President Obama addresses the nation, declares war. . .

[Kulindahr]

With that being said, I agree the ISIS should be stop. But why is the US the only country that does anything?

Because the others love to watch our debt grow and theirs not.

 

[peeonme]

These people are not children. They do not need a "baby sitter." They do not need "discipline."

They need prosperity. They need justice. They need happiness. You cannot give them that by attacking them.

Don't think that you will have happy days when you kill people on our shores, this act can't be tolerated and if we must sit on them with military force to keep them from flying planes in to buildings filled with civilians then they the President has my support.

 

[hotatlboi]

Terrible decision by Obama. I really hoped we wouldn't be starting any more wars for a while.

 

[hotatlboi]

Don't think that you will have happy days when you kill people on our shores, this act can't be tolerated and if we must sit on them with military force to keep them from flying planes in to buildings filled with civilians then they the President has my support.

Invalid argument, as ISIL is not a threat to the US as even Obama admitted in the speech. He basically justified it with "we have to lead in the world" which is bullshit. There is absolutely no imperative for America to go to war every time a bad group pops up somewhere else.

 

[T-Rexx]

Not, they're not children, they're tribal barbarians.

The problem could be solved with military force, IFF we were prepared to stay there for four generations, on the ground with half a million troops.

No, the problem cannot be solved with military force, unless that force is used for genocide. You could leave half a million troops in place for a hundred years. As soon as the troops leave, the old status quo will return.

The Middle East has been in constant conflict for 3,000 years. It will be in constant conflict for the next 3,000 years. Nothing the United States does can do anything to change that.

 

[chrisrobin]

I strongly disagree with the notion that history repeats itself. However, watch this clip.
We just don't larn reel gud:

Jesus wept.

 

[xbuzzerx]

On the bright side, after x months of Republicans screaming that Obama should do something, we'll get the trivial amusement of watching them all turn around and call this the "wrong choice" and "bad leadership" now.

 

[T-Rexx]

Don't think that you will have happy days when you kill people on our shores, this act can't be tolerated and if we must sit on them with military force to keep them from flying planes in to buildings filled with civilians then they the President has my support.

Invalid argument, as ISIL is not a threat to the US as even Obama admitted in the speech. He basically justified it with "we have to lead in the world" which is bullshit. There is absolutely no imperative for America to go to war every time a bad group pops up somewhere else.

Hotatlboi is correct. ISIL poses no threat to the USA.

If it were possible for the United States to improve the situation in the Middle East, you could argue that our suffering there was the price of the good that we do. But, that is not the case. We were worried that Saddam Hussein might kill tens of thousands of Iraqis, so we killed one million of them. We were distressed that Iraq was suffering from a corrupt government, so we imposed on them a corrupt government. We were worried that Iraq threatened the world, so we invited in al-Qaeda and made Iraq a greater threat to the world.

The problem with this region of the world is not that the USA is not fighting aggressively enough. It's that we are fighting at all. This region's problems are not military, and we cannot solve them with guns.

Terrible decision by Obama. I really hoped we wouldn't be starting any more wars for a while.

I agree. I voted for Obama in the hope of ending war, not starting new ones, or endlessly continuing the old.

Obama's predecessor was the worst president in American history. Obama seems to understand that. And yet, he seems determined to repeat all of his predecessor's failures and stupidity. It's amazing.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Hotatlboi is correct. ISIL poses no threat to the USA.

If it were possible for the United States to improve the situation in the Middle East, you could argue that our suffering there was the price of the good that we do. But, that is not the case. We were worried that Saddam Hussein might kill tens of thousands of Iraqis, so we killed one million of them. We were distressed that Iraq was suffering from a corrupt government, so we imposed on them a corrupt government. We were worried that Iraq threatened the world, so we invited in al-Qaeda and made Iraq a greater threat to the world.

The problem with this region of the world is not that the USA is not fighting aggressively enough. It's that we are fighting at all. This region's problems are not military, and we cannot solve them with guns.

You forgot one, T-Rexx. We were worried Iraq would become a base for Muslim terrorists and radical extremists, so we removed one of the most secular dictators in the region who has routinely controlled radicalism.

 

[palbert]

And herein lies the problem:

John Boehner, endorsing Obama's decision

“An F-16 is not a strategy. And air strikes alone will not accomplish what we’re trying to accomplish,” he added. “And the president’s made clear that he doesn’t want US boots on the ground. Well, somebody’s boots have to be on the ground.”

The Arab States have already said they will not put boots on the ground.

The Free Syrian Army is probably every bit as perfidious as Assad or ISIS. And have you caught that the FSA is to fight ISIS and Assad at the same time - when it has trouble fighting Assad even now.

That leaves the Iraquis, who have acquitted themselves so well.

Ultimately we have the Kurds, starving for independence and an established state. There goes a fairly even keel relationship with Turkey.

Boots on the ground will have to be trained and equipped, all while ISIS marches forward consolidating.

An air war will have a certain effect, but short of carpet bombing I don't see it being determinative. (And carpet bombing worked so well in Vietnam.)

We face an ideology reinforced by religious fervor. Those better be some boots.

And what do we do when heads of beheaded soldiers - excuse me, advisers - start arriving in the US?

Meanwhile we're diverted from Iran, Ukraine and the Far East.

 

[Telstra]

I strongly disagree with the notion that history repeats itself. However, watch this clip.
We just don't larn reel gud:

Jesus wept.

Wow in that interview, ONLY 82 US killed in Vietnam.
But what went wrong after that .....

I think the US should ONLY bomb IS in Syria with the approval from the Assad's government.
Whats wrong with that ?

 

[Kulindahr]

It is a sorry kettle of fish. When leaders throw around rosy generalities like "freedom" and invoke God's blessings on the warriors, we are headed for the ditch.

Leaders have invoked God's blessing on their warriors since there have been leaders and warriors. It was done in the American Revolution, and in the Civil War -- God fought on both sides of both those, if such invocations are effective.

 

[T-Rexx]

Wow in that interview, ONLY 82 US killed in Vietnam.
But what went wrong after that .....

What went wrong was that Kennedy was assassinated.

As that interview makes clear, Kennedy was opposed to anything more than superficial American involvement in Vietnam. He wanted South Vietnam to prevail in its struggle against the communists, but he did not believe that a US military invasion of Vietnam could accomplish that.

"to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences."

Kennedy was absolutely correct, of course. It is amazing that he could predict that outcome with foresight. Obama can't even understand this concept in hindsight.

 

[rareboy]

Let's be a little more honest, shall we? I didn't read a single online article about the speech before your disclaimer, yet I find headlines and links to the speech all over the internet describing the speech in identical or similar terms:

http://www.jpost.com/International/Watch-Live-President-Obama-addresses-nation-on-Islamic-State-375009

http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/learning-from-news/431671/obama-declares-war-on-isil

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/10/president-obama-isis-isil-islamic-state-911-editorials-debates/15424347/

Whereas your denial that the president declared war sounds is based in formal semantics, Americans know as a fact that our presidents have indeed begun to wage war with Congress' silent assent, the Constitution notwithstanding.

And, to be sure, it makes little difference to those whom drones kill that the weapon of their destruction is not backed up by any official declaration of war.

The president made it plain that the U.S. is on a mission to destroy ISIL wherever it exists. If that isn't war, it hardly comes across as constructive engagement. Mr. Obama did go to great pains to excise the religious aspect of the conflict, while at the same time pointing out that Christians should not be forced out of the area, quite the contradiction. To be clear, he did not say that ISIL doesn't represent all of Islam, but that it is not Islamic, which defies plausibility. One cannot imagine any non-muslim being admitted to ISIL's ranks. And sadly, Mr. Obama closed by invoking the blessing of God, which is always a tell-tale sign that America is being prepped for a war. How many other speeches from the White house end with a benediction?

Arguing that the president doesn't have the power to declare war is similar to implying the president cannot order the torture of prisoner due to treaties we have signed. Yet, it happened repeatedly with no indictment or impeachment of any responsible. The law appears an inconvenient truth at times. It reminds us of the end of the power of the Roman Senate. Julius Caesar grew so powerful he could openly defy the laws of the Senate, and his assassination notwithstanding, the transition of power was complete by the reign of Octavius when he has the Senate declare him to be "Augustus." Illustrious indeed.

I did and would elect Mr. Obama, but that doesn't mean I would back any and every policy and speech of his.

Pretty much this.
There is, of course, no right answer when it comes to isil/ isis. There is no right answer to the issue of Syria or Iraq or Iran or the Ukraine.
All everyone can do is blunder along and take whatever action seems most necessary at the time...and realize that all it will do is fan the flames.
This is the relentless trajectory of human history.

 

[Keeland]

John McCain's at it again, frothing at the mouth about the Canadian border.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/11/john-mccain-canada-border-jay-carney-isis_n_5804292.html

This is not the first time McCain has raised concerns about the security of the Canadian border. In 2009, he repeated the falsehood that some of the 9/11 hijackers entered the U.S. from Canada and defended then-homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano for asserting the same. Napolitano later apologized and admitted she was mistaken.

McCain's warnings about Canada come after the publication of a video that allegedly shows a man dressed as an ISIS terrorist successfully entering the United States by crossing Lake Erie from Canada. The video was produced by James O'Keefe, a well-known conserative activist who has been criticized for using deceptive editing in his videos.

In 2010, O'Keefe pled guilty to entering federal property under false pretenses, after a failed attempt to record Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu at her offices.

If he's capable of doing so, he should read this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/how-9-11-hastened-the-decline-of-the-american-empire-1.2762110

 

[peeonme]

No, the problem cannot be solved with military force, unless that force is used for genocide. You could leave half a million troops in place for a hundred years. As soon as the troops leave, the old status quo will return.

The Middle East has been in constant conflict for 3,000 years. It will be in constant conflict for the next 3,000 years. Nothing the United States does can do anything to change that.

So... then you concede that a baby sitter is needed? They will behave if they are watched and face consequences for their actions.

 

[Kulindahr]

Pretty much this.
There is, of course, no right answer when it comes to isil/ isis. There is no right answer to the issue of Syria or Iraq or Iran or the Ukraine.
All everyone can do is blunder along and take whatever action seems most necessary at the time...and realize that all it will do is fan the flames.
This is the relentless trajectory of human history.

That's a cheery thought for the morning.....

 

[bankside]

Let's be a little more honest, shall we? I didn't read a single online article about the speech before your disclaimer, yet I find headlines and links to the speech all over the internet describing the speech in identical or similar terms:

http://www.jpost.com/International/Watch-Live-President-Obama-addresses-nation-on-Islamic-State-375009

http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/learning-from-news/431671/obama-declares-war-on-isil

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/10/president-obama-isis-isil-islamic-state-911-editorials-debates/15424347/

Whereas your denial that the president declared war sounds is based in formal semantics, Americans know as a fact that our presidents have indeed begun to wage war with Congress' silent assent, the Constitution notwithstanding.

And, to be sure, it makes little difference to those whom drones kill that the weapon of their destruction is not backed up by any official declaration of war.

The president made it plain that the U.S. is on a mission to destroy ISIL wherever it exists. If that isn't war, it hardly comes across as constructive engagement. Mr. Obama did go to great pains to excise the religious aspect of the conflict, while at the same time pointing out that Christians should not be forced out of the area, quite the contradiction. To be clear, he did not say that ISIL doesn't represent all of Islam, but that it is not Islamic, which defies plausibility. One cannot imagine any non-muslim being admitted to ISIL's ranks. And sadly, Mr. Obama closed by invoking the blessing of God, which is always a tell-tale sign that America is being prepped for a war. How many other speeches from the White house end with a benediction?

Arguing that the president doesn't have the power to declare war is similar to implying the president cannot order the torture of prisoner due to treaties we have signed. Yet, it happened repeatedly with no indictment or impeachment of any responsible. The law appears an inconvenient truth at times. It reminds us of the end of the power of the Roman Senate. Julius Caesar grew so powerful he could openly defy the laws of the Senate, and his assassination notwithstanding, the transition of power was complete by the reign of Octavius when he has the Senate declare him to be "Augustus." Illustrious indeed.

I did and would elect Mr. Obama, but that doesn't mean I would back any and every policy and speech of his.

To go a little "Commonwealth" for a moment, where convention and practice matter as much as written documents, and where it is adhered to in equal measure: For Congress not to dispute a President's actions, when it clearly has the right of dispute, means the action is assented to, given the imprimatur of Congress, and the Presidential decision is fully within proper Constitutional bounds. Thus, not "notwithstanding the Constitution" but "by way of subtle assent of the Congress, and in full agreement with the Constitution.

 

[Benvolio]

To go a little "Commonwealth" for a moment, where convention and practice matter as much as written documents, and where it is adhered to in equal measure: For Congress not to dispute a President's actions, when it clearly has the right of dispute, means the action is assented to, given the imprimatur of Congress, and the Presidential decision is fully within proper Constitutional bounds. Thus, not "notwithstanding the Constitution" but "by way of subtle assent of the Congress, and in full agreement with the Constitution.

In practise, the Congess has less ability to restrain the unconstitutional acts of the President than one would think. Witnout untending to open a flurry of finger pointing, I point out that Obama has acted and announced his intention to act without Congress, even on amnesty. Short of impeachment there is little Congress can do. Controlling the purse strings does not work unless Congress is willing to default on US obligations. The Pres simply spends and sorrows to pay for it.

 

[peeonme]

T-Rexx is arguing quite the opposite, that watched or not, they will be working underground and through guerrilla warfare to thwart and kill their enemies, and when not watched, will have open warfare.

He is arguing to leave them to their misery. Sane people will flee, and the region will remain a wasteland with no industry, no great institutions of education, no artistic greatness, and no human rights. Abandon ship. Abandon ship. Abandon ship.

But, we won't do that, of course. We will continue to take half-measures, continue to prop up Israel, Iraq, and whatever proxy the "wisdom" du jour favors at the State Department and Pentagon.

If we did not have to deal with that region of the world (oil) and if they just killed themselves I would hardly care. Let nature take its course.
The problem seems to be that we have to deal with them, they aren't happy just killing one another, and while they will work underground if we have a presence in the region, it's better than letting them run wild killing and torturing innocent people.