Obama ISIS speech

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Can you prove that doing nothing would have worked better?

Let's see how many isis related terrorist attacks occur in countries that don't involve themselves in this war.

Right, because AQ only attacked countries "involved" in the Iraq and Afghani wars, right?

I honestly don't know who AQ has attacked since 9-11. The London subways? Bali?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks Because, like they say, terrorists are only terrorists because we provoke them, and they'd otherwise prefer to just lead peaceful, prosperous lives. Good lord, even Rand Paul supports intervention against ISIS. This isn't even a close call.

So it is your position, that if some group is verbally threatening us and is violent halfway around the world that is absolutely necessary to go to war with this group?

Yes, that's all ISIS is doing. Just a little "verbal threatening" and "violence halfway around the world." That's all.

I could spend a lot of time recounting the atrocities committed by ISIS, the amount of territory they have conquered, and the threat they pose to America if they are allowed to further metastasize (just as we allowed AQ to do), but let me try to explain this a different way: It's gotten so bad that Our Dithering Weakling - a man so weak-kneed he makes Jimmy Carter look like the lovechild of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher - has decided he's finally got to take some action.

[CNS]

Can someone detail for me why ISIS is worse than half the crap that has been going down across half of the African continent in the last 15-20 yrs?

[michigancat]

"Our Dithering Weakling" just isn't catchy enough for a good recurring right wing nickname. Surely there's something better out there?

[michigancat]

Can someone detail for me why ISIS is worse than half the crap that has been going down across half of the African continent in the last 15-20 yrs?

They threaten oil supplies

[CNS]

Can someone detail for me why ISIS is worse than half the crap that has been going down across half of the African continent in the last 15-20 yrs?

They threaten oil supplies

Well, yeah.  Atrocities.

[Kat Kid]

Can you prove that doing nothing would have worked better?

Let's see how many isis related terrorist attacks occur in countries that don't involve themselves in this war.

Right, because AQ only attacked countries "involved" in the Iraq and Afghani wars, right?

I honestly don't know who AQ has attacked since 9-11. The London subways? Bali?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks Because, like they say, terrorists are only terrorists because we provoke them, and they'd otherwise prefer to just lead peaceful, prosperous lives. Good lord, even Rand Paul supports intervention against ISIS. This isn't even a close call.

So it is your position, that if some group is verbally threatening us and is violent halfway around the world that is absolutely necessary to go to war with this group?

Yes, that's all ISIS is doing. Just a little "verbal threatening" and "violence halfway around the world." That's all.

I could spend a lot of time recounting the attrocities committed by ISIS, the amount of territory they have conquered, and the threat they pose to America if they are allowed to further metastasize (just as we allowed AQ to do), but let me try to explain this a different way: It's gotten so bad that Our Dithering Weakling - a man so weak-kneed he makes Jimmy Carter look like the lovechild of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher - has decided he's finally got to take some action.

You have evidence of a credible threat against America's homeland?  Sounds like you've got better sources than Obama. 

They have territory the size of Maryland in the middle of a desert in Iraq/Syria.  They are no doubt committing atrocities against people. 

Again I ask:  "Is it your position that if some group is verbally threatening us and is violent halfway around the world that is absolutely necessary to go to war with this group?"

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Can you prove that doing nothing would have worked better?

Let's see how many isis related terrorist attacks occur in countries that don't involve themselves in this war.

Right, because AQ only attacked countries "involved" in the Iraq and Afghani wars, right?

I honestly don't know who AQ has attacked since 9-11. The London subways? Bali?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks Because, like they say, terrorists are only terrorists because we provoke them, and they'd otherwise prefer to just lead peaceful, prosperous lives. Good lord, even Rand Paul supports intervention against ISIS. This isn't even a close call.

So it is your position, that if some group is verbally threatening us and is violent halfway around the world that is absolutely necessary to go to war with this group?

Yes, that's all ISIS is doing. Just a little "verbal threatening" and "violence halfway around the world." That's all.

I could spend a lot of time recounting the attrocities committed by ISIS, the amount of territory they have conquered, and the threat they pose to America if they are allowed to further metastasize (just as we allowed AQ to do), but let me try to explain this a different way: It's gotten so bad that Our Dithering Weakling - a man so weak-kneed he makes Jimmy Carter look like the lovechild of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher - has decided he's finally got to take some action.

You have evidence of a credible threat against America's homeland?  Sounds like you've got better sources than Obama. 

They have territory the size of Maryland in the middle of a desert in Iraq/Syria.  They are no doubt committing atrocities against people. 

Again I ask:  "Is it your position that if some group is verbally threatening us and is violent halfway around the world that is absolutely necessary to go to war with this group?"

And again, I answer, you're glossing over what ISIS is actually doing. In this case, military intervention is appropriate.

[0.42]

can someone confirm the status of ISIS in Texas?  TIA

can't confirm but based on today's high temperature Ra is definitely out in force today.

[michigancat]

Can you prove that doing nothing would have worked better?

Let's see how many isis related terrorist attacks occur in countries that don't involve themselves in this war.

Right, because AQ only attacked countries "involved" in the Iraq and Afghani wars, right?

I honestly don't know who AQ has attacked since 9-11. The London subways? Bali?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks Because, like they say, terrorists are only terrorists because we provoke them, and they'd otherwise prefer to just lead peaceful, prosperous lives. Good lord, even Rand Paul supports intervention against ISIS. This isn't even a close call.

So it is your position, that if some group is verbally threatening us and is violent halfway around the world that is absolutely necessary to go to war with this group?

Yes, that's all ISIS is doing. Just a little "verbal threatening" and "violence halfway around the world." That's all.

I could spend a lot of time recounting the attrocities committed by ISIS, the amount of territory they have conquered, and the threat they pose to America if they are allowed to further metastasize (just as we allowed AQ to do), but let me try to explain this a different way: It's gotten so bad that Our Dithering Weakling - a man so weak-kneed he makes Jimmy Carter look like the lovechild of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher - has decided he's finally got to take some action.

You have evidence of a credible threat against America's homeland?  Sounds like you've got better sources than Obama. 

They have territory the size of Maryland in the middle of a desert in Iraq/Syria.  They are no doubt committing atrocities against people. 

Again I ask:  "Is it your position that if some group is verbally threatening us and is violent halfway around the world that is absolutely necessary to go to war with this group?"

And again, I answer, you're glossing over what ISIS is actually doing. In this case, military intervention is appropriate.

Have you listed exactly what they're "actually doing"? Because nothing you've mentioned in this thread warrants US military action.

[0.42]

Have you listed exactly what they're "actually doing"? Because nothing you've mentioned in this thread warrants US military action.

"It's not my fault you haven't been paying attention" post incoming

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Have you listed exactly what they're "actually doing"? Because nothing you've mentioned in this thread warrants US military action.

"It's not my fault you haven't been paying attention" post incoming

No, it's just pointless. Crucifictions, beheading men, women, and children, abducting/beheading Americans, further destabliizing the region, creating a breeding ground "the size of Maryland " for terrorism, etc. I'm not going to convince you, but you look very foolish when you wind up to the left of Obama on foreign policy.

[Kat Kid]

So any place where there is violence from the state or a state-like actor against people is a good target for US intervention?

I don't disagree it is a breeding ground for terrorists, but Osama bin Ladin's entire point for 9/11 was to bleed the United States of resources at home and abroad through their response.  His goal was not just to win 9/11, it was to win the decades thereafter by declining the US.  Now obviously all of his strategic goals weren't realized, but which of our strategic goals were realized?  That Osama is dead?  That Sadaam Hussein is dead?  Really?

[michigancat]

Have you listed exactly what they're "actually doing"? Because nothing you've mentioned in this thread warrants US military action.

"It's not my fault you haven't been paying attention" post incoming

No, it's just pointless. Crucifictions, beheading men, women, and children, abducting/beheading Americans, further destabliizing the region, creating a breeding ground "the size of Maryland " for terrorism, etc. I'm not going to convince you, but you look very foolish when you wind up to the left of Obama on foreign policy.

Bombing the crap out of the region and killing even more innocent people than ISIS has should stabilize things in no time. And crucifixions is a new one!

[Kat Kid]

Is there anyone here that thinks we will meet the stated objective of annihilating ISIS with or without ground troops?  I'm a bit skeptical myself.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Bombing the crap out of the region and killing even more innocent people than ISIS

You seriously think our bombing campaign is going to kill "even more innocent people than ISIS"? Really? Maybe check the hyperbole.

And crucifixions is a new one!

And maybe check the news, too. These barbarians are a whole new level of depravity. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ISIS+crucifixion

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Is there anyone here that thinks we will meet the stated objective of annihilating ISIS with or without ground troops?  I'm a bit skeptical myself.

I guess that depends upon your definition of "annihilating." I'm not so naive to believe that ISIS or any teeorist orginaization can be completely wiped out or defeated by air strikes or even boots on the ground. We can, however, bomb the crap out of them and their equipment and seriously set them back.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

So any place where there is violence from the state or a state-like actor against people is a good target for US intervention?

I don't disagree it is a breeding ground for terrorists, but Osama bin Ladin's entire point for 9/11 was to bleed the United States of resources at home and abroad through their response.  His goal was not just to win 9/11, it was to win the decades thereafter by declining the US.  Now obviously all of his strategic goals weren't realized, but which of our strategic goals were realized?  That Osama is dead?  That Sadaam Hussein is dead?  Really?

Respectfully, I think you're giving OBL a bit too much credit. And you haven't set forth any counterproposal to stopping the spread of ISIS. This campaign is kind of like treating a nasty cancer with chemo - it sucks, and there's at least a 50% chance the cancer will come back - but it's at least worth trying.

[michigancat]

Bombing the crap out of the region and killing even more innocent people than ISIS

You seriously think our bombing campaign is going to kill "even more innocent people than ISIS"? Really?

Based on our recent campaigns in the region, yes.

[p1k3]

Politicians are all pretty much exactly the same. To put any hope in a presidential candidate is foolishness. McCain or Romney's USA would look basically identical to Obama's.

This is really dumb.

This is why I didn't vote

[CNS]

If we make it so that ISIS is no more, it will be because soon-to-be terrorists stop joining them only to join other terrorist groups with similar beliefs and tactics.

[Kat Kid]

So any place where there is violence from the state or a state-like actor against people is a good target for US intervention?

I don't disagree it is a breeding ground for terrorists, but Osama bin Ladin's entire point for 9/11 was to bleed the United States of resources at home and abroad through their response.  His goal was not just to win 9/11, it was to win the decades thereafter by declining the US.  Now obviously all of his strategic goals weren't realized, but which of our strategic goals were realized?  That Osama is dead?  That Sadaam Hussein is dead?  Really?

Respectfully, I think you're giving OBL a bit too much credit. And you haven't set forth any counterproposal to stopping the spread of ISIS. This campaign is kind of like treating a nasty cancer with chemo - it sucks, and there's at least a 50% chance the cancer will come back - but it's at least worth trying.

My counter-proposal would be to encourage the regional powers to do something, coordinate intelligence with them and try to bring them to the table.  From the perspective of a Kansan, I'm not that concerned about the threat of ISIS as it relates to me personally.  I don't think the US has nearly as much of a strategic interest in stopping ISIS as you do and they would be better served motivating the regional actors to do the work, as they should have a much more vital strategic interest than us.

I don't think there is very much evidence that humanitarian interventions work well minus a clear humanitarian case, a NATO coalition, a NATO/UN mandate and lead by the US or NATO partners.  The track record is terrible.  The fact that Obama cited Yemen and Somalia as his examples of this "containment" by drone and those are both disasters.  It has absolutely failed on its own terms: there has been no elimination of the terrorist threat in either nation and the drone attacks have in many ways made the population more antagonistic.  Keep in mind, this is with the full cooperation of a partner government in the case of Yemen.  Do we expect Syria or Iraq to cooperate to that extent?

You have stated that you think it is important for us to meet the war that has already been declared on us.  But to what end?  Blow up some crap is what you've said when asked for specifics.  That is not a strategy.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

You have stated that you think it is important for us to meet the war that has already been declared on us.  But to what end?  Blow up some crap is what you've said when asked for specifics.  That is not a strategy.

I didn't say "blow up some crap" - I said "blow up some terrorists." Lots and lots of terrorists. The proposals you listed above are fine components to an overall strategy, but they're not mutually exclusive with military intervention. The U.S. needs to send a clear message that you are not free to assemble a terrorist army, operating in the open. We must keep them scattered and on the run, even if we obviously cannot kill them all. None of those "regional powers" have the adequate air power to do this.

[Spracne]

Can't we just take out isil with a missile?

[michigancat]

You have stated that you think it is important for us to meet the war that has already been declared on us.  But to what end?  Blow up some crap is what you've said when asked for specifics.  That is not a strategy.

I didn't say "blow up some crap" - I said "blow up some terrorists." Lots and lots of terrorists. The proposals you listed above are fine components to an overall strategy, but they're not mutually exclusive with military intervention. The U.S. needs to send a clear message that you are not free to assemble a terrorist army, operating in the open. We must keep them scattered and on the run, even if we obviously cannot kill them all. None of those "regional powers" have the adequate air power to do this.

Turkey could definitely do some damage, but they won't even let us launch strikes from their bases.

http://www.ibtimes.com/nato-coalition-against-isis-turkey-role-mostly-symbolic-1680708

[Kat Kid]

You have stated that you think it is important for us to meet the war that has already been declared on us.  But to what end?  Blow up some crap is what you've said when asked for specifics.  That is not a strategy.

I didn't say "blow up some crap" - I said "blow up some terrorists." Lots and lots of terrorists. The proposals you listed above are fine components to an overall strategy, but they're not mutually exclusive with military intervention. The U.S. needs to send a clear message that you are not free to assemble a terrorist army, operating in the open. We must keep them scattered and on the run, even if we obviously cannot kill them all. None of those "regional powers" have the adequate air power to do this.

The Saudi air force is absolutely capable of doing something.  I still don't know what the actual goal is so "this" is kind of vague.