Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

News is a second guy from MN was killed and was possibly a childhood friend of the Douglas McCain guy who was killed.

Minnesota has also had problems with people going to Somalia to fight fo Al-Shibob (sp) i.e. the Islamic Courts organization as well.

You know these guys only give racists a reason for being racists when they do that.

 Frazzled wrote:
You know these guys only give racists a reason for being racists when they do that.

I know, right? These donkey caves are making my Thanksgiving Day dinners hell, because now my redneck racist relatives finally have "proof" to back up their pants on head assertations.

Anyone see the news conference yesterday?

The Leader of the Free World™ shrugged about ISIS & said "We got nothing." Silly, huh?

Well, that's certainly the Perpetually Butthurt Rightwing Outrage Spin Machine© version of it. The actual transcript is here.

Yup... still a gaffe™.

*shrug*

As with all gaffes, the worst ones are the ones that confirm folk's pre-existing suspicions or fit into an easy narrative™(whether it's fair or not).

That’s why “47 percent” gaffe that go Romney in trouble so much, and its why “don’t have a strategy” hurts Obama today.

Obama: Here is an extensive lists of everything we have done against ISIS, what our priorities are, what our plans are, what our goals for our partners are, blah blah blah here now dealing specifically with missions in Syria, [I]We don't have a strategy yet[/i}, the press is acting like we have a fully drawn up battle plan but we are not there yet, once we know exactly what to do we will ask for authorization.

whembly: guys guys did you hear!!!! Obama said he doesn't have a strategy about ISIS!!!!

Ouze: actually...he gave lots of strategy, here is the transcript...

whembly: classic Obama gaffe, doesn't know what he is doing, did I already mention my "everybody does it" comeback?

What's the strategy again?

What's the goal?

Exactly.

Fore!

 whembly wrote:
What's the strategy again?

What's the goal?

For what?

About ISIS in general like your original claim? Read the transcript.

Of course if you want to backtrack from your original statement of "He shrugged about ISIS & said "we got nothing" and now suddenly change it to "Obama does not have a strategy about ISIS in Lybia" then I would still direct you to the transcript, where your specific claim of "I have no strategy" is part of a longer reply dealing specifically with that narrow question.

Exactly.

Fore!

You made no point.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What's the strategy again?

What's the goal?

For what?

About ISIS in general like your original claim? Read the transcript.

Of course if you want to backtrack from your original statement of "He shrugged about ISIS & said "we got nothing" and now suddenly change it to "Obama does not have a strategy about ISIS in Lybia" then I would still direct you to the transcript, where your specific claim of "I have no strategy" is part of a longer reply dealing specifically with that narrow question.

Obama said:

But I don't want to put the cart before the horse. We don't have a strategy yet. I think what I've seen in some of the news reports suggests that folks are getting a little further ahead of where we're at than we currently are.

Read up what a gaffe means.

Jeez... you're awfully touchy today.

So you said he had no plan, then you said it was a gaffe, then you went back and said he had no plan, now it's a gaffe again?

Let us know when you make up your mind.

 d-usa wrote:
So you said he had no plan, then you said it was a gaffe, then you went back and said he had no plan, now it's a gaffe again?

Let us know when you make up your mind.

Let me know when you've turned off your instinctive programming to defend Obama-anything.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So you said he had no plan, then you said it was a gaffe, then you went back and said he had no plan, now it's a gaffe again?

Let us know when you make up your mind.

Let me know when you've turned off your instinctive programming to defend Obama-anything.

Whembly, you're not one to say a thing in that regard TBH.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So you said he had no plan, then you said it was a gaffe, then you went back and said he had no plan, now it's a gaffe again?

Let us know when you make up your mind.

Let me know when you've turned off your instinctive programming to defend Obama-anything.

Whembly, you're not one to say a thing in that regard TBH.

True... but I can 'cuz...

Freedom!®

EDIT: for the record... all this piling on is no different than any other gaffe. Ya'll would do the same thing to the opposite party. Can we at least be honest with that?

Our focus right now is to protect American personnel on the ground in Iraq, to protect our embassy, to protect our consulates, to make sure that critical infrastructure that could adversely affect our personnel is protected.

Where we see an opportunity that allows us, with very modest risk, to help the humanitarian situation there, as we did in Sinjar Mountain, we will take those opportunities after having consulted with Congress.

But our core priority right now is just to make sure that our folks are safe and to do an effective assessment of Iraqi and Kurdish capabilities.

My take away from this part was:

Objective is to protect our personnel (embassy and consulate) and, when there is little risk, help out with humanitarian aid/threats to refugees/displaced persons.

That bothered me. Force protection should never be the mission. If that is the real goal, pull the DoD personnel home and accomplish it at much lower costs than even a moderate bombing campaign.

He went on to say:

What is true, though, is that the violence that's been taking place in Syria has obviously given ISIL a safe haven there in ungoverned spaces. And in order for us to degrade ISIL over the long term, we're going to have to build a regional strategy.

Okay, got it, we need a regional strategy (VERY surprised we don;t have one he can effectively communicate) and it will rely on partners, Hooah.

What is the national objective of this strategy we need (why do we need it, what will it be designed to do?) and what is the US national security issue(s) or interests accomplishing this objective hopes to address?

That is what I want to hear from national level leaders.

You cannot establish a real strategy let alone plan operations and campaigns without knowing what the objectives are. It is bass ackwards to go from strategy to objectives/goals. Our elected leaders ought to know this and ought to be able to communicate it. "Degrade ISIL" is operational level at best, not strategic nor national level, and a true regional strategy ought to encompass lines of effort and operation to achieve much broader longterm national objectives and goals.

I basically came away with

'We're working on it, but it's not yet ready to reveal'.

Which makes sense, as 'This is our plan' is never televised by competent leaders where it might be overheard by, say, the enemy.

It sure beats Bush's 'Let's Get Em!' plan. This might even include say, a plan for what we do after they're in ashes and we've won.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I basically came away with

'We're working on it, but it's not yet ready to reveal'.

Which makes sense, as 'This is our plan' is never televised by competent leaders where it might be overheard by, say, the enemy.

It sure beats Bush's 'Let's Get Em!' plan. This might even include say, a plan for what we do after they're in ashes and we've won.

My concern isn't that they're taking time to work on a plan. My concern is that, this has been a growing problem for years, that finally exploded months ago, and now they're finally taking time to work on a plan.

From the previous Syria thread, I definitely didn't see any great ideas. Remember when it looked like we might take action in Syria?



So we didn't. Now, ISIL has shown up, and while that's pretty unfortunate, it's disingenuous to now say it was a totally clear cut decision to act then, when it was various extremists having a fundamentalist hoedown. As a matter of fact, that situation still hasn't changed since then, right? It's still douchebag vs turd sandwich? So I really don't have a problem with taking time to come up with some kind of regional plan involving allies, and lots of them. The American people do not want another war, certainly not one where we jump in first and figure out an exit strategy later, and I think the President is right to be cautious.

Can't you just follow that time honoured American tradition, and just sell guns, tanks and planes to the Iraqi Government?

Let them sort out their own country.

I don't however have a problem with UK/USA airdropping in humanitarian supplies for refugees, so long as our pilots are not in danger.

ISIS don't have sophisticated AA capabilities do they?

Working for a foreign government when you are of that nationality

So taking a job as a janitor for the British consulate can potentially cost me my citizenship?

 Ouze wrote:
From the previous Syria thread, I definitely didn't see any great ideas. Remember when it looked like we might take action in Syria?



So we didn't. Now, ISIL has shown up, and while that's pretty unfortunate, it's disingenuous to now say it was a totally clear cut decision to act then, when it was various extremists having a fundamentalist hoedown. As a matter of fact, that situation still hasn't changed since then, right? It's still douchebag vs turd sandwich? So I really don't have a problem with taking time to come up with some kind of regional plan involving allies, and lots of them. The American people do not want another war, certainly not one where we jump in first and figure out an exit strategy later, and I think the President is right to be cautious.

That petty officer probably needs to do a bit more homework on the subject. There were more options than just "fighting for Al Qaeda in a Syrian civil war." Not all of the militias are Al Qaeda affiliates. There were (and are) some significant players who were more moderate and more secular, like the Free Syrian Army, who we could have supported. The reason some of the militias accepted Al Qaeda support in the first place was because no one else would help them. We drug our feet, and this is the result. If we decide not to take a leadership role and let events play out without us, our enemies will dictate how the situation develops in our absence. I'm not saying we needed to put troops on the ground, but we've literally done nothing right up until the point things get so bad that we are forced to do something, which isn't really an effective way to approach problems like these.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Can't you just follow that time honoured American tradition, and just sell guns, tanks and planes to the Iraqi Government?

Let them sort out their own country.

I don't however have a problem with UK/USA airdropping in humanitarian supplies for refugees, so long as our pilots are not in danger.

ISIS don't have sophisticated AA capabilities do they?

We already did that. A lot of the vehicles and weapons we gave them have been captured by ISIS. The Iraqi military forces are not reliable at this point.

 Breotan wrote:

Working for a foreign government when you are of that nationality

So taking a job as a janitor for the British consulate can potentially cost me my citizenship?

No. There is no functional way for you to have your birthright citizenship taken away against your will, period, full stop. There is a specific form you need to fill out and bring to a US embassy and have signed before witnesses. I believe CaptainJake posted it earlier in the thread.

The theoretical involuntary method previously posted has never been invoked a single time that I am aware of, ever, and I suspect it would not fly in court even if tried.

It is possible but rare to revoke the citizenship of a naturalized citizen. It seems to only actually happen if you were formerly a Nazi or otherwise involved in war crimes.

 Hordini wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Can't you just follow that time honoured American tradition, and just sell guns, tanks and planes to the Iraqi Government? Let them sort out their own country. I don't however have a problem with UK/USA airdropping in humanitarian supplies for refugees, so long as our pilots are not in danger.

ISIS don't have sophisticated AA capabilities do they?

We already did that. A lot of the vehicles and weapons we gave them have been captured by ISIS. The Iraqi military forces are not reliable at this point.

Then what can possibly be done now, short of putting American troops on the ground? Arm the Kurds?

Hey guys, remember what when we armed the Sons of Iraq? Whatever happened to those guys?

 Breotan wrote:

Working for a foreign government when you are of that nationality

So taking a job as a janitor for the British consulate can potentially cost me my citizenship?

Well, if you're british, I suppose so... I think the better example would be James Bond applies for, and receives US citizenship, then goes back to work for MI6

 Ouze wrote:
Hey guys, remember what when we armed the Sons of Iraq? Whatever happened to those guys?

Another result of our completely hands off policy. They were primarily Sunnis. Once we left the Sunnis were pushed out of a lot of positions, like the Iraqi government and military officer corps (which is a big reason the Iraqi army is not an effective fighting force at this point).

Well, do you think it's feasible to commit to the Kurds for like 20 or 30 years? Because, historically, we won't; in my opinion.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, do you think it's feasible to commit to the Kurds for like 20 or 30 years? Because, historically, we won't; in my opinion.

I think it's feasible in the sense that we would be capable of doing it if we actually wanted to, but realistically, I doubt the current administration has the will to commit to something like that.

 Hordini wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, do you think it's feasible to commit to the Kurds for like 20 or 30 years? Because, historically, we won't; in my opinion.

I think it's feasible in the sense that we would be capable of doing it if we actually wanted to, but realistically, I doubt the current administration has the will to commit to something like that.

While militarily you may be capable of it as a nation, politically you aren't. No one really is. All that would happen is that they go in with this administration, maybe the next one carries it on, then it starts to become a burden on the people, someone runs on a platform involving 'lets get out of this war, it doesn't really involve us at all anyway, our boys are dying for nothing', they'll get elected and do just that.

It might feel good to say 'well its the current admin's fault that they don't have the will to do it', but really it is irrelevant if it was Obama, Reagan, Nixon or Washington currently in office, your politics being as they are you can't commit somewhere for 30 years. It's the same as budget projections which go 20 years in the future or whatever, 'by 2030 we'll have XYZ'. Yeah, it sounds great, good job. But it is irrelevant because there'll be 4 swaps of power and about 20 budgets between now and then, so you are basically just shouting nice things loudly and hoping no one thinks things through.

 motyak wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, do you think it's feasible to commit to the Kurds for like 20 or 30 years? Because, historically, we won't; in my opinion.

I think it's feasible in the sense that we would be capable of doing it if we actually wanted to, but realistically, I doubt the current administration has the will to commit to something like that.

While militarily you may be capable of it as a nation, politically you aren't. No one really is. All that would happen is that they go in with this administration, maybe the next one carries it on, then it starts to become a burden on the people, someone runs on a platform involving 'lets get out of this war, it doesn't really involve us at all anyway, our boys are dying for nothing', they'll get elected and do just that.

It might feel good to say 'well its the current admin's fault that they don't have the will to do it', but really it is irrelevant if it was Obama, Reagan, Nixon or Washington currently in office, your politics being as they are you can't commit somewhere for 30 years. It's the same as budget projections which go 20 years in the future or whatever, 'by 2030 we'll have XYZ'. Yeah, it sounds great, good job. But it is irrelevant because there'll be 4 swaps of power and about 20 budgets between now and then, so you are basically just shouting nice things loudly and hoping no one thinks things through.

You're most likely correct, but with the current administration we're unlikely to even attempt it.