I am surprise to see anyone expect Obama to react in any significant way to an ISIS attack. He gives a little lip service to these, many now on his watch, but does nothing. It appears to be what one should expect from the man, his main mission during his term is to condition the American people to accept the ascendancy of the Islamic world, to become conditioned to the violent events they do to move the infidel out of the way of the expansion. Watching the American President do the wave with a Castro, and dance the Tango while another NATO country is attacked, is surely different, but we are becoming conditioned. We too now express sympathy for the horrible events and move on to the next day. Obama has been very successful, just as he promised just before taking office, "we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." We have nearly a year left before we can see how well he filled the role he set forth. I don't think you can find a peer of Obama in our history.
People more often than not to forget what the man said when he took office 7 years ago that recovery and change would take 20-25 years and there was no quick fix. I think we're just starting to transition into a more infrastructure centric form of govt. I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to focus some tax dollars here at home for a change. I want the best border patrol, Coast Guard and National Guard on the earth. We have a department for terrorism strategy and a war room for military action. I'm sure they were not ignoring the Belgian bombing but it was a perfect photo op to bash the prez.....sort of like blaming Bush for reading to children on 9/11. Not either president's fault...debate opening up Cuba to our markets but please, don't try to tie it into an attack in Europe. Any president needs to have ongoing dialogues with dictators all over the planet. It's part of the job
It will be interesting to see how each side writes the history of these conflicts with ISIS and the terrorists. In past conflicts with terrorists, the USA versions never quit matches what our allies believe happened, and that includes when Muslims have been our allies against terrorists. Example. Most USA citizens were taught in school about the first time the USA fought on foreign soil after the revolutionary war. It was the attack on the Barbary Coast against pirates/terrorists raiding merchant ships and holding the crews for ransom. The official USA school version is 10 USA Marines lead the successful attack against terrorist pirates controlling a fortified coastal city. This battle inspired the lyrics of the Marine’s Hymn “to the shores of Tripoli”. Our allies in the battle, about 50 Greek and 200-300 Muslim mercenaries have a different version. Not only did they win the battle, but the USA left without fully paying them for their services they were promised. My point is. We do not always get the entire story, nor does our government always keep promises.
Ha! But fisherman! That is almost always the howl! It still rings in my own ear. Oh BTW, this book is a good read about the US Navy and Tripoli. The Six Frigates amazon.com/Six-Frigates-Epic-History-Founding/dp/039333032X
I blame terrorists for terror, too. I blame Obama for fueling this terrorist organization, allowing it to go from near dead to able to threaten European nations and even the U.S. It is pretty typical of his judgment, which has been rather poor for such a smart guy. He absolutely surrendered. We spent a decade there, along with plenty of blood and treasure. It was heading in the right direction until Obama surrendered. That's a great term for what he did. He signed no peace treaty, he didn't defeat the enemy, he tucked tail and ran while leaving equipment behind in his haste.
I don't think we know enough of what his mission is/was to access his judgment or performance. For example, your judgement maybe 180 out. Smart, perhaps but possibly an additional adjective is also in order.
Does anyone else think that Hillary Clinton was a very useful tool to Obama? Not that they had anything in common or even working to the same end. He just saw her performing the role she did and it was very useful to his ends. We see the result. The Caliphate is armed, the followers inspired, the missions going off like clock work, Obama dances the Tango. Rudy Giuliani Thinks Clinton is a founder of ISIS http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/24/politics/rudy-giuliani-hillary-clinton-isis/index.html?eref=rss_latest
A prime principal of war, according to the Art of War. The sovereign with the best General (commander) will be successful. Obama has not even selected a commander to combat ISIS ( he says ISIL) so he must not even consider he is at war. Dancing the Tango is much more fun. Even the unobserving can usually name the commander when we are at war. No one knows the commander selected to combat ISIS. No David Petraeus, Tommy Franks, Norman Schwarzkopf, or Chester Nimitz.
I think Rudy hasn't thought this through to the logical conclusion. Hillary was a tool, not the architect.
Throw your hands up and flee with great haste, leaving your weaponry on the battlefield. If not surrender, what is it? Brave sir robin ran away!
Actually the American people deserve exactly what they get. We have a Constitution that was designed to prevent this sort fundamentally transformation of America by an elected leader. The Constitution states that the requirement for President is 35 years of age and a "Natural Born" Citizen. We ignore the Natural as if only means born in the US. It has a very specific meaning and was included for a specific purpose. The only place where the term was defined at the time of the writing of the Constitution is in the Law of Nation, a document well know for being a reference work the founders used to create both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. So ignoring the reasoning of "original intent" has us in deep trouble again. Trouble foreseen by the founders and ignored by the current generations. Natural Born "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." The blunt intent by the founders was to prevent the Royalty of Europe from coming to American, fathering a child with an American woman, then educating that child to become President of the United States with loyalty to the Fathers interest or Nation. Such a child by law of the Constitution would be an citizen of the Father's nation just the same as if any one of us have one of our children born abroad, they are still American. The 14th amendment changed this partially and probably misguidedly, that any child born here is a US citizen. However, the amendment did nothing to change the meaning of Natural born and thereby the qualification to be President. You can see this thinking in the writings and letters of the founders. See John Jay to Washington for example of what I just said. Then we have Barack Obama writing about his own father, a Muslim of British decent, never a US Citizen, resident for a short time as a student, not a loyal American. "My father was a Muslim and although I did not know him well the religion of my father and his family was always something I had an interest in. This interest became more intense when my mother married an Indonesian Muslim man and as a small child I lived in Indonesia and attended school alongside Muslim pupils. I saw their parents dutifully observing the daily prayers, the mothers covered in the Muslim hijab, the atmosphere of the school change during Ramadan, and the festiveness of the Eid celebrations." Barack Obama Jr. is precisely the citizen that the founders attempted to prohibit from becoming President. It has nothing to do with his birth place. He will never engage in war with the Muslims that commit the atrocities Indeed he will endeavor to convince you to accept this as normal small crimes, to be expected from those we have not helped enough. By ignoring our history and our Constitution we are guilty of bring the leadership we receive. Many will die before the majority wake up.
OK Denny. It is your story, I guess you are entitled to use your language. But when the Russian arrived in Eastern Germany and Czechoslovakia, Roosevelt pulled Patton and the US troops out of there. He let the Russian take the territory. No one used the term "surrender" to characterize the strategic change in direction. We just let another power have it. for what ever fuckwit reason our Leader had. The Generals thought it sucked, and history shows it caused us grieve for years to come, but it was not surrender, fuck up no doubt.
The difference is we didn't pull the troops then to end the conflict for good. Ending the conflict for good was Obama's intent. He surrendered.
Wasn't it Bush that issued the order to pull the troops out of Iraq? Just how long do you want to keep US troops in Iraq and Syria. Because anytime we do leave that we create a vacuum and someone will fill it. Maybe it's time for France, Belgium and Germany to put boots on the ground. We need to distance ourselves from the middle east. Not get more and more involved.
They can only be successful if and as long as they process the moral high ground. And to that end, I see no reason that an intelligent Commander would need to use an occupying army. Perhaps an army can be used that is viewed as liberating neighbors. Then perhaps the locals can set up government(s) to serve the local differing interests. I suspect Iraq would not even remain, since it never was anyway except for a brief period before and during Hussein's time. We sort of ended it simple by messing with him. The old adage, you broke it, you fix it, Won't work. They have to fix it, and we need to quite fucking with it. Understand this does not require an occupying army. It does take a commander though.
