Three Key Questions About War With ISIS

[TheGreatGatsby]

Obama s War Authorization Limits Ground Forces - Bloomberg View

Obama seems to be ratcheting up actions against ISIS.

From what I surmise without studying the issue in much depth, the new AUMF Obama will be proposing will:

* Allow various forms of support in the war against ISIS.
* Does not allow prolonged ground missions. Basically, no real fighting force on the ground to capture and sustain bases. I am assuming, air attacks are not prohibited.

Now then, I have three key questions for you guys:

1. Do you want to go to war with ISIS?
2. Do you think it is wise to go to war with ISIS while severely limiting ground capabilities?
3. Can we win this war with ISIS as basically a technical supporter and air strikes operations force for our 'allies'?

I think Iraq Saudi Arabia and all the rest need to defeat isis or they'll be taken over. We can't put boots on the ground unless you are talking about special ops. Small elite fighting units we fly in for special missions.

I like using satellite technology and unmanned drones.

The rest of the world can send troops. Why us?

We lose the media war. Our enemies know to wait us out and let our media sew the seeds of dissension.

 

[aaronleland]

what coalition??? This Admin doesnt know first thing about war and considers global warming a bigger threat.I am not in favor of them doing anything. Shut it down and wait and see what the next Admin is. These are not serious people.

Your side would drag Iran into it. In fact I watch religion TV and they sound just as worried about Iran today as McCain was in 2008.

In fact I'm sure the GOP wants to war with Iran. Is that your plan?

My Plan??? I think I said I dont trust people who think global warming is bigger threat shut it down........Obamas plan is delay until Iran has the bomb if they dont alrdy.

Are you drunk?

I'm not trying to be a dick, but maybe you should take a nap.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Gonna answer the questions:

1. I do want to go to war with ISIS. I think that they're a great evil; and day in and day out, a great many people are dying at the hands of these barbarians.

2. My answer is yes and no.

I think if we have a president and legislature (and media) that is unwilling to make the strong case that ISIS is a great evil, then we won't have a nation that is willing to stomach what war really entails. I don't want to send soldiers into the field of operation for them to not have our great support as was arguably the case in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, my answer is no in the sense that I question how effective we can really be without a sizeable ground force and having bases of operations.

But my answer is yes in that let's at least do something short of our nation really getting fully behind this war.

3. I think that winning depends on the strengths of our allies vs. strengths of ISIS. I've seen enough to at least be optimistic about it. How strong is ISIS. Obama called them the JV. Is that really true? I'd like to learn more about what their numbers are and what their strongholds, capabilities and geopolitical backings are.

1. I agree completely that ISIS has to be taken out.

2. I disagree that we should send in any sizable ground forces. The current US-led coalition is unprecedented in it's makeup. Never before have we drawn so many Muslim countries to our side to fight other Muslims. If they are unable to settle this fight with their own ground forces then that region is hopeless. Our only other option would be entrenching ourselves in the Middle East for the rest of our country's history.

3. I am also optimistic based on the support of other Muslim countries. It may all be political, but the fact is that ISIS's presence in the region threatens the stability of these Muslim country's control. They will do anything they can to eliminate that threat.

In fairness to Obama for his "JV" comment, ISIS's lightning fast offensive in Iraq and Syria was unprecedented, and most likely unforeseen by anybody. Now that the threat is clear their advances have been slowed dramatically. I think it similar to the German blitzkrieg of WW2. You can take over a large amount of land in a small period of time, but maintaining control is another matter.

3. The rise of ISIS was foreseen and predicted by a number of Generals and some Politicians. The only one that mattered that didn't foresee it is Obama. He didn't want to see or hear it because leaving Iraq was one of his talking points to get reelected.

I wish it were that simple. Obama funded the Syrian rebels (ISIS). He's known what they're about.

Do you have sources to where the U.S. funded ISIS? There are many rebel groups in Syria, and one of the most prominent are the Kurdish soldiers fighting ISIS. I'm not doubting what you say. It wouldn't be the first time we funded groups we later deemed terrorists.

Not at the ready, but if you search the youtube user syria girl's account (Not sure on the spelling), she presented some pretty damning info. We were basically paying Syrian Rebels $110 a day (which is a lot to a poor person with a family) and giving them arms even as they killed the infidels and did their barbaric acts.

 

[sealybobo]

what coalition??? This Admin doesnt know first thing about war and considers global warming a bigger threat.I am not in favor of them doing anything. Shut it down and wait and see what the next Admin is. These are not serious people.

Your side would drag Iran into it. In fact I watch religion TV and they sound just as worried about Iran today as McCain was in 2008.

In fact I'm sure the GOP wants to war with Iran. Is that your plan?

My Plan??? I think I said I dont trust people who think global warming is bigger threat shut it down........Obamas plan is delay until Iran has the bomb if they dont alrdy.

Gw is our planets biggest problem. If you knew any science you'd know that.

And not right wing hack creation science. Your science is funded by coal and oil men you fucking idiot.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Obama s War Authorization Limits Ground Forces - Bloomberg View

Obama seems to be ratcheting up actions against ISIS.

From what I surmise without studying the issue in much depth, the new AUMF Obama will be proposing will:

* Allow various forms of support in the war against ISIS.
* Does not allow prolonged ground missions. Basically, no real fighting force on the ground to capture and sustain bases. I am assuming, air attacks are not prohibited.

Now then, I have three key questions for you guys:

1. Do you want to go to war with ISIS?
2. Do you think it is wise to go to war with ISIS while severely limiting ground capabilities?
3. Can we win this war with ISIS as basically a technical supporter and air strikes operations force for our 'allies'?

The mistake you and most others on the right make is to incorrectly perceive 'ISIS' as some sort of entity that can be dealt with using a conventional military force.

It isn't.

Indeed, should the United States attempt to attack ISIS, its fighters will simply return to their home towns and villages and reconstitute once the American military is gone. ISIS is the consequence of civil war in Syria and political instability in Iraq; consequently resolution can be brought about only through political means, not military, at least as far as the United States is concerned.

And most important, it is not the United States' responsibility alone to deal with ISIS, Americans must never again die pointlessly in the ME, the United States may offer arms, supplies, and intelligence to regional partners who must bear the greater responsible for addressing ISIS.

Last, this isn't 'our' war, this isn't something 'we're' compelled to 'win,' and this isn't anything the Nation must 'get behind.' It's not 1944, ISIS is not the Nazis, and Syria and Iraq are not Belgium and France; what you're advocating is yet another failed American war in Asia.

It's truly remarkable how most conservatives fail to learn from history, and how willing they are to throw away American lives.

Oh, here we go again; there is some great enemy that can't be beat 'conventionally.' BS. But I will say that we do need some sort of plan to eradicate radical Islam proponents in the aftermath of a war; and our wussy politicians won't make that happen.

And while I can respect an opinion of anyone that is against going to war, don't oversimplify and say this is not our war. There's plenty of blood of innocents, including American blood. We would not be wrong to consider scourging the great evil that infects this planet.

 

[sealybobo]

Gonna answer the questions:

1. I do want to go to war with ISIS. I think that they're a great evil; and day in and day out, a great many people are dying at the hands of these barbarians.

2. My answer is yes and no.

I think if we have a president and legislature (and media) that is unwilling to make the strong case that ISIS is a great evil, then we won't have a nation that is willing to stomach what war really entails. I don't want to send soldiers into the field of operation for them to not have our great support as was arguably the case in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, my answer is no in the sense that I question how effective we can really be without a sizeable ground force and having bases of operations.

But my answer is yes in that let's at least do something short of our nation really getting fully behind this war.

3. I think that winning depends on the strengths of our allies vs. strengths of ISIS. I've seen enough to at least be optimistic about it. How strong is ISIS. Obama called them the JV. Is that really true? I'd like to learn more about what their numbers are and what their strongholds, capabilities and geopolitical backings are.

1. I agree completely that ISIS has to be taken out.

2. I disagree that we should send in any sizable ground forces. The current US-led coalition is unprecedented in it's makeup. Never before have we drawn so many Muslim countries to our side to fight other Muslims. If they are unable to settle this fight with their own ground forces then that region is hopeless. Our only other option would be entrenching ourselves in the Middle East for the rest of our country's history.

3. I am also optimistic based on the support of other Muslim countries. It may all be political, but the fact is that ISIS's presence in the region threatens the stability of these Muslim country's control. They will do anything they can to eliminate that threat.

In fairness to Obama for his "JV" comment, ISIS's lightning fast offensive in Iraq and Syria was unprecedented, and most likely unforeseen by anybody. Now that the threat is clear their advances have been slowed dramatically. I think it similar to the German blitzkrieg of WW2. You can take over a large amount of land in a small period of time, but maintaining control is another matter.

3. The rise of ISIS was foreseen and predicted by a number of Generals and some Politicians. The only one that mattered that didn't foresee it is Obama. He didn't want to see or hear it because leaving Iraq was one of his talking points to get reelected.

I wish it were that simple. Obama funded the Syrian rebels (ISIS). He's known what they're about.

Do you have sources to where the U.S. funded ISIS? There are many rebel groups in Syria, and one of the most prominent are the Kurdish soldiers fighting ISIS. I'm not doubting what you say. It wouldn't be the first time we funded groups we later deemed terrorists.

I believe bush funded Mook tada el sadr to help catch Saddam but they later stabbed us in the back.

 

[sealybobo]

Obama s War Authorization Limits Ground Forces - Bloomberg View

Obama seems to be ratcheting up actions against ISIS.

From what I surmise without studying the issue in much depth, the new AUMF Obama will be proposing will:

* Allow various forms of support in the war against ISIS.
* Does not allow prolonged ground missions. Basically, no real fighting force on the ground to capture and sustain bases. I am assuming, air attacks are not prohibited.

Now then, I have three key questions for you guys:

1. Do you want to go to war with ISIS?
2. Do you think it is wise to go to war with ISIS while severely limiting ground capabilities?
3. Can we win this war with ISIS as basically a technical supporter and air strikes operations force for our 'allies'?

The mistake you and most others on the right make is to incorrectly perceive 'ISIS' as some sort of entity that can be dealt with using a conventional military force.

It isn't.

Indeed, should the United States attempt to attack ISIS, its fighters will simply return to their home towns and villages and reconstitute once the American military is gone. ISIS is the consequence of civil war in Syria and political instability in Iraq; consequently resolution can be brought about only through political means, not military, at least as far as the United States is concerned.

And most important, it is not the United States' responsibility alone to deal with ISIS, Americans must never again die pointlessly in the ME, the United States may offer arms, supplies, and intelligence to regional partners who must bear the greater responsible for addressing ISIS.

Last, this isn't 'our' war, this isn't something 'we're' compelled to 'win,' and this isn't anything the Nation must 'get behind.' It's not 1944, ISIS is not the Nazis, and Syria and Iraq are not Belgium and France; what you're advocating is yet another failed American war in Asia.

It's truly remarkable how most conservatives fail to learn from history, and how willing they are to throw away American lives.

Oh, here we go again; there is some great enemy that can't be beat 'conventionally.' Bull shit.

And while I can respect an opinion of anyone that is against going to war, don't oversimplify and say this is not our war. There's plenty of blood of innocents, including American blood. We would not be wrong to consider scourging the great evil that infects this planet.

We're bombing them with drones wherever we find them. I wish wed do more but truth is pakistanis saudis Iraqis and jordanians have to do more.

Let Iran have a nuke.

 

[Manonthestreet]

what coalition??? This Admin doesnt know first thing about war and considers global warming a bigger threat.I am not in favor of them doing anything. Shut it down and wait and see what the next Admin is. These are not serious people.

Your side would drag Iran into it. In fact I watch religion TV and they sound just as worried about Iran today as McCain was in 2008.

In fact I'm sure the GOP wants to war with Iran. Is that your plan?

My Plan??? I think I said I dont trust people who think global warming is bigger threat shut it down........Obamas plan is delay until Iran has the bomb if they dont alrdy.

Gw is our planets biggest problem. If you knew any science you'd know that.

And not right wing hack creation science. Your science is funded by coal and oil men you fucking idiot.

Rigghttttttt..........so that would be ...you agree Obama shouldnt go to war?????

 

[Manonthestreet]

what coalition??? This Admin doesnt know first thing about war and considers global warming a bigger threat.I am not in favor of them doing anything. Shut it down and wait and see what the next Admin is. These are not serious people.

Your side would drag Iran into it. In fact I watch religion TV and they sound just as worried about Iran today as McCain was in 2008.

In fact I'm sure the GOP wants to war with Iran. Is that your plan?

My Plan??? I think I said I dont trust people who think global warming is bigger threat shut it down........Obamas plan is delay until Iran has the bomb if they dont alrdy.

Are you drunk?

I'm not trying to be a dick, but maybe you should take a nap.

Because you've demonstrated a much higher grasp of the facts.....?? LLMMAAOOOO

 

[sealybobo]

Gonna answer the questions:

1. I do want to go to war with ISIS. I think that they're a great evil; and day in and day out, a great many people are dying at the hands of these barbarians.

2. My answer is yes and no.

I think if we have a president and legislature (and media) that is unwilling to make the strong case that ISIS is a great evil, then we won't have a nation that is willing to stomach what war really entails. I don't want to send soldiers into the field of operation for them to not have our great support as was arguably the case in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, my answer is no in the sense that I question how effective we can really be without a sizeable ground force and having bases of operations.

But my answer is yes in that let's at least do something short of our nation really getting fully behind this war.

3. I think that winning depends on the strengths of our allies vs. strengths of ISIS. I've seen enough to at least be optimistic about it. How strong is ISIS. Obama called them the JV. Is that really true? I'd like to learn more about what their numbers are and what their strongholds, capabilities and geopolitical backings are.

1. I agree completely that ISIS has to be taken out.

2. I disagree that we should send in any sizable ground forces. The current US-led coalition is unprecedented in it's makeup. Never before have we drawn so many Muslim countries to our side to fight other Muslims. If they are unable to settle this fight with their own ground forces then that region is hopeless. Our only other option would be entrenching ourselves in the Middle East for the rest of our country's history.

3. I am also optimistic based on the support of other Muslim countries. It may all be political, but the fact is that ISIS's presence in the region threatens the stability of these Muslim country's control. They will do anything they can to eliminate that threat.

In fairness to Obama for his "JV" comment, ISIS's lightning fast offensive in Iraq and Syria was unprecedented, and most likely unforeseen by anybody. Now that the threat is clear their advances have been slowed dramatically. I think it similar to the German blitzkrieg of WW2. You can take over a large amount of land in a small period of time, but maintaining control is another matter.

3. The rise of ISIS was foreseen and predicted by a number of Generals and some Politicians. The only one that mattered that didn't foresee it is Obama. He didn't want to see or hear it because leaving Iraq was one of his talking points to get reelected.

I wish it were that simple. Obama funded the Syrian rebels (ISIS). He's known what they're about.

Do you have sources to where the U.S. funded ISIS? There are many rebel groups in Syria, and one of the most prominent are the Kurdish soldiers fighting ISIS. I'm not doubting what you say. It wouldn't be the first time we funded groups we later deemed terrorists.

Not at the ready, but if you search the youtube user syria girl's account (Not sure on the spelling), she presented some pretty damning info. We were basically paying Syrian Rebels $110 a day (which is a lot to a poor person with a family) and giving them arms even as they killed the infidels and did their barbaric acts.

Oops. Don't give them anymore money. Lol

Any american that goes to one of these countries is asking for trouble. Why we there anyways? Go green and fuck the sand people.

 

[sealybobo]

what coalition??? This Admin doesnt know first thing about war and considers global warming a bigger threat.I am not in favor of them doing anything. Shut it down and wait and see what the next Admin is. These are not serious people.

Your side would drag Iran into it. In fact I watch religion TV and they sound just as worried about Iran today as McCain was in 2008.

In fact I'm sure the GOP wants to war with Iran. Is that your plan?

My Plan??? I think I said I dont trust people who think global warming is bigger threat shut it down........Obamas plan is delay until Iran has the bomb if they dont alrdy.

Gw is our planets biggest problem. If you knew any science you'd know that.

And not right wing hack creation science. Your science is funded by coal and oil men you fucking idiot.

Rigghttttttt..........so that would be ...you agree Obama shouldnt go to war?????

What's Australia doing about it or China or Canada? Let's do that. Ron paul

 

[NotfooledbyW]

horty 10731162

Have I claimed to be a military strategist or a member of the Joint Chiefs?
All I can do is hope we annihilate them or, at the very least, cripple them to the point that they're not a threat to any peace-loving people.
IMO ground troops should only be a last resort and then only the exact number needed and not one more than necessary

Then why do you call Obama out for political posturing by seeking Congress to do its job (however limited it may be) just so he can say "See? I did something" so a major terror attack in the future is not on him? The point with the matrix was not to suggest you are a military strategist. It was to show that you have no rationale behind your despicable character assassination of our President during a time of war. No calculations by anybody can foresee a terror attack that somehow by some new means gets through. And a future terror attack surely is no more likely to happen just because it is better to have men of Muslim faith fighting their own ground battles instead of Americans fighting for them and in front of them.

This is nonsense now that I've heard your explanation and follow up.

horty 10730527

Is it just political posturing on his part just so he can say, "See? I did something" (however limited it may be) so when the shit hits the fan later it's not on him?

You agree with Obama for not sending ground troops in a combat role. Yet you say those things about his motivation based on nothing.

 

[Manonthestreet]

So if libs agree we shouldnt let Obama go to war.....are they contacting the White house to let them know.........

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So if libs agree we shouldnt let Obama go to war.....are they contacting the White house to let them know.........

 

[Manonthestreet]

Libs dont know what they want?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Manon 10731385

So if libs agree we shouldnt let Obama go to war.....are they contacting the White house to let them know... ......

Obama's been at war for months. There's no sense answering a poster so misinformed that he does not know that. Most libs are not opposed to legitimate war an intelligently fought tactical war with locals doing the fighting on the ground.

Im contacting idiot Republican to stop their insane calls for Anericans to be slaughtered on the ground in a combat role in Syria and Iraq.

 

[Moonglow]

Libs dont know what they want?

And conservatives lie about the situation...

 

[usmcstinger]

Obama s War Authorization Limits Ground Forces - Bloomberg View

Obama seems to be ratcheting up actions against ISIS.

From what I surmise without studying the issue in much depth, the new AUMF Obama will be proposing will:

* Allow various forms of support in the war against ISIS.
* Does not allow prolonged ground missions. Basically, no real fighting force on the ground to capture and sustain bases. I am assuming, air attacks are not prohibited.

Now then, I have three key questions for you guys:

1. Do you want to go to war with ISIS?
2. Do you think it is wise to go to war with ISIS while severely limiting ground capabilities?
3. Can we win this war with ISIS as basically a technical supporter and air strikes operations force for our 'allies'?

Cut all the BS. The way you destroy an enemy is with over whelming force. It worked well in desert storm. Bush 41 and his military decided on the objective. He let the military determine how the objective would be reached.

 

[Camp]

Obama s War Authorization Limits Ground Forces - Bloomberg View

Obama seems to be ratcheting up actions against ISIS.

From what I surmise without studying the issue in much depth, the new AUMF Obama will be proposing will:

* Allow various forms of support in the war against ISIS.
* Does not allow prolonged ground missions. Basically, no real fighting force on the ground to capture and sustain bases. I am assuming, air attacks are not prohibited.

Now then, I have three key questions for you guys:

1. Do you want to go to war with ISIS?
2. Do you think it is wise to go to war with ISIS while severely limiting ground capabilities?
3. Can we win this war with ISIS as basically a technical supporter and air strikes operations force for our 'allies'?

Cut all the BS. The way you destroy an enemy is with over whelming force. It worked well in desert storm. Bush 41 and his military decided on the objective. He let the military determine how the objective would be reached.

Are you suggesting a cease fire with ISIS if they perhaps retreat out of Iraq the way Iraq retreated out of Kuwait? You would allow ISIS to live on to fight another day the way Bush 41 did with Saddam and Iraq?

 

[hortysir]

horty 10731162

Have I claimed to be a military strategist or a member of the Joint Chiefs?
All I can do is hope we annihilate them or, at the very least, cripple them to the point that they're not a threat to any peace-loving people.
IMO ground troops should only be a last resort and then only the exact number needed and not one more than necessary

Then why do you call Obama out for political posturing by seeking Congress to do its job (however limited it may be) just so he can say "See? I did something" so a major terror attack in the future is not on him? The point with the matrix was not to suggest you are a military strategist. It was to show that you have no rationale behind your despicable character assassination of our President during a time of war. No calculations by anybody can foresee a terror attack that somehow by some new means gets through. And a future terror attack surely is no more likely to happen just because it is better to have men of Muslim faith fighting their own ground battles instead of Americans fighting for them and in front of them.

This is nonsense now that I've heard your explanation and follow up.

horty 10730527

Is it just political posturing on his part just so he can say, "See? I did something" (however limited it may be) so when the shit hits the fan later it's not on him?

You agree with Obama for not sending ground troops in a combat role. Yet you say those things about his motivation based on nothing.

Actually what I said was I can't help but be skeptical.
He's been known to be very political on too many issues to trust him completely.
If you'd take your lips off his ass for a few minutes you may realize that I'm one of the few rightwing nutbars around here that still has respect for the President (notice the capital P?)and our system of government.