Why is it a bad thing for not wanting US boots on the ground?

 

Why aren't the surrounding counties providing the boots?

Why is it a bad thing for not wanting US boots on the ground?

 

Why aren't the surrounding counties providing the boots?

 

I don't think it is a bad thing to not want US boots on the ground. I just feel like, once again, that it doesn't matter what Obama does he is in the wrong.

 

First he is a dictator who ignores and bypasses congress.

 

Then he is soft because he allows ISIS to rule the world.

 

Now he goes to congress for authorization to attack ISIS and now the rhetoric is about how he said he wouldn't put troops in Iraq and why is he going through congress?

 

I'm so confused. :lol2:

Confused is the perfect word PP92. Did you see Earnest and Psaki trying to answer the reporters yesterday about the French bombing of the kosher deli? They were obviously coached to NOT say that the bombing was an attack against Jews...when it is blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain that it was. Talk about confusing...

 

I didn't see it but you're right. That is confusing too.

In Washington most Republicans support the President on this move and most Democrats oppose it.

On BGP most Republicans oppose the President and most Democrats support him on this.

 

That makes me :lol2:

In Washington most Republicans support the President on this move and most Democrats oppose it.

On BGP most Republicans oppose the President and most Democrats support him on this.

 

That makes me :lol2:

 

JD, the key word above is "Washington". In the real world, the President's request to Congress should be amazingly simple..."I am requesting approval of Congress to do all that is necessary to defeat ISIS". Very simple and should pass Congress easily. Then it is up to Obama to figure out what is necessary to defeat ISIS and the two sides can argue it...but at least Obama has the authority.

 

Now in Washington, the attorneys have to try to construct a document as complicated as a Rubik's cube to try to walk a political tight rope to keep both sides happy. Politics makes me want to throw up...

My opinion is we will never be able to successfully bring peace to these countries in the Middle East. The only thing that has maintained some semblance of peace is oppressive dictatorship. That has it's own form of violence which Americans want no part of (see Guantanamo). Put a massive force on the ground, violate the rights of the countries we invade and wipe out everyone who looks cross eyed at you and what will you get ... more terrorists. Wipe out ISIS and the next radical group will step in to fill the void. So what do you do? Drop nukes? I asked above for a plan and no one has one yet. Is there a plan that would work?

So do we want to declare war on ISIS or not? Isn't he asking for authority to declare war on ISIS?

 

Why does he need to send troops to fight the JV team.

He said no more troops to Iraq, I take it he is a man of his word since he is leader of the free world.

 

Maybe if he thought before he opened his pie hole then it wouldn't be a topic. He says things on the spur of the moment and looks like an idiot when he has to backtrack what he said.

 

Maybe he should admit he was wrong. I'd have more respect for him for that.

Why does he need to send troops to fight the JV team.

He said no more troops to Iraq, I take it he is a man of his word since he is leader of the free world.

 

Maybe if he thought before he opened his pie hole then it wouldn't be a topic. He says things on the spur of the moment and looks like an idiot when he has to backtrack what he said.

 

Maybe he should admit he was wrong. I'd have more respect for him for that.

 

 

No you wouldn't. :lol2: :lol2: If asking congress for authorization to go to war against ISIS isn't enough for him to admit that he was wrong then I'm thinking it wouldn't matter what he says. You still won't respect him.

 

 

You've made it clear that there is nothing Obama can do that would please you. It's obvious in his eyes as well as many others in power that there needs to be some kind of force applied to ISIS to eliminate that threat. If he has to "go back on his word" to eliminate that threat to ensure the safety of our country then I am all for him "going back on his word". I'd rather he "go back on his word" instead of going through another 9/11 because he failed to "go back on his word".

 

Good leaders do what needs to be done whether it is "going back on their word" or not.

My opinion is we will never be able to successfully bring peace to these countries in the Middle East. The only thing that has maintained some semblance of peace is oppressive dictatorship. That has it's own form of violence which Americans want no part of (see Guantanamo). Put a massive force on the ground, violate the rights of the countries we invade and wipe out everyone who looks cross eyed at you and what will you get ... more terrorists. Wipe out ISIS and the next radical group will step in to fill the void. So what do you do? Drop nukes? I asked above for a plan and no one has one yet. Is there a plan that would work?

 

I don't have a military mind enough to offer up a plan but if the threat of ISIS has gotten to a point to where the powers that be feel they need to attempt to neutralize that threat then I trust their judgment. There will always be terrorists whether we invade or not. We can't allow them to become powerful enough to become a threat to Americans and our allies worldwide.

My opinion is we will never be able to successfully bring peace to these countries in the Middle East. The only thing that has maintained some semblance of peace is oppressive dictatorship. That has it's own form of violence which Americans want no part of (see Guantanamo). Put a massive force on the ground, violate the rights of the countries we invade and wipe out everyone who looks cross eyed at you and what will you get ... more terrorists. Wipe out ISIS and the next radical group will step in to fill the void. So what do you do? Drop nukes? I asked above for a plan and no one has one yet. Is there a plan that would work?

 

Sadly, I agree with you VOR. There is no good answer IMO. People say that Islam is not a violent religion but that a few are ruining it for everyone. The problem is that there are so many Islamists that if 1% are violent extremists you literally have a couple of million bad guys to deal with. I don't think there is a right answer. I actually think both sides of the debate in America have valid points. One side says that if we don't deal with them over there, we will have to deal with them over here - and we have had to a few times - and not only on 9/11. I agree. The other side says we don't want our troops dying over there when there is no way to "win" in the Middle East. Again, I agree.

 

I honestly don't think there is an answer. The problem is that if we just put our head in the sand, it can get A LOT WORSE over there. We don't want Iran or any of the other nut jobs in the Middle East with nukes. If and when they get their hands on them, look out. Iran scares me a lot more right now than even ISIS does...and ISIS scares me...

No you wouldn't. :lol2: :lol2: If asking congress for authorization to go to war against ISIS isn't enough for him to admit that he was wrong then I'm thinking it wouldn't matter what he says. You still won't respect him.

 

 

You've made it clear that there is nothing Obama can do that would please you. It's obvious in his eyes as well as many others in power that there needs to be some kind of force applied to ISIS to eliminate that threat. If he has to "go back on his word" to eliminate that threat to ensure the safety of our country then I am all for him "going back on his word". I'd rather he "go back on his word" instead of going through another 9/11 because he failed to "go back on his word".

 

Good leaders do what needs to be done whether it is "going back on their word" or not.

 

He has fought the Keystone Pipeline and global warming, that has pleased me.

 

Yeah I would rather him go fight then not.

Maybe he shoul dget on tv and say HE WAS WRONG, just going to Congress asking for support isnt enough. I want ADMITANCE.

I do agree we need to go after ISIS. No one in the world should be allowed to do the things they are doing and get a way with it. The problem is how to go after them. My feeling is the most important thing is getting the people who live in the region to go after them. You must have buy in from the people in that nation/region or you just become the enemy of all. They have to do it themselves. Our plan is to support them and train them. Use our technology and superior weaponry. Make sure the enemy does not win but give the victory to the people who live there. That is what we are trying to do in Iraq and I think it is the best plan. But we can see in Iraq how difficult it is even when you try to do this.

He has fought the Keystone Pipeline and global warming, that has pleased me.

 

Yeah I would rather him go fight then not.

Maybe he shoul dget on tv and say HE WAS WRONG, just going to Congress asking for support isnt enough. I want ADMITANCE.

 

:lol2:

 

Hit him up on Twitter or Facebook and ask him to do that. I'd love to hear him say:

 

".....and to mountainref, I'm sorry. I was wrong." :lol2: :lol2:

 

 

He acknowledged the YouTube cereal woman. You may have a chance......:lol2:

Had we left Iraq with any ground support air power they probably could have protected themselves early on when ISIS was on the move in the desert. But Iraq was left with no air power when we left. An alternative would have been for the US to act unilaterally with air power and without any Washington gamesmenship to do the job for them. A justifiable 'imminent threat' could have been easy justification for defending a county just recently released from our direct protection. i.e. the same approach rationalized for Libya air support. That would have at least address the ISIS situation in Iraq early on - though not so much in Syria.

 

The question that remains is who is really behind ISIS? They did not gather around pubs getting free beer like the American colonists of the 1700s. Someone or some entity is backing them, arming them and supporting them. Iran? Al-Quada? Muslim Brotherhood? Others?

I heard anonymous is going after ISIS now.