Obama: ISIS a Manageable Crisis

[jillian]

on a side note

the number of troops going into Iraq now has climbed to 1213

...but...but....
Iraq war over, US troops coming home, Obama says

Obama, an opponent of the war since before he took office, nevertheless praised the efforts of U.S. troops in Iraq. He said American soldiers would leave "with their heads held high, proud of their success."

Iraq war over US troops coming home Obama says - Yahoo News

"I just don't spend that much time on bin Laden"

"Truly not concerned about bin Laden"

Bush 2002

Of course he had a war to promote against a SECULAR Arab leader. Keep up the cr*p, I will remind those so doing of the FACTS.

Things were different. bin laden was completely marginalized and in hiding. We were focusing on the people actually out there shooting at us. I understand your need to constantly...(6 years now)...point at "bush".
this isn't a static situation and it's ridiculous to try to use standards and situations from over 6 years ago to justify the complete chaos and dysfunction in the ME.
"war" is a constantly changing, dynamic, fluid and non linear thing.

The bottom line is this;
These people weren't cutting off americans heads in front of the whole world..essentially on television.
Spin it however you think you need to but they feared american response if they openly and defiantly cut off americans heads on television.,Not to mention that they PURPOSELY, specifically mocked obama by name and then threatened to come do it in america.
LMAO.."bush" ...or almost any patriotic american president, would have bombed them back into the stone age...and rightly so.

You're funny!

I guess I don't understand what you mean. if we unilaterally fight ISIS we have to also send our troops back over there in the middle of the 3000 year old civil war between the Sunni and the Shia. the Shia are Iran, Syria and Assad, there leade, and the new Iraq government that's a week old.The Sunnis are Saudi Arabia and Jordan our allis. that would mean that we're now fighting for Assad and Iran. Maybe instead of our men lost, we can use this opportunity to get Iran to give up the nuclear program and Assads dictatorship if we team up and supply the Iraqis again and the Kurds(which are great fighters) in the north. Also if we can be seen as doing a favor for the whole middle east maybe they won't use us coming in again as a recruitment tool for their terrorist groups like they always have in the past. That's where ISIS came from in the first place, us invading Iraq.

But then if Obama had done the right thing in the first place we wouldn't have to go back in. We'd already be there.

For the thousandth time, we couldn't stay. Nor should we have. We have to make up our mind. Stop meddling, or keep meddling.

So the solution is to meddle in an ineffective manner.

Gotcha

not what was said to you.

read with comprehension.

 

[mudwhistle]

This guy said he could do anything, but now he's powerless.

 

[Rotagilla]

So our strategy is to threaten the terrorists with the long arm of justice....

Our own criminals don't care about the law but I'm sure the terrorists are quaking in their boots.

Tell us more about how you think our threat of force means we wont actually use force.

You've really been grasping at straws JUST to hate lately man, you used to be way more level headed but your gripes are completely unfounded and ridiculous lately.

Bombing random trucks driving down a highway is NOT a deterrent to these insane motherfuckers.

I've been calling for us to rain hell on these crazies for near a year now. They likely are laughing at our pinprick attacks to this point.

As evidenced by what?

When these fucks started televising their brutal antics, they weren't wearing masks.

Now they are.

That's a huge change.

Yeah...smaller knives...taking their time...enjoying the moment..l

You think they weren't doing this stuff before? Even when Bush was in the office?

Of course they were. There has been a low grade civil war going on in Iraq that has never stopped. Bush totally and every openly screwed the pooch there.

Ask yourself. Did it take this long to build up Germany? Japan? Heck, after we left Vietnam it pretty much bounced back.

We have literally dumped cash on Iraq. Trillions of it. The Bush administration flew pallets of American dollars, on pallets via cargo plane to Iraq. With what we've spent on this one little nasty country in the middle of nowhere, we could have rebuilt our own cities and probably had enough left over to put up a moonbase.

Iraq isn't a cohesive country. It's like Poland without Tito and Turkey without Ataturk.

Unless they get something to unify under, they will probably have to split up.

And this was all brought on by the Bush administration and for no good reason.

We!re working with morons here...the japes and Germans have brains.

Well no.

Germany and Japan had histories of being actually countries that developed as a result of it's own people forming them.

Iraq was cobbled together by Europe. When Saddam Hussien assumed power, he brought the people together, much like Tito or Ataturk.

Germany and Japan were also aggressors and after they lost the war, their countries weren't dismantled. Quite the contrary, most of their governments and industries were left in place. Heck, even the military, for the most part, were repatriated. That didn't happen in Iraq.

Even with the invasion being such a clusterfuck, Bush had plenty of examples of how to make things work. And he ignored each and every one of them.

"Bush"......

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama's way out of his pay grade. He needs to score some pakololo and Choom out for the rest of his Presidency

 

[Synthaholic]

Another thread of butt-hurt Right-Wingers, crying because they have no power or influence.

Ho-hum.

 

[NYcarbineer]

on a side note

the number of troops going into Iraq now has climbed to 1213

...but...but....
Iraq war over, US troops coming home, Obama says

Obama, an opponent of the war since before he took office, nevertheless praised the efforts of U.S. troops in Iraq. He said American soldiers would leave "with their heads held high, proud of their success."

Iraq war over US troops coming home Obama says - Yahoo News

"I just don't spend that much time on bin Laden"

"Truly not concerned about bin Laden"

Bush 2002

Of course he had a war to promote against a SECULAR Arab leader. Keep up the cr*p, I will remind those so doing of the FACTS.

Things were different. bin laden was completely marginalized and in hiding. We were focusing on the people actually out there shooting at us. I understand your need to constantly...(6 years now)...point at "bush".
this isn't a static situation and it's ridiculous to try to use standards and situations from over 6 years ago to justify the complete chaos and dysfunction in the ME.
"war" is a constantly changing, dynamic, fluid and non linear thing.

The bottom line is this;
These people weren't cutting off americans heads in front of the whole world..essentially on television.
Spin it however you think you need to but they feared american response if they openly and defiantly cut off americans heads on television.,Not to mention that they PURPOSELY, specifically mocked obama by name and then threatened to come do it in america.
LMAO.."bush" ...or almost any patriotic american president, would have bombed them back into the stone age...and rightly so.

You're funny!

I guess I don't understand what you mean. if we unilaterally fight ISIS we have to also send our troops back over there in the middle of the 3000 year old civil war between the Sunni and the Shia. the Shia are Iran, Syria and Assad, there leade, and the new Iraq government that's a week old.The Sunnis are Saudi Arabia and Jordan our allis. that would mean that we're now fighting for Assad and Iran. Maybe instead of our men lost, we can use this opportunity to get Iran to give up the nuclear program and Assads dictatorship if we team up and supply the Iraqis again and the Kurds(which are great fighters) in the north. Also if we can be seen as doing a favor for the whole middle east maybe they won't use us coming in again as a recruitment tool for their terrorist groups like they always have in the past. That's where ISIS came from in the first place, us invading Iraq.

But then if Obama had done the right thing in the first place we wouldn't have to go back in. We'd already be there.

For the thousandth time, we couldn't stay. Nor should we have. We have to make up our mind. Stop meddling, or keep meddling.

So the solution is to meddle in an ineffective manner.

Gotcha

No the solution is to extricate ourselves from these entanglements and then do what the Chinese do. Stay out of it. Period.

And, no, I do not think that is a realistically achievable end. But it's the right one.

 

[rightwinger]

[



Yes, but ISIS remains a true threat TODAY. Congress must address this, Boehner is fundraising, a FOUR week trip, and Reid is also not demanding action. I have emailed and called, has anyone ELSE?

Is Boehner the commander in chief? Is Reid the commander in chief?
No. Obama is Commander in Chief. He needs to start acting like one.

What should he do?

 

[speedy sunday]

I dont know what an AUMF is.
But the president as commander in chief has wide latitude to order military action. I made that point in another thread.
Do you think the president is somehow not responsible for foreign policy?

Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Sorry.

that would mean congress actually has to do something and not just flail about.

With virtually no support from the American People (you remember them, right?) for a re-entanglement in Iraq,

how many members of Congress want to have to cast that vote?

hell right now they won't even talk about it except a few complaining with no solutions trying to get votes

 

[mudwhistle]

on a side note

the number of troops going into Iraq now has climbed to 1213

...but...but....
Iraq war over, US troops coming home, Obama says

Obama, an opponent of the war since before he took office, nevertheless praised the efforts of U.S. troops in Iraq. He said American soldiers would leave "with their heads held high, proud of their success."

Iraq war over US troops coming home Obama says - Yahoo News

"I just don't spend that much time on bin Laden"

"Truly not concerned about bin Laden"

Bush 2002

Of course he had a war to promote against a SECULAR Arab leader. Keep up the cr*p, I will remind those so doing of the FACTS.

Things were different. bin laden was completely marginalized and in hiding. We were focusing on the people actually out there shooting at us. I understand your need to constantly...(6 years now)...point at "bush".
this isn't a static situation and it's ridiculous to try to use standards and situations from over 6 years ago to justify the complete chaos and dysfunction in the ME.
"war" is a constantly changing, dynamic, fluid and non linear thing.

The bottom line is this;
These people weren't cutting off americans heads in front of the whole world..essentially on television.
Spin it however you think you need to but they feared american response if they openly and defiantly cut off americans heads on television.,Not to mention that they PURPOSELY, specifically mocked obama by name and then threatened to come do it in america.
LMAO.."bush" ...or almost any patriotic american president, would have bombed them back into the stone age...and rightly so.

You're funny!

I guess I don't understand what you mean. if we unilaterally fight ISIS we have to also send our troops back over there in the middle of the 3000 year old civil war between the Sunni and the Shia. the Shia are Iran, Syria and Assad, there leade, and the new Iraq government that's a week old.The Sunnis are Saudi Arabia and Jordan our allis. that would mean that we're now fighting for Assad and Iran. Maybe instead of our men lost, we can use this opportunity to get Iran to give up the nuclear program and Assads dictatorship if we team up and supply the Iraqis again and the Kurds(which are great fighters) in the north. Also if we can be seen as doing a favor for the whole middle east maybe they won't use us coming in again as a recruitment tool for their terrorist groups like they always have in the past. That's where ISIS came from in the first place, us invading Iraq.

But then if Obama had done the right thing in the first place we wouldn't have to go back in. We'd already be there.

For the thousandth time, we couldn't stay. Nor should we have. We have to make up our mind. Stop meddling, or keep meddling.

So the solution is to meddle in an ineffective manner.

Gotcha

not what was said to you.

read with comprehension.

I can recognize a Bullshit excuse when it's presented to me.

 

[Rotagilla]

I dont know what an AUMF is.
But the president as commander in chief has wide latitude to order military action. I made that point in another thread.
Do you think the president is somehow not responsible for foreign policy?

Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Sorry.

that would mean congress actually has to do something and not just flail about.

With virtually no support from the American People (you remember them, right?) for a re-entanglement in Iraq,

how many members of Congress want to have to cast that vote?

Oh..congress is important again to the left?
LMAO..quite a mess...

well, they do have to choose at some point. they'd rather not cast a vote because then they can claim the president acted outside of his authority... or claim he didn't do anything. they prefer that to taking responsibility for anything.

I see.
So congress is now preventing the president from taking the actions he so desperately wants to...

....but.....but..the phone?..the pen?..executive orders?...LMAO...


Situational "ethics" are comical.

The collapse of this country isn't so comical..oh well..we'll rebuild.

 

[jillian]

I dont know what an AUMF is.
But the president as commander in chief has wide latitude to order military action. I made that point in another thread.
Do you think the president is somehow not responsible for foreign policy?

Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Sorry.

that would mean congress actually has to do something and not just flail about.

With virtually no support from the American People (you remember them, right?) for a re-entanglement in Iraq,

how many members of Congress want to have to cast that vote?

hell right now they won't even talk about it except a few complaining with no solutions trying to get votes

there are some who want to put it to a vote. i'm pretty sure Boehner will start to cry rather than put it to the membership.

 

[jillian]

I dont know what an AUMF is.
But the president as commander in chief has wide latitude to order military action. I made that point in another thread.
Do you think the president is somehow not responsible for foreign policy?

Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Sorry.

that would mean congress actually has to do something and not just flail about.

With virtually no support from the American People (you remember them, right?) for a re-entanglement in Iraq,

how many members of Congress want to have to cast that vote?

Oh..congress is important again to the left?
LMAO..quite a mess...

well, they do have to choose at some point. they'd rather not cast a vote because then they can claim the president acted outside of his authority... or claim he didn't do anything. they prefer that to taking responsibility for anything.

I see.
So congress is now preventing the president from taking the actions he so desperately wants to...

....but.....but..the phone?..the pen?..executive orders?...LMAO...


Situational "ethics" are comical.

like I said. but thanks for proving my point.

there is a difference between using executive orders THE WAY EVERY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY has used them and in using executive privilege to wage war. the Iraq resolution does not apply to ISIS. I suppose we could stretch it, but the wingnutbrigade will do the Obama derangement dance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So our strategy is to threaten the terrorists with the long arm of justice....

Our own criminals don't care about the law but I'm sure the terrorists are quaking in their boots.

