When even the low information voters are worried, you know Obama is in trouble.

Quote: Voters regard the radical Islamic terrorist group ISIS as a major threat to the United States and are very worried that President Obama doesn’t have a strategy for dealing with the problem. They remain reluctant to send U.S. troops back to Iraq to take on ISIS, but support is growing.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 67% of Likely U.S. Voters consider the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) a serious threat to this country. Just 13% disagree, while another 20% are not sure.

The president said last week at a press conference that the United States doesn’t have a strategy yet for dealing with the group which threatens to defeat democratic forces in Iraq and send the messy civil war in Syria further out of control. Seventy-three percent (73%) of voters are concerned that the United States does not have a strategy for dealing with this military group, with 47% who are Very Concerned. Twenty-five percent (25%) are not concerned by this lack of a strategy, but that includes only four percent (4%) who are Not At All Concerned.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...y_for_isis

Truthfully this is something that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Europe needs to handle. Our VA system is overrun with veterans from Iraq & Afghanistan + the vets from even earlier wars. It may not be able to handle another conflict that may last more than 5 years. I'm all for providing arms, food, $$$, and air support to those aforementioned nations to defeat ISIS. I'm all for the US leading the way from a strategic position; however, it's really time for Europe to step up and provide more than a couple of thousand ground forces for once. We've been the UN's ground army for far too long, and we don't have the infrastructure to care for the returning war veterans that we was able to before.

I've heard ISIS has tons of funding and money. Who's giving it to them and where is it? Obama can at least go after that.

(09-02-2014 08:22 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I've heard ISIS has tons of funding and money. Who's giving it to them and where is it? Obama can at least go after that.

A video posted in a previous thread mentioned that ISIS is estimated to have a $500 million bankroll (and growing). In part, they are generating funds from selling crude oil and electricity seized from plants in captured territories and some private donations are coming from Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Apparently these nations are aware this is occurring and not willing to intervene at this point. Typical.

In trouble? Why? He isn't running for office.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Obama knows much about arrogance and dirty politics, but this arseclown knows nothing about leadership.

F ISIS
Strategy to defeat? LOL
Like I would trust you dummies on the right to get it right.

OK smart guy.

Name one country, one fricking country of any note, where the US is held in higher esteem and is more stable since Obama took over in 2009? We are bleeding credibility like our jugglar vein has been severed by some douchebag ISIS operative. Again, just ONE country where mensa-boy's policies have produced positive results.

Worst. President. Ever.

Does Joe Blow Amurican really need to understand Obama's ISIS strategy?

(09-02-2014 08:22 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I've heard ISIS has tons of funding and money. Who's giving it to them and where is it? Obama can at least go after that.

I think initial funding, as said previously, was Qatari and Saudi. If it ever gets to the point of putting boots on the ground, I suggest that Qatar be the landing point, and everything associated with the Emir of Qatar be laid to waste, the Emir be imprisoned or killed whilst being captured, and oil fields be destroyed to attack the Emir's funding. Then move on down the road to deal with ISIS.

(09-03-2014 09:56 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Does Joe Blow Amurican really need to understand Obama's ISIS strategy?

No. It would be far better that he just resign. In lieu of that, he needs to demonstrate that he's worth a **** by explaining his strategy.

(09-03-2014 09:56 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Does Joe Blow Amurican really need to understand Obama's ISIS strategy?

No, folks don't need specifics, but they do need leadership. At least give some inclination, other than just more rhetoric, that our leaders care more about beheaded Americans than their next fundraiser.

Shame on Rasmussen. They're usually better than this.

Quote:4* President Obama says the United States doesn't have a strategy yet for dealing with ISIS. How concerned are you that the United States does not have a strategy for dealing with this militant group?

That's some serious Fox 'news' bull**** right there!

Obama's comments were talking about dealing with them in Syria, which is a hugely complicated issue. Anyone who says otherwise is s damned fool.

And we DO have a current strategy for ISIS...remember the 90+ bombings???

And then he added this:

Quote:"We need to make sure that we've got clear plans, that we're developing them. At that point, I will consult with Congress and make sure that their voices are heard," Obama said. "But there's no point in me asking for action on the part of Congress before I know exactly what it is that is going to be required for us to get the job done."

He's right on the money. Actions without the proper forethought will only result in disaster. See Iraq.

You mean we can't just go in there with guns blazing like Bush?

(09-02-2014 11:13 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  F ISIS
Strategy to defeat? LOL
Like I would trust you dummies on the right to get it right.

Thanks for contributing exactly nothing. Why even bother posting this?

(09-03-2014 09:56 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Does Joe Blow Amurican really need to understand Obama's ISIS strategy?

Perhaps not, in fact I wonder about this poll in the first place, simply because I'd be surprised if 73% of the American dummies would even know what ISIS is.

But, that said, while it may not be important that joe blow understand the leader from behinders ISIS strategy, it'd sure be nice if HE did.

(09-03-2014 12:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Shame on Rasmussen. They're usually better than this.

Quote:4* President Obama says the United States doesn't have a strategy yet for dealing with ISIS. How concerned are you that the United States does not have a strategy for dealing with this militant group?

That's some serious Fox 'news' bull**** right there!

Obama's comments were talking about dealing with them in Syria, which is a hugely complicated issue. Anyone who says otherwise is s damned fool.

And we DO have a current strategy for ISIS...remember the 90+ bombings???

And then he added this:

Quote:"We need to make sure that we've got clear plans, that we're developing them. At that point, I will consult with Congress and make sure that their voices are heard," Obama said. "But there's no point in me asking for action on the part of Congress before I know exactly what it is that is going to be required for us to get the job done."

He's right on the money. Actions without the proper forethought will only result in disaster. See Iraq.

On this we agree. The way we simply cut and ran from an otherwise stable Iraq was and is a decision probably more significant and long lasting than having gone in in the first place.
It was a very poor decision to leave such a void when a relatively small contingent of troops still there could have prevented a LOT of this stuff.

You create a vacuum and someone is going to fill it, often times the bad guys. This should be exhibit A on that fact.

JMU, the bed was made long before Obama removed the last troop. It was doomed to fail the moment they decided to oust the stable government in Iraq. That caused their military to crumble and disband...leaving the void that ISIS is now filling. No number of American troops would have been able to train and create a proper military for Iraq. And the SOF agreement Bush signed was the final nail. The Iraqi's didn't want us there and the vast majority of American's didn't want us there either. This would have happened eventually...we couldn't afford to be their military forever. In life or in treasure.

First off we really shouldn't care all that much what they wanted. Second, a relatively small force, on a rotating basis of say 20,000 +- (we have troops all over the world, simple move some of them, no net increase in deployed troops) could have served a couple purposes- Primarily to keep that idiot Al-Malaki in line, and not doing the colossally dumb things he's done, and secondly to either shore up the couple hundred thousand of existing Iraqi troops and/or serve as a deterrent to these ISIS bastards in the first place.

They rolled in there like they already owned the place, bringing with them, at the time, an estimated 3-5,000 troops or so. Their success has swelled their ranks considerably, now to estimates of as much as 30-50,000 and they are now much more than some small regional threat, or put another way, a "JV squad".

So we're going back in, like it or not. We are already back in. Had we not left in the first place, hat in hand, we would be in a far stronger position already, and ISIS wouldn't be nearly the enemy they now are. Not to even mention the needless slaughter of the tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children and the atrocities already committed there.

(09-03-2014 11:31 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:56 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Does Joe Blow Amurican really need to understand Obama's ISIS strategy?

No, folks don't need specifics, but they do need leadership. At least give some inclination, other than just more rhetoric, that our leaders care more about beheaded Americans than their next fundraiser.

That just gives ISIS more attention. I'd rather he order drone strikes from the 12th hole.