Sec.Defense Hagel warns ISIS is-

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

You guys are armchair quarterbacking...

What would you be willing to give up for US troops to stay in Iraq? Bush had to give up some legal protections just to keep us there until 2011. What about contractors?

How do you build a coalition against Syria with steadfast Russian opposition? If the terrorist threat isn't imminent how do you get Arab support?

Don't we have to test Iraq and see if they can stand on their own? Isn't this nearly the same welfare dependency argument Conservatives are glued to at home?

Wouldn't a President Romney or McCain likely be saddled with the exact same constraints as Obama?

I think they would be.

-spence

You're right .... What time do we tee off ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think it's pretty silly to think the Administration has been ignoring the issue for 2 years. We've been trying to get the Iraqi government to take some responsibility in the matter. How are we supposed to take the blame for military acting French?

The Iraqi government has taken responsibility . . . just not in a way that anyone else would approve. Oh, wait . . . the way they chose is pretty much the same way as most governments (administrations) choose. It has done what it thinks is the best way to stay in power and strengthen their ideological and religious position along with that of their political allies and cronies . . . rather than what is good for ALL of the people under their rule. And it has conveniently disregarded those good notions in their charter of government in order to achieve the ascendance of its ideology.

Surely, Obama was able to foresee and understand that when he chose to remove all troops from Iraq. Surely, he would have understood that the Iraqi government would choose to act in the very way that he has chosen to act in his administration. What kind of "responsibility" did he think the Iraqi government would take? A better one than his own?

And our military understood and told Obama that it was too soon to withdraw all troops. It warned him that there was a definite possibility that the Iraqi military would act French.

This stuff has been brewing for so long but you can't resist the opportunity to blame blame blame rather than think about what we can and should do. It's a very complex situation with no easy options.

Easy options? Is that what Presidents and Commanders in Chief are for? To deal with easy options? If so, who needs them? Life ain't easy, brother. Us common citizen grunts have to constantly deal with the not so easy. On the other hand, it would be so much more convenient, and the choices, as few as would even be needed, if we all would just get along and do what our government incessantly legislates that we must do. The complexity would disappear and we would achieve the progressive dream of the societal utopian bee hive.

The positive side to things being this dangerous is that the other Arab nations are finally waking up to the monsters they've helped create.

-spence

Finally? They have been aware of the monsters for a long time. Why do you think they usually resort to tyrannical regimes? To mollify the "good" Muslims? It has always been "this dangerous." And the only way to suppress the monsters has been the way of all tyrannies--force, coercion, suppression, pandering. It has been the "easy" option. Individual freedom and responsibility has not been inherent in their cultural and societal identities. A free people would have long ago revolted and taken "Responsibility" for self governance.

Oh, wait. That is a tired old train, as you would put it. They're beyond that nonsense. They are so much more ahead in their historical perspective than those who are stuck in some ancient time warp and its illusions of individual life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They understand the need to meld into the collective and be herded by more intelligent experts and masterminds.

Surely, Obama would have understood this and not expected the Iraqi government to take some kind of responsibility other than that which they did. Wouldn't he have done the same? Hasn't he taken that responsibility to fundamentally transform America? Hasn't that transformation progressively been molded toward governance by a central power rather than local and individual responsibilities?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And our military understood and told Obama that it was too soon to withdraw all troops. It warned him that there was a definite possibility that the Iraqi military would act French.

You're making the assumption the President didn't want to leave a residual force. By Obama's own words we did but the Iraqi's didn't.

People need to look at the constraints in the decision and not just fall back on what's now a talking point.

I'm not sure having troops there would have been a magic fix anyway. ISIS would still have likely crossed the border and dragged us right back into a large scale confrontation even faster. We'd quite likely be in it mostly alone versus the global action that's forming.

They have been aware of the monsters for a long time. Why do you think they usually resort to tyrannical regimes? To mollify the "good" Muslims? It has always been "this dangerous." And the only way to suppress the monsters has been the way of all tyrannies--force, coercion, suppression, pandering. It has been the "easy" option. Individual freedom and responsibility has not been inherent in their cultural and societal identities. A free people would have long ago revolted and taken "Responsibility" for self governance.

Yes, I'm sure the Iraqi Muslims who openly thanked Jim were just repressed savages.

Didn't the first Islamic Caliphate bring about great advances in mathematics, astronomy and medicine while their western counterparts were sacking neighboring villages and fending off Vikings?

The dictatorships associated with the Middle East today are as much a product of Western conquest and geopolitics as they are self determination. It's a lens that's convenient to drop...

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

You're making the assumption the President didn't want to leave a residual force. By Obama's own words we did but the Iraqi's didn't

Really !!
Anybody with a Facebook page has seen Obama's own words taking credit for removing the troops as he had promised.
Or are they being taken out of context ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Really !!
Anybody with a Facebook page has seen Obama's own words taking credit for removing the troops as he had promised.
Or are they being taken out of context ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahhh yes, nothing like a facebook meme to enlighten the masses

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Ahhh yes, nothing like a facebook meme to enlighten the masses

At the end he sounds like you

http://youtu.be/7DpBwmN66As
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raven]

SHARIA law is absolute HELL and has no place in America

so when we capture them on USA soil they should be simply SHOT
same as any foreign soldier attacking was

i don't think tax payers should have to pay for any trials

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You guys are armchair quarterbacking...

So . . . are you saying that's a bad thing? You do it a lot. Even in this thread and in this post to which I'm replying.

What would you be willing to give up for US troops to stay in Iraq? Bush had to give up some legal protections just to keep us there until 2011. What about contractors?

If you believe that the Arab nations are finally waking up to the monsters they've helped to create, wouldn't that make it an "easier" option for them to give us a wider latitude in helping them fight those monsters?

How do you build a coalition against Syria with steadfast Russian opposition? If the terrorist threat isn't imminent how do you get Arab support?

Perhaps the Arab's do not entirely desire a coalition with non-Arabs against terrorist threats, except those traditional coalitions such as being left to their own devices (tyranny, etc.) and a little economic and military support. But without ideological or utopian requests to become democracies, or to tolerate others, etc. Perhaps Arab rulers don't want to support that which lessens their power. Is that so hard for utopian masterminds to understand?

Don't we have to test Iraq and see if they can stand on their own? Isn't this nearly the same welfare dependency argument Conservatives are glued to at home?

Oh wait . . . so you agree with the "welfare dependency argument"? And you're glued to it like the Conservatives? Or do you just see it as a bunch of hooie, and are more inclined toward the progressive notion that one cannot stand on his own? That he can't build it on his own? This is confusing--you believe that Iraq can stand on its own, but on the other hand, maybe not? Which is it?

And no, it isn't nearly the same welfare dependency argument. The Federal government's constitutional duty, as conservatives see it, is to allow individuals or their local governments who represent their wishes to be independent, and to actually build things on their own, and to self govern. Its constitutional duty is to protect them from foreign threats, not to make foreign governments dependent on us. The Federal government's primary responsibility in Iraq is to do that which protects our homeland and its people from the foreign threats that are brewing there. If that takes seeing to it that the Iraqi government is able to fight our enemies, with whatever help it needs from us, that is what it should do, or if that government is not able, then to handle the matter ourselves with whatever might and power necessary.

And if it takes a more powerful military to do so, it should focus on that, not on micromanaging our personal lives.

Wouldn't a President Romney or McCain likely be saddled with the exact same constraints as Obama?

I think they would be.

-spence

There you go doing that armchair quarterbacking thing.

It is a bit mind-twisting how when Obama does or doesn't do something you think that those who oppose him would do or don't do the same thing. Did that apply to the things that Bush did or didn't do? So when Obama blames Bush for the problems he has "inherited," does that mean he's just blowing smoke up our butts because he would have been "likely saddled with the exact same constraints" as Bush?

[justplugit]

Direct hits, Detbuch.

Maybe the answer is for O to make another apology tour for all our transgressions. Then the extreme islamists will feel sorry for us, being we confessed for all the terrible things we have done as a country, mostly under Bush,give up their believe to kill all infidels, lay down their arms and peace will reign forever.

Oh that's right, that's how we became perceived as a second rate power and
our enemies began to rise up again.

[JohnR]

I think they may have done some of the same things, though maybe better, and would have done different things.

I don't think there would be as high a sense of panic, as high a lack of strategy. And even if there were a lack of strategy. THEY WOULDN'T SAY IT like that. That is amateur hour.

Announcing to our enemies we would leave AFG in 2014. Amateur hour. Hey guys, take all the potshots you can us while you wait us out - we're leaving on '14 and you can't do nothing about it. Amateur hour.

I think they WOULD have listened to their military advisers more and better. Obama's military advisers have been cowed into speaking the party line and to putting things like transgender troops to the top of the heap in importance* or spending significant millions or training and resource budgets to foster green technology (should come from other guv funding). This is not what the military is supposed to do yet under Obama it is.

Russia, China, Iran, Islamic non state actors / groups are the counterweights on the US and EU. All of those perceive the US and EU to be weak and indecisive. Most likely correctly. They will use the opportunity, NOW and in the next year, to leverage our incompetence and lack of spine and grab whatever gains they can.


* Off topic - I am mixed on having GLB serving only because it is taking from the primary missions of the military. So we are playing social engineering with our military rather than focusing on the basics: which is to defend the US, build coalitions, mutual defense, and commonality with partner nations, and when necessary break a lot of the other guy's sh1t. Transgender - a bridge too far.

[nightfighter]

Amateur hour is correct. Much of administration is filled with unproven personnel and headed up by someone who was no more than a sophomore senator when first elected. Past administrations would attract and pursue the captains of industry, who had actual experience to fill cabinets and senior level leadership positions. This group didn't even consult with a single US health insurance company before they hired a Canadian firm (why???) to build the Obamacare software program. Oh, and that Canadian firm had no experience in building software on such a scale....

[afterhours]

[QUOTE=JohnR;1050526]
I think they WOULD have listened to their military advisers more and better. Obama's military advisers have been cowed into speaking the party line and to putting things like transgender troops to the top of the heap in importance* or spending significant millions or training and resource budgets to foster green technology (should come from other guv funding). This is not what the military is supposed to do yet under Obama it is.

Russia, China, Iran, Islamic non state actors / groups are the counterweights on the US and EU. All of those perceive the US and EU to be weak and indecisive. Most likely correctly. They will use the opportunity, NOW and in the next year, to leverage our incompetence and lack of spine and grab whatever gains they can.


Bingo....we have Bingo!

[justplugit]

[QUOTE=JohnR;1050526] So we are playing social engineering with our military rather than focusing on the basics: which is to defend the US, build coalitions, mutual defense, and commonality with partner nations, and when necessary break a lot of the other guy's sh1t. QUOTE]

This, all at the same time reducing our military spending to pre 9/11 levels.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by justplugit

This, all at the same time reducing our military spending to pre 9/11 levels.

That is another thread altogether. There is really bad decision making going on by the defense contractors, the Pentagon, and Congress on both sides of the aisle.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

" Beyond anything we've ever seen."

"JV" and another round of golf, or back to Washington for a National Securities
meeting? What say you?

"What say you?"

What say I?...Hmmm...

I remember Obama's comments concerning the Iraq Surge, which he opposed and derided, refused to admit is was succeeding, and when he could deny it no longer, he said something like "it exceeded everybody's expectations". Actually, it did precisely what the military expected it would do, but Obama's original expectations, since they were based on ideology instead of military logic, coul dnot have been more wqrong.

I remember the jillion dollar stimulus package, which Obama said would keep unemployment below 8% and woudl fund all these shovel ready jobs. When the dust settled, unemployment went much higher than 8%, and Obama LAUGHINGLY said that those jobs weren't as shovel-ready as he originally thought. Once again, his predictions could not have been more wrong.

And here, he dismisses ISIS as a "JV" squad.

Obviously, no one is perfect, and of course I am biased because I absolutely despise everything about Obama. But these were major, major issues, and not only was he not right, it would almost be impossible for him to have been more wrong.

This is, predictably, what you get when you elect a guy who has absolutely no track record of accomplishing anything significant. Community organizer in Chicago? i'm not sure what that means exactly, but whatever it was he did in Chicago, it doesn't appear to have been all that effective at improving conditions there.

There are lots of ideas that sound absolutely fantastic in an Ivy League faculty room, but which fail miserably in the real world. Being educated is a fine thing, but it needs to be combined with SOME real-world experience.

The giuy can't get one right, not even by accident. Everything he touches, turns to vomit.

[buckman]

Clearly ,as Biden put it " one of Our proudest achievements "
These people are so busy baffling people with bull #^&#^&#^&#^& they can't concentrate on the truth anymore .
We all know that person that lies so often they make #^&#^&#^&#^& up to cover for there lies and refuse to aknowledge the truth . Apparently that type of behavior can make you President some day .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Closer to home, where was the out cry from Holder and Obama when just about a week ago in Dorchester, Dawn Jaffier was shot dead while marching. Here is a girl loved by her community. She loved working with kids.

I guess she did not count because it was black on black

[afterhours]

I know someone who works for ob on a daily basis- says he's become more arrogant than before, if that's possible. still can't believe we (not me) elected this clown- twice. show those corksuckers isis we love them by sending them some hallmark cruise missles. gotta kill it before it grows and comes here.

[Fly Rod]

Where was Obama, Holder and the FBI when the Austrialan baseball player in Oaklahoma was murdered by 3 black youths who said they had nothing better to do? It was difinitly racial. One even tweeted how he hated whites.

Matter of fact, Y was there no white protest on the streets?

[nightfighter]

I just read a headline and story..... "Obama wants to make ISIS a "manageable problem"" OK. There you go. He has his strategy......WTF

[buckman]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

I just read a headline and story..... "Obama wants to make ISIS a "manageable problem"" OK. There you go. He has his strategy......WTF

It's his " never take a position " policy. It is a disgrace that a man with no spine ,is the leader of such a great nation.
Now we find out that he has been warned , in daily briefings , of the threat ISIS has posed, for over a year now .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

A response is what Isis wants. These videos are baiting tactics to bring us into Iraq and Syria. Doing this would only empower them more. That said, Obama sure looks like a lame duck these days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

A response is what Isis wants. These videos are baiting tactics to bring us into Iraq and Syria. Doing this would only empower them more. That said, Obama sure looks like a lame duck these days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pretty arrogant and stupid move on their part if that is their hope.
If we have a get a leader who will let the US take off the gloves and use the firepower that we have they will be annihilated in short order.
I would start with a couple 500 pounders drifting down onto our evacuted embassies .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

And when 10 or 30 innocent civilians die from those bombs, what happens next.

This is a delicate situation that requires delicate action. Pouring gasoline on a fire comes to mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

And when 10 or 30 innocent civilians die from those bombs, what happens next.

This is a delicate situation that requires delicate action. Pouring gasoline on a fire comes to mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

War is ugly . We didn't ask to be in it . Your thinking ends up getting more people killed in the long run.
I don't know if you've been watching the news, but they're killing thousands of innocent people .
The United States armed forces are extremely good at doing two things. Killing the enemy and destroying their infrastructure . If you don't let them do that then we will not succeed. We have several wars in recent history to prove that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

And when 10 or 30 innocent civilians die from those bombs, what happens next.

This is a delicate situation that requires delicate action. Pouring gasoline on a fire comes to mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That scenario is ugly, and it's what Israel faces every single day. But you have to protect yuorselves and do what's right.

It's ugly. But one thing history has taught us is this...when you decide to go in in a situation like this, you go in all the way or you don't go at all. Half-measures will never work. Obama is doing airstrikes, and I give him credit for that. But if ISIS is the threat they seem to be, it's time to send in the cavalry and kill as many as we possibly can, avoiding civilian casualties when possible, living with the consequences when it's not possible.

It's awful, but it's necessary. There is more to being President that golfing and fund-raising and hob-nobbing with the swells on Martha's Vineyard. Maybe we shouldn't have chosen someone who constantly voted "present" as a state senator, because he din't have the courage to take a position and act on it.

[FishermanTim]

Sounds like we need a "glass-lined" parking lot in that region.
Since we're dealing with uncivilized animals that live their pathetic lives via the internet, maybe we can show them exactly what a "long distance" reply really looks and feels like?
Sure, an ICBM isn't as fast as the web, but it will make much more of an "impact" when it arrives, and we can send them just as easily as an email.

[Raven]

they don't have all the toys we have
fly's on the wall

[Raven]

every single piece of equipment we gave to the IRAQ
military should have had a tracking element built into
the metal (non removable) so selecting them later as targets
if STOLEN would be as easy as pie.

[justplugit]

Great idea Rav, a GPS in every piece of heavy armament.