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.

Originally Posted by 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)

Originally Posted by 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:

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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!

Originally Posted by 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 ?

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

Originally Posted by 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

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.

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

Originally Posted by 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

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.

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:

GOP Presidential Candidate Rand Paul: "GOP Created ISIS"

'They created these people': Rand Paul blames GOP hawks for rise of ISIS | Fox News

And we all know Fox News ONLY publishes the truth


Best Personal Regards

Originally Posted by Guest

GOP Presidential Candidate Rand Paul: "GOP Created ISIS"

'They created these people': Rand Paul blames GOP hawks for rise of ISIS | Fox News

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