• 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
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.

Heya Monte. :2wave: You didn't forget that AQAP was always part of ISIL? You didn't think they.....were not, working with each other, did you?
 
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 WILL be fighting ISIS in two years and a lot longer.


A bit over sensitive about your guy...there was not even a mention as to who was president or what regime sent in advisers just a note on how history repeats itself. Glad you have such faith in Obama's success record in the complete absence of one
 
Heya Monte. :2wave: You didn't forget that AQAP was always part of ISIL? You didn't think they.....were not, working with each other, did you?

Actually ISIS has declared war on Al Qaeda. They are not working together now.

Baghdadi had originally pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda but subsequently declared war on the Al-Nusra Front, the Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria.

“The caliphate means that all Muslims in the world should pledge allegiance to one caliph. This means that Al-Baghdadi has become more important than Al-Zawahiri and all leaders of jihadist organizations in the world,” Haj added.
ISIS caliphate declaration of war against Al-Qaeda « ASHARQ AL-AWSAT
 
The guy that was supposed to unite the world has **** on all our allies, they can't stand the idiot.



What does it say about that Peace Prize when the man can't put together a coalition even as lame as the "coalition of the willing" or whatever Bush called that farce?

Couldn't he talk Barbados into sending some toilet paper?
 
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.


They wouldn't know much about that DS. They figure that sending the pawns in here.....will work. Not in Syria it won't.

Everything you say is true.....all our allies should have been talked with. Including the Saudi who isn't to happy with us. Moreover once Turkey was mentioned. They gave Hagel their response in how they will be determining for themselves. What actions or specific actions to take place.

Already this shows a gap in this coalition as well as who will be leading what.
 
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?

No not necesasary, they know that air strikes work...

That's why this ramp up and the hype...he's been bombing since August...and they're working so well he needs more
 
This, I know was posted before, but is significant..

Once you get over the shock of this being left leaning media reporting, the comments are striking:

'Oversimplification', 'Wildly Off-Base': MSNBC Slams Obama's ISIS Speech | National Review Online

Most of all this. I tend to put a lot of credence in the reporting on in-country journalists:


NBC’s chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel, phoning in from northern Iraq, took issue with President Obama’s plan to confront the Islamic State in a manner similar to ongoing U.S. operations in Somalia and Yemen. “I think it is wildly off-base, frankly,” he accused. “I think it’s an oversimplification of the problem.” He explained there is a “partner government” in Yemen that requires the United States to help with reconnaissance and hard-to-reach targets, and a cooperative government in Somalia, too.

“That’s not at all the situation that we see in Iraq and Syria,” he said. “Here we have a large group, tens of thousands of fighters. They control an area the size of Maryland. They control an area with 8 million people living inside of it. It’s much more akin to regime change than it is waiting back, picking targets with allied forces. They are not comparable at all.”
 
Heya Monte. :2wave: You didn't forget that AQAP was always part of ISIL? You didn't think they.....were not, working with each other, did you?

Don't know, not sure of your point there MMC.
 
Actually ISIS has declared war on Al Qaeda. They are not working together now.

ISIS caliphate declaration of war against Al-Qaeda « ASHARQ AL-AWSAT


Not anymore.....Al Nusra pledged to ISIL. Oh and there has been no words from the Invisible Sheik as to declaring War on AQ. Also what isn't mentioned with the creation of Caliphate.....is the Invisible Sheik jumping up in front of King Abdullahs' Ascension. Yet you have not heard ISIL declare War on the Saud.....yet!

Al Nusra pledges allegiance to Isil.....


Opens the way for jihadist group to control both sides of the border with Syria and Iraq. Al Qaida’s Syrian offshoot on Wednesday made an oath of loyalty to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant at a key town on the Iraqi border, a monitor said. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the merger is significant because it opens the way for Isil to take control of both sides of the border at Albu Kamal in Syria and Al Qaim in Iraq, where the jihadist group has led a major offensive this month.

After months of clashes between the two sides, Al Qaida’s official Syrian arm the Al Nusra Front “pledged loyalty to Isil” in Albu Kamal, said Observatory director Rami Abdul Rahman. “The pledge comes amid advances by Isil in Deir Al Zor province” in eastern Syria on the Iraqi border, Abdul Rahman told AFP.....snip~

Al Nusra pledges allegiance to Isil | GulfNews.com
 
They wouldn't know much about that DS. They figure that sending the pawns in here.....will work. Not in Syria it won't.

Everything you say is true.....all our allies should have been talked with. Including the Saudi who isn't to happy with us. Moreover once Turkey was mentioned. They gave Hagel their response in how they will be determining for themselves. What actions or specific actions to take place.

Already this shows a gap in this coalition as well as who will be leading what.

Hey, I'm not too happy with the Saudis either, so **** them:thumbdown:thumbdown
 
Heya TDS :2wave: .....didn't you have a thread up on ISIL going undercover due to the AirStrikes?
"Undercover"? Explain

Plus some of the other things they would do to limit them?
I have stated in several threads what I think would limit them.
 
ISIS = ISIL = AQ. Before they became ISIL they were AQ members. That was it!!!!!

Totally true. And before that, they were the ISLAMIC STATE in IRAQ, ISI, the second s was added when they found refuge and opportunity in the vacuum being created by Saudi, Qatar, US and Western interference in Syria.
 
Yes--that's what GOP House member BARTON from Texas said today--we're safer now than after 9/11 on Bush's watch.

.

Barton must be a heavy drinker or pot smoker and is suffering short term memory lost because he doesn't remember the terrorist attack at Fort Hood, the fruit of the loom bomber and the Boston marathon bombers. Not to mention the over 300,000 illegal aliens from Central America that have come across our borders in the past few months, the same border that Obama said was secured.
 
"Undercover"? Explain


I have stated in several threads what I think would limit them.


Like they were hiding out in the Cities and towns.....not dressing the same way. Going undercover, and hiding their tech and equipment.
 
Like they were hiding out in the Cities and towns.....not dressing the same way. Going undercover, and hiding their tech and equipment.

Dont recall making that thread. Would expect thats exactly what they are doing tho.
 
Glad you have such faith in Obama's success record in the complete absence of one

Now you're just using petty partisan spin.

Whether the repercussions have panned out as desired, you can't really argue that our mission in Libya, and our attacks in other nations have been largely successful and cost-effective. And with Libya we achieved the same thing we achieved in Iraq (the toppling of a regime) for less than 1/1000th the cost in money, and no American deaths.

This is the right way to leverage our military forces against less technological advanced nations. It's an embarrassment that we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan as we did. That was mid-20th century war mentality and it put our soldiers in unnecessary danger and cost us far, far more than the objectives warranted. And for all that money and all those American lives lost, we didn't even finish al Qaeda and Bin Laden in Afghanistan; intel and surgical strikes finished him off.
 
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...

Heya Ttwtt :2wave: Well you see he wants money to fund the MB backed rebels.....I don't think we should have to up the money. Even the rebels own commanders were saying its a little to late. Aleppo is falling and that's their last bastion of hope.
 
False, the Obama WH has submitted a budget every year.

FDsys - Browse BUDGET


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.

See? This is the danger of too little knowledge in the hands of political zealots with a mission.

Maybe you should read - Obama misses his 4th budget deadline - Washington Times - it will tell you that Obama has failed to submit a budget proposal for four straight years, and that the budgeting process has gone on without his input. The documents you see are useless - and, in most cases, are created retroactive to the budgeting process.

Then, you should go check and see how many budgets were actually passed, and how many years we operated on CRs (Continuing Resolutions).

Now, try to take notes .... apparently, you didn't even read what you wrote.

1) "Placeholder requests" are not funded ... they are merely a list of potential (and, usually, undefined) budget items. Typically, these are operational items that can't be definitively calculated, and identify potential funding requests outside the budgeting process. This has been the favorite tool for funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2) "Unfunded priorities" are exactly that - typically, they are budget item requests by DoD that fall below the cutoff prescribed by the WH or Congress. DoD requests these items be funded, but they are cuts implemented despite their request.

3) Once you remove all the unfunded items, you arrive at $496 billion, as I said ... that IS the operating budget for DoD ... DoD requested funding for $601 billion, and the WH and Congress cut it to $495 billion.

4) Had you bothered to actually read what you copied and pasted, you would have realized it agreed with exactly what I said. You know what a coincidence is? That's when you subtract $79 billion in OCO (which is also unfunded, but listed as a budget line item) from the $495 billion DoD budget, and end up with $415 billion. Funny how that works, huh?

5) By the way, if you try to make the DoD budget balance out at the macro level, you will never get there. There are items included in the baseline budget that are NOT detailed ... I presume you can figure out what kind of stuff that might be.

Have a nice day.
 
Now you're just using petty partisan spin.

Whether the repercussions have panned out as desired, you can't really argue that our mission in Libya, and our attacks in other nations have been largely successful and cost-effective. And with Libya we achieved the same thing we achieved in Iraq (the toppling of a regime) for less than 1/1000th the cost in money, and no American deaths.

This is the right way to leverage our military forces against less technological advanced nations. It's an embarrassment that we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan as we did. That was mid-20th century war mentality and it put our soldiers in unnecessary danger and cost us far, far more than the objectives warranted. And for all that money and all those American lives lost, we didn't even finish al Qaeda and Bin Laden in Afghanistan; intel and surgical strikes finished him off.



Libya was a success?

What ever happened to those terrorists who assassinated the only sitting ambassador to die in office in 30 years?

I guess al-Qaeda just left of their own accord then?
 
Back
Top Bottom