Under Fire From G.O.P., Obama Defends Response to Terror Attacks

JANFU · Dec 17, 2015

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/w...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

But he said his refusal to send large numbers of ground forces back to the Middle East was rooted in the grim assumption that the casualties and costs would rival the worst of the Iraq war. A major recommitment of troops could result every month in the deaths of 100 Americans and $10 billion spent, the president said.
Continue reading the main story

Mr. Obama said that if he did send troops to Syria, as some Republicans have urged, he feared a slippery slope that would eventually require similar deployments to other terrorist strongholds like Libya and Yemen, effectively putting him in charge of governing much of the region. He told the columnists that he envisioned sending significant ground forces to the Middle East only in the case of a catastrophic terrorist attack that disrupted the normal functioning of the United States.

Poll Question
Obama's policy
Agree
Disagree
Other please explain

Thrilla · Dec 17, 2015

just because you go in to Syria doesn't mean you will be required to go anywhere else... so his reasoning really doesn't pass the smell test

Montecresto · Dec 17, 2015

Thrilla said:
just because you go in to Syria doesn't mean you will be required to go anywhere else... so his reasoning really doesn't pass the smell test

So, assuming it was even possible to eliminate the Islamic State in Syria, what about all the other countries they are operating in, including the 50 US States?

JANFU · Dec 17, 2015

Thrilla said:
just because you go in to Syria doesn't mean you will be required to go anywhere else... so his reasoning really doesn't pass the smell test

Yes it does. Libya is near collapse. ISIL is gaining strength. Once you start going in, which the US has dome often enough, it always leads to calls for more troops, other countries.

Thrilla · Dec 17, 2015

Montecresto said:
So, assuming it was even possible to eliminate the Islamic State in Syria, what about all the other countries they are operating in, including the 50 US States?

no need to go all over to kill the beast... taking away it's home base takes away it's entire infrastructure and funding streams..... their will be a few stragglers out there, but the goal is never to kill off 100% of the members... it's to kill off the organization itself and let the stragglers wither into nothing.

none of this really matters at this point,the decision not to make a substantial effort to take them out was made long ago... explaining the rationale now doesn't mean anything to anyone.

Thrilla · Dec 17, 2015

JANFU said:
Yes it does. Libya is near collapse. ISIL is gaining strength. Once you start going in, which the US has dome often enough, it always leads to calls for more troops, other countries.

no, it doesn't... you are confusing a choice with a requirement...... they are not the same.

JANFU · Dec 17, 2015

Thrilla said:
no, it doesn't... you are confusing a choice with a requirement...... they are not the same.

For some, they are.
They are for the Republican Party Presidential candidates. There are since the Republican Party has been screaming for that for years.

Montecresto · Dec 17, 2015

Thrilla said:
no need to go all over to kill the beast... taking away it's home base takes away it's entire infrastructure and funding streams..... their will be a few stragglers out there, but the goal is never to kill off 100% of the members... it's to kill off the organization itself and let the stragglers wither into nothing.

none of this really matters at this point,the decision not to make a substantial effort to take them out was made long ago... explaining the rationale now doesn't mean anything to anyone.

Lol, that's the same horse **** the Bush administration fed us. As even Ted Cruz now concedes, as a matter of US national security, we should have left Hussein, Mubarak and Gaddafi in place, and we shouldn't be attempting to overthrow Assad. They were the containment of Islamic extremists.

Erod · Dec 17, 2015

Montecresto said:
So, assuming it was even possible to eliminate the Islamic State in Syria, what about all the other countries they are operating in, including the 50 US States?

Chop off the head at the home base and cut off the funding. It'll peter out from there.

Montecresto · Dec 17, 2015

Erod said:
Chop off the head at the home base and cut off the funding. It'll peter out from there.

Yep, like we did so well with AQ in Iraq when they were on the run, no longer a serious threat, in their last throws. :lamo

Thrilla · Dec 17, 2015

JANFU said:
For some, they are.
They are for the Republican Party Presidential candidates. There are since the Republican Party has been screaming for that for years.

I'm not talking to the GOP.. i'm talking to you.

Erod · Dec 17, 2015

Montecresto said:
Yep, like we did so well with AQ in Iraq when they were on the run, no longer a serious threat, in their last throws. :lamo

Before Obama abandoned the fight, allowed them to regroup, and take over the oil fields in Syria to fund an even more threatening terrorist regime.

Yep.

Unitedwestand13 · Dec 17, 2015

Montecresto said:
Lol, that's the same horse **** the Bush administration fed us. As even Ted Cruz now concedes, as a matter of US national security, we should have left Hussein, Mubarak and Gaddafi in place, and we shouldn't be attempting to overthrow Assad. They were the containment of Islamic extremists.

the conditions that ignited The Arab spring protests were always there in the middle east.

it all started in tunisia.

Thrilla · Dec 17, 2015

Montecresto said:
Lol, that's the same horse **** the Bush administration fed us. As even Ted Cruz now concedes, as a matter of US national security, we should have left Hussein, Mubarak and Gaddafi in place, and we shouldn't be attempting to overthrow Assad. They were the containment of Islamic extremists.

I'm glad you agree with Cruz on the matter... I, however, do not.

as i've told you numerous times now, I will not ever support tyrannical dictators.... and i'm not quite sure why you try to convince me otherwise... i'm kind of a big fan of people being free, and I don't see that changing.
I understand many folks in our government, and many many outside of it, prefer to have tyrannical distorts enslaving their people... but that's not how I roll

Montecresto · Dec 17, 2015

Erod said:
Before Obama abandoned the fight, allowed them to regroup, and take over the oil fields in Syria to fund an even more threatening terrorist regime.

Yep.

The Islamic State in Iraq formed in October of 2006 in the power vacuum left by the removal of Hussein. Btw, have you noticed that Ted Cruz has now declared that that was a mistake and that as a matter of US national security, he should have remained. That's besides the fact that both British and US intelligence services have reported that the invasion and occupation of Iraq caused increased global terror and made the world less safe. And yes, Obama's subsequent policies have further exacerbated the problem.

JANFU · Dec 17, 2015

Thrilla said:
I'm not talking to the GOP.. i'm talking to you.

I am aware of that. And for many in the Rep Party, how many Soldiers do they consider to be enough. How many more casualties where the Shia hate the US. Why go there.
Now ISIL is slowly being degraded, funds cut, area they control is being lost. No in the end, when they are hemmed in, where will they run. The issue should be Libya, now is the time to degrade them in Libya. Some boots, in particular Arab Boots, on the ground.
Shut down the bolt holes. As that is what Libya is now.

Montecresto · Dec 17, 2015

Thrilla said:
I'm glad you agree with Cruz on the matter... I, however, do not.

as i've told you numerous times now, I will not ever support tyrannical dictators.... and i'm not quite sure why you try to convince me otherwise... i'm kind of a big fan of people being free, and I don't see that changing.
I understand many folks in our government, and many many outside of it, prefer to have tyrannical distorts enslaving their people... but that's not how I roll

Cruz and I don't support tyrannical dictators, we support US national security interests which have been compromised by the removal of Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and the attempt on Assad. Your way has made matters worse, as has been reported by both British and US intelligence services. Oh, one more thing, Cruz agrees with me, I've only been saying that for years, his balls only just dropped.

Thrilla · Dec 17, 2015

Montecresto said:
Yep, like we did so well with AQ in Iraq when they were on the run, no longer a serious threat, in their last throws. :lamo

yeah..pulling out of Iraq leaving them( ISIS, AQ) alone sure has turned out splendidly eh?

meh, sooner or later you'll figure out that they won't magically disappear if left alone...

joG · Dec 17, 2015

JANFU said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/w...st-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Poll Question
Obama's policy
Agree
Disagree
Other please explain

It is hard to recognize strategy in any real meaning of the word. He looks like a man that did not understand foreign policy, when he came to office. Misunderstanding everything that had gone before he has been stumbling and staggering along to catch up. It might be wrong and he has a grip on it all; has a deeper plan compatible with his actions. But, do you believe it?

Montecresto · Dec 17, 2015

Thrilla said:
yeah..pulling out of Iraq leaving them( ISIS, AQ) alone sure has turned out splendidly eh?

meh, sooner or later you'll figure out that they won't magically disappear if left alone...

And perhaps sooner or latter you'll acknowledge that there was no AQ in Iraq until Bush stepped in his own **** there., they followed in from his other failed interference.

Thrilla · Dec 17, 2015

Montecresto said:
Cruz and I don't support tyrannical dictators, we support US national security interests which have been compromised by the removal of Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and the attempt on Assad. Your way has made matters worse, as has been reported by both British and US intelligence services.

yes.. you do.... you most certainly do.... you continually argue we should leave tyrannical dictators in power, and generally list a few reasons why.. that's called "support" in any language.

we haven't tried my way , so i'm not sure how you believe it has made matters worse..... can you list the ways "my way" has failed?

Montecresto · Dec 17, 2015

Unitedwestand13 said:
the conditions that ignited The Arab spring protests were always there in the middle east.

it all started in tunisia.

The conditions may have been there, but they were perennially frustrated by those I mentioned.

Thrilla · Dec 17, 2015

Montecresto said:
And perhaps sooner or latter you'll acknowledge that there was no AQ in Iraq until Bush stepped in his own **** there., they followed in from his other failed interference.

yes yes.. terrorism didn't' exist until Bush created it.... i've heard it all before, many times.

Montecresto · Dec 17, 2015

Thrilla said:
yes.. you do.... you most certainly do.... you continually argue we should leave tyrannical dictators in power, and generally list a few reasons why.. that's called "support" in any language.

we haven't tried my way , so i'm not sure how you believe it has made matters worse..... can you list the ways "my way" has failed?

Of course I've argued we should have left them there. For the reasons that the intelligence services reported, namely that taking Hussein out caused an increase in global terror and made the world less safe. So apparently, that's what you support.

JANFU · Dec 17, 2015

joG said:
It is hard to recognize strategy in any real meaning of the word. He looks like a man that did not understand foreign policy, when he came to office. Misunderstanding everything that had gone before he has been stumbling and staggering along to catch up. It might be wrong and he has a grip on it all; has a deeper plan compatible with his actions. But, do you believe it?

The time to finish off Assad was years ago. The Saudis, Turks, Qatar ffd it all up with some many differing groups to back. Turkey and Saudi wanted the US to clear him out. That is and should have been them.
Turkey could have crossed the border, locked down air and see ports within 2 perhaps 3 days.

Under Fire From G.O.P., Obama Defends Response to Terror Attacks

Obama's policy

Agree

Disagree

Other - please explain

Not sure

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream

Thrilla

Montecresto

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream

Thrilla

Thrilla

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream

Montecresto

Erod

Montecresto

Thrilla

Erod

Unitedwestand13

Thrilla

Montecresto

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream

Montecresto

Thrilla

joG

Montecresto

Thrilla

Montecresto

Thrilla

Montecresto

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream