Mingle2 apple store icon
Try Mingle2 app for better experience
Community Recent My Topics
Community > Politics, Current News & Events
Topic: Obama's ISIL "strategy" fundamentally wrong-headed. Cease th
Reply
LTme's photo

LTme

Fri 06/12/15 08:31 AM

Perhaps Obama means well.
But by spending $Billions the U.S. yet once again finds itself the tip of a non-existent spear.

So how does Obama respond to his critics*?
Obama offers an incremental increase in U.S. troops there, not for combat, but for training.

Problem:
Even those whose own homeland territory is threatened by ISIL, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia; they're not in the fight.

So what should Obama do?

STOP the U.S. air-war there!
One of two possible things would result:

1) Either it wouldn't make much difference, and we'd save $Billions,
- or -
2) Things would go from bad to worse; FORCING potential ISIL victims in the Middle East to get up off their oil-soaked butts, and actually combat this deadly cult.

THEN!!
Once they've gotten their butts in gear,
then Obama can consider offering U.S. air support.

Right now, however paradoxical it may seem, Obama's air-war against ISIL is making the U.S. lot worse, not better.

* Armed Services committee Chairman Senator McCain wants 10K additional U.S. troops there.
RoamingOrator's photo

RoamingOrator

Fri 06/12/15 10:16 AM

:thumbsup:
uche9aa's photo

uche9aa

Fri 06/12/15 10:45 AM

Pulling down a house you built isnt a pleasant undertaking. The truth has not surfaced yet, deception is the game for now
no photo

ciretom

Fri 06/12/15 10:49 AM

Perhaps Obama means well.

I think Obama will do anything he can to not reinvade the middle east.
He has to be the one that "ended the wars!"

He's the peace and love prize winning, Bin Laden killing, economy fixing, healthcare fountaining, global trade uniting savior of the U.S.

I think he will do whatever he can to kick the can down the road so the next president can be the war mongering evil guy that invades.

He has a legacy to protect and image to maintain.

Obama's air-war against ISIL is making the U.S. lot worse, not better.

Reality doesn't matter, image is everything.
metalwing's photo

metalwing

Fri 06/12/15 10:53 AM

There is no air war in the middle East. An air war might have ended the current problem before it grew.
InvictusV's photo

InvictusV

Tue 06/16/15 05:33 PM

It is safe to say his strategy in Egypt was wrong.

His strategy in Libya was wrong.

His strategy in Syria was wrong.

Our support of the overthrow of Assad is why we are where we are today.

Obama.. McCain and his lapdog Lynn Graham... There is no war large enough to quench the last twos blood lust.
no photo

AryaSnow

Tue 06/16/15 11:47 PM

America's actions allowed the ISIS cancer to grow. First by invading Iraq and then by removing the American troops thus leaving room for ISIS to grow. America's inaction in Syria also helped ISIS to grow. So it's America's responsibility to get rid of the ISIS cancer even if it means ground troops.
Lukinfolov's photo

Lukinfolov

Wed 06/17/15 12:22 AM


America's actions allowed the ISIS cancer to grow. First by invading Iraq and then by removing the American troops thus leaving room for ISIS to grow. America's inaction in Syria also helped ISIS to grow. So it's America's responsibility to get rid of the ISIS cancer even if it means ground troops.


Agreed. This Cancer wouldn't have started had Iraq was not invaded and Saddam captured. But, now US must choose between 'Intervening' and 'Not Intervening'...this middle path is only going to bleed US but won't eliminate the Cancer. If US decide to intervene, it must take ISIS head-on and get done with it. Or else, leave it for the middle east states to deal with it.
Edited by Lukinfolov on Wed 06/17/15 12:23 AM
mightymoe's photo

mightymoe

Wed 06/17/15 02:01 AM


America's actions allowed the ISIS cancer to grow. First by invading Iraq and then by removing the American troops thus leaving room for ISIS to grow. America's inaction in Syria also helped ISIS to grow. So it's America's responsibility to get rid of the ISIS cancer even if it means ground troops.


it wasn't America's "inaction's" that made ISIS grow, ISIS is a direct result of America's actions... you don't remember when obarry wanted Assad out of office and gave the "rebels" all sorts of weapons and money? ISIS popped up a few months after that, in Syria...
LTme's photo

LTme

Wed 06/17/15 07:14 AM

"I think he will do whatever he can to kick the can down the road so the next president ..." ct

Obama isn't doing that.

We should NEVER get more skin in the game than those we're ostensibly protecting.
"American people are friends of Liberty everywhere, but custodians only of their own." John Adams

Because of the U.S. military invasion & occupation of Iraq, we destabilized the region.

Spilling more U.S. blood there will not stiffen the spines of Iraqis.
"It is safe to say his strategy in Egypt was wrong.
His strategy in Libya was wrong.
His strategy in Syria was wrong.
Our support of the overthrow of Assad is why we are where we are today." IV

Sadly, probably so.

Hello AS. Welcome to mingle2.
"America's actions allowed the ISIS cancer to grow. First by invading Iraq and then by removing the American troops thus leaving room for ISIS to grow. America's inaction in Syria also helped ISIS to grow." AS

Sadly, probably so.
"So it's America's responsibility to get rid of the ISIS cancer even if it means ground troops." AS

Hmmmm
The so called "Pottery Barn rule".

I has merit AS. The invasion was a monumental foreign policy blunder.

Thanks for joining us @mingle2.
Visit often.
Post a lot.
"it wasn't America's "inaction's" that made ISIS grow, ISIS is a direct result of America's actions..." mm

I think AS's intended point is, it was both.
Our action, terminating Iraq's Hussein regime.
Our inaction in helping the less radical rebels defeat Assad years ago.
Assad killed all them off.
And now these homicidal maniacs have taken over.

I hope I haven't distorted your intended point here AS.
mightymoe's photo

mightymoe

Wed 06/17/15 07:30 AM


"it wasn't America's "inaction's" that made ISIS grow, ISIS is a direct result of America's actions..." mm

I think AS's intended point is, it was both.
Our action, terminating Iraq's Hussein regime.
Our inaction in helping the less radical rebels defeat Assad years ago.
Assad killed all them off.
And now these homicidal maniacs have taken over.

I hope I haven't distorted your intended point here AS.


i'm not sure i agree with the whole Iraq part of that, but obarry's meddling is a direct cause of ISIS being what they are today... blaming bush seems to be a theme with the democrats, and it wasn't bush that sent them weapons and supplies... The instability in the middle east as a whole could be a direct result of the war, but Saddam needed to be taken out... but i will agree with since obarry started ISIS, he should be doing way more to eradicate them....
Edited by mightymoe on Wed 06/17/15 07:31 AM
LTme's photo

LTme

Wed 06/17/15 07:45 AM

"... blaming bush seems to be a theme with the democrats" mm

a) I vehemently opposed the U.S. military invasion & occupation of Iraq since before it began.
It was a conspicuously bad idea, from before the start.

I blame Bush because Obama was opposed to it, and simply wound down our War in Iraq:
- substantially on the Bush administration's timetable,
- substantially as Bush would have,
- with substantially the same U.S. military leadership, and even
- with the Bush administration's Secretary of Defense.

b) Whatever Democrats do doesn't restrict my ability to express my conservative views on the matter.
I'm not a Republican. I'm conservative.
I do NOT put partisanship ahead of citizenship, as many Republicans do.

c) Though the Bush administration's intentions for Iraq varied quite a bit, his criterion of success shifted.
The U.S. War in Iraq was originally about ridding the world of Saddam's WMD.
"Time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." U.S. President Bush (the younger) in his State of the Union speech Jan. 29, 2002

When we learned Iraq had no significant stockpile of battle-ready WMD, that meant the U.S. had no reason at all.

So Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld started tap-dancing, and eventually settled on:
In President Bush (younger's) own words: He said the goal remains
"an Iraq that can govern itself and sustain itself and defend itself." U.S. President Bush (younger)

And that is in fact what it did.

So the Bush administration's commitment has been fulfilled.
mightymoe's photo

mightymoe

Wed 06/17/15 08:05 AM


"... blaming bush seems to be a theme with the democrats" mm

a) I vehemently opposed the U.S. military invasion & occupation of Iraq since before it began.
It was a conspicuously bad idea, from before the start.

I blame Bush because Obama was opposed to it, and simply wound down our War in Iraq:
- substantially on the Bush administration's timetable,
- substantially as Bush would have,
- with substantially the same U.S. military leadership, and even
- with the Bush administration's Secretary of Defense.

b) Whatever Democrats do doesn't restrict my ability to express my conservative views on the matter.
I'm not a Republican. I'm conservative.
I do NOT put partisanship ahead of citizenship, as many Republicans do.

c) Though the Bush administration's intentions for Iraq varied quite a bit, his criterion of success shifted.
The U.S. War in Iraq was originally about ridding the world of Saddam's WMD.
"Time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." U.S. President Bush (the younger) in his State of the Union speech Jan. 29, 2002

When we learned Iraq had no significant stockpile of battle-ready WMD, that meant the U.S. had no reason at all.

So Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld started tap-dancing, and eventually settled on:
In President Bush (younger's) own words: He said the goal remains
"an Iraq that can govern itself and sustain itself and defend itself." U.S. President Bush (younger)

And that is in fact what it did.

So the Bush administration's commitment has been fulfilled.


huh... and where did bush say the weapons of mass destruction went? Syria... (and you know as well as I do that Saddam was using Mustard gas on his own people)... so where did the US turn it's attention to after Iraq? again, Syria...

but lets just put the WMD's aside for now, and think about what Saddam was up to and why he invaded Kuwait... he wanted control of all the oil in the middle east...so if your happy with the currant gas prices, instead of paying 14 dollars a gallon, then the war was necessary... but still, this has nothing to do with obarry supplying the rebels against Assad with weapons and turning then into ISIS - which he named, BTW... nice try to divert the conversation into the democrats favorite scapegoat, bush...
Drivinmenutz's photo

Drivinmenutz

Thu 06/18/15 01:26 PM

Sending a few thousand troops after ISIS is foolish. Trying to eliminate ISIS is foolish. Either action would lead to a never-ending, very costly, conflict.

I believe from the get-go we should have been non-intervening, until they attacked Americans. Then from that point gloves are off, politics aside, we do whatever it takes, regardless of who it ticks off, to get the Americans back. If they are killed, then we strike back quickly and drastically. Redeploy our troops as if we were going to war with Russia. Fight them with everything we have for a few weeks, then pack up and go home. By that point we would have done so much damage, so quickly that they would fear us. Fear= respect in their eyes.

Not to mention other countries that harbor these people would also fear us, thereby possibly eliminating their desire to house and fund this group.

This may sound blood thirsty, but it is the only effective approach. I believe this would be less costly in human lives in the long term as well.
Edited by Drivinmenutz on Thu 06/18/15 01:26 PM
metalwing's photo

metalwing

Thu 06/18/15 02:02 PM


Sending a few thousand troops after ISIS is foolish. Trying to eliminate ISIS is foolish. Either action would lead to a never-ending, very costly, conflict.

I believe from the get-go we should have been non-intervening, until they attacked Americans. Then from that point gloves are off, politics aside, we do whatever it takes, regardless of who it ticks off, to get the Americans back. If they are killed, then we strike back quickly and drastically. Redeploy our troops as if we were going to war with Russia. Fight them with everything we have for a few weeks, then pack up and go home. By that point we would have done so much damage, so quickly that they would fear us. Fear= respect in their eyes.

Not to mention other countries that harbor these people would also fear us, thereby possibly eliminating their desire to house and fund this group.

This may sound blood thirsty, but it is the only effective approach. I believe this would be less costly in human lives in the long term as well.


You are probably correct. In addition, if we did go in and kick azz, we would kill a lot of the foreign volunteers that have shown up to join the "cause". Newer volunteers wouldn't be so quick to join.
mightymoe's photo

mightymoe

Thu 06/18/15 02:08 PM



Sending a few thousand troops after ISIS is foolish. Trying to eliminate ISIS is foolish. Either action would lead to a never-ending, very costly, conflict.

I believe from the get-go we should have been non-intervening, until they attacked Americans. Then from that point gloves are off, politics aside, we do whatever it takes, regardless of who it ticks off, to get the Americans back. If they are killed, then we strike back quickly and drastically. Redeploy our troops as if we were going to war with Russia. Fight them with everything we have for a few weeks, then pack up and go home. By that point we would have done so much damage, so quickly that they would fear us. Fear= respect in their eyes.

Not to mention other countries that harbor these people would also fear us, thereby possibly eliminating their desire to house and fund this group.

This may sound blood thirsty, but it is the only effective approach. I believe this would be less costly in human lives in the long term as well.


You are probably correct. In addition, if we did go in and kick azz, we would kill a lot of the foreign volunteers that have shown up to join the "cause". Newer volunteers wouldn't be so quick to join.


kinda like the way Israel gets it done...:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
no photo

alleoops

Thu 06/18/15 04:03 PM




Sending a few thousand troops after ISIS is foolish. Trying to eliminate ISIS is foolish. Either action would lead to a never-ending, very costly, conflict.

I believe from the get-go we should have been non-intervening, until they attacked Americans. Then from that point gloves are off, politics aside, we do whatever it takes, regardless of who it ticks off, to get the Americans back. If they are killed, then we strike back quickly and drastically. Redeploy our troops as if we were going to war with Russia. Fight them with everything we have for a few weeks, then pack up and go home. By that point we would have done so much damage, so quickly that they would fear us. Fear= respect in their eyes.

Not to mention other countries that harbor these people would also fear us, thereby possibly eliminating their desire to house and fund this group.

This may sound blood thirsty, but it is the only effective approach. I believe this would be less costly in human lives in the long term as well.


You are probably correct. In addition, if we did go in and kick azz, we would kill a lot of the foreign volunteers that have shown up to join the "cause". Newer volunteers wouldn't be so quick to join.


kinda like the way Israel gets it done...:thumbsup: :thumbsup:


me too.:thumbsup: