Obama rules out Syria ground invasion, asks critics to explain what their next step would be after t - Polidicks

[img]http://imgkk.com/i/yv52.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/obama-rules-out-syria-ground-invasion-paris-attacks[/url] [quote]A visibly emotional Barack Obama rejected growing clamour for a US-led ground invasion of Syria on Monday in the most passionate defence yet of his strategy of trying to contain Islamic State extremists rather than treating them as a conventional enemy. “It’s best that we don’t shoot first and aim later,” said the US president during an intense press conference at the G20 summit in Turkey that saw reporters urging him to “take out these bastards”. Pressure has been mounting among American politicians for a more robust military intervention against Isis in the wake of the terrorist attacks on Paris on Friday. But Obama accused his critics of failing to explain what ground forces would do once they had retaken territory controlled by Isis and suggested the strategy could be a slippery slope toward the US occupation of other countries such as Yemen and Libya. “If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they want to do, present a specific plan,” said an unusually angry Obama. “What I am not interested in doing is posing, or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with ... I’m too busy for that.” At one point the US commander in chief also appeared glassy-eyed and upset as he described the burden placed on American troops and their families of repeated overseas intervention. “What I do not do is to take actions either because it is going to work politically or somehow make America look tough, or make me look tough,” said the president. “And maybe part of the reason is that every few months I go to Walter Reed [military hospital] and I see a 25-year-old kid who is paralysed or has lost his limbs. And some of those are people who I have ordered into battle. So I can’t afford to play some of the political games that others play.”[/quote]

Obama is looking weak recently. You can't use your personal discomfort of a 25 year old veteran to make weak decisions. However, this was not an attack on US soil so I don't know. He needs a more concrete plan than just "Oh hey now let's be careful" We're getting to a point where this is actually something worth fighting for, which is scary to think about.

Support Russian and Kurdish ground troops with close air support and helicopters? Provide the Kurds with supplies and weapons? Provide the Russians with tactical information? There's a lot you can do, Barry.

[QUOTE]“If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they want to do, present a specific plan,” said an unusually angry Obama. “What I am not interested in doing is posing, or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with ... I’m too busy for that.”[/QUOTE] This can't be good PR for the democratic party.

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;49127482]This can't be good PR for the democratic party.[/QUOTE] It's sad that even though he's right, people will focus more on "democrats won't do nothing" instead of what he's actually saying.

Barry raises good points. In times like these, you can't jump the gun and go running in hot-headed.

[QUOTE=Suitcase;49127516]Barry raises good points. In times like these, you can't jump the gun and go running in hot-headed.[/QUOTE] ISIS has been murdering for years at this point and the West has been bombing them here and there will next to no real effort to destroy them as a look were doing things feel-good-measure with minimal results. ISIS is still bombing civilians in Lebanon and France and we're still sitting here saying "hey let's not jump the gun!" As if this is a new and unexpected event.

This is the guy who, when asked about ISIS a couple years ago, called them the JV Team and said they weren't of any concern.

[QUOTE=Ridge;49127548]This is the guy who, when asked about ISIS a couple years ago, called them the JV Team and said they weren't of any concern.[/QUOTE] They aren't, they would be crushed in open conflict. :v: We already kick their ass with air strikes.

If Obama's military advisors don't have 150 different unique plans to defeat isis that's a complete lack and breakdown of leadership on his part. We shouldve been prepared for every situation with isis since the day they took Falujah. There should be a folder tilted "In case of massive ISIS attack on NATO ally: plans A-Z" in the Pentagon. We've had years to deal with these people, we should be prepared for every scenario. If we're not then we have weak leadership, and it's showing.

Damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't.

Regardless, the man's got a point. The world doesn't NEED america to step up and be the one to throw money and lives at the isis issue. Sure the world wants america to, but it does not justify another war. Remember how enraged America was about 9/11? Everyone was screaming for war. Two years into it, the war had become one of the most unpopular wars in american history Of course if something terrible happens on sovereign soil, whether it be france, germany, the states, etc people are going to call to arms against the aggressor, but it really really doesn't mean that it's the logical action to take. Like I said, Obama's got a point. What are we going to do once we are there? kill everyone holding a gun? What's that going to do? Probably only inspire another generation of Jihadists to do heinous shit just like ISIS. It's an ideological war, Obama knows that.

I think we need to work more closely with Russia and stop supporting some make believe idea that theirs gonna be democracy in Syria after all this is over.

[QUOTE=OvB;49127591]If Obama's military advisors don't have 150 different unique plans to defeat isis that's a complete lack and breakdown of leadership on his part. We shouldve been prepared for every situation with isis since the day they took Falujah. There should be a folder tilted "In case of massive ISIS attack on NATO ally: plans A-Z" in the Pentagon. We've had years to deal with these people, we should be prepared for every scenario. If we're not then we have weak leadership, and it's showing.[/QUOTE] We've hit the point where doing nothing is actually causing more damage.

[QUOTE=Squad1993;49127473]Support Russian and Kurdish ground troops with close air support and helicopters? Provide the Kurds with supplies and weapons? Provide the Russians with tactical information? There's a lot you can do, Barry.[/QUOTE] russians won't attack ISIS targets anyways, they don't want a paris retaliation, plus they are more interested in weakening the rebels as much as possible before any peace measure is made so that assad is still the strongest force in the area as for the kurds, they don't have the manpower to retake iraq and most of syria, nor do they want to anyways because they aren't going to get anything from it [editline]16th November 2015[/editline] the only solution is to bring the UN security council to an actual agreement on what should be done, and thats not likely to happen, but this is probably the clearest case for an actual UN intervention in decades, bringing in US troops without any framework with russia would be disastrous, right now our forces are on the other side of the country from russian ones

Amazing how quickly american public opinion of military action(or inaction) regarding ISIS does a complete 180. When conservatives and liberals alike were calling to pull out of the Middle East to bring their family home and Mr. President obliged them, now they blame him for not wanting to rope them into another war when another tragic incident happens. I won't think less of Obama not wanting to put boots on the ground and sticking to his guns.

Why doesn't NATO team up with Russia and do a joint attack against ISIS, go through and wipe them out through conventional warfare since they are a ground holding military force. France, the United Kingdom, Germany, the United States and representatives from all the NATO countries with a significant military force should participate and it should be an effort of the West, not just another US war that the rest of our allies eventually criticize us for. It's a large threat for NATO countries and should be treated as such. I would absolutely cast my vote for a ground offensive against ISIS that involved the US, only if other member countries contributed as much in relation to their military size and GDP. I'd love to see Iraq and Syria liberated from the hold of ISIS and see headlines like "The French Foreign Legion troops liberate Ratba in Iraq, while the US and UK ground forces secure the Iraq/Syrain boarder town of Al Bukamal."

[QUOTE=Glitchman;49127460]Obama is looking weak recently. You can't use your personal discomfort of a 25 year old veteran to make weak decisions. However, this was not an attack on US soil so I don't know. He needs a more concrete plan than just "Oh hey now let's be careful" We're getting to a point where this is actually something worth fighting for, which is scary to think about.[/QUOTE] No that's actually a very good position. Why should all of my brothers and sisters have to lose their lives fighting an enemy who wasn't an immediate threat to us (talking about Iraq)? It is absolutely good form for the President to consider the type of position he's putting us into when we send the Army or Marines ground pounding in the desert. Not like we wouldn't do a good job though since we would slay; but still.

[QUOTE=OvB;49127591]If Obama's military advisors don't have 150 different unique plans to defeat isis that's a complete lack and breakdown of leadership on his part. We shouldve been prepared for every situation with isis since the day they took Falujah. There should be a folder tilted "In case of massive ISIS attack on NATO ally: plans A-Z" in the Pentagon. We've had years to deal with these people, we should be prepared for every scenario. If we're not then we have weak leadership, and it's showing.[/QUOTE] I don't think that is the issue. The military advisors have plenty of plans for winning. Initially. How do we prevent it from become an endless occupation is the issue. We can't afford that. So we are left with two options: 1) Support local ground forces in sorting out their own mess. Use special ops and air strikes to back them. This is basically our current strategy. 2) Full scale war. Civilian casualties are no longer an issue. You crush any and all industry. If they retreat into hiding in the civilian population, you simply slaughter the lot of them. Insurgencies become worthless in the face of any enemy who isn't concerned about mass casualties. I'm not real comfortable with option 2. It may work, hell it may work even save lives in the long run, but we can't really guarantee that.

We, as the west, if we want to see this ideology stop spreading, we need to conquer them militarily, and then occupy and rebuild with a real effort to establish a higher quality of life than they have now. The guys are only joining ISIS because they think it's their only or best ticket to a better life and a chance at a future.

[QUOTE=GunFox;49127793]I don't think that is the issue. The military advisors have plenty of plans for winning. Initially. How do we prevent it from become an endless occupation is the issue. We can't afford that. So we are left with two options: 1) Support local ground forces in sorting out their own mess. Use special ops and air strikes to back them. This is basically our current strategy. 2) Full scale war. Civilian casualties are no longer an issue. You crush any and all industry. If they retreat into hiding in the civilian population, you simply slaughter the lot of them. Insurgencies become worthless in the face of any enemy who isn't concerned about mass casualties. I'm not real comfortable with option 2. It may work, hell it may work even save lives in the long run, but we can't really guarantee that.[/QUOTE] The primary long term goal of ISIS is to inspire hatred and vengeful anger in other Muslims. The west collectively engaging in mass genocide would be the perfect way to fulfill that goal. And let's be real here, it would be completely just anger. We would be no better than ISIS at that point. Everyone is hollering for something to be done, but nobody has actually come up with a practical solution. I don't think people are willing to accept that whatever action is taken will come at a [I]severe[/I] cost.

[QUOTE=Fort83;49127838]It shouldn't just be US doing all the heavy lifting though. All NATO countries and Russia need to be involved in this. What's happening now just isn't enough.[/QUOTE] Yes, that's the only way it could work. Rebuilding would need to be viewed as the highest priority. I sinceley hope that we can all work together on this problem. Europe has motivation too as the refugee crisis is a very large economic burden and will only worsen.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;49127861]History is written by the victor. It doesn't matter if your "better" than someone, or worse than someone. Did you accomplish your task? Yes or No? If yes, then who's going to argue, if no, then you fucked up.[/QUOTE] If you're willing to sacrifice millions of people in the off chance that it will make you safer, don't pretend you're any less savage than the people you're fighting.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49127845]The primary long term goal of ISIS is to inspire hatred and vengeful anger in other Muslims. The west collectively engaging in mass genocide would be the perfect way to fulfill that goal. And let's be real here, it would be completely just anger. We would be no better than ISIS at that point. Everyone is hollering for something to be done, but nobody has actually come up with a practical solution. I don't think people are willing to accept that whatever action is taken will come at a [I]severe[/I] cost.[/QUOTE] History is full of instances where severe costs were accepted and what was needed to be done was done. The way to fix the middle east is to give the people hope and help them by giving them security and a reason and ability to invest in their own country and life. ISIS is giving the people under it's control their idea of help, and obviously some people are able to have a better life because of it but it's an extreme view that only allows for freedom to a very particular set of people, while going so far as to kill any other ideology while simultaneously calling for and activity seeking expansion. ISIS needs to be removed from power and safety reinstated, while rebuilding with a concerted effort to fix the issues that lead these people to radicalization in the pursuit of a better life. If you say that can't be done, then you say there is no hope for the middle east because the change has to come from within, and if there are hostile ISIS forces eliminating those who oppose radical ideology then no change could occur.

[QUOTE=OvB;49127591]If Obama's military advisors don't have 150 different unique plans to defeat isis that's a complete lack and breakdown of leadership on his part. We shouldve been prepared for every situation with isis since the day they took Falujah. There should be a folder tilted "In case of massive ISIS attack on NATO ally: plans A-Z" in the Pentagon. We've had years to deal with these people, we should be prepared for every scenario. If we're not then we have weak leadership, and it's showing.[/QUOTE] They likely do. Crisis response lies with NATO as a whole, not only the US. Besides, politicians are using this event to push Obama to accept the ground invasion proposal. It's not really related to the crisis response in France. [QUOTE=Swilly;49127663]We've hit the point where doing nothing is actually causing more damage.[/QUOTE] Good thing we're not doing nothing.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49127845]The primary long term goal of ISIS is to inspire hatred and vengeful anger in other Muslims. The west collectively engaging in mass genocide would be the perfect way to fulfill that goal. And let's be real here, it would be completely just anger. We would be no better than ISIS at that point. Everyone is hollering for something to be done, but nobody has actually come up with a practical solution. I don't think people are willing to accept that whatever action is taken will come at a [I]severe[/I] cost.[/QUOTE] Hope is powerful. It can drive people to do some insane things. Japan was batshit insane around WWII. As culturally alien as is humanly possible and filled to the brim with people willing to fight for their cause. Now they are a close ally. We nuked them TWICE. You'd expect places like Germany or Japan to really loathe us following WWII, but they don't. The situation is much more complex than that. The notion that "if we kill them, there will just be more" seems to be a consequence of a slow burning conflict, rather than simply human nature. Breaking an opponent down in their entirety allows you the option of culturally reconstructing them. Again though, it is still a massive gamble that you are playing with human lives as the currency. You might win big and make a stable nation out of the ashes that will forever be a western ally, or you could just cause more chaos. I prefer to back the local authority and let them restore order.

[QUOTE=Swilly;49127663]We've hit the point where doing nothing is actually causing more damage.[/QUOTE] we've been bombing the entire ME to fuck for the last few years trying to mitigate IS influence. it's not worked out.

[QUOTE=GunFox;49127934]Hope is powerful. It can drive people to do some insane things. Japan was batshit insane around WWII. As culturally alien as is humanly possible and filled to the brim with people willing to fight for their cause. Now they are a close ally. We nuked them TWICE. You'd expect places like Germany or Japan to really loathe us following WWII, but they don't. The situation is much more complex than that. The notion that "if we kill them, there will just be more" seems to be a consequence of a slow burning conflict, rather than simply human nature. Breaking an opponent down in their entirety allows you the option of culturally reconstructing them. Again though, it is still a massive gamble that you are playing with human lives as the currency. You might win big and make a stable nation out of the ashes that will forever be a western ally, or you could just cause more chaos. I prefer to back the local authority and let them restore order.[/QUOTE] Again, Japan and Germany were nationalist forces. They cared about their country, so when their country faced utter annihilation, they backed down. ISIS aren't nationalist, they're religious. There is nothing that they care about that we can threaten, and even if we do annihilate them along with every civilian in the immediate area, we'll only invite reprisal from the surrounding countries. Their goal is not to destroy the west, their goal is to inspire other Muslims to destroy the west. And while I doubt that goal will ever come to pass, there are plenty of Muslims left to inspire to take up arms all over the globe.

All members of ISIS fight for is a better state, which simply equates to a nicer life. We're going against a group of men willing to fight because they feel like they have no future, no ability to provide and raise a family in a traditional sense. That's because of the awful economy and constant conflict in the middle east for the last decade. They fight because it's their only chance to get what every human wants, security and a sense of place and belonging. Just because their religious doesn't mean they won't ever give up, or be able to change their course. If we present a better, safer way for them to live and be able to be succeed and not feel oppressed then they will support us. The religious rhetoric is just people using it as an excuse to motivate these young hopeless men to better their own means. It just happens to be that presenting a better and safer environment comes at the cost of making being a member of ISIS a very fruitless and dangerous endeavor.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;49127956]All members of ISIS fight for is a better state, which simply equates to a nicer life. We're going against a group of men willing to fight because they feel like they have no future, no ability to provide and raise a family in a traditional sense. That's because of the awful economy and constant conflict in the middle east for the last decade. They fight because it's their only chance to get what every human wants, security and a sense of place and belonging. Just because their religious doesn't mean they won't ever give up, or be able to change their course. If we present a better, safer way for them to live and be able to be succeed and not feel oppressed then they will support us. The religious rhetoric is just people using it as an excuse to motivate these young hopeless men. It just happens to be that presenting a better, safer environment comes at the cost of making being a member of ISIS a very fruitless and dangerous endeavor.[/QUOTE] If they wanted a better state, they wouldn't be blowing up their own national landmarks and actively be trying to invite attack from the strongest military powers on the planet. They're fighting in the name of religious ideology. They don't care about death, they don't care about the wellbeing of their countrymen, and they don't care about their country. They are a suicidal genocidal death cult. They are motivated by what they believe to be divine righteousness. No mistake can be made about this.