Boots on the ground

[Guest]

Former Gov. Pataki said he is running for President. He stated today that he would send in American troops to ISIS held areas to destroy training and planning sites and then get out.

What are viewpoints of the other candidates?

Currently, there are about 3,000 American troops in Iraq giving training to the Iraquis.

[Guest]

Former Gov. Pataki said he is running for President. He stated today that he would send in American troops to ISIS held areas to destroy training and planning sites and then get out.

What are viewpoints of the other candidates?

Currently, there are about 3,000 American troops in Iraq giving training to the Iraquis.

To early for this discussion.

For the next year and half or so, we have one CINC and one congress. Candidates do not count at all.

I am not sure that a candidate, not in the Senate (meaning being aware of things) should say this.

The question to me is, when does it become NECESSARY to have boots on the ground and I hope the answer is we never have to, but to avoid that we need to quickly make some decisions and develop a well thought out plan (as opposed to no plan we have right now)

[Guest]

To early for this discussion.

For the next year and half or so, we have one CINC and one congress. Candidates do not count at all.

I am not sure that a candidate, not in the Senate (meaning being aware of things) should say this.

The question to me is, when does it become NECESSARY to have boots on the ground and I hope the answer is we never have to, but to avoid that we need to quickly make some decisions and develop a well thought out plan (as opposed to no plan we have right now)

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:

[Guest]

Doing nothing is always an alternatibe. It does require some knowledge and a conscious decision. Neither of which Obama has or done.

God help us if there is a major 9/11 type incident here in the USA.

[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.

[Guest]

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.

So, no answer as to what the Republican candidates are saying they would do - except it is not OUR problem?

This is a discussion site - for goodness sake, get off your political asses and try to actually discuss a situation.

Otherwise, it is just you jacking your jaws saying whatever Pres. Obama says or does is wrong.

[Guest]

So, no answer as to what the Republican candidates are saying they would do - except it is not OUR problem?

This is a discussion site - for goodness sake, get off your political asses and try to actually discuss a situation.

Otherwise, it is just you jacking your jaws saying whatever Pres. Obama says or does is wrong.

There is nobody on this forum who speaks for all candidates. If you are wanting someone to do your reading for you, forget it.

As I said, we have ONE plan to discuss for the next year and a half and one guy in charge. I think it is safe to say that they ALL , IN ADDITION TO A GROWING NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS, are unhappy with the plan and the leadership at present.

There have been a number of threads and discussions on this forum, where people "got off their asses" and voiced strong opinions. Most were met with either dead silence or wise cracks from the troll cronies. Actually, cannot recall a legit comment from the left on this issue. Next meeting of the cronies, you can...oh never mind....you are all about the snide non related little snippets.

It would be nice to have the left voice opinions instead of teenage wisecracks.

[Guest]

So, no answer as to what the Republican candidates are saying they would do - except it is not OUR problem?

This is a discussion site - for goodness sake, get off your political asses and try to actually discuss a situation.

Otherwise, it is just you jacking your jaws saying whatever Pres. Obama says or does is wrong.

calling a spade a spade does annoy some!

[Guest]

calling a spade a spade does annoy some!

Does not annoy me in anyway, and thank you for the short little cronie type comment....do not confront the issue, and defend the President if you want with facts or logic....nah....just troll the board and make wisecracks.

Why are so many of our limited air strikes not happening ?

Is Sen McCain correct in his statements ?

I think the President has said NO to troops on the ground...do you agree ?

His plan is all there is to discuss. He ignored Syria a few years ago with a phones red line, Should he have actually enforced his words ?



He allowed Russia to negotiate in order to stop the gassing of Syrians, and now it has resumed; should that be addresses ?

ISIL is now in Africa. We have no plan at all there. Should we address that ?

Is there anything our ONE commander in chief is doing on which you disagree or do you simply follow his lead in everything, and then troll this forum ?

[Guest]

US under this president has no will to defeat Isis. We are not even giving air support. How can this president know what these animals are capable of and do Nothing. If Obama had been president during WWII we would have lost. Where are the bleeding hearts in this country? Where are the Dems while this president remains silent in the face of genocide? Isis is winning and coming after America while this country does nothing

[Guest]

US under this president has no will to defeat Isis. We are not even giving air support. How can this president know what these animals are capable of and do Nothing. If Obama had been president during WWII we would have lost. Where are the bleeding hearts in this country? Where are the Dems while this president remains silent in the face of genocide? Isis is winning and coming after America while this country does nothing

You know, what bothers me is something that I would think would just be inherent and easy to do.

When the President submitted a new AUMF to congress, they were a bit shocked at the looseness in it.

"The “intentionally fuzzy” language in the resolution, as White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest has referred to it, has created far more questions for members of Congress than answers. In fact, the draft is not only getting picked apart by lawmakers, but trashed as insufficient to the monumental task at hand or so vague to render any limits on military force irrelevant.

Republicans like Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (Tenn.) and Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and Marco Rubio (Fla.) are vastly disappointed that Obama intentionally limited his own authority to conduct a war that every serious national security expert in the United States labels a top-tier challenge."

The AUMF: Obama fails to get Congress on his side | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/235825-the-aumf-obama-fails-to-get-congress-on-his-side)

Now, after Kerry, et all were unable to answer the congress's specific questions, it is now a political football. As planned the WH says that congress was inept in not passing it, but he knew exactly why it was not passed. He is now using this to attack the other party. Is he holding back to use all of this for politics ? I do not know...we will see.

Here is what has bothered me. The President of the United States never talk to the american people about this. When Ramadi went down, he simply said "we are not losing". That was it. I cannot imagine a President saying something like that to the american people in any situation but as a quick response to a question just boggles my mind.

Are we, the american people, just to flounder here. Wonder what he is doing or not doing ? Does he have plans to try and lift the spirits in the country, and as anyone who read knows his party is also getting antsy. ? Is this not part of the President job, i.e.., advise us what is happening ON A NON POLITICAL STAGE, and to pass some confidence on ? WHY is he not doing this is my question.

[Guest]

Of course its the president's job to inform us and this one never does he is the most naracistic , arrogant president ever. His own party is probably ashamed of him and rightly so as people are continuing to be killed, tortured, raped by these animals and he sits by. What a disgrace and how frightening for us knowing they are coming and already here. I absolutely hate to say this but Americans (our kids) are going to get what they deserve. By not paying attention, by burying their head in the sand, the enemy is moving closer everyday. It's only a matter of time now

[Guest]

You know, what bothers me is something that I would think would just be inherent and easy to do.

When the President submitted a new AUMF to congress, they were a bit shocked at the looseness in it.

"The “intentionally fuzzy” language in the resolution, as White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest has referred to it, has created far more questions for members of Congress than answers. In fact, the draft is not only getting picked apart by lawmakers, but trashed as insufficient to the monumental task at hand or so vague to render any limits on military force irrelevant.

Republicans like Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (Tenn.) and Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and Marco Rubio (Fla.) are vastly disappointed that Obama intentionally limited his own authority to conduct a war that every serious national security expert in the United States labels a top-tier challenge."

The AUMF: Obama fails to get Congress on his side | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/235825-the-aumf-obama-fails-to-get-congress-on-his-side)

Now, after Kerry, et all were unable to answer the congress's specific questions, it is now a political football. As planned the WH says that congress was inept in not passing it, but he knew exactly why it was not passed. He is now using this to attack the other party. Is he holding back to use all of this for politics ? I do not know...we will see.

Here is what has bothered me. The President of the United States never talk to the american people about this. When Ramadi went down, he simply said "we are not losing". That was it. I cannot imagine a President saying something like that to the american people in any situation but as a quick response to a question just boggles my mind.

Are we, the american people, just to flounder here. yes! Confirmed by almost 7 years of do nothing.

Wonder what he is doing or not doing ? Enjoying the high life while he has it.
Does he have plans to try and lift the spirits in the country, and as anyone who read knows his party is also getting antsy. ? Is this not part of the President job, i.e.., advise us what is happening ON A NON POLITICAL STAGE, and to pass some confidence on ? WHY is he not doing this is my question. because he has no interest and is incapable

I remain disappointed at the lack of response from the silent majority, including democrats and blacks, who can let his incompetence go on year after year. We trully are the frogs in the warming waters.

[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:





GOP Presidential Candidate Rand Paul: "GOP Created ISIS"

'They created these people': Rand Paul blames GOP hawks for rise of ISIS | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/27/rand-paul-blames-gop-hawks-for-rise-isis/)

And we all know Fox News ONLY publishes the truth


Best Personal Regards

[Guest]

GOP Presidential Candidate Rand Paul: "GOP Created ISIS"

'They created these people': Rand Paul blames GOP hawks for rise of ISIS | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/27/rand-paul-blames-gop-hawks-for-rise-isis/)

And we all know Fox News ONLY publishes the truth


Best Personal Regards

Not sure why this is being posted on this thread. It certainly is day old news and he makes a point that can be supported.

A number of ways to look at this issue, and I am sure you posted this to discuss the issue and not simply to dmean.
Quite a conversation in this topic this morning......what do you think of this approach...

"I think the argument that the Republicans should make and that the Wall Street Journal did make -- actually they didn't make this argument. If we followed Rand Paul's foreign policy there would be no ISIS, because we would never have gone into Iraq and Saddam Hussein would not be -- Saddam Hussein would still be there, ISIS would not. If we did not not pull out of Iraq the way we pulled out of Iraq. If you'd just gone George W. Bush or Dick JOE SCARBOROUGH: I think the argument that the Republicans should make and JOE SCARBOROUGH: I think the argument that the Republicans should make and that the Wall Street Journal did make -- actually they didn't make this argument. If we followed Rand Paul's foreign policy there would be no ISIS, because we would never have gone into Iraq and Saddam Hussein would not be -- Saddam Hussein would still be there, ISIS would not. If we did not not pull out of Iraq the way we pulled out of Iraq. If you'd just gone George W. Bush or Dick Cheney's way, ISIS would not be there Iraq because that void would have never been created.

The argument you could make is if you're a Republican, that the Wall Street Journal did make, is that it was Hillary Clinton, people like Hillary Clinton that were wrong both times. That were wrong saying let's go into Iraq and then let's leave Iraq quickly that created the first void. And then after order was brought, which Dexter Filkins (of The New York Times) and everybody else says was in 2008 and 2009, pulling out created a new void that did create the environment for isis. So Hillary was wrong on Iraq twice. I think that's the argument certainly that Republicans would make, that I would make. the Wall Street Journal did make -- actually they didn't make this argument. If we followed Rand Paul's foreign policy there would be no ISIS, because we would never have gone into Iraq and Saddam Hussein would not be -- Saddam Hussein would still be there, ISIS would not. If we did not not pull out of Iraq the way we pulled out of Iraq. If you'd just gone George W. Bush or Dick Cheney's way, ISIS would not be there Iraq because that void would have never been created.

The argument you could make is if you're a Republican, that the Wall Street Journal did make, is that it was Hillary Clinton, people like Hillary Clinton that were wrong both times. That were wrong saying let's go into Iraq and then let's leave Iraq quickly that created the first void. And then after order was brought, which Dexter Filkins (of The New York Times) and everybody else says was in 2008 and 2009, pulling out created a new void that did create the environment for isis. So Hillary was wrong on Iraq twice. I think that's the argument certainly that Republicans would make, that I would make.dy else says was in 2008 and 2009, pulling out created a new void that did create the environment for isis. So Hillary was wrong on Iraq twice. I think that's the argument certainly that Republicans would make, that I would make."

Interesting isn't it ? Ms. Clinton was wrong twice !!!


Scarborough: "If We Followed Rand Paul's Foreign Policy There Would Be No ISIS;" Hillary Wrong About Iraq Twice | Video | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/05/28/scarborough_if_we_followed_rand_pauls_foreign_poli cy_there_would_be_no_isis_hillary_wrong_about_iraq _twice.html)

[Guest]

I apologize for the poor cut and paste. Kept being interrupted, but I think you get the point of what is being said, and of course the crony crew won't like this, but doubt if there will be any real discussion. Just some nude remarks.

BUT this conversation is what makes history...a different look at the same thing, which is what this forum was created for. Problem is historical and fact based conversation requires adults on both sides. THAT is lacking which all can measure by the childish remarks that surely will follow.

[Guest]

As I recall HW Bush had the wisdom to not continue the war into Iraq because of the civil war which would result. W was advised that continuing the war into Iraq was a good idea. I'm thinking that from Global Strategy standpoint both Republican and Democratic Presidents are not without fault in this Middle East nightmare. Russia had spent time in Afghanistan and they discovered it was a quagmire. They left with our help from the CIA aiding people like Bin Laden. Read you history books.
Ask yourself how does China do business with most countries in the Middle East without problems? Maybe we should examine their Global Strategy!

[Guest]

GOP Presidential Candidate Rand Paul: "GOP Created ISIS"

'They created these people': Rand Paul blames GOP hawks for rise of ISIS | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/27/rand-paul-blames-gop-hawks-for-rise-isis/)

And we all know Fox News ONLY publishes the truth


Best Personal Regards

Dear Guest: My initial post explaining Obama's dismissal lack of performance that makes choosing the next president exhibiting strong foreign policy had defense minded strategies with examples of the things that we must be doing to contain the world fires believe it o not are of my choosing.

Your "only Fox News publishes....." is wrong on at least two counts

but I digress

The problem we are all facing is that political actors are inundating issues with hindsight bias i.e. "If you knew now would you go back to .... This a a futile and unproductive effort. People make decisions based on the information they have at hand . Does it do any good to beat yourself or a decide for doing what the normally prudent man would do? We need forward looking discussion . What do we do now?

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

As I recall HW Bush had the wisdom to not continue the war into Iraq because of the civil war which would result. W was advised that continuing the war into Iraq was a good idea. I'm thinking that from Global Strategy standpoint both Republican and Democratic Presidents are not without fault in this Middle East nightmare. Russia had spent time in Afghanistan and they discovered it was a quagmire. They left with our help from the CIA aiding people like Bin Laden. Read you history books.
Ask yourself how does China do business with most countries in the Middle East without problems? Maybe we should examine their Global Strategy!

The fact that it was strictly a United Nations effort at the time, and anything beyond what was done would violate the UN mandate...THAT was the reason.

[Guest]

Isn't comparing the current day knowledge to date, applied to a decision made years ago flawed and innaccurate.

The only valid comparison is to have only the information available at the time, in the environment at the time.

The dumbest question of recent days was last week when candidates were being asked ...knowing what we know today would you have gone to war in Iraq?

How is that pertinent to the facts contributing to the decision made then? Adds no value to an analysis of a candidate of today.

Each time the subject is brought up it is presented as if W acted all on his own (like a certain other POTUS!). He had congressional approval.....remember that odd circumstance which is currently not used or abused.

[Guest]

As I recall HW Bush had the wisdom to not continue the war into Iraq because of the civil war which would result. W was advised that continuing the war into Iraq was a good idea. I'm thinking that from Global Strategy standpoint both Republican and Democratic Presidents are not without fault in this Middle East nightmare. Russia had spent time in Afghanistan and they discovered it was a quagmire. They left with our help from the CIA aiding people like Bin Laden. Read you history books.
Ask yourself how does China do business with most countries in the Middle East without problems? Maybe we should examine their Global Strategy!

As pointed out earlier, despite the poster reshaping history to fit his post, President HW Bush stopped short of Iraq because he was required by mandate to so do. That war was a UN operation, and he was not allowed to advance any further, so at least keep history accurate.

You are absolutely correct in blaming both parties for sure, and as long as we continue to after these years try to affix blame we are doomed to tread water and make the divide in this country wider.

China is a completely different story, although perhaps the accurate history of the region may help, but China has never been a target of the ME. First they are not an ally, except for trade, of Israel. Second, their culture is not a threat to any mideast countries. They have recently showed a bit of aggresiviness though.

We have a country, Iran who has threatened our country, our way of life and our ally, Israel and continue to do so. Keep in mind that while Sadam still ruled the roost the dialogue was the same from him and all in that area and that was resentment of our way of life, and threatening to us.

Nothing good will come until we stop asking everybody on both sides if they would do Iraq any different. It is done. That debate can be done by history professors and I include the Scarborough theory where he makes the case that Hillary Clinton was wrong twice. As you say, both parties have erred over many many years and it seems that all that should be important to us now is our future and the future of our children and grand children.

We need to look at our threats and deal with them. You can learn from history, but you cannot also get mired in it and just tread water. BOTH parties need to wake up and address what is in front of us.

I DO understand what President Obama was trying....ie., negotiate and discuss and keep it peaceful. I honestly do understand but obviously it is not working

[Guest]

No one is going to say how the Republican candidates feel about putting American troops into the ISIS controlled areas?

Ridiculous blather is all the the tripe posted by the Obama and Clinton haters. Get a spine and tell us what your candidates would do.

[Guest]

No one is going to say how the Republican candidates feel about putting American troops into the ISIS controlled areas?

Ridiculous blather is all the the tripe posted by the Obama and Clinton haters. Get a spine and tell us what your candidates would do.

One of the troll cronies group, with what appears to be severe reading and comprehension deficit.

[Guest]

One of the troll cronies group, with what appears to be severe reading and comprehension deficit.

...and one of The Gang of Six (now at a lonely two person gang) responds with more blather without answering a question. Sounds like the diversion of just attacking when you have nothing to say. No one is interested in the blatherings of an old, grumpy man. Go away!

[Guest]

...and one of The Gang of Six (now at a lonely two person gang) responds with more blather without answering a question. Sounds like the diversion of just attacking when you have nothing to say. No one is interested in the blatherings of an old, grumpy man. Go away!

Great, have no interest....great with me and while you are at it, stop posting along with your cronie trolls. You obviously do not read anything anyway, and simply come on here with the trolling.

Do everyone a favor and take that lack of interest and act on it !!

Thank you and best to you and the rest of the trolls.

You want to know how Republican candidates feel about ISIS now, a year and a half away from any elections, months before any debates, and while the President is supposed to be reviewing and doing new planning ? Great....makes sense to me that what a Republican candidate who is now trying to win a nomination would matter. Maybe learn to read or watch the news like us feeble old men. And any of the old men on here that I know are anything but grumpy. They are basically, concerned, hopeful, interested and engaged. They also have little or no tolerance for trolls as with any message board.

If any criticism of existing policy upsets or concerns you, then I suggest you do what most adults do on here and comment to defend it. Not much of that happens on here, just the teenage talk.

Listen, you don't like it then PLEASE stay out of here. Us old men and women will just fine without your little snide comments. Most enjoy discussing what is happening instead of acting like a teen.

WOW. It is amazing how some never change, never listen, and continue with the same out tired crap !

[Guest]

Maybe so many republicans are running because they realize how much danger this country is currently in and how desperate America is for leadership

[Guest]

Maybe so many republicans are running because they realize how much danger this country is currently in and how desperate America is for leadership

Let all of us concerned citizens would like to know what they would do to alleviate the danger.

[Guest]

Let all of us concerned citizens would like to know what they would do to alleviate the danger.

Wow what an opening!
Get Obama and the democrats the hell out of the WH!!!

[Guest]

Let all of us concerned citizens would like to know what they would do to alleviate the danger.

Hard to summarize what you are looking for but it has all been in the news lately.

Most want a strategy as they feel there is none. A number are talking about the number of sorties we fly but cannot bomb anything because of lack of guidance from the ground. Many are concerned about our relationship with Iran and how it is influencing the fight on ISIS.

ALMOST all think we are arming the wrong tribes, and that included many many Democrats, and that we are doing that to facilitate what we are doing with Iran.

A few think we need troops on the ground, not so much for combat to aid our pilots and accelerate the assistance to Iraq.

A few also think we need to get more involved in Syria.

In general it is a typical fight to try and get in the game to have a chance at the nomination so as politics go, many will say things to get press....but in general I think they share the concern of the american public and just wish there was a real policy that might work.

If the reason for the continuing asking of this question is that some feel that there is nothing but criticism of the President with no offer of an alternative, then allow me to comment.

First if aimed at the posters on here, that is out of line. Many posters have offered their input on the situation.

If aimed at the politicians, allow me to remind you that the President has not publicly stated ANY policy, and during the AUMF debate, neither Secy Kerry or anyone from the WH could quite verbalize the plan. To the point during that debate, that even Democrats were confused. The Democrat felt that the President's AUMF proposal was too wide and covered too much and the Republican wanted to give him more leeway in fighting them.

Of course, since we hear nothing from the WH and actually the press secy is getting tired of answering questions, or better said NOT answering questions, he is frustrated because what he says is normally contradicted in the hearings by the military trying to fight the war.

The WH says the strategy is to train and assist troops and he last included Syria which is a country that we ignored initially while they were gassing. This surprised me but you don't care about that. But the strategy as laid out in the press briefings are not matching up well with the military when they testify before the Armed Services Committee.

Most of the candidates, I think favor more troops on the ground...not a number probably exceeding 10,000 or so simply to make our air campaign work, AND IMPORTANT we keep hearing about the coalition. Iran says they are the only ones fighting ISIS...really did "Fazli added that it was a mistake to have U.S.-led foreign forces counter ISIS militants. Iran's Press TV reported that, according to the interior minister, the U.S.-led coalition had failed in its attempts to stop ISIS. Fazli said that the Iraqi forces had managed to be successful only in the regions where popular Iraqi forces supported them. The most important quote for me and is RELATIVE TO YOUR QUESTION.

"Fazli is not the only one whom U.S.-led foreign forces have failed to impress. Mowaffak al-Rubaie said that 8 out of 10 U.S. fighter jets had failed to engage terrorist positions. Iraq’s former national security adviser said that U.S.-led airstrikes had been mostly ineffective against ISIS.

Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani said that Iran was the only country committed to counter ISIS. Reuters reported that the commander of the Quds Force said Iran should help countries get rid of ISIS. "Today, in the fight against this dangerous phenomenon, nobody is present except Iran," he said.

Iran Claims To Be Only Country Fighting ISIS; Slams US Coalition As Ineffective (http://www.ibtimes.com/iran-claims-be-only-country-fighting-isis-slams-us-coalition-ineffective-1937125)

This quote tells you that the criticism coming from the candidates about our lack of good use of the air seems to be right on the mark.

[Guest]

Let all of us concerned citizens would like to know what they would do to alleviate the danger.

I know that you cronies are not going to read responses to your questions..you never do, just make short snarky uninformed comments, but......I think to put to rest a lot of what is happening right now, the President should come on television and speak to the nation, not special interest group, but the entire nation and at least defend what he thinks he is doing.

He is not leading at all....he is not communicating at all. If he did that, at least any criticism could be more specific and easier to handle. Right now nobody seems to know what is happening.

[Guest]

With 3 nephews in the military, one of which has been to this war zone 5 times and earned the purple heart, I am clearly opposed to boots on the ground if that means the US military does all the heavy lifting. ISIS is a threat to the world and therefore should be addressed as such.

[Guest]

With 3 nephews in the military, one of which has been to this war zone 5 times and earned the purple heart, I am clearly opposed to boots on the ground if that means the US military does all the heavy lifting. ISIS is a threat to the world and therefore should be addressed as such.

Well said.

In that vein, I cannot help but wonder where this coalition of 60 countries might be. Iran keeps saying that they are the only ones fighting, and nobody seems to be disagreeing with them. (Iran's growing status is another thread)

I think that those who call for "troops on the ground" might be a bit less forceful, if they knew what was going on.

However when you read..


"This month, when the Islamic State launched a massive attack on the large Iraq provincial capital of Ramadi, the government in Baghdad did what it was supposed to do under Obama’s “strategic plan”: Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi called for a meeting of the US-led coalition to coordinate action against This month, when the Islamic State launched a massive attack on the large Iraq provincial capital of Ramadi, the government in Baghdad did what it was supposed to do under Obama’s “strategic plan”: Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi called for a meeting of the US-led coalition to coordinate action against ISIS.


Very soon, however, it became clear that no such meeting would ever take
The coalition, supposedly consisting of 50 nation, simply has ceased to exist, if it ever did exist.

According to Iraqi sources, al- lowered his expectations by meeting US Ambassador to Baghdad Stuart E. Jones to demand intensified airstrikes on ISIS units advancing on Ramadi.

Why ISIS is beating Obama’s coalition | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2015/05/19/why-isis-is-beating-obamas-coalition/)

[Guest]

Well said.

In that vein, I cannot help but wonder where this coalition of 60 countries might be. Iran keeps saying that they are the only ones fighting, and nobody seems to be disagreeing with them. (Iran's growing status is another thread)

I think that those who call for "troops on the ground" might be a bit less forceful, if they knew what was going on.

However when you read..


"This month, when the Islamic State launched a massive attack on the large Iraq provincial capital of Ramadi, the government in Baghdad did what it was supposed to do under Obama’s “strategic plan”: Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi called for a meeting of the US-led coalition to coordinate action against This month, when the Islamic State launched a massive attack on the large Iraq provincial capital of Ramadi, the government in Baghdad did what it was supposed to do under Obama’s “strategic plan”: Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi called for a meeting of the US-led coalition to coordinate action against ISIS.


Very soon, however, it became clear that no such meeting would ever take
The coalition, supposedly consisting of 50 nation, simply has ceased to exist, if it ever did exist.

According to Iraqi sources, al- lowered his expectations by meeting US Ambassador to Baghdad Stuart E. Jones to demand intensified airstrikes on ISIS units advancing on Ramadi.

Why ISIS is beating Obama’s coalition | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2015/05/19/why-isis-is-beating-obamas-coalition/)

Good post..... We cannot continue to give our young men and women and let the rest of the world off the hook!!

[Guest]

Good post..... We cannot continue to give our young men and women and let the rest of the world off the hook!!

Absolutely true. However, the Republican hawks want the US to send in more Americans to defeat ISIS even though it would mean hundreds or thousands more being killed.

[Guest]

Absolutely true. However, the Republican hawks want the US to send in more Americans to defeat ISIS even though it would mean hundreds or thousands more being killed.


This will not happen as long as Barack Obama is commander-in-chief, maybe when Hillary Clinton is elected. She is much more of a hawk than Obama. That's what cost her the election in 2008, voting for the Iraq war, even though now she says her yes vote was a mistake.

[Guest]

At the end of the Bush Administration the Iraq war was won Iraqi's were trained and signs of Democracy taking hold. Bear in mind it took many many years before America's Independence took full hold.

Along comes Obama and pulls the rug from under the Iraqi's breaking promises and demoralizing them leaving a vacuum filled by ISIS. That is the past we need to focus on the present i order to create the future we desire.

English speaking people since the Magna Carta have been defending freedom since then. Our Three Charters of Freedom are a result of the Magna Carta. Our enemies despise democracy because it is a threat to their authority and so whether we like it nor not they are at war with us

If America does not take the lead here the war will come home to us . This is the lesson of history for so many countries over the ages and all the belly aching, denials and objections by progressives is not going to change the nature of men and the nature of war

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Absolutely true. However, the Republican hawks want the US to send in more Americans to defeat ISIS even though it would mean hundreds or thousands more being killed.

The point of my post, which you obviously fails to get or are simply one of the PARTY first folks, was......

Yes, we needs troops on the ground, or at least it appears that way. When you hear how many planes we fly that do nothing because of that lack....

Where is the 60 nation coalition ? Is anyone but Iran in the ground ? Why don't we know, as the "allies" are driven back ?

I think they are valid questions, and allow me to respectfully suggest that many many democrats are of like mind which does not make them "hawks" but rather concerned Americans.

[Guest]

At the end of the Bush Administration the Iraq war was won Iraqi's were trained and signs of Democracy taking hold. Bear in mind it took many many years before America's Independence took full hold.

Along comes Obama and pulls the rug from under the Iraqi's breaking promises and demoralizing them leaving a vacuum filled by ISIS. That is the past we need to focus on the present i order to create the future we desire.

English speaking people since the Magna Carta have been defending freedom since then. Our Three Charters of Freedom are a result of the Magna Carta. Our enemies despise democracy because it is a threat to their authority and so whether we like it nor not they are at war with us

If America does not take the lead here the war will come home to us . This is the lesson of history for so many countries over the ages and all the belly aching, denials and objections by progressives is not going to change the nature of men and the nature of war

Personal Best Regards:

With all due respect... The pull-out dates were set by the previous administration NOT by Obama. I also remember GW standing under a "Mission Accomplished Banner" very early on and the was NOT true. And last but not least the Iraqi government threw us OUT!

We have heard the "fight them over there instead of over here" one two many times. Because "WE" are not all fighting them over there.... reinstate the draft so WE also share the fight and then we can talk.

[Guest]

With all due respect... The pull-out dates were set by the previous administration NOT by Obama. I also remember GW standing under a "Mission Accomplished Banner" very early on and the was NOT true. And last but not least the Iraqi government threw us OUT!

We have heard the "fight them over there instead of over here" one two many times. Because "WE" are not all fighting them over there.... reinstate the draft so WE also share the fight and then we can talk.

I certainly support the re instatement of the draft, using different formulas for the actual numbers. It would serve us well, including beyond military readiness.

I just get confused sometimes. We keep discussing history; my preference would be to discuss the current threat, and I join in asking where is the 60 nation coalition in filling the ground troop void. Of course I think I know the answer; Arab nations set a lot of parameters to even join the fight, and thus I really object to even calling it a 60 nation coalition. Mainly, where are they..is the deal that on the ground is USA or nothing ? Of course Iran maintains that the lead the pack.

[Guest]

I certainly support the re instatement of the draft, using different formulas for the actual numbers. It would serve us well, including beyond military readiness.

I just get confused sometimes. We keep discussing history; my preference would be to discuss the current threat, and I join in asking where is the 60 nation coalition in filling the ground troop void. Of course I think I know the answer; Arab nations set a lot of parameters to even join the fight, and thus I really object to even calling it a 60 nation coalition. Mainly, where are they..is the deal that on the ground is USA or nothing ? Of course Iran maintains that the lead the pack.
Reinstate the draft? Here's your man.

51909

[Guest]

OK....for those offering the excuse that the withdrawal dates were set by W.

And what does that have to do with any current event?

ANYBODY in management with half a brain or less will assess the current situation and address what needs to be done, changed, eliminate, modified, etc.

The lame argument of W made him do it is laughable BS.....aspiring to reach school yard level tactics capability.

[Guest]

OK....for those offering the excuse that the withdrawal dates were set by W.

And what does that have to do with any current event?

ANYBODY in management with half a brain or less will assess the current situation and address what needs to be done, changed, eliminate, modified, etc.

The lame argument of W made him do it is laughable BS.....aspiring to reach school yard level tactics capability.

As much as I hate to do this, let me defend a bit what I think you are speaking to.

The post you refer to simply responded to a one sentence of the post, and not the thought behind the post. Typical at times.

You are correct. We need to address today. We are where we are. If someone needs to begin a history thread, that might work.

[Guest]

I seem to remember that Iraq asked the US to remove the American troops from the country. Am I incorrect about this?

[Guest]

I seem to remember that Iraq asked the US to remove the American troops from the country. Am I incorrect about this?

That has sort of been discussed. Not being rude, but we are where we are, but people are hung up on this.

Yes to your point; if you read the inside of this story, most in the U.S. govt were thinking in the neighborhood of 10,000 troops for some time (Gates even said that), but then the Arab Spring came and Iraq got all caught up in that. The only point, and it is just based on some readin is that Iraq, if pressured even slightly would have agreed to troops. We decided not to pursue it.

Question still is about today's events, and I still ask the question...where is that 60 nation coalition relative to ground troops because from all reports we need that ground support if for nothing else to support the air program.

[Guest]

That has sort of been discussed. Not being rude, but we are where we are, but people are hung up on this.

Yes to your point; if you read the inside of this story, most in the U.S. govt were thinking in the neighborhood of 10,000 troops for some time (Gates even said that), but then the Arab Spring came and Iraq got all caught up in that. The only point, and it is just based on some readin is that Iraq, if pressured even slightly would have agreed to troops. We decided not to pursue it.

Question still is about today's events, and I still ask the question...where is that 60 nation coalition relative to ground troops because from all reports we need that ground support if for nothing else to support the air program.

Yes, we are where we are - and that was a decision made by Iraq. The US decided it would be Iraq's responsibility to take care of themself with equipment and training from the US.

The ISIS soldiers were outnumbered but the Iraq soldiers did not want to fight and ran away - leaving their equipment.

No, this is not a US issue anymore. IF a United Nation force would go in - fine. Otherwise, we stay OUT and protect our own country.

[Guest]

Yes, we are where we are - and that was a decision made by Iraq. The US decided it would be Iraq's responsibility to take care of themself with equipment and training from the US.

The ISIS soldiers were outnumbered but the Iraq soldiers did not want to fight and ran away - leaving their equipment.

No, this is not a US issue anymore. IF a United Nation force would go in - fine. Otherwise, we stay OUT and protect our own country.

Fair enough. There are others that feel the same way, including many of the potential Republican candidates. I sure lean that way but still wonder how you can have a coalition of SIXTY countries and come up short with ground troops.

[Guest]

I seem to remember that Iraq asked the US to remove the American troops from the country. Am I incorrect about this?

No your are NOT!!!

[Guest]

Yes, we are where we are - and that was a decision made by Iraq. The US decided it would be Iraq's responsibility to take care of themself with equipment and training from the US.

The ISIS soldiers were outnumbered but the Iraq soldiers did not want to fight and ran away - leaving their equipment.

No, this is not a US issue anymore. IF a United Nation force would go in - fine. Otherwise, we stay OUT and protect our own country.

Well said!!!!

[Guest]

OK....for those offering the excuse that the withdrawal dates were set by W.

And what does that have to do with any current event?

ANYBODY in management with half a brain or less will assess the current situation and address what needs to be done, changed, eliminate, modified, etc.

The lame argument of W made him do it is laughable BS.....aspiring to reach school yard level tactics capability.

It is a fact that GW's administration agreed to the status of forces agreement which required US troops to leave Iraq in 2011....that just a fact look it up yourself.

[Guest]

It is a fact that GW's administration agreed to the status of forces agreement which required US troops to leave Iraq in 2011....that just a fact look it up yourself.

Got that with no problem!

You however missed the point!

[Guest]

Between 10:52 and 10:55 PM last night THREE TROLL POSTS. wonder if it was the same one or they had a meeting.

A fact, already agreed to, does not become more a fact because you keep repeating it while others are trying to discuss the actual point..

A troll is a troll is a troll

[Guest]

Between 10:52 and 10:55 PM last night THREE TROLL POSTS. wonder if it was the same one or they had a meeting.

A fact, already agreed to, does not become more a fact because you keep repeating it while others are trying to discuss the actual point..

A troll is a troll is a troll

I think you are being unfair in calling someone a troll when they agree with a post not to your liking.

An earlier poster noted your (?) posts and said you were just watching for this person's postings and then jumping on her and admonishing her but not offering anything to the topic.

Aren't you guilty of the same offense as what you claim the other poster has done?

Please note, I am not saying this in a hurtful way and do not take it that way.
Let's just try and stay on topic without calling out others. This is Florida's Friendliest Hometown.

[Guest]

Between 10:52 and 10:55 PM last night THREE TROLL POSTS. wonder if it was the same one or they had a meeting.

A fact, already agreed to, does not become more a fact because you keep repeating it while others are trying to discuss the actual point..

A troll is a troll is a troll

No troll here.... It was me and I couldn't sleep, for the second night in a row.

Didn't believe the information had been agreed to at the time of the post.

[Guest]

I think you are being unfair in calling someone a troll when they agree with a post not to your liking.

An earlier poster noted your (?) posts and said you were just watching for this person's postings and then jumping on her and admonishing her but not offering anything to the topic.

Aren't you guilty of the same offense as what you claim the other poster has done?

Please note, I am not saying this in a hurtful way and do not take it that way.
Let's just try and stay on topic without calling out others. This is Florida's Friendliest Hometown.

I do not take it in a negative way at all.

One of the charatitics of the troll group is inundating a thread with one liners. In this case the subject was covered more than once in the thread previously, and since you brought up my posts....I was the one who agreed with those mentioning this, and actually corrected posters with whom I normally agree to validate the fact.

As I said, since I am the poster who backed up an opposing poster, it had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing.

The fact was covered a number of times previously and it appears whomever made all these posts within minutes had not read the thread.

If I jumped and erred, I apologize, but after awhile you jus have a feeling.

But most importantly understand it has NOTHING to do with whether I agree or disagree, and again, if you read you will find it was ME who backed this fact up, so it has nothing to do with any agenda. I could have ignored, but post 42, 44, and 47 were made by me validating the fact.

Again, if I misspoke and these posts were not made by the troll group, I apologize.

[Guest]

No troll here.... It was me and I couldn't sleep, for the second night in a row.

Didn't believe the information had been agreed to at the time of the post.

Only comment from me is I validated the fact THREE times at minimum in the thread, and the discussion was NOT centered on that fact, that was validated at least three time.

I am sorry if I placed you in the wrong catagory. I, obviously, posted myself saying it was true, and just do not know more to say. That fact was not the subject of the thread, but certainly was acknowledged.

Sorry

[Guest]

Only comment from me is I validated the fact THREE times at minimum in the thread, and the discussion was NOT centered on that fact, that was validated at least three time.

I am sorry if I placed you in the wrong catagory. I, obviously, posted myself saying it was true, and just do not know more to say. That fact was not the subject of the thread, but certainly was acknowledged.

Sorry

All clear here.....

[Guest]

I have a neighbor who was stationed in the Middle east as a sniper. He says the "Iraqi's are not into the fight". I see Mosul was overrun and the Iraq Security Forces left behind 2300 Humvees $100,000 each x 2300= $230,000,000. So I'm guessing that the postings on this site suggest we send more American troops and more $$$ to get the job done.
We will need a Draft to fulfill this fantasy and more taxpayer $$$ to get the job done. When we have a Republican President he will get the job done with "our" tax $$$ and "our" grandsons and grandaughters.

[Guest]

I have a neighbor who was stationed in the Middle east as a sniper. He says the "Iraqi's are not into the fight". I see Mosul was overrun and the Iraq Security Forces left behind 2300 Humvees $100,000 each x 2300= $230,000,000. So I'm guessing that the postings on this site suggest we send more American troops and more $$$ to get the job done.
We will need a Draft to fulfill this fantasy and more taxpayer $$$ to get the job done. When we have a Republican President he will get the job done with "our" tax $$$ and "our" grandsons and grandaughters.

First point I want to make which, to me anyway is important.

I do not think the postings here necessarily call for troops on the ground as you seem to be defining it. I still wonder why, if there is a void on the ground, the coalition of 60 countries is not involved. Before I would advocate any American troops, I would want that answered.

I think your feelings are a bit out of kilter. Some, but not all Republicans want troops on the ground. Some want "advisors"., and some want battle troops. I think you are making a big generalization on this. I look forward to debates on this subject.

Lastly, I "hope" we have time until a new President is elected. That implies things do not get worse. I really am frustrated, and it is probably just me, but the only thing the American public is hearing about this war on ISIS is negative things from our military and the media. Why the CINC does not say more than he "doesn't think we are losing".

Again, I think you are making many generalizations and why is the void on the ground covered, in some way, by that large coalition.

[Guest]

I have a neighbor who was stationed in the Middle east as a sniper. He says the "Iraqi's are not into the fight". I see Mosul was overrun and the Iraq Security Forces left behind 2300 Humvees $100,000 each x 2300= $230,000,000. So I'm guessing that the postings on this site suggest we send more American troops and more $$$ to get the job done.
We will need a Draft to fulfill this fantasy and more taxpayer $$$ to get the job done. When we have a Republican President he will get the job done with "our" tax $$$ and "our" grandsons and grandaughters.

This fight is not up to the USA. We will never be friends with those countries so why waste our money over there? Get out completely, protect our country so those lunatics do not bother us.

As for why this is happening, the blame lies directly with war-criminals Bush and Cheney.

[Guest]

This fight is not up to the USA. We will never be friends with those countries so why waste our money over there? Get out completely, protect our country so those lunatics do not bother us.

As for why this is happening, the blame lies directly with war-criminals Bush and Cheney.

The responsibility Is tha of the current POTUS. Presenting the blame game for 7 years ago? Obviously somebody who doesn't accept that what happens, more likely not happens on Obama watch is his responsibility.

That chit was worn out year one. Time to accept that Obama is the key to ISIS advancement...."nobody else.

[Guest]

This fight is not up to the USA. We will never be friends with those countries so why waste our money over there? Get out completely, protect our country so those lunatics do not bother us.

As for why this is happening, the blame lies directly with war-criminals Bush and Cheney.

You raise many points.

First, just to stay straight, I can make a case blaming Bush; I can make a case blaming Obama....both cases are different and founded on a lot of "what if so". I can also make a case that both were at fault in certain ways.

BUT that conversation, in my opinion should be reserved for historians or if somebody wants a thread to discuss it, but oh my that sounds dangerous. Remember, there are a few who lay some of the blame at President Clintons feet also. BUT THAT IS A SEPERATE ISSUE TO ME.

Second thing you raise is "get out completely" which is pretty much Rand Paul's platform. There is an article today relative to the United States "retreating from the world". Exclusive interview: Ian Bremmer says America is no longer 'indispensable', and that's bad news for Britain - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11640302/Exclusive-interview-Ian-Bremmer-says-America-is-no-longer-indispensible-and-thats-bad-news-for-Britain.html)

That idea is shown by our foreign policy goes the story, and while I hate the word "retreat", I suppose that is what we are doing. China is becoming the big boy on the block, an ally of Iran in all ways, and thus I suppose our future lies before us to decide.

My entire life, I have been proud of the this country for taking up the fight, although not always correct, and now you and many others say we should simply turn our back. We are doing that; we did it in Syria big time; we are doing it to Israel, Africa, and many other countries who over the years have depended on us.

I guess I, after 75 years, need time if this is our direction. We made a lot of mistakes over those years, but we saved millions of lives. We inspired others, we helped others. I actually was ill at the thought of how we just ignored the gassing of children in the streets in Syria.

Today, not just ISIS, but China rears its head and shows its power, https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/01/south-china-sea-america-nationalism-tensions-war/

I guess I just need time to handle the USA walking away from things like this. It is tough for me to rationalize no anger over burning people, beheadings and gassing of children. If this is where we want to go, I think it does not bode well for us. Through our history, as uncomfortable, as unpopular as the USA being the worlds protector, it has serves us well. Only time in history we slowed, it made for trouble.

World is different; one mistake and we are subject to, or SOMEONE is, subject to instant death.

Sorry.....I want no boots on the ground, and I suspect nobody does, but I also am a believer in justice in the world, and if simply turning our backs might do it..so be it.

I still, from a practical stand point, want to know what the SIXTY.60...nation coalition is doing.

[Guest]

This fight is not up to the USA. We will never be friends with those countries so why waste our money over there? Get out completely, protect our country so those lunatics do not bother us.

As for why this is happening, the blame lies directly with war-criminals Bush and Cheney.
The only time we will see Cheney as a war criminal is if he ever leaves the country. Also, for those who say the blame belongs to the person in office and that events have an expiration date are the same as those who blame Clinton, not Bush, for 9/11.

[Guest]

The only time we will see Cheney as a war criminal is if he ever leaves the country. Also, for those who say the blame belongs to the person in office and that events have an expiration date are the same as those who blame Clinton, not Bush, for 9/11.

Title of this thread is BOOTS ON THE GROUND.

People keep changing the subject to who is to blame. Many have tried to get people back on the subject, but seems the only important thing is blame.

Suggest a new thread for blame and hope someone will post on the subject of the thread !

[Guest]

OK, boots on the ground and reinstating the draft. Does anyone remember 1968? Time to move on to alternatives. Firing up the coalition and arming the Iraqis are not among them. Looking forward to some fresh thoughts for discussion. I'll start. Identify and target ISIS leadership. Follow their money and put a brick on it. Take out their income producing assets. Continue to destroy their armaments. A weaker enemy emboldens adversaries.

[Guest]

I have been banging away wondering what that 60 nation coalition is doing.

This is mostly information to supplement the thread.

Finally found a bit of information....Tomorrow, in Pais there is a meeting of the supposed 60 nations...I do not see anything that refers to SIXTY...this is a quote....."Tuesday’s summit – which brings together representatives from 24 coalition countries as well as international agencies –"

Next the article from France indicates that at the lead of the US, we will be stressing POLITICAL "“Political solution” is likely to be the catchphrase as the talks get under way, with US officials increasingly warning that the battle against the Islamic State group requires more than just a successful military sthphrase as the talks get under way, with US officials increasingly warning that the battle against the Islamic State group requires more than just a successful military strategy."

In addition it seems the conversation will be limited to Iraq. I have been posting and saying how important Syria was a few years ago and still now, but....

"But the latest round of talks may have doomed itself to failure by declaring an almost exclusive focus on Iraq, relegating the Islamic State group’s recent significant gains in Syria to the background."


Not all gloom and doom however....I find this encouraging.....


"Reinvigorated cooperation between Sunni Muslim powers Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar to contain the regional influence of Iran – a key Assad supporter, and now backing anti-IS militias in Iraq – has brought increased heavy arms flows, such as anti-tank weapons, to Syrian rebel groups battling Assad’s forces.

And Assad’s other main international backer, Russia, is believed to be “turning away from the regime”, according to the Saudi-backed, London-based newspaper Ashraq al-Awsat. In a report published Sunday, the Arabic-language newspaper noted that Russia had most recently evacuated around 100 of its officials, including experts who worked in Assad’s “war room” in Syria."

France - Anti-IS coalition likely to seek 'political' solutions at Paris talks - France 24 (http://www.france24.com/en/20150601-paris-talks-islamic-state-isis-summit-coalition-iraq-syria)

If you have an interest in how this is going, it is worth a read.

[Guest]

OK, boots on the ground and reinstating the draft. Does anyone remember 1968? Time to move on to alternatives. Firing up the coalition and arming the Iraqis are not among them. Looking forward to some fresh thoughts for discussion. I'll start. Identify and target ISIS leadership. Follow their money and put a brick on it. Take out their income producing assets. Continue to destroy their armaments. A weaker enemy emboldens adversaries.

All good points and the recent bombing and incurision inside Syria supposedly gt a lot of information on the money as we took down the money man.

This, to me anyway, is difficult to discuss. We hear negative things for the most part from the military, and virtually nothing from the WH. It is political "season" with the primaries coming up so everyone will use this issue knowing how sensitive the country is to it. And it is not reserved to the Republican party, but more from there because of so many jockeying for position.


I sure wish I knew the answer, but right now with silence from the administration, I am not sure I even know the scope of the problem. That is not a shot at the WH, simply a statement of fact....they may have good reasons for saying nothing.

And I remember 1968 well. I think we got up over 1/2 million troops in Vietnam that year. I was 29, had done my time and was in awe of everything that was happening. President Johnson was on tv and always looked so sad.

[Guest]

It would be interesting to hear some fresh thought on how to resolve the ISIS issue.
Off the subject, but if you search the internet you will see China has cut resource (LNG and oil) deals with most countries in the Middle East regardless of their politics or religion. Maybe we should ask the Chinese how they do it.

[Guest]

It would be interesting to hear some fresh thought on how to resolve the ISIS issue.
Off the subject, but if you search the internet you will see China has cut resource (LNG and oil) deals with most countries in the Middle East regardless of their politics or religion. Maybe we should ask the Chinese how they do it.

The lower the standards/tolerances the easier the task....nothing new to learn there.

[Guest]

Update on that 60 nation coalition but not sounding positive.

"Members of the international campaign fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) met in Paris on Tuesday to discuss renewed efforts to combat the group, but the meeting again laid bare long-standing divisions and differing priorities that have made finding a common strategy difficult.

The one-day conference of ministers from coalition governments was called in the aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi city of Ramadi and the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra to ISIL last month, which raised questions about the effectiveness of the 60-plus nation coalition, which began operations last Members of the international campaign fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) met in Paris on Tuesday to discuss renewed efforts to combat the group, but the meeting again laid bare long-standing divisions and differing priorities that have made finding a common strategy difficult.

The one-day conference of ministers from coalition governments was called in the aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi city of Ramadi and the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra to ISIL last month, which raised questions about the effectiveness of the 60-plus nation coalition, which began operations last August.

"We will redouble our efforts," said U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken at the conference on Tuesday, filling in for Secretary of State John Kerry, who was injured over the weekend in a biking accident. The U.S. has undertaken the bulk of the coalition airstrikes, conducting some 4,100 against ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq.

But aside from some small pledges for increased U.S. weapons deliveries to Iraqi government forces, and continued coalition efforts to train anti-ISIL Syrian rebels, no new strategy was offered on Tuesday.

One key reason why ISIL continues to thrive despite being considered an enemy of all of the region's major powers is that those powers can't agree on long-term goals and priorities. Indeed, for each of them, the challenge posed by ISIL is secondary to their primary strategic concerns that often put them at odds with one

But aside from some small pledges for increased U.S. weapons deliveries to Iraqi government forces, and continued coalition efforts to train anti-ISIL Syrian rebels, no new strategy was offered on Tuesday.

One key reason why ISIL continues to thrive despite being considered an enemy of all of the region's major powers is that those powers can't agree on long-term goals and priorities. Indeed, for each of them, the challenge posed by ISIL is secondary to their primary strategic concerns that often put them at odds with one"

Anti-ISIL Coalition Divided, Competing Priorities | Al Jazeera America (http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/6/2/anti-isil-coalition-divided-competing-priorities.html)


This coalition just never got started. I am not sure where the leadership is coming from, but I am sure ISIS enjoys this news, and it sure makes me hope that those who say we should leave ISIS alone and they will not bother us are right.

[Guest]

A coalition update from Reuters....

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSKBN0OI0O820150603?irpc=932

[Guest]

A coalition update from Reuters....

Allies back Iraq plan against ISIS, Baghdad seeks more help | Top News | Reuters.com (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSKBN0OI0O820150603?irpc=932)

Thanks so much for the link...I appreciate it.

Have you seen any numbers on the number of countries involved at this point ? They mention twenty, and just wondering about how many.


Seems that the feeling is they can take back control with tribal politics. I also see no mention of Syria, so assume our mission is limited to Iraq ?