Author Topic: Obama's War(s)  (Read 34912 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63862
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #175 on: October 29, 2015, 02:50:00 PM »
Pentagon: 'We're in combat' in Iraq
By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
Thu October 29, 2015

Washington (CNN)—The Pentagon conceded Wednesday that U.S. troops are in combat in Iraq after days of dancing around the characterization following the first death of U.S. service member in the campaign against ISIS.

"We're in combat," Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters Wednesday. "I mean, of course, this is a combat zone. There's a war going on in Iraq, if folks haven't noticed. And we're here and it's all around us."

The comments came after Master Sgt. Joshua L. Wheeler was killed last week in a raid to free hostages held by ISIS. They are in stark contrast to President Barack Obama's insistence last summer that "American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq" while announcing the decision to assist Iraqis fighting ISIS.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter also acknowledged later Wednesday that "there are American troops in combat every day" in Iraq, but he hedged his statement by saying that the overall U.S. role in Iraq is not to carry out a combat mission. Rather, he said, the U.S. mission to train and support local forces that does involve a combat aspect.

While the U.S. conducts aerial bombing raids against ISIS and sometimes carries out Special Operations ground missions, U.S. military personnel in Iraq are largely charged with training and advising Iraqi forces and are not directly embedded with those forces when they engage ISIS on the ground.

Still, Carter was unequivocal that Wheeler -- a Special Ops soldier -- died in combat.

"Of course he died in combat. That's what happened," Carter said Wednesday during a news conference.

On Friday, however, he was more equivocal, emphasizing that Wheeler's activities were not indicative of the U.S. taking on a combat stance in Iraq.

"It doesn't represent assuming a combat role. It represents a continuation of our advise-and-assist mission" for Iraqi security forces, he told reporters.

Carter has said that the American public can expect to see more Special Forces raids on the ground against ISIS.

When pressed further on his comments, Warren, the Army spokesman, was unflinching in his assessment -- noting that there's a reason why U.S. forces serving in Iraq receive imminent danger pay, combat patches and carry guns.

"You know, our aviators are conducting combat air patrols, I mean, that's the name of the mission, combat air patrol. So, of course it's combat," he said. "You know, they are conducting combat -- when you're a pilot and you strike an enemy target with thousands of pounds of bombs, that's aerial combat."

Warren added, "It's a dangerous place, you know. We've had a man killed, we've had men -- personnel wounded. That's going to continue to happen."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/politics/iraq-isis-military-combat/index.html

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63862
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #176 on: October 30, 2015, 10:54:34 AM »
U.S. to send Special Operations forces to Syria
By Barbara Starr and Jeremy Diamond, CNN
Fri October 30, 2015 |
Video Source: CNN

The deployment of U.S. Special Operations forces is the most significant escalation of the Americans military campaign against ISIS to date
Obama has long resisted an American military presence on the ground to combat ISIS in Iraq and Syria

Washington (CNN)The United States is set to deploy troops on the ground in Syria for the first time to advise and assist rebel forces combating ISIS, multiple officials said Friday.

A senior administration official said that the U.S. would be deploying "fewer than 50" U.S. Special Operations forces to Kurdish-controlled territory in northern Syria. The American troops will help local Kurdish and Arab forces fighting ISIS with logistics and are planning to bolster their efforts.

The deployment of U.S. Special Operations forces is the most significant escalation of the American military campaign against ISIS to date.

The U.S. Special Operations forces will first be deployed to northern Syria to help coordinate local ground forces and U.S.-led coalition efforts to fight ISIS, the senior administration official said. The local forces in that area have been the most effective U.S. partners in confronting ISIS.

The U.S. will also boost its military footprint in confronting ISIS in Syria by deploying A-10 and F-15 fighter jets to Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. And the U.S. is also eying the establishment of a Special Forces task force in Iraq to boost U.S. efforts to target ISIS and its leaders, the administration official said. President Barack Obama has also authorized enhancing military aid to Jordan and Lebanon to help counter ISIS.

The U.S. has bombed targets in Syria since September 2014 without stopping ISIS, and it has largely failed in a mission to recruit and train moderate rebels in Syria to take on the terror group. In recent months, the U.S. has also bolstered its aid to local forces, air-dropping weapons, ammunition and other supplies to rebel forces inside Syria.

Obama has long resisted an American military presence on the ground to combat ISIS in Iraq and Syria but has reluctantly escalated U.S. involvement in that fight over time since launching the military effort in 2014.

The number of U.S. military forces in Iraq has swelled to more than 3,500 since Obama first announced the deployment of up to 300 American military advisers to Iraq in June 2014.

U.S. Special Ops have previously conducted some secretive missions on the ground in Syria as well. But the deployment marks the first permanent presence of U.S. ground troops in Syria since the U.S. began leading an international effort last year to confront ISIS, the militant Islamist group which now controls broad swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria.

The troops are set to be deployed to Syria in the coming days, according to these officials.

The decision comes on the heels of the first death of an American military service member in the fight against ISIS. Master Sgt. Joshua Wheeler died last week in Iraq as he and other American Special Operations forces conducted a raid to rescue hostages held by ISIS.

The troops to be sent to Syria are not expected to serve on the front lines with rebel forces.

But they are entering a very hot combat zone and have the right to engage the enemy if they come under fire. They could also join Syrian and Kurdish forces on raids if they get explicit permission from Washington.

The Syrian Kurdish fighting force in northern Syria welcomed the decision to deploy U.S. troops to assist them but reiterated the need for more assistance and weaponry to fight ISIS.

"We have experience fighting ISIS and I think the whole world has seen as evidence of that the areas that we currently hold in Syria. We hope that this assistance will evolve from all our different friends and allies. We need all types of assistance but first and foremost weapons are primarily our most important need," said Mohamed Rasho, spokesman for the political wing of the YPG, the Syrian Kurd fighting force.

The stepped-up U.S. military involvement in Syria also comes amid a redoubling of diplomatic efforts to reach a resolution to the multi-year conflict between the Syrian government and rebel forces, which ISIS has exploited to expand its base in the country.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has been holding meetings in recent days with U.S. allies in the region and recently agreed to give Iran a role in the peace talks, which also include Russia, Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Iran and Russia have supported the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad even as Assad has been accused of committing war crimes against his own people, including the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas.

Russia entered the military fray earlier this month by deploying forces to Syria and launching a bombing campaign that it claims has been targeting ISIS, also called ISIL. But the locations of Russian airstrikes have led U.S. military officials to say they believe the Russian effort is aimed more at bolstering Assad's hold on power than fighting ISIS.

Russia's military involvement in Syria has been greeted in Washington with a mixture of caution and criticism, with Obama warning Russia earlier this month that its airstrikes in Syria would suck it into a "quagmire."

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told CNN Thursday that he believed Russian President Vladimir Putin didn't have a long-term plan for his country's military involvement in Syria, saying he thinks "he is kind of winging this day to day."

The U.S. and Russia have in recent weeks held a series of deconfliction talks to find ways to prevent accidents or misunderstandings between U.S. and Russian jets sharing the skies over Syria.

Russian jets, though, have not been operating in the skies above northern Syria where the U.S. is now deploying ground forces.

Obama has faced steady and unrelenting criticism of his leadership in the fight against ISIS, with Republicans and even some Democrats consistently accusing him of lacking any clear strategy to fight the militant Islamist group, which has threatened attacks against the U.S.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, a Texas Republican, gave a tempered response Obama's decision to send ground troops to Syria.

"A more serious effort against ISIS in Syria is long overdue," he said in a statement Friday. "Absent a larger coherent strategy, however, these steps may prove to be too little too late. I do not see a strategy for success, rather it seems the Administration is trying to avoid a disaster while the President runs out the clock."

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who has also called for a more aggressive approach, said Friday in a statement that it is "time for the Administration to propose a unified strategy that addresses the intertwined challenges posed by ISIL and President Assad," with Friday's decision only addressing "half the problem -- ISIL, but not Assad."

Kaine also renewed his calls for Congress to vote on an authorization of the use of military force against ISIS, which it has yet to do. The U.S. has been acting in Syria and Iraq on legal grounds based in the authorization of military force against al Qaeda elements.

GOP presidential contenders have called for everything from tens of thousands of U.S. troops to be deployed to Iraq to the establishment of a no-fly zone over Syria.

In an interview with CNN last week, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a GOP presidential candidate, called not just for the establishment of a no-fly zone but also a safe zone where moderate rebels "can organize, train, equip and ultimately present a credible alternative to Assad for the future of Syria."

Rubio also called for Special Operations forces to be embedded with local forces.

"Only America can convene Sunni forces from what I believe needs to be a combined Sunni force of Egyptians, Saudis, Jordanians, Sunnis in Iraq, Sunnis in Syria to confront a radical Sunni movement and defeat them militarily. They will need our help in convening it," Rubio told CNN's Jamie Gangel. "But it doesn't involve a full-scale U.S. invasion of Iraq."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/politics/syria-troops-special-operations-forces/index.html

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63862
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #177 on: November 05, 2015, 04:44:22 PM »
Fox News Poll: Voters approve of Obama plans in Syria, Afghanistan
By  Dana Blanton
Published November 05, 2015
FoxNews.com

A 54-percent majority of American voters approves of President Obama’s decision to send a small number of U.S. troops to Syria to help in the fight against the Islamic extremist group ISIS.

That’s according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.

In addition, by a 49-38 percent margin, voters approve of Obama’s decision to delay withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

CLICK TO READ THE POLL RESULTS

Last week, Obama announced he was sending about 50 Special Operations forces to Syria, marking the first time U.S. boots will be on the ground there to fight ISIS.  That decision came on the heels of the president reversing himself on leaving U.S. troops in Afghanistan and delaying withdrawal until after 2016.

Voter support for these military actions is buoyed by a higher level of bi-partisanship than is the norm for the administration’s policies.

Majorities of Democrats approve of Obama’s actions:  62 percent on Syria and 59 percent on Afghanistan.  Among Republicans, nearly half favor both sending troops to Syria (48 percent) and leaving troops in Afghanistan (45 percent).

Overall, 45 percent of voters approve of the job Obama is doing as president, while 50 percent disapprove.  Last month, it was 42-53 percent (October 10-12, 2015).

Here, partisanship is on full display: 84 percent of Democrats approve of Obama’s job performance, while 86 percent of Republicans disapprove.

Approval of Obama has been mostly steady for the last two years -- and voters have almost always been more likely to disapprove than approve of his job performance during that time.  His approval hit a record low 38 percent in September 2014.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,230 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from November 1-3, 2015. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all registered voters.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/05/fox-news-poll-voters-approve-obama-plans-in-syria-afghanistan/?intcmp=hpbt2

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63862
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #178 on: November 09, 2015, 09:38:44 AM »

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #179 on: November 09, 2015, 11:45:19 AM »


That black guy should learn never to say never in a complex world as this.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #180 on: November 09, 2015, 03:54:39 PM »


repubs are upset that obama did what they wanted.  they'll complain about anything.

it's that kinda whiner attitude that has cost them the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections.  Americans are just sick of whiners.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63862
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #181 on: December 02, 2015, 08:34:54 AM »
US announces more special ops forces to fight ISIS, Iraqi PM says 'no need'
Published December 02, 2015 
FoxNews.com

The U.S. is sending more special operations forces to help Iraqi and Kurdish forces battling ISIS, as well as capture or kill senior leaders of the terror network in Iraq and Syria.

A U.S. official told Fox News that approximately 200 troops would be sent to Iraq within the next few weeks part of a "specialized expeditionary targeting force" announced by Defense Secretary Ash Carter in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Tuesday.

The official said the force's remit would include targeted assassinations of senior ISIS if their specific mission requires. A second U.S. official told Fox News that capturing senior ISIS leaders would also be an important component of the new assault force’s mission to learn more about the group's structure and any affiliates.

"This intel gathering mission is just as important, if not more important, than killing bad guys," said the official, who added that the number of troops "could grow" beyond 200.

House Armed Services chair says special operations deployment is not enough on 'America's Newsroom'
The U.S. military conducted similar operations in Iraq to take out senior Al Qaeda leadership, such as the mission led by Gen. Stanley McChrystal which killed Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June 2006.

More recently, U.S. special operations troops and Iraqi forces raided a compound in northern Iraq in October, freeing about 70 Iraqi prisoners who were facing execution. One U.S. service member was killed in the raid, the first American combat death in Iraq since the U.S. began its campaign against ISIS in August 2014.

In May, a Delta Force raid in Syria killed ISIS financier Abu Sayyaf, yielding intelligence about the group's structure and finances. His wife, held in Iraq, has been cooperating with interrogators.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi reacted to Carter's announcement with a statement saying in part, "there is no need for foreign ground combat troops" in Iraq.

Abadi's statement did call for more weapons, training and support for Iraq's military from Baghdad's international partners. He also warned that any special operations against ISIS in Iraq "can only be deployed subject to the approval of the Iraqi Government and in coordination with the Iraqi forces and with full respect to Iraqi sovereignty."

In Brussels Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters Iraq's government was briefed in advance of the U.S. announcement. He said Washington would work with Baghdad on what types of forces were deployed, where they would go and what types of missions they would conduct. He expressed "full and total respect" for al-Abadi's leadership, and said plans would go forward "in full consultation and with full consent of the Iraqi government."

"The raids in Iraq will be done at the invitation of the Iraqi government and focused on defending its borders and building the Iraqi security force's own capacity," Carter said in his testimony Tuesday. "This force will also be in a position to conduct unilateral operations into Syria."

"This is an important capability because it takes advantage of what we're good at," Carter added later. "We're good at intelligence, we're good at mobility, we're good at surprise. We have the long reach that no one else has. And it puts everybody on notice in Syria. You don't know at night who's going to be coming in the window. And that's the sensation that we want all of ISIL's leadership and followers to have."

A U.S. official familiar with the composition of special operations forces told Fox News that approximately 75 percent of the group bound for Iraq would provide support. The force includes intelligence personnel, aircraft pilots, and mechanics in addition to a quick reaction force. The official added that the group was separate from the 50 special operations forces that will be sent to Syria.

There currently are about 3,300 U.S. troops in Iraq.

At the same hearing, Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, raised eyebrows when he said that ISIS had not been contained by the U.S.-led coalition, contrary to President Obama's assessment earlier this month.

"What is true is that from the start our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq. And in Syria, they'll come in, they'll leave, but you don't see this systematic march by ISIL across the terrain," Obama said in an interview with ABC, using another acronym for the group.

The remarks were aired a day before ISIS militants carried out a series of coordinated attacks in Paris, killing 130 people and injuring more than 350 others.

"We have not contained ISIL currently," Dunford said in response to a question from Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/02/us-announces-more-special-ops-forces-to-fight-isis-iraqi-pm-says-no-need.html?intcmp=hpbt1

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #182 on: December 02, 2015, 01:32:43 PM »
US announces more special ops forces to fight ISIS, Iraqi PM says 'no need'
Published December 02, 2015 
FoxNews.com

The U.S. is sending more special operations forces to help Iraqi and Kurdish forces battling ISIS, as well as capture or kill senior leaders of the terror network in Iraq and Syria.

A U.S. official told Fox News that approximately 200 troops would be sent to Iraq within the next few weeks part of a "specialized expeditionary targeting force" announced by Defense Secretary Ash Carter in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Tuesday.

The official said the force's remit would include targeted assassinations of senior ISIS if their specific mission requires. A second U.S. official told Fox News that capturing senior ISIS leaders would also be an important component of the new assault force’s mission to learn more about the group's structure and any affiliates.

"This intel gathering mission is just as important, if not more important, than killing bad guys," said the official, who added that the number of troops "could grow" beyond 200.

House Armed Services chair says special operations deployment is not enough on 'America's Newsroom'
The U.S. military conducted similar operations in Iraq to take out senior Al Qaeda leadership, such as the mission led by Gen. Stanley McChrystal which killed Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June 2006.

More recently, U.S. special operations troops and Iraqi forces raided a compound in northern Iraq in October, freeing about 70 Iraqi prisoners who were facing execution. One U.S. service member was killed in the raid, the first American combat death in Iraq since the U.S. began its campaign against ISIS in August 2014.

In May, a Delta Force raid in Syria killed ISIS financier Abu Sayyaf, yielding intelligence about the group's structure and finances. His wife, held in Iraq, has been cooperating with interrogators.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi reacted to Carter's announcement with a statement saying in part, "there is no need for foreign ground combat troops" in Iraq.

Abadi's statement did call for more weapons, training and support for Iraq's military from Baghdad's international partners. He also warned that any special operations against ISIS in Iraq "can only be deployed subject to the approval of the Iraqi Government and in coordination with the Iraqi forces and with full respect to Iraqi sovereignty."

In Brussels Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters Iraq's government was briefed in advance of the U.S. announcement. He said Washington would work with Baghdad on what types of forces were deployed, where they would go and what types of missions they would conduct. He expressed "full and total respect" for al-Abadi's leadership, and said plans would go forward "in full consultation and with full consent of the Iraqi government."

"The raids in Iraq will be done at the invitation of the Iraqi government and focused on defending its borders and building the Iraqi security force's own capacity," Carter said in his testimony Tuesday. "This force will also be in a position to conduct unilateral operations into Syria."

"This is an important capability because it takes advantage of what we're good at," Carter added later. "We're good at intelligence, we're good at mobility, we're good at surprise. We have the long reach that no one else has. And it puts everybody on notice in Syria. You don't know at night who's going to be coming in the window. And that's the sensation that we want all of ISIL's leadership and followers to have."

A U.S. official familiar with the composition of special operations forces told Fox News that approximately 75 percent of the group bound for Iraq would provide support. The force includes intelligence personnel, aircraft pilots, and mechanics in addition to a quick reaction force. The official added that the group was separate from the 50 special operations forces that will be sent to Syria.

There currently are about 3,300 U.S. troops in Iraq.

At the same hearing, Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, raised eyebrows when he said that ISIS had not been contained by the U.S.-led coalition, contrary to President Obama's assessment earlier this month.

"What is true is that from the start our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq. And in Syria, they'll come in, they'll leave, but you don't see this systematic march by ISIL across the terrain," Obama said in an interview with ABC, using another acronym for the group.

The remarks were aired a day before ISIS militants carried out a series of coordinated attacks in Paris, killing 130 people and injuring more than 350 others.

"We have not contained ISIL currently," Dunford said in response to a question from Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/02/us-announces-more-special-ops-forces-to-fight-isis-iraqi-pm-says-no-need.html?intcmp=hpbt1

REALLY REALLY ODD that you keep going to FOX NEWS for your articles..ever try using articles from FAIR sources that have some credibilty????????????????

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31160
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #183 on: December 02, 2015, 01:50:47 PM »
repubs are upset that obama did what they wanted.  they'll complain about anything.

it's that kinda whiner attitude that has cost them the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections.  Americans are just sick of whiners.

Truth.

But instead of pointing out the valid relativity of this statement in regards to facts and logic, I will just have to call you a lying liar lying troll.  There. 

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #184 on: December 02, 2015, 02:57:08 PM »
REALLY REALLY ODD that you keep going to FOX NEWS for your articles..ever try using articles from FAIR sources that have some credibilty????????????????


Lol.....Fox is a major news outlet dipshit...how about arguing the facts...oh yeah you guys never can. I'm sorry Ol fighting Joe aint bending over for Barry...us massholes have no time for shitbags like him anyway. Obama must have missed him in the purge of real soldiers/marines
L

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63862
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #185 on: December 02, 2015, 05:42:29 PM »
REALLY REALLY ODD that you keep going to FOX NEWS for your articles..ever try using articles from FAIR sources that have some credibilty????????????????

I go to multiple sources for my articles.  There at least two on this page from CNN, so not sure why you'd say something so blatantly false.

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #186 on: December 03, 2015, 02:20:31 AM »

Lol.....Fox is a major news outlet dipshit...how about arguing the facts...oh yeah you guys never can. I'm sorry Ol fighting Joe aint bending over for Barry...us massholes have no time for shitbags like him anyway. Obama must have missed him in the purge of real soldiers/marines


Fuck you are stupid.

FOX is a propaganda station and a source of comedy.


andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #187 on: December 03, 2015, 07:34:48 AM »

Lol.....Fox is a major news outlet dipshit...how about arguing the facts...oh yeah you guys never can. I'm sorry Ol fighting Joe aint bending over for Barry...us massholes have no time for shitbags like him anyway. Obama must have missed him in the purge of real soldiers/marines

HOLY SHIT...YOU of all people talking about FACTS??????????..I've destroyed you on facts so often its pathetic...and everyone knows FOX is not truly news...its propaganda in the guise of news for fools who don't want to think...just react

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #188 on: December 03, 2015, 07:36:21 AM »

Fuck you are stupid.

FOX is a propaganda station and a source of comedy.



Brilliant

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #189 on: December 03, 2015, 07:40:48 AM »
I go to multiple sources for my articles.  There at least two on this page from CNN, so not sure why you'd say something so blatantly false.

Just like Soul Crusher, you USED to be relevant, fair-minded, and thought provoking...now you simply have swallowed the anti-Obama Kool-aid and scour the internet (actually FOX NEWS website) for anti Obama articles and any negative thing you can find on Obama so as to feed your insatiable desire to see him fail....even in the face of all evidence which shows that he's ACTUALLY succeeding

STRANGE................. ................

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #190 on: December 03, 2015, 07:49:48 AM »

Fuck you are stupid.

FOX is a propaganda station and a source of comedy.



Ok Canada...why don'y go shut the fuck up...fucking lib douche. Sorry the real world doesn't fit into naive world view...
L

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #191 on: December 03, 2015, 07:51:59 AM »
Just like Soul Crusher, you USED to be relevant, fair-minded, and thought provoking...now you simply have swallowed the anti-Obama Kool-aid and scour the internet (actually FOX NEWS website) for anti Obama articles and any negative thing you can find on Obama so as to feed your insatiable desire to see him fail....even in the face of all evidence which shows that he's ACTUALLY succeeding

STRANGE................. ................

Why do any of us have to be pro Obama....explain that. I view the guy and his beliefs, his people, his world view as naive, traitorous and borderline criminal. His views are completely against everything I stand for. If cruz gets elected...I suspect you will be the same. I, atleast can understand that. You want to make it a race thing....sorry guy but its a beliefs thing.
L

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #192 on: December 03, 2015, 08:00:14 AM »
Why do any of us have to be pro Obama....explain that. I view the guy and his beliefs, his people, his world view as naive, traitorous and borderline criminal. His views are completely against everything I stand for. If cruz gets elected...I suspect you will be the same. I, atleast can understand that. You want to make it a race thing....sorry guy but its a beliefs thing.

you see?..there you go with the race thing again...I never said that , yet that seems to be the premminent issue in the minds of Obama's detractors...THEN you guys accuse me of race-baiting yet YOU GUYS are the ones who usually bring it up first.....I don't want you to be pro-Obama at all...just to simply LOOK AT THE FACTS AND STATS and judge him by the evidence...you guys look at him as the father who must never do any wrong or never make mistakes...

when uE rate was 10% and gas was near 5 bucks a gallon EVERYONE BLAMED OBAMA...now we have almost full employment at 5% and gas under $2 bucks in many places and now ALL OF A SUDDEN Obama gets no credit.....HYPOCRITICAL. ..and then when I point it out, now I'm the one who is racist and a kneepadder....

you're own hatred for him is overriding your beter judgment....you're drinking the Republican Kool-aid...but name ONE accomplishment ....I guarantee you that you can't......

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #193 on: December 03, 2015, 08:01:51 AM »
Ok Canada...why don'y go shut the fuck up...fucking lib douche. Sorry the real world doesn't fit into naive world view...

also what is it with your hatred of Liberals???...nothing wrong with Progressive thinking.....what ideas have the Tea Party and Republicans come up with to make things better???????????????????.....other than that the earth is 6000 years old???????????

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #194 on: December 03, 2015, 08:06:00 AM »
Another example: claims were constantly being made on here that Obama was an "imperial president" ruling by executive order.......

then I did research that Obama actually has used it much much much less than other presidents historically, which destroyed that argument.....now I don't hear that claim being made any more.....so all I do is present the facts and compare Obama to other presidents using stats and history while you guys on here get emotional and present false evidence that he is doing a bad job when he is not

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #195 on: December 03, 2015, 09:59:05 AM »
Ok Canada...why don'y go shut the fuck up...fucking lib douche. Sorry the real world doesn't fit into naive world view...


You get your "news" from FOX and yet talk about the real world.

You are a walking contradiction.


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63862
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #196 on: December 09, 2015, 02:26:22 PM »
Gen. Odierno: We Can't 'Destroy ISIS' Without Boots on the Ground
MSNBC's "Morning Joe"
By Cathy Burke   
Wednesday, 09 Dec 2015

Crushing the Islamic State is impossible without boots on the ground, former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno says.

In an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Wednesday, Odierno also said the United States has "to build trust in the Middle East," agreeing it's not there among Gulf States allies.

"I get frustrated on this thing about 'no boots on the ground.' Well, we have boots on the ground. They're special operations forces, there are soldiers, and I think we have to have a short-term plan which allows our people to get on the ground."

"You can't defeat ISIS, or destroy ISIS without having people on the ground."

 "The intelligence we're missing is the intelligence you gain on the ground. We need unit intelligence," he added.

"Special ops can only do so much," he said of U.S. forces already in place. "Let the people on the ground tell you 'this is what we need.'"

 Air strikes alone won't reign in the Islamic jihadists, he argues.

"It's not going to happen, it's never happened in history, it's not going to happen now," he said.

And Odierno says he's "surprised" at the lack of conversation about a coalition to fight the Islamic State.

"The Kurds are only going to do so much," Odierno said of the regional group President Barack Obama has called a partner in the war against ISIS.

"You need a plan that goes after Iraq, that goes after Syria."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ray-odierno-destroy-boots-on-the-ground/2015/12/09/id/705150/#ixzz3trhRgWaW

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #197 on: December 09, 2015, 07:00:26 PM »
Gen. Odierno: We Can't 'Destroy ISIS' Without Boots on the Ground
MSNBC's "Morning Joe"
By Cathy Burke   
Wednesday, 09 Dec 2015

Crushing the Islamic State is impossible without boots on the ground, former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno says.

In an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Wednesday, Odierno also said the United States has "to build trust in the Middle East," agreeing it's not there among Gulf States allies.

"I get frustrated on this thing about 'no boots on the ground.' Well, we have boots on the ground. They're special operations forces, there are soldiers, and I think we have to have a short-term plan which allows our people to get on the ground."

"You can't defeat ISIS, or destroy ISIS without having people on the ground."

 "The intelligence we're missing is the intelligence you gain on the ground. We need unit intelligence," he added.

"Special ops can only do so much," he said of U.S. forces already in place. "Let the people on the ground tell you 'this is what we need.'"

 Air strikes alone won't reign in the Islamic jihadists, he argues.

"It's not going to happen, it's never happened in history, it's not going to happen now," he said.

And Odierno says he's "