Obama's War Speech and what he Didn't Say

If President Obama is going to expand the U.S. military action overseas shouldn't he at least consider NOT cutting the military budget further to pay for his beloved domestic programs.

Obama may be in denial that we are at war with ISIS, but make no mistake: ISIS is at war with us. He can bury his head in the sand all he wants. What is it going to take to get him to come up for air?

Al Qaeda did everything they did on 9-11-01 with half a billion dollars. News sources say ISIS currently has about $2 billion in their coffers. I think ISIS is far and away a greater threat than AQ ever was.

On the bright side, they're far closer to the old COBRA villains from the 1980s GI Joe toy line than anything else. Back at the height of the Cold War, instead of fighting Soviets, Joe was fighting a masked terrorist organization. Maybe they could change ISIS' name to the Caliphate Of Batshit Ramadan Assholes or something.

January 20th, 2017.

Seriously. Obama is a liberal. And to liberals, EVERY war is Vietnam. And the lesson Obama took from the Vietnam War was that Johnson ruined his presidency fighting it and that is not something he plans to do.

Not every war is Vietnam. While I believe war should be the last drastic step, there are times when war is justifiable and necessary.

From what I've read, he views the domestic as his job, the foreign stuff as an unwanted aside. He's less of an isolationist, more of a provincialist, which is a pity.

Its also a pity he's not taking advantage of the fact he's leaving office and allying with Iran directly in defeating them, it may infuriate a few Republicans but only the really fucking stupid ones.

I think we're going to be battling the ME for a long time, after spending billions in Afghanistan in the 80's, the West turned its back rather than invest in its future and so the nutters took control. And the same will keep happening so long as we think winning the invasion is winning the war against fundie fruitcakes.

If you can't be arsed with the nation building aspects, just be honest about it and flatten the place so nothing with more than one cell will be knocking around the place for a few decades. Otherwise, once you've finished blowing things up, start identifying the smart kids, educate them in the west and parachute them into the political structure 20 years later. In the meantime, build schools and hospitals, and anyone starts splashing acid in faces for daring to learn to read or not wearing a sheet over their head, try them in the host country, then imprison someplace else. Alaska for example. It may take 40 or 50 years for peace to sink in, but better that than a multi-billion dollar war every 10 fucking years til the sun goes nova.

Unfortunately, the really fucking stupid ones have a tendency to end up in the House of Representatives.

I remember on 9/11 thinking back to the Cole bombing. Osama declared war on the US back then, if not earlier and it was ignored. Fast forward a year later and we were seriously attacked. I don't like the idea of perpetual war or going back into Iraq, but air strikes just won't do. We are going to have to go full throttle on these fucker or go home. Half measures just won't cut it.

As long as anybody but you and Dayton has to do the fighting, right?

I'm not qualified to serve.

Those are always the ones most willing to send someone else. So what's the stance at the moment? Last week you were going to win back the country for the Confederacy. Coupla days ago you were lamenting the start of WW III. Now you want someone else to put themselves in harm's way...for who or what, exactly? Do you consider yourself an American or just a contrarian?

I'm starting to reconsider my stance on whether or not I wish cancer upon you. It's not looking good for you.

Garamet: being purposely obtuse since 1850.

At this point, being Maud Dib's apprentice sounds intriguing.

So you believe in hate but not much else. Kind of like ISIS.

This "why don't you go do it yourself" BS is one of the biggest "cop outs" or "strawmen arguments" I've ever seen.

It isn't a real argument. It is just something to ridicule and insult personally.

I've hardly been a major advocate of expanded warfare on this recent issue. But I will say if it comes to that point, I would advocated the trained professionals who VOLUNTEERED for the job to be the ones who go do it.

Wanting people to go fight....just to make a point is beyond stupid on your part (and others) Garamet.

What do you and others call wanting to send untrained, unqualified people off to fight just to score a political point for yourselves?

After all, I would sign up in a heartbeat if I did not have family, work, financial, political and religious reasons preventing me from it.

Who gives a rats ass if 10,000 or so are killed anyway? IIRC that number of Americans were killed every month in World War II and nobody complained.

I also believe in the Constitution which acknowledges my right to free speech. That means I can discuss war without ever been in war. I can talk about sending troops to fight without being an actual general. This is the same bullshit El Chup pulled in the 9/11 thread. You're not allowed to talk about something unless you've personally experienced. Fuck you and fuck him for telling me what to think. This is the same old retread of liberal logic; "I believe in the Constitution only when it's convenient and only if I can win a debate." I have to agree with Dayton, it's the biggest straw man you can find and I refuse to play your gotcha game. You do this in every thread I post. I'm done.

Ok, so what I am seeing is a US President who has secured a huge international coalition for defeating IS, including talking to and working with Iran and helping to form a location of Arab nations also willing to directly fight against IS. This is in contrast to his predecessor, who shat away all the post 9/11 international goodwill and launched a foolhardy war that gave rise to the instability in which IS festered.

Now, I have long disliked Obama because I've seen him as weak, dithering and unwilling to be bold, but I am really struggling to see where he has gone wrong here and I'm equally struggling to understand where the idea that he doesn't know IS is at war with us comes from.

Frankly, the real test of Obama is what he does with the lines of communication he has built up internationally in response to this crisis.

Sez the guy who was pissing himself with excitement in the run-up to Iraq '03 and who still thinks it was a "good war" because it "got Saddam." So how many American lives did you calculate to be equal to one Saddam?

You believe in the Constitution, but on alternate weeks you loathe the country it represents. Yeah, you're done, all right.

It would be, if your lying dumbass fishlips hadn't said you'd enlist if not for the age requirement, and then you ran squealing like a pig when the age requirements were lifted.

Seriously, you think we're ever going to forget that?

Or, are your hacker friends going to break into my house, and somehow erase my brain?

I wonder what happens when the rebels we're arming turn around like bin Laden.

Then we'll have a new enemy. And we have always been at war with East Asia.

See, this is where the Dayton Hit His Wife crowd misses the mark. They'd get a lot more mileage out of reminding him of this every damn time he starts his self-righteous drum-beating.

We embed some sort of Secret Technology in their weapons that deactivates them after they've quashed ISIL? Or is that too s/f-ish?

The constitution says the government can't punish you for speaking. It doesn't shield you from other people mocking you for what you say.

But, but Bengazi! Death panels! Kenyan birth certificate! And we need more tax cuts!

^Good catch!