Topic: Islamic State 'beheads second US journalist' - page 2. (Read 3083 times)

Oh, I believe that the airstrikes shouldn't be stopped. I think obama actually should bomb more, because if he doesn't, ISIS is going to grow, and more journalists beheaded.

I doubt there are very many people in the middle east that believe that the US currently isn't meddling and playing games in each of these conflicts. If you were to speak to people from the area, the huge amount of paranoia would probably shock you. Even worse than the Russians. And they believe, rightly or wrongly, that Obama is just weaker and more devious, while believing that ISIS is controlled by the US through countries like SA and Qatar.

This seems more like a protracted hostage situation, with 'no more air strikes' being the demand that if not fulfilled, leads to another dead hostage. This framing of the situation does target the president directly, but not because he is Obama: the president is the only person who can 'stop' the next murder.

There really is only one way any president should respond to this. In public anyway.

Firstly, military adventurism is an obsolete term that is now widely considered devoid of geopolitical or formal academia designation. The term was previously employed in substantial indexes to describe Imperial Japan's transnational aggression and territorial expansion. Why does this information hold reverence to your asinine assertions? Because Imperial Japan conducted their aggressive incursion policies for a period most historians agree to be approximately fifty years. We're talking about combat engagements with various countries in protracted ground conflicts with oscillating claims of terrestrial estate and occupation. President Obama has been in office for seven years; how can his Administration's limited statecraft endeavors even begin to grasp "military adventurism"? Of course Obama doesn't fucking have 'it' "in his hope chest". Special operation forces raids and precision airstrikes in third-world countries, besides his inherited problems like Iraq and Afghanistan, are more aligned with military doctrines like manhunting and enemy transportation denial. It is highly unlikely that President Obama would mobilize conventional ground attack elements to combat regional, mobile terrorists while occupying proximate countries for fifty years.

That wasn't what I was saying. I was saying that Obama has a tendency to stay away from adventurism, which I support philosophically. What ISIS is doing is putting pressure on Obama to engage in Syria, which is probably a bad idea. I say that not because I in any way want to see any ISIS members survive...I hope they all get their asses killed...but rather it's a guarantee of long term military action that will almost inevitably end up with American troops in a shooting war in the midst of a civil war with Islamic terrorists...Iraq pt 2 if you will. It's very hard to stop mission cree, which Obama is seeing right now.

I can't see how military adventurism or aggressive world views tie into the current situation.

The air attacks against IS, that these murders are purportedly a response to, are neither adventurism nor the result of an aggressive world view. In fact our response in that region so far is markedly less aggressive than the last time we played air strikes/ground assault and assholes over there, so I really don't get what you mean.

This is very sad. Unfortunately, this will keep happening until ISIS is stopped.

Or, when obama is no longer president.

And you are atypical. This sort of thing has an impact on the president, even though I generally agree with the policy of moving away from military adventurism when at all rational. I may not like it, but it's also reality. The US isn't ready yet to take a less aggressive world view.

May be Obama is thinking that the ISIS pose no threat to mainland US and therefore he doesn't need to bother about them. Also, his term will come to an end in 2-years time. He don't want to tarnish his reputation by undertaking another war, causing thousands of American casualties. But what will happen if the ISIS launch a terror attack in the mainland US?

I dont know what Obama is cooking right now. 2 innocent foreign are dead because of this thing called freedom. Obama should move now. He said he is not threatened by it but still he should strike back now.

A number of actions taken by Obama have increased the power base of radical Muslims.

A number of inactions taken by Obama have incresed the power base of radical Muslims.

A number of domestic attacks by radical Muslims have been relabled by Obama to not be attacks by radical Muslims.

This guy, Obama, sure is starting to look like he likes radical Muslims.

Howitzers, and tanks, and helicopters? I don't think that the Kurds have a lot of these items. (I am talking about the Kurds in Syria and Iraq, and not about those in Turkey). Right now they are the most "secular" fighting force out there in that region. Arming them is much better than arming the cowards of the Iraqi army, as the US have been doing till now.

ISIS terrorists could be in America in just months if 'neglected,' warns Saudi king
Saudi King Abdullah predicted that bloodthirsty jihadists will quickly spread throughout Europe and the United States if left unchecked, according to remarks reported Saturday by official Saudi media. On the same day Abdullah delivered his warning, U.S. fighter jets and unmanned drones launched five strikes against ISIS near Iraq's Mosul Dam.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/isis-terrorists-america-warns-saudi-king-article-1.1922590#ixzz3CCOj374A

[/b]

That would be a well earned success.

My suggestion is NOT to kill all the Muslims in case they might become radicalized.  That's the point. My suggestion is that we continue to deal things in an intelligent, civilized fashion.   We do not kill people because of what they might one day do.  We don't kill people because of what someone who shares their religion does. When someone shows signs that they may be becoming radicalized, we watch them. If they try something, we try to head them off. If we're unsuccessful in prevention, we react - we arrest, we try, we imprison, or even execute. But we DON'T preemptively commit genocide. It's not who we are.

President Obama approved sending 350 additional troops to the Iraqi capital to increase security at the Baghdad embassy compound and its support facilities.

The Pentagon said late Tuesday that the new personnel will build upon previous deployments that were announced in June, boosting security in Iraq to about 820 people.
-snip-

With the 350 new arrivals, there will be 1,113 personnel in Iraq.

The idea that you would school anyone and suggest they learn the facts when you can't even tell the difference between a fact and a lie is absurd. And as far as Saudi is concerned, they used to be a trusted ally but today they are distancing themselves from the obama admin after kicking him out of the country. And when the Saudis worked with other nations to do a fly over they didn't bother to engage with the US or even let them know their plans, but I have to ask, what do you think the Saudi are doing and what affect does that have on what obama does or more to the point what obama doesn't do since he doesn't seem to be able to do much besides golf and fund raise. Below is a little update from Saudi as you call it, now what do you think obama is going to do in response to the information the Saudi provided? According to obama our inept military has no plan and our intel has no idea how violent and fast moving this group is so who the hell if going to formulate a plan lit? obama the great warrior with all his military background as a community organizer? What will his plan be? To throw money at the problem like his solution to every other problem the US or the world has ever faced? If obama had aided the civilian rebels during his first term the rebels would have defeated asad by his second term instead of the terrorists joining the rebels and taking over the fight in the name of terrorism. Had obama left forces in iraq isis wouldn't have been able to recruit from iraq or invade iraq but obama didn't give a damn about the future of iraq he only cared about appeasing you lefties by pulling out every last troop and now we face a far greater risk thanks to the inept asshole in the oval office, the very same inept asshole that you laud as a great leader.

... and RPGs, and assault rifles, and howitzers, and tanks, and helicopters, largely from the US, Germany, and Russia (both Soviet and "modern"). What will the Kurds do with these weapons if they should kill enough ISIS for ISIS to make peace with them? Stay within their traditional borders, content with victory and the safety they've brought their people?

Instead of reacting with no knowledge you might just try and learn about what the problems in the Middle east are.  You show you have no idea,  What is Saudi doing right now and how does that effect what we do.  How do we handle Syria if we kill off Isis who is also fighting Assad.  What are the rest of the powers doing and how will that all effect what we do.  So without that type of Knowledge that you don't have it might be wiser to take time and learn instead of showing how much information you don't have.

  The real problem is that the righties just look and see how they can make Obama look bad and don't really give a damn about how it will effect the US and the people in the middle east.

Time to end this once and for all.   If Obama doesn't do something, it's going to get very ugly over here, when ISIS shows up and starts hitting soft targets.  Americans will not take it.