• 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
The House of GOP writes all appropriation bills.
Thought you might have known that .
Given the ongoing cuts to the military, he'll soon be calling on the Girl Scouts.
 
You think Obama could pull that off ?
Not with this GOP House writing Appropriation bills led by Isolationist/Pacifist TEAs.
And thanks go to Bush-43 for not listening to his Father about "voo-doo" economics .
 
I commend the Administration for all the efforts they have taken thus-far, however I find it very hard to trust most of Obama's speech tonight. Campaigns and outsmarting ISIS are nice thoughts, and while I don't hope for us to begin another war, it's unrealistic to think that won't become of this situation. I don't want to be lied to, and i'm tired of having a president that dances around the main issues.
 
What are your thoughts on the Presidents speech about ISIS?

I hate it when your daddy reads a speech off a teleprompter............He looked so bored and like he would have rather been on the golf course where he belongs so he can do no further damage to this country..
 
The House of GOP writes all appropriation bills.
Thought you might have known that .

That's why Obama doesn't like the Constitution and is always crapping on the Constitution.

And the Feds will keep on printing greenbacks with nothing to back them up with and have already spent almost six years propping up Wall Street and the Obama economy.

How long can the Feds keep doing this ?

I suppose until 2016 or 2017 and it will not be pretty for America and who's ever in the White House when the Feds stop propping up the economy.
 
I hate it when your daddy reads a speech off a teleprompter

I don't understand why so many people have issues with teleprompters. Just the sheer magnitude of issues the POTUS has to deal with kind of necessitates a rather heavy use of prepared speeches if only because it'd be so easy for the mind to wonder between issues when trying to do an off-the-cuff speech. I often have the problem of my thoughts going onto tangents when trying to describe things to people, myself, and I haven't near the load the POTUS has.

Anyway, going after the POTUS--any POTUS--for the use of a teleprompter strikes me as a pretty lame avenue of attack.

He looked so bored and like he would have rather been on the golf course where he belongs so he can do no further damage to this country..

Do you lack imagination or just empathy?
Imagine the issues the POTUS has to deal with on a daily basis, constantly jumping from one to another to another, then back to the first and repeat. That would desensitize and dull the emotional response of anyone. The guy is only human, and seeming unemotional can easily be construed as looking bored.

Oh. Sorry. Did I get in the road of you just trying to insult him?

My bad.
 
The House of GOP writes all appropriation bills.
Thought you might have known that .

Having played in that town for 15 years, you can bet I'm well aware of that.

I'm also aware that the final budget is a NEGOTIATED settlement, one in which each side has to give a little to get a little. I'm aware that the DoD proposed budget was $689 billion. I'm also aware that the House propose budget for defense was $600 billion. In addition, I'm aware that the WH proposed a $415 billion budget, but did it on the backs of soldiers thru decreased benefits, increased fees, and elimination of services for the veterans (nobody tells you that the WH budget proposal wanted to cut spending for VA medical services, do they? You know ... the one they went back and asked for extra appropriation when their incompetence and dishonesty was discovered).

I'm also aware that appropriation bills are not the final budget .. in fact, they rarely resemble each other.

I am also aware that they settled on $495 billion.

Thought YOU might want to know that.
 
Last edited:
Not with this GOP House writing Appropriation bills led by Isolationist/Pacifist TEAs.
And thanks go to Bush-43 for not listening to his Father about "voo-doo" economics .

You said it ... back it up.

The numbers don't lie ... the cuts in DoD budget are Democrat/WH driven. Quit trying to spread untruthfulness.
 
I commend the Administration for all the efforts they have taken thus-far, however I find it very hard to trust most of Obama's speech tonight. Campaigns and outsmarting ISIS are nice thoughts, and while I don't hope for us to begin another war, it's unrealistic to think that won't become of this situation. I don't want to be lied to, and i'm tired of having a president that dances around the main issues.

He doesn't 'dance around' the main issues .... he LIES about them. Get used to it ... he will tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear.
 
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.
 
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.

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. Writing a blank check to fight terror is like writing a blank check to fight the War on Drugs. How's that working out?

Washington must be held accountable and it starts with a roll call vote regarding a declaration of war. If not, it is more plausible deniability, something this particular Congress has mastered to the point of quagmire.

There are many, many very important reasons that only Congress declare war, as per the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
No blood for oil... No blood for oil!!... Biden lied people died..... Biden lied people died!! Im just practicing up.
 
4be330354942f772ada82084fc7f9e78.jpgThe worst president in history keeps getting worse. The community organizer is WEAK.
The SOF agreement should have been signed. We still have troops in Germany, Japan and Korea.
Obama came into office with a STABLE Iraq. If we left troops there no of this Islam head-chopping would have happened. Obama said in his speech that "we are safer today" I almost had a stroke.
Does he think anyone believes that? He wants to do the same thing in Afghanistan.
Liberals were wrong during the Cold War and they are wrong now.
 
Last edited:
I'm aware that the WH proposed a $415 billion (DoD) budget.
I'm not aware of that, but I am aware that the 2011 BCA could cut funding to that level....is this what you are talking about?
 
I'm not aware of that, but I am aware that the 2011 BCA could cut funding to that level....is this what you are talking about?

That's scary and what's Obama going to do about it as the CnC ?

Not a damn thing and he said if Congress try to repeal BCA that he would veto it.
Obama also has a pen and a phone if Congress over rules his veto.
 
I'm not aware of that, but I am aware that the 2011 BCA could cut funding to that level....is this what you are talking about?

No ... the WH, as it is supposed to do every year and failed to do for the first 4 years of the Obama administration, submits a proposed budget. This budget is then used as a guideline for what the Executive Branch thinks they need to do the job. The House creates the appropriations bills, which either reflect the President's wishes or modify it for what they think is needed, based on inputs from the various government agencies. The Senate is then, though they've failed for the past 5 years, supposed to review the House version, suggest changes where they think appropriate. This is where budgets have gone to die.

So, in this case (2015), we have:

1) The WH submitted a proposed budget ( The Budget | The White House ) that recommended $415 billion for Defense (you have to go in and strip the numbers down to operational vs. administrative costs to get to that number). For purposes of discussion, we'll assume that the $495 billion (the overall total) was all operations. (I have no confidence that the WH intended to cut government bureaucrats to get the cost down). Included in that budget were significant cuts to personnel monies - things like cutting commissaries, raising the co-pay on TriCare for veterans, etc. - as well as holding the reimbursement on subsistence and housing allowances (even though the costs of both had gone up), and capping the service pay raise at 1%.

2) The Department of Defense also does a budget exercise which is floated up to the House. In that submission, they asked for what they thought they needed to meet the military mission.

3) The House looked at both proposals and settled on $600 billion for DoD activities. This was based on maintaining the service member benefits, as well as funding important operations and systems.

4) The Senate, once again acting as lap dogs for the President, held to the $495 billion limit. They did this by keeping the service member benefits in place, but cutting the overall size of the military and stopping some new system acquisitions. They were advised by the WH that some of these elements were not needed since we were no longer at war, and, in addition, changed the baseline definition of the mission of the military (a long and convoluted description of which I can provide if you are interested). Suffice it to say, we no longer are as dominant a force as we were three years ago. It was this maneuver that enabled the President to pretend he cut DoD costs, while maintaining our security postures. Those of us in the business would STRONGLY disagree (more on that also, if you wish).

5) In order to get a budget passed, the House acquiesced on the $495 billion limit, recognizing that they had protected the troops. (Clearly, they recognized that stalling the budget - for any reason - was not a politically viable solution.)

Does that answer your question, or did I miss?
 
The Middle East is the Arab League's problem and it's time we stop pimping out our military to them. If they want bodies to throw at their enemies then they can choose them from among their own citizenry instead of ours.

Let me guess ... and we have no national interests in the Middle East, right?
 
No ... the WH, as it is supposed to do every year and failed to do for the first 4 years of the Obama administration, submits a proposed budget.
False, the Obama WH has submitted a budget every year.

FDsys - Browse BUDGET


This budget is then used as a guideline for what the Executive Branch thinks they need to do the job. The House creates the appropriations bills, which either reflect the President's wishes or modify it for what they think is needed, based on inputs from the various government agencies. The Senate is then, though they've failed for the past 5 years, supposed to review the House version, suggest changes where they think appropriate. This is where budgets have gone to die.

So, in this case (2015), we have:

1) The WH submitted a proposed budget ( The Budget | The White House ) that recommended $415 billion for Defense (you have to go in and strip the numbers down to operational vs. administrative costs to get to that number). For purposes of discussion, we'll assume that the $495 billion (the overall total) was all operations. (I have no confidence that the WH intended to cut government bureaucrats to get the cost down). Included in that budget were significant cuts to personnel monies - things like cutting commissaries, raising the co-pay on TriCare for veterans, etc. - as well as holding the reimbursement on subsistence and housing allowances (even though the costs of both had gone up), and capping the service pay raise at 1%.

2) The Department of Defense also does a budget exercise which is floated up to the House. In that submission, they asked for what they thought they needed to meet the military mission.

3) The House looked at both proposals and settled on $600 billion for DoD activities. This was based on maintaining the service member benefits, as well as funding important operations and systems.

4) The Senate, once again acting as lap dogs for the President, held to the $495 billion limit. They did this by keeping the service member benefits in place, but cutting the overall size of the military and stopping some new system acquisitions. They were advised by the WH that some of these elements were not needed since we were no longer at war, and, in addition, changed the baseline definition of the mission of the military (a long and convoluted description of which I can provide if you are interested). Suffice it to say, we no longer are as dominant a force as we were three years ago. It was this maneuver that enabled the President to pretend he cut DoD costs, while maintaining our security postures. Those of us in the business would STRONGLY disagree (more on that also, if you wish).

5) In order to get a budget passed, the House acquiesced on the $495 billion limit, recognizing that they had protected the troops. (Clearly, they recognized that stalling the budget - for any reason - was not a politically viable solution.)

Does that answer your question, or did I miss?
You missed, since you could not show your $415B...but more importantly, you missed that this budget needs to be in compliance with the 2013 BBA...which everyone knows...is Ryan and Murray's baby....AND....well...you left a few things out....


The U.S. Department of Defense is requesting $495.6 billion in authority for the base budget in FY 2015 in line with the Budget Control Act, or BCA, caps as revised by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. The department, however, envisions future base budgets that exceed the BCA caps from FY 2016 to FY 2019. Overall, the Pentagon is asking for $115 billion more than the BCA caps over the next five years in current dollars.
The request also includes an additional $26 billion in FY 2015 for the defense portion of President Barack Obama’s Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative, or OGSI; the initiative is intended to fund readiness, investment, and installation spending not included in the base budget. If appropriated, however, this $26 billion would breach the BCA caps, triggering a sequester unless Congress revisits the caps.
The Pentagon’s FY 2015 request also includes a placeholder request of $79 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations, or OCO, funding. The department has said that it cannot provide a more accurate estimate of war-funding requirements until a bilateral security agreement is signed with Afghanistan, but experts believe it will total between $50 billion and $79 billion. OCO funding is effectively exempt from the BCA caps. In addition to future base budgets that exceed the BCA caps, DOD’s FY 2015 request includes placeholder OCO requests of $30 billion annually—in current dollars—for FY 2016 to FY 2019.
Congress also requested that DOD submit an unfunded priorities list that outlines programs it would like to fund that did not make the budget. These requests total about $36 billion. Again, any appropriations to this $36 billion list would be subject to the BCA caps and would trigger sequestration unless they were offset or the caps were revised, meaning that the unfunded priorities list is essentially a wish list for Congress to consider. The services’ unfunded priorities lists overlap with the defense portion of the OGSI list but request additional funding for aircraft and the Air National Guard.
DOD’s total budget request is therefore $601 billion: $496 billion for the base budget, $26 billion for the defense portion of the OGSI, and $79 billion for OCO. Including the portions of the congressionally requested unfunded priorities list that are distinct from the OGSI items would further increase the total request.

A User


nighty-nite.
 
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.
 
"We are safer today" :lamo
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 .
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.... :shrug: 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".
 
Back
Top Bottom