@crosspatchThe president doesn’t need permission to go to war, he can make that decision by himself. What happens is that if it does not go his way he can blame congress. Congress on the other hand is trying to make sure if he (the president) is not going to a gun fight armed with a knife. The question left for the rest of the country is: Is he a moron or what? Mind you it’s not his life in the line, it’s only a hand full of soldiers sent to fight thousands with their hands tied. No wonder there were no military present at his announcement, they can see a suicide mission a mile away. In this case the failure of undeciseveness is compounded by stupidity.
I’m sorry Cross, please explain to me how “No boots on the ground,” insinuates, implies, or intimates that he wants to “go after” ISIS. Everything Obama has done was to get us out and keep us out of the middle east. I’d like some verification that he actually wanted to go after ISIS, especially after he juvenile “JV” comment.
You can’t win a war without troops on the ground. That’s an absolute. The biggest problem I have ever had with his military action has been that he hasn’t followed proper protocol. He violated the war powers act, and did not seek congressional approval. He just bombed people, killing US Citizens without due process. It’s not what he did, it’s how he did it. Whatever failings you feel Bush had, going by the book was not one of them.You are right… there is no real way out, now that we are in the current situation. But make no mistake, no matter the amount of conflict we don’t generate, they will still hate us for who we are. They truly dislike us. And nothing we do or say now is going to change that.
Normally “isolationist” New Zealand is going to send troops, “trainers” like the U.S. provides to “fight” ISIL with THEIR boots on the ground. That locals are also stepping up, like Egypt and Jordan, shows that Obama’s diplomacy, with getting others at bat, instead of just us, is working. btw; saw the story on Al Jazeera America, no mention yet on MSM folks.
Interesting to note that Egypt is stepping in because Coptics were the target, and for years the “usual suspects” here have been screaming about Egypt killing off all Christians for the “caliphate”.
Small bits of cooperation can have large impacts, just like the very small number actually linked to ISIL have gotten so far, and so much press.
I don’t think neighboring countries are going to do anything. They’ll talk and condemn, but they won’t insert themselves into Iraq, either because they don’t have balls for it or they don’t have the capabilities. You speak of Bush breaking the mold, but when it came to War, he followed the rules. Before he dropped a single bomb, he got approval from Congress, as is expected. The same isn’t true about our current POTUS. However, I’m concerned about the “no win” you are expressing. Here’s a bit of predicting if we don’t win. ISIS will seize control of Iraq, something we see happening right now. They’re at Al Asad Airbase right now, with the 300 Marines there most likely kicking their tails in. But that’s Al Asad… not the whole country. So they go around Al Asad and move towards Baghdad. They take over the government and institute their perverse version of Islam and impose a much more strict version of Sharia law. And then they have access to the resources Iraq has. So we, in our weak-kneed response, sanction them. This hurts the people of Iraq and causes them to hate us more. They cry out “Why didn’t you stop this,” at the same time as condemning us for cutting off their food supply. The populace lives in fear, and is half-starving. We are demonized by the rest of the world for not stepping in to stop these human rights violations, and we vacillate and we talk and we do nothing. This serves as a recruiting tool, just as our bombs do. ISIS has an established country to grow, train, and develop weapons of terror. They then export this terror across the globe. Including here. Because while we have to be right every time, they only have to be right once.I’m not saying we should go bomb them into the stone ages (because, well, they’re already there), but instead we need to find a way to DEFEND our allies in Iraq while the neighboring countries help Iraq to exterminate ISIS. We set up garrisons in Al Asad, Ramadi, Baghdad, and the like to protect those interests. We then let the locals deal with ISIS. That way we don’t get demonized for “bombing brown people,” and we don’t get demonized for “doing nothing.” We protect, and act as the shield. To me, that’s a win-win.
Can you get rid of ISIS without helping Assad in Syria? Helping Assad would help Iran – which wants to control all of the Middle East and exterminate Israel!
I get that idea from the frequency with which other countries look to us expecting us to help. I’m not talking just bombs and bullets, I’m talking aid as well. How many billions do we spend on third-world countries? How much flak would we get if we halted those billions? Imagine if we didn’t step in during Korea. Or Somalia. Or any host of other conflicts. What would the geopolitical landscape look like if we sat by and did nothing. How much wailing and gnashing of teeth would there be if we did what Obama has done recently throughout history? The old adage applies: Those with great power have a great responsibility. We have the strongest military in the world — by a large margin — and thus we have a responsibility to use it when the need arises. Historically speaking, our military has done more good for this world to promote freedom and human rights across the globe than any nation in the history of our species. Have we made some missteps? Yes, of course. But the net effect is positive. People look at Iraq as a mistake. I look at the good we have done (Enabling the first free elections in that country’s history, running water, electricity, schools, etc) and say that is worth what has been paid… in both blood and money. If we had been able to maintain a defensive military force, like I suggested above, we wouldn’t have ISIS conquering Iraq. We wouldn’t have had thousands of innocent people (mostly Christians) murdered. It should be painfully obvious now that the Iraqi military is not up to the task, and never was. And that’s been a lot of my brothers’ opinions since Obama announced that he was going to be forcibly extracting us. And Obama’s so-called “restraint” has made all the sacrifices people like me made to create a Free Iraq worthless.
canFunny about 9 years ago
@crosspatchThe president doesn’t need permission to go to war, he can make that decision by himself. What happens is that if it does not go his way he can blame congress. Congress on the other hand is trying to make sure if he (the president) is not going to a gun fight armed with a knife. The question left for the rest of the country is: Is he a moron or what? Mind you it’s not his life in the line, it’s only a hand full of soldiers sent to fight thousands with their hands tied. No wonder there were no military present at his announcement, they can see a suicide mission a mile away. In this case the failure of undeciseveness is compounded by stupidity.
Dave Ferro about 9 years ago
“Global Warming”… HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You make me laugh!
Wraithkin about 9 years ago
I’m sorry Cross, please explain to me how “No boots on the ground,” insinuates, implies, or intimates that he wants to “go after” ISIS. Everything Obama has done was to get us out and keep us out of the middle east. I’d like some verification that he actually wanted to go after ISIS, especially after he juvenile “JV” comment.
Francis Lapeyre Premium Member about 9 years ago
I submit that the term “sheeple” applies more to libs more than conservatives. At least we pay attention to what’s going on out there.
Wraithkin about 9 years ago
You can’t win a war without troops on the ground. That’s an absolute. The biggest problem I have ever had with his military action has been that he hasn’t followed proper protocol. He violated the war powers act, and did not seek congressional approval. He just bombed people, killing US Citizens without due process. It’s not what he did, it’s how he did it. Whatever failings you feel Bush had, going by the book was not one of them.You are right… there is no real way out, now that we are in the current situation. But make no mistake, no matter the amount of conflict we don’t generate, they will still hate us for who we are. They truly dislike us. And nothing we do or say now is going to change that.
Dtroutma about 9 years ago
Normally “isolationist” New Zealand is going to send troops, “trainers” like the U.S. provides to “fight” ISIL with THEIR boots on the ground. That locals are also stepping up, like Egypt and Jordan, shows that Obama’s diplomacy, with getting others at bat, instead of just us, is working. btw; saw the story on Al Jazeera America, no mention yet on MSM folks.
Interesting to note that Egypt is stepping in because Coptics were the target, and for years the “usual suspects” here have been screaming about Egypt killing off all Christians for the “caliphate”.
Small bits of cooperation can have large impacts, just like the very small number actually linked to ISIL have gotten so far, and so much press.
Mneedle about 9 years ago
We don’t deny global warming. It simply does not exist.
Wraithkin about 9 years ago
I don’t think neighboring countries are going to do anything. They’ll talk and condemn, but they won’t insert themselves into Iraq, either because they don’t have balls for it or they don’t have the capabilities. You speak of Bush breaking the mold, but when it came to War, he followed the rules. Before he dropped a single bomb, he got approval from Congress, as is expected. The same isn’t true about our current POTUS. However, I’m concerned about the “no win” you are expressing. Here’s a bit of predicting if we don’t win. ISIS will seize control of Iraq, something we see happening right now. They’re at Al Asad Airbase right now, with the 300 Marines there most likely kicking their tails in. But that’s Al Asad… not the whole country. So they go around Al Asad and move towards Baghdad. They take over the government and institute their perverse version of Islam and impose a much more strict version of Sharia law. And then they have access to the resources Iraq has. So we, in our weak-kneed response, sanction them. This hurts the people of Iraq and causes them to hate us more. They cry out “Why didn’t you stop this,” at the same time as condemning us for cutting off their food supply. The populace lives in fear, and is half-starving. We are demonized by the rest of the world for not stepping in to stop these human rights violations, and we vacillate and we talk and we do nothing. This serves as a recruiting tool, just as our bombs do. ISIS has an established country to grow, train, and develop weapons of terror. They then export this terror across the globe. Including here. Because while we have to be right every time, they only have to be right once.I’m not saying we should go bomb them into the stone ages (because, well, they’re already there), but instead we need to find a way to DEFEND our allies in Iraq while the neighboring countries help Iraq to exterminate ISIS. We set up garrisons in Al Asad, Ramadi, Baghdad, and the like to protect those interests. We then let the locals deal with ISIS. That way we don’t get demonized for “bombing brown people,” and we don’t get demonized for “doing nothing.” We protect, and act as the shield. To me, that’s a win-win.
DrDon1 about 9 years ago
Can you get rid of ISIS without helping Assad in Syria? Helping Assad would help Iran – which wants to control all of the Middle East and exterminate Israel!
Wraithkin about 9 years ago
I get that idea from the frequency with which other countries look to us expecting us to help. I’m not talking just bombs and bullets, I’m talking aid as well. How many billions do we spend on third-world countries? How much flak would we get if we halted those billions? Imagine if we didn’t step in during Korea. Or Somalia. Or any host of other conflicts. What would the geopolitical landscape look like if we sat by and did nothing. How much wailing and gnashing of teeth would there be if we did what Obama has done recently throughout history? The old adage applies: Those with great power have a great responsibility. We have the strongest military in the world — by a large margin — and thus we have a responsibility to use it when the need arises. Historically speaking, our military has done more good for this world to promote freedom and human rights across the globe than any nation in the history of our species. Have we made some missteps? Yes, of course. But the net effect is positive. People look at Iraq as a mistake. I look at the good we have done (Enabling the first free elections in that country’s history, running water, electricity, schools, etc) and say that is worth what has been paid… in both blood and money. If we had been able to maintain a defensive military force, like I suggested above, we wouldn’t have ISIS conquering Iraq. We wouldn’t have had thousands of innocent people (mostly Christians) murdered. It should be painfully obvious now that the Iraqi military is not up to the task, and never was. And that’s been a lot of my brothers’ opinions since Obama announced that he was going to be forcibly extracting us. And Obama’s so-called “restraint” has made all the sacrifices people like me made to create a Free Iraq worthless.