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 42 of 42 FirstFirst ... 32404142
Results 411 to 419 of 419

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

  1. #411
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

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

    India Backs Russia’s ‘Legitimate Interests’ in Ukraine
    India broke with the international community in acknowledging that Russia has legitimate interests in Ukraine.

    http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/india...ts-in-ukraine/
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  2. #412
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,069

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    And your one consistent position is your hypocritical support of US violation of sovereign borders while wringing your hands over perceived Russian violations of the same.
    On the contrary - I'm a frequent critic of US foreign policy. Are you willing to say that the decision by Russia to invade Ukraine and seize territory, reshaping the map in a way that has not been done since WWIi was justified?

  3. #413
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    On the contrary - I'm a frequent critic of US foreign policy. Are you willing to say that the decision by Russia to invade Ukraine and seize territory, reshaping the map in a way that has not been done since WWIi was justified?
    That may be true, though it haven't seen it. As to Russia, I thought I've made my position on that clear numerous times, but perhaps you haven't seen that. I think that it's completely reasonable that Russia responded to US/EU intrigue as they did and secured their assets, people and interests in Crimea, their support for the separatists in eastern Ukraine is not unlike the US's support of the separatists that the US is supporting in Syria. And it's not at all unreasonable for Putin to believe that the new pro-Western government that the US immediately recognised as legitimate would move to deny Russia the Crimean ports they had lease on thru 2048. Obama, as candidate said that he would attack al Qaeda in Pakistan, with or without the Pakistani governments permission, and he did. He now has said that if president Assad fires upon US planes compromising the integrity of Syria's sovereignty that it would result in regime change. I don't like the hypocrisy.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  4. #414
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,069

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    That may be true, though it haven't seen it. As to Russia, I thought I've made my position on that clear numerous times, but perhaps you haven't seen that. I think that it's completely reasonable that Russia responded to US/EU intrigue as they did and secured their assets, people and interests in Crimea,
    Fine. Then it is equally reasonable for us to respond to Middle Eastern turmoil by securing our assets, people, and interests in that region.

  5. #415
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,647

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Fine. Then it is equally reasonable for us to respond to Middle Eastern turmoil by securing our assets, people, and interests in that region.
    I can't imagine any other reason we would give two shakes of a lamb's tail what happens to those folks over there.

    It's all about $$$$. OUR $$$$$. (Or, that is to say, rich fat-cat money.)

    I guess they gotta do what they gotta do to keep gasoline under 4.00 a gallon. Not to mention the billions of dollars in equipment and service contracts to companies such as Halliburton, Schlumberger, Chevron, Exxon, etc.

    A lot of American livelihood depends on our acquiring their resources.

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  6. #416
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Fine. Then it is equally reasonable for us to respond to Middle Eastern turmoil by securing our assets, people, and interests in that region.
    Well, the difference being, it was the West that caused the destabilisation that Russia has been responding to in Ukraine. And, it's the West, with a little help from their Arab allies that have caused the destabilisation in the ME, that you now think we need to respond to militarily to secure. I prefer a non interventionist foreign policy like Paul, Sander's would pursue.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  7. #417
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain America View Post
    I can't imagine any other reason we would give two shakes of a lamb's tail what happens to those folks over there.

    It's all about $$$$. OUR $$$$$. (Or, that is to say, rich fat-cat money.)

    I guess they gotta do what they gotta do to keep gasoline under 4.00 a gallon. Not to mention the billions of dollars in equipment and service contracts to companies such as Halliburton, Schlumberger, Chevron, Exxon, etc.

    A lot of American livelihood depends on our acquiring their resources.
    On the money brother.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  8. #418
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

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

    I got 10 pages into the thread and determined the following were the best post I'd come across which summarize the President speech and the overall situation admirably:

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    Good speech. Not so good examples of what he thinks are successes. As far as a military strategy is concerned, I tend to be concerned that we are putting our hope in ground forces that so far have accomplished record desertions and set a new standard for fleeing from the enemy.

    Air power will not, and has never, won a war or defeated and enemy
    .

    What I found most interesting, was the dichotomy of his statements in the speech versus what he was saying just weeks ago, and then trying to present them as if it was his strategy all along - specifically this part: "Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven."

    Also, he couched the entire speech as if it were some counter-terrorism campaign, yet ISIS has tanks, rocket launchers and is a real Army. Not a bunch of guys that are planning suicide bombings (although they do that as well), but a real Army, with money, heavy weapons and thousands of soldiers. I don't think that a counter-terrorist strategy is what is needed when this is a real war, which will be waged on the ground with ground troops, armor and heavy weapons. None of which the Arab countries, especially Iraq, is prepared to do.

    I hope he is successful. I thought he gave a good speech. I just don't think it's going to be successful. I hope I'm wrong.
    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
    My :2cents: worth...

    I see trouble regardless of what we do.

    Stay in the air. No problem if our air campaign remains in northern Iraq. Potentially BIG problems if we start an arbitrary bombing campaign in Syria.

    1) We have to be absolutely sure the Syria rebels can be trusted. Otherwise, the rebel forces will start using our weapons against us or coalition forces on the ground. But my biggest worry is...

    2) The Syrian Army gets involved using arms supplied from their Russia allies (i.e., shoulder fired rocket launcher...pay back for what we did to them during the Russian/Afghan War).

    donsutherland1, to your credit you came closest to recognizing the potential backlash from the Assad regime, but folks have to remember this above all else: If we have our allies, you can bet they have theirs. And with Russia being squeezed monetarily right now by both the EU and the US, you can best believe Putin is itching to find a way to get some pay back even if it means pushing this nation into a fight it really does not want.

    (Continued...)
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  9. #419
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

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

    (...Continued)

    Fight on the ground. I am not interested in committing our ground troops to another armed campaign in Iraq. It's not that I don't think it would be the best and fastest alternative to end the conflict in northern Iraq and push ISIL out of the country, but rather it's NOT our fight! No matter what guys like Senator's McCain and Lindsey Graham say, keeping a residual force in Iraq would not have stopped ISIL from forming and it wouldn't have stopped the deaths by insurgents coming into Iraq. To that, Jay Carney was right. Terrorist were flooding into Iraq killing civilians even when the number of our military personnel was at its highest in Iraq. They committed acts of terrorism while we trained their local and nation security forces. Things really weren't getting much better even with our military presence there. The only way this will end is if combat forces from the affected areas/countries are willing to put their lives on the line to fight for their country. But to do that, they must be made to see that ISIL is a subversion of their religion and a detriment to good social order and their very way of life. Until that happens, until Iraqi/Arab countrymen are willing to put their lives on the line in defense of their country, I don't think we should put boots on the ground in-mass.

    Remaining Neutral. Not a good strategy either. It weakens us, makes us look as if we "talk the talk, but don't walk the walk" as far as our values on freedom and democracy are concerned and fighting for same. Besides, not even the GWB Administration trusted the last Iraqi leadership. But when the new President asks for your help and says "trust me, things will be different" and you start to see some changes take place you have to find a way to support him...as long as his government and countrymen are also willing to lend a helping hand.

    Bottom Line: There's no easy answer on how to resolve this ISIL situation. Any wrong move can be disastrous! As much as many on the Right (and some on the Left) would like to see our men and women in uniform go back to Iraq w/guns blazing, I don't think that would be a smart move - not without Arab allies in the fight at least from Iraq, Jordon, Lebanon, Saudi Arabi and dare I say it Syria and Iran. Getting aid from the UAE and even Egypt would be a plus! But with only the northern Kurds and the U.S. alone...you'll never get rid of ISIL that way.

    I thought Pres. Obama was right to leave Iraq when he did to give the then democratically elected Iraqi government the chance to exercise its sovereign power upon its people, and I think he's taking the right measured steps now to aid the newly elected Iraqi government to try to be more inclusive of its people and to give them a chance to deter all enemies, foreign and "domestic". It's what we would do. It's what they need to learn how to do again. I agree with McCain that the Iraqi Army needs help, I just disagree with him on the best way to help them. These "military advisors" are training Iraqi troops. They are proving intelligence on the ground. What Sen. McCain/Lindsey Graham are really pissed off about is the number of American boots on the ground. These guys want another war in the worst way if for no other reason than to say. "See! My way was better." Only it'll be worse...much worse.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 09-20-14 at 11:38 AM.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

Page 42 of 42 FirstFirst ... 32404142

Posting Permissions

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