Britain's Threat Level Just Raised to "Highly Likely"

[EconChick]

No worries, Jackson...actually probably good thing....

 

[EconChick]

...especially since Cameron finally put to rest the leftie argument that ISIS is because of Iraq War. He went out of his way to say it was NOT.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama has nothing to worry about. It's not like ISIS is in Chicago or something.

Motorist With ISIS Flag Makes Bomb Threat Against Police CBS Chicago

 

[Wry Catcher]

Gee, if Obama uses drones to kill terrorists, he's wrong; if he does not, he's soft on terrorism. When he uses air power he's criticized and when he honestly admits no strategy can be agreed on, he's criticized.

So, all you critics, tell us what he should do, when and at what cost?

 

[Wry Catcher]

...especially since Cameron finally put to rest the leftie argument that ISIS is because of Iraq War. He went out of his way to say it was NOT.

appeal to authority
You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

 

[Toro]

What's Obama doing?

Why doesn't he swoop in and save Britain?

 

[EconChick]

...especially since Cameron finally put to rest the leftie argument that ISIS is because of Iraq War. He went out of his way to say it was NOT.

appeal to authority
You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

And you act like every thing an authority on a subject says cannot be true. Can't you use a little judgment....just a little?

Typical upside down Bizzarro Lib thinking.

There are numerous reasons why one should listen to Cameron. This would be an opportunity for him to throw Tony Blair, who is in the opposite party, under the bus....the way Obama the idiot does. But he has access to a ton more intel YOU have and he's showing he's not playing politics for starters.

 

[EconChick]

Gee, if Obama uses drones to kill terrorists, he's wrong; if he does not, he's soft on terrorism. When he uses air power he's criticized and when he honestly admits no strategy can be agreed on, he's criticized.

So, all you critics, tell us what he should do, when and at what cost?

Here's a suggestion. Read more and post less on the subject. You show an amazing amount of ignorance about military operations by your post. His half-assed drone drone program was part of the problem as one little bitsy example.

 

[Erand7899]

ISIS isn't something that popped up a couple of weeks ago, although Obama may have learned of it's existance from the media. It appears that Obama cannot go on vacation, and still do his job. Months have passed, and Obama has no strategy to deal with ISIS? What an incompetent boob.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Gee, if Obama uses drones to kill terrorists, he's wrong; if he does not, he's soft on terrorism. When he uses air power he's criticized and when he honestly admits no strategy can be agreed on, he's criticized.

So, all you critics, tell us what he should do, when and at what cost?

Here's a suggestion. Read more and post less on the subject. You show an amazing amount of ignorance about military operations by your post. His half-assed drone drone program was part of the problem as one little bitsy example.

Thanks so much for this non response/ad hominem critique. That you don't have a clue wold be the honest answer; non responsive, ad hominems and dishonesty are the forte of partisan hacks and nasty people.

 

[Wry Catcher]

...especially since Cameron finally put to rest the leftie argument that ISIS is because of Iraq War. He went out of his way to say it was NOT.

appeal to authority
You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

And you act like every thing an authority on a subject says cannot be true. Can't you use a little judgment....just a little?

Typical upside down Bizzarro Lib thinking.

There are numerous reasons why one should listen to Cameron. This would be an opportunity for him to throw Tony Blair, who is in the opposite party, under the bus....the way Obama the idiot does. But he has access to a ton more intel YOU have and he's showing he's not playing politics for starters.

 

[Wry Catcher]

EconChick (EC), one 'authority' can be contrasted with another and another, something even simple concrete thinkers can imagine. I didn't say Cameron lied nor that he is not in a postion to know more than I. However, I can easily point out you not only use an appeal to authority as incontroversial proof; then attack me for suggesting it is not, when anyone with an education knows it is evidence, but question its probatory worth, and understand the evidence is one man's opinion and thus does not meet the burden of proor necessary to be clear and convincing, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Wry Catcher]

ISIS isn't something that popped up a couple of weeks ago, although Obama may have learned of it's existance from the media. It appears that Obama cannot go on vacation, and still do his job. Months have passed, and Obama has no strategy to deal with ISIS? What an incompetent boob.

What should he do?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I just luv the New Right - full of "ain't it awful" but not one solution to any of the problems facing our nation in this second decade of the 21st Century. Sure, it's easy to play armchair QB after the fact, but it's not honest nor substantive - it's simply whining.

 

[Jackson]

ISIS isn't something that popped up a couple of weeks ago, although Obama may have learned of it's existance from the media. It appears that Obama cannot go on vacation, and still do his job. Months have passed, and Obama has no strategy to deal with ISIS? What an incompetent boob.

What should he do?

Stay in town and meet with advisers and Dept.of Defense to determine the best course of action. NOT go to fundraisers.

 

[Jackson]

ISIS isn't something that popped up a couple of weeks ago, although Obama may have learned of it's existance from the media. It appears that Obama cannot go on vacation, and still do his job. Months have passed, and Obama has no strategy to deal with ISIS? What an incompetent boob.

What should he do?

Stay in town and meet with advisers and Dept.of Defense to determine the best course of action. Perhaps meet with a coalition of countries to meet this threat. But I am no foreign policy expert. He could call John Bolton. NOT go to fundraisers.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Why Obama Backed Off More ISIS Strikes: His Own Team Couldn’t Agree on a Syria Strategy
Why Obama Backed Off More ISIS Strikes His Own Team Couldn t Agree on a Syria Strategy - The Daily Beast

From your link. "National Security staffers but also including some intelligence and military officials -- favored a more cautious approach that spurned any cooperation with the Free Syrian Army and focused strikes inside Syria on targets near the Iraqi border. The objective: cut off ISIS supply lines to Iraq."

Another group of officials -- led by White House and National Security staffers but also including some intelligence and military officials -- favored a more cautious approach that spurned any cooperation with the Free Syrian Army and focused strikes inside Syria on targets near the Iraqi border. The objective: cut off ISIS supply lines to Iraq. That strategy would fall more squarely within the existing limited missions that Obama has already outlined for his war.

Inside the intelligence community, there is a dispute about whether the Free Syrian Army, which has been fighting ISIS in Syria all yearwith little international support,can be a reliable partner for any military mission inside Syria.

Senior U.S. intelligence officials say the official assessment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence recommended against working with the Free Syrian Army. "The intelligence community assessment has no serious consideration to work with the Free Syrian Army to date," a senior U.S. intelligence official said. "The folks sitting around the table today do not think we can work with them."

The action on the ground in Syria cannot be American troops.

Americans in their right minds wouid be demanding that ground forces from nations in the area be sent in with a combat plan to be coordinated with US air power.

But instead we have foolish Americans who scream bomb now and have a plan later. Like invade Iraq when there was no war and worry about the plan later when a war has been created.

Total fools they are.

Obama looks to be on the best path by focusing on Iraq where ground troops are available and the new government there gets set up to have and develop a clear strategy and then execute it.

The war against ISIS in Syria needs Arab nations in the region to step up and fight these barbarians themselves on the ground. We can't fight their wars for them or conduct a war absolutely only from 5000 feet off the ground and higher. Intelligent Americans would see the need to back Obama's call for leaders in the region to develop and commit forces and resources to an all out assault on IS terrorists positions and assets.

 

[Jackson]

Why Obama Backed Off More ISIS Strikes: His Own Team Couldn’t Agree on a Syria Strategy
Why Obama Backed Off More ISIS Strikes His Own Team Couldn t Agree on a Syria Strategy - The Daily Beast

From your link. "National Security staffers but also including some intelligence and military officials -- favored a more cautious approach that spurned any cooperation with the Free Syrian Army and focused strikes inside Syria on targets near the Iraqi border. The objective: cut off ISIS supply lines to Iraq."

Another group of officials -- led by White House and National Security staffers but also including some intelligence and military officials -- favored a more cautious approach that spurned any cooperation with the Free Syrian Army and focused strikes inside Syria on targets near the Iraqi border. The objective: cut off ISIS supply lines to Iraq. That strategy would fall more squarely within the existing limited missions that Obama has already outlined for his war.

Inside the intelligence community, there is a dispute about whether the Free Syrian Army, which has been fighting ISIS in Syria all yearwith little international support,can be a reliable partner for any military mission inside Syria.

Senior U.S. intelligence officials say the official assessment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence recommended against working with the Free Syrian Army. "The intelligence community assessment has no serious consideration to work with the Free Syrian Army to date," a senior U.S. intelligence official said. "The folks sitting around the table today do not think we can work with them."

The action on the ground in Syria cannot be American troops.

Americans in their right minds wouid be demanding that ground forces from nations in the area be sent in with a combat plan to be coordinated with US air power.

But instead we have foolish Americans who scream bomb now and have a plan later. Like invade Iraq when there was no war and worry about the plan later when a war has been created.

Total fools they are.

Obama looks to be on the best path by focusing on Iraq where ground troops are available and the new government there gets set up to have and develop a clear strategy and then execute it.

The war against ISIS in Syria needs Arab nations in the region to step up and fight these barbarians themselves on the ground. We can't fight their wars for them or conduct a war absolutely only from 5000 feet off the ground and higher. Intelligent Americans would see the need to back Obama's call for leaders in the region to develop and commit forces and resources to an all out assault on IS terrorists positions and assets.

I think you just gave more thought to the problem of ISIS in the few seconds you wrote that post than Obama gave in the last three days.

 

[Wry Catcher]

ISIS isn't something that popped up a couple of weeks ago, although Obama may have learned of it's existance from the media. It appears that Obama cannot go on vacation, and still do his job. Months have passed, and Obama has no strategy to deal with ISIS? What an incompetent boob.

What should he do?

Stay in town and meet with advisers and Dept.of Defense to determine the best course of action. NOT go to fundraisers.

"Ain't it awful" that President Obama is the only Pol, and only POTUS to attend fundraisers. Ain't it just awful!

Let's try Jackson's post again, this time let's make it substantive and framed by the real world.

It's terrible that when faced with a myriad of problems the Congress takes off 5 weeks (how many weeks did they take off this year? Anyone know?) and the President takes off two. Of course the POTUS is never really on vacation, since the 'football' is never more than a few feet away from him 24-7-365 and he can communicate with any of his advisers/cabnet members at a moments notice.

It's terrible that five members of the Supreme Court equate the ability to buy political commericals - many of dubious honesty - with free speech.

Congress should be paid a per diem, for each day The Congress is in session, and only to those members who are in attendance should be paid. No per diem shall be paid to any member of the Congress when the Congress is not in session. That's an idea, and a solution.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why Obama Backed Off More ISIS Strikes: His Own Team Couldn’t Agree on a Syria Strategy
Why Obama Backed Off More ISIS Strikes His Own Team Couldn t Agree on a Syria Strategy - The Daily Beast

From your link. "National Security staffers but also including some intelligence and military officials -- favored a more cautious approach that spurned any cooperation with the Free Syrian Army and focused strikes inside Syria on targets near the Iraqi border. The objective: cut off ISIS supply lines to Iraq."

Another group of officials -- led by White House and National Security staffers but also including some intelligence and military officials -- favored a more cautious approach that spurned any cooperation with the Free Syrian Army and focused strikes inside Syria on targets near the Iraqi border. The objective: cut off ISIS supply lines to Iraq. That strategy would fall more squarely within the existing limited missions that Obama has already outlined for his war.

Inside the intelligence community, there is a dispute about whether the Free Syrian Army, which has been fighting ISIS in Syria all yearwith little international support,can be a reliable partner for any military mission inside Syria.

Senior U.S. intelligence officials say the official assessment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence recommended against working with the Free Syrian Army. "The intelligence community assessment has no serious consideration to work with the Free Syrian Army to date," a senior U.S. intelligence official said. "The folks sitting around the table today do not think we can work with them."

The action on the ground in Syria cannot be American troops.

Americans in their right minds wouid be demanding that ground forces from nations in the area be sent in with a combat plan to be coordinated with US air power.

But instead we have foolish Americans who scream bomb now and have a plan later. Like invade Iraq when there was no war and worry about the plan later when a war has been created.

Total fools they are.

Obama looks to be on the best path by focusing on Iraq where ground troops are available and the new government there gets set up to have and develop a clear strategy and then execute it.

The war against ISIS in Syria needs Arab nations in the region to step up and fight these barbarians themselves on the ground. We can't fight their wars for them or conduct a war absolutely only from 5000 feet off the ground and higher. Intelligent Americans would see the need to back Obama's call for leaders in the region to develop and commit forces and resources to an all out assault on IS terrorists positions and assets.

I think you just gave more thought to the problem of ISIS in the few seconds you wrote that post than Obama gave in the last three days.

You believe President Obama doesn't think about terrorists and all the other problems we face? What or who makes you believe such an absurdity?