• 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
Very hackish responses for all of the people on your team only deserve what I am bringing.
Especially considering all of your posts lately.

Not to mention the Seditionist behavior of GOPs since they came back to town.

The best part of congress is that they will be gone on vacation again in a few weeks
Beaudreaux said:
Very in-depth analysis of Obama and his speech. Well done.
Click to expand...
 
More complete nonsense is recognized and dismissed--as you say to me.
Why say it when you can't prove it?
TurtleDude said:
with the election looming, the grim weepers of the Dem party in the media started whining about the deaths hoping for more to use as campaign fodder against the President. we used to see daily death reports in the news that were parroted by W haters all over the web. not here of course since this board didn't exist then but we saw it constantly. And yes, some Dems hoped for a military disaster in the fall of 04 so they could snatch back the white house after Sore-Loserman's attempt to steal the election away failed.
Click to expand...
 
Beaudreaux said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nice summation, Beau. I wish I had written it as my answer to TDS pales in comparison. We had the same response, but you said it better than I did.

Generally speaking, a good speech. But what will actually happen is a big question mark. I don't know 100% after listening to him that he realizes that ISIS is a real army. I hope so, and I'll stay optimistic that he does.
 
NIMBY said:
Of course you are--yer always unimpressed with him--on everything.
Click to expand...

shrug...

Was there something particular in his speech that you think I should be impressed with?

The kind of support I've come to expect from you people for the last six years .
Click to expand...

I've had six years to get the measure of Obama. My post was a result of my opinion of him. When it comes to Obama and foreign policy and dealing with troubling issues and threats to Americans he doesn't get high marks from me. The best he ever did was early on when he simply followed the path laid out by Bush. He doesn't have that crutch anymore and his actions have been akin to floundering in rough seas.

But...I WILL repeat myself and say that I hope he succeeds in eliminating ISIS.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
21eagxi.jpg
Click to expand...

Not trolling, just using a bit of irony.

Actually, I think he said all the right things. Of course, the extreme right wing nutters, the ones who would take the Muslim Terrorist statement seriously, won't like what he said, but I thought he was spot on.

Now that we've heard what he had to say, we need to watch what he does.
 
NIMBY said:
Very hackish responses for all of the people on your team only deserve what I am bringing.
Especially considering all of your posts lately.

Not to mention the Seditionist behavior of GOPs since they came back to town.

The best part of congress is that they will be gone on vacation again in a few weeks
Click to expand...

How can your post be in response to any negative posts, when your post was #4 and the ones before it were pretty supportive even though they pointed out minor problems?

You went full tilt anti-GOP, and said absolutely nothing about Obama or his speech. Who was being hackish, I ask you?

Sedition??? Seriously?
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
What are your thoughts on the Presidents speech about ISIS?
Click to expand...

I liked what I heard. Depending on how good the Iraqi forces become I think it can be a winning strategy. I hope other Arab countries join in and send some troops to help out. We shall see.
 
Moderator's Warning:
john McCain is not the topic of this thread. I suggest people stick to the topic moving forward
 
Not impressed. There are things that he should have been doing all along that he didn't do, which brings us to this point. He doesn't have the balls to do what needs to be done and he's too politically correct to call a spade a spade and say that this is actually a Muslim problem.
 
Is ISIS going to weaponize his bitterness?

NIMBY said:
McCain completely dishonored his position as a Senator and a Statesman.
His bitterness on CNN is now part of the ISIL computer manual, since we know how tech-savvy they are .
Click to expand...
 
tres borrachos said:
Nice summation, Beau. I wish I had written it as my answer to TDS pales in comparison. We had the same response, but you said it better than I did.

Generally speaking, a good speech. But what will actually happen is a big question mark. I don't know 100% after listening to him that he realizes that ISIS is a real army. I hope so, and I'll stay optimistic that he does.
Click to expand...

If he has been following the news at all, he knows - and he knows more than we do! What this speech was meant to convey to anyone in particular is still a puzzle to me. I doubt ISIS is shaking in their boots, though. And speaking of boots, how can we not have "boots on the ground" and expect to win without killing or injuring millions of people? Is the "coalition" going to be expected to provide the "boots?" If we turned the entire area to glass, maybe, but that's by no means certain either. Hiroshima and Nagasaki leaders in Japan weren't killed when we used atomic bombs - just the little people. It's just sad this is all taking place just before the upcoming election. I hope Congress gets answers before they provide the money, because we've known about what ISIS is doing for a long time - after all, the media has been very good about covering all the atrocities that have been taking place! :thumbdown:
 
Perotista said:
I liked what I heard. Depending on how good the Iraqi forces become I think it can be a winning strategy.
I hope other Arab countries join in and send some troops to help out. We shall see.
Click to expand...
I "listened" to the speech in the yard while not looking at the TV, as I have with these major speeches for years.

I "heard" Mr. Obama trying to sound more demonstrative,
yet compassionate to those being negatively affected in the ME and comforting to the Nation about our safety at home moving forward.

Yet he continued walking a bit softly but ISIL will soon find out how big a stick the USA yields .
 
Beaudreaux said:
Good speech. Not so good examples of what he thinks are successes.
Click to expand...

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".

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I'm personally indifferent. Like any president speech its all about talking points. I honestly dont think we should be directly involved militarily in this conflict meaning I dont think we should have boots on the ground or commence airstrikes. I think we need to take the training wheels off the Iraqi gov, and strongly support the Kurds. I do however honestly can see the argument for airstrikes. But I see the long term benefits of airstrikes doing much to nothing.
 
Perotista said:
I liked what I heard. Depending on how good the Iraqi forces become I think it can be a winning strategy. I hope other Arab countries join in and send some troops to help out. We shall see.
Click to expand...

The only countries I could see really committing troops would be Iran and (possibly, and then only in a very limited fashion) Turkey. Neither of whom are Arab. Jordan is worried enough about its' ownself, Egypt has a home-grown insurgency to fight, palestinians on their east, and libya on their west. Saudi Arabia isn't sending people to support a Shia regime in Baghdad.

The Iraqi forces might be good enough that - if we provide air support and the Iranians provide enablers and the Shia militia's provide actual committed fighters - be able to hold Baghdad against an ISIL assault. No city ever gets taken easily if that city does not want to get taken. But a counteroffensive? Right now it's a small miracle that the new government hasn't already fallen apart.




Anyone have any good thoughts on what the IO effects would be if we managed to kill al-Baghdadi?
 
NIMBY said:
I "listened" to the speech in the yard while not looking at the TV, as I have with these major speeches for years.

I "heard" Mr. Obama trying to sound more demonstrative,
yet compassionate to those being negatively affected in the ME and comforting to the Nation about our safety at home moving forward.

Yet he continued walking a bit softly but ISIL will soon find out how big a stick the USA yields .
Click to expand...

I listened to it on my computer. There are still questions to be answered but they will be in time. Letting the indigenous forces do the fighting on the ground while we bombed the hell out of the enemy worked in Laos until the bombing stopped and worked in Afghanistan until the silly and worthless nation building started.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I'm personally indifferent. Like any president speech its all about talking points. I honestly dont think we should be directly involved militarily in this conflict meaning I dont think we should have boots on the ground or commence airstrikes. I think we need to take the training wheels off the Iraqi gov, and strongly support the Kurds. I do however honestly can see the argument for airstrikes. But I see the long term benefits of airstrikes doing much to nothing.
Click to expand...

:shrug: depends. You wanted to support the Kurds - like, for example, we did when they pushed to retake the Mosul Dam. Had ISIL decided to take out that piece of key infrastructure, it would have wrecked enough damage across the landscape to technically count as a WMD. But the Kurds needed us to come provide air cover, like we did with the Yazidis.

Offering someone strong moral support when they are outgunned isn't much help.
 
NIMBY said:
How many more dead and maimed USA soldiers would we have if McCain had been President and left a residual force in perpetuity?
[/QUOT


If McCain were to have become POTUS back in 2009 I doubt there would be an ISIS/ISLS. That Al Qaeda would still be checked in Yemen and northern Pakistan. That the Arab Spring in which Obama was a big supporter of would have never happened or been quelled quickly. Which would mean the Middle East and North Africa wouldn't be the basket case it is today.

I doubt Putin wouldn't have moved on the Ukraine because the USA would still be a super power which it isn't any more.

But I digress, back to the incompetent CnC.

I noticed this evening that Obama said that ISLS weren't Islam. What the **** ? Well they sure aren't Mormon missionaries.
Again Obama shows he has a big hard-on for Mohamad.

He also snuck in an reference to continuing arming the rebels in Syria so they can continue waging a war against Assad.
Obama should be using Assad as an ally against ISIS/ISLS. All Obama is doing is throwing nore gas on the fire in Syria.
Click to expand...
 
cpwill said:
The only countries I could see really committing troops would be Iran and (possibly, and then only in a very limited fashion) Turkey. Neither of whom are Arab. Jordan is worried enough about its' ownself, Egypt has a home-grown insurgency to fight, palestinians on their east, and libya on their west. Saudi Arabia isn't sending people to support a Shia regime in Baghdad.

The Iraqi forces might be good enough that - if we provide air support and the Iranians provide enablers and the Shia militia's provide actual committed fighters - be able to hold Baghdad against an ISIL assault. No city ever gets taken easily if that city does not want to get taken. But a counteroffensive? Right now it's a small miracle that the new government hasn't already fallen apart.




Anyone have any good thoughts on what the IO effects would be if we managed to kill al-Baghdadi?
Click to expand...

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.

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.

As for killing al-Baghdadi, I haven't the faintest idea how that would effect the whole ISIS situation.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I'm personally indifferent. Like any president speech its all about talking points. I honestly dont think we should be directly involved militarily in this conflict meaning I dont think we should have boots on the ground or commence airstrikes. I think we need to take the training wheels off the Iraqi gov, and strongly support the Kurds. I do however honestly can see the argument for airstrikes. But I see the long term benefits of airstrikes doing much to nothing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, US involvement always ends up making things worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom