• 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 under fire for admitting no 'strategy yet' for ISIS in Syria [W:446]

Now, like I said, even though I don't approve of the president's foreign policy, specifically against terrorism he is not as weak as he is depicted by the right.

Just today, we've just launched an attack on Al Shabaab militants in Somalia (breaking news right now). This president is actually very active against terrorists, which is one of the reasons why I expect he'll hit ISIS hard.
 
Grant said:
Only if the truth has no appeal.
So you feel the American people prefer what's happening in Iraq now? The left probably does, but what about intelligent Americans? The electorate were told what would happen if the troops were removed but chose instead to follow the Grafter-in Chief. The evidence is inescapable.
Click to expand...

You're so nice.

You think "the left" is happy ISIS is murdering people. This conversation is over.
 
NIMBY said:
By law, the President had to report to the Congress today about his actions last week in Syria.
Good to see he's been on the job eh bombing ISIL and following the law eh ?
Click to expand...

Grant, the master of deflection and not answering the question. Don't expect anything else.
 
GreatNews2night said:
This idea that "Iraq didn't want us there and neither did the American people" is exactly what leadership failure is.
Click to expand...

Not arguing with that; I don't think Obama has handled the situation well at all. But neither have a lot of other people, as you said previously.
 
Fearandloathing said:
As one who has seldom, if ever, supported Obama, I must here.

Congrats, a president that admits to what every other president in recent history has neglected to mention....attack first, plan later.

Look, you were in Vietnam how long? What was the plan there when the US rejected please from Ho Chi Minh for help and attacked him instead? What was the "plan" in the second Iraq war? That one sure worked...fire everyone with a gun, kick them out of a job and expect them to line the streets waving home made flags?

What IS the plan in Afghanistan, besides killing every living thing you see? If there is one, can someone point to what that looks like?

He got honest for once in his administration....must be something in the water
Click to expand...

Id be willing to bet that there is a lot of black op stuff going on if not our troops doing moves then attempts to buy assassination plot. Crap that a prez can never say... "Yeah we gotta plan but you won't ever know what it is."
 
GreatNews2night said:
He also said America will do what is necessary. Said that the Pentagon is weighing options. He has called ISIS a cancer that needs to be eliminated. He has already started air strikes against ISIS in Iraq, and his generals are saying we'll need to go into Syria as well which is what I expect he'll do next.

Now, on the discussion here about the blame for the situation in Iraq:

1. The situation there has been dire for DECADES or even centuries. To blame anybody exclusively for that mess is preposterous.
2. Bush started this whole current mess. If Saddam Hussein were still the president of Iraq, there would be no ISIS.
3. Maliki is a moron who got greedy and failed to implement an inclusive government that would have kept Iraq stable.

Now, this said, is Obama ALSO to blame?
Absolutely. He campaigned on ending the Iraq war; he did want an agreement to leave troops behind, didn't get it, got irritated and quit too soon without forcefully negotiating it, and pretended that that was what he wanted (trying to turn failure into an apparent fulfillment of a campaign promise). Again, with such agreement in place maybe ISIS wouldn't be there.

So, yes, Oblama is to blame. But not just Obama, obviously. The full history of the region + Bush + Maliki are all to blame as well. This much is obvious and ignoring it is simply risible.
Click to expand...

Obama in 2011: ‘We’re Leaving Behind A Stable And Self-Reliant Iraq’

Watch Joe Biden Call Iraq "One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" | The Daily Caller

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_t-YCnZKg8

This pretty much sums up recent Iraqi history.
 
Kobie said:
Yeah, that's how answering questions works.



The Iraqis didn't want us there; the American people didn't want us to be there.
Click to expand...

Grant doesn't care. Using the lives of the American soldier to score political points is par for the course for his kind.
 
Kobie said:
Not arguing with that; I don't think Obama has handled the situation well at all. But neither have a lot of other people, as you said previously.
Click to expand...

Obama was the one in charge, the one who made the decision to pull the troops, the one who is responsible for what is going on there now.
 
Texmex said:
Grant doesn't care. Using the lives of the American soldier to score political points is par for the course for his kind.
Click to expand...

That's false, of course, but even more lives will be lost because the troops aren't there maintaining the stable situation which was in Iraq at the time.
 
Grant said:
Obama was the one in charge, the one who made the decision to pull the troops, the one who is responsible for what is going on there now.
Click to expand...

So the person who created the mess bears no responsibility, and the person who was in charge of Iraq bears no responsibility.

Just Obama. Only Obama. Gotcha.

You might want to ask yourself the question you asked me earlier regarding "hackery"?
 
Kobie said:
You're so nice.

You think "the left" is happy ISIS is murdering people. This conversation is over.
Click to expand...

I said "probably", and you can read the posts from Leftists as easily as me. They were told what would happen and ignored it, or refused to believe. If you want to be a leftists you should be prepared to accept the responsibility and the history that comes with it.
 
NIMBY said:
I specifically asked you which wing of the TEA-party you're from.
Click to expand...

Are there wings, I wouldn't know? I don't recall saying anything about being in the Tea Party, though we may have the same conservative values.

The Rand Paul wing that complains when the President bombs and drones.
Or the Ted Cruz wing that makes fun of the President in world view when comparing him to Putin?
Click to expand...
Do they have their own "wings"? Again, I don't know.

And do tell which of your constituional rights Mr. Obama is stomping on .
Click to expand...

Is that a joke? Recess appointments, the dream act, many examples of him altering laws or deciding that he will not enforce them, etc... That's just a tiny bit, but enough to impeach a president.
 
Kobie said:
So the person who created the mess bears no responsibility, and the person who was in charge of Iraq bears no responsibility.

Just Obama. Only Obama. Gotcha.

You might want to ask yourself the question you asked me earlier regarding "hackery"?
Click to expand...

Who else but Obama????? Obama was in charge when Iraq was stable. Now after he pulled the troops, against the advice of the military, thousands of people are dead and the military is having to go back. He is clearly responsible. No???
 
GreatNews2night said:
What an incredibly misguided thread.
It discusses something that the President never really indicated, that there would be no strategy.
Right after he said that there is no strategy *yet* he added that the Pentagon is currently studying what's the best strategy, and soon there will be a conclusion, then action. And he added "America will do what is necessary."

So this entire thread is just picking on the fact that the president didn't lie by pretending that a conclusion had already been reached.
Click to expand...

Sorry, we don't all have special Obama decoder rings to get the message that you got. This probably would not matter all that much, it would be just a gaffe, but it's another in a long line of screw ups by this disaster of a president.
 
Anthony60 said:
Sorry, we don't all have special Obama decoder rings to get the message that you got. This probably would not matter all that much, it would be just a gaffe, but it's another in a long line of screw ups by this disaster of a president.
Click to expand...

SHORTER: "We hear what we want to hear."
 
Grant said:
Who else but Obama????? Obama was in charge when Iraq was stable. Now after he pulled the troops, against the advice of the military, thousands of people are dead and the military is having to go back. He is clearly responsible. No???
Click to expand...

Iraq was never stable. It had a stubborn, corrupt, and sectarian PM (Maliki) so the conditions were ripe for the sectarian strife that contributed to the creation of ISIS. That instability was created by the fall of Saddam Hussein. Saddam was taken down by Bush. You know when Iraq was really stable? When Saddam Hussein was there, before he invaded Kuwait, and before Bush Sr.'s ambassador suggested to him that America wouldn't mind his invading Kuwait. So, the problem goes way back.

So, no, there are indeed more people to blame other than just Obama. On the other hand, like I said, Obama is clearly ALSO to blame.

Now, see, I blame both Republican and Democratic administrations. That's called analyzing the situation logically and historically without partisan blindness. I don't think I can say the same of some opinions being expressed here today.
 
Grant said:
That's false, of course, but even more lives will be lost because the troops aren't there maintaining the stable situation which was in Iraq at the time.
Click to expand...

This isn't false, you've proven it.

You lament the loss of Iraqi lives complaining that our troops aren't being killed right along side of them. Of course had we not left Iraq, you would be complaining that Obama had not followed the Bush exit plan. At least admit there is absolutely no action Obama could take that you wouldn't gripe and complain.
 
Texmex said:
This isn't false, you've proven it.

You lament the loss of Iraqi lives complaining that our troops aren't being killed right along side of them. Of course had we not left Iraq, you would be complaining that Obama had not followed the Bush exit plan. At least admit there is absolutely no action Obama could take that you wouldn't gripe and complain.
Click to expand...

While I don't particularly like Argument By Hypothetical, I have very little doubt that you are correct here.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Iraq was never stable. It had a stubborn, corrupt, and sectarian PM (Maliki) so the conditions were ripe for the sectarian strife that contributed to the creation of ISIS. That instability was created by the fall of Saddam Hussein. Saddam was taken down by Bush. You know when Iraq was really stable? When Saddam Hussein was there, before he invaded Kuwait, and before Bush Sr.'s ambassador suggested to him that America wouldn't mind his invading Kuwait. So, the problem goes way back.

So, no, there are indeed more people to blame other than just Obama. On the other hand, like I said, Obama is clearly ALSO to blame.

Now, see, I blame both Republican and Democratic administrations. That's called analyzing the situation logically and historically without partisan blindness. I don't think I can say the same of some opinions being expressed here today.
Click to expand...

Grant knows this. He's just using the situation to bitch about Obama. I think he lives with Navy Pride.
 
NIMBY said:
Is Obama required by the War Powers Act to consult them on starting wars?
Wouldn't that be a violation of your constitutional rights for him not to consult congress?
Meanwhile, the warhawks of Congress run around the Nation acting like they're all the Chiefs and Obama is the Indian .
Click to expand...

That's funny, the "War Powers Act." It's not part of the Constitution, and is really unconstitutional. But it will never go to court, because presidents ignore it anyway, and Congress won't bother, since they know it would be struct down.
 
Anthony60 said:
Sorry, we don't all have special Obama decoder rings to get the message that you got. This probably would not matter all that much, it would be just a gaffe, but it's another in a long line of screw ups by this disaster of a president.
Click to expand...

Well, it looks like you haven't read subsequent posts on how the discussion of the issue has evolved.
Just to update you,
1. The phrase is probably unfortunate and half-akin to a gaffe but it was taken out of context and conveniently for Obama's opponents other statements issued *during the same address* signaling just the opposite (that is, that ISIS is likely in for a big blow from America) were conveniently omitted. Whoever heard the whole speech and not just mutilated versions by partisan media, knows that the president did not mean that nothing will be done against ISIS.
2. The president is not that weak against terrorists.
3. This said, the president is to partially blame for the Iraq situation, which resulted, sure, from previous blunders (Bush's, Maliki's) but also resulted from the president's poor leadership skills, lack of statesman-like behavior, and faulty foreign policy

Now, quoting a much earlier post of mine pretending that none of the above has been discussed is a bit disingenuous.
 
Kobie said:
While I don't particularly like Argument By Hypothetical, I have very little doubt that you are correct here.
Click to expand...

You are right, but some people...well they shouldn't play poker, they are very predictable. Pegging them with a hypothetical is like agreeing with the theory of evolution.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
Oh so you're saying congress is so impotent and can do NOTHING? Wow what a defeatist attitude the GOP and you have.

The country is at stake remember? A real set of leaders would bring up suggestions on what to do if they thought the president incompetent and not just whine like ****ing cry-babies about it.
Click to expand...

Just an incredibly ignorant statement.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Iraq was never stable. It had a stubborn, corrupt, and sectarian PM (Maliki) so the conditions were ripe for the sectarian strife that contributed to the creation of ISIS.
Click to expand...
If Iraq was not stable, and maliki as you described, why pull the troops?

That instability was created by the fall of Saddam Hussein. Saddam was taken down by Bush.
Click to expand...
Whoa! Are you saying that Iraq was 'stable' under Saddam Hussein? You are unaware of the war with Iran, the genocide or the rape rooms? How was any of this 'stable'. Who taught you this?

You know when Iraq was really stable? When Saddam Hussein was there, before he invaded Kuwait, and before Bush Sr.'s ambassador suggested to him that America wouldn't mind his invading Kuwait. So, the problem goes way back.
Click to expand...
Yes, he invaded Kuwait. And you say that he did so because an Ambassador said it was okay?? I've heard that nonsense before but no one invades another country because of a wink or a nudge from an ambassador! Even Saddam Hussein.

So, no, there are indeed more people to blame other than just Obama. On the other hand, like I said, Obama is clearly ALSO to blame.
Click to expand...
You are so close, but missed it.

Now, see, I blame both Republican and Democratic administrations. That's called analyzing the situation logically and historically without partisan blindness. I don't think I can say the same of some opinions being expressed here today.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. Everyone's to blame and no one's to blame and it's all history's fault.
 
Grant said:
If Iraq was not stable, and maliki as you described, why pull the troops?
Click to expand...
I've already explained that I'm against the pulling of the troops and it is the basis for me ALSO blaming Obama.
Whoa! Are you saying that Iraq was 'stable' under Saddam Hussein? You are unaware of the war with Iran, the genocide or the rape rooms? How was any of this 'stable'. Who taught you this?
Click to expand...
Stable as far as terrorism goes. Saddam as a dictator was oppressing his people and was bellicose against neighbors but terrorists had no space to thrive there.
Yes, he invaded Kuwait. And you say that he did so because an Ambassador said it was okay?? I've heard that nonsense before but no one invades another country because of a wink or a nudge from an ambassador! Even Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...
Right, you've heard it before. It's not nonsense; it's called a diplomatic blunder.
You are so close, but missed it.
Click to expand...
I think you're the one missing all the other factors, and narrowly considering only one factor.
Yes, I know. Everyone's to blame and no one's to blame and it's all history's fault.
Click to expand...
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said no one is to blame. It's a complex situation with multiple causes and multiple people screwed up, which is frankly quite incredible that you are unable to see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom