Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Obama Deploying More Forces into Syria

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 12:27:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.cnn.com...

Wake up people. This is Vietnam all over again. We are escalating in the region, and Russia already has a ground presence tailored to destroying our forces.

If we half-@ss this like we half-@ssed Vietnam, we will lose our foothold in the region. More than likely a consequence of this will be the dissolution of Israel as a sovereign entity.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 12:44:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I will add that as this continues to escalate, this will more than likely define Obama's entire presidency. This will be his legacy...that he could not pull us out of the region. This will destroy Hillary Clinton's candidacy, because she supported George W. Bush's original push into Iraq. This will be what propels Donald Trump into the White House.

The pieces are already set. ISIS has to be combated. Russia is already in the region. We are already suffering casualties on the ground.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 2:27:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 12:27:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Wake up people. This is Vietnam all over again. We are escalating in the region, and Russia already has a ground presence tailored to destroying our forces.

If we half-@ss this like we half-@ssed Vietnam, we will lose our foothold in the region. More than likely a consequence of this will be the dissolution of Israel as a sovereign entity.

I think this is a bit of hyperbole, but I agree. Time to get the he11 out.

Mixing our troops with russians is a recipe for disaster.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 2:28:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 12:27:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Wake up people. This is Vietnam all over again.

First off we're only sending 50 people. Its not like we dispatched an entire tank division or something, so if this is the tip of the iceberg, it still appears to be a small a** iceberg.

We are escalating in the region, and Russia already has a ground presence tailored to destroying our forces.

If we half-@ss this like we half-@ssed Vietnam, we will lose our foothold in the region.

We have bases all over the Middle East, Syria is not the only place the US is invested in, and if we somehow 'lost' syria we certainly would not lose our foothold in the region.

More than likely a consequence of this will be the dissolution of Israel as a sovereign entity.

Pfft. Israel has fought against just about the ENTIRE middle east several times in the past and each time they won. Whose going to attack Israel and beat them on their own? Cause it sure as hell isnt going to be ISIS.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 2:31:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 12:44:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I will add that as this continues to escalate, this will more than likely define Obama's entire presidency. This will be his legacy...that he could not pull us out of the region. This will destroy Hillary Clinton's candidacy, because she supported George W. Bush's original push into Iraq.

Hillary literally doesn't have anything to do with this, how on earth would it even remotely affect her candidacy, let alone 'destroy' it?

This will be what propels Donald Trump into the White House.

not even his own party thinks he's qualified to be president, try to take it down a notch.

The pieces are already set. ISIS has to be combated. Russia is already in the region. We are already suffering casualties on the ground.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 2:45:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Pfft. Israel has fought against just about the ENTIRE middle east several times in the past and each time they won. Whose going to attack Israel and beat them on their own? Cause it sure as hell isnt going to be ISIS.

I have no.... well I just want everyone to wash their collective hands of this bu11shit, but unleashing Israel to "clean up" ISIS would be a show. Think it would take the weekend?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 8:46:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 2:28:54 PM, imabench wrote:
At 11/1/2015 12:27:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Wake up people. This is Vietnam all over again.

First off we're only sending 50 people. Its not like we dispatched an entire tank division or something, so if this is the tip of the iceberg, it still appears to be a small a** iceberg.

This is how Vietnam started. There's every reason to think this is the beginning of a significant ground presence by the US. After all, the hardest step has already been taken...the first step.

We are escalating in the region, and Russia already has a ground presence tailored to destroying our forces.

If we half-@ss this like we half-@ssed Vietnam, we will lose our foothold in the region.

We have bases all over the Middle East, Syria is not the only place the US is invested in, and if we somehow 'lost' syria we certainly would not lose our foothold in the region.

I'm fairly certain you're familiar that both ISIS and Iran are looking to bring the region under their influence. I'm sure you're aware what a caliphate is, and that ISIS is looking to create one.

More than likely a consequence of this will be the dissolution of Israel as a sovereign entity.

Pfft. Israel has fought against just about the ENTIRE middle east several times in the past and each time they won. Whose going to attack Israel and beat them on their own? Cause it sure as hell isnt going to be ISIS.

Russia.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 8:49:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 2:31:19 PM, imabench wrote:
At 11/1/2015 12:44:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I will add that as this continues to escalate, this will more than likely define Obama's entire presidency. This will be his legacy...that he could not pull us out of the region. This will destroy Hillary Clinton's candidacy, because she supported George W. Bush's original push into Iraq.

Hillary literally doesn't have anything to do with this, how on earth would it even remotely affect her candidacy, let alone 'destroy' it?

Because the eventual escalation will be a direct result of her support for the Iraq War Resolution, and out of all the candidates on the stage from both parties, only she voted for it. Whomever the GOP candidate will be (outside of Jeb, which now looks to be close to an impossibility), they will grill her for it, and it will stick just like it did in 2007.

This will be what propels Donald Trump into the White House.

not even his own party thinks he's qualified to be president, try to take it down a notch.

Most polls disagree with you on this.

The pieces are already set. ISIS has to be combated. Russia is already in the region. We are already suffering casualties on the ground.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 8:54:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
By this time next year, the Middle East will be all anyone talks about. It's going to be another monumental clusterfvck, and it's going to sink Obama's legacy and his would-be successor.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 9:05:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A possible chain of events:

- It's clear that Obama felt the need to escalate, so this situation is already out of control and demands further US action.

- Sooner or later, one of two things will occur: 1) the US military will stabilize the situation. What will necessarily have to follow is an US occupation. If we do not, Russia, Iran, or what's left of ISIS will, and they will put pressure on our allies in the region, to include Israel. Or, 2) the US military finds it exceptionally difficult to weed out ISIS, as they face actual urban warfare against an entrenched foe. They face the option of inflicting massive civilian casualties or letting ISIS survive. Either way, the US will find itself in a quagmire.

- While the US is occupying the region, antagonistic forces, armed by Russia, will continually turn the occupied region into quicksand. Or, if the US cannot even defeat ISIS, they get harried repeatedly by guerrilla forces into retreat (IMHO highly unlikely, but possible if we get too sidetracked by humanitarian considerations).

- November 2016 rolls around, Obama's foreign policy is wholly discredited as pacifistic and ineffective, and some brutish authoritarian (i.e. Trump) claims the White House under the pretense of being able to strong-arm the parties and mop up the situation.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 9:06:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 2:45:34 PM, TBR wrote:
Pfft. Israel has fought against just about the ENTIRE middle east several times in the past and each time they won. Whose going to attack Israel and beat them on their own? Cause it sure as hell isnt going to be ISIS.

I have no.... well I just want everyone to wash their collective hands of this bu11shit, but unleashing Israel to "clean up" ISIS would be a show. Think it would take the weekend?

I don't think it will be easy for the US, let alone Israel. Keep in mind that ISIS is fully embedded in civilian population centers. This will be very different from the Iraq War, when we destroyed Saddam's army in open combat.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 9:10:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 9:06:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/1/2015 2:45:34 PM, TBR wrote:
Pfft. Israel has fought against just about the ENTIRE middle east several times in the past and each time they won. Whose going to attack Israel and beat them on their own? Cause it sure as hell isnt going to be ISIS.

I have no.... well I just want everyone to wash their collective hands of this bu11shit, but unleashing Israel to "clean up" ISIS would be a show. Think it would take the weekend?

I don't think it will be easy for the US, let alone Israel. Keep in mind that ISIS is fully embedded in civilian population centers. This will be very different from the Iraq War, when we destroyed Saddam's army in open combat.

All the more reason to not play the game.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 9:11:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 9:10:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/1/2015 9:06:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/1/2015 2:45:34 PM, TBR wrote:
Pfft. Israel has fought against just about the ENTIRE middle east several times in the past and each time they won. Whose going to attack Israel and beat them on their own? Cause it sure as hell isnt going to be ISIS.

I have no.... well I just want everyone to wash their collective hands of this bu11shit, but unleashing Israel to "clean up" ISIS would be a show. Think it would take the weekend?

I don't think it will be easy for the US, let alone Israel. Keep in mind that ISIS is fully embedded in civilian population centers. This will be very different from the Iraq War, when we destroyed Saddam's army in open combat.

All the more reason to not play the game.

If we leave, our allies in the region will be at the mercy of the current aggressors. With Russia's and Iran's backing, they can conceivably redraw the borders in the region, to include Israel's.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 9:15:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 9:11:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/1/2015 9:10:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/1/2015 9:06:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/1/2015 2:45:34 PM, TBR wrote:
Pfft. Israel has fought against just about the ENTIRE middle east several times in the past and each time they won. Whose going to attack Israel and beat them on their own? Cause it sure as hell isnt going to be ISIS.

I have no.... well I just want everyone to wash their collective hands of this bu11shit, but unleashing Israel to "clean up" ISIS would be a show. Think it would take the weekend?

I don't think it will be easy for the US, let alone Israel. Keep in mind that ISIS is fully embedded in civilian population centers. This will be very different from the Iraq War, when we destroyed Saddam's army in open combat.

All the more reason to not play the game.

If we leave, our allies in the region will be at the mercy of the current aggressors. With Russia's and Iran's backing, they can conceivably redraw the borders in the region, to include Israel's.

More hyperbole.

We are doing no good, no reason to keep making it worse.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 9:20:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 9:15:49 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/1/2015 9:11:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/1/2015 9:10:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/1/2015 9:06:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/1/2015 2:45:34 PM, TBR wrote:
Pfft. Israel has fought against just about the ENTIRE middle east several times in the past and each time they won. Whose going to attack Israel and beat them on their own? Cause it sure as hell isnt going to be ISIS.

I have no.... well I just want everyone to wash their collective hands of this bu11shit, but unleashing Israel to "clean up" ISIS would be a show. Think it would take the weekend?

I don't think it will be easy for the US, let alone Israel. Keep in mind that ISIS is fully embedded in civilian population centers. This will be very different from the Iraq War, when we destroyed Saddam's army in open combat.

All the more reason to not play the game.

If we leave, our allies in the region will be at the mercy of the current aggressors. With Russia's and Iran's backing, they can conceivably redraw the borders in the region, to include Israel's.

More hyperbole.

lol, more nothing from you.

We are doing no good, no reason to keep making it worse.

I don't think you have a conception of what "worse" is.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 9:24:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 9:20:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/1/2015 9:15:49 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/1/2015 9:11:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/1/2015 9:10:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/1/2015 9:06:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/1/2015 2:45:34 PM, TBR wrote:
Pfft. Israel has fought against just about the ENTIRE middle east several times in the past and each time they won. Whose going to attack Israel and beat them on their own? Cause it sure as hell isnt going to be ISIS.

I have no.... well I just want everyone to wash their collective hands of this bu11shit, but unleashing Israel to "clean up" ISIS would be a show. Think it would take the weekend?

I don't think it will be easy for the US, let alone Israel. Keep in mind that ISIS is fully embedded in civilian population centers. This will be very different from the Iraq War, when we destroyed Saddam's army in open combat.

All the more reason to not play the game.

If we leave, our allies in the region will be at the mercy of the current aggressors. With Russia's and Iran's backing, they can conceivably redraw the borders in the region, to include Israel's.

More hyperbole.

lol, more nothing from you.

We are doing no good, no reason to keep making it worse.

I don't think you have a conception of what "worse" is.

Look. We don't even know what we want, let alone how to achieve it. There is little to nothing that we CAN win. Thinking that we MUST do something is just about in-line with the stupid thinking that got us in deep to start with.

Just stop already. The best solution is to not play.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 9:29:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 9:24:49 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/1/2015 9:20:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/1/2015 9:15:49 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/1/2015 9:11:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/1/2015 9:10:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/1/2015 9:06:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/1/2015 2:45:34 PM, TBR wrote:
Pfft. Israel has fought against just about the ENTIRE middle east several times in the past and each time they won. Whose going to attack Israel and beat them on their own? Cause it sure as hell isnt going to be ISIS.

I have no.... well I just want everyone to wash their collective hands of this bu11shit, but unleashing Israel to "clean up" ISIS would be a show. Think it would take the weekend?

I don't think it will be easy for the US, let alone Israel. Keep in mind that ISIS is fully embedded in civilian population centers. This will be very different from the Iraq War, when we destroyed Saddam's army in open combat.

All the more reason to not play the game.

If we leave, our allies in the region will be at the mercy of the current aggressors. With Russia's and Iran's backing, they can conceivably redraw the borders in the region, to include Israel's.

More hyperbole.

lol, more nothing from you.

We are doing no good, no reason to keep making it worse.

I don't think you have a conception of what "worse" is.

Look. We don't even know what we want, let alone how to achieve it. There is little to nothing that we CAN win. Thinking that we MUST do something is just about in-line with the stupid thinking that got us in deep to start with.

Just stop already. The best solution is to not play.

If we had stuck to this strategy from the beginning, then sure, what you suggest would be viable. But, we didn't. We've created multiple power vacuums in the region, vacuums that our adversaries are filling up. Our adversaries are quite angry at us because of the actions we've already taken.

Do you think ISIS will NOT be a haven for terrorists in the region? Do you think they will be more benign than the Taliban?

---

The other option is to understand why we entered the region to begin with. It wasn't WMD, it wasn't even oil...it was to establish hegemony in the region. That's why we have been sabre-rattling about invading Iran for over a decade now. If we're going to do it now, we're going to have to do it big...so big in fact that it intimidates Russia out of the region.

---

Instead of either option, what I suspect will occur is that Obama will half-@ss his way back into the region, kicking and screaming every time he is compelled to deploy more troops. It's going to be like drawing blood, but without knowing when to stop.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 9:49:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Just stop already. The best solution is to not play.

If we had stuck to this strategy from the beginning, then sure, what you suggest would be viable. But, we didn't. We've created multiple power vacuums in the region, vacuums that our adversaries are filling up. Our adversaries are quite angry at us because of the actions we've already taken.

We have been at this for a lot longer than 2001+. The vacuums we created are not going to be fixed by us, the anger is not going to get better by more intervention. Our adversaries... well lets just stop feeding them more of the same.


Do you think ISIS will NOT be a haven for terrorists in the region? Do you think they will be more benign than the Taliban?

So don't care. We can do more to protect our own country by NOT engaging further.


---

The other option is to understand why we entered the region to begin with. It wasn't WMD, it wasn't even oil...it was to establish hegemony in the region. That's why we have been sabre-rattling about invading Iran for over a decade now. If we're going to do it now, we're going to have to do it big...so big in fact that it intimidates Russia out of the region.

Any the conservative hawks were wrong then, they are wrong now. How about listening to US this time around. Leave it alone.


---

Instead of either option, what I suspect will occur is that Obama will half-@ss his way back into the region, kicking and screaming every time he is compelled to deploy more troops. It's going to be like drawing blood, but without knowing when to stop.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 10:06:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 9:49:17 PM, TBR wrote:

The vacuums we created are not going to be fixed by us, the anger is not going to get better by more intervention.

I will just simply state that the opposite was true for Europe and Japan following WWII. We did not allow power vacuums to develop due to our military intervention, and the anger did subside and we are now allies with those we had fought against during the war.

It can work...it just takes a lot of willpower.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 10:13:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 10:06:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/1/2015 9:49:17 PM, TBR wrote:

The vacuums we created are not going to be fixed by us, the anger is not going to get better by more intervention.

I will just simply state that the opposite was true for Europe and Japan following WWII. We did not allow power vacuums to develop due to our military intervention, and the anger did subside and we are now allies with those we had fought against during the war.

It can work...it just takes a lot of willpower.

No matter what, haws will always go back to WWII. Could it be possible this is just not the same? Is it possible that ISIS is just not on-par with Hitler?

For what it's worth, if you can pick the right "winner" out of the mess that is the M.E. let me know. As it sits now, I would be happy with just walking away.
ironslippers
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 10:21:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 12:27:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Wake up people. This is Vietnam all over again. We are escalating in the region, and Russia already has a ground presence tailored to destroying our forces.

If we half-@ss this like we half-@ssed Vietnam, we will lose our foothold in the region. More than likely a consequence of this will be the dissolution of Israel as a sovereign entity.

What is US's interest in the region?
what have our allies in the region ever done for us?
If I go somewhere and realize that I'm not wanted, I move on.
I used think that if we broke it we should fix but the region is broken beyond repair
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
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 10:34:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 10:13:50 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/1/2015 10:06:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/1/2015 9:49:17 PM, TBR wrote:

The vacuums we created are not going to be fixed by us, the anger is not going to get better by more intervention.

I will just simply state that the opposite was true for Europe and Japan following WWII. We did not allow power vacuums to develop due to our military intervention, and the anger did subside and we are now allies with those we had fought against during the war.

It can work...it just takes a lot of willpower.

No matter what, haws will always go back to WWII. Could it be possible this is just not the same? Is it possible that ISIS is just not on-par with Hitler?

It worked in Korea too, and it would have worked in Vietnam had Nixon been able to follow through and not get roadkilled by Watergate.

For what it's worth, if you can pick the right "winner" out of the mess that is the M.E. let me know. As it sits now, I would be happy with just walking away.

If there is any "winner" to pick, it would be us, lol. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 10:43:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 10:21:38 PM, ironslippers wrote:
At 11/1/2015 12:27:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Wake up people. This is Vietnam all over again. We are escalating in the region, and Russia already has a ground presence tailored to destroying our forces.

If we half-@ss this like we half-@ssed Vietnam, we will lose our foothold in the region. More than likely a consequence of this will be the dissolution of Israel as a sovereign entity.

What is US's interest in the region?
what have our allies in the region ever done for us?

I would attribute oil market price manipulation to OPEC, and our alliance with the Sauds give us a good amount of control over OPEC. Oil prices are what brought down the USSR economy during Gorbachev, and they are crippling Russia today.

Another way to look at this is that the Sauds voiced their extreme disapproval with Bush's Iraq War, and propelled oil prices to over $100/bbl. This crippled our economy and allowed Russia's to soar.

If I go somewhere and realize that I'm not wanted, I move on.
I used think that if we broke it we should fix but the region is broken beyond repair

That's possibly true, but it's best we control whatever comes out of the region rather than have the region become uncontrollable.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 5:41:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 8:46:48 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/1/2015 2:28:54 PM, imabench wrote:

Whose going to attack Israel?

Russia.

Just gonna save that for later
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 10:50:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It doesn't surprise me at all, these war mongoring savages. Tell me again why it isn't legally justifiable to storm the White House and start serving people the appropriate justice reserved for murderers and traitors?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 10:55:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 8:49:21 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/1/2015 2:31:19 PM, imabench wrote:
At 11/1/2015 12:44:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I will add that as this continues to escalate, this will more than likely define Obama's entire presidency. This will be his legacy...that he could not pull us out of the region. This will destroy Hillary Clinton's candidacy, because she supported George W. Bush's original push into Iraq.

Hillary literally doesn't have anything to do with this, how on earth would it even remotely affect her candidacy, let alone 'destroy' it?

Because the eventual escalation will be a direct result of her support for the Iraq War Resolution, and out of all the candidates on the stage from both parties, only she voted for it. Whomever the GOP candidate will be (outside of Jeb, which now looks to be close to an impossibility), they will grill her for it, and it will stick just like it did in 2007.

This will be what propels Donald Trump into the White House.

not even his own party thinks he's qualified to be president, try to take it down a notch.

Most polls disagree with you on this.

You won't be seeing any polls that say more than 50% of Republicans think he is qualified for office.

The pieces are already set. ISIS has to be combated. Russia is already in the region. We are already suffering casualties on the ground.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 11:00:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 5:41:41 AM, imabench wrote:
At 11/1/2015 8:46:48 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/1/2015 2:28:54 PM, imabench wrote:

Whose going to attack Israel?

Russia.

Just gonna save that for later

They are 100% going to attack Israel. The evidence of it is that it is prophecies in the bible, and God is supposed to stop the attack, mid attack and save Israel. This happens close to the time of the rapture, I can't remember if it's just before the rapture or just after it. Please catch up on your biblical prophecy, this is what the biblical prophecy scholars are predicting. (Tim Laheye and Jerry B. Jenkins)
ironslippers
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 11:33:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 11:00:22 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/2/2015 5:41:41 AM, imabench wrote:
At 11/1/2015 8:46:48 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/1/2015 2:28:54 PM, imabench wrote:

Whose going to attack Israel?

Russia.

Just gonna save that for later

They are 100% going to attack Israel. The evidence of it is that it is prophecies in the bible, and God is supposed to stop the attack, mid attack and save Israel. This happens close to the time of the rapture, I can't remember if it's just before the rapture or just after it. Please catch up on your biblical prophecy, this is what the biblical prophecy scholars are predicting. (Tim Laheye and Jerry B. Jenkins)

I'm selling tickets to the rapture, still have some good seats left (for a premium)
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
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 12:27:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 9:24:49 PM, TBR wrote:
Look. We don't even know what we want, let alone how to achieve it.
We want to maintain Western influence in the Middle East

There is little to nothing that we CAN win.
We have won lots of influence in the Middle East

Thinking that we MUST do somethin is just about in-line with the stupid thinking that got us in deep to start with.
We must do something if the goal is to prevent Russia and China from carving up spheres of influences in the Middle East, and if we want to prevent Iran and Saudi Arabia from reaching the apex of their power struggle.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 1:03:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 10:55:23 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/1/2015 8:49:21 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/1/2015 2:31:19 PM, imabench wrote:

not even his own party thinks he's qualified to be president, try to take it down a notch.

Most polls disagree with you on this.

You won't be seeing any polls that say more than 50% of Republicans think he is qualified for office.

You are 100% wrong:

http://www.breitbart.com...

The Washington Post detailed the poll findings:

1) Republicans say by 64-35 that Trump is "qualified to serve as president." By contrast, Americans overall say by 60-37 that he is not qualified.

2) Republicans say by 60-35 that Trump is "honest and trustworthy." By contrast, Americans overall say he is not honest and trustworthy by 59-35.

3) Republicans say by 53-45 that Trump understands the problems of people like them. By contrast, Americans overall say he does not by 67-29.

4) Republicans say by 54-42 that Trump "has the kind of personality and temperament it takes to serve effectively as president." By contrast, Americans overall say he doesn"t have those things by 63-33.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?