DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
The Forum
HTML https://thewiforum.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Worldwide topics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 18808--------------------------------------------------
Obama "paralyzed" on terrorism
By: trollslayer Date: January 28, 2015, 8:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A great article defining Obama's lack of strategy regarding
terrorism.
[quote]The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency
slammed the Obama administration on Monday as “well intentioned”
but paralyzed and playing defense in its the fight against
Islamic militancy.
Recently retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn called for the U.S. to
lead the charge in a sweeping, decades-long campaign against the
Islamic State group, al Qaeda, and its ilk—a fight like the one
against the former Soviet Union—against a new enemy he said is
“committed to the destruction of freedom and the American way of
life.”
“There is no substitute, none, for American power,” the general
said, to occasional cheers and ultimately a standing ovation
from a crowd of special operators and intelligence officers at a
Washington industry conference.
He also slammed the administration for refusing to use the term
“Islamic militants” in its description of ISIS and al Qaeda.
“You cannot defeat an enemy you do not admit exists,” Flynn
said.
He said the administration is unwilling to admit the scope of
the problem, naively clinging to the hope that limited
counterterrorist intervention will head off the ideological
juggernaut of religious militancy.
“There are many sincere people in our government who frankly are
paralyzed by this complexity,” said Flynn, so they “accept a
defensive posture, reasoning that passivity is less likely to
provoke our enemies.”[/quote]
HTML http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/27/ex-pentagon-spy-chief-blasts-white-house-paralyzed-by-radical-islam.html
#Post#: 18810--------------------------------------------------
Re: Obama "paralyzed" on terrorism
By: rapids_60 Date: January 28, 2015, 4:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No doubt the guy doesn't know what to do. Seems most European
countries have the same dilemma.
Question is- what can be done short of putting 50K troops on
the ground, rounding up and shooting every radical militant we
find...and hope they don't multiply faster than we can eliminate
them?
Do we then take control of every country they once called home?
We'd have to keep this up forever, the moment we stop they come
right back.
#Post#: 18814--------------------------------------------------
Re: Obama "paralyzed" on terrorism
By: trollslayer Date: January 28, 2015, 5:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=rapids_60 link=topic=1369.msg18810#msg18810
date=1422482914]
No doubt the guy doesn't know what to do. Seems most European
countries have the same dilemma.
Question is- what can be done short of putting 50K troops on
the ground, rounding up and shooting every radical militant we
find...and hope they don't multiply faster than we can eliminate
them?
Do we then take control of every country they once called home?
We'd have to keep this up forever, the moment we stop they come
right back.w
[/quote]
Uh huh. From one extreme to the other. You go from dropping
three to four bombs over two countries a day to taking them over
with no possible strategy in between. You do understand that
there are a myriad of possibilities in between don't you?
#Post#: 18817--------------------------------------------------
Re: Obama "paralyzed" on terrorism
By: trollslayer Date: January 28, 2015, 6:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The quote below from a Deputy Press Secretary of the Obama
administration shows they don't know WTF is happening in the
Middle East. They don't know who the enemy is. The don't have
a clue. Linda. This is why you won't see a democratic
president in 2016. Because they think the American public is
really dumber than what they are. When is a terrorist group not
a terrorist group? When they're an "armed insurgency".
[quote]At Wednesday's White House press briefing, deputy press
secretary Eric Schultz wouldn't call the Taliban a terrorist
group, instead referring to it as "an armed insurgency."
"The Taliban is still conducting terrorist attacks. You can't
really say the war has ended as far as they are concerned,"
ABC's Jonathan Karl said at the briefing.
"Well, I'd also point out that the Taliban is an armed
insurgency, ISIL is a terrorist group. So, we don't make
concessions to terrorist groups," Schultz said.
"You don't think the Taliban is a terrorist group?" Karl asked.
"I don't think that the Taliban, um, uh -- the Taliban is an
armed insurgency. This was the winding down of the war in
Afghanistan and that's why this arrangement was dealt," Schultz
responded.[/quote]
HTML http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/28/white_house_taliban_an_armed_insurgency_not_a_terrorist_group_like_isil.html
How can anyone defend such idiocy? Nothing but a bunch of Fumb
ducks in the White House these days.
#Post#: 18818--------------------------------------------------
Re: Obama "paralyzed" on terrorism
By: rapids_60 Date: January 28, 2015, 7:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=trollslayer link=topic=1369.msg18814#msg18814
date=1422488573]
You do understand that there are a myriad of possibilities in
between don't you?
[/quote]
Feel free to name a few that would be effective without
involving US occupation, huge military expenditures or costing
us the lives of more American troops.
#Post#: 18819--------------------------------------------------
Re: Obama "paralyzed" on terrorism
By: rapids_60 Date: January 28, 2015, 7:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=trollslayer link=topic=1369.msg18817#msg18817
date=1422491229]
This is why you won't see a democratic president in 2016.
[/quote]
That could well be. Then again you severely overestimate the
number of people who care.
Do you know where terrorism ranks in terms of what American
voters are most worried about? Barely 2% call it important,
and that number is dropping. Outside the Fox News Freakout
group the percentage is probably close to zero. It just does
not affect people's daily lives. It's about the same
percentage who state "income inequality" is a big issue.
HTML http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
Republicans might have to run on something other than fear this
time.
The top issues are the ones that Republicans struggle to gain
credibility with, particularly when the economy crashed last
time they drove and improved without their help.
Run Mitt "I like firing people" "47%" Romney and you're
finished.
#Post#: 18822--------------------------------------------------
Re: Obama "paralyzed" on terrorism
By: trollslayer Date: January 28, 2015, 9:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]That could well be. Then again you severely
overestimate the number of people who care.
Do you know where terrorism ranks in terms of what American
voters are most worried about? Barely 2% call it important,
and that number is dropping. Outside the Fox News Freakout
group the percentage is probably close to zero. It just does
not affect people's daily lives.[/quote]
I think we're getting to the point of labeling you as our
resident Foxophobe suffering from Fox Derangement Syndrome. 2%?
With the beheadings of Americans the attack in France and
others you think it's only 2% Is this a Media Matters poll? I
hate to drag you back into reality kicking and screaming but I
feel I must. You really are making this too easy. With new
terrorists acts making the news on a daily basis how can you
possibly say it's dropping
[quote]For the first time in five years, Americans consider
fighting terrorism as much a policy priority as improving the
economy, according a poll released Thursday.
The Pew Research Center reports that 75 percent of adults called
strengthening the economy a top priority, part of a downward
slide since 86 percent named it in January 2013.
Seventy-six percent said fighting terrorism was the top
priority.
The percentage of adults who see terrorism as a top concern has
not risen considerably since 2013, according to Pew. But as the
economy has improved, it has once again moved to the top of the
list of Americans’ policy priorities.[/quote]
HTML http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/229667-poll-terrorism-now-top-issue-of-concern
[quote]The Pew Research Center’s annual survey of policy
priorities, conducted Jan. 15-19 among 1,504 adults, finds that
the public’s agenda continues to be dominated by the economy
(80% top priority), jobs (74%) and terrorism (73%). As in past
years, the lowest-rated priorities are dealing with global
warming (29%) and dealing with global trade (28%). [/quote]
HTML http://townhall.com/tipsheet/sarahjeanseman/2014/01/27/americans-care-most-about-the-economy-jobs-and-terrorism-n1785520
[quote]Terror Threat Top Concern on Eve of 9-11 Anniversary,
With ISIS Top Concern[/quote]
HTML http://abcnews.go.com/US/terror-threat-peaks-eve-11-anniversary/story?id=25418535
[quote]The number of people who say that acts of terrorism are
likely to occur around the anniversary of 9/11 has significantly
increased from three years ago.
A new CNN/ORC International survey indicates that 53% of
Americans believe it's likely for acts of terrorism to take
place at this time, up from 39% in 2011 during the 10th
anniversary of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.
"It's likely that the change is due to newfound concerns over
ISIS, which seven in 10 Americans believe has operatives within
the U.S. able to commit an act of terrorism at any time," said
CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. [/quote]
HTML http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/politics/cnn-poll-terrorism/
[quote]The nation is on edge in the wake of brutal beheadings of
journalists by Islamic extremists — with more Americans saying
the United States is less safe now than at any point since 9/11,
a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll shows.
The exclusive poll reveals that 47% of Americans believe the
country is less safe now than before the Sept. 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks. That’s a significant increase from even a
year after the twin towers fell when in September 2002 just 20%
of the country said the nation was less safe. The level of fear
across America also is up substantially from last year when 28%
felt the same way.[/quote]
HTML http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/isis-threat-fear-terror-attack-soars-9-11-high-nbc-n199496<br
/>
#Post#: 18824--------------------------------------------------
Re: Obama "paralyzed" on terrorism
By: trollslayer Date: January 28, 2015, 9:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=rapids_60 link=topic=1369.msg18818#msg18818
date=1422496297]
Feel free to name a few that would be effective without
involving US occupation, huge military expenditures or costing
us the lives of more American troops.
[/quote]
I don't really have to. The possibilities between dropping four
bombs a day (which we're doing now) and taking over a country
and occupying it with 50,000 troops (which you suggest) are
endless. For example, we aren't taking over Afghanistan and are
leaving far less than the 50,000 troops you quoted. Certainly
you can see that. If you can't take a listen to the heads (Jack
Keane and Micheael Flynn for example) and others who have
offered alternatives.
#Post#: 18826--------------------------------------------------
Re: Obama "paralyzed" on terrorism
By: rapids_60 Date: January 28, 2015, 10:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=trollslayer link=topic=1369.msg18822#msg18822
date=1422500598]
you think it's only 2% Is this a Media Matters poll? I hate
to drag you back into reality kicking and screaming but I feel I
must.
[/quote]
No, it's a recent Gallup poll.
Your first two links reference the same right-leaning PEW poll.
The ABC link references no polling data at all.
The CNN poll shows people believe an attack is more likely to
occur on 9.11 than on other days, it does not ask how they
prioritize terrorism overall.
And your NBC poll similarly does not ask about priority of
concerns.
Nice try though. PEW says it's a top priority. Gallup says it
isn't. I guess we'd either have to see the exact questions
asked, or infer the truth from answers to other poll questions.
PEW says:
[quote]Currently, 85% of Democrats say the government is doing
very or fairly well in reducing the terror threat, up 14 points
since September. About six-in-ten (63%) Republicans give the
government positive ratings[/quote]
Your CNN poll says:
[quote]Most Americans, however, don't feel personally threatened
by terrorism.[/quote]
ruh-roh. :D
Remember Karl Rove pacing the floor at FOX in complete disbelief
that Romney lost? How could that happen when everything
pointed to a big loss for Obama?
Oh, here you go:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TwuR0jCavk
Rinse and repeat. If you are correct and these things are top
priority, why does Hillary continue to clean the clock of every
Republican she's matched against, despite the purported growth
of terrorism under her watch and despite her failures in
Benghazi, Russia, The State department and everywhere else?
Must be some sort of mistake, huh? Surely she can't actually
win, people really care about that stuff, way more than things
that affect them personally.
Don't get fooled again. :D
#Post#: 18827--------------------------------------------------
Re: Obama "paralyzed" on terrorism
By: rapids_60 Date: January 28, 2015, 11:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=trollslayer link=topic=1369.msg18824#msg18824
date=1422502223]
I don't really have to. The possibilities between dropping four
bombs a day (which we're doing now) and taking over a country
and occupying it with 50,000 troops (which you suggest) are
endless.
[/quote]
"Endless"? Yet you can't point to a single alternative, even
one put forth by "Jack Keane and Micheael Flynn"? Nothing?
We already know the answer to the question Trolly. The
possibilities are not endless. There is just one effective
option: We have to send a lot of troops in, round up the
extremists, then occupy their homelands to keep them from coming
back. That is the ONLY thing that works.
But that is expensive and costs lives, the public has no more
patience for it. Even Republicans are smart enough not to push
for it, they want to win an election..
The only way Afghanistan and Iraq would be stable right now is
if we had kept troops there. Lots of them. Of course you know
that, you've said exactly that when you want to complain about
Obama pulling them out.
Your suggested resources, Jack Keane and Micheael Flynn, offer
no alternatives other than to say Obama's plan isn't working, he
lacks a comprehensive strategy and he needs to use the word
Muslim more. Oh, and a worldwide coalition would be nice.
So that's a plan, is it? A couple of backwards-looking
Shoulda's and the other guy's plan sucks? :D
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page