• 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!

Obama: U.S. will be relentless with Islamic State after Beheading.....

Which I have no control over, man. I have to live with the consequences of the choices my President & other leaders make. And a serious volley of bull**** is coming towards the U.S. and I'd rather my country survive it first and then examine the event & the one's preceding that caused the bull**** to happen. Pick and choose your battles, man.

I think that's precisely what I'm doing by pointing out the frustration of having to spend blood and treasure fighting enemies that our very own failed policies are creating. Why is it that emphasis is always heavy on cure, and not prevention. This is ****ing retarded.
 
No, ISIS predates GWB, only with a different name.

Yeah. This was going to happen eventually. Saddam Hussein was the one holding things "together" via an iron-fisted rule. The inevitable power vacuum was going to destabilize the nation no matter what anyone did. We may have pushed the domino over with our invasion, but unless Hussein figured out the secret to immortality, this was coming.
 
Boots on the ground. Face to face - rifle to rifle - hand to hand. That's what it takes... short of a nuke, that is.

Obama has already ruled out the only option that will work. Although he lied, because USAF Combat Controllers are already on the ground calling in the air strikes and lighting up the targets - as are a large number of other SOF personnel. (other secret squirrels)

afcombatcontrollers-ts300.jpg

First_There_CCT.jpg

A02214-large1.jpg

I know some of them secret squirrel kind of folks. Can't trust them. They will steal (re-appropriate) anything they can get their hands on.
 
Jesus! Warmongers.
 
Obama doesn't bomb ISIS, conservatives mad.
Obama bombs ISIS, conservatives mad because he doesn't bomb them enough.
Obama says he's going to bomb ISIS more, conservatives mad because

This is nice for a sound bite but how about some actual objective look into it and what it seems some conservatives are suggesting.

There's been two major complaints I've seen from many conservatives. One, they want military action against ISIS which could include boots on the ground. Two, that the instability in the region and the wide spread culling of christian arabs in the region wasn't enough to get Obama to act in some fashion.

So let's look at those two points and how that equates to your sound byte above...

"Obama doesn't Bomb ISIS, conservatives mad" -----> Somewhat of an immediete dishonest representation as if Bombing is all that "conservatives" are mad about. Does a conservative who wants point one have reason to be mad? Yes. Does a conservative who wants point two have reason to be mad? Yes.

"Obama bombs ISIS, conservatives mad becuas he doesn't bomb them enough" -----> Again, a dishonest representation of what "conservatives" want. But let's look if it's UNREASONABLE or INCONSISTENT for some Conservatives to still be upset with obama after this action. Does a conservative who wants point one still have reason to be mad? Absolutely, as he indicated we would not be open to full military action. Does a conservative who wants point two still have reason to be mad? Absolutely, as the most focused on reason for acting was neither about regional instability or the extensive amount of time killing Christian Arabs but rather due to the plight of a particular sect of people trapped within a certain geographical area.

"Obama says he's going to bomb ISIS more, conservatives mad because" -----> Because he's still largely been ruling out certain military action, which still doesn't sit well with those conservatives who feel like point one. As for point two, the fact it go to a point now that we're truly seemingly "getting serious[er]" only after an American was brutally killed as opposed to due to the earlier motivations on their part is still pretty consistent to be bothered by.

I don't think you're going to find many conservatives honestly upset Obama is taking action. Their upset becuase of 1) the action he's taking and specifically the action he's stated we won't take 2) the amount of time that it took him to take action 3) the things that motivated him to ultimately take action.
 
Back
Top Bottom