That's a great point! Just look at how he's "Dealing" with the Mexican Reconquista. He armed Mexican Cartels with untraceable automatic weapons. Brian terry was firing bean bags, the Mexican cartel was firing live rounds

 

[rightwinger]

ISIS is a bunch of ruthless terrorists

The US will hunt them down and kill them

That sounds manageable

Yes..we're doing such a good job of it they murder americans on television, mock the president by name and threaten to come do it in america.
I can see we have them on the run and are in complete control of the situation. We're doing great!

I like the chances of the US surviving much more than the chances of ISIS leadership surviving

You fuck with the US, we will get you. It may take a while, it may seem like we have given up the chase....but sooner or later, we will get you

Ok fair enough..good theory....but the "climate" that caused this kind of barbarism..openly calling obama by name, mocking him and america as they commit bloody murder "on televison" and broadcast it world wide, is the problem.
Obviously they don't have any fear of the u.s. or obama, do they?..and this isn't some little jv team, is it?
They have been in existence and a small offshoot of al qaeda, but the vacuum the u.s has left by withdrawing has caused them to grow. They've been advancing for months now and have a bigger army and better funding than some legitimate countries.

idle chatter about "we're going to get them" is simplistic and useless at this point.

You don't win wars by "declaring victory" and then abandoning the battlefield.
Take vietnam for instance....we "won" there...except the north took over the entire country the day we left.

Never mind..the urge to defend just ANYTHING this president does is too strong.
Somehow I know you'll circle back to blaming bush or reagan...or ANYBODY ....except the person in charge when the event occurred.

They called the President a name? Who cares?
They cut someones fucking head off. They will pay for it

They are trying to provoke a military response by the US. They want to be martyrs. Overreacting and doing something we regret later (can we say invasion?) is not something we want

These guys are international terrorists. There is a worldwide mechanism to hunt them down. Let it work

 

[Swagger]

So our strategy is to threaten the terrorists with the long arm of justice....

Our own criminals don't care about the law but I'm sure the terrorists are quaking in their boots.

so what exactly should be done other than running around saying muslims are "evil-doers"?

Well, for a start, Muslims and their culture should be clearly identified as a serious liability within the West.

and as a matter of foreign policy, then what?

In all honesty, I think that the U.S., UK and the rest of our allies are better off not stepping into or attempting to influence the affairs of Islamic states ever again. They clearly don't want the kind of democracy we'd like them to embrace, and they're culturally incompatible with us and what we value. I think we'd be better off just sending and hosting the occasional courtesy visits between members of state; and warning determined tourists of the dangers they face if they really want to travel to Islamic countries. Muslims should all be deported back to whatever shithole their ancestors crawled out of.

Furthermore, to really disentangle ourselves from the Middle East (excluding Israel), we need to find a practical alternative to the combustion engine, the fuel for which is what keeps us enmeshed in that hornet's nest. That means shining an uncomfortable light into the affairs of old, Anglo-Saxon American/European money, because they're still firmly in control of the West's energy sector.

 

[mudwhistle]

I dont know what an AUMF is.
But the president as commander in chief has wide latitude to order military action. I made that point in another thread.
Do you think the president is somehow not responsible for foreign policy?

Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Sorry.

that would mean congress actually has to do something and not just flail about.

With virtually no support from the American People (you remember them, right?) for a re-entanglement in Iraq,

how many members of Congress want to have to cast that vote?

hell right now they won't even talk about it except a few complaining with no solutions trying to get votes

This was gone over years ago to no avail. It's time Obama held himself accountable for what he has done. 6 years into his presidency and he still doesn't want to admit what he did to cause all of this. He told everyone that the war was over, yet it's worse than ever. Now you derps allwant us to come up with solutions. Here's one, Obama needs to resign. Next, put the VP into retirement. Get rid of Dingy Harry and Boehner. Start working together for fuck sakes.

 

[jillian]

So our strategy is to threaten the terrorists with the long arm of justice....

Our own criminals don't care about the law but I'm sure the terrorists are quaking in their boots.

so what exactly should be done other than running around saying muslims are "evil-doers"?

Well, for a start, Muslims and their culture should be clearly identified as a serious liability within the West.

and as a matter of foreign policy, then what?

In all honesty, I think that the U.S., UK and the rest of our allies are better off not stepping into or attempting to influence the affairs of Islamic states ever again. They clearly don't want the kind of democracy we'd like them to embrace, and they're culturally incompatible with us and what we value. I think we'd be better off just sending and hosting the occasional courtesy visits between members of state; and warning determined tourists of the dangers they face if they really want to travel to Islamic countries.

Furthermore, to really disentangle ourselves from the Middle East (excluding Israel), we need to find a practical alternative to the combustion engine, the fuel for which is what keeps us enmeshed in that hornet's nest. That means shining an uncomfortable light into the affair of old, Anglo-Saxon American/European money, because they're still in firmly control the West's energy sector.

I agree we shouldn't be nation-building.

but i'm ok with smashing their psycho butts if they do things like this group is.

 

[speedy sunday]

on a side note

the number of troops going into Iraq now has climbed to 1213

...but...but....
Iraq war over, US troops coming home, Obama says

Obama, an opponent of the war since before he took office, nevertheless praised the efforts of U.S. troops in Iraq. He said American soldiers would leave "with their heads held high, proud of their success."

Iraq war over US troops coming home Obama says - Yahoo News

"I just don't spend that much time on bin Laden"

"Truly not concerned about bin Laden"

Bush 2002

Of course he had a war to promote against a SECULAR Arab leader. Keep up the cr*p, I will remind those so doing of the FACTS.

Things were different. bin laden was completely marginalized and in hiding. We were focusing on the people actually out there shooting at us. I understand your need to constantly...(6 years now)...point at "bush".
this isn't a static situation and it's ridiculous to try to use standards and situations from over 6 years ago to justify the complete chaos and dysfunction in the ME.
"war" is a constantly changing, dynamic, fluid and non linear thing.

The bottom line is this;
These people weren't cutting off americans heads in front of the whole world..essentially on television.
Spin it however you think you need to but they feared american response if they openly and defiantly cut off americans heads on television.,Not to mention that they PURPOSELY, specifically mocked obama by name and then threatened to come do it in america.
LMAO.."bush" ...or almost any patriotic american president, would have bombed them back into the stone age...and rightly so.

You're funny!

I guess I don't understand what you mean. if we unilaterally fight ISIS we have to also send our troops back over there in the middle of the 3000 year old civil war between the Sunni and the Shia. the Shia are Iran, Syria and Assad, there leade, and the new Iraq government that's a week old.The Sunnis are Saudi Arabia and Jordan our allis. that would mean that we're now fighting for Assad and Iran. Maybe instead of our men lost, we can use this opportunity to get Iran to give up the nuclear program and Assads dictatorship if we team up and supply the Iraqis again and the Kurds(which are great fighters) in the north. Also if we can be seen as doing a favor for the whole middle east maybe they won't use us coming in again as a recruitment tool for their terrorist groups like they always have in the past. That's where ISIS came from in the first place, us invading Iraq.

But then if Obama had done the right thing in the first place we wouldn't have to go back in. We'd already be there.

For the thousandth time, we couldn't stay. Nor should we have. We have to make up our mind. Stop meddling, or keep meddling.

So the solution is to meddle in an ineffective manner.

Gotcha

No the solution is to extricate ourselves from these entanglements and then do what the Chinese do. Stay out of it. Period.

And, no, I do not think that is a realistically achievable end. But it's the right one.

I'm sure Sen.Paul might agree but very unfortunately I don't think that staying out of this is an option. ISIS has a lot of money and foreign fighters with U.S. passports. They want to hit us badly. but this is what I wrote before.I guess I don't understand what you mean. if we unilaterally fight ISIS we have to also send our troops back over there in the middle of the 3000 year old civil war between the Sunni and the Shia. the Shia are Iran, Syria and Assad, there leade, and the new Iraq government that's a week old.The Sunnis are Saudi Arabia and Jordan our allis. that would mean that we're now fighting for Assad and Iran. Maybe instead of our men lost, we can use this opportunity to get Iran to give up the nuclear program and Assads dictatorship if we team up and supply the Iraqis again and the Kurds(which are great fighters) in the north. Also if we can be seen as doing a favor for the whole middle east maybe they won't use us coming in again as a recruitment tool for their terrorist groups like they always have in the past. That's where ISIS came from in the first place, us invading Iraq.

 

[Rotagilla]

They called the President a name? Who cares?
They cut someones fucking head off. They will pay for it

They are trying to provoke a military response by the US. They want to be martyrs. Overreacting and doing something we regret later (can we say invasion?) is not something we want

These guys are international terrorists. There is a worldwide mechanism to hunt them down. Let it work

They are better financed and have a bigger army (including lots of our own weapons) than some legitimate countries.

Ok..whatever...everything is fine...all is well and we're in complete control of the situation.

 

[jillian]

to add to my post above (and for some reason I can't get in to edit), that doesn't mean indiscriminate military action.