Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
Dear Guest:
I have just the opposite view. It is clear that Obama is dead set against any engagement Josh Ernest said on his behalf that since the situation with ISIS is likely to change in two years he will leave it fro the next president.. translated I created a mess and you can clean it up.
So who among the 2016 candidates is likely to be best at foreign policy.
Given Hillary's disastrous stab at foreign policy while Secretary of State
Benghazi, Russia, etc this candidate traveled around the world more times than an astronaut and all for naught. Nice boondoggle for her.
The head of ISIS is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and is intent on claiming the city whose name he bears and a man wh declared himself a caliph.
Such a candidate should use air power very strategically, conduct purposeful commando raids, capture and interrogate ISIS leaders and send ground combat forces such as engineers, artillery units.
There is much that America can do but we need a candidate who has the intestinal fortitude and the will to fight and more importantly the desire to win. Time is not on our side. History has proved the consequences of being dragged into a war. Quick decisive moves will save lives in the long run
Personal Best Regards:
|
Well, I do agreee with what you say, but I understood that she was asking how any potential Republican was responding to the question.
Understand, I have no doubt, she was trying to be an instigator of sorts since that is what she does.
I was trying to just advise her that President Obama is in charge right now, and the only reason folks are commenting on this is because whatever we are doing is failing.
If Sen MCain was correct, and I have no way of validating it, that 75% of our air missions are returning without firing a shot simply because they need the logistical support from the ground...well then someone needs to get fired NOW.