• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama under fire for admitting no 'strategy yet' for ISIS in Syria [W:446]

Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

Montecresto said:
Perhaps unintended consequences. But Russia did warn three years ago that US interference in Syria would cause the crisis to spread, and they were right.
Click to expand...

Well, if you consider being right from Russia's perspective only. With Syria now a snake pit of competing interests and the birthplace of a radical islamic caliphate, Russia now sees the US occupied by a hornets nest of their own making leaving Russia relatively free to cause havoc in their sphere of influence. But from everyone else's perspective, had the US and western allies gotten involved in Syria when the students first started their protest, before all the bad actors around the middle east flooded in, there likely would not be an ISIS to be concerned about now.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

Already a thread here which was started yesterday: http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...e-dont-have-strategy-yet-bomb-isis-syria.html


But anyways here was my comment on the matter: "Rather not jump the gun right away. Using military force should be a carefully strategized account, viewing all sides of the issue. We all know what happens when someone jumps the gun using military force. All sides of the argument should be looked at. Hell I'm generally not even for using force right now against ISIS, I think we should use other options, but if we are, we should take our time and carefully caluclate the use of force. I do think force will come (unfortunatley) but I'd rather not see us just go bomb bomb bomb bomb"
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

Anthony60 said:
Oh, am I going to be in charge now? If I was the President, I sure as hell would have a plan, and if i didn't, I wouldn't broadcast that to the world.
Click to expand...

It's easy to criticize. Any armchair general can do it. I notice you have no solutions. Typical.

I can assure you there is a lot going on behind the scenes that we aren't aware of. In fact saying there is no plan is probably a strategy to lull our enemies into a false sense of complacency. It wouldn't be the first time this and other presidents have done that and then come down like a hammer.

I think we've been showing our hand too much anyway.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

CanadaJohn said:
Well, if you consider being right from Russia's perspective only. With Syria now a snake pit of competing interests and the birthplace of a radical islamic caliphate, Russia now sees the US occupied by a hornets nest of their own making leaving Russia relatively free to cause havoc in their sphere of influence. But from everyone else's perspective, had the US and western allies gotten involved in Syria when the students first started their protest, before all the bad actors around the middle east flooded in, their likely would not be an ISIS to be concerned about now.
Click to expand...

Horse Hockey. Pure Speculation.
 
j-mac said:
Who knew that playing golf was preferable to actually gathering the cabinet and solving something?

If the strategy is to ensure that America is no longer seen as the lone super power, and project weakness, bravo.
Click to expand...
To be fair to Barrack Obama he was also doing a great deal of fund raising as well.
 
Grant said:
Americans are tired of war and want peace but 'Superpower' status, and 'Leader of the Free World' status, means they either inherit those responsibilities or transfer them elsewhere, much like the British did. But now there is no one to transfer them to. Their enemies are not going to end a war simply because polls show Americans are tired of it, or that they can be placated because BHO admitted to some American mistakes, has a Muslim background, or was a left wing sympathizer in college. What the Nobel Committee saw as strengths were not shared by the realpolitik players.

I can see a further exodus from the United States by wealthier Americans who have become frustrated with both their domestic and international policies. The change Obama promised has now begun to arrive.
Click to expand...

Interesting world you live in...

In that "change" Obama promised five and a half long, lean and leery years ago, where were tanks in the streets, terrorists in every K-Mart, constant war, a re-invasion of Iraq, a completely failed foreign policy?


If what the US has on it's plate is what Obama meant by "change" where in God's name is the hope?

Two:

No one ordered, commanded, asked, nor even wanted the Us to be "the leader of the free world", it was a title bestowed in itself by itself, and has become old, weary and wrong. I contend that if the US withdrew, built a wall around itself in typical paranoid fashion, the world would be a better place. You've been creating terrorists in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq long enough.
 
Grant said:
He or she will have a helluva job cut out for them, that's for sure. It will not be the same America after Obama's remaining years, or the same world.
Click to expand...

I said the same about Dumbya.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Mini-bomb? I used to load those so called "mini-bombs' on jet aircraft. I guarantee you don't want to be with 100 yds. of your so called 500 lb. mini-bombs. I don't give a **** how fanatic ISSI is, that's enough to literally scare the sheet out of you let alone send your body parts in all directions.
Click to expand...
And you feel they were effective in discouraging international terrorism?
 
Fearandloathing said:
As one who has seldom, if ever, supported Obama, I must here.

Congrats, a president that admits to what every other president in recent history has neglected to mention....attack first, plan later.

Look, you were in Vietnam how long? What was the plan there when the US rejected please from Ho Chi Minh for help and attacked him instead? What was the "plan" in the second Iraq war? That one sure worked...fire everyone with a gun, kick them out of a job and expect them to line the streets waving home made flags?

What IS the plan in Afghanistan, besides killing every living thing you see? If there is one, can someone point to what that looks like?

He got honest for once in his administration....must be something in the water
Click to expand...

Good afternoon F&L - morning in your neck of the woods - hope all is well.

Have to disagree with you here. It is mind boggling to me that the President and the Pentagon don't have a strategy for dealing with ISIS when they just went into Iraq and spent a few days bombing ISIS. What was the intent behind that move? To calm domestic anger only? What did the Pentagon tell him was the likely outcome from the bombing? Or doesn't the Pentagon waste time filling the President in on what's happening in the world these days?

The US, the Defense Department and the State Department have strategies and contingency plans for any number of potential scenarios that are taking place or may take place in the world at any point in time. What this tells me is that the President isn't in the loop and that's probably a good thing.
 
j-mac said:
Who knew that playing golf was preferable to actually gathering the cabinet and solving something?

If the strategy is to ensure that America is no longer seen as the lone super power, and project weakness, bravo.
Click to expand...

You can do better than bringing up the golf myth again. What a crock. All presidents need some down time. He's wired in 24/7 anyway.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good afternoon F&L - morning in your neck of the woods - hope all is well.

Have to disagree with you here. It is mind boggling to me that the President and the Pentagon don't have a strategy for dealing with ISIS when they just went into Iraq and spent a few days bombing ISIS. What was the intent behind that move? To calm domestic anger only? What did the Pentagon tell him was the likely outcome from the bombing? Or doesn't the Pentagon waste time filling the President in on what's happening in the world these days?

The US, the Defense Department and the State Department have strategies and contingency plans for any number of potential scenarios that are taking place or may take place in the world at any point in time. What this tells me is that the President isn't in the loop and that's probably a good thing.
Click to expand...


I think they have plans just nothing that the President is willing to approve of as being acceptable right now.
 
Grant said:
Americans are tired of war and want peace but 'Superpower' status, and 'Leader of the Free World' status, means they either inherit those responsibilities or transfer them elsewhere, much like the British did. But now there is no one to transfer them to. Their enemies are not going to end a war simply because polls show Americans are tired of it, or that they can be placated because BHO admitted to some American mistakes, has a Muslim background, or was a left wing sympathizer in college. What the Nobel Committee saw as strengths were not shared by the realpolitik players.

I can see a further exodus from the United States by wealthier Americans who have become frustrated with both their domestic and international policies. The change Obama promised has now begun to arrive.
Click to expand...

Wealthy Americans will stay right where they are. Too many advantages to being wealthy in America vs. other countries. Besides if they leave they can't get the republicans to do their bidding.
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

RabidAlpaca said:
And what exactly is your master plan? Keep in mind it needs to be more detailed than: KILL EM ALL!

"Staying the **** out of it" IS a plan, and it's the plan most Americans want.
Click to expand...

It may be the plan most Americans want, but I guarantee you that that plan will not help make anything better.
 
Grant said:
And you feel they were effective in discouraging international terrorism?
Click to expand...

It's a tool in the tool box. Hard telling how many prospective Bin Laden's ended up as dog food.
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

EnigmaO01 said:
We didn't interfere. We stayed clear because the alternatives were't good either, much to the consternation of war mongers like McCain and Lindsey Graham. At least we got the chemical weapons destroyed.

I could easily make the case that Russia meddled more than we did as they supported the Assad regime.
Click to expand...

President Assad NEEDS to be supported, unless you too think that Syria is a prettier place without him in control of the country. And yes, covertly, the US has been involved in Syria. Not to McCain/Graham standards no.
 
grip said:
I think they have plans just nothing that the President is willing to approve of as being acceptable right now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think they're moving things around right now and don't want to telegraph their punch.
 
grip said:
I think they have plans just nothing that the President is willing to approve of as being acceptable right now.
Click to expand...

So the proper, reasoned response would have been "we are working on several scenarios at this point in time, none of which are currently actionable as we speak".
 
Fearandloathing said:
Interesting world you live in...In that "change" Obama promised five and a half long, lean and leery years ago, where were tanks in the streets, terrorists in every K-Mart, constant war, a re-invasion of Iraq, a completely failed foreign policy?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you can make this sentence more specific and coherent.
If what the US has on it's plate is what Obama meant by "change" where in God's name is the hope?
Click to expand...
He might have sincerely believed there was Hope. Obama was sold on what he learned in high school, feeling like many cocky teenagers that he could genuinely change the world with just a few platitudes and a display of good will. It's reflective of his 'peace and love' generation of teachers.
Two: No one ordered, commanded, asked, nor even wanted the Us to be "the leader of the free world", it was a title bestowed in itself by itself, and has become old, weary and wrong. I contend that if the US withdrew, built a wall around itself in typical paranoid fashion, the world would be a better place. You've been creating terrorists in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq long enough.
Click to expand...
The US became leader of the Free World during WWII when the British couldn't handle the problems on their own. The transfer was seamless. They were the Superpower against Communism, and proved to be successful. Granted, the United States never wanted this status but it was thrust upon them by events, and they are stuck with it. The question is, what do they do now? They can't say they resign, or blame it all on George Bush and move on. There is a reality out there waiting to be met, one way or another. It would be wise to have a strategy in place, or several of them depending on changing circumstances. That, until six years ago anyway, was a generally accepted role of government.
 
Grant said:
To be fair to Barrack Obama he was also doing a great deal of fund raising as well.
Click to expand...

And still wired in 24/7. It's all part of being a president. And you two make it sound like it's a new thing.
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

CanadaJohn said:
I'm a professional reader - let me know when something worth reading pops up.
Click to expand...

I'll check when I'm done reading your posts.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Makes sense to me. You whack Isis and it's to Assad's advantage. You whack Assad and it's to Isis' aadvantage. No quick fixes here. What does make sense is to let them keep killing each other off in Syria which is to our advantage. Obama unlike Dumbya actually think things through and the long range implications.
Click to expand...
In fact what you are saying runs contrary to what Obama said. Who should we believe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom