CNN Poll says most Americans disapprove of Obama handling ISIS; theorizes Americans are warming up t
47 replies, posted
[quote]Washington (CNN)Americans are increasingly unhappy with President Barack Obama's handling of ISIS, and a growing share of the nation believes that fight is going badly, according to a new CNN/ORC survey released Monday.
The CNN/ORC poll found [B]57% of Americans disapprove of how Obama is handling the threat posed by ISIS,[/B] a significant decline in support for the President over the past few months. In late September, that number was 49%.
Fifty-seven percent disapprove of his handling of foreign affairs more broadly, and [B]54% disapprove of how the President is handling terrorism[/B]. Another 60% rate Obama negatively on his handling of electronic national security.
The declining approval ratings for Obama on national security come as a weekend of international turmoil further underscores the growing threats abroad.
Denmark's capital was rocked by two shootings, one at a free speech event featuring a controversial cartoonist and another just hours later outside a synagogue. The attacks left two dead and five police officers wounded.
And Egypt launched a second round of airstrikes against Islamic State strongholds in Libya on Monday, in retaliation for a video released Sunday that appeared to show ISIS militants beheading a group of 21 Egyptian Christians.
Obama issued a statement condemning the killing of the Christians on Sunday night, though Obama's Republican opponents have consistently made the case that the growing Islamic State threat is exacerbated by what they see as his weak leadership.
In the poll, [B]Americans increasingly believe the U.S. military action against ISIS is going badly, with 58% saying so in the latest survey[/B], up from 49% who said the fight wasn't going well in October.
Even among Democrats, nearly half — 46% — say things aren't going well in the battle against ISIS.
And about half of respondents,[B] 51%, say they trust the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.[/B]
But with ISIS affiliates continuing to commit brutal, gruesome murders and multiple terrorist attacks abroad grabbing international headlines over the past few months, support for sending ground troops to Iraq and Syria to confront the threat appears to be growing.
[B]The survey suggests Americans are warming up to the idea of sending ground troops to combat the terrorist organization.[/B]
In November, just 43% supported deploying ground troops, while 55% of Americans opposed it; now the number in support has ticked up to 47%, the highest level of support yet measured, with just half of Americans opposed.
Still, the parties have become more polarized on the prospect since November, with 61% of Democrats opposed and a similar majority of Republicans supportive of the prospect, an eight-point increase. Independents, meanwhile, are split, with 48% in favor and 50% opposed.[/quote]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/16/politics/cnn-poll-isis-obama-approval/index.html[/url]
Yeah fuck that, let's not repeat that mistake
[QUOTE=BFG9000;47153863]Yeah fuck that, let's not repeat that mistake[/QUOTE]
As if we can stop it. As long as Joe the Plumber feels red-blooded enough, we're never going to be at peace.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;47153863]Yeah fuck that, let's not repeat that mistake[/QUOTE]
The mistake we made was that we didn't finish what we started, this wouldn't have happened if we hadn't half-assed the whole affair because we cared more about focus groups and polls than the actual outcome.
I'm not sure what people expect the us governments to do against Isis.
I'd rather they not send soldiers to fight. I already lost enough people that way.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;47153944]The mistake we made was that we didn't finish what we started, this wouldn't have happened if we hadn't half-assed the whole affair because we cared more about focus groups and polls than the actual outcome.[/QUOTE]
Both the American people and the Iraqi government wanted the US troops out.
I wonder how many people actually believe we should nuke ISIS these days
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;47153944]The mistake we made was that we didn't finish what we started, this wouldn't have happened if we hadn't half-assed the whole affair because we cared more about focus groups and polls than the actual outcome.[/QUOTE]
I know that. If a boots on ground scenario does go through I would support the effort because we might as well see it through to the end.
My issue with the American public is that they don't realize what kind of mess we'd be getting ourselves into, and once they do they immediately backpedal even if we're already invested into it. Just look at Vietnam, we left the Southern Vietnamese for dead even though we were winning the war, all because the public realized that vietnam was a shithole a little too late.
Basically my stance is "All or nothing" and I'm leaning toward nothing.
[editline]16th February 2015[/editline]
Fucking automerge
Can we please stop saying boots on the ground? Just say deploy soldiers or something, there are so many ways to say this and everyone just defaults to "Boots on the Ground" it's ridiculous.
[QUOTE=J!NX;47153972]I wonder how many people actually believe we should nuke ISIS these days[/QUOTE]
Make a Venn Diagram of Conservatives overlapping 'people who don't know how nukes work' and you have your number.
Our options right now are to get it done right, or to sit here and take it. At this point getting fully involved is inevitable, but we have to actually commit to it this time.
Polls also show that a majority of Americans are idiots with short attention spans who like to send other peoples kids to die because the cost of war has been relegated to <5% of the population.
SUPPORT ARE TROOPS
I honestly have no idea if I'd be okay with troops on the ground there. It feels like we went and fucked them up, and now it's kinda our responsibility to unfuck it. But by trying to unfuck it we may fuck it up worse. Stupid uncertainty.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;47153973]I know that. If a boots on ground scenario does go through I would support the effort because we might as well see it through to the end.
My issue with the American public is that they don't realize what kind of mess we'd be getting ourselves into, and once they do they immediately backpedal even if we're already invested into it. Just look at Vietnam, we left the Southern Vietnamese for dead even though we were winning the war, all because the public realized that vietnam was a shithole a little too late.[/QUOTE]
There is no "end" to this.
And definitely not any time soon.
Even if we flood Iraq with troops and push it ISIS back into Syria, they're still at their strongest as much of their power base is there. Dare we enter Syria, we're opening up a much worse can of worms as we're automatically players in the Syrian Civil War whether we like it or not. We would have to march against Assad as much as ISIS. On top of that, once ISIS and Assad are defeated, we're left occupying a country that I seriously doubt will want out troops there and we'll be rebuilding a country with democracy that has never experienced a democracy (fyi, countries don't spontaneously get a working democracy, those will always fail).
Not to mention that ISIS won't be completely defeated. They'll fall back into an insurgency. Remember ISIS has been around for nearly a [I]decade[/I]. They got their start in 2006 as an insurgency against American troops in Iraq. They have plenty of experience dealing with American troops, plus another 5 years of fighting Syrians and Iraqis. We'll have to sit on Syria for maybe two decades and I absolutely promise the American people will not stand for that, no matter how much they want ISIS defeated.
It's a whole clusterfuck America does not want to jump into.
[editline]16th February 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;47154003]I honestly have no idea if I'd be okay with troops on the ground there. It feels like we went and fucked them up, and now it's kinda our responsibility to unfuck it. But by trying to unfuck it we may fuck it up worse. Stupid uncertainty.[/QUOTE]
We're guaranteed to fuck it up worse.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
[QUOTE=Dippeggs;47154043]Damned if we do, damned if we don't.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. If we don't, we have a high chance of the local Arab nations sorting it out themselves, like Jordan and maybe Iraq. And don't forget the Kurds.
And maybe even Turkey will help in the future.
I'd prefer to just continue the air/drone strikes and just spend tax dollars instead of taxes and soldiers lives.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;47153944]The mistake we made was that we didn't finish what we started[/QUOTE]
it should never have started in the first place
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47153995]Make a Venn Diagram of Conservatives overlapping 'people who don't know how nukes work' and you have your number.[/QUOTE]
So basically just a circle?
the media is responsible for the ISIS hype and they are ignoring everything that is being done to thwart ISIS.
it's very possible that we would have less beheadings if we didn't have ISIS on 24 hour news cycles i mean its embarrassing
maybe the guys in 1916 had the right idea :v:
[QUOTE]1916: all acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/04/amendment-war-national-vote_n_3866686.html[/url]
fuck, this is the kind of thing every nation should do tbh.
Fuck it. Annex Iraq. Call it East Virginia. West Virginia produces coal. East Virginia produces oil. It works.
Speaking of oil, you might want to get a napkin to soak up the sarcasm on that.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47154141]it should never have started in the first place[/QUOTE]
Perhaps not but it started over a decade ago so not starting it is kind of out of the question now.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;47154474]maybe the guys in 1916 had the right idea :v:
fuck, this is the kind of thing every nation should do tbh.[/QUOTE]
the issue with this is that, if you had a situation like britain in 1939, and you had this voting system, we would never have gone to war and that would have been catastrophic for europe and eventually britain and the world. sometimes crueler men with more power and information have to make the nasty decisions for the greater good
that said, such a situation is highly unlikely to occur in the current climate, and such a voting system would have meant we'd probably have never gone to war in 2001. god only knows what the world would be like today if that hadn't have happened
Actually deploying soldiers is exactly what ISIS want. Then they can fight their guerrilla war. They'll get the chance to kill some Americans and the non ISIS population have to deal with another Western occupation. Which will inevitably drive more people to resist.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;47154514]Fuck it. Annex Iraq. Call it East Virginia. West Virginia produces coal. East Virginia produces oil. It works.
Speaking of oil, you might want to get a napkin to soak up the sarcasm on that.[/QUOTE]
Then us real Virginians can discuss which we think is a shittier place.
[sp]West Virginia is definitely worse[/sp]
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;47154941]Actually deploying soldiers is exactly what ISIS want. Then they can fight their guerrilla war. They'll get the chance to kill some Americans and the non ISIS population have to deal with another Western occupation. Which will inevitably drive more people to resist.[/QUOTE]
No, actually, I don't think ISIS wants any more enemies to fight. I think what they want is to conquer the governments of Iraq and Syria and then try to move beyond. That's what they have claimed as their goal countless times. These master plans and hidden motives seem to only ever come out of the mouths of Westerners who have a tenuous involvement with the conflict, and they never actually manifest.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47155451]No, actually, I don't think ISIS wants any more enemies to fight. I think what they want is to conquer the governments of Iraq and Syria and then try to move beyond. That's what they have claimed as their goal countless times. These master plans and hidden motives seem to only ever come out of the mouths of Westerners who have a tenuous involvement with the conflict, and they never actually manifest.[/QUOTE]
It's the same sort of thing as claiming that "banning water bottles on planes is exactly what the terrorists want, to destroy our freedoms"
This country really does have the memory of a mayfly.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.