rickyp wrote:fate

But, he was right about Syria--if we had intervened, things would not be as bad as they are

You're joking right?
You remember what Iraq was like ?
Why would Syria be any different?

Apples and volcanoes.

Iraq was stable before we invaded. Syria has not been stable for a few years now.

ISIS was a minor force 3 years ago. It now controls territory the size of the State of Indiana.

"Intervening" in Syria 2-3 years ago would not have meant "invading" Syria.

Try again.

Doctor Fate wrote: The President boasts of having a coalition. You know what Saudi Arabia is providing? They're part of the "coalition." They're going to provide a training ground for Syrian rebels to train.

Wow. Impressive!

Maybe a few other countries can provide lunches!

Saudi Arabia provided fighter-bombers to the effort last night, as did UAE, Jordan and Bahrain - and these did attack targets. Qatar provided fighters for cover.

This is wider assistance among Arab nations than in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote: The President boasts of having a coalition. You know what Saudi Arabia is providing? They're part of the "coalition." They're going to provide a training ground for Syrian rebels to train.

Wow. Impressive!

Maybe a few other countries can provide lunches!

Saudi Arabia provided fighter-bombers to the effort last night, as did UAE, Jordan and Bahrain - and these did attack targets. Qatar provided fighters for cover.

This is wider assistance among Arab nations than in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Terrific. Now, if they'll just do more than a few sorties--like send troops--that would be really nice.

Meanwhile, Qatar remains a financier of terrorism.

For me, though, the main issues are these:

1. How does Obama have the Constitutional authority to conduct a war in Syria and Iraq without Congressional approval? Whether or not Congress is compliant, how does he have the authority? The 2001 vote was previously dismissed by Obama himself. He said he needed to go to Congress re Syria. Now, he suddenly has the authority? Under what pretense?

2. Nothing on the drawing board or taking place is going to defeat ISIS.

While I'm at it, why is no one (namely the President) proposing an immediate passage of a law that says if you are an American and go to fight for ISIS (or some similar organization) it is a crime? That would perhaps deter some from going. More importantly, it would give the FBI a green light to arrest all who come back to the US BEFORE they can carry out missions here.

Something is almost bound to happen here. It's too easy. Why not preempt it--especially in light of the Boston Marathon bombing? The Tsarnaev brothers went to Dhagestan and received training, returned, and carried out an attack. Why wait for ISIS to do that or worse?

bbauska wrote:Just a couple statements of fact...

Bush 43 bombed 2 countries (Afghanistan and Iraq)
Obama bombed 7 countries (Libya, Afghanistan,Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen)

Impressive! Is President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize winner that we thought he was?

And, if we're going to compare the two, this is helpful. http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/23/n ... n-on-iraq/

One year ago, President Obama was at the UN proclaiming the end of the Iraq war. How's that working out, Mr. President?

As I claimed in the "Magoo" forum, Obama's problem is he refuses to see the world as it is. It was only the public's reaction to the gruesome beheadings that pushed him to act more seriously (or at least publicly) against ISIS. Even so, today in the UN there were ZERO mentions of Islam. Now, we all know it's not "most Muslims" who support terror, but all of these groups, every one of them, is Islamic. Yet, the President does not want to say it.

More of the same: he sees what he wants to see.

Doctor Fate wrote:Terrific. Now, if they'll just do more than a few sorties--like send troops--that would be really nice.

It is early days yet. You claimed it was merely going to be training, and reality has shown that already the Saudis have committed firepower. Rather than accept your sniping was incorrect, you double-down.

1. How does Obama have the Constitutional authority to conduct a war in Syria and Iraq without Congressional approval? Whether or not Congress is compliant, how does he have the authority? The 2001 vote was previously dismissed by Obama himself. He said he needed to go to Congress re Syria. Now, he suddenly has the authority? Under what pretense?

Didn't ISIS recently murder two US citizens and declare war and vengeance on the USA?

2. Nothing on the drawing board or taking place is going to defeat ISIS.

You don't know what is on the 'drawing board' yet. At least I doubt that you or anyone else in the general public is being kept informed of the actual plans.

While I'm at it, why is no one (namely the President) proposing an immediate passage of a law that says if you are an American and go to fight for ISIS (or some similar organization) it is a crime? That would perhaps deter some from going. More importantly, it would give the FBI a green light to arrest all who come back to the US BEFORE they can carry out missions here.

Something is almost bound to happen here. It's too easy. Why not preempt it--especially in light of the Boston Marathon bombing? The Tsarnaev brothers went to Dhagestan and received training, returned, and carried out an attack. Why wait for ISIS to do that or worse?

Do they get membership cards or tattoos in ISIS? How would you know an individual had gone to fight for ISIS as opposed to, say, a less radical part of the FSA? Should you declare someone who goes to Syria a criminal just in case, or present proof before you arrest someone on entry to their homeland?

Besides, there are (at my last estimate) about 435 people who each have the power to propose a law in the US direct;y in the very place where it gets decided on. Obama is not one of them. Why can't the 'legislature' do this, or at least one of them try?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Terrific. Now, if they'll just do more than a few sorties--like send troops--that would be really nice.

It is early days yet. You claimed it was merely going to be training, and reality has shown that already the Saudis have committed firepower. Rather than accept your sniping was incorrect, you double-down.

Pfft. What I "claimed" was 100% accurate when I "claimed" it.

Here's another claim: ISIS will not be defeated by airpower alone. So, who are the soldiers who will win the battles?

1. How does Obama have the Constitutional authority to conduct a war in Syria and Iraq without Congressional approval? Whether or not Congress is compliant, how does he have the authority? The 2001 vote was previously dismissed by Obama himself. He said he needed to go to Congress re Syria. Now, he suddenly has the authority? Under what pretense?

Didn't ISIS recently murder two US citizens and declare war and vengeance on the USA?

Yes. Didn't AQ declare war on the US? Did Bush go to Congress before attacking AQ in Afghanistan?

So, who is the "cowboy" and who is the "constitutionalist?"

2. Nothing on the drawing board or taking place is going to defeat ISIS.

You don't know what is on the 'drawing board' yet. At least I doubt that you or anyone else in the general public is being kept informed of the actual plans.

Meh. He pretty much has told them all the things he won't do. It's like FDR announcing where the Allies would not land--brilliant strategy.

Do they get membership cards or tattoos in ISIS? How would you know an individual had gone to fight for ISIS as opposed to, say, a less radical part of the FSA? Should you declare someone who goes to Syria a criminal just in case, or present proof before you arrest someone on entry to their homeland?

Oh, come on. You're smarter than that. An American citizen wants to travel to Syria? He should be flagged before he/she goes. They should have to state the purpose of their visit. If they say, "To fight for the Free Syrian Army," then we check with the FSA and see if they "report in." If not, then . . duh.

Besides, there are (at my last estimate) about 435 people who each have the power to propose a law in the US direct;y in the very place where it gets decided on. Obama is not one of them. Why can't the 'legislature' do this, or at least one of them try?

Actually, President's frequently propose legislation. Would it have to be introduced by a Senator or Congressman? Yes, but Obama could ask for it.

So, something like this. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -Returning

Of course, Harry Reid would not permit a vote on it without Obama's approval . . . like most things in the Senate.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Terrific. Now, if they'll just do more than a few sorties--like send troops--that would be really nice.

It is early days yet. You claimed it was merely going to be training, and reality has shown that already the Saudis have committed firepower. Rather than accept your sniping was incorrect, you double-down.

Pfft. What I "claimed" was 100% accurate when I "claimed" it.

No, it was what you knew at the time. I doubt very much that Saudi armed forces were only engaged in the last few days - it would have taken planning and negotiation. It was only as accurate as your incomplete knowledge at the time you made the claim.

Here's another claim: ISIS will not be defeated by airpower alone. So, who are the soldiers who will win the battles?

Ideally the Iraqi army, the Kurdish peshmerga, Sunni militia in Iran, the FSA (and hey, the Syrian government forces can join in if they like). With some assistance from US and potentially other Western forces as 'advisors' (which usually means special forces) or more.

Much of that is already there, it's more a case of getting them to agree to work together (perhaps not Assad's lot). Is it going to happen overnight? Nope. Is it going to be easy? Nope. Will they run everything past you first? Nope.

1. How does Obama have the Constitutional authority to conduct a war in Syria and Iraq without Congressional approval? Whether or not Congress is compliant, how does he have the authority? The 2001 vote was previously dismissed by Obama himself. He said he needed to go to Congress re Syria. Now, he suddenly has the authority? Under what pretense?

Didn't ISIS recently murder two US citizens and declare war and vengeance on the USA?

Yes. Didn't AQ declare war on the US? Did Bush go to Congress before attacking AQ in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan, and the Taliban that ran the government were not 'Al Qaeda'. So attacking them was not retaliation for 9/11, it was to remove them to enable retaliation on Al Qaeda.

ISIS is ISIS. So attacking them in retaliation for killing US civilians and declaring a war is different. I suppose you could argue that acting in Syria without the consent of Syria is an act of war, but so far the only people I've seen argue that is Iran.

So, who is the "cowboy" and who is the "constitutionalist?"

Perhaps when Congress comes back into session they can ratify. They are on a District work week and get back to DC on Monday (but no voting until the evening).

Meh. He pretty much has told them all the things he won't do. It's like FDR announcing where the Allies would not land--brilliant strategy.

The Allies spent ages denying Soviet calls for a new Front in the West. And then they did it. Apparently there is a place for bluffing even in war.

Oh, come on. You're smarter than that. An American citizen wants to travel to Syria? He should be flagged before he/she goes. They should have to state the purpose of their visit. If they say, "To fight for the Free Syrian Army," then we check with the FSA and see if they "report in." If not, then . . duh.

Because disparate rebel armies are so assiduous at keeping records. Do they get an ID card on a lanyard when they join too?

Seriously, I'm sure you can pass a law to do this, but is it enforceable, and is it foolproof?

Besides, there are (at my last estimate) about 435 people who each have the power to propose a law in the US direct;y in the very place where it gets decided on. Obama is not one of them. Why can't the 'legislature' do this, or at least one of them try?

Actually, President's frequently propose legislation. Would it have to be introduced by a Senator or Congressman? Yes, but Obama could ask for it.

But no-one has to wait for him to.

So, something like this. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -Returning

Of course, Harry Reid would not permit a vote on it without Obama's approval . . . like most things in the Senate.

So someone did propose it, and Reid blocked it in the Senate - although a decent political actor might have tried to force a vote and convince other Senators. Perhaps Cruz is too busy building alliances with the Christians of the Middle East to bring his conciliatory oratorical skills to the Capitol to back his own proposal up :-)

Of course, the House leadership not being beholden to Reid (or Obama) would be less likely to block such a bill.

There are some issues with such a Bill though, as worded by Cruz. Even though the US is not a signatory to the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, the issue

Danivon, I will email you. It seems rickyp has hacked your account.

I will respond, but only after you verify this bilge came from you.

bbauska

What will it take for a response to eliminate the growth of this threat? Really, I want to know what those who have a different opinion on this subject to answer that question.

What makes you think that ISIS can be permanently destroyed with a military solution?
The track record in Afghanistan or Iraq where overwhelming military superiority only tamped down the radicals for awhile?

In the end there has to be an alternative offered to the people of the region that offers them hope of a better life. The occupation of Iraq ended up with the Sunnis on the very short end of the stick in the Iraq that the US left behind. Which is why ISIS grew there. It grew in Syria because the attractive alternative to Assad's extreme methods were the extreme methods of ISIS.

ISIS ideology cannot be sustained. It is largely a criminal enterprise stealing to benefit a few. If it is to be eradicated it will happen because the local populace and local governments have both defeated it militarily and provided a genuine governance alternative.
Our efforts to support the local governments militarily cannot be to the point of taking over the battle for them. (Remember how effective that was in Viet Nam?) Therefore the limited support through air superiority gives them an edge that will allow them to fight on equal terms. At the same time the eventual victory will be seen as won by the legitimate victors and not as - once again - delivered to them by the Western crusaders...

This is an important factor. A self won victory over ISIS will provide significant legitimacy that a westerrn victory might not. (i.e.Its always been important,. for instance that the US revolution be seen as an American victory, even though the key victory at Yorktown was largely due to the French. )

bbauska

As to what I think about ISIS? Destroying the camps, leveling the cities, eliminating the populations there, and making the land uninhabitable would take care of that

Genocide is not an answer.
Especially since many of the people you are willing to murder, are subjects of ISIS, and not active in the conduct of the war or the occupations.

Here's a Palestinian with some answers...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daoud-kut ... 10442.html