Obama: ISIS a Manageable Crisis

[NYcarbineer]

[



Yes, but ISIS remains a true threat TODAY. Congress must address this, Boehner is fundraising, a FOUR week trip, and Reid is also not demanding action. I have emailed and called, has anyone ELSE?

Is Boehner the commander in chief? Is Reid the commander in chief?
No. Obama is Commander in Chief. He needs to start acting like one.

So you believe the President currently has an AUMF for going to war against ISIS?

 

[The Rabbi]

I dont know what an AUMF is.
But the president as commander in chief has wide latitude to order military action. I made that point in another thread.
Do you think the president is somehow not responsible for foreign policy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I dont know what an AUMF is.
But the president as commander in chief has wide latitude to order military action. I made that point in another thread.
Do you think the president is somehow not responsible for foreign policy?

Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Sorry.

 

[Rotagilla]

Maybe instead of our men lost, we can use this opportunity to get Iran to give up the nuclear program and Assads dictatorship if we team up and supply the Iraqis again and the Kurds(which are great fighters) in the north. Also if we can be seen as doing a favor for the whole middle east maybe they won't use us coming in again as a recruitment tool for their terrorist groups like they always have in the past.

Well, hell..you got it all figured out. We arm our enemies, "get iraq to give up its' nuclear program"... get Assad all straightened out and the entire problem is solved and they will welcome us with flowers and lollipops.
Hop on over there and present your plan. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to learn how easy it all could be.

 

[jillian]

At his Estonian press conference this morning President Obama called ISIS a "manageable crisis."
Manageable crisis is when your basement floods. Why can't he take a stronger public stance on ISIS? Is there a strategy here or...I'm not getting it.

of course you aren't. you would have to have working synapses to understand what he said. should he say ISIS isn't manageable?

 

[jillian]

I dont know what an AUMF is.
But the president as commander in chief has wide latitude to order military action. I made that point in another thread.
Do you think the president is somehow not responsible for foreign policy?

Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Sorry.

that would mean congress actually has to do something and not just flail about.

 

[jillian]

So our strategy is to threaten the terrorists with the long arm of justice....

Our own criminals don't care about the law but I'm sure the terrorists are quaking in their boots.

so what exactly should be done other than running around saying muslims are "evil-doers"?

 

[Swagger]

So our strategy is to threaten the terrorists with the long arm of justice....

Our own criminals don't care about the law but I'm sure the terrorists are quaking in their boots.

so what exactly should be done other than running around saying muslims are "evil-doers"?

Well, for a start, Muslims and their culture should be clearly identified as a serious liability within the West.

 

[NLT]

ISIS is a bunch of ruthless terrorists

The US will hunt them down and kill them

That sounds manageable

Yes..we're doing such a good job of it they murder americans on television, mock the president by name and threaten to come do it in america.
I can see we have them on the run and are in complete control of the situation. We're doing great!

I like the chances of the US surviving much more than the chances of ISIS leadership surviving

You **** with the US, we will get you. It may take a while, it may seem like we have given up the chase....but sooner or later, we will get you

Too bad obama didn't say what you just said.

 

[jillian]

So our strategy is to threaten the terrorists with the long arm of justice....

Our own criminals don't care about the law but I'm sure the terrorists are quaking in their boots.

so what exactly should be done other than running around saying muslims are "evil-doers"?

Well, for a start, Muslims and their culture should be clearly identified as a serious liability within the West.

and as a matter of foreign policy, then what?

 

[speedy sunday]

Maybe instead of our men lost, we can use this opportunity to get Iran to give up the nuclear program and Assads dictatorship if we team up and supply the Iraqis again and the Kurds(which are great fighters) in the north. Also if we can be seen as doing a favor for the whole middle east maybe they won't use us coming in again as a recruitment tool for their terrorist groups like they always have in the past.

Well, hell..you got it all figured out. We arm our enemies, "get iraq to give up its' nuclear program"... get Assad all straightened out and the entire problem is solved and they will welcome us with flowers and lollipops.
Hop on over there and present your plan. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to learn how easy it all could be.

I was just trying to think of a way to avoid another 14 year war that does nothing but kill Americans and make millions more terrorist in the process so again it would be much worse when and if we ever leave after spending another trillion dollars.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I dont know what an AUMF is.
But the president as commander in chief has wide latitude to order military action. I made that point in another thread.
Do you think the president is somehow not responsible for foreign policy?

Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Sorry.

that would mean congress actually has to do something and not just flail about.

With virtually no support from the American People (you remember them, right?) for a re-entanglement in Iraq,

how many members of Congress want to have to cast that vote?

 

[Rotagilla]

So our strategy is to threaten the terrorists with the long arm of justice....

Our own criminals don't care about the law but I'm sure the terrorists are quaking in their boots.

so what exactly should be done other than running around saying muslims are "evil-doers"?

ask the president. He's the one in a jam.
He wanted the job, just not the work.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So our strategy is to threaten the terrorists with the long arm of justice....

Our own criminals don't care about the law but I'm sure the terrorists are quaking in their boots.

so what exactly should be done other than running around saying muslims are "evil-doers"?

Well, for a start, Muslims and their culture should be clearly identified as a serious liability within the West.

Including the 99% who aren't a liability?

 

[Rotagilla]

I dont know what an AUMF is.
But the president as commander in chief has wide latitude to order military action. I made that point in another thread.
Do you think the president is somehow not responsible for foreign policy?

Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Sorry.

that would mean congress actually has to do something and not just flail about.

With virtually no support from the American People (you remember them, right?) for a re-entanglement in Iraq,

how many members of Congress want to have to cast that vote?

Oh..congress is important again to the left?
LMAO..quite a mess...

 

[NYcarbineer]

How about we do what the Chinese do? ...regarding the Middle East, that is.

 

[jillian]

I dont know what an AUMF is.
But the president as commander in chief has wide latitude to order military action. I made that point in another thread.
Do you think the president is somehow not responsible for foreign policy?

Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Sorry.

that would mean congress actually has to do something and not just flail about.

With virtually no support from the American People (you remember them, right?) for a re-entanglement in Iraq,

how many members of Congress want to have to cast that vote?

I think at some point the American public has to understand just how bad this group is. that doesn'tmean we go willy-nilly into another Iraq debacle. it means you put together exactly the type of worldwide coalition, intel, etc. that was discussed in Talinn this morning.

the trick is to be thoughtful in the use of power. but there should be authorization for airstrikes at a minimum.

 

[mudwhistle]

on a side note

the number of troops going into Iraq now has climbed to 1213

...but...but....
Iraq war over, US troops coming home, Obama says

Obama, an opponent of the war since before he took office, nevertheless praised the efforts of U.S. troops in Iraq. He said American soldiers would leave "with their heads held high, proud of their success."

Iraq war over US troops coming home Obama says - Yahoo News

"I just don't spend that much time on bin Laden"

"Truly not concerned about bin Laden"

Bush 2002

Of course he had a war to promote against a SECULAR Arab leader. Keep up the cr*p, I will remind those so doing of the FACTS.

Things were different. bin laden was completely marginalized and in hiding. We were focusing on the people actually out there shooting at us. I understand your need to constantly...(6 years now)...point at "bush".
this isn't a static situation and it's ridiculous to try to use standards and situations from over 6 years ago to justify the complete chaos and dysfunction in the ME.
"war" is a constantly changing, dynamic, fluid and non linear thing.

The bottom line is this;
These people weren't cutting off americans heads in front of the whole world..essentially on television.
Spin it however you think you need to but they feared american response if they openly and defiantly cut off americans heads on television.,Not to mention that they PURPOSELY, specifically mocked obama by name and then threatened to come do it in america.
LMAO.."bush" ...or almost any patriotic american president, would have bombed them back into the stone age...and rightly so.

You're funny!

I guess I don't understand what you mean. if we unilaterally fight ISIS we have to also send our troops back over there in the middle of the 3000 year old civil war between the Sunni and the Shia. the Shia are Iran, Syria and Assad, there leade, and the new Iraq government that's a week old.The Sunnis are Saudi Arabia and Jordan our allis. that would mean that we're now fighting for Assad and Iran. Maybe instead of our men lost, we can use this opportunity to get Iran to give up the nuclear program and Assads dictatorship if we team up and supply the Iraqis again and the Kurds(which are great fighters) in the north. Also if we can be seen as doing a favor for the whole middle east maybe they won't use us coming in again as a recruitment tool for their terrorist groups like they always have in the past. That's where ISIS came from in the first place, us invading Iraq.

But then if Obama had done the right thing in the first place we wouldn't have to go back in. We'd already be there.

For the thousandth time, we couldn't stay. Nor should we have. We have to make up our mind. Stop meddling, or keep meddling.

So the solution is to meddle in an ineffective manner.

Gotcha

 

[jillian]

I dont know what an AUMF is.
But the president as commander in chief has wide latitude to order military action. I made that point in another thread.
Do you think the president is somehow not responsible for foreign policy?

Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Sorry.

that would mean congress actually has to do something and not just flail about.

With virtually no support from the American People (you remember them, right?) for a re-entanglement in Iraq,

how many members of Congress want to have to cast that vote?

Oh..congress is important again to the left?
LMAO..quite a mess...

well, they do have to choose at some point. they'd rather not cast a vote because then they can claim the president acted outside of his authority... or claim he didn't do anything. they prefer that to taking responsibility for anything.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I dont know what an AUMF is.
But the president as commander in chief has wide latitude to order military action. I made that point in another thread.
Do you think the president is somehow not responsible for foreign policy?

Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Sorry.

that would mean congress actually has to do something and not just flail about.

With virtually no support from the American People (you remember them, right?) for a re-entanglement in Iraq,

how many members of Congress want to have to cast that vote?

Oh..congress is important again to the left?
LMAO..quite a mess...

You should state your position and quit trolling.