• 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!

Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

  • Positive

    Votes: 11 21.6%
  • Negative

    Votes: 18 35.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 22 43.1%

  • Total voters
    51
No not necesasary, they know that air strikes work...

That's why this ramp up and the hype...he's been bombing since August...and they're working so well he needs more


That's misleading, though ... as of 10 Sept, we have launched a total of 143 air strikes against ISIS, most of them against logistics sites and forward attacking troops, and virtually none against command and control targets.

In the Gulf War, we launched over 100,000 air sorties over 36 days - an average of about 2,700 per day.

Either do it ... or get the hell out.
 
Heya Ttwtt :2wave: Well you see he wants money to fund the MB backed rebels.....I don't think we should have to up the money. Even the rebels own commanders were saying its a little to late. Aleppo is falling and that's their last bastion of hope.

I seriously doubt that the US will have any difficulty in finding groups willing to fight for "the cause" in exchange for financial support or that claim to need better weapons. ;)
 
That's misleading, though ... as of 10 Sept, we have launched a total of 143 air strikes against ISIS, most of them against logistics sites and forward attacking troops, and virtually none against command and control targets.

In the Gulf War, we launched over 100,000 air sorties over 36 days - an average of about 2,700 per day.

Either do it ... or get the hell out.



It's the same point, you're just arguing for more.

The truth is they have not been successful in regime change, and that is how this need to be seen. ISIL controls an area larger than Maryland. You can bomb the **** out of it and have nothing left, but the ten million people who live there won't be your allies, at least not the living ones.

These are core issues posted twice in this thread. Please have a look...going over and over the same baseless argument is boring
 
Libya was a success?

The military campaign was, absolutely. The mission objectives were achieved with minimal expense and no American lives lost.

What ever happened to those terrorists who assassinated the only sitting ambassador to die in office in 30 years?

The guy left his escort and ran into a burning building to be killed by smoke. Stop being so dramatic.
But anyway, one of the suspected ringleaders was recently caught, again by the use of intelligence and surgical operations.

I guess al-Qaeda just left of their own accord then?

It's a logical fallacy to assume that a full scale invasion was the only way to chase al-Qaeda out. In fact, leveraging intelligence and surgical strikes as we recently have, who knows- maybe we'd have been able to capture or kill Bin Laden much sooner if not distracted fighting the whole of the Taliban and trying to rebuild a new government there.
 
Now you're just using petty partisan spin.

Whether the repercussions have panned out as desired, you can't really argue that our mission in Libya, and our attacks in other nations have been largely successful and cost-effective. And with Libya we achieved the same thing we achieved in Iraq (the toppling of a regime) for less than 1/1000th the cost in money, and no American deaths.

This is the right way to leverage our military forces against less technological advanced nations. It's an embarrassment that we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan as we did. That was mid-20th century war mentality and it put our soldiers in unnecessary danger and cost us far, far more than the objectives warranted. And for all that money and all those American lives lost, we didn't even finish al Qaeda and Bin Laden in Afghanistan; intel and surgical strikes finished him off.

Not so - in Iraq we had bases from which to operate and a direct say over who was trained, armed and funded; which is not to say that we actually did that well. Simply knocking off the leadership of nations, or factions within them, only creates a vacuum to be filled by the next strongest wanting (and able) to act. That is not the same thing as having a say (backed by a military presence) in who gets the next shot to take power. Bin Laden and his merry men simply rented space in Afghanistan, as they did in Pakistan and other countries with "tribal zones", while ISIS appears to be powerful enough to simply take these lands (and other spoils of war) by force.
 
Last edited:
It's the same point, you're just arguing for more.

The truth is they have not been successful in regime change, and that is how this need to be seen. ISIL controls an area larger than Maryland. You can bomb the **** out of it and have nothing left, but the ten million people who live there won't be your allies, at least not the living ones.

These are core issues posted twice in this thread. Please have a look...going over and over the same baseless argument is boring

Actually, my point is something different ... we are repeating the errors of history. We never fought the VN war to win ... a lot of good people died because we didn't make an honest commitment to victory. The same applies to Iraq and Afghanistan. In all three wars, we allowed politicians to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Either commit the resources necessary to get the job done in the most efficient manner, or just get the hell out. It doesn't make any sense to waste lives just for political posturing.

Now, as to your comments .. we WERE successful in regime change in Iraq. Saddam is gone, and the Iraqi people selected the government they wanted. That was our goal. Was it the government we would have picked? Of course not ... but we had a responsibility to support the will of the Iraqi people. Was the government strong enough to survive on its own? Clearly not ... but we left anyway. We allowed cheap political theatrics to override the best advice of the people on the ground. We quit on the Iraqi people ... plain and simple. We ought to be ashamed. We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
 
Last edited:
Heya Ttwtt :2wave: Well you see he wants money to fund the MB backed rebels.....I don't think we should have to up the money. Even the rebels own commanders were saying its a little to late. Aleppo is falling and that's their last bastion of hope.


More grist.

Apparently O's coalition is coming together as stated and planned .... ????? Ohhhhh, I guess not; The overall ineptitude, and outright political BS, of this administration is astonishing !



.... the world is a stage and we are but actors........ ( could be the mantra for O and cohorts )

A government official said Ankara can open the Incirlik Air Base in the south only for logistical and humanitarian operations, and not for any airstrikes.

“Turkey will not be involved in any armed operation but will entirely concentrate on humanitarian operations,” media outlets quoted the unnamed official as saying.

“Britain will not be taking part in any airstrikes in Syria,” Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said in Berlin. He said London won’t be “revisiting” the issue after Parliament decided last year against participating in airstrikes.

Germany has decided to arm Kurdish forces fighting extremists, putting aside its usual reluctance to send weapons into conflicts. Asked about participating in airstrikes, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said: “We have neither been asked to do that, nor will we do that.”


Obama's Iraq strategy unraveling | RedState

Thom Paine
 
Not so - in Iraq we had bases from which to operate and a direct say over who was trained, armed and funded. Simply knocking off the leadership of nations, or factions within them, only creates a vacuum to be filled by the next strongest wanting (and able) to act. That is not the same thing as having a say (backed by a military presence) in who gets the next shot to take power. Bin Laden and his merry men simply rented space in Afghanistan, as they did in Pakistan and other countries with "tribal zones", while ISIS appears to be powerful enough to simply take these lands (and other spoils of war) by force.

I'm talking military objectives. Not the subsequent nation building which I'm largely against.

Why's nobody getting this...
 
Serious question--based on your intensive studying of the area and troop location for all the actors--
is it conceivable for the Kurds, Iraqis and others to drive through or split ISIL forces above or below the Iraqi/Syrian border?
my thinking is along the "left hooks" thrown by Schwartzkoff and MacArthur .
The President and his Team put forth Budget. Every year. Make sure you don't forget that process too.
 
I'm talking military objectives. Not the subsequent nation building which I'm largely against.

Why's nobody getting this...

I get it, but the assassination of foreign leaders is hardly a military objective. Allowing the same morons in charge to replace one tyrant/general with another is not exactly a superior battle plan.
 
I get it, but the assassination of foreign leaders is hardly a military objective. Allowing the same morons in charge to replace one tyrant/general with another is not exactly a superior battle plan.

But we've been doing that for a long time and never learning our lesson. We depose democratically elected regimes to replace them with our own dictators because they promise to do our bidding, then we have to go in and depose them when they decide they don't want to be our puppets. How many times have we had to do that and we never learn?
 
I get it, but the assassination of foreign leaders is hardly a military objective. Allowing the same morons in charge to replace one tyrant/general with another is not exactly a superior battle plan.

What's the alternative? Fight others' wars for them? Push them out of the battle they want to contribute to? Marginalize what they want of their own government while we put in one of our choosing? That'll never stick. We've already seen the Afghanistan and Iraq governments quickly stumble. A people will never appreciate freedom they, themselves, didn't fight for. They won't have the motivation to fight and die to preserve it.

Would the United States be what it is today if the French didn't leave the colonies after helping push the British out? What would have happened if they'd insisted on helping us build out government, write our Constitution for us?
 
More grist.

Apparently O's coalition is coming together as stated and planned .... ????? Ohhhhh, I guess not; The overall ineptitude, and outright political BS, of this administration is astonishing !

.... the world is a stage and we are but actors........ ( could be the mantra for O and cohorts )

Obama's Iraq strategy unraveling | RedState

Thom Paine


Heya Thom. :2wave: I had the Brits and Germans up with what they said. DS brought in what the Russians had say. So now Turkey will allow the use of a base and just send in humanitarian aid. Nothing on shutting down that Smugglers Route.....huh?

Plus, I am sure they will allow the MB back Rebels refuge and to allow them to attack coming out of Turkey again.
 
Today, the U.S. obtained a limited commitment of support from 10 Arab states. The communique signed by the Gulf Cooperation Council States, the U.S., Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon was as follows:

The ministers representing states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and the United States declared their shared commitment to stand united against the threat posed by all terrorism, including the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), to the region and the world.

