing, please present an alternative view. This forum is for political discussion, not ridicule.

- Sorry, it wasn't meant as a ridicule. The best policy the US can opt for is DO NOTHING, NOT A THING. That's it. Any involvement whatsoever of the US is just gonna add fuel to the fire, & unless the Americans understand that, the Middle East is not gonna rest.

- That been said, to be honest, the US isn't looking to stabilise the region, for that is against its own interests & the interests of Israel. The US is looking only to expand its benefits, so it doesn't matter really which policy they opt for, their involvement (or even lack therefore) is unwanted in the Middle East.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 11:49:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 11:32:42 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 6/19/2015 11:27:07 AM, Harper wrote:

Instead of laughing, please present an alternative view. This forum is for political discussion, not ridicule.

- Sorry, it wasn't meant as a ridicule. The best policy the US can opt for is DO NOTHING, NOT A THING. That's it. Any involvement whatsoever of the US is just gonna add fuel to the fire, & unless the Americans understand that, the Middle East is not gonna rest.

Its the same argument against North Korea, even if you do save their people, the leader is still going to claim to be a God, because it appears to them as if the US was compelled to comply for him.

Even if you do nothing for ISIS, that doesn't actually solve the problem. It just is a cop-out for them to win because they can finally claim victory.

What needs to happen is for Iraq to get its fvcking sh!t together and get an actual military with some self sufficiency above all else before anyone leave the region.

- That been said, to be honest, the US isn't looking to stabilise the region, for that is against its own interests & the interests of Israel. The US is looking only to expand its benefits, so it doesn't matter really which policy they opt for, their involvement (or even lack therefore) is unwanted in the Middle East.

not 100% true, not 100% a lie either.

Its more politically convenient in the US for the president to defend Israel, that much is true. But international law dictates in a lot of times that the US is compelled to act. The genocide conventions to name one with regards to the Iraq War, for instance.

Personally, I'm a 2 state solution kinda guy.
Thank you for voting!
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 12:10:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 11:49:26 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:

Its the same argument against North Korea, even if you do save their people, the leader is still going to claim to be a God, because it appears to them as if the US was compelled to comply for him.

- What does Korea have anything to do with this. The US & its allies invaded several muslim countries, it's no secret that these governments are hated & utterly untrusted throughout the Muslim world. In the Muslim world, the governing regimes are mostly tyrannical dictatorships supported & perpetuated by western governments, while the people are against them (ref. Arab Spring). That's the opposite of what's happening in North Korea!!!

Even if you do nothing for ISIS, that doesn't actually solve the problem. It just is a cop-out for them to win because they can finally claim victory.

- The US & its allies should DO NOHING. Let the muslims handle their stuff, its no business of outsiders, especially since they are the ones who created the problem & are still contributing in its expansion.
- ISIS has greater & greater chances of wining the more foreigners get involved.

What needs to happen is for Iraq to get its fvcking sh!t together and get an actual military with some self sufficiency above all else before anyone leave the region.

- What needs to happen is for westerners & their minions to get out of there, period.

not 100% true, not 100% a lie either.

- You mean the US is looking for other than its own interests!!?

Its more politically convenient in the US for the president to defend Israel, that much is true. But international law dictates in a lot of times that the US is compelled to act. The genocide conventions to name one with regards to the Iraq War, for instance.

- Oh come on, you must be joking. WHAT International Law, the US & its allies f*****g invaded nations & caused the death of millions of civilians, LOL!!!!!!! This is beyond ridiculous. Trust me, the muslims from Morocco to Malaysia are never gonna forget that, they didn't forget Palestine even after decades, they are not gonna forget Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen. . .

- This whole talk is ridiculous, if you knew anything about Muslims you would know that they deeply hate America & its allies (not the people, but the governments). Muslims couldn't care less about what America's policies are towards them, they'll hate them no matter what they are.

Personally, I'm a 2 state solution kinda guy.

- You mean Israel?!
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 12:30:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 12:10:00 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 6/19/2015 11:49:26 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:

Its the same argument against North Korea, even if you do save their people, the leader is still going to claim to be a God, because it appears to them as if the US was compelled to comply for him.

- What does Korea have anything to do with this. The US & its allies invaded several muslim countries, it's no secret that these governments are hated & utterly untrusted throughout the Muslim world. In the Muslim world, the governing regimes are mostly tyrannical dictatorships supported & perpetuated by western governments, while the people are against them (ref. Arab Spring). That's the opposite of what's happening in North Korea!!!

The fact that your premise is subject to the perspective of the actor. To ISIS and the Muslim world maybe they wouldn't have been here if the US was here. But that isn't true. Anti-US attitudes will always be around for as long as they're a super-power.

To claim "we wouldn't have to do this if you were just nicer to us" ignores the fact that Saudis in particular were responsible for Osama Bin Laden. They actually saw an opportunity to rid themselves of extremists and jumped at sending them to work with the Mujaheddin. Even if the US had a less aggressive foreign policy, it doesn't make ISIS anymore acceptable, nor does it mean that they wouldn't have been there.

Even if you do nothing for ISIS, that doesn't actually solve the problem. It just is a cop-out for them to win because they can finally claim victory.

- The US & its allies should DO NOHING. Let the muslims handle their stuff, its no business of outsiders, especially since they are the ones who created the problem & are still contributing in its expansion.
- ISIS has greater & greater chances of wining the more foreigners get involved.

When Iraqi soldiers are literally dropping their guns and running away...you kinda need the Western powers. Sorry.

What needs to happen is for Iraq to get its fvcking sh!t together and get an actual military with some self sufficiency above all else before anyone leave the region.

- What needs to happen is for westerners & their minions to get out of there, period.

See above. Bare assertion fallacy. Even if they did a caliphate would still form under the control of ISIL. Which is a huge problem.

not 100% true, not 100% a lie either.

- You mean the US is looking for other than its own interests!!?

You realize that of the 12 reasons for invading Iraq, only 2 were the WMD's and Bin Laden right? The rest was because of Kurds, fear of what happens with Iraqi Oil (feeds dictatorships) among others. With the genocide conventions, it would have been illegal to not act.

Its more politically convenient in the US for the president to defend Israel, that much is true. But international law dictates in a lot of times that the US is compelled to act. The genocide conventions to name one with regards to the Iraq War, for instance.

- Oh come on, you must be joking. WHAT International Law, the US & its allies f*****g invaded nations & caused the death of millions of civilians, LOL!!!!!!! This is beyond ridiculous. Trust me, the muslims from Morocco to Malaysia are never gonna forget that, they didn't forget Palestine even after decades, they are not gonna forget Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen. . .

I cited the law. The genocide conventions was enough grounds to cease and kill Saddam alone. You're just rejecting and demanding more. But that doesn't matter.

- This whole talk is ridiculous, if you knew anything about Muslims you would know that they deeply hate America & its allies (not the people, but the governments). Muslims couldn't care less about what America's policies are towards them, they'll hate them no matter what they are.

Precisely why simply pulling out is going to do nothing. If that logic is true the US mine as well stay.

And yes, actually I'm an atheist. Study after study shows atheists know more about religion than the religious.

Personally, I'm a 2 state solution kinda guy.

- You mean Israel?!

I mean 2 state solution. Stop playing semantics.
Thank you for voting!
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 12:52:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 12:30:21 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:

The fact that your premise is subject to the perspective of the actor. To ISIS and the Muslim world maybe they wouldn't have been here if the US was here. But that isn't true. Anti-US attitudes will always be around for as long as they're a super-power.

- Are you listening to yourself. The US invaded our nations & supports occupation of our land, who cares about it being a super-power or anything!!!! We don't have anti-China or anti-Japan attitudes. LoL.

To claim "we wouldn't have to do this if you were just nicer to us" ignores the fact that Saudis in particular were responsible for Osama Bin Laden. They actually saw an opportunity to rid themselves of extremists and jumped at sending them to work with the Mujaheddin. Even if the US had a less aggressive foreign policy, it doesn't make ISIS anymore acceptable, nor does it mean that they wouldn't have been there.

- That just shows how DEEPLY you're ignorant of the historical & political context of all this.

When Iraqi soldiers are literally dropping their guns and running away...you kinda need the Western powers. Sorry.

- NO, we don't.

See above. Bare assertion fallacy. Even if they did a caliphate would still form under the control of ISIL. Which is a huge problem.

- To whom?! The US, or rather Israel?

You realize that of the 12 reasons for invading Iraq, only 2 were the WMD's and Bin Laden right? The rest was because of Kurds, fear of what happens with Iraqi Oil (feeds dictatorships) among others. With the genocide conventions, it would have been illegal to not act.

- That's utter bullsh*t. & we all know it's utter bullsh*t, stop dreaming up stuff. The reason is known, ISREAL. The US supports regimes that commit far greater crimes than Saddam across the muslim world & you're talking about dictatorship in Iraq, that's the peak of hypocrisy.

I cited the law. The genocide conventions was enough grounds to cease and kill Saddam alone. You're just rejecting and demanding more. But that doesn't matter.

- The crimes committed by the US, Israel & their allies are far far greater than those committed by Saddam. You're living in a fantasy mate. Across the Muslim world, the Media doesn't attempt to justify the US's & Israel's actions, so we are not brainwashed like Americans about these heinous crimes.

Precisely why simply pulling out is going to do nothing. If that logic is true the US mine as well stay.

- The US does whatever is in its interest, which is mainly Israel.

And yes, actually I'm an atheist. Study after study shows atheists know more about religion than the religious.

- Don't be presumptuous, you're 100 years too early to know as much as I do about my religion.

I mean 2 state solution. Stop playing semantics.

- Yeah, Israel.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 1:06:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 12:52:24 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 6/20/2015 12:30:21 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:

The fact that your premise is subject to the perspective of the actor. To ISIS and the Muslim world maybe they wouldn't have been here if the US was here. But that isn't true. Anti-US attitudes will always be around for as long as they're a super-power.

- Are you listening to yourself. The US invaded our nations & supports occupation of our land, who cares about it being a super-power or anything!!!! We don't have anti-China or anti-Japan attitudes. LoL.

...because China and Japan are not super powers. The US is though, so no wonder countries are going to resent them.

To claim "we wouldn't have to do this if you were just nicer to us" ignores the fact that Saudis in particular were responsible for Osama Bin Laden. They actually saw an opportunity to rid themselves of extremists and jumped at sending them to work with the Mujaheddin. Even if the US had a less aggressive foreign policy, it doesn't make ISIS anymore acceptable, nor does it mean that they wouldn't have been there.

- That just shows how DEEPLY you're ignorant of the historical & political context of all this.

Studied this in University, it was literally in one of our sources we read from a scholar in Pakistan. I'm not ignorant. You sure seem to be though.

When Iraqi soldiers are literally dropping their guns and running away...you kinda need the Western powers. Sorry.

- NO, we don't.

Yeah you did actually. Multiple times.
https://www.youtube.com...

See above. Bare assertion fallacy. Even if they did a caliphate would still form under the control of ISIL. Which is a huge problem.

- To whom?! The US, or rather Israel?

To the UN, US, Israel, Canada, France, Spain, mainly anyone who actually gives two sh!ts about human rights. Have you seen the death footage of ISIL? I don't think you fully understand what you're talking about here.

You realize that of the 12 reasons for invading Iraq, only 2 were the WMD's and Bin Laden right? The rest was because of Kurds, fear of what happens with Iraqi Oil (feeds dictatorships) among others. With the genocide conventions, it would have been illegal to not act.

- That's utter bullsh*t. & we all know it's utter bullsh*t, stop dreaming up stuff. The reason is known, ISREAL. The US supports regimes that commit far greater crimes than Saddam across the muslim world & you're talking about dictatorship in Iraq, that's the peak of hypocrisy.

No it isn't. Its actually in the documents the so-called Iraq Resolution:

"Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement."

Also appeal to hypocrisy, I'm not talking about other regime support. I'm specifically giving Iraq as an example.

I cited the law. The genocide conventions was enough grounds to cease and kill Saddam alone. You're just rejecting and demanding more. But that doesn't matter.

- The crimes committed by the US, Israel & their allies are far far greater than those committed by Saddam. You're living in a fantasy mate. Across the Muslim world, the Media doesn't attempt to justify the US's & Israel's actions, so we are not brainwashed like Americans about these heinous crimes.

If you murder 2 people, and I murder you, does the fact that you murdering 2 people mean that I am "less evil" than you? My crime doesn't just go away because you did is "more bad".

I'm specifically talking about this incident, bringing in other choices makes no sense. US foreign policy in argentina, for instance has no impact on ISIL and how the US handles them.

I'm american by birth. I've lived in Canada all my life. I'm not brainwashed thanks.

Precisely why simply pulling out is going to do nothing. If that logic is true the US mine as well stay.

- The US does whatever is in its interest, which is mainly Israel.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But other motives also exist. UN enforcing international law for one is a pretty big reason.

And yes, actually I'm an atheist. Study after study shows atheists know more about religion than the religious.

- Don't be presumptuous, you're 100 years too early to know as much as I do about my religion.

Facts are thankfully not up for debate: http://newsfeed.time.com...

Atheist and agnostics know more, because they rationalize why they reject all faiths to begin with.

I mean 2 state solution. Stop playing semantics.

- Yeah, Israel.

Perhaps you'd better stick to studying your Qu'ran. Because apparently its about the only thing you've demonstrated any sort of knowledge on, foreign policy doesn't seem like your strong suit. Especially with all the ad homs you've made against me.

If you want to debate me sometime. Feel free to challenge me.

However, I clearly said two state solution. I support a clear Palestinian territory and an Israeli one. Not just one over another.
Thank you for voting!