View Poll Results: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

Voters
67. You may not vote on this poll
  • Positive

    13 19.40%
  • Negative

    30 44.78%
  • Other

    24 35.82%
Page 13 of 42 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 419

Thread: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

  1. #121
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Gilbert, Arizona
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    403

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    I'm jaded. All I can think about the presidents speech is that his supporters and those that were previously against military action are now about to become gods of war, and those that are his detractors are about to clamor for wisdom, patience, exit plans, strategies, and congressional approval to act.
    It depends what you mean by "military action".

    I was against the Iraq war because I feel that a people that don't fight for their own freedom will more likely sit idly by while they lose it again. But I've always supported the model of helping local forces logistically and through air support the enemy can't match. That's using our strengths against the enemy's weaknesses, while helping people fight for their own freedom or protection, with minimal threat to our own people. I'm also far more inclined to support actions that have strong international support, and preferably the backing of NATO and/or the UN.

    I think you'll find that many supporters of our involvement in Iraq now will be of the same mind.

    There will definitely be those who ignore the differences and call people like me hypocrites. And they do a very good job of showing their simple-mindedness in the process.

  2. #122
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,837

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    "We are safer today"
    Yes--that's what GOP House member BARTON from Texas said today--we're safer now than after 9/11 on Bush's watch.

    How badly your team would have crushed Gore the night of 9/11/01 right?
    Instead, the Nation came together since that's what Dems chose to do.

    But, that's just how you guys roll isn't it--as we've seen far too many times during Obama .
    Physics is Phun

  3. #123
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Gilbert, Arizona
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    403

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Risky Thicket View Post
    The President should act as clearly outlined in the Constitution. Only Congress can declare war. Every time a President takes the nation to war without a formal declaration from Congress Americans and especially military Americans, get ****ed over. It needs to be discussed in Congress and debated and the public must have the opportunity to be involved and to provide input to their representatives and it needs to go to a roll call vote. Congress must assume the burden.
    Except this isn't a new war. It's still a war against terrorists, and thus falls under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. In effect that was a declaration of war against all terrorism and it did come from Congress.

    I think our forefathers kind of dropped the ball on this one. The Constitution empowers Congress to declare war, but it never states that a formal declaration of war is actually necessary for the military to be used. Nor does it state any detail about how declarations should be declared by Congress. It also doesn't empower Congress to end wars, so it's easy to argue that the AUMF declaration is still alive and kicking.

    In short, AUMF was a really bad way to declare war on terror. It was far too non-specific and can easily be used to justify military action against anyone whose deemed a terrorist, within any country's borders, if their presence can be tracked back as a threat to the United States.

    The American People should know that a US commitment will escalate, that there will be further real losses of personal freedom. The American People must understand that the nation will sacrifice and that the sacrifice will be shared. They must understand that there will be long term financial sacrifices.

    The rah, rah, send Johnny off to war - as long as it's not me or mine - crap has to end.
    Well, that just sounds like wholesale fearmongering there. What we're doing now is little different than what we did in Libya, and I think most Americans have forgotten all about that conflict.

    Writing a blank check to fight terror is like writing a blank check to fight the War on Drugs. How's that working out?
    Unfortunately that check was written 13 years ago.

  4. #124
    Student
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Seen
    01-17-17 @ 02:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    152

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    Mr. Obama continues to walk softly and carry a big stick, which ISIL is about to get thumped by.
    The big stick he carries is a golf club.... The only people scared of that are the little white balls he hits.

    The first thing I ask myself when someone starts talking is wether or not you can believe what they say. Obama has lied one to many times for me to trust what he has to say, so his speech is moot. I'll approve or disapprove on what he does.

  5. #125
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    Like I just told Nimby, I have seen our air campaign along with indiginous forces doing the fight on the ground work in Laos until we were forced to stop bombing and the Royal Lao were worse fighters than the Iraqi. It also worked in Afghanistan during the initial war, Afghani, the Northern Alliance troops fighting on the ground and our air power drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan. The thing is you must trust the troops on the ground to do their thing and do it well.
    The problem being that we have two groups of "troops on the ground" (roughly) who are competent to fight( Peshmerga, who don't really want to push too far out of their territory, and Shia militias possibly backed by Quds), and one group (the ISF) who isn't. If the ISF is able to get some wins under its' belt and stick to defending Shia areas.... maybe they can be reconstituted up to that level. But that would also take trainers and other echelons that we aren't willing to send.

    If ISIS or ISIL or plain IS moved towards Baghdad if we were serious we could put an armada in the air and with all that flat country there wouldn't be much left of the force that advanced on Baghdad. But are we willing to do something like that ala WWII or would it be pin pricks in fear of killing civilians and damaging structures like Mosques? I don't know.
    Recent experience would indicate the latter.

    As for killing al-Baghdadi, I haven't the faintest idea how that would effect the whole ISIS situation.
    I am not an expert, but I go back and forth between "instant martyr" and "demonstrates his ineffectiveness, harming the 'Caliph' claim".

  6. #126
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Interesting response from some of the left:

    President Obama’s Wednesday-night speech laying out the United States’ military strategy against the Islamic State didn’t get the best reception on the left, and not because it was too hawkish: Chris Matthews repeatedly called it “not sufficient,” NBC correspondent Richard Engel slammed it as “wildly off-base” and an “oversimplification,” and even Al Sharpton admitted the plan left a lot to be desired.

    A panel composed of some of MSNBC’s brightest stars lit into the president almost immediately after he wrapped up his address to the American people. “I heard all the necessary conditions, but not the sufficient conditions for defeating ISIS,” Matthews lamented. “Nothing really about the building of a posse. And everyone who really knows this region are saying the only way you defeat a cancer like this, like ISIS, is within the Islamic world itself . . . and I didn’t hear in this speech how we’re going to do that.”

    NBC’s chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel, phoning in from northern Iraq, took issue with President Obama’s plan to confront the Islamic State in a manner similar to ongoing U.S. operations in Somalia and Yemen. “I think it is wildly off-base, frankly,” he accused. “I think it’s an oversimplification of the problem.” He explained there is a “partner government” in Yemen that requires the United States to help with reconnaissance and hard-to-reach targets, and a cooperative government in Somalia, too.

    “That’s not at all the situation that we see in Iraq and Syria,” he said. “Here we have a large group, tens of thousands of fighters. They control an area the size of Maryland. They control an area with 8 million people living inside of it. It’s much more akin to regime change than it is waiting back, picking targets with allied forces. They are not comparable at all.”....
    The Baghdad Bureau Chief for the NY Times also pretty much admitted that the President had ignored the collapse of Iraq and growth of ISIL for political reasons.

  7. #127
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Other.

    I found the President’s strategy a mixed bag. There were parts I agreed with: airstrikes against ISIS, aiding Kurdish and Iraqi forces, expanding Intelligence-gathering and counterterrorism efforts, and continuing humanitarian assistance. Unfortunately, there were also parts that were counterproductive, namely the tactic of aiding actors in Syria’s vicious sectarian conflict with no mention of controls or mechanisms to assure that such assistance is directed at ISIS. Toward that end, the President declared:

    Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters.

    Assisting sectarian factions in Syria’s multifaceted civil war would be a counterproductive step. While the U.S. need not partner with the Assad government, it should not assist sectarian elements that have displayed little regard for civilian welfare, have engaged in shifting alliances of expediency resulting in weapons leakage to radical elements, have made no meaningful commitments toward American interests and those of regional American allies, and have contributed significantly to the instability that ISIS has exploited.

    In the broader geopolitical framework, allies of the Assad regime can reasonably worry that increasing arms deliveries to various sectarian actors in Syria’s conflict is, at least in part, a backdoor “regime change” initiative. If so, one can expect them to step up their own assistance to that dictatorship. The end result could be a more intense sectarian conflict in Syria. Such an outcome could diminish the effectiveness of the air campaign against ISIS, as it could also create new opportunities for the terrorist organization from the expanded instability. Furthermore, there was no mention of helping Jordan and Egypt, both key American regional allies, deal with potential threats from ISIS.

    Another point that I found troublesome is that the strategies in Yemen and Somalia were described as successful. In fact, both areas continue to face substantial terrorist activity. Just as President Bush famously erred in his “mission accomplished” address, I believe President Obama is prematurely proclaiming success in two initiatives that remain far more works in progress than concrete successes.

    Finally, the President declared, “I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat” but provided no examples to demonstrate the breadth of this coalition. In fact, later in his speech, his remarks hinted that key parts of such a coalition are not yet in place. He stated:

    Secretary Kerry was in Iraq today… and in the coming days he will travel across the Middle East and Europe to enlist more partners in this fight, especially Arab nations who can help mobilize Sunni communities in Iraq and Syria to drive these terrorists from their lands.

    IMO, given their direct and large interests in the situation, the White House should already have put together the Arab coalition. That it hasn’t is not exactly encouraging. This begs the question as to whether the White House is promising more than it can deliver when it comes to putting together such a coalition.

    All said, the speech was a mixed bag. There were some strong points, but also the glaring weakness of aiding sectarian factions in Syria with no mention of controls or other mechanisms to assure that such assistance would be used strictly against ISIS rather than in the pursuit of those organizations’ own sectarian goals. In short, my guess is that the fight against ISIS is unlikely to be close to resolution in the near-term. Furthermore, there is a risk that ISIS will remain a fairly formidable regional threat even by the end of the President’s term in office.

    The transcript can be found at: Text of Obama


    Good analysis DS. As you see there was nothing much there. Note how he didn't use the word ISIS. He kept calling them ISIL. As if this will make that mean word go away. Then this was quite laughable......ISIL is not Islamic. He knows this from saying that no religion condones killing the innocent. Yet history has shown us otherwise.

    He want to arms the Rebels again.....and like you say, The Coalition should have already been put together.

    What is the difference in strategy with Yemen?

  8. #128
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,943
    Blog Entries
    25

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    The problem being that we have two groups of "troops on the ground" (roughly) who are competent to fight( Peshmerga, who don't really want to push too far out of their territory, and Shia militias possibly backed by Quds), and one group (the ISF) who isn't. If the ISF is able to get some wins under its' belt and stick to defending Shia areas.... maybe they can be reconstituted up to that level. But that would also take trainers and other echelons that we aren't willing to send.



    Recent experience would indicate the latter.



    I am not an expert, but I go back and forth between "instant martyr" and "demonstrates his ineffectiveness, harming the 'Caliph' claim".
    Exactly, but if done right it can be accomplished without any substantial American troops on the ground. The Northern Alliance was already constituted and along with a few paramilitary and SF on the ground and our air power they were able to turn the tide of battle completely around and drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan. But as you point out there is no such thing as the Northern Alliance in Iraq and it will be almost like starting from scratch. Time will tell.

    I am in agreement that we will use the pin prick method. I wonder what happened that we are not long willing to fight a war to win. I suppose today most people do not realize the quicker a war is over the less casualties will be had. We may save a few civilians here and a mosque there to save lives but this actually prolongs the effects of and the war or campaign itself. Going in whole hog so to speak may cause a ton of casualties in the beginning but in the long run fewer will be had.

    I'll let you speculate on al-Baghdadi as the middle east is not my area.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    That part rather astonished me. Who looks at Yemen today and says "Ah, here is a success story." ?

    i think he just has a very different definition of "success" than you or I do, linked more to "am I catching flak for this on television" than to "have we dismantled enemy VEO's and enabled stable governance".

    I think that was us recognizing a de facto partitioned Iraq, with the acknowledgement that our intent is to destabilize and keep off-balance the half owned by Sunnis' in order to (we hope) limit their ability to project force. At this point a joint ISF/Peshmerga offensive that drives out ISIL just isn't feasible.

    That's due to BO always thinking he can make it political and use it for his own gain domestically with Polling. Yet here he is touting how they have put together a government in Iraq now. Yet he didn't want to deal with any of Iraq or ISIL when Maliki came to him last Nov.

  10. #130
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    mid-illinois
    Last Seen
    10-08-16 @ 03:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    272

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    And GWB handed off a victory in Iraq that BHO threw away.
    LOL!
    as though there was a victory to be had..

Page 13 of 42 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •