• 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
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.

True that! :thumbs: So why is it being called a religious war? Easier to justify the killings that way?
 
Interesting response from some of the left:



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.

There it is.....all of MSDNC slamming this speech by BO. How did that happen? Why are they dumping on BO? Richard Engel called it Right with Yemen. So to did Don Sutherland.

Yeah that bit about BO saying ISIL wasn't Islamic.....went over real well. :roll:
 
"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.

I know they both signed on to Resolution 1501 if that's what you are referring to. And yes, when you move troops into a country, and force them into a vote with no monitors whatsoever, I do call that annexing what Russia did with Crimea, because that's what it was. Ultimately, that's the difference between the US and China and Russia. If we do go into a country, we don't go in there with designs of taking it over for ourselves. Have we forgotten about Tibet? Georgia?
 
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.

Which isn't cool. He lost me as candidate Obama when he announced in June/July of 08 that he would attack al Qaeda in Pakistan, with or without the Pakistani's permission. Don't remember that being Bush's reason for not doing it himself, but if it was, good for him.
 
I know they both signed on to Resolution 1501 if that's what you are referring to. And yes, when you move troops into a country, and force them into a vote with no monitors whatsoever, I do call that annexing what Russia did with Crimea, because that's what it was. Ultimately, that's the difference between the US and China and Russia. If we do go into a country, we don't go in there with designs of taking it over for ourselves. Have we forgotten about Tibet? Georgia?

Reminds me of the treaty of Hidalgo. Btw, imperialism can include annexation of territory, but isn't necessary. US has a history of imperialism.
 
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?

So.... in one paragraph you say you're not talking about their numbers in relation to the enemy, but then you do exactly that. They won't be 475 against 27,000+. That's my point. You're criticizing their minimal numbers based on a fictitious scenario.

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.

So they're being kidnapped, tortured, and beheaded by.... what exactly? Those things kind of require there to be in direct conflict or combat or contact.
In theory they could be blown up from a distance if ISIS is shooting RPGs or missiles, but I believe common convention would still consider that to be "direct conflict".
 
Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

i thought about this overnight before posting about it, because i was angry and disappointed. i still am. i almost didn't post this, because i have friends on this site who support intervention. i accept that this is a valid opposing view, i understand their reasoning, and i consider their motivations to be noble. additionally, i deeply respect and am grateful to those who have served. that being said, here is my position and what i thought of the speech.

i don't support the war. i'm not sure that there is non-regional military solution to this problem. whenever we kill one of these sick bastards, something worse pops up. we put regimes in place, they are toppled, and then replaced by something horrifying. we considered going after Assad, then this ISIL bull**** happens, and now we are actually going to be helping him. Osama Bin Laden is captured, and now we have new and ruthlessly violent terrorist organizations to fight. enough is enough. this is one big game of whack a mole. we have been at war almost my entire adult life, and problems in the region are still prevalent and even expanding.

the only solution i see is to unplug the whack a mole machine. we do that by replacing oil with something else, which will put a serious dent in their money supply. reform in that region is going to have to come from within, and Saudi Arabia is going to have to step up and fulfill its role as regional hegemon. it can no longer be allowed to abdicate.

as for his speech in particular, when he invoked the September eleventh attacks, i almost threw the remote at the TV. i found it to be an appeal to emotion on the eve of the thirteenth anniversary of those attacks, and it always gets under my skin when a politician uses that as a tool.

as for part of what he's proposing, it has been done already. here is one example :

Operation Cyclone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

while we may or may not have financed or trained him personally, Bin Laden was part of the Mujahideen. and i'm supposed to believe the solution to this is more funding and training? seriously?

to add insult to injury, these bastards will be fighting us with our own weapons that we gave to the Iraqis, another example of the fruits of training and arming sectors of the country that we consider to be friendly. not to mention, if things need to be done, when will the rest of the world lead the charge? it can't always be the US. that isn't fair. i dislike these bastard asshole terrorist ****heads probably as much as any of you, but this probably won't work.

finally, i get the feeling that a lot of Obama's motivation is to appear to be doing something. i doubt anyone honestly thinks that this will solve the problem, and if it does work, it will likely lead to escalation and prolonged involvement. these wars are never short. and then in many years when we finally do withdraw, there's a good chance that another group of these snakes move in to fill the power void.

there is just no good side to take. either way we go, it's just an awful situation. we need to cut off their funding in every way possible, especially by eliminating oil as the premier transportation fuel. then we need to tell Saudi Arabia to handle this situation like we would have to if it was Mexico. Saudi Arabia has not lifted a finger to help us with the horrifyingly brutal Mexican drug gangs who roam our southern border. ****, they don't even pay for the gas for us to chase them around with. and now, they allow their own neighborhood to get so ****ed up that the world has had to go there again and again, decade after decade. this is their neighborhood, and they need to eliminate this particular cancer from it and make it clear that from now on, instability like this is going to result in them getting involved in a big way.
 
Last edited:
Which isn't cool. He lost me as candidate Obama when he announced in June/July of 08 that he would attack al Qaeda in Pakistan, with or without the Pakistani's permission. Don't remember that being Bush's reason for not doing it himself, but if it was, good for him.

So you think ISIS should be given safe haven in Syria?
 
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.



Assume? What are you trying to make me laugh or something. What the hell you copied and pasted it yourself. Reading is fundamental.


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~


Now who was assuming Obama knew his allies would not participate......especially when they say they weren't talked to about it? Do you always look to Lie for BO peep?
 
So you think ISIS should be given safe haven in Syria?

Oh good gawd. For the umpteenth time. IS was hiding under a rock until we conducted regime change and overthrew, or otherwise supported the overthrow of Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad.
 
Reminds me of the treaty of Hidalgo. Btw, imperialism can include annexation of territory, but isn't necessary. US has a history of imperialism.

Oh yeah? How many of those territories are we holding right now? Let's see... we let go of the Phillipines, Panama, Grenada, Panama, Iraq... In fact, I'm having a harder time thinking of a case where the Russians or the Chinese, didn't try and keep their territory. Only reason the Cold War ended was because the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of a failed economic model, and couldn't keep down the peasants any more...

Oh good gawd. For the umpteenth time. IS was hiding under a rock until we conducted regime change and overthrew, or otherwise supported the overthrow of Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad.

I've never actually heard you come out and say it, but knowing the view you have with Ukraine, I have to ask, Do you think the whole Arab Spring was just some giant CIA operation or something? We did actually like Mubarak you know?
 
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.

Reid hasn't had an original thought of his own in years! So who pays attention to anything he says? It's like an echo chamber..... And why BHO's love fixation with the MB? The people who know them best don't like them at all - shouldn't that be taken as some kind of a clue......


:
 
Oh good gawd. For the umpteenth time. IS was hiding under a rock until we conducted regime change and overthrew, or otherwise supported the overthrow of Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad.

I agree but now that we broke it we bought it. We created Isis. Now we need to destroy it.
 
Assume? What are you trying to make me laugh or something. What the hell you copied and pasted it yourself. Reading is fundamental.


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~


Now who was assuming Obama knew his allies would not participate......especially when they say they weren't talked to about it? Do you always look to Lie for BO peep?

You have problems with comprehension. Saying they were not asked to participate does not mean they were not informed.
 
Oh yeah? How many of those territories are we holding right now? Let's see... we let go of the Phillipines, Panama, Grenada, Panama, Iraq... In fact, I'm having a harder time thinking of a case where the Russians or the Chinese, didn't try and keep their territory. Only reason the Cold War ended was because the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of a failed economic model, and couldn't keep down the peasants any more...



I've never actually heard you come out and say it, but knowing the view you have with Ukraine, I have to ask, Do you think the whole Arab Spring was just some giant CIA operation or something?


I think that looks like some sort of an excuse of past annexations and present imperialism.
 
I agree but now that we broke it we bought it. We created Isis. Now we need to destroy it.

Well, join me in raising hell that we keep breaking things in the Middle East and insist that we get the hell out then.
 
So you were in favor of leaving a residual force which would have continued losing
lives as well as continuing the overload of the VA with thousands of more lives?

Not to mention that Americans were never going to allow Palin to be a heartbeat away from the President.
A President who finally got another war, one he doesn'ty want to vote on either .

I have to wonder where you got your crystal ball. Or maybe your using one of those 8-balls that you turn upside down and read the wisdom of the day.
 
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

Well, I prefer to estimate Obama's actions based on Obama's past actions; not the actions of 3 presidents ranging from 65 to 50 years ago. And so far Obama's policy has pretty consistently been to provide logistical support to resident allies, and leverage our air superiority. I've seen no cause to think he'll do otherwise here, before or after the mid-terms.

Now, what his predecessor will do if we're still fighting ISIS in two years, I have no idea.
 
You have problems with comprehension. Saying they were not asked to participate does not mean they were not informed.

Looks like you do.....the German said to be quite clear, they were not asked to do so. I doubt you can change his words.

Now whats your excuses for MSDNC dumping on him for his speech? Although try and let us know without thinking for others.
 
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.
And what happens if they hunker down in the cities they've already captured? Destroy the cities and everyone in them?
They can run but they cannot hide tanks on the move.
See above

.....
 
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.

Heya TDS :2wave: .....didn't you have a thread up on ISIL going undercover due to the AirStrikes? Plus some of the other things they would do to limit them?
 
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.

Many congress critters (and Obama) see the arming of foreign mercenaries as a great deal; they can funnel gobs of tax (other people's) money into the "defense" industry in their district/state, appear very patriotic (protecting the folks and all) and not have to deal with as many US service casualties. The previously "unknown opposition forces" have thus been instantly declared "fully vetted" - time to let our tax dollars flow and sit back and collect the, all important, campaign cash - USA, USA, USA...
 
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?

The guy that was supposed to unite the world has **** on all our allies, they can't stand the idiot.
 
Back
Top Bottom