Now Isis took control of 1/2 of Syria they certainly are not a jv team, are they. Now they own 1/2 the oil wells. I am so frightened of what is to come for our grandchildren. We are losing to these Islamic terrorists at a rapid speed and the president still does Nothing

Originally Posted by Guest

Now Isis took control of 1/2 of Syria they certainly are not a jv team, are they. Now they own 1/2 the oil wells. I am so frightened of what is to come for our grandchildren. We are losing to these Islamic terrorists at a rapid speed and the president still does Nothing

What's amazing to me is ... he literally just does not seem to care. He gets an intell briefing on how things are falling apart, and then the next thing he does is go play golf.

Maybe there is a psychiatrist here on TOTV who can explain Obama's thinking for us all?

Oh wait. He was busy. He was telling the coast guard that global warming is the biggest threat to our military instead of Isis to our country . talk about A__ backwards

What would you do IF you were in charge?

Would you send 20,000 - 30,000 ground troops to Syria to take on ISIS forces and recapture some of the captured cities? How many US troops would be captured and beheaded on camera would you be willing to accept? How many US lives would you be willing to lose to recapture Iraq or Syria cities?

We know that the US trained Iraqui forces are not worth a thing. They throw down their US supplied weapons and run. Training and arming them is a waste of money.

Don't say a residual US force would have stopped ISIS. That is looking backward. What do we do - looking forward?

Americans, as a whole, are not willing to waste more American soldiers lives or Billions more dollars throwing them down that mid-east rathole.

Concentrate on national security of antiterrorist activities of all kinds.

Originally Posted by Guest

What would you do IF you were in charge?

Would you send 20,000 - 30,000 ground troops to Syria to take on ISIS forces and recapture some of the captured cities? How many US troops would be captured and beheaded on camera would you be willing to accept? How many US lives would you be willing to lose to recapture Iraq or Syria cities?

We know that the US trained Iraqui forces are not worth a thing. They throw down their US supplied weapons and run. Training and arming them is a waste of money.

Don't say a residual US force would have stopped ISIS. That is looking backward. What do we do - looking forward?

Americans, as a whole, are not willing to waste more American soldiers lives or Billions more dollars throwing them down that mid-east rathole.

Concentrate on national security of antiterrorist activities of all kinds.

I didn't run for President, and I didn't convince the majority of electorate that I was up to the task of leading the country. I also don't have the daily intel to made an informed decision. So how can you expect me to come up with the solution to Obama's incompetence?

As I see it, ground troops ground is probably the only solution. How many troops? I have no idea, I am not a strategic planner. But how long does Obama allow this cancer to spread before he takes meaningful action? Surely even he will come to the realization that ground troops are needed, the only question is how long will it take? My guess is he will be out off office before this happens and it will become the next Presidents problem.



Yet, at every opportunity Democrats "look backward" and deamonize President Bush. Why don't they look forward?

Whether any of us like it or not, including those who voted for him, he is accomplishing HIS agenda.

What I find as concerning is of the multitude of people in Washington who know and understand the error of Obama's ways yet nobody does anything.

Have we by default degenerated to a monarch form of rule? Must be as that is how we are behaving.

Obama has no election to lose confronting him......this makes him all the more of a threat to our America as we KNEW it.

Originally Posted by Guest

What would you do IF you were in charge?

Would you send 20,000 - 30,000 ground troops to Syria to take on ISIS forces and recapture some of the captured cities? How many US troops would be captured and beheaded on camera would you be willing to accept? How many US lives would you be willing to lose to recapture Iraq or Syria cities?

We know that the US trained Iraqui forces are not worth a thing. They throw down their US supplied weapons and run. Training and arming them is a waste of money.

Don't say a residual US force would have stopped ISIS. That is looking backward. What do we do - looking forward?

Americans, as a whole, are not willing to waste more American soldiers lives or Billions more dollars throwing them down that mid-east rathole.

Concentrate on national security of antiterrorist activities of all kinds.

First, and I realize this is looking in the rear view mirror a bit, but I would not have totally ignored this situation for so long, would not have drawn a redline I did not intend to enforce, and would not have allowed Russia to control the use of gas warfare, WHICH HAS RETURNED.

We now have very little choice except to get involved. We use our drones sparingly in Syria.....we are arming the wrong tribes...ie, we favor the Shia which is basically Iran and ignore the other tribes who from historical perspective will actually fight.

Please read how we choose to arm....only Iran backed tribes. What are we creating here ?

Originally Posted by Guest

Whether any of us like it or not, including those who voted for him, he is accomplishing HIS agenda.

What I find as concerning is of the multitude of people in Washington who know and understand the error of Obama's ways yet nobody does anything.

Have we by default degenerated to a monarch form of rule? Must be as that is how we are behaving.

Obama has no election to lose confronting him......this makes him all the more of a threat to our America as we KNEW it.

Posts like this say nothing about how to solve or resolve the situation.

As the one poster stated, Americans are tired of throwing money down this rathole. Americans, as a whole, would not waste anymore American lives in that rathole.

The training by Americans of Iraqi or other forces has been a disaster as they throw down their weapons and run.

Strengthen our borders, monitor Internet chat and social media for threats, maintain good intel, and some covert activities to undermine ISIS might be useful things to do.

Originally Posted by Guest

Don't say a residual US force would have stopped ISIS. That is looking backward. What do we do - looking forward?

Interesting, as the previous poster said - okay to look backward to President Bush all these years, but now looking backward is not allowed as far as our current President is concerned. Hmmmm.......could it be because in doing so it would now be very obvious how many mistakes President Obama has made and how incompetent he really is? Asking someone on this board what would you do looking forward is only a bait question when no one here has the knowledge to properly answer it as the previous poster also stated. Now if you want to talk ideas/suggestions that's another matter, but I don't get from the tone of your post that is what you are looking for.

Originally Posted by Guest

Strengthen our borders, monitor Internet chat and social media for threats, maintain good intel, and some covert activities to undermine ISIS might be useful things to do.

Your ideas above are all good and necessary. However, I'm not sure we can wait until they are at our front door. It may be too late by then, and many of our allies may already be overrun by ISIS. I admit, I don't have the answers, but I'm not comfortable with an administration that sits on its hands. And one that acts so nonchalant about it just angers me.

Originally Posted by Guest

What's amazing to me is ... he literally just does not seem to care. He gets an intell briefing on how things are falling apart, and then the next thing he does is go play golf.

Maybe there is a psychiatrist here on TOTV who can explain Obama's thinking for us all?

The president won two elections on ending wars, not escalating them, so why is anyone surprised? As Obama said yesterday, Iraq has to defend its own country. We can't do it for them. (paraphrasing here)

And BTW: congress has never gotten around to debating the war against ISSL authorization that the president requested several months ago.

Originally Posted by Guest

Interesting, as the previous poster said - okay to look backward to President Bush all these years, but now looking backward is not allowed as far as our current President is concerned. Hmmmm.......could it be because in doing so it would now be very obvious how many mistakes President Obama has made and how incompetent he really is? Asking someone on this board what would you do looking forward is only a bait question when no one here has the knowledge to properly answer it as the previous poster also stated. Now if you want to talk ideas/suggestions that's another matter, but I don't get from the tone of your post that is what you are looking for.

Looking backward at Bush or Obama does not do anything good. They both made big mistakes.

No, mine was not a bait question at all. I was hoping to hear comment from others about solutions they think might work.

Mine is to cut our huge losses over there. Concentrate on securing borders from possible terrorists, government increasing intel from terrorist countries as well as increasing monitoring of known social media and other internet sites that have been used to recruit for and to spread terrorist information. Also, another possibility would be for the US to use fake web sites to tell horror stories of recruits who have gone to be terrorists and engage in counter-propaganda.

Originally Posted by Guest

The president won two elections on ending wars, not escalating them, so why is anyone surprised? As Obama said yesterday, Iraq has to defend its own country. We can't do it for them. (paraphrasing here)

And BTW: congress has never gotten around to debating the war against ISSL authorization that the president requested several months ago.

Your vision of this is very shortsighted and basically, no TOTALLY, political in nature.

The hearings on his AUMF were heard right away, and not many in congress believe in the wallowing plan presented to them by Secy Kerry or JCS Dempsey.

The authorization proposal forwarded to congress was and is political. It served to do just what you are doing and what the CINC wanted...see, you asked for one and I gave it to you. Again, he plays the politics of it and is perhaps the fuzziness proposal of all time, not even strongly defended by Kerry.

This from THE HILL......

"
From the day the ISIL AUMF draft was delivered to Capitol Hill through the Foreign Relations Committee hearing that was held on March 11, President Obama has simply failed to persuade any lawmaker in a position of seniority that his approach is the right one. 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."

The AUMF: Obama fails to get Congress on his side | TheHill

The debate still continues, while this President tries to con people who know better that his plan is working.

He played politics again, as he does always on important issues.

As always, he feels he is supreme and he alone knows the answers.

From the same article...

"In a way, you have to feel sorry for Obama and his staff. After delaying for the first six months of the military campaign, the administration finally decided to do the right thing — submit a formal AUMF proposal over to the Hill. Yet, in doing so, the administration has opened up a debate that has once again devolved in a partisan fight about whether the White House truly understands the threat that ISIL poses, and whether the executive branch sincerely wants the peoples’ representatives to weight in.

Under questioning, Kerry intimated that passing a resolution along party lines would be “absolutely” worse than passing no resolution at all. If yesterday’s hearing is any guide, Kerry may get his wish."

Our President is a superb, masterful politician. I am looking for statesmanship and leadership.

Originally Posted by Guest

What would you do IF you were in charge?

Would you send 20,000 - 30,000 ground troops to Syria to take on ISIS forces and recapture some of the captured cities? How many US troops would be captured and beheaded on camera would you be willing to accept? How many US lives would you be willing to lose to recapture Iraq or Syria cities?

We know that the US trained Iraqui forces are not worth a thing. They throw down their US supplied weapons and run. Training and arming them is a waste of money.

Don't say a residual US force would have stopped ISIS. That is looking backward. What do we do - looking forward?

Americans, as a whole, are not willing to waste more American soldiers lives or Billions more dollars throwing them down that mid-east rathole.

Concentrate on national security of antiterrorist activities of all kinds.

If I was in charge the first thing I would do is assess the threat to the US. Answer: large, and only ot get bigger over time.

The next question I’d ask is … do I want to actually solve the problem or just talk and pretend to solve it like Obama is doing. More accurately, he is just punting and letting the next president deal with it … most likely after a severe 9/11 attack here at home.

So, assuming we want to solve the problem YES, we need to send in ground troops. Sorry if that scares you. We can't win by playing total defense at home but I would certainly secure our borders and use all other means at our disposal ... cyber, psychological etc. But, when all is said and done, the infantry makes it real.

The right thing to do is a) accurately describe the enemy as Radical Islam b) a leader / President (currently not applicable) explains to the people what's at stake, c) mobilize for Desert Storm II and 4) change the Rules of Engagement to approximate what we did in WWII when faced with a fascist enemy. We need to destroy ISIS totally, and that means use of tactical nukes if need be to destroy their cities. We also need to make sure Iran does not end up as the hegemon in the Middle East ... and DSII would help with that as well.

Radical Islam uses terror to make us afraid (ie your comment about what ISIS would do to a US captive). Historically, we have to make them more afraid while simultaneously exterminating them as we did the Nazis and Imperial Japanese.

The alternative to victory is to slowly watch the spread of Muhammad's writ and see your grandkids terrorized, and eventually in burhkas and using prayer rugs. Think about it ...

Oh, by the way, bring back the draft. Everyone needs to be in this, including you.

Originally Posted by Guest

If I was in charge the first thing I would do is assess the threat to the US. Answer: large, and only ot get bigger over time.

The next question I’d ask is … do I want to actually solve the problem or just talk and pretend to solve it like Obama is doing. More accurately, he is just punting and letting the next president deal with it … most likely after a severe 9/11 attack here at home.

So, assuming we want to solve the problem YES, we need to send in ground troops. Sorry if that scares you. We can't win by playing total defense at home but I would certainly secure our borders and use all other means at our disposal ... cyber, psychological etc. But, when all is said and done, the infantry makes it real.

The right thing to do is a) accurately describe the enemy as Radical Islam b) a leader / President (currently not applicable) explains to the people what's at stake, c) mobilize for Desert Storm II and 4) change the Rules of Engagement to approximate what we did in WWII when faced with a fascist enemy. We need to destroy ISIS totally, and that means use of tactical nukes if need be to destroy their cities. We also need to make sure Iran does not end up as the hegemon in the Middle East ... and DSII would help with that as well.

Radical Islam uses terror to make us afraid (ie your comment about what ISIS would do to a US captive). Historically, we have to make them more afraid while simultaneously exterminating them as we did the Nazis and Imperial Japanese

Oh, by the way, bring back the draft. Everyone needs to be in this, including you.

You are suggesting we should do worse things to captured ISIS than to video them being beheaded or burnt alive in cages? I hope I misintrepted you.