Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 agree.Do we have a vested interest in a Shia or Sunni Iraq? I know SA wants a Sunni, and ISSI is Sunni right, they use to have Iraq with Hussein, so it use to be Sunni.
I think the ME should take care of it . The Iraq army is much larger than ISIS and well fight for your land.
What are we suppose to do , take sides? We messed up Syria with trying to do a coup, so the Syria army is weak but its not our fight. Let it play out.
Sorry answer to #1 is NO so 2 and 3 are NA for me.
. He's been known to be very political on too many issues to trust him completely.
Regardless of party, if a bill can stand on its own merits.horty 10733494. He's been known to be very political on too many issues to trust him completely.
So do you think the losing party in a presidential election should still have their political agenda's carried forward without a fight from the winning President?
Riddle me this dumbass how do you destroy what you are creating and funding? You just had 3000 "moderate trainees" walk over to ISIS with all the weapons we supplied and you are working on the next batch. This is all a charade.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.
You just had 3000 "moderate trainees" walk over to ISIS with all the weapons we supplied and you are working on the next batch.
Regardless of party, if a bill can stand on its own merits.
Neither should use their majority as a blank check
Those goalposts heavy?Regardless of party, if a bill can stand on its own merits.
Neither should use their majority as a blank check
How was Obama politicizing the war against DAIISH terrorist scum or using a Dem majority as a blank check by requesting Congress to pass an updated AUMF according to the constitution?
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.
Can you link to any generals or politicians who predicted that a group of terrorists would take over vast regions of two countries in a matter of a few months? Did the leaders of these Muslim countries fighting ISIS not get the memo?
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.
We already have all that stuff. At face value I can see absolutely nothing being asked for that can't be obtained from current capabilities. Which is why I am guessing there is something more than face value.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?
horty 10730702If we can't hit them hard enough or hurt them bad enough and we wind up with another 9/11, for example.
So do you have a matrix developed which shows the number and timeline that DAIISH terrorist scum must be hit hard enough and hurt bad enough so that Obama can rest 'politically' assured that we don't wind up with another 9/11 which US rightwingers would shamefully blame not on the DAIISH terrorist scum but on President Obama? Does your matrix require 10,000 US troops engaged in ground combat or 50,000 or 500,000 so Obama can't be blamed for a 9/11 similar terrorist attack?
Or are you opposed to sending US troops to a combat role inside Iraq and Syria?
We should go take that territory back from ISIS. (I hear they grabbed a couple oil fields.Riddle me this dumbass how do you destroy what you are creating and funding? You just had 3000 "moderate trainees" walk over to ISIS with all the weapons we supplied and you are working on the next batch. This is all a charade.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.
)
...I think I made it very clear from the beginning I am not in favor of giving Obama authority to do anything there. Period
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.
Can you link to any generals or politicians who predicted that a group of terrorists would take over vast regions of two countries in a matter of a few months? Did the leaders of these Muslim countries fighting ISIS not get the memo?
"At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007,Bush declared: “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”
George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post
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.
Can you link to any generals or politicians who predicted that a group of terrorists would take over vast regions of two countries in a matter of a few months? Did the leaders of these Muslim countries fighting ISIS not get the memo?
"At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007,Bush declared: “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”
George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post
How many American lives would have been lost had we stayed? Maybe 'only' a thousand or so. What would be the exact compelling justification for that? Now, I'm not saying that ISIS isn't evil and shouldn't be blown up; but the overarching problem of dogmatic Islam has to be addressed before anything lasting can happen.
