What Obama said tonight.... (sorry if this comes out looking like ass)

[walksalone]

What Obama is saying (cliff notes version): Isis is bad, and they're a threat, but there are no credible threats at this time, so we'll poke them with the occasional laser guided bomb

• 
  
  True2tRA Everything you know and think you know. There's always a difference. Of course, it makes sense to let an opponent know you're intentions. I would broadcast on national television exactly how you'll go about attacking them. Ya know, cause that makes sense.
  Today, 08:17 PM
• True2tRA They have our attention. They've had our attention. If you truly believe we've just ignored this, then Lord help you and any like you. There's a lot of smart people working on the future of this country, especially in our military.
  Today, 08:20 PM
• carlfense I think that we should invade on the theory that we'll be welcomed as liberators.
  Today, 08:24 PM
• walksalone True, I know what OPSEC is, but what really needs to be done, won't be done, and we'll keep pu&&y footing around it, poking the bear, and this will continue without any hope of an ending...
  Today, 08:26 PM
• True2tRA Well, there's always an end. What exactly do you propose we do?
• Today, 08:28 PM ·
• walksalone outside of wiping all, and I do mean all of them out, what other solution is there?
  Today, 08:33 PM ·
• ShawnWatson Drone the sh#t out of those religious monkeys.
  Today, 08:38 PM ·
• zoogies They're not a bear. And we'll tell them we'll drone strike them and there's nothing they can do about it. Think of the USA as Tom Osborne's offense of legend in the 1990s.
  Today, 08:38 PM ·
• carlfense There isn't one. And since that isn't an option either we should choose to avoid stepping on this rake.
  Today, 08:39 PM ·
• True2tRA Sorry. I thought we were having a realistic conversation.
  Today, 08:39 PM ·
• walksalone SW, zoogs, I wish it was that easy...
  Today, 08:39 PM ·
• walksalone whats unrealistic about it True? That we bomb them here and there, and just add more fuel to the fire. Or we arm them like we did 30+ years ago, and we see how that worked out... Either start laying fools out like kitchen tile, or leave it alone...
  Today, 08:43 PM ·
• True2tRA How does a guy say wipe them all out and then two seconds later say "I wish it were that easy"? These two comments from the same person.
  Today, 08:43 PM ·
• walksalone Carl, True, not for nothing, everything we've done up until now has worked so well...
  Today, 08:44 PM ·
• jimk Vote walks for President.
  Today, 08:45 PM ·
• True2tRA Well, many of "them" are already being armed. You're talking about putting troops on the ground if you want to eliminate the right people. With the multiple countries involved and the lives at risk this isn't as simple as blowing sh#t up and moving pons on a chess board.
  Today, 08:46 PM ·
• True2tRA Theres going to be a coordinated effort but it's going to involve troops or more tactical and elite levels of military. It has to. We can't just go around the world dropping bombs on every problem we have. Especially when these problems are scattered thought multiple areas of different countries.
  Today, 08:48 PM ·
• walksalone I wouldn't want the job, because I'd be dead in a week... I don't think you need to put boots on the ground to eliminate them...
• 
  
  walksalone If you commit troops, what is going to be your ROE? If it's got a weapon, pop it? Because this isn't like WWII where you could tell who the bad guys are. Committing troops to that kind of fight presents infinite problems...

 

[Hingle McCringleberry]

Yay! More war... Give Obama another Peace prize... Bomb the crap outta the selection committee if they refuse! ISIS kills a journalist and its big time, Obama kills a few Americans, you know sans trial etc, and its no big deal...

[MLB 51]

walksalone If you commit troops, what is going to be your ROE?

 

This where things get clouded. Why do we follow the current set of ROE rules. The Islamic militants don't observe these rules. Have we ever fought anyone that did follow the Geneva convention ROE's? I wouldn't commit troops at this point in time. We have air superiority and we should use it.

[C N Red]

I cant believe Obama went the whole time without mentioning the NFL,Ray Rice, Roger Goodell debacle and what is going to be done about it!

[BigRedBuster]

OK....First, I must admit that I am extremely jaded on the issue of committing any type of military action in a foreign country. That's not just boots on the ground. It's everything. This is because of:

 

a) The American public has an attention span of a gnat when it comes to this stuff. The first sign of struggle in the military process, half the population will be screaming that it's horrible and we shouldn't be doing XYZ. This is AFTER we have committed to doing it and it's very difficult to pull out.

 

b) The political crap surrounding these actions are disgusting. I'm not just talking about Republicans. I'm not just talking about Democrats. It's ALL OF THEM. They are a disgusting bunch when it comes to playing political games with our troops in foreign lands. One side will WANT the other side to commit the military so that they can pounce on the first sign of trouble to try to get political gain out of it while we have real military personnel living with these consequences.

 

c) Europe and the rest of the world will sit back quietly until we start bombing the crap out of something then THEY start playing political games with our troops. THEY start trying to paint us as the bad guys. We are the big mean idiots that are killing babies and grand mothers. Meanwhile, they sit back in their cozy villages sipping their tea judging our actions.

 

d) I am sick and tired of footing the bill for policing this type of crap around the world when we have so many wonderful things we could be spending that money on right here within our borders.

 

For YEARS, I read and heard "experts" claim that our military actions under Bush were creating more terrorists and making the US less safe. So, now under Obama, (who campaigned on that crap) we have decided to attack a group that "might" want to attack us in the future? Really? And, this is going to make us more safe??? I thought we were supposed to sit down and have a beer with these people and everything would smooth over.

 

For YEARS, I heard how horrible it was that we went into Iraq because they didn't attack us. So...now....we are going to bomb the crap out of Syria (who hasn't attacked us) in areas where there is a group who we don't like (who hasn't attacked us).

Yeah....I wonder why I'm jaded.

 

Saddam was a pathetic human being who had already showed he is willing to commit genocide on his own people (with chemical weapons) and attack his neighbors trying to do the same thing. Ok....the general consensus now in America is that it was wrong to invade Iraq and take him out. Fine...if that's what America wants, then lets stick with those guide lines for future actions.

 

So...now....we are going to commit our military to bombing a group who has shown they are willing to commit genocide and do horrible evil things. But...remember....they have never attacked us.

 

Now, before someone claims I'm playing politics and just don't like Obama, I'm not. IF, and it's a big "IF", I were on board with this plan, I would support how he is going about it. I like that he is trying to get other countries involved especially regional countries like Saudi Arabia. I like that he wants to get Europe on board with this and commit to helping in the plan.

But, all the crap that I heard all through the last elections about how horrible it was to go attack Iraq because they never attacked us still sticks out in my mind.

 

The one thing about his plan that just leaves me banging my head against the wall is him committing troops in Iraq to train the Iraqi military to fight ISIL. Ok.....didn't we already try that for something like 10 years with the Democrats crying claiming we needed to get our troops out of Iraq because they were getting killed and it was costing us billions of dollars? Didn't those same Democrats condemn bush for trying to make things work in Iraq? Those same Iraqi troops still are a bunch of pansy chicken sh#ts that aren't willing to fight for their own country.

 

Americans will die in this. I hope everyone understands that. If we commit troops to help train Iraqi troops, suicide bombers will infiltrate those training facilities and kill Americans. They did it for 10 years prior. There is no reason to believe they won't do it again.

 

Now that we are committed to this, I hope we go kick the holy living crap out of them and come home. I feel sorry for any military families and personal who get committed to this effort and I hope they all come home safe (even though I know they won't.)

 

Sorry for the rant.

 

edited to add to my rant.

[carlfense]

If (and that's a huge if) we managed to destroy ISIS an equally bad group would move in to fill the vacuum. Just like when we destroyed Saddam's regime. There is no way to fix the middle east without some sort of nation building . . . and we're understandably unwilling to go down that road again.

 

It's really pointless. There is no way that we win this. It's just a matter of how badly we lose.

 

But hey. Let's beat those war drums again.

[carlfense]

I think that this is the only example of the United States successfully fighting a prolonged guerrilla war/insurrection on foreign soil. (Someone please correct me if I've forgotten anything . . . )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War

 

American operations into the countryside often included scorched earth campaigns^[85] in which entire villages were destroyed; the use of torture including the water cure;^[99] and the concentration of civilians into "protected zones".^[100] In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger wrote: "The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog...."^[101]

 

The total number of Filipino who died remains a matter of debate. In 1908 Manuel Arellano Remondo, in General Geography of the Philippine Islands, wrote: “The population decreased due to the wars, in the five-year period from 1895 to 1900, since, at the start of the first insurrection, the population was estimated at 9,000,000, and at present (1908), the inhabitants of the Archipelago do not exceed 8,000,000 in number.”^[102] John M. Gates estimates that at least 34,000 Filipino soldiers were killed, with up to an additional 200,000 civilian deaths, mostly from a cholera epidemic.^[103] Filipino historian E. San Juan, Jr.argues that 1.4 million Filipinos died during the war and that constitutes an act of genocide on the part of the United States.^[104]

 

 

We aren't going to do that again . . . so unless I'm missing something obvious this latest attempt will end just as poorly as all of the others.

[carlfense]

 

What happened in New York 13 years ago deranged a nation that was almost begging to be deranged. The Soviet Union was gone. Grenada, Panama, the First Gulf War, the Balkans, in all these places where we made war, we had what were essentially walkover victories. We had no geopolitical enemies, no country strangling our trade, or impressing our seamen, or bombing our Pacific fleet, or pointing nuclear missiles at our cities any more. Then the planes hit the towers, and the towers came down, and we had an enemy again. We declared war on a tactic. We declared war on "terror." The concept was so patently absurd that dozens of other absurdities naturally flowed from it, the most glaring of which was the preposterous and mendacious case made for our invasion and occupation of Iraq. We jumped at shadows, heard voices in our heads, ducked and covered and lost our minds, and there were people in positions of power who were happy to oblige us for their own political and economic benefit. Then, we elected a new president, and the new president extricated us from the occupation of Iraq, and from whatever the hell we were doing in Afghanistan, which primarily seemed to be keeping the people who live there from slaughtering each other. But the war on the tactic never ended because it cannot end. You cannot defeat "terror," because it has too many allies, some of them in your own government. It is embedded in the political culture now as deeply as the Cold War ever was -- and that is not an accident, either. War against someone, war against something, somewhere, anywhere, is one of the last unifying elements in a country that was encouraged by both its declared antagonists, and by far too many people within its own government, to become deranged.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Speech_And_9_11?src=spr_TWITTER&spr_id=1456_87234930

[TGHusker]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/09/18/Alleged-ISIS-Photo-Controversy-Engulfs-Sen-John-McCain

 

This article, while focusing on McCain, brings up the bigger point that Rand Paul brings up - do we really know who we will be arming in Syria.

 

There is this train of thought out there that I've heard: "The 'moderates' we hope to train have a back door agreement wt ISIS - both want to take down Assad. Thus

arming the 'moderates' accomplishes our real target - Assad and not ISIS. "

This may be looney tune commentary or it might have some validity in the world where 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' and where lies justify any means.

 

Regardless, the concern of some perhaps many is that the arms that we give to moderates, may eventually end up helping those who aren't our friends.

[carlfense]

This article, while focusing on McCain, brings up the bigger point that Rand Paul brings up - do we really know who we will be arming in Syria.

No. We do not. And I'm not in any way convinced that there are any viable moderate rebels in Syria.

[TGHusker]

 

This article, while focusing on McCain, brings up the bigger point that Rand Paul brings up - do we really know who we will be arming in Syria.

No. We do not. And I'm not in any way convinced that there are any viable moderate rebels in Syria.

 

Yep. My Congressman voted against the appropriation for that very reason. The administration is doing all they can to avoid 'boots on the ground' and calling it a war, but I think you cannot root this out without many boots on the ground and with the mindset to eradicate this type of cancer. Unfortunately with these types of terrorist through out northern Africa, Mid East and SE Asia, this is a multi generational struggle. Kind of seems like a new round of 'crusades' but in a totally different context.

One commentator but it in this context: After WW1 the British and French established strongmen to rule over vast regions of the MidEast - cross ethnic lines. As long as the strong men ruled, the ethnic tribes had to fall into place. Now strongmen have been toppled - Saddam was first (actually the Shaw of Iran was 1st and we see what has transpired since), then Mubarak, then Daffy Duck in Libya and the next in line is Assad. In time it will be Jordan and then Saudi's. Thus all of the turmoil in the Mid East

[carlfense]

The administration is doing all they can to avoid 'boots on the ground' and calling it a war, but I think you cannot root this out without many boots on the ground and with the mindset to eradicate this type of cancer.

We've tried that and this is exactly where it got us.

[BigRedBuster]

I heard someone on TV this morning saying something that needs to be said over and over again by absolutely everyone involved.

 

Now that we are in this, this isn't situation where you will be able to look at it in two weeks or six months and say..."have we succeeded". This is going to be a very long and drawn out situation.

 

My problem is that is not how the American public views these things. They have the attention span of a gnat so they think you should just be able to go bomb the crap out of something for a few weeks and either declare victory or start claiming the administration and the military are total failures.

This total inability of the American public to accept a long tough battle is why I didn't want to get this involved in this.

 

In a few months,(maybe even earlier) some people are going to start claiming in the press that it's a failure. Some politicians from the other side will latch onto it and try to make political hay out of it. Some celebrities will start crying on camera about dead civilians and claiming America is the worst country in the world. Democratic politicians will then have to start distancing themselves from it because they are trying to save their azzes....and...after all, the celebrities are crying.

 

Meanwhile, our military men and women will be stuck in the middle with us footing a HUGE bill for this.

 

I'm going to throw out what one of the first political arguments is going to be. What's the exit plan? This was said over and over and over and over during the last few military actions by democrats who made political hay out of it. Interestingly, I haven't heard them asking the same things about this action.

[carlfense]

I'm going to throw out what one of the first political arguments is going to be. What's the exit plan? This was said over and over and over and over during the last few military actions by democrats who made political hay out of it. Interestingly, I haven't heard them asking the same things about this action.

That's a very good point. Honestly, I doubt that there is one. When we declared war on a tactic, terror, instead of declaring war on a country or distinct group we committed ourselves to endless war. That's why we've been constantly at war for the last ~dozen years. There isn't an endpoint . . . and there isn't even the potential for "victory."

 

Similarly, while you didn't devote too much time to it . . . where are the fiscal conservatives? Where are the investigations into waste and corruption?

 

 

But hey. There's something in this for everyone. Democrats including Obama can talk about how tough on terror they are (even while being pounded by Fox et al. for weakness/fecklessness). The military industrial complex can make billions or trillions of dollars. Middle Eastern countries who wink or outright support terrorists can demand billions in aid and assistance. Republicans like John McCain and Ted Cruz can growl about bombing _________ back into the stone age and arming every rebel who can pull a trigger. Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

All while our schools, highways, and bridges crumble, our unemployment rate remains too high, our tax code needs to be overhauled, and our immigration crisis needs to be addressed. Look at that shiny explosion over there!

[StPaulHusker]

Speaking of what Obama said, check out John Oliver on the Cuban Embargo

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7hZjNO3I-Q&feature=player_detailpage