Originally Posted by Guest

Fine. Now answer the question, what should Obama do to stop ISIS?

Comparing not wanting to pay taxes to not wanting to send ground troops to stop ISIS is totally unbelievable. If we don't pay taxes, the country doesn't function. If we don't stop ISIS, the country is just fine. ISIS is going to invade the US with large number of ground troops? That is what you are implying.

Russia with its alliance with Assad, and Iran with its Muslim leaning (Shia, or Suni, I can't tell one from the other) with Iran will take a more active role in getting rid of ISIS. The enemy of our enemy( double negative) is our friend. ISIS is a more direct threat to them, because they are in the immediate area. If you want to call it leading from behind, go right ahead.

Iraq should be split into three countries. ISIS controlling one of them is an option. At some point on the near future, Assad has got to go.

You're kidding right? No one is that naive. Iran will take a more active role in getting rid of ISIS? That's pretty funny.
ISIS is not going to bother us? That's naive too. Your head in the sand attitude is what always gets our country into trouble. Liberals always want someone else to do the work for them. Example of lazy and ignorant. It's your passive attitude that allows the enemy to believe we are weak. And we are until they attack us and then America reacts like a stung bear, lashing out.

We could have stayed in Iraq. Check out the facts related to the agreement that Bush signed. I am not going to explain the totality of the circumstances surrounding the agreement. And as we all know, those agreements are fluid and can be amended on the fly. You dont' have to believe me. I realize that this gives Obama an excuse if things didn't turn out for him, and they didn't. He wanted at least one thing/promise to come about in his two terms. He has been such a failure, it's nice to be able to blame Bush, but such a weak tool and points to him being such a weak failure of a leader. Leading from behind is just another way of saying that he is a "follower."

Originally Posted by Guest

Fine. Now answer the question, what should Obama do to stop ISIS?

Comparing not wanting to pay taxes to not wanting to send ground troops to stop ISIS is totally unbelievable. If we don't pay taxes, the country doesn't function. If we don't stop ISIS, the country is just fine. ISIS is going to invade the US with large number of ground troops? That is what you are implying.

Russia with its alliance with Assad, and Iran with its Muslim leaning (Shia, or Suni, I can't tell one from the other) with Iran will take a more active role in getting rid of ISIS. The enemy of our enemy( double negative) is our friend. ISIS is a more direct threat to them, because they are in the immediate area. If you want to call it leading from behind, go right ahead.

Iraq should be split into three countries. ISIS controlling one of them is an option. At some point on the near future, Assad has got to go.

The highlight is all that is needed to signify the thinking. I do not think naieve is an adequate descriptor.....not even close. In the spririt of remaining civil....enough said!

Originally Posted by Guest

Fine. Now answer the question, what should Obama do to stop ISIS?

Comparing not wanting to pay taxes to not wanting to send ground troops to stop ISIS is totally unbelievable. If we don't pay taxes, the country doesn't function. If we don't stop ISIS, the country is just fine. ISIS is going to invade the US with large number of ground troops? That is what you are implying.

Russia with its alliance with Assad, and Iran with its Muslim leaning (Shia, or Suni, I can't tell one from the other) with Iran will take a more active role in getting rid of ISIS. The enemy of our enemy( double negative) is our friend. ISIS is a more direct threat to them, because they are in the immediate area. If you want to call it leading from behind, go right ahead.

Iraq should be split into three countries. ISIS controlling one of them is an option. At some point on the near future, Assad has got to go.

Talk about being criminally naïve ... sheez ... I've seen a lot of incredibly narrow and stupid comments on this board but you take the cake. With your comments about ISIS, you clearly don't have a geopolitical bone in your body.

To answer your question ... Obama is functionally incapable of stopping ISIS because he is not a leader. He is also weak, feminine and irresolute except when he fights the "safe" enemy of Republicans.

A true leader would explain to the country the stakes with ISIS, connect the dots with the Islamic refugee invasion and destruction of Christianity in the Middle East ... and then wage total war. New rules of engagement ... the cities under ISIS control are carpet bombed until everything and everyone living there is dead. Get an Arab coalition army BUT use US troops and let them loose.

Problem solved.

Originally Posted by Guest

Talk about being criminally naïve ... sheez ... I've seen a lot of incredibly narrow and stupid comments on this board but you take the cake. With your comments about ISIS, you clearly don't have a geopolitical bone in your body.

To answer your question ... Obama is functionally incapable of stopping ISIS because he is not a leader. He is also weak, feminine and irresolute except when he fights the "safe" enemy of Republicans.

A true leader would explain to the country the stakes with ISIS, connect the dots with the Islamic refugee invasion and destruction of Christianity in the Middle East ... and then wage total war. New rules of engagement ... the cities under ISIS control are carpet bombed until everything and everyone living there is dead. Get an Arab coalition army BUT use US troops and let them loose.

Problem solved.

totally. The only thing that I would do different is.........nothing, just what you said.