• 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.

RabidAlpaca said:
That's airstrikes. That's not really getting involved. We do air strikes all over the place, like Yemen.

Seeing as how that's kind of Obama's plan, what is your issue with it? How is that not a plan? You could possibly argue it's a bad plan, but not that it's no plan.



Oh, well please, tell me how the past 10 years of American military presence has improved the situation in the Iraq/Syria region.
Click to expand...

Well, first...out of the last 10 years, how many of those have we had troops in Iraq or Syria? Second, how has not having troops in Iraq or Syria improved anything? Lastly, if you think airstrikes is not "getting involved" then you are delusional.
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

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

So we just ignore the problem and hope it goes away? If only life were that easy.
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

mac said:
Well, first...out of the last 10 years, how many of those have we had troops in Iraq or Syria? Second, how has not having troops in Iraq or Syria improved anything? Lastly, if you think airstrikes is not "getting involved" then you are delusional.
Click to expand...

Out of the last 10 years? We were in Iraq from 2003 to 2011. How did that help us? Why should we go right back in where we left off? How long do you want us there? 20? 30 years?

Roadvirus said:
So we just ignore the problem and hope it goes away? If only life were that easy.
Click to expand...

You know, I haven't heard jack **** from any of you regarding what YOU would actually do. We're focusing on air strikes and paramilitary raids, we don't need ground forces. The Iraqi and Syrian people have to decide for themselves that they don't want to tolerate extremism, we can't force it on them, we've tried.

Grant said:
Perhaps that explains their ineffectiveness.

Obama has already said he doesn't have a plan, which leaves little room for debate.
Click to expand...

We're using air strikes and not committing ground troops. How is that not a plan? Are you denying there are air strikes? I could understand you not liking the plan, but claiming there isn't one is ignoring reality.
 
Blue_State said:
The next president will be a four year president. He is going to inherit a **** storm and it will age him into a 1 term president.
Click to expand...

Unless the next President has a sympathetic press. I mean, the current President inhereted a bad situation, and somehow managed to make it even worse, and enjoyed a wide margin in his re-election.
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

EnigmaO01 said:
It's easy to criticize. Any armchair general can do it. I notice you have no solutions. Typical. .
Click to expand...

Remember, partisan hack-jobs are partisan hack-jobs because they can only complain. They have no solutions. Zyphlin will offer a viable alternative. No one calls him a partisan hack-job.

If a person only has the ability to complain, then they are largely useless.
 
grip said:
He probably believes people already knew that much. He was really announcing that he's not ready to act on any plans as of yet, I think?
Click to expand...

Yes, people probably already knew they were fine tuning plans and weren't ready to act or announce. What some didn't know or refused to admit is that their President is a dolt - now more know the truth which is a benefit in itself.
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

jmotivator said:
... in the same way Japan didn't really get involved with Pearl Harbor?
Click to expand...

The Japanese also had long term plans of invading and occupying Hawaii. The attack on Pearl Harbor was just the first of several attacks. Hawaii was attacked more than once.

That is substantially different from just doing supportive air strikes.
 
grip said:
I would've pulled the troops out, eventually. There was no way of knowing what would happen with 100% certainty.

Unfortunately, the longer we wait, the stronger ISIS will become.

Evil vs Good? And we're good? I don't see things in those terms. It's a battle of ideologies and I prefer the Western version.
Click to expand...

This is what we are fighting and it is evil. Let's not equivocate. ISIS terrorists film mass execution of 250 Syrian soldiers after forcing them to march through desert in their underwear - NY Daily News
 
Karl said:
That the right hates Obama? Are you kidding? :lamo
Click to expand...

Have you actually heard of anyone who "hates" Obama? This would seem an attempt to garner sympathy for the poor guy.
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

RabidAlpaca said:
Out of the last 10 years? We were in Iraq from 2003 to 2011. How did that help us? Why should we go right back in where we left off? How long do you want us there? 20? 30 years?
Click to expand...
We have it on very good authority that, in 2011, Iraq was "stable". If it was possible to "go right back in where we left off" it would be a very, very good thing.

We're using air strikes and not committing ground troops. How is that not a plan? Are you denying there are air strikes? I could understand you not liking the plan, but claiming there isn't one is ignoring reality.
Click to expand...

Air strikes is a plan?
 
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...

Very true. Also Assad told the U.S. they were on the wrong side in supporting the Rebels. That they were terrorist.
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

As the President, would any of you trust Bachmann or Gohmert types with any intel?

They and their GOP "warhawks" like McCain/Ayotte/Graham have proven time and again
that they will repeat intel while blasting the President on the World stage giving Putin-types comfort .
 
A far greater percentage of Americans are against the President fighting in Ukraine and Syria/Iraq
than they were in opposing PPACA--a ginned-up outrage.

GOP excuse-makers speak with forked-tongue on American support for one and not the other .
 
EnigmaO01 said:
He?

Our present CIC has already inherited a ton of grief from the ****ups of the previous administration. In fact he's been doing nothing but dealing with all of the ramifications of bad decisions.
Click to expand...

Ya, you are right. He hasn't done anything to put the US and world into the current situation it is in. /s
 
I'd rather have the President not tell the press or GOP anything about what he is thinking and planning.

We saw the NYT tell the World we were flying manned and unmanned flights over Syria.

These folks seem to forget we are still at WAR .
 
Blue_State said:
Ya, you are right. He hasn't done anything to put the US and world into the current situation it is in. /s
Click to expand...

He clearly didn't say that but you knew that as you typed.

54% of Americans think the President should be tougher.
Yet the vast majority of GOPs and Dems are opposed to boots on the ground--the vein R. Paul/Libertarian is tapping in to.

FOX and Krauthammer-types fawn over Putin while wanting multiple wars around the planet, against the views of the American people .
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

Perotista said:
Very true. Also Assad told the U.S. they were on the wrong side in supporting the Rebels. That they were terrorist.
Click to expand...

And that is very true as well!
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

Montecresto said:
There has been covert US support in Syria from the beginning. Had the US and other regional states not injected themselves, president Assad would have put the insurrection down early on, there wouldn't be 160,000 dead civilians and IS wouldn't have found the blossoming room that they did. And further, IS got its start in Iraq, another place that the US created a power vacuum in, so they WOULD still exist, but not likely as powerful as they are at present.
Click to expand...

Heya Monte. :2wave: Which of those regional states interjected themselves first and then called on the US to back their play? Oh and who created the Power vacuum where ISIL/AQ got its start and how was that vacuum created and by which President?

ISIL is AQ in Levant. Then there was that issue of the Z Man and AQ prime saying they were to radical for them. Yet this entire time that ISIL has morphed.....AQ Prime who says they wanted nothing to do with them. Just kept on having things to do with them. Especially the most dangerous faction of all of Al Qaida. That would be AQAP in Yemen. Who is in close contact with whom?

But hey.....the US media made sure all knew that ISIL was disowned by AQ. Imagine that.
 
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...


Heya Grip. :2wave: Well that's what the Recon flights over Syria is for, since we really have no eyes on the ground.



He also noted that he had asked Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel -- and his joint chiefs of staff -- to furnish him with “a range of options” to finally deal with these violent and bloodthirsty terrorists.

Obama: We Have No Strategy to Fight ISIS; Ukraine Wasn
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

MMC said:
Heya Monte. :2wave: Which of those regional states interjected themselves first and then called on the US to back their play? Oh and who created the Power vacuum where ISIL/AQ got its start and how was that vacuum created and by which President?

ISIL is AQ in Levant. Then there was that issue of the Z Man and AQ prime saying they were to radical for them. Yet this entire time that ISIL has morphed.....AQ Prime who says they wanted nothing to do with them. Just kept on having things to do with them. Especially the most dangerous faction of all of Al Qaida. That would be AQAP in Yemen. Who is in close contact with whom?

But hey.....the US media made sure all knew that ISIL was disowned by AQ. Imagine that.
Click to expand...

Howdy bud! Yeah, they did want to draw a big separation between ISIS/ISIL and AQ.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
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.
Click to expand...


tmdsu14082820140829053621.jpg


Make sure you send that memo to Buffet, Gates, and those associated with Steve Jobs, while talking that good talk. Which as usual.....is nothing more than just talk!
 
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...



We started interfering once the Saud and Qatar pressured us to do so. Which Hill-Dog admitted in her Friends of Syrian Meetings. Wherein she stated we gave support to the MB backed Rebels in the form of Soft aid and helping them to avoid capture.

Yeah you can make the case Russia supported Assad.....but then that's about it.
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

RabidAlpaca said:
Out of the last 10 years? We were in Iraq from 2003 to 2011. How did that help us? Why should we go right back in where we left off? How long do you want us there? 20? 30 years?
Click to expand...

I want us there as long as it takes....like we did in Europe.

You know, I haven't heard jack **** from any of you regarding what YOU would actually do. We're focusing on air strikes and paramilitary raids, we don't need ground forces. The Iraqi and Syrian people have to decide for themselves that they don't want to tolerate extremism, we can't force it on them, we've tried.
Click to expand...

Then you haven't been listening. I would establish a persistant force in Iraq...preferably a UN force, but if not, a US force....much like we did in Europe and Japan post WWII and follow it with an Iraqi version of the Marshall plan.

We're using air strikes and not committing ground troops. How is that not a plan? Are you denying there are air strikes? I could understand you not liking the plan, but claiming there isn't one is ignoring reality.
Click to expand...

We have committed ground troops. There are US "boots on the ground".
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

Montecresto said:
Howdy bud! Yeah, they did want to draw a big separation between ISIS/ISIL and AQ.
Click to expand...

Again.....what was the true reality? What were the actual facts on the ground showing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom