Political Discussion Thread

You can chalk that up to the Obama Administrations’ non-existent Foreign Policy especially when it comes to the Middle East. Relations with Israel (and other Mid-east allies) have deteriorated, while we are practicing a policy of appeasement with Iran. IIRC, Neville Chamberlain tried appeasing Germany, and that didn’t turn out so well. We have re-established relations with Cuba, even though Cuba continues to be an oppressive Communist Dictatorship. The Cuban government might benefit, but the Cuban people certainly won’t. The Nuclear Deal with Iran was a terrible idea (24 day advance notice to inspect, Iran inspects own Military facilities, $150 billion in frozen assets given to Iran). The Navy soldiers who were recently captured (and briefly held before release) by Iran were photographed on their knees and one even apologized under duress on video. Iran did that to humiliate the United States. Seriously, John Kerry shouldn’t be allowed to negotiate anything else ever. President Obama set a “Red Line” with Assad and Chemical Weapons. When Assad crossed that line, President Obama blinked. Now look at Syria. Along with Iraq, Syria is a complete disaster (as is Libya).

ISIS has declared a Caliphate. For starters, we might want to reduce Raqqa (the Capital of ISIS’ Caliphate) to a smoking pile of rubble thru round-the-clock airstrikes. Hopefully, we would kill several of ISIS’ top commanders including its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Any civilians with any intelligence should have left Raqqa by now. Those that remain are either ISIS sympathizers or, quite frankly, too stupid for their own good. Leveling Raqqa would send a message and show that, despite what ISIS wants the rest of the world to believe, they are not invincible. We should also summarily execute all remaining terrorists being held at Gitmo and then close Gitmo. We should also instruct our soldiers to not take terrorists prisoner anymore. If a terrorist soldier surrenders, kill him for cowardice. If our soldiers are captured, they will only be tortured, killed and possibly even used as propaganda in ISIS recruitment videos.

The only time President Obama shows any real emotion is when he is discussing gun violence. He showed no emotion after the Paris terrorist attack and none after San Bernardino. He should have gone to Paris, personally, and stood next to France’s President in a show of solidarity and also since France is the United State’s oldest ally. I also remember Obama Administration Officials praising Bowe Bergdahl and the prisoner exchange in which we traded 5 terrorists commanders for 1 cowardly deserter whose actions likely got 5 or 6 fellow soldiers searching for him killed. The Obama Administration also initially played off the Fort Hood terrorist attack by Nidal Hasan (I won’t mention Hasan’s rank at the time, since he is a disgrace to the honorable men and women he served with and murdered) as an act of “workplace violence”, because it was politically convenient to do so. It wasn’t until much later that the Administration acknowledged that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack.

President Obama is the worst President we have had since Jimmy Carter. Perhaps President Obama should consider running for Mayor of Chicago after his term is over. The way things are going there, the position might be available soon. He and current Mayor Rahm Emanuel are already acquainted, and both like to keep politically damaging information from the American people. It wasn’t until Ronald Reagan took office that the American hostages held for 444 days by Iranian terrorists (masquerading as “students”) were released. Iran was afraid of what Ronald Reagan would do. No one is afraid of what President Obama will do, because everyone knows the answer is “nothing of any real consequence”.

TIDBIT: Then Senator Obama called then President George W. Bush “Unpatriotic” for adding to the national debt and passing it on to future generations. President Obama has added twice what then President George W. Bush did to the national debt.


Forum ID: Poisd2Strike
GT: Poisd2Strike
Trades: http://forums.gearboxsoftware.com/t/poisd2strikes-humble-shop/367700
Gun Prefixes | Gun Parts | Max Stats
Maya OP8 | Banshee RR / NRR | Binder | Cat | Nurse | Siren | Trickster B / M

1 Like

How does not establishing foreign relationship fix the problem? If you want to fix the problem diplomatically, having diplomatic relationship is a good start. If you are suggesting an invasion, look at the bay of pigs.

That would be the absolute worst thing you can do. I am not even going talk about just how morally wrong that is. Do you realize how bad that will be from a PR standpoint? USA not accepting people surrendering as their war policy? Thats absolutely despicable.

History has shown repeated use of force is not working here. Your solution? Do the exact thing that has failed, again. Seriously, what type of outcomes are you expecting? You are advocating for policies that literally leads to civilian/innocent causalities and have absolutely no care of preventing them.

I doubt further escalating the conflict in the region will do any good at stabilizing it.

1 Like

Maybe because Israel killed about 2200 civilians in 2014, about 500 or so were children IIRC. This includes drone strikes, when they knew they were hitting kids. Or midgets

Probably the dumbest thing I’ve heard all week. You do realize doing that would only make ISIS stronger through their very effective propaganda department, right?

That’s true. Just like how ISIS will use civilian casualties from leveling Raqqa as a recruitment tool.

I’m gonna guess you weren’t around from '01 to '09, huh? Not saying Obama is good, I think he’s pretty bad. Just not as bad or incompetent as W. Bush

Cuba has done absolutely nothing to deserve to have the US re-establish diplomatic ties let alone re-open our Embassy in Cuba. The Cuban government continues to oppress the Cuban people. Unless and until the Cuban government changes (hopefully a more moderate Government will form once both Castros are dead), the United States should simply monitor Cuba but not actively engage.

There is no moral equivalency between ISIS soldiers / the ISIS Caliphate and US soldiers / the United States. The only reason Gitmo exists is to house terrorist prisoners. If you don’t take terrorists prisoner, you don’t need a prison to specifically hold them. The ISIS terrorists will not treat their prisoners humanely. They torture and execute them and use that for recruitment propaganda. They butcher men, women and even children. I am not advocating torture. I am advocating the summary execution of terrorists taken or being held prisoner. We need to stop pretending that terrorists deserve to be treated humanely or that terrorists have a right to live. They don’t.

Appeasement and / or pretending there isn’t a serious issue / conflict won’t work. Allowing ISIS to fester and grow like a malignant tumor won’t work. We need a coalition of US, European and Arab Ground, Air and Sea forces to engage ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. While you cannot defeat and destroy the extremist ideology that ISIS followers believe by using force or any other means, you can kill as many ISIS terrorists as possible. I have no doubt that if the US, European and Arab allies formed a coalition with a cohesive strategy and actual leadership, ISIS could be more or less decimated. Would ISIS ideology be defeated? No. But many of its practitioners would. As for civilian casualties, any civilian still living in Raqqa is either an ISIS sympathizer or simply too stupid for their own good. Any moderate Muslim should have left Raqqa, if for no other reason than self-preservation. President Obama’s (non-existent) strategy for destroying ISIS (first he wanted to simply contain ISIS, who he referred to as the “JV Squad”) has failed miserably. Unfortunately, President Obama is apparently content to let the next US President deal with the situation.


Forum ID: Poisd2Strike
GT: Poisd2Strike
Trades: http://forums.gearboxsoftware.com/t/poisd2strikes-humble-shop/367700
Gun Prefixes | Gun Parts | Max Stats
Maya OP8 | Banshee RR / NRR | Binder | Cat | Nurse | Siren | Trickster B / M

Perhaps, but I am also pretty sure the disastrous Nuclear deal with Iran has something to do with it. IIRC, Iran still wants to destroy the US and Israel.

ISIS uses anything that conflicts with their extremist fundamental ideology as a recruitment tool. Doing virtually nothing to combat ISIS, as the Obama Administration has done, isn’t really working in our favor or anyone else’s (with the exception of ISIS).

Actually I was. I remember watching on TV as planes were used as bombs and the Twin Towers collapsed and about 3000 people (including Muslims) were murdered. National security was a priority for President Bush. National security or combating terrorism isn’t really a priority for President Obama, but climate change and gun control certainly is.


Forum ID: Poisd2Strike
GT: Poisd2Strike
Trades: http://forums.gearboxsoftware.com/t/poisd2strikes-humble-shop/367700
Gun Prefixes | Gun Parts | Max Stats
Maya OP8 | Banshee RR / NRR | Binder | Cat | Nurse | Siren | Trickster B / M

Thats obvious. How does it support your point at all? Because US soldiers are better human beings by far, we shouldnt do what you purposed.

That seems contradictory.

And so is directly applying force. There are solutions in the middle.

Thats hoping for a lot of external factors to happen. Each country have its own interest in mind.

First of all, that statement its your own assumption and even if it is true, stupidity isnt ground for a death sentence. Simple example, just because someone is jaywalking, that doesnt mean the driver is allowed to drive over him. A lot of people may not have the means to leave.

Thats usually how things work in politic.

How does that justify killing of civilians/non combatants?

They’re doing the airstrikes as much as they can without causing civilian casualties, which, as I’ve been over, would recruit more soldiers for ISIS. Not much more to be done without combating the Wahhabi ideology, which the US’s great ally of Saudi Arabia follows as well, oddly enough.

That’s why he invaded Iraq? The country that had nothing to do with the attacks? That war is the reason ISIS is here. Saddam Hussein was a terrible, terrible human being, but he was a stabilizing the region. Once he was removed, the extremists were able to gain power easily

Gentlemen and ladies, please remember that you’re gentlemen and ladies.

While it has not been prevalent, please avoid claiming opinions are “dumb” or any other overall unnecessary substantive adjectives.

Agree and disagree with any manner of verve, and feel free to tear apart any argument with content, but please avoid anything attached to any negativity towards the poster.

5 Likes

I’m currently at work so I can’t add much to this discussion at the moment, but I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. It’s unfortunate and hard to swallow, but it’s reality.

[quote=“testierjamaj, post:26, topic:1199216”]
Thats obvious. How does it support your point at all? Because US soldiers are better human beings by far, we shouldnt do what you purposed.
[/quote]I want to add to this in @Poisd2Strike’s defense. We can debate about morals as much as we’d like from the comfort of our couch, but some universal or peaceful code of conduct does not exist during war. It does not exist in life; nor will it ever due to our selfish biological hard-wiring. Life is kill or be killed. Nobody has that much of an issue over the deranged folks in our country getting the death penalty, so why should we sympathize for confirmed terrorists? If you were a soldier on the field, you’d kill to survive. If someone was breaking into your home, you’d kill to survive. I don’t advocate torture, but I see no problem with execution of terrorists.

I’ve said this multiple times and I’ll say it again: Nobody in our country (or the world for that matter) will have the luxury to debate about morals or social issues if we don’t even have a country to stand on because people want to destroy us. If you remove the bad eggs from the world, prioritizing world peace becomes a hell of a lot easier to attain or implement. You can’t negotiate your way out of some things once they’ve crossed a certain line. This is like someone who was extensively trained in a martial art that submissively allowed himself to be beat to death because he showed a moral restraint or ‘superiority’ and didn’t want to fight back. A lot of the problems in the Middle East are too deep-seeded to be fixed with books, water, and love.

I simply do not believe that it is immoral to summarily execute terrorists. Note I am only referring to terrorists. I see your point, but I am not suggesting that the US “stoop” to the level of ISIS and torture them before killing them. I don’t advocate torture.

Summary execution is not the same thing as torture. See my statement above.

The problem is, you cannot use diplomacy to resolve a conflict and try to reach a “happy medium” with a group (in this case ISIS) that believes in an extremist fundamental ideology and wants to convert or kill anyone who doesn’t hold the same beliefs they do.

Perhaps, but if virtually nothing is done or just the bare minimum then ISIS will continue to grow to the point where other countries will have no choice but to prioritize dealing with ISIS militarily. It is probably best to do that sooner rather than later.

True, a driver cannot intentionally run over someone who is jaywalking. You also couldn’t fault the driver of a car for hitting someone he didn’t see who runs out into the street without first looking if any cars are coming. As for not having the means to leave, unless someone is seriously ill or disabled to the point they cannot walk fleeing from a terrorist occupation should be a priority. It is unfortunate that civilians should have to leave, but leaving is a better option under the circumstances then staying and being forced to adopt and live under a fundamentalist ideology.

I was simply stating that at least part of the reason for the chilling in relations between the US, Israel and some of our Arab allies is due to the Nuclear Deal with Iran. It is no secret that many in the US, Israel and the Middle East are not too happy about it. There is even speculation that it will lead to a Nuclear arms race of sorts in the Middle East.


Forum ID: Poisd2Strike
GT: Poisd2Strike
Trades: http://forums.gearboxsoftware.com/t/poisd2strikes-humble-shop/367700
Gun Prefixes | Gun Parts | Max Stats
Maya OP8 | Banshee RR / NRR | Binder | Cat | Nurse | Siren | Trickster B / M

From my understanding, it seems like @Poisd2Strike was calling for the death of terrorists after they had surrendered. To me that seems more like pointless hateful revenge rather then protecting anything. Which is why I disagreed with it. it have nothing to do with defending yourselves in war. It have to do with what happens after you defeated your foe. Kill to survive doesnt apply after the enemy had disarmed themselves and surrendered.

Many people think Israel already have nukes. I completely agree that nuclear weapon development programs in middle east should be condemned though. Completely disarmament is impossible but at least it should be kept out of unstable countries.

Ah. I overlooked that, but I still think my point stands - to an extent. They didn’t surrender because they had some form of a revelation and all of the reasons they became a terrorist in the first place disappeared. They temporarily submitted because the power was shifted and now their own life is on the line. Anyone would do that. But what do you think that same person who’s begging for forgiveness (assuming they even would beg considering the whole martyr aspect of their religion) would do if you gave them a knife and turned your back? These aren’t your run-of-the-mill shoplifters we’re dealin’ with.

Off of my work break now so I’ll have to catch back up later. In no way was I trying to be disrespectful, however. It’s just a serious topic. (Noticed Giu stopped by to give us a heads up.)

I understand that fact, but broadly stating all of them should be executed immediately it is too extreme. Even if they surrendered to save their lifes, you shouldnt executed them right away as it discourages surrendering in the future. Which may increase the level of resistance you would face. Ofcourse they should be charged with war crimes for the horrible things they did, and given appropriate punishments such as the death sentence after they been tried and found guilty. Dont get me wrong, I believe those people deserved a death sentence for sure. The allied did the same thing to the leaders of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan after the war ended, I believe that is the proper way to dispense justice.

I definitely agree. I wasn’t trying to say it’s okay to just line 'em all up and shoot. I thought you were arguing that they didn’t deserve execution/death whatsoever. I had to read over everything quickly so I may have missed some important exchanges.

The problem is twofold. Air Strikes alone won’t get the job done. At some point, ground troops are going to be required likely in large numbers. Also using too much caution won’t get the job done either. At one point, the US was not bombing the Oil fields that ISIS controlled to get and sell oil to acquire funds. The reason? The truck drivers and workers might be civilians. Well I’m sorry, but if you work in an ISIS owned and controlled Oil field you no longer have the right to claim to just be an innocent civilian. Granted, more pressure should have been put on Saudi Arabia after the September 11th attack considering that 15 or 19 terrorist hijackers were Saudi nationals. More pressure should be put on Saudi Arabia now to combat the Wahhabi ideology.

President Bush 43 invaded Iraq because of the faulty intel about WMD and also because Saddam Hussein either attempted or plotted to have his father (Bush 41) killed. I am sure you recall that Bush 41 along with a coalition repelled Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in '90 / '91. Unfortunately, getting the support of some of the Arab countries as that time required that Saddam be removed from Kuwait but left in power. You would think that his invading another Arab country would have been enough for his Neighbors to want him deposed. The main issue with the fall of Saddam Hussein is that there was no one else moderate a majority of Iraqis would accept to take over when Saddam was dead. It generally isn’t a good idea to depose a Dictator unless you have a Plan in place for replacing that dictator with someone else who can bring a moderate stability to the Country. It also doesn’t help that the US left Iraq prematurely which allowed a vacuum to exist which ISIS eventually filled due to there being no strong, stable Government at the time.


Forum ID: Poisd2Strike
GT: Poisd2Strike
Trades: http://forums.gearboxsoftware.com/t/poisd2strikes-humble-shop/367700
Gun Prefixes | Gun Parts | Max Stats
Maya OP8 | Banshee RR / NRR | Binder | Cat | Nurse | Siren | Trickster B / M

No, just my understanding of poisd2strike’s comment was advocating that of shooting anyone that surrendered anyways. I am a supporter of capital punishment when the evidence is clear that the criminal in question had done something so horrible that they deserved it.

I am. And it actually does have something to do with protecting / defending yourself in war. By killing an ISIS terrorist who surrenders, ISIS has one less soldier fighting for their cause. That is at least part of the reason ISIS kills our soldiers.

If ISIS (and other terrorist organizations) know that we will not take them prisoner but rather summarily execute them upon surrender or capture, it may discourage some people from joining groups like ISIS. Will it stop all would be terrorists from joining? No, of course not. Simply killing them it isn’t going to make ISIS stop taking our soldiers prisoner which they already don’t do anyway. ISIS won’t take our soldiers prisoner, treat them humanely (provide food, clothing, shelter, medical attention if necessary). ISIS will torture and then kill our soldiers. You can’t really compare ISIS terrorists and their Caliphate to Germany or Japan during WWII. At least Germany and Japan took US soldiers prisoner and treated them (more or less) humanely. I am sure that at least some German and Japanese prisoners were mistreated by US captors as were at least some US prisoners held in Germany and Japan by German and Japanese captors.

What is the point of putting a terrorist on trial, especially one who has been captured on the battle field? They are guilty of being a terrorist and, as such, deserve to be executed. Are we supposed to read them their Miranda Rights and apply the US Constitution to them? Are we supposed to house them indefinitely, at the cost of countless US taxpayer dollars, until they are given a fair trial? If convicted and sentenced to death, are they allowed an automatic appeal? Some terrorists have been housed in Gitmo for years even approaching a decade. The ones still left in Gitmo are supposedly the most extreme and violent. As much as 30% of terrorists released from Gitmo go back to being terrorists. While I consider actual torture too extreme, I don’t consider summary execution of a terrorists too extreme given the choices they have made.

Yes. It is likely that Israel already has Nuclear weapons which, given their position, is understandable. One thing I agree with you on is that only stable Middle East countries should have Nuclear weapons.


Forum ID: Poisd2Strike
GT: Poisd2Strike
Trades: http://forums.gearboxsoftware.com/t/poisd2strikes-humble-shop/367700
Gun Prefixes | Gun Parts | Max Stats
Maya OP8 | Banshee RR / NRR | Binder | Cat | Nurse | Siren | Trickster B / M

No. That did not happen. Japanese Imperial Army in WW2 were horrible.

International crime court. I believe crimes such as crime against humanity, war crime, etc has be perpetrated by them, it is fair to try them at ICC. It wont be a US court that will try them.

Preferably none.

I was aware of some mistreatment of US soldiers by Japanese captors during WWII, just not to the extent.

Yea, that’s gonna be a problem. I doubt many Americans would be okay with ISIS terrorists captured on the battle field who may have killed US soldiers being tried at the ICC (the Hague?) which is outside of US jurisdiction. I could maybe see that working for high level ISIS leaders (same way Nazi leaders were tried after WWII), but not the average ISIS terrorist soldier. If given a trial (which I don’t think they should be), the average ISIS terrorist should be tried as an enemy combatant in a US military court, that way the US Constitution doesn’t come into play exactly like it would if they were tried in a Civilian court on US soil. The military trial would also have to take place on a US military base that is not on US soil. If convicted and sentenced (preferably to death), they should not be allowed to appeal and the sentence should be carried out as soon as possible.


Forum ID: Poisd2Strike
GT: Poisd2Strike
Trades: http://forums.gearboxsoftware.com/t/poisd2strikes-humble-shop/367700
Gun Prefixes | Gun Parts | Max Stats
Maya OP8 | Banshee RR / NRR | Binder | Cat | Nurse | Siren | Trickster B / M