(08-12-2014 07:32 AM)Greenroom Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 07:14 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 06:12 AM)Greenroom Wrote:  Noticed that no one knows how to solve the situation. It's easy to blame Obama, for everything, yet it's harder to put solutions on the table.

He is already bombing them. Do you want to put more American lives at risk against a hidden enemy? And what happened when you stop ISIS, and then the next group comes are you saying we have to be in WAR for an unlimited amount of time?

And not saying Obama is a great Commander in Chief.

That's his job.

Liberals just can't bring themselves to pull the trigger.

Leading a Nation is different from Fundraising !!!

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Noticed no answers from you on how to solve it.
We live in a Great Nation that allows you to be Monday Morning QB, and you dont have to step up. BTW this is not a R vs D discussion. We are talking about young men's and woman's life's at stake based on the command of this President! So I do appreciate that he is not just rushing in to put them in harms way. Having served in the military and having family members still serving I understand if your called you follow the orders and that's the decision you make as a member of the military!

Like our very own Chance the Gardener POTUS, all of that is mostly above our pay grade.

(08-12-2014 08:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's a major point. You can't solve anything with limited rules of engagement. All you do is keep getting people killed for no good reason until you get tired of it. Tying the military's hands with limited rules of engagement is guaranteed to fail. So either you don't tie their hands or you don't go in.

Many of us here have said that from day one; if you're going to go in at all then go in with both barrels blazing and take no prisoners.

(08-12-2014 09:50 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:32 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:16 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 06:12 AM)Greenroom Wrote:  Noticed that no one knows how to solve the situation. It's easy to blame Obama, for everything, yet it's harder to put solutions on the table.

He is already bombing them. Do you want to put more American lives at risk against a hidden enemy? And what happened when you stop ISIS, and then the next group comes are you saying we have to be in WAR for an unlimited amount of time?

And not saying Obama is a great Commander in Chief.

Nobody blamed a president until someone stepped in and said this is all on Bush. And Bush gets blamed for everything, not Obama. Where have you been?

No, it's when people started blaming Obama for what was happening in Iraq that others started pointing out that Bush got us into that mess in the first place.

When Obama ignored the advice to him by his generals, and it turned out badly, Obama was clearly wrong, blame Bush.

Yes, and I'm sure Bush always did everything his generals advised. And his generals are perfect, never make a mistake.

(08-12-2014 09:56 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's a major point. You can't solve anything with limited rules of engagement. All you do is keep getting people killed for no good reason until you get tired of it. Tying the military's hands with limited rules of engagement is guaranteed to fail. So either you don't tie their hands or you don't go in.

Many of us here have said that from day one; if you're going to go in at all then go in with both barrels blazing and take no prisoners.

But what about the situation we have now? We don't have boots on the ground, we're basically just providing air support. IMO that's better than nothing, as our casualties are likely to be limited but we are helping some. Is it enough?

(08-12-2014 10:02 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:50 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:32 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:16 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 06:12 AM)Greenroom Wrote:  Noticed that no one knows how to solve the situation. It's easy to blame Obama, for everything, yet it's harder to put solutions on the table.

He is already bombing them. Do you want to put more American lives at risk against a hidden enemy? And what happened when you stop ISIS, and then the next group comes are you saying we have to be in WAR for an unlimited amount of time?

And not saying Obama is a great Commander in Chief.

Nobody blamed a president until someone stepped in and said this is all on Bush. And Bush gets blamed for everything, not Obama. Where have you been?

No, it's when people started blaming Obama for what was happening in Iraq that others started pointing out that Bush got us into that mess in the first place.

When Obama ignored the advice to him by his generals, and it turned out badly, Obama was clearly wrong, blame Bush.

Yes, and I'm sure Bush always did everything his generals advised. And his generals are perfect, never make a mistake.

Bush did not ignore his generals. You just cannot admit that Zero is a failure. Even when the evidence is insurmountable.

(08-12-2014 10:05 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 10:02 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:50 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:32 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:16 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Nobody blamed a president until someone stepped in and said this is all on Bush. And Bush gets blamed for everything, not Obama. Where have you been?

No, it's when people started blaming Obama for what was happening in Iraq that others started pointing out that Bush got us into that mess in the first place.

When Obama ignored the advice to him by his generals, and it turned out badly, Obama was clearly wrong, blame Bush.

Yes, and I'm sure Bush always did everything his generals advised. And his generals are perfect, never make a mistake.

Bush did not ignore his generals. You just cannot admit that Zero is a failure. Even when the evidence is insurmountable.

If Obama does something right you'd never admit it, so there's no point in discussing.

(08-12-2014 10:08 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 10:05 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 10:02 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:50 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:32 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  No, it's when people started blaming Obama for what was happening in Iraq that others started pointing out that Bush got us into that mess in the first place.

When Obama ignored the advice to him by his generals, and it turned out badly, Obama was clearly wrong, blame Bush.

Yes, and I'm sure Bush always did everything his generals advised. And his generals are perfect, never make a mistake.

Bush did not ignore his generals. You just cannot admit that Zero is a failure. Even when the evidence is insurmountable.

If Obama does something right you'd never admit it, so there's no point in discussing.

First he's got to do something right, then you might be surprised.

(08-12-2014 10:04 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  But what about the situation we have now? We don't have boots on the ground, we're basically just providing air support. IMO that's better than nothing, as our casualties are likely to be limited but we are helping some. Is it enough?

No it's not--not enough to guarantee a result, and therefore not better than doing nothing. Doing nothing is better than doing something which may not be enough. Because if it turns out not to be enough, then we have two choices.

1) Back out and admit that we were wrong in the first place, or
2) Escalate by doing a little bit more, then escalate further by doing a little bit more when that isn't enough, and keep escalating but not doing enough until we get tired of seeing body bags come home.

Of those two choices, 1) is better but 2) is the path we seem to take over and over.

Either do what is certain to be enough, or do nothing. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq are exercises in doing something but not enough.

(08-12-2014 10:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 10:04 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  But what about the situation we have now? We don't have boots on the ground, we're basically just providing air support. IMO that's better than nothing, as our casualties are likely to be limited but we are helping some. Is it enough?

No it's not--not enough to guarantee a result, and therefore not better than doing nothing. Doing nothing is better than doing something which may not be enough. Because if it turns out not to be enough, then we have two choices.

1) Back out and admit that we were wrong in the first place, or
2) Escalate by doing a little bit more, then escalate further by doing a little bit more when that isn't enough, and keep escalating but not doing enough until we get tired of seeing body bags come home.

Of those two choices, 1) is better but 2) is the path we seem to take over and over.

Either do what is certain to be enough, or do nothing. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq are exercises in doing something but not enough.

I disagree with your statement that doing nothing is better than doing something which might not be enough. Let's say we have a 90% chance of being successful at the current level of intervention, with zero or very few casualties. I'd say that's better than letting the Kurds get run over and slaughtered. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and even the earlier Iraq war were different since we were continually having significant casualties as we had a lot of soldiers at risk.

(08-12-2014 10:25 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 10:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 10:04 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  But what about the situation we have now? We don't have boots on the ground, we're basically just providing air support. IMO that's better than nothing, as our casualties are likely to be limited but we are helping some. Is it enough?

No it's not--not enough to guarantee a result, and therefore not better than doing nothing. Doing nothing is better than doing something which may not be enough. Because if it turns out not to be enough, then we have two choices.
1) Back out and admit that we were wrong in the first place, or
2) Escalate by doing a little bit more, then escalate further by doing a little bit more when that isn't enough, and keep escalating but not doing enough until we get tired of seeing body bags come home.
Of those two choices, 1) is better but 2) is the path we seem to take over and over.
Either do what is certain to be enough, or do nothing. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq are exercises in doing something but not enough.

I disagree with your statement that doing nothing is better than doing something which might not be enough. Let's say we have a 90% chance of being successful at the current level of intervention, with zero or very few casualties. I'd say that's better than letting the Kurds get run over and slaughtered. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and even the earlier Iraq war were different since we were continually having significant casualties as we had a lot of soldiers at risk.

I'd say a bombing campaign without well trained and capable boots on the ground has at best a 30% chance of success, and if anything that's probably way high. Realistically, it's probably single digits. When that doesn't succeed, then what?

As long as we are not doing enough, bombing is better than our own boots on the ground, since own casualties are far fewer. So if we're going to do not enough, we're better off bombing than anything else. So you bomb a while and then go home. What does that accomplish?

But you're not going to achieve anything like 90% success without some boots on the ground. Those can be friendly boots that we are providing air support and not our own boots, but there have to be some boots.

And doing something that we know is not enough is just abject stupidity.

(08-12-2014 10:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 10:25 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 10:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 10:04 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  But what about the situation we have now? We don't have boots on the ground, we're basically just providing air support. IMO that's better than nothing, as our casualties are likely to be limited but we are helping some. Is it enough?

No it's not--not enough to guarantee a result, and therefore not better than doing nothing. Doing nothing is better than doing something which may not be enough. Because if it turns out not to be enough, then we have two choices.
1) Back out and admit that we were wrong in the first place, or
2) Escalate by doing a little bit more, then escalate further by doing a little bit more when that isn't enough, and keep escalating but not doing enough until we get tired of seeing body bags come home.
Of those two choices, 1) is better but 2) is the path we seem to take over and over.
Either do what is certain to be enough, or do nothing. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq are exercises in doing something but not enough.

I disagree with your statement that doing nothing is better than doing something which might not be enough. Let's say we have a 90% chance of being successful at the current level of intervention, with zero or very few casualties. I'd say that's better than letting the Kurds get run over and slaughtered. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and even the earlier Iraq war were different since we were continually having significant casualties as we had a lot of soldiers at risk.

I'd say a bombing campaign without well trained and capable boots on the ground has at best a 30% chance of success, and if anything that's probably way high. Realistically, it's probably single digits. When that doesn't succeed, then what?

As long as we are not doing enough, bombing is better than our own boots on the ground, since own casualties are far fewer. So if we're going to do not enough, we're better off bombing than anything else. So you bomb a while and then go home. What does that accomplish?

But you're not going to achieve anything like 90% success without some boots on the ground. Those can be friendly boots that we are providing air support and not our own boots, but there have to be some boots.

And doing something that we know is not enough is just abject stupidity.

Well the Kurds are the boots on the ground, otherwise I'd agree that bombing by itself wouldn't be enough. And because the Kurds are there, I'm sure we think there's a good chance that the bombing can be successful in achieving limited goals. I'm not sure how much we're doing so it's hard to say whether what we're doing is enough, but I am sure that they're assessing the situation constantly and may have to escalate the campaign.

I don't get current intel, so I can't really make an accurate assessment of the situation. I doubt that what we are doing is enough, and if that proves to be the case, then the hard decisions start.

(08-12-2014 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't get current intel, so I can't really make an accurate assessment of the situation. I doubt that what we are doing is enough, and if that proves to be the case, then the hard decisions start.

Meanwhile people across the board are rallying to cut funding to the CIA and other important organizations and the threat is NOT going away. It's almost as if people want to be blind to how dangerous the world outside of our "safe" country is.

(08-12-2014 10:08 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 10:05 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 10:02 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:50 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:32 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  No, it's when people started blaming Obama for what was happening in Iraq that others started pointing out that Bush got us into that mess in the first place.

When Obama ignored the advice to him by his generals, and it turned out badly, Obama was clearly wrong, blame Bush.

Yes, and I'm sure Bush always did everything his generals advised. And his generals are perfect, never make a mistake.

Bush did not ignore his generals. You just cannot admit that Zero is a failure. Even when the evidence is insurmountable.

If Obama does something right you'd never admit it, so there's no point in discussing.

He signed a bill related to autism yesterday, he got that right.


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.

But what about the situation we have now? We don't have boots on the ground, we're basically just providing air support. IMO that's better than nothing, as our casualties are likely to be limited but we are helping some. Is it enough?
[/quote]



Sometimes waiting and waiting and then doing something is as bad as not doing anything. What obama did wrong was just that. He waited and waited until ISIL got stronger and started committing those atrocities. When those killers were all aligned in a row with their pretty white trucks and snazzy black uniforms heading towards their destination is when he should have sent a few A-10s with their gatling guns strafing the crap out of them. Oh, what a sight that would have made. But like everything he tends to wait because he's so indecisive.

It's not like we didn't know that they were the bad guys intent on doing evil. Sheesh, liberals are so dumb.

The question is whether or not the US is willing to cede the moral high ground to get to job done. If not we should pack up our bags and head home, because this current position offer no tactical advantage.

(08-12-2014 02:40 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  But what about the situation we have now? We don't have boots on the ground, we're basically just providing air support. IMO that's better than nothing, as our casualties are likely to be limited but we are helping some. Is it enough?

Sometimes waiting and waiting and then doing something is as bad as not doing anything. What obama did wrong was just that. He waited and waited until ISIL got stronger and started committing those atrocities. When those killers were all aligned in a row with their pretty white trucks and snazzy black uniforms heading towards their destination is when he should have sent a few A-10s with their gatling guns strafing the crap out of them. Oh, what a sight that would have made. But like everything he tends to wait because he's so indecisive.

It's not like we didn't know that they were the bad guys intent on doing evil. Sheesh, liberals are so dumb.
[/quote]

ISIS only got strong because we were too freakin' cheap to bring our equipment home, instead we left it there, to fall into ISIS' hands. He could have bombed sooner but it was not a given that it would be necessary. Right after we pulled out I didn't see anyone on here saying we should bomb ISIS. It was only after the Iraqi "army" we'd been training for 11 years melted into the Iraqi countryside that ISIS became an issue.

(08-12-2014 12:53 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't get current intel, so I can't really make an accurate assessment of the situation. I doubt that what we are doing is enough, and if that proves to be the case, then the hard decisions start.

Meanwhile people across the board are rallying to cut funding to the CIA and other important organizations and the threat is NOT going away. It's almost as if people want to be blind to how dangerous the world outside of our "safe" country is.

I wouldn't necessarily equate CIA funding with quality of intelligence.

There are other countries whose intel services do more with less because they are focused on doing the job instead of fighting bureaucratic turf battles.

Take the games out of it, focus on what is important, and we can have better intel for less.

(08-12-2014 03:11 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The question is whether or not the US is willing to cede the moral high ground to get to job done. If not we should pack up our bags and head home, because this current position offer no tactical advantage.

Keep in mind that we occupy the high moral ground only when defined in terms of our own ethnocentric value system. Based on their values, we don't. So our self-righteous claim to the high moral ground means nothing in this context.

(08-12-2014 03:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 03:11 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The question is whether or not the US is willing to cede the moral high ground to get to job done. If not we should pack up our bags and head home, because this current position offer no tactical advantage.

Keep in mind that we occupy the high moral ground only when defined in terms of our own ethnocentric value system. Based on their values, we don't. So our self-righteous claim to the high moral ground means nothing in this context.

I agree that the moral high ground is self defined. And if that is the overriding tactic that governs US military doctrine, then it is time to come home. Because holding that ground is only valuable in non-violent confrontations. In any other instance, such a position can and will be used against us by more violent groups that see it as a weakness.