|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 11, 2014 7:11:18 GMT -5
This was a "mailed in" performance on his part. His decision not to go to Congress for specific authorization was a bad one, IMO. I am concerned about "degrade and destroy"; that's not a metric, it's a bumper sticker slogan. I know that more information will come out will come out over the next several days, but this was not a good start. I hope someone in the WH answered these questions as well; - What will we do when the first pilot is shot down and captured, and they execute him, on video? - What will we do when Iraqi ground power quits, or doesn't show up or doesn't press an advantage? - How will we handle the inevitable event when we bomb the wring target, or hit a dam or have civilian causalities? - Will we be seeking to interrogate ISIS detainees or leave them to the Iraqis? Where will we interrogate those we capture? - I expect that in the next day or so, ISIS will behead or crucify one of their remaining Americans. Are we prepared for that? President Obama is often accused of thinking that giving a speech solves the problem. I saw some of that last night. I hope I am wrong. That's okay, MOTR... many of us had a problem when "W" went to Congress and got a resolution to use "Military Force"... and with several options at his disposal as to just what kind of "military force" that might be... "W" just went to HIS main #1 option... all out war... and got thousands of us Americans killed because... "this is the man that tried to kill my (his) daddy" he said...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 11, 2014 7:13:22 GMT -5
Charm and charisma and speech making got him the position. That tactic has sustained him for six years. He has No other option available. It's what his life experience and world view is capable of, and nothing more. Why would anyone think otherwise? But take away the teleprompter... and he's lost for words... at least some say... I've seen and heard him in person... with no teleprompter... and I beg to differ...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 11, 2014 7:14:21 GMT -5
Ok my problem here is we go INSIDE Syria to attack ISIS, how's that work for the Syrian govt? Gonna be nasty to say the least...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 11, 2014 7:15:20 GMT -5
Ok my problem here is we go INSIDE Syria to attack ISIS, how's that work for the Syrian govt? Has that ever stopped the US before? Not much fun in having a large military if you can't use it once in a while. Yeah... but Syria has a big ass brother...
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Sept 11, 2014 7:20:05 GMT -5
This was a "mailed in" performance on his part. His decision not to go to Congress for specific authorization was a bad one, IMO. I am concerned about "degrade and destroy"; that's not a metric, it's a bumper sticker slogan. I know that more information will come out will come out over the next several days, but this was not a good start. I hope someone in the WH answered these questions as well; - What will we do when the first pilot is shot down and captured, and they execute him, on video? - What will we do when Iraqi ground power quits, or doesn't show up or doesn't press an advantage? - How will we handle the inevitable event when we bomb the wring target, or hit a dam or have civilian causalities? - Will we be seeking to interrogate ISIS detainees or leave them to the Iraqis? Where will we interrogate those we capture? - I expect that in the next day or so, ISIS will behead or crucify one of their remaining Americans. Are we prepared for that? President Obama is often accused of thinking that giving a speech solves the problem. I saw some of that last night. I hope I am wrong. That's okay, MOTR... many of us had a problem when "W" went to Congress and got a resolution to use "Military Force"... and with several options at his disposal as to just what kind of "military force" that might be... "W" just went to HIS main #1 option... all out war... and got thousands of us Americans killed because... "this is the man that tried to kill my (his) daddy" he said... I criticized President Bush for the same lack of clarity of objectives. No nation should commit itself to war until it is sure what it hopes to accomplish by doing so. And Iraq was hardly all out war.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 11, 2014 7:28:39 GMT -5
That's okay, MOTR... many of us had a problem when "W" went to Congress and got a resolution to use "Military Force"... and with several options at his disposal as to just what kind of "military force" that might be... "W" just went to HIS main #1 option... all out war... and got thousands of us Americans killed because... "this is the man that tried to kill my (his) daddy" he said... I criticized President Bush for the same lack of clarity of objectives. No nation should commit itself to war until it is sure what it hopes to accomplish by doing so. And Iraq was hardly all out war. Well, I can agree it wasn't nuclear... (because "W" couldn't pronounce it... )... but many thousands of Americans died on Iraqi soil... more than that maimed for life... I call that all out war of a sort... NAP time, guys... got up too early this AM... (this is my "surrender" post... )...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 11, 2014 8:49:36 GMT -5
I can't believe you just called the President a fool. You're finally coming around, aboutwell. I don't know about you, Breaking bad... but I've never heard him say he thought Iraq would remain a peaceful and safe country... maybe you have... most folks know that the Middle East has been a strife ridden area since Biblical times... and I don't think he believes any different... And I can say that because I've "been around" all along... He said, when he pulled all of our troops out, that Iraq was "stable". Another lie.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 11, 2014 8:50:55 GMT -5
I think you are over simplifying aboutwell. This group is significantly different in methodology, in target selection and in speed and organization of movement. They may be the same people, but their tactics are much more extreme. They've had a lot of practice... especially since 2003... it's about damn time they became better organized... and now they have some equipment left by the Iraqis that we had given them... Yup, thanks to The Puppet's precipitous, unilateral surrender and bailing on them.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 11, 2014 8:52:15 GMT -5
This was a "mailed in" performance on his part. His decision not to go to Congress for specific authorization was a bad one, IMO. I am concerned about "degrade and destroy"; that's not a metric, it's a bumper sticker slogan. I know that more information will come out will come out over the next several days, but this was not a good start. I hope someone in the WH answered these questions as well; - What will we do when the first pilot is shot down and captured, and they execute him, on video? - What will we do when Iraqi ground power quits, or doesn't show up or doesn't press an advantage? - How will we handle the inevitable event when we bomb the wring target, or hit a dam or have civilian causalities? - Will we be seeking to interrogate ISIS detainees or leave them to the Iraqis? Where will we interrogate those we capture? - I expect that in the next day or so, ISIS will behead or crucify one of their remaining Americans. Are we prepared for that? President Obama is often accused of thinking that giving a speech solves the problem. I saw some of that last night. I hope I am wrong. That's okay, MOTR... many of us had a problem when "W" went to Congress and got a resolution to use "Military Force"... and with several options at his disposal as to just what kind of "military force" that might be... "W" just went to HIS main #1 option... all out war... and got thousands of us Americans killed because... "this is the man that tried to kill my (his) daddy" he said... And The Puppet, with several options at his disposal, went to play golf and beg for money. And has gotten thousands of Americans killed in Afghanstan, 4 in Libya, and 2 in Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 11, 2014 8:53:05 GMT -5
Charm and charisma and speech making got him the position. That tactic has sustained him for six years. He has No other option available. It's what his life experience and world view is capable of, and nothing more. Why would anyone think otherwise? But take away the teleprompter... and he's lost for words... at least some say... I've seen and heard him in person... with no teleprompter... and I beg to differ... Yes, but you understand gibberish, and tend to imbue whatever comes out of his mouth with what you wanted it to be.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 11, 2014 8:55:04 GMT -5
I criticized President Bush for the same lack of clarity of objectives. No nation should commit itself to war until it is sure what it hopes to accomplish by doing so. And Iraq was hardly all out war. Well, I can agree it wasn't nuclear... (because "W" couldn't pronounce it... )... but many thousands of Americans died on Iraqi soil... more than that maimed for life... I call that all out war of a sort... NAP time, guys... got up too early this AM... (this is my "surrender" post... )... No, it was a "police action". We weren't allowed to use indirect, except in extremely controlled circumstances, little house to house searching, and, like in VN, we were largely confined to FOBs instead of actually conquering and holding the territory.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 11, 2014 9:58:23 GMT -5
This was a "mailed in" performance on his part. His decision not to go to Congress for specific authorization was a bad one, IMO. I am concerned about "degrade and destroy"; that's not a metric, it's a bumper sticker slogan. I know that more information will come out will come out over the next several days, but this was not a good start. I hope someone in the WH answered these questions as well; - What will we do when the first pilot is shot down and captured, and they execute him, on video? - What will we do when Iraqi ground power quits, or doesn't show up or doesn't press an advantage? - How will we handle the inevitable event when we bomb the wring target, or hit a dam or have civilian causalities? - Will we be seeking to interrogate ISIS detainees or leave them to the Iraqis? Where will we interrogate those we capture? - I expect that in the next day or so, ISIS will behead or crucify one of their remaining Americans. Are we prepared for that? President Obama is often accused of thinking that giving a speech solves the problem. I saw some of that last night. I hope I am wrong. The biggest failure was the assertion that there would be no ground troops sent. Because it makes the answer to all your questions above impossible. I understand the reluctance of the president (and the American people) to send in ground troops. But even if you have no intentions of sending in ground troops, you NEVER, EVER, tell that to the enemy. I believe it was Nixon who said the best advice Eisenhower ever gave him was "Never tell your enemies what you won't do."
|
|
|
Post by cyclegeek on Sept 11, 2014 10:37:31 GMT -5
This was a "mailed in" performance on his part. His decision not to go to Congress for specific authorization was a bad one, IMO. I am concerned about "degrade and destroy"; that's not a metric, it's a bumper sticker slogan. I know that more information will come out will come out over the next several days, but this was not a good start. I hope someone in the WH answered these questions as well; - What will we do when the first pilot is shot down and captured, and they execute him, on video? - What will we do when Iraqi ground power quits, or doesn't show up or doesn't press an advantage? - How will we handle the inevitable event when we bomb the wring target, or hit a dam or have civilian causalities? - Will we be seeking to interrogate ISIS detainees or leave them to the Iraqis? Where will we interrogate those we capture? - I expect that in the next day or so, ISIS will behead or crucify one of their remaining Americans. Are we prepared for that? President Obama is often accused of thinking that giving a speech solves the problem. I saw some of that last night. I hope I am wrong. The biggest failure was the assertion that there would be no ground troops sent. Because it makes the answer to all your questions above impossible. I understand the reluctance of the president (and the American people) to send in ground troops. But even if you have no intentions of sending in ground troops, you NEVER, EVER, tell that to the enemy. I believe it was Nixon who said the best advice Eisenhower ever gave him was "Never tell your enemies what you won't do." Sounds like more of the same strategy that Bush used, until he realized it was not enough and then surged. O didn't learn. History repeating itself. As the saying goes "either sh!# or get off the pot". This will last longer than it needs too and ground troops (I mean more ground troops because we already have some there even though O calls them something different) are inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Sept 11, 2014 10:37:22 GMT -5
His plan is to fight a delaying action and drop this turd in the next president's lap. Which may be the right plan, since the current president isn't any good. Spare us from jumped up community organizers in the future, please.
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Sept 11, 2014 10:47:50 GMT -5
Ok my problem here is we go INSIDE Syria to attack ISIS, how's that work for the Syrian govt? Has that ever stopped the US before? Not much fun in having a large military if you can't use it once in a while. So this could mean Syria may take that as an act of war against their own country, ok.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 11, 2014 10:48:36 GMT -5
The biggest failure was the assertion that there would be no ground troops sent. Because it makes the answer to all your questions above impossible. I understand the reluctance of the president (and the American people) to send in ground troops. But even if you have no intentions of sending in ground troops, you NEVER, EVER, tell that to the enemy. I believe it was Nixon who said the best advice Eisenhower ever gave him was "Never tell your enemies what you won't do." Sounds like more of the same strategy that Bush used, until he realized it was not enough and then surged. O didn't learn. History repeating itself. As the saying goes "either sh!# or get off the pot". This will last longer than it needs too and ground troops (I mean more ground troops because we already have some there even though O calls them something different) are inevitable. Honestly, I wish we could 'get off the pot' with ISIS. Unfortunately, those people are so bat-$h!t crazy, they've vowed to bring the pot here if we don't crush them there. Ground troops are probably unavoidable. A real leader would be trying to prepare the American public for that rather than swearing them off.
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Sept 11, 2014 10:51:15 GMT -5
A few Daisy Cutters or newer versions will get them all. The BLU-82B/C-130 weapon system, known under program "Commando Vault" and nicknamed "daisy cutter" in Vietnam and in Afghanistan for its ability to flatten a forest into a helicopter landing zone, is a 15,000 pound (6,800 kg) conventional bomb, delivered from either a C-130 or an MC-130 transport aircraft. There were 225 constructed.[1] The BLU-82 was retired in 2008 and replaced with the more powerful MOAB. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-82
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Sept 11, 2014 12:18:36 GMT -5
A few Daisy Cutters or newer versions will get them all. The BLU-82B/C-130 weapon system, known under program "Commando Vault" and nicknamed "daisy cutter" in Vietnam and in Afghanistan for its ability to flatten a forest into a helicopter landing zone, is a 15,000 pound (6,800 kg) conventional bomb, delivered from either a C-130 or an MC-130 transport aircraft. There were 225 constructed.[1] The BLU-82 was retired in 2008 and replaced with the more powerful MOAB. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-82I'm going to add asymmetrical warfare to the list of things you apparently do not understand.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 11, 2014 13:22:52 GMT -5
I don't know about you, Breaking bad... but I've never heard him say he thought Iraq would remain a peaceful and safe country... maybe you have... most folks know that the Middle East has been a strife ridden area since Biblical times... and I don't think he believes any different... And I can say that because I've "been around" all along... He said, when he pulled all of our troops out, that Iraq was "stable". Another lie. Unless I am mistaken, I believe what he said was that Iraq was "stable but not safe"... (I thought that was a strange remark)... and it was about as stable as it had been in 20-25 years... it hasn't been safe in at least 50 years... we needed to get the hell out... we were too late getting out already... over 4,000 lives too late...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 11, 2014 13:25:41 GMT -5
They've had a lot of practice... especially since 2003... it's about damn time they became better organized... and now they have some equipment left by the Iraqis that we had given them... Yup, thanks to The Puppet's precipitous, unilateral surrender and bailing on them. Our presence was scheduled to end... and he simply kept the appointment... far later than we should have been there... it's THEIR problem, not ours...
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Sept 11, 2014 15:25:01 GMT -5
I criticized President Bush for the same lack of clarity of objectives. No nation should commit itself to war until it is sure what it hopes to accomplish by doing so. And Iraq was hardly all out war. Well, I can agree it wasn't nuclear... (because "W" couldn't pronounce it... )... but many thousands of Americans died on Iraqi soil... more than that maimed for life... I call that all out war of a sort... NAP time, guys... got up too early this AM... (this is my "surrender" post... )... That's good news. Means Obama can't use the Marine Corp. anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by cyclegeek on Sept 11, 2014 15:54:31 GMT -5
Yup, thanks to The Puppet's precipitous, unilateral surrender and bailing on them. Our presence was scheduled to end... and he simply kept the appointment... far later than we should have been there... it's THEIR problem, not ours... Yup, it's that simple, THEIR problem. Maybe we should adopt your foreign policy.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Sept 11, 2014 17:26:52 GMT -5
Yup, thanks to The Puppet's precipitous, unilateral surrender and bailing on them. Our presence was scheduled to end... and he simply kept the appointment... far later than we should have been there... it's THEIR problem, not ours... "Do not ask to know then, for whom the bells toll; it tolls for thee." John Donne Aboutwell,the reality of life is that anywhere a group like ISIS is allowed to remain alive, it is all of our problem.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 11, 2014 18:44:49 GMT -5
Well, I can agree it wasn't nuclear... (because "W" couldn't pronounce it... )... but many thousands of Americans died on Iraqi soil... more than that maimed for life... I call that all out war of a sort... NAP time, guys... got up too early this AM... (this is my "surrender" post... )... That's good news. Means Obama can't use the Marine Corp. anywhere. I guess you missed my ... right?...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 11, 2014 18:46:15 GMT -5
Our presence was scheduled to end... and he simply kept the appointment... far later than we should have been there... it's THEIR problem, not ours... Yup, it's that simple, THEIR problem. Maybe we should adopt your foreign policy. Then we'd be like a lot of other countries who mind their own business... and let other people take care of their own problems... when it doesn't directly effect us...
|
|