CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I wish it would be so. But I have no reason to think he will start leading now. His interests remain focused on only two things. His legacy and another liberal progressive to follow him. Neither of which will be served by another campaign to lead the world to fight and defeat ISIS.
Not that that's a welcome struggle, but that its one we dare not delay much longer.
His legacy is already pretty flimsy, and his "liberal progressive" credentials are just as much so. Many liberals are quite sick of him by this point.
But I definitely agree, ISIS is becoming far too large of a threat on the geopolitical stability of the Middle East, and strong, decisive action needs to be taken before they have the chance to do some longer lasting damage.
Yes in Obama's defense its not that easy to push a liberal progressive agenda onto a center right electorate. Look at the time he had getting Obamacare through.
Now I always love hearing that the electorate is center right, despite the fact that most polls done on individual topics have the left-leaning option favored.
So out of curiosity, what evidence do you have that the electorate is "center right"?
I'm gona go with the nearly total fallibility of polls, as my answer. Plus I read it some where, so it must be true. Cause people that can write is smart.
Nice try. If you combine moderate and right, the U.S. is center right. If you combine moderate and left, the U.S. is center left. It goes either way.
On the other hand, you've got 4% more Democrats than Republicans (from your source), which works a bit against you.
Edit: Now, the "bigger government" vs "smaller government" aspect is a bit more problematic, as both sides believe in large and small government in different issues. On top of that "small government" always sounds nice, when separated from the issues. So without the methodology of that particular statistic, considering the ambiguity of that issue, it doesn't play either way.
"Buyers remorse" Something that almost every president has had!
I lived in the heart of Liberalism in the North West, and I currently live in the heart of Liberalism in the Midwest, and I hear PLENTY of buyers remorse amongst staunch liberal Democrats.
Kind of like Republican's buyers remorse under Bush. Still can't believe the Democrats didn't have anyone better than Gore and Kerry.
How does a poll that shows Asians lean Democratic, are more likely to consider themselves liberal than conservative, support bigger government, overwhelmingly voted for Obama, support accepting gays, favor legal abortions, etc. support you exactly?
You mean the part that says the general public also leans Democratic, voted for Obama, supports accepting gays, favors legal abortions, etc.?
When people are asked broad questions - do you want big government - they answer (slightly) more conservatively; when you ask about specific policies, they generally support the liberal position - this poll does not refute that assertion, it 100% confirms it.
Most people favor abortion being legal in most or all cases, favor gay marriage & job rights, favor allowing gays in the military, favor medicare/medicaid/social security, favor progressive taxation, unions, a minimum wage, favor background checks for gun purchases, favor increased environmental protections, believe the earth is warming, favor a path to citizenship, etc. etc. etc.
But, some talk show host(s) told you we are a center-right country so it must be true...
All the polls where you actually ask people what they want shows they support liberal politics, but polls are fallible therefore I'm right - convenient argument though an unconvincing one.
Sorry, but what? How is this delaying the issue? Or this, or this, or just generally this.
You seem to be confusing strategic military operation with inaction. Not every war is won with all out offensives, particularly ones that primarily ideological and ultimately non-geocentric.
ISIS just burned that Jordanian pilot to death in a cage. The Jordan king is retaliating by executing 6 ISIS members tomorrow. One is the female suicide bomber. Swift justice indeed.
Unfortunately, tit for tat isn't going to do much in the long run. It does make a nice gesture, but if anything members of ISIS will just see it as further evidence of their "struggle".
I think we are going into a period that will be brutal for a long time. The Middle East will be a total war zone with the brutality getting worse than we have seen since the Khmer Rouge in the late 70s.
It could go either way. If Obama managed to start being a solid leader and convinced Turkey to join in, then I think ISIS could be taken out quite rapidly. If Turkey continues to be obnoxious and Obama continues to be a weak leader, then who knows what could happen.
Justice is one name for it. Fodder for extremism is another. Retaliation and all out offensives may be more satisfying (apparently?) but they are hardly the most effective in combating a group like ISIS/ISIL.
Obama isn't going to do anything other than pretend this is somebody else's problem. The problem is it is the world's problem and like it or not Obama is the leader of one of the world's superpowers. He needs to step up and irradicate the plague before it gets so far out of control that we will no longer be able to manage it. It is time to act now!
Sorry, but what? How is this pretending this is not America's problem? Or this, or this, or just generally this.
You seem to be confusing strategic military operation with inaction. Not every war is won with all out offensives, particularly ones that primarily ideological and ultimately non-geocentric. We tried that under Bush; it made things worse, not better. Support for terrorist groups is down and concern over extremism is on the rise in recent years (source)... maybe that is a total coincidence, but I suspect a less invasive, more sovereignty respectful and collaborative approach might have something to do with it.
Not one of the opinion pieces you reference addresses the repercussions of their proposed ground invasion upon the ideology that drives organizations like ISIL. This was the approach we took in Afghanistan and Iraq, and not only were those operations considerably more protracted and costly than their advocates claimed they would be but they gave greater perceived legitimacy to existing terrorist organizations and are in no small part to blame for the rise of ISIL. Violating national and regional sovereignty for apparent expediency which may not even exist has the unintended but very real cost of letting such organizations cast us as an oppressive, aggressive entity that acts with impunity. Another option, and the one the current administration has opted to pursue under advisement of the military itself, is to refrain from overt displays of force and to instead train, arm, and empower locals to reclaim their nations for themselves. Perhaps the present conflict will last longer under this tactic (though Afghanistan and Iraq suggest your alternative is quite possibly no better), but it is in error to view this conflict as the war rather than another battle in the war. In the end we are not fighting ISIL, Al Qaeda, the Taliban or any other terrorist organization but rather the ideology they draw upon for their strength. So long as that ideology exists, stateless entities like these will continue to utilize the cyber realm and other networks to regroup. The error in your argument and that of the opinion pieces you reference is in confusing a different strategy with the absence of one, and consequently none of you are actually arguing the point of ideological galvanization at all. As indicated by the research I provided, support for terrorism has diminished under the present tactic whereas it grew under our more aggressive operations in the region.
I don't think most people realize just what a mess it is over there. Iran, our thorn in our side, is supplying Hezbollah and the Syrian government with weapons to fight both the moderate rebels and ISIS. We in turn, are bombing ISIS and supplying the moderate rebels with arms to overthrow the Syrian government. But we can't really allow Assad's government to fall since the moderate rebels aren't strong enough to withstand ISIS.
If Syria's government is toppled, I predict we will have another Somalia on our hands. No central government and numerous factions all fighting each other for control.
Then you come to Obama. He has ruled out any military action on the ground. I don't think he has a clue what to do other than launch drone strikes. He didn't take ISIS seriously and I wonder if he does today.
He can't convince Turkey to join in because Turkey hates the Kurds, who are fighting ISIS. Obama needs to be more forceful are this is going to turn into a bigger quagmire than it is now.
How far does Obama go to keep Iraq's government from falling. If that happens Obama is to take all the blame, period. I can also see Afghanistan crumbling to the ground.
If Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan all tumble, we are looking at chaos, possibly for decades if Obama doesn't act decisively.
I agree that most people have a relatively uniformed understanding of conflict in the Middle-East. I think some of your observations are accurate; others I quite disagree with.
Then you come to Obama. He has ruled out any military action on the ground. I don't think he has a clue what to do other than launch drone strikes. He didn't take ISIS seriously and I wonder if he does today.
This is tactical, and not a lackadaisical or dismissive approach. We tried troops on the ground, and higher troop mortality and financial costs aside it simply was not effective. This conflict is as much ideological as it is military, and on the ground troops were contributing to negative attitudes towards the U.S. which has historically been seen as too heavy-handed and disrespectful of national autonomy. Since shifting our tactics support for terrorist cells has dropped and concern over extremism has risen (source). The nations the U.S. are collaborating with generally have troops, but absolutely do not have the tactical aerial strike options. Partnering this way still allows the U.S. to influence events, while at least appearing to respect the autonomy of the nations it is operating within. Do you seriously think that the King of Jordan would have been as receptive to working with the U.S., essentially inviting a foreign military presence into his country and political region, had we stuck to our more invasive tactics?
He can't convince Turkey to join in because Turkey hates the Kurds, who are fighting ISIS. Obama needs to be more forceful are this is going to turn into a bigger quagmire than it is now.
Our diplomatic agency is hindered, not helped, by forcing other nations to act the way we want them to. This is a region we have manipulated extensively for quite some time now, and our reputation there has been badly damaged for precisely that reason. We cannot afford to be seen as another enemy if we are trying to work with these nations ourselves, let alone if we want to try to negotiate cooperative alliance between hostile nations.
How far does Obama go to keep Iraq's government from falling. If that happens Obama is to take all the blame, period. I can also see Afghanistan crumbling to the ground.
Seriously? How does that follow. The instability in Iraq long predates Obama, as does this entire situation generally. I am not saying Obama has acted perfectly or that he has not compounded problems, but to lay the blame solely at his feet without exception is not only ignorant but dangerously dismissive of lessons we should have learned from our much earlier engagements in the region.
If Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan all tumble, we are looking at chaos, possibly for decades if Obama doesn't act decisively.
I think you are confusing overt force and aggression with decisiveness; they are not synonymous.
Iraq was fairly stable under Saddam. Then it went through years of turmoil due to Hussein being ousted. Then Obama declares it a success not so long ago. It has since went back down hill under Obama. Who is to blame when our president says everything is well and dandy and we don't need to keep any troops behind.
Don't get me wrong, I had no problem pulling the troops out, but what has happened since is no surprise. Obama was slow in acting . ISIS took over numerous towns and large sections of land before Obama started to strike back with the drones.
At the end of the day, all these Middle East countries will be begging us to intervene militarily if they are on the brink of falling. I don't blame them. The leaders want to stay in power as long as possible, even if that means we put troops on the ground.
Lastly, most of the troops these Middle East nations have can't fight their way out of a paper bag in conventional warfare. They are only good at guerrilla warfare.
Iraq is hardly your strongest line of argumentation. Obama may have withdrawn most of our troops from Iraq, but it was Bush who led the militant ousting of Hussein which destabilized the nation and opened the door for ISIS to begin with. Notably, Obama also did not withdraw all of our troops but left some behind to train local forces to fight for their own country which casts us in a decidedly more positive light in the nation and region... and that positive perception is crucial in what is predominantly an ideological war with an enemy that relies upon our being viewed negatively.
Perhaps our airstrikes should have come sooner, but were that to be at the cost of having not negotiated with countries to ensure that we were welcome in doing so I would oppose it. We cannot afford to fight this war as we did in Iraq and Afghantistan, nor to confuse ISIL for the war when it is a battle in the larger war at hand. The transition from overt U.S. military intervention to supportive collaborator could not be immediate, but it was necessary.
You are absolutely correct that leaders want to remain in power as long as possible, which is precisely why they would not welcome U.S. ground troops. Iraq stands as one of multiple examples of how we treat the leaders that have welcomed us in. Our basic alliances are tenuous enough as is.
That local forces may be poorly trained in the necessary combat style is precisely why the U.S. has left troops behind to train them. Local forces also know the culture, language, politics, and ideologies of the places they grew up in far better than a U.S. soldier ever could. Self-sufficiency may come with an upfront cost, but at the end of the day it is necessary for bringing longer term stability to the region in a way continued reliance upon the U.S. military cannot.
Slowly but surely the Islamic countries will separate themselves from ISIS and other such terrorist organisations such that it will be these countries that will end up resolving the problems.
Islam has a lot to offer the world and it will /can only do that by deciding that it will work towards removing the unwarranted aspects that have corrupted their faith.
Oh cool........... Then we can just wait until they get around to that. When they said they are coming to the US, maybe they were just kidding. Whew that's good to know.
Slowly but surely the Islamic countries will separate themselves from ISIS
Or maybe they'll just keep on killing each other as they have done since 632 AD.
