Just read about anonymous, targetting ISIS operations to recruit new people.
One good thing that happened recently.
Topic: Obama will ask Congress to authorize military force against ISIS (Read 669 times)
February 08, 2015, 09:49:54 PM
Hope he use drones instead of spending billions on ruining the middle east even more, doubtful though.. This will only piss them off more and we will see more heads chopped off in western societies. I dread for the day when ISIS start going berzerk in Sweden.
February 08, 2015, 08:24:17 PM
Quote
President Obama is expected to formally ask Congress to authorize the use of military force against the Islamic State terror group in the coming days, even as lawmakers said crafting and passing such a measure would be a challenge.
The U.S. has been carrying out airstrikes against the terrorists, most commonly known as ISIS, in Iraq and Syria since August and September, respectively. In doing so, Obama has been relying on congressional authorizations that President George W. Bush used to justify military action after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Critics have called the White House's use of post-9/11 congressional authorizations a legal stretch, though Obama has previously argued that a new authorization isn't legally necessary.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Thursday that the administration is dedicated to getting a new authorization with bipartisian support. He declined to comment on specific provisions, including how long the authorization will last, what geographical areas it will cover and whether it will allow for the possibility of ground troops. Earnest said those details were still being worked out.
"When it comes to fighting a war, the Congress should not tie the president's hands, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters Thursday morning. However, Boehner later added, "It's also incumbent on the president to make the case to the American people on why we need to fight this fight. This is not going to be an easy lift."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said talks with the administration are focusing on an authorization time frame of three years, while the other issues are still being worked out. Pelosi added that she ultimately expects a compromise on the outstanding issues to be reached and added that she hopes Congress will repeal the 2002 congressional authorization for the war in Iraq while retaining the 2001 authorization for military action in Afghanistan.
"I'm not saying anybody's come to an agreement on it," Pelosi said. "I think it's going to be a challenge, but we will have it."
The U.S. has been carrying out airstrikes against the terrorists, most commonly known as ISIS, in Iraq and Syria since August and September, respectively. In doing so, Obama has been relying on congressional authorizations that President George W. Bush used to justify military action after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Critics have called the White House's use of post-9/11 congressional authorizations a legal stretch, though Obama has previously argued that a new authorization isn't legally necessary.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Thursday that the administration is dedicated to getting a new authorization with bipartisian support. He declined to comment on specific provisions, including how long the authorization will last, what geographical areas it will cover and whether it will allow for the possibility of ground troops. Earnest said those details were still being worked out.
"When it comes to fighting a war, the Congress should not tie the president's hands, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters Thursday morning. However, Boehner later added, "It's also incumbent on the president to make the case to the American people on why we need to fight this fight. This is not going to be an easy lift."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said talks with the administration are focusing on an authorization time frame of three years, while the other issues are still being worked out. Pelosi added that she ultimately expects a compromise on the outstanding issues to be reached and added that she hopes Congress will repeal the 2002 congressional authorization for the war in Iraq while retaining the 2001 authorization for military action in Afghanistan.
"I'm not saying anybody's come to an agreement on it," Pelosi said. "I think it's going to be a challenge, but we will have it."
More...http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/06/white-house-says-obama-will-ask-congress-to-authorize-military-force-against/?intcmp=trending
Doesnt this seam like a bit of an overkill, like using grenade to kill a spider ?
It would be much more effective to coordinate ground actions with local authority, and needless to say far more money wise, or is there yet another hidden agenda behind this.
To me it seams that Obama has a toy and wants to play with it, and now hes searching the playground, because without war, most of USA's spendings are useless, and God forbid they instead do something about their economy :]
February 08, 2015, 07:55:08 PM
It's because that pussy muslim arab kenyan president supports it! 
I have to agree, he was against it at the beginning maybe because he just wanted to sit back and masturbate over the massacre's the horrible creature.
The time was months ago get over there and do what the US terrorists do best, beat other terrorists and steal everything.
February 08, 2015, 07:32:03 PM
it will be like Syria: Obama will ask Congress then do nothing and things will stay the same or get worse
February 08, 2015, 06:48:24 PM
Cruz, McCain, Kerry: America should arm Ukraine
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/08/cruz-pushes-for-us-to-arm-ukraine-plan-opposed-by-germany-ahead-possible-peace/
Quote
Sen. Ted Cruz said Sunday that the U.S. should honor a treaty obligation to supply weapons to Ukraine to thwart Russian-back separatists -- a plan with little support among European leaders trying to broker a cease-fire deal as early as Wednesday.
“When it comes to Russia and Ukraine, the path we're on doesn't make any sense,” Cruz, R-Texas, told ABC’s “This Week” while at the Munich Security Conference. “We need to be providing defensive arms to the people of Ukraine.”
He was in Germany as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation attending the conference that also met with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.
........................................
Secretary of State John Kerry, who also is in Munich, on Sunday tried to dispel the notion of a trans-Atlantic rift on supply arms, saying U.S. and its European allies are "united in our diplomacy" on Ukraine.
.......................................
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was also in Munich and said the U.S. must provide defensive arms to Ukraine.
more hyper-interventionism at link
“When it comes to Russia and Ukraine, the path we're on doesn't make any sense,” Cruz, R-Texas, told ABC’s “This Week” while at the Munich Security Conference. “We need to be providing defensive arms to the people of Ukraine.”
He was in Germany as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation attending the conference that also met with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.
........................................
Secretary of State John Kerry, who also is in Munich, on Sunday tried to dispel the notion of a trans-Atlantic rift on supply arms, saying U.S. and its European allies are "united in our diplomacy" on Ukraine.
.......................................
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was also in Munich and said the U.S. must provide defensive arms to Ukraine.
more hyper-interventionism at link
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/08/cruz-pushes-for-us-to-arm-ukraine-plan-opposed-by-germany-ahead-possible-peace/
February 07, 2015, 05:21:04 PM
The only reason Obama is considering consulting Congress about this is; if it goes South, he can blame them.
I keep hearing "no US boots on the ground", and I support that100%.!
However, if Obama had not refused to send armaments to Ukraine, Syria and Iran when all this first started; giving these countries the fire power they asked for to defend themselves without involving US troops on the ground, it's possible we would not have a world-wide crisis on our hands.
I keep hearing "no US boots on the ground", and I support that100%.!
However, if Obama had not refused to send armaments to Ukraine, Syria and Iran when all this first started; giving these countries the fire power they asked for to defend themselves without involving US troops on the ground, it's possible we would not have a world-wide crisis on our hands.
The US should NOT send Ukraine, Syria, Iran or Israel anything.
I think people are getting fed up with fighting everyones fights. It time other countries learn how to wipe their own nose.
Lets stop wasting money on international issues and spend that money on the betterment of the American people.
February 07, 2015, 01:46:28 PM
The only reason Obama is considering consulting Congress about this is; if it goes South, he can blame them.
I keep hearing "no US boots on the ground", and I support that100%.!
However, if Obama had not refused to send armaments to Ukraine, Syria and Iran when all this first started; giving these countries the fire power they asked for to defend themselves without involving US troops on the ground, it's possible we would not have a world-wide crisis on our hands.
I keep hearing "no US boots on the ground", and I support that100%.!
However, if Obama had not refused to send armaments to Ukraine, Syria and Iran when all this first started; giving these countries the fire power they asked for to defend themselves without involving US troops on the ground, it's possible we would not have a world-wide crisis on our hands.
Obama is sending armaments to Ukraine, Syria. There are also US mercenaries fighting in Ukraine.
That's why we have a world-wide crisis on our hands!
February 07, 2015, 01:17:24 PM
They just don't know what they want.
The republicans have been barking about military action for two years.
Now, they don't know if they will support it.
They dont think, they just do whatever opposite obama proposes. The republicans have been barking about military action for two years.
Now, they don't know if they will support it.
February 07, 2015, 07:53:54 AM
The only reason Obama is considering consulting Congress about this is; if it goes South, he can blame them.
I keep hearing "no US boots on the ground", and I support that100%.!
However, if Obama had not refused to send armaments to Ukraine, Syria and Iran when all this first started; giving these countries the fire power they asked for to defend themselves without involving US troops on the ground, it's possible we would not have a world-wide crisis on our hands.
I keep hearing "no US boots on the ground", and I support that100%.!
However, if Obama had not refused to send armaments to Ukraine, Syria and Iran when all this first started; giving these countries the fire power they asked for to defend themselves without involving US troops on the ground, it's possible we would not have a world-wide crisis on our hands.
February 07, 2015, 06:51:35 AM
Aren't they already there? Sounds like he wants to go in full scale though. Nice to see he's trying to escalate the conflict whilst he's on the way out.
February 07, 2015, 02:57:25 AM
Their obstructionist policies are an abomination to America.
They are a sick bunch of do-nothings.
They are a sick bunch of do-nothings.
February 07, 2015, 02:27:47 AM
It's because that pussy muslim arab kenyan president supports it!
February 07, 2015, 02:25:05 AM
They just don't know what they want.
The republicans have been barking about military action for two years.
Now, they don't know if they will support it.
The republicans have been barking about military action for two years.
Now, they don't know if they will support it.
February 07, 2015, 01:45:20 AM
how the hell is this news now. I thought this was done months ago. They've been 'talking' about it for months. That's just a big UNSAT for our feds.
February 06, 2015, 08:10:27 PM
Quote
President Obama is expected to formally ask Congress to authorize the use of military force against the Islamic State terror group in the coming days, even as lawmakers said crafting and passing such a measure would be a challenge.
The U.S. has been carrying out airstrikes against the terrorists, most commonly known as ISIS, in Iraq and Syria since August and September, respectively. In doing so, Obama has been relying on congressional authorizations that President George W. Bush used to justify military action after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Critics have called the White House's use of post-9/11 congressional authorizations a legal stretch, though Obama has previously argued that a new authorization isn't legally necessary.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Thursday that the administration is dedicated to getting a new authorization with bipartisian support. He declined to comment on specific provisions, including how long the authorization will last, what geographical areas it will cover and whether it will allow for the possibility of ground troops. Earnest said those details were still being worked out.
"When it comes to fighting a war, the Congress should not tie the president's hands, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters Thursday morning. However, Boehner later added, "It's also incumbent on the president to make the case to the American people on why we need to fight this fight. This is not going to be an easy lift."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said talks with the administration are focusing on an authorization time frame of three years, while the other issues are still being worked out. Pelosi added that she ultimately expects a compromise on the outstanding issues to be reached and added that she hopes Congress will repeal the 2002 congressional authorization for the war in Iraq while retaining the 2001 authorization for military action in Afghanistan.
"I'm not saying anybody's come to an agreement on it," Pelosi said. "I think it's going to be a challenge, but we will have it."
The U.S. has been carrying out airstrikes against the terrorists, most commonly known as ISIS, in Iraq and Syria since August and September, respectively. In doing so, Obama has been relying on congressional authorizations that President George W. Bush used to justify military action after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Critics have called the White House's use of post-9/11 congressional authorizations a legal stretch, though Obama has previously argued that a new authorization isn't legally necessary.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Thursday that the administration is dedicated to getting a new authorization with bipartisian support. He declined to comment on specific provisions, including how long the authorization will last, what geographical areas it will cover and whether it will allow for the possibility of ground troops. Earnest said those details were still being worked out.
"When it comes to fighting a war, the Congress should not tie the president's hands, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters Thursday morning. However, Boehner later added, "It's also incumbent on the president to make the case to the American people on why we need to fight this fight. This is not going to be an easy lift."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said talks with the administration are focusing on an authorization time frame of three years, while the other issues are still being worked out. Pelosi added that she ultimately expects a compromise on the outstanding issues to be reached and added that she hopes Congress will repeal the 2002 congressional authorization for the war in Iraq while retaining the 2001 authorization for military action in Afghanistan.
"I'm not saying anybody's come to an agreement on it," Pelosi said. "I think it's going to be a challenge, but we will have it."
More...http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/06/white-house-says-obama-will-ask-congress-to-authorize-military-force-against/?intcmp=trending
Jump to: