Obama's moronic analogy of Jihad vs Crusades

[sirs]

So, who have we beheaded?.....burned alive?  How the hell are we emulating them, in any way??

[Plane]

All those people in Iraq and Syria have been very close to death, bombings and shelling. In the US we have had very little of this.

Dash is comprised of leaders who kidnap innocent reporters and hold them for ransom. The reporters and the Japanese they killed were no threat to anyone.
The people doing the actual killings are demented psychopathic sickos.

We really do not need to emulate them.

  No we need to imprison or kill them, not emulate them.

    But we should explain and make a case for chasing them around and shooting at them, especially to the people responsible and the people in the inconvenient proximity of the battle.

I like what you just said , it includes logical reasons for prosecuting the battle, does the president make the case this well?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The reason for aiding in ending the rampages of Dash is that they might acquire enough wealth ans support to do us harm someday. Their main goal seems to be to create a country of their own from pieces of Iraq and Syria.

I do not think that a major campaign by Americans would be more successful than merely arming and advising Dash's local enemies. The US has proven three times at least that it cannot create a stable friendly state in an alien Asian country (Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan). There is always the temptation to theorize that we did not spend enough or stay long enough, but I do not find this convincing.

The President wants Congress to give him some sort of authorization because there are things he cannot do under the present agreement, and because he knows that he will personally be blamed if things go sour. He has been blamed for all sorts of things unjustly already, after all.

[sirs]

The Press Secretary has made it clear that Obama claims he doesn't require Congress' stamp of authorization.  Especially given his non-intention of placing any ground troops in Syria or Iraq.  But you are right, in that he wants to share the blame.  Currently the disaster of his current efforts against Radical Islam are all his

[Plane]

The reason for aiding in ending the rampages of Dash is that they might acquire enough wealth ans support to do us harm someday.

Aren't they already bigger and richer than Al Queda was on 9-11-01? There may not be much waiting .

Their main goal seems to be to create a country of their own from pieces of Iraq and Syria.

The proper size of a Caliphate is planet wide , ask any of them. 

I do not think that a major campaign by Americans would be more successful than merely arming and advising Dash's local enemies.

  We should pare back to that level? Right now the US Air Force and Navy are performing most of the airstrikes in Iraqi territory. Much less might not be enough , what we are doing now might not be enough. 

The US has proven three times at least that it cannot create a stable friendly state in an alien Asian country (Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan).

Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea 

There is always the temptation to theorize that we did not spend enough or stay long enough, but I do not find this convincing.

The President wants Congress to give him some sort of authorization because there are things he cannot do under the present agreement, and because he knows that he will personally be blamed if things go sour. He has been blamed for all sorts of things unjustly already, after all.

No , the president is prosecuting a war with acts of war and seeks retroactive CYA.

What sort of thing is he unable to do now?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Obama is prevented from putting a thousand or more troops on the ground in Syria or Iraq, because the public will not accept it. I am inclined not to give him more war powers than he already has. We have proven that we cannot establish a lasting stable government in a Muslim country twice.

Syria is even harder a chore than Iraq, because Syrians despise Israel, and no Syrian government will make nice with Israel unless they return the Golan to its proper owner. I do not think that this country will elect a president to read the damned Israelis the riot act and force them to behave.

[sirs]

Obama is prevented from putting a thousand or more troops on the ground in Syria or Iraq, because the public will not accept it.

No, he's prevented from doing it, because HE WON'T accept it.  Although that's the only way this army of radical Islamic terrorists are going to be defeated.  In essence, he's doing exactly that to which he criticized Bush for....dragging out the war.  At least Bush was killing these terrorists in big numbers.  We get a drone pin prick here, and a drone pin prick there.

Iraq was stabilizing.....until we let it be known we were bugging out.  That just set the stage for everything we're seeing now, and was warned about if we did bow out too soon

[Xavier_Onassis]

Iraq was not destabilized because Iraq was never stable. We had to allow the Iraqis to run Iraq because we proved we could not do it, and the guy they chose was a poor choice. When Iraqi's new army was faced with an enemy, they turned tail and ran. Obama did not train them President Obama is not to blame for any of this.

Note that American troops are not dying in Iraq at the moment. I imagine that is only a minor matter for your armchair soldiers.

This country has proved that even with the latest in military equipment and a trillion dollars, is CANNOT restore and maintain order in that part of the world. Sending more troops would simply result in more troops killed and more money spent.

[sirs]

Iraq was not destabilized because Iraq was never stable.

It was quickly approaching stability, both Biden & Obama even said so.  Shall we present the videos of them saying such?......until of course it was presented to the remnants of AlQeada and other radical Islamic terrorists, that we were leaving, even if the Iraqis weren't ready.  All they had to do then was sit back and wait a little bit 

No one's dying in Iraq, because we're not there.  No one would have died in Okinawa or Normandy, if we weren't there.  No one wants even 1 U.S. soldier to die, yet that its their sacrifices that defeated the rise of fascism.  Obama is directly to blame for taking our troops out before the Iraqis were ready to take control of their borders.  He was warned, copiously, of what could happen.  He blatantly ignored those warnings, so he could be the "Anti-Bush".  And the results currently are as a direct result

 

[Xavier_Onassis]

I do not think that Biden or Obama are experts on the stability of Iraq. Showing videos is a waste of time. The people of this country wanted out of Iraq, they were elected to end this wretched war, and that was what they did and what they should have done. Iraq said it wanted to be on its own, and that is what they got. Had the Iraqi Army been braver, had the Iraqi president been more accommodating to the Sunnis, it could have worked out. What happened was up to the Iraqis. They screwed up, they will pay the consequences.   

[sirs]

They are "obviously" not experts....on a whole host of issues.  Point being, even they were claiming how stable Iraq was made.  And the rest, as they say, is history.  And the sad part is, it could have all been prevented.  But nooooo, Obama had to be the anti-Bush and pull precisely what everyone before him had warned what could happen, if he did.  And then it did.

Yep, definately no expert

[Xavier_Onassis]

Obama did not start this war, he inherited the worst mess that any American president has inherited since FDR. In some ways, it was worse, since there were not two mismanaged wars when FDR was elected.

Your ignorance is abysmal and it seems, permanent. Perhaps terminal. You will be stupid as most igneous rocks until you are lying under a large piece of granite.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Religion of Peace....MY ASS!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=597_1423922928

[Plane]

  FDR inherited the unstable Europe and unsavory Japan that was in part the result of previous US policies.

   After WWI the doughboys came home and sent Europe some money and food. Leaving the Europeans to puzzle out peace and stability on their own.

   The Europeans were not up to figuring out peace and stability on their own, so we wound up having to return with a larger force than the first time. After WWII we stayed and the Europeans were terrified by the Soviet threat so they stayed in NATO and the USA had a chance to organize them and make their militaries play with each other.

  We are in the process now of very gradually leaving Europe, even giving consideration to letting NATO have more European leadership.

    I hope it isn't too soon.

[Christians4LessGvt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwwF0_KmBAY#t=24