Thoughts on The Obama Speech?

seebell

Hall of Fame
Mar 12, 2012
11,919
5,105
187
Gurley, Al
No. They are not ISIS's proxy. But when they themselves announce cooperation and alliance with ISIS against al-Assad, and when ISIS regularly seizes US-provided weapons from FSA, when we arm FSA, we are arming ISIS.
Heard on NPR that the Syrian rebels we arm routinely sell the weapons to ISIL. Reportedly one of the beheaded journalist was sold to ISIL for 50,000 bucks.

What's going to happen when a US aircraft is shot down and the pilot is paraded around and perhaps beheaded?

This is one gigantic mess! Congress will abdicate their responsibility as usual.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,463
13,297
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Obama has a static problem. No, his hair wasn't standing on end (though it does have a lot more gray these days). His thinking is static and he can't fathom changing it. He denies reality and exchanges it for a simulated reality he has created in his mind, years ago, when his mind was being molded by the likes of Frank Marshall Davis, the radical professors, and all the others. He just can't fathom that the world is different than he was taught.
Reality does not fit my ideology.
Reality is wrong.
 

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
12,222
3,371
187
By the way, we're doing the same thing in Syria right now that was done in Iraq a decade ago in trying to create a vacuum by removing al-Assad. We're doing worse actually, since we're actively (if indirectly) arming those in Syria who we are fighting in Iraq. This whole thing is one big cluster.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/09/1...liance-with-isis-confirms-pj-media-reporting/
Big difference - we started the mess in Iraq, but we really didn't do much at all to cause the problems in Syria, that's mostly on Syrians and their neighbors.
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
I've read a number of reports indicating that we gave arms to the Syrian rebels, many of which are part of ISIS/ISIL now. We had a lot to do with what is happening in Syria.
Which leads us back to the point:

What do we do?

We could stand back and do nothing. Then the area becomes a safe haven to plan attacks on us.
We could arm the locals (who IMO would just be using us while we are an enemy of their enemy). When they are done with us we run the risk of them turning the weapons we supplied on friendlies and even us.
We could draw a REAL line in the sand. Then we end up guarding an area for decades. (see Korea)
We could spend money getting intelligence from bad characters or spies, then send in assassins/drones when we get a chance. Then we get bad information and hit innocents, women and children they are hiding behind.
We could go in full force and clean things up again. Then we get another unpopular long and expensive buildup where our country runs out of patience again.

None of these are great options. Either way we get blamed for causing it, or not doing enough given our resources. I personally don't blame Bush for trying the last one given the equally bad track record with the others. IMO Obama doesn't seem to have the stomach for any of them, and seems to try the most politically expedient one.
 
Last edited:

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,854
35,157
362
Mountainous Northern California
Which leads us back to the point:

What do we do?

If we stand back and do nothing the area becomes a safe haven to plan attacks on us.
If we arm the locals (who IMO would just be using us while we are an enemy of their enemy), when they are done we run the risk of them turning the weapons we supplied on friendlies and even us.
If we draw a REAL line in the sand we end up guarding an area for decades. (see Korea)
If spend money getting intelligence from bad characters or spies, then send in assassins/drones when we get a chance, we get bad information and hit innocents, women and children they are hiding behind.
If we go in full force and clean things up again we get another unpopular long and expensive buildup where our country runs out of patience again.

None of these are great options. Either way we get blamed for causing it, or not doing enough given our resources. I personally don't blame Bush for trying the last one given the equally bad track record with the others. IMO Obama doesn't seem to have the stomach for any of them, and seems to try the most politically expedient one.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. And doing nothing is not seen as an option. I am personally against doing nothing. I do feel that our leader in Congress and the President as well should put aside their differences and be decisive and consistent in what we do. It's a messed up world we live in.
 

seebell

Hall of Fame
Mar 12, 2012
11,919
5,105
187
Gurley, Al
Two things made me take note:

1. The "degrade and destroy" promise is quite a departure from the goal of making ISIS a "manageable problem." There were moments of flashbacks of the Bush 43 Cowboy Diplomacy, too ("We will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country").

2. "Now let's make two things clear: ISIL is not "Islamic." No religion condones the killing of innocents...", Say what? The "IS" in ISIL is Islamic State, no? And it may be disputed his claim that no religion condones the killing of innocents.

Does he finally "get it" or is he simply responding to a 32% approval rating on foreign policy? Does the Nobel Peace Prize recipient want to admit he's in a"war?"
Well VJ if you don't believe Barack maybe you will believe Rand Paul? From one of your favorite websites.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/09/11/3566181/why-isis-is-in-fact-not-islamic/

And despite the conservative backlash, Obama’s analysis has received support from an unlikely voice: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). During an appearance on Fox News’ Hannity, the potential 2016 presidential candidate, praised the president for differentiating ISIS ideology from the beliefs of Muslims in America and around the world. “Well, I think there was one important point that he was making about them not being Islamic or a form of true Islam,” he said. “I think it is important not only to the American public but for the world and the Islamic world to point out this is not a true form of Islam. This is an aberrant form that should not represent most of the civilized Islamic world.”
 

swoop10

Hall of Fame
Feb 10, 2001
5,007
0
45
62
Valdosta, GA
Well VJ if you don't believe Barack maybe you will believe Rand Paul? From one of your favorite websites.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/09/11/3566181/why-isis-is-in-fact-not-islamic/

And despite the conservative backlash, Obama’s analysis has received support from an unlikely voice: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). During an appearance on Fox News’ Hannity, the potential 2016 presidential candidate, praised the president for differentiating ISIS ideology from the beliefs of Muslims in America and around the world. “Well, I think there was one important point that he was making about them not being Islamic or a form of true Islam,” he said. “I think it is important not only to the American public but for the world and the Islamic world to point out this is not a true form of Islam. This is an aberrant form that should not represent most of the civilized Islamic world.”
I love the way some of the same people who want to seperate Islam want to lump the Westboro Baptist Church in with Christianity. ISIS is just as much apart of Islam as Westboro is apart of Christianity.
 

seebell

Hall of Fame
Mar 12, 2012
11,919
5,105
187
Gurley, Al
I love the way some of the same people who want to seperate Islam want to lump the Westboro Baptist Church in with Christianity. ISIS is just as much apart of Islam as Westboro is apart of Christianity.
I know you love Barack. You know I'm right!
 

New Posts

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.