• 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
I don't believe I commented on their mission or their goals.

No, but you indicated that their numbers are too few to do whatever it is they're going to do; that they'll be in more danger because of their small numbers.
The only reason their small numbers would place them in undue harm is if they were on the front-lines, or being asked to do what would normally be done by a larger force.
 
No, but you indicated that their numbers are too few to do whatever it is they're going to do; that they'll be in more danger because of their small numbers.
The only reason their small numbers would place them in undue harm is if they were on the front-lines, or being asked to do what would normally be done by a larger force.

I didn't say anything about their numbers being too few to do whatever it is they're going to do either. Try again. Will they be in more danger because of their small numbers? Well, there will be 475 of them against an estimated 27,000+ ISIS fighters in Iraq and who knows how many other fighters with other terrorist groups? How effective has the Iraqi military been in keeping these people from seizing major portion of Iraq? How much do you trust the Iraqi government to put themselves at risk to protect and defend our 475 people?

The people being kidnapped, tortured, beheaded, and blown up are almost never in direct conflict or combat or contact with the terrorists. But they are just as dead.
 
He still doesn't believe that ISIS is a threat and even if they are, its our fault for making them mad. Thats why there's all the equivocation and the denial that ISIS is Islamic. I wonder what he thinks the first "I" in ISIS is. Word from the white house was that much effort was used in convincing a last holdout on making a firm statement about ISIS. It was the guy they always had to drag off the golf course.



As for the speech. It's been getting lotsa praise ... last night and this AM.
I have to say, I was listening for something new.
Something that hasn't been happening already ... I didn't hear it.
Something that said "We're going to bomb the crap out of ISIS(L) home bases in Syria" ... but I didn't hear it.
The closest thing I heard was "That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq."
Now, after almost 6 years we all should know that doesn't mean he's going to bomb them in Syria.
I could have missed the definitive language.
Maybe he will, but you really have to parse this guy.
He always covers all sides.
(You know, it was a video, it was an act of terror, it was a video etc.)

The other thing that struck me was the language that ISIL is not really an Islamic State, no one recognizes it as an Islamic State, and the Islamists were not really Islamic.
So why the hell does he keep calling them ISIL?
Why not go for accuracy and call them Islamic radical terrorists.
But no, he's still clings to the notion that bad guys will behave once they realize he's a swell guy who knows we're no better than anyone else.
 
The military got bin Laden. Obama just happened to be in office when it happened. He had nothing directly to do with capturing bin Laden.

GW Bush had nothing to do with overthrowing Saddam either then so why does he brag about it? The fact is that Bush and McCain both stated that they would not go into Pakistan to hunt Bin Laden without their Govts approval. That means they would NEVER have gotten Bin Laden. Obama has stated that he will not allow terrorists ANY safe haven and that is the difference.
 
Last edited:
He still doesn't believe that ISIS is a threat and even if they are, its our fault for making them mad. Thats why there's all the equivocation and the denial that ISIS is Islamic. I wonder what he thinks the first "I" in ISIS is. Word from the white house was that much effort was used in convincing a last holdout on making a firm statement about ISIS. It was the guy they always had to drag off the golf course.

It is apparent that you didn't listen to the speech at all. You may have had it on but you heard nothing the President said.
 
IMO, had the U.S. increased support to Syria's sectarian elements, one might actually be dealing with a stronger ISIS, not a weaker one. In that case, the current dictatorship might have been sufficiently weakened to permit ISIS to take control of the entire country.

On the point about building a coalition, Reuters reported:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry pressed Arab leaders on Thursday to back President Barack Obama's new military drive against Islamic State, calling for tighter curbs on funding for militants and fewer extremist messages in Arab media.

Meeting Arab leaders in the Saudi city of Jeddah a day after Obama announced his plans to strike fighters in Iraq and Syria, Kerry also sought permission to make more use of bases in the region and fly more warplanes overhead.


Kerry presses Arabs to back campaign against Islamic State | Reuters

IMO, these are things the President should have done before he finalized a strategy and before he gave his speech. In effect, he's asking the Arab leaders to accept a strategy in which they had little input and may not necessarily address their critical interests. Basic approach: Establish goals (with input), align support, then announce. What happened is that the President set a strategy before he aligned support, and then announced the strategy proclaiming a broad coalition which, in fact, does not yet exist.

Finally, Russia has now weighed in. The same Reuters piece reported:

The prospect of U.S. armed action in Syria also drew concern from Russia, which has backed Assad. In Moscow, the Foreign Ministry said air strikes in Syria would require a U.N. Security Council mandate or be considered an act of aggression, Interfax news agency reported.

Given the precedent in Libya and announced increase in arms to sectarian groups in Syria, concern by Russia among other pro-Assad countries that there is a "backdoor regime change" component is not unreasonable, especially as no controls or mechanisms to preclude that outcome were mentioned. Considering that Arab support was not lined up in advance of the speech, my guess is that the U.S. never considered the possibility that Russia, Iran, and other Assad backers might have concerns and might also take measures of their own.



Well Russia wasn't the only one DS.....but they do have a point as BO and team do want to get rid of Assad. But then from BO's speech and his calling it a 4 pronged attack. He talked about our allies are helping out with the Airstrikes in Iraq. Aid and Airstrikes.

But now Syria.....that's a different story. Here from our #1 Strategic Ally.




Britain’s foreign secretary says his country won’t participate in airstrikes on Syria, following an announcement from Washington that it would begin hitting targets inside the country.

Speaking Thursday after talks with his German counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Philip Hammond said Britain won’t be “revisiting” the issue after Parliament decided last year against participating in airstrikes.....snip~

Britain: Won't take part in airstrikes on Syria


Now Germany.


The foreign ministers of Germany and Britain said on Thursday they would not be taking part in air strikes in Syria against the Islamic State militant group.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told a news conference in Berlin that Germany has not been asked to take part in the air strikes and would not be participating. “To quite clear, we have not been asked to do so and neither will we do so,” Steinmeier said.....snip~

Germany, Britain say won't take part in anti-IS air strikes in Syria | Reuters


It looks as though BO, and his political team wrote a speech without building the necessary commitment from allies to allow them to be part of a united front on global security.

Hows that in comparison with his Speech? If he didn't even talk with our closest allies before this speech. Where do you think that leaves him on the rest of his 4 prong attack?
 
Its all BS. He's a pathological liar. Everyone knows whats in his cold commie heart. If you believe anything this guy says you're a fool.


It is apparent that you didn't listen to the speech at all. You may have had it on but you heard nothing the President said.
 
I see it as political theatre for the reasons presented above.

This is about the mid terms more than it is about success on the battlefield. Your doubts about the ground forces are valid and more. The US has been trying to build an army in Iraq since they destroyed Saddam's and has not succeeded. The question must be asked what's different now?


And the question need be asked 'who are in this coalition and what are their respective roles?'

I am also concerned that he again has chosen to further the on-going war with congress by insisting he needs no authorization. The nation is weary and more from this internal war. I would have gained some respect for him had he, finally, chosen to sit down with congressmen on both sides of the aisle and allow at least the appearance of unity at home.

All I can say is that if the horror of ISIS is not enough to get the Iraqi's to fight for their homeland I don't know what will. Meanwhile since ISIS is an ARMY we can stomp them real good from the air. Their tanks and heavy artillery will be toast real soon. They can run but they cannot hide tanks on the move.
 
All I can say is that if the horror of ISIS is not enough to get the Iraqi's to fight for their homeland I don't know what will. Meanwhile since ISIS is an ARMY we can stomp them real good from the air. Their tanks and heavy artillery will be toast real soon. They can run but they cannot hide tanks on the move.



Despite overwhelming evidence already posted on this board over the last two weeks that an air war alone won't work, you say it will.


OK
 
Well Russia wasn't the only one DS.....but they do have a point as BO and team do want to get rid of Assad. But then from BO's speech and his calling it a 4 pronged attack. He talked about our allies are helping out with the Airstrikes in Iraq. Aid and Airstrikes.

But now Syria.....that's a different story. Here from our #1 Strategic Ally.




Britain’s foreign secretary says his country won’t participate in airstrikes on Syria, following an announcement from Washington that it would begin hitting targets inside the country.

Speaking Thursday after talks with his German counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Philip Hammond said Britain won’t be “revisiting” the issue after Parliament decided last year against participating in airstrikes.....snip~

Britain: Won't take part in airstrikes on Syria


Now Germany.


The foreign ministers of Germany and Britain said on Thursday they would not be taking part in air strikes in Syria against the Islamic State militant group.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told a news conference in Berlin that Germany has not been asked to take part in the air strikes and would not be participating. “To quite clear, we have not been asked to do so and neither will we do so,” Steinmeier said.....snip~

Germany, Britain say won't take part in anti-IS air strikes in Syria | Reuters


It looks as though BO, and his political team wrote a speech without building the necessary commitment from allies to allow them to be part of a united front on global security.

Hows that in comparison with his Speech? If he didn't even talk with our closest allies before this speech. Where do you think that leaves him on the rest of his 4 prong attack?

LOL That's a hoot. Obama said very clearly that he will give ISIS no safe haven and now you are complaining? That's why Bush couldn't get Bin Laden, he refused to go into Pakstan without their approval. Are you saying Obama should not have pursued Bin Laden in Pakistan too? Do you think we are unable to mount airstrikes in Syria without help?
 
Despite overwhelming evidence already posted on this board over the last two weeks that an air war alone won't work, you say it will.


OK

Where is the evidence that we can't take out ISIS's heavy weapons from the air?
 
I find it entertaining how people assume that Russia will be against any action against ISIS, when their ally in the ME (Assad of Syria) has been raging a civil war for the past couple of years. If there is to be an alliance against ISIS, one would assume Syria would be playing a big role. My question in all of this is how does this play into out support of the "good" rebels in Syria?

Oh and if you are really going to talk about interference, keep in mind, Russia's the country that has been annexing parts of sovereign countries lately... not the US.

"Annexing" "countries", lol. Exaggerate much. You still don't understand where Russia and China are in regards to US interference and regime change in the ME. Their articulated positions at the UN have missed you somehow.
 
He's saying we're maintaining the status quo of continued meddling, interference, intervention, destabilisation, regime change, and general enforcement of chaos. And the defense contractors, Halliburton, KBR, etc., are grinning. Oh, and Russia and China, are forging ever closer.

Greetings, Montecresto. :2wave:

Well said! :thumbs: We shouldn't be there at all, as the beheadings of Americans recently proved their hatred of us! If they think that killing and terrorizing their own people is the will of Allah, who are we to tell them their religion is wrong? No one wants to hear that - it's blasphemy to them. That's why one should never ever try to deal with religious fanatics, IMO. Didn't the Inquisition teach people anything?
 
And now, Russia is expressing concerns about a possible "backdoor regime change" effort in Syria. The Wall Street Journal reported:

Moscow, which has long supported the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, suspects Washington would use such strikes to attack government forces, Mr. Lukashevich said. "There is reason to suspect that Syrian government forces could also come under fire with serious consequences for further escalation of tensions," he said.

Europe and Asia Offer Mixed Support for Obama Plan on Islamic State - WSJ

What this likely means is that one should not be surprised if Russia steps up its arms shipments to Damascus and possibly supplies the Syrians with its more advanced anti-aircraft systems, something it had previously refrained from doing.
 
We lost all meaningful intelligence in the area with our ill-advised withdrawal. It's no surprise our intelligence is lagging behind events, and this "late to the party" approach has been repeated by Obama time after time. Now we're going to arm the moderates? He has to be kidding. Where in the hell was he 3 years ago, when that very thing might have made a difference? Now we're more than likely going to end up supplying arms to our enemies, one way or the other. I'm glad he's doing something, but damn what a bonehead he is.



Arming the MB Backed Rebels now.....training them and giving them weapons, so they can fight ISIL will allow them to take the fight to Assad. Which Iran will not go for that. Its Iran who has been arming the Shia in Iraq and putting together Militias. They already have played their games with the Nuke Talks. Plus now they see BO doesn't even have the backing of our closest allies. That he really doesn't want to deal with this problem.

Which btw....did you hear Reid on the Senate floor talk about these terrorists? He is all for arming the and funding the MB backed Rebels.
 
No, but you indicated that their numbers are too few to do whatever it is they're going to do; that they'll be in more danger because of their small numbers.
The only reason their small numbers would place them in undue harm is if they were on the front-lines, or being asked to do what would normally be done by a larger force.



You know what?

That 500 or whatever look a lot like the "advisers" first sent into Vietnam..

We will see how many there are in November....after the mid terms
 
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.

I would generally agree with you in this post, and point out that the bolded, is the same thing Bush said, and he wasn't successful at that, and neither will Obama be. And since Obama bears so much of the responsibility for the growth and strength of militant Islamic groups in the region in general, and IS in particular, I don't fancy listening to his suggestions on how to fix it. But then he's the CIC.
 
LOL That's a hoot. Obama said very clearly that he will give ISIS no safe haven and now you are complaining? That's why Bush couldn't get Bin Laden, he refused to go into Pakstan without their approval. Are you saying Obama should not have pursued Bin Laden in Pakistan too? Do you think we are unable to mount airstrikes in Syria without help?

I don't believe he is complaining that the U.S. will take further action against ISIS. A robust strategy is needed.

It is incredible that far from having put in place a "broad coalition" to combat ISIS, the U.S. has actually just begun trying to do so. That longtime strategic allies such as Germany and the UK were not already on board in some capacity and that the nation's Arab allies weren't already on board is deeply troubling. All of those countries should have been consulted intensively, roles developed, and commitments made before the speech was delivered or the language about a broad coalition should have been excluded from the speech. What happens if support turns out to be limited? While Washington might complain about reluctant allies, the problem will rest solely with the lack of preparation. A lot of intense preparation should be undertaken and only then should the U.S. move. The U.S. should not move before the necessary pieces are in place.
 
LOL That's a hoot. Obama said very clearly that he will give ISIS no safe haven and now you are complaining? That's why Bush couldn't get Bin Laden, he refused to go into Pakstan without their approval. Are you saying Obama should not have pursued Bin Laden in Pakistan too? Do you think we are unable to mount airstrikes in Syria without help?

Whats a real hoot was when BO said the war to fight was in Afghanistan.....the one he lost. The same place he said AQ could not be given a safehaven. Yet he has allowed AQ back into Afghanistan. Has allowed ISIL to create a safehaven.

There is no comparison to Bush and Bin laden has nothing to do with any of this.

Glad you noted our 2 closest allies saying they will not Strike anything in Syria. Wonder if you can figure out that part about not talking to them before BO gave his speech?
 
Well Russia wasn't the only one DS.....but they do have a point as BO and team do want to get rid of Assad. But then from BO's speech and his calling it a 4 pronged attack. He talked about our allies are helping out with the Airstrikes in Iraq. Aid and Airstrikes.

But now Syria.....that's a different story. Here from our #1 Strategic Ally.




Britain’s foreign secretary says his country won’t participate in airstrikes on Syria, following an announcement from Washington that it would begin hitting targets inside the country.

Speaking Thursday after talks with his German counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Philip Hammond said Britain won’t be “revisiting” the issue after Parliament decided last year against participating in airstrikes.....snip~

Britain: Won't take part in airstrikes on Syria


Now Germany.


The foreign ministers of Germany and Britain said on Thursday they would not be taking part in air strikes in Syria against the Islamic State militant group.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told a news conference in Berlin that Germany has not been asked to take part in the air strikes and would not be participating. “To quite clear, we have not been asked to do so and neither will we do so,” Steinmeier said.....snip~

Germany, Britain say won't take part in anti-IS air strikes in Syria | Reuters


It looks as though BO, and his political team wrote a speech without building the necessary commitment from allies to allow them to be part of a united front on global security.

Hows that in comparison with his Speech? If he didn't even talk with our closest allies before this speech. Where do you think that leaves him on the rest of his 4 prong attack?

Hey there MMC, UK holding their position from a year ago, after Obama's red line fiasco.
 
Greetings, Montecresto. :2wave:

Well said! :thumbs: We shouldn't be there at all, as the beheadings of Americans recently proved their hatred of us! If they think that killing and terrorizing their own people is the will of Allah, who are we to tell them their religion is wrong? No one wants to hear that - it's blasphemy to them. That's why one should never ever try to deal with religious fanatics, IMO. Didn't the Inquisition teach people anything?

Hello Polgara, true enough, but then it's not that we're just there to interfere in feuds between the Sunni and the Shia.


Chuck Hagel, 2007
People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs.
 
Whats a real hoot was when BO said the war to fight was in Afghanistan.....the one he lost. The same place he said AQ could not be given a safehaven. Yet he has allowed AQ back into Afghanistan. Has allowed ISIL to create a safehaven.

There is no comparison to Bush and Bin laden has nothing to do with any of this.

Glad you noted our 2 closest allies saying they will not Strike anything in Syria. Wonder if you can figure out that part about not talking to them before BO gave his speech?

I love how you assume things and then think that makes them facts. Obama certainly knew that the allies would not participate in Syria. He doesn't care. Just like with Bin Laden.
 
You know what?

That 500 or whatever look a lot like the "advisers" first sent into Vietnam..

We will see how many there are in November....after the mid terms

Exactly, and in the past weeks, haven't we already sent in 275 one time and 4-500 another.
 
Back
Top Bottom