The participants hailed the formation of the new, inclusive Iraqi Government and expressed their support for the immediate steps it has pledged to take to advance the interests of all Iraq’s citizens, regardless of religion, sect or ethnicity.

The participants resolved to strengthen their support for the new Iraqi Government in its efforts to unite all Iraqis in combatting ISIL and discussed a strategy to destroy ISIL wherever it is, including in both Iraq and Syria.

The participants confirmed their commitment to implement UN Security Council Resolution 2170, and noted the Arab League Resolution 7804 of September 7, 2014, as well as the discussion of ISIL at the NATO Summit in Wales. The Ministers affirmed their strong commitment to continue the effort to eliminate global terrorism.

The participating states agreed to do their share in the comprehensive fight against ISIL, including: stopping the flow of foreign fighters through neighboring countries, countering financing of ISIL and other violent extremists, repudiating their hateful ideology, ending impunity and bringing perpetrators to justice, contributing to humanitarian relief efforts, assisting with the reconstruction and rehabilitation of communities brutalized by ISIL, supporting states that face the most acute ISIL threat, and, as appropriate, joining in the many aspects of a coordinated military campaign against ISIL.

Participants emphasized that the role played by regional states is central to this effort.


Jeddah Communique

On close inspection, there is no, repeat, no binding commitment of military support. The statement reads, "The participating states agreed to do their share in the comprehensive fight against ISIL... and, as appropriate, joining in the many aspects of a coordinated military campaign against ISIL." Notice the qualifying language, "as appropriate." In other words, aside from Iraq, which is already involved in the fight against ISIS on its territory, there is nothing that makes military contributions from the other Arab states automatic. In stark contrast, when the U.S. organized the Persian Gulf War effort after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the U.S. obtained firm military commitments from numerous Arab states. Given their much larger interests in the fight against ISIS, the U.S. should have lined up such military contributions. In the end, the Arab states committed to some degree of support short of binding military commitments so as not to isolate the U.S. Given that the U.S. already declared that it had put together a "broad coalition," the Arab states had strong leverage to limit their role, because the U.S. needed their sign-on.

Finally, NATO member Turkey did not sign onto even the limited communique. Even as it enjoys Article V protection from NATO should ISIS attack it--maybe because it enjoys such protection--Turkey did not even embrace the limited commitments contained in the communique. That situation speaks clearly of a continuing erosion in the bilateral U.S.-Turkey relationship even as both sides will likely downplay that deterioration.
 
What's the alternative? Fight others' wars for them? Push them out of the battle they want to contribute to? Marginalize what they want of their own government while we put in one of our choosing? That'll never stick. We've already seen the Afghanistan and Iraq governments quickly stumble. A people will never appreciate freedom they, themselves, didn't fight for. They won't have the motivation to fight and die to preserve it.

Would the United States be what it is today if the French didn't leave the colonies after helping push the British out? What would have happened if they'd insisted on helping us build out government, write our Constitution for us?

Allow the current dictator/king/leader to do as they please, except for harming us directly, and support their existing enemies if they get too far out of line. Most of the ME nations are not allowing freedom (e.g. Saudi Arabia and Egypt) yet we let them be (or actually support them) so long as we are not directly threatened by them.
 
That's misleading, though ... as of 10 Sept, we have launched a total of 143 air strikes against ISIS, most of them against logistics sites and forward attacking troops, and virtually none against command and control targets.

In the Gulf War, we launched over 100,000 air sorties over 36 days - an average of about 2,700 per day.

Either do it ... or get the hell out.

And even after all that, the ME burns, and the militant Islamic groups are stronger then ever.
 
Serious question--based on your intensive studying of the area and troop location for all the actors--
is it conceivable for the Kurds, Iraqis and others to drive through or split ISIL forces above or below the Iraqi/Syrian border?
my thinking is along the "left hooks" thrown by Schwartzkoff and MacArthur .


Not Right at the moment.....maybe if the Kurds get some weapons. Plus if the Iraqis win some encounters and gain more confidence.

ISIL is kind of split with their area of Operations they control now.....that's in Iraq.
 
Today, the U.S. obtained a limited commitment of support from 10 Arab states. The communique signed by the Gulf Cooperation Council States, the U.S., Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon was as follows:

The ministers representing states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and the United States declared their shared commitment to stand united against the threat posed by all terrorism, including the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), to the region and the world.

The participants hailed the formation of the new, inclusive Iraqi Government and expressed their support for the immediate steps it has pledged to take to advance the interests of all Iraq’s citizens, regardless of religion, sect or ethnicity.

The participants resolved to strengthen their support for the new Iraqi Government in its efforts to unite all Iraqis in combatting ISIL and discussed a strategy to destroy ISIL wherever it is, including in both Iraq and Syria.

The participants confirmed their commitment to implement UN Security Council Resolution 2170, and noted the Arab League Resolution 7804 of September 7, 2014, as well as the discussion of ISIL at the NATO Summit in Wales. The Ministers affirmed their strong commitment to continue the effort to eliminate global terrorism.

The participating states agreed to do their share in the comprehensive fight against ISIL, including: stopping the flow of foreign fighters through neighboring countries, countering financing of ISIL and other violent extremists, repudiating their hateful ideology, ending impunity and bringing perpetrators to justice, contributing to humanitarian relief efforts, assisting with the reconstruction and rehabilitation of communities brutalized by ISIL, supporting states that face the most acute ISIL threat, and, as appropriate, joining in the many aspects of a coordinated military campaign against ISIL.

Participants emphasized that the role played by regional states is central to this effort.


Jeddah Communique

On close inspection, there is no, repeat, no binding commitment of military support. The statement reads, "The participating states agreed to do their share in the comprehensive fight against ISIL... and, as appropriate, joining in the many aspects of a coordinated military campaign against ISIL." Notice the qualifying language, "as appropriate." In other words, aside from Iraq, which is already involved in the fight against ISIS on its territory, there is nothing that makes military contributions from the other Arab states automatic. In stark contrast, when the U.S. organized the Persian Gulf War effort after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the U.S. obtained firm military commitments from numerous Arab states. Given their much larger interests in the fight against ISIS, the U.S. should have lined up such military contributions. In the end, the Arab states committed to some degree of support short of binding military commitments so as not to isolate the U.S. Given that the U.S. already declared that it had put together a "broad coalition," the Arab states had strong leverage to limit their role, because the U.S. needed their sign-on.

Finally, NATO member Turkey did not sign onto even the limited communique. Even as it enjoys Article V protection from NATO should ISIS attack it--maybe because it enjoys such protection--Turkey did not even embrace the limited commitments contained in the communique. That situation speaks clearly of a continuing erosion in the bilateral U.S.-Turkey relationship even as both sides will likely downplay that deterioration.


Yeah DS I just seen this.....no binding military action and no wording with troops on the ground, in Syria. I am sure they will want to back the MB Rebels as much as they can. That's all they are looking at.

Wonder if BO will say anything to Qatar. We need to tell them to quit arming Terrorists. If they don't stop....that we will be willing to replace them with a big hole in the ground.

You already know they are spreading to Asia.....plus I heard that the Invisible Sheik gave approval to Boko Haram and expects allegiance from them.
 
Bush handed Iraq on a silver platter to a terrorist and Iranian sympathizer and then signed an agreement with him to leave in 2011. Is that what you call victory? Is that what 60,000 Americans were killed or maimed for?
casualties-disability-claims-multi.jpg

It's what BHO and Biden called a victory.
 
And a certain person in the GOP tried to sell arms to them, along with al Qaeda, to fight ASSad.
Smooth move there huh?

I'm surprised folks aren't focusing on and discussing Mr. Obama's pledge to arm and train Kurds and Iraqis .

False post.
 
Allow the current dictator/king/leader to do as they please, except for harming us directly, and support their existing enemies if they get too far out of line. Most of the ME nations are not allowing freedom (e.g. Saudi Arabia and Egypt) yet we let them be (or actually support them) so long as we are not directly threatened by them.

Exactly: "Support their existing enemies"
Like the rebels that were fighting Ghadafi.
Like the Iraqis and Turks that are fighting ISIS.

But I do disagree on the "harming us directly" bit. I'd never support a full scale invasion in the name of "pre-emptive defense", but I don't have any problem with us helping the enemies of our enemies if it's estimated to be in the interest of future security.

Libya might not be a beacon of stability but the government that's (mostly) in control now, I'd say is more friendly to us than the former.
 
False post.

As you post to me only two words, "false post", do tell the debate politics board what is false about accusing John McBlame of negotiating with al Qaeda and ISIL; while rand Paul says we should leave ASSad alone, thereby feeding the Russian bear .
 
As you post to me only two words, "false post", do tell the debate politics board what is false about accusing John McBlame of negotiating with al Qaeda and ISIL; while rand Paul says we should leave ASSad alone, thereby feeding the Russian bear .

The claim about McCain is false.
 
It's what BHO and Biden called a victory.

For us the "victory" was getting the hell out of there. It still is a victory in that sense. Just like our "victory" in Vietnam was. We have a real problem of getting stuck in quagmires.
 
Back
Top Bottom