Predictably, Obama makes a VAGUE ISIS war powers request.

[Redfish]

I have a question: Why does obama call them ISIL and everyone else in the world calls them ISIS?

Is this more of his refusing to admit that they are islamic terrorists?

It means exactly the same thing. In fact, most in Europe also call it ISIL.

Hint: L stands for Levant.

Who the fuck really cares what acronym is being used by any particular group or cell.

It is all part of the same problem, a problem that is not ours.

We need to let all these Muslims sort this shit out themselves, with one side dragging the other back into the 7th century, or the other side maybe jerking the Muslim world into at least the 20th century.

If they kill a quarter of a billion of each other, so be it.

the problem with that approach is that they have attacked us on our soil. They have declared war on the USA. If Obama had the balls that the king of Jordan has, this would already be nothing but a black mark in the history books.

 

[Darkwind]

Given the real problem that ISIS is, I have already written My Congressman and Senator urging them to give the President some form of authorization to conduct a war against this group of people.

If he [the President] is willing to put troops into the fray in the hopes of making this a decisive war, I support him 100%...

However, no more Nation building. Just kill the fuckers and go home afterward.

That is the problem with such things, when does one claim victory?

It will create a vacuum of power, however Obama will not fight a decisive war as he has been running the limited war narrative in his current illegal wars..

He has stated many time he wants to contain ISIS, yet they still grow by leaps and bounds.

The more that Obama caters to the extremists in his party (the far left) the faster ISIS will gain power.

You claim victory when they lost the ability to harm anyone else. No surrender, no quarter.

Destroy them utterly.

Then go home and eat PB&J sandwiches.

 

[Kosh]

Given the real problem that ISIS is, I have already written My Congressman and Senator urging them to give the President some form of authorization to conduct a war against this group of people.

If he [the President] is willing to put troops into the fray in the hopes of making this a decisive war, I support him 100%...

However, no more Nation building. Just kill the fuckers and go home afterward.

That is the problem with such things, when does one claim victory?

It will create a vacuum of power, however Obama will not fight a decisive war as he has been running the limited war narrative in his current illegal wars..

He has stated many time he wants to contain ISIS, yet they still grow by leaps and bounds.

The more that Obama caters to the extremists in his party (the far left) the faster ISIS will gain power.

You claim victory when they lost the ability to harm anyone else. No surrender, no quarter.

Destroy them utterly.

Then go home and eat PB&J sandwiches.

Did not Obama claim this of the non JV team AQ?

Are they utterly destroyed?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Those posters suffering from ODS will receive no response.

One, I don't want any more US troops on the ground there, Spec Ops or otherwise.

Two, however, Obama has just stunned the war supporters in both parties and isolated the opponents in both parties. It will take months to for them to sort it all out.

Three, until Congress can pass a new war powers act, Obama runs the war as he wants.

He did no such thing. He looks a fool as usual. You missed it again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those posters suffering from ODS will receive no response.

One, I don't want any more US troops on the ground there, Spec Ops or otherwise.

Two, however, Obama has just stunned the war supporters in both parties and isolated the opponents in both parties. It will take months to for them to sort it all out.

Three, until Congress can pass a new war powers act, Obama runs the war as he wants.

He did no such thing. He looks a fool as usual. You missed it again.

Nope, but you do. As far as politics, he outmaneuvered the extremes on right and left, and he has forced the party leaders to deal with this, while he runs the war as he wants.

 

[Manonthestreet]

It is the most amazing RWNJ metamorphosis one can imagine:

2013: "He's a pussy, he needs to invade Syria!!!"
2015: "It's an illegal war! He's a warmonger!!"

lol....

Public was against that by large margin...try another lie

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Those posters suffering from ODS will receive no response.

One, I don't want any more US troops on the ground there, Spec Ops or otherwise.

Two, however, Obama has just stunned the war supporters in both parties and isolated the opponents in both parties. It will take months to for them to sort it all out.

Three, until Congress can pass a new war powers act, Obama runs the war as he wants.

He did no such thing. He looks a fool as usual. You missed it again.

Nope, but you do. As far as politics, he outmaneuvered the extremes on right and left, and he has forced the party leaders to deal with this, while he runs the war as he wants.

I'll go ahead and add that his and the opposing party are looking the fool also.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Guy has demonstrated we need to withhold this. Let him do what he is doing and declare victory they arent a threat its just jv's

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is your ODS talking, LBT. He made the extremes on left and right, like you, look silly. Either you oppose him and thus support the terrorists, or you support him and alienate the far right.

 

[g5000]

Was Bush's AUMF not "vague"?

The way he behaved, you would have thought it said, "Kill whoever you like, invade whatever countries you want, torture as many people you feel like, and spy on as many Americans you wish. Just don't let us catch you on the golf course without a flag pin."

I'd be real careful which yardstick you use to measure Obama. It might get slapped back in your face, hypocrites.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

That is your ODS talking, LBT. He made the extremes on left and right, like you, look silly. Either you oppose him and thus support the terrorists, or you support him and alienate the far right.

Sure, JS. Lol. Meanwhile, he's got you all up in a tizzy again. You should send him some flowers this valentine.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Was Bush's AUMF not "vague"?

The way he behaved, you would have thought it said, "Kill whoever you like, invade whatever countries you want, torture as many people you feel like, and spy on as many Americans you wish. Just don't let us catch you on the golf course without a flag pin."

Which is still in effect making this one unnecessary......

 

[g5000]

IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Doesn't get more vague than that!

 

[g5000]

Was Bush's AUMF not "vague"?

The way he behaved, you would have thought it said, "Kill whoever you like, invade whatever countries you want, torture as many people you feel like, and spy on as many Americans you wish. Just don't let us catch you on the golf course without a flag pin."

Which is still in effect making this one unnecessary......

Did ISIS plan, authorize, commit, or aid the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001?

Nope.

Thus the need for a new AUMF.

 

[Kosh]

Was Bush's AUMF not "vague"?

The way he behaved, you would have thought it said, "Kill whoever you like, invade whatever countries you want, torture as many people you feel like, and spy on as many Americans you wish. Just don't let us catch you on the golf course without a flag pin."

Which is still in effect making this one unnecessary......

ISIS attacked the US on 9/11?

 

[g5000]

You mean Obama is finally going to seek authorization for his illegal war?

If President Romney was bombing ISIS, would you be calling it an "illegal war"?

Wouldn't President Romney also need a new AUMF?

 

[Darkwind]

Given the real problem that ISIS is, I have already written My Congressman and Senator urging them to give the President some form of authorization to conduct a war against this group of people.

If he [the President] is willing to put troops into the fray in the hopes of making this a decisive war, I support him 100%...

However, no more Nation building. Just kill the fuckers and go home afterward.

That is the problem with such things, when does one claim victory?

It will create a vacuum of power, however Obama will not fight a decisive war as he has been running the limited war narrative in his current illegal wars..

He has stated many time he wants to contain ISIS, yet they still grow by leaps and bounds.

The more that Obama caters to the extremists in his party (the far left) the faster ISIS will gain power.

You claim victory when they lost the ability to harm anyone else. No surrender, no quarter.

Destroy them utterly.

Then go home and eat PB&J sandwiches.

Did not Obama claim this of the non JV team AQ?

Are they utterly destroyed?

Well, let Me qualify that then.

When the JCS declare them destroyed, then I'll call it a day.

 

[Kosh]

You mean Obama is finally going to seek authorization for his illegal war?

If President Romney was bombing ISIS, would you be calling it an "illegal war"?

Wouldn't President Romney also need a new AUMF?

The far left drones and their propaganda!

See how the far left drones protect Obama's illegal wars..

 

[Manonthestreet]

Was Bush's AUMF not "vague"?

The way he behaved, you would have thought it said, "Kill whoever you like, invade whatever countries you want, torture as many people you feel like, and spy on as many Americans you wish. Just don't let us catch you on the golf course without a flag pin."

Which is still in effect making this one unnecessary......

Did ISIS plan, authorize, commit, or aid the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001?

Nope.

Thus the need for a new AUMF.

Gee didnt know it said only AQ or just Taliban.........try again

 

[g5000]

Was Bush's AUMF not "vague"?

The way he behaved, you would have thought it said, "Kill whoever you like, invade whatever countries you want, torture as many people you feel like, and spy on as many Americans you wish. Just don't let us catch you on the golf course without a flag pin."

Which is still in effect making this one unnecessary......

Did ISIS plan, authorize, commit, or aid the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001?

Nope.

Thus the need for a new AUMF.

Gee didnt know it said only AQ or just Taliban.........try again

ISIS is not covered by the current AUMF.

Read the AUMF. Go ahead. We'll wait for you to catch up.