Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Obama contradicts himself on ISIS

Obama contradicts himself on ISIS

+4
ZVUGKTUBM
boards of FL
Joanimaroni
Sal
8 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Guest


Guest

Obama's difficulties yesterday in discussing how he wants to deal with ISIS is well documented. I'm interested in hearing how Obama's remarks can be defended. I'm not creative enough to come up with any rational explanation.

To set the stage, Obama first said the goal was to destroy ISIS, then later in the day, he said he wanted to reduce their impact so they could be managed.

He's no "decider".....LOLOLOL

How do you manage a terrorist organization unless you are actually the leader of it?

Sal

Sal

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
How do you manage a terrorist organization unless you are actually the leader of it?

Guest


Guest

So you admit it.....

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Obama's difficulties yesterday in discussing how he wants to deal with ISIS is well documented. I'm interested in hearing how Obama's remarks can be defended. I'm not creative enough to come up with any rational explanation.

To set the stage, Obama first said the goal was to destroy ISIS, then later in the day, he said he wanted to reduce their impact so they could be managed.

He's no "decider".....LOLOLOL

How do you manage a terrorist organization unless you are actually the leader of it?

Hopefully, he will solicit and follow the advice of military strategists.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Sal wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:
How do you manage a terrorist organization unless you are actually the leader of it?



I think this one is more appropriate:


_________________
I approve this message.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

The man's obsession with the President is intractable. You are seeing alternative reality in real time.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Sal

Sal

Joanimaroni wrote:

Hopefully, he will solicit and follow the advice of military strategists.  

Screw that.

There's no military solution to this problem.

There's sectarian civil wars raging on at least three fronts.

This is a complex geopolitical disaster, complicated further by our competing allegiances and interests in the region.

This is the context in which the President has sent envoys to the region to develop a plan.

Unlike the last one, this administration strives to understand the complicated world as it is and not make commitments based on delusions that have no chance of success.

gatorfan



Sal wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:

Hopefully, he will solicit and follow the advice of military strategists.  

Screw that.



This is the context in which the President has sent envoys to the region to develop a plan.

Unlike the last one, this administration strives to understand the complicated world as it is and not make commitments based on delusions that have no chance of success.

Now that's funny!

Obama contradicts himself on ISIS Kerry-is-an-idiot

Sal

Sal

gatorfan wrote:
Now that's funny!

Nothing really funny about it.

Just another huge clusterfuck left over from the previous administration for the President to clean up on behalf of the American people.

I'm confident he will do so cautiously, thoughtfully, and to positive effect.

Guest


Guest

Cmon... obama has bombed more muslim countries than bush did. Congratulations comrade.

gatorfan



Sal wrote:
gatorfan wrote:
Now that's funny!

Nothing really funny about it.

Just another huge clusterfuck left over from the previous administration for the President to clean up on behalf of the American people.

I'm confident he will do so cautiously, thoughtfully, and to positive effect.


After 6 years of watching I'm convinced the only thing Obama considers is what a decision will do to his image or how it will affect the construct of Congress. That explains his obvious reluctance to make the hard choices early in the game when inputs to an issue would be most effective.

No, Obama is clearly a catch-up player and only when forced into a situation.

Sal

Sal

The solution to these problems has never been militarily achievable.

The solution lies in forging political alliances and agreements, and there has been no consensus over there until ISIS started running roughshod.

If you're paying attention, you may have noticed that every government in the region, regardless of sectarian makeup, agreed to al-Abadi's appointment as next leader of Iraq.

It's going to be really tough to achieve, but ISIS may have inadvertently provided an opportunity.

Guest


Guest

by Sal Today at 3:19 pm
gatorfan wrote:
“

Now that's funny!
”
Nothing really funny about it.

Just another huge clusterfuck left over from the previous administration for the President to clean up on behalf of the American people.

I'm confident he will do so cautiously, thoughtfully, and to positive effect.
------
Sorry no connection by W to the actions of ISIS.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Joanimaroni wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:Obama's difficulties yesterday in discussing how he wants to deal with ISIS is well documented. I'm interested in hearing how Obama's remarks can be defended. I'm not creative enough to come up with any rational explanation.

To set the stage, Obama first said the goal was to destroy ISIS, then later in the day, he said he wanted to reduce their impact so they could be managed.

He's no "decider".....LOLOLOL

How do you manage a terrorist organization unless you are actually the leader of it?

Hopefully, he will solicit and follow the advice of military strategists.  


Excuse me, but would these be the same military strategists who led us to our wonderful victories in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan? If so, I hope to hell Obama doesn't listen!!!

Markle

Markle

Sal wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:

Hopefully, he will solicit and follow the advice of military strategists.  

Screw that.

There's no military solution to this problem.

There's sectarian civil wars raging on at least three fronts.

This is a complex geopolitical disaster, complicated further by our competing allegiances and interests in the region.

This is the context in which the President has sent envoys to the region to develop a plan.

Unlike the last one, this administration strives to understand the complicated world as it is and not make commitments based on delusions that have no chance of success.

You are getting more and more amusing. The most complex thing semi-retired President Barack Hussein Obama understands, and has taught, is Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"

"He's sent envoys to the region to develop a plan". You do have a sense of humor. The Pentagon has contingency plans for virtually every situation. Again, President Obama is lying and dithering.

We have seen how well President Obama's "no military" solution has worked so far.

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:Obama's difficulties yesterday in discussing how he wants to deal with ISIS is well documented. I'm interested in hearing how Obama's remarks can be defended. I'm not creative enough to come up with any rational explanation.

To set the stage, Obama first said the goal was to destroy ISIS, then later in the day, he said he wanted to reduce their impact so they could be managed.

He's no "decider".....LOLOLOL

How do you manage a terrorist organization unless you are actually the leader of it?

Hopefully, he will solicit and follow the advice of military strategists.  


Excuse me, but would these be the same military strategists who led us to our wonderful victories in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?  If so, I hope to hell Obama doesn't listen!!!

Had the military run those three wars, we would have won all three instead of just one.

Go back to the Comedy Channel.

2seaoat



Had the military run those three wars, we would have won all three instead of just one.

Go back to the Comedy Channel.



So those wars could be won and it was only a matter of the military taking control from the American people which did not allow us to have victory?

How could we have won in Viet Nam?

How could we have won in Iraq?

How could we have won in Afghanastan?

I submit to you we won all three wars militarily, but lost our occupations.

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:Had the military run those three wars, we would have won all three instead of just one.

Go back to the Comedy Channel.



So those wars could be won and it was only a matter of the military taking control from the American people which did not allow us to have victory?
How could we have won in Viet Nam?

How could we have won in Iraq?

How could we have won in Afghanastan [Afghanistan]?

I submit to you we won all three wars militarily, but lost our occupations.

How many times do things have to be explained to you?

Politicians surrendered in Vietnam.

Semi-retired President Barack Hussein said he had won in Iraq.

President Obama has already declared our surrender date in Afghanistan.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Politicians surrendered in Vietnam.

How many Americans died in Vietnam? 58,000?

The U.S. did not have the moral authority to wage war in Vietnam. It was ill-conceived, just like the Iraq war was ill-conceived. We didn't have any moral authority for the latter, either.

How much more blood and treasure was worth sacrificing in either place to prove what? Thankfully, wingnut hubris was pushed to the sidelines so more sane heads could do the right thing. We pulled out of Vietnam and we pulled out of Iraq.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:Had the military run those three wars, we would have won all three instead of just one.

Go back to the Comedy Channel.



So those wars could be won and it was only a matter of the military taking control from the American people which did not allow us to have victory?

How could we have won in Viet Nam?

How could we have won in Iraq?

How could we have won in Afghanastan?

I submit to you we won all three wars militarily, but lost our occupations.

We should have fought those wars by entering into "total war." It's where every bit of a nation commits to winning and defeating the enemy....you know like in WWII and the first Gulf War. Korea, Vietnam et al were not 100% committed. Neither was the second war against Iraq....until the surge was pushed forth....that was when the military got to do what it does best.

I'm writing a paper on the air war strategy used to defeat Nazi Germany. It was no holds barred then- 24/7/365 bombing of the Germans into submission by the Brits and the United States....which of course was a pissing contest to start in 1943 because the Brits only want to hit the Krauts at night and we wanted only to do daytime bombing because that is how our crews trained. America rationed everything to ensure that the guys doing the fighting had what they needed. People now are more concerned that their gas prices may go up if we start smacking around a OPEC country that harbors terrorists. Oh you get the token "donate your phone cards or phones for the troops" BS ...heck Starbucks won't even donate to the troops. Nobody is concerned about troops unless they have their family member in harm's way or gas gets to $4+ per gallon. ZVUG loves to tout $200 a barrel oil happening...we are still in ME, Israel is kicking ass in Gaza, Syria is in turmoil, Iran keeps threatening ISrael, but we have yet to even see prices that I saw in 2008 when I got back from a deployment to Kyrgyzstan. That was just oil companies and refineries breaking it off in people because they could.

Turn the military loose, quit worrying about interrogation methods, loosen the restrictive ROE, and watch what happens. Let the troops do what they are trained to do and get behind them 100%.

2seaoat



Turn the military loose

No disagreement, but the question is how do we win the political and diplomatic elements of occupations? There never was a need to have a military intervention in the last two wars......none with the technology which is available. The fear mongering has made this nation a nation of scardy cats.........terror will exist next year and twenty years into the future. A military response has very little efficacy in the political and diplomatic solutions.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:Turn the military loose

No disagreement, but the question is how do we win the political and diplomatic elements of occupations?   There never was a need to have a military intervention in the last two wars......none with the technology which is available.   The fear mongering has made this nation a nation of scardy cats.........terror will exist next year and twenty years into the future.  A military response has very little efficacy in the political and diplomatic solutions.


We win the political and diplomatic arenas by becoming an enforcer like Saddam was in many ways. He tolerated no BS from those who would cause a disruption to his country. If a Sunni hate a Shia and neither could compromise, they ended up in a desert borrow pit and buried. I've heard your cronies even say we should have just left Saddam alone and for him to handle his business. I think that Bush I really regrets his failure to act when Halabja happened at the end of the Iran/Iraq War. Saddam punished Kurds who were Shia aligned. Killed over 5k men, women and children with nerve agent (that he still had stockpiles of when we invaded in 03). Since a shit ton of MOPP gear was found in our taking of Iraqi prisoners on the way to Baghdad in 03, I really think there were plans for the Iraqis to use some sort of  chem warfare against us as a way to at least make us pay a significant price for taking that country in 03, but someone pussed out somewhere and never authorized the release of said weapons...thankfully.

Political and diplomatic means would have worked better with a heavy footprint of troops and a total domination of Iraq in the invasion. Muslims respect the strength of powerful leaders. They always have.

We should have went town by town OWNING each one along the way. Read Nathaniel Fick's book ONE BULLET AWAY and see how we just blew by places filled with bad guy because Rumsfeld was in a dang hurry to get to Baghdad. There was determined opposition in many places and we just leapfrogged a lot of it to get to the bullseye (Baghdad). All those guys were probably shocked that we did so and then reinforced themselves for the insurgency. We waited until the Shia through Maqtada Sadr created his Mahdi Army in and around Fallujah and then and only then did we make an example of how to fight the war and win. Those fighters never wanted anything to do with the Marines again. Fallujah was cleared in a dramatic way.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

...We win the political and diplomatic arenas by becoming an enforcer like Saddam was in many ways. He tolerated no BS from those who would cause a disruption to his country...

There you have it in a nutshell.....This is what PaceDog and Markle want for our country....

They want a right-wing dictatorship where the Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean nothing. A Saddam "enforcer" who gasses Americans who disagree or rebel from the force that is in power.

And they want to use military solutions as a first-resort cudgel to push the world around.

Fortunately, this is not what the United States of America is all about. The sanity of the majority keeps these minority ideologues away from the levers of power.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:...We win the political and diplomatic arenas by becoming an enforcer like Saddam was in many ways. He tolerated no BS from those who would cause a disruption to his country...

There you have it in a nutshell..... This is what PaceDog and Markle want for our country....

They want a right-wing dictatorship where the Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean nothing. A Saddam "enforcer" who gasses Americans who disagree or rebel from the force that is in power.

And they want to use military solutions as a first-resort cudgel to push the world around.

Fortunately, this is not what the United States of America is all about. The sanity of the majority keeps these minority ideologues away from the levers of power.

PLEASE, show us all where I ever made such a statement or concede that you are lying. Thank you!

Guest


Guest

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/iraqonthebrink/why-syria-could-be-a-stumbling-block-in-the-fight-against-isis/article1-1260873.aspx

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Obama contradicts himself on ISIS

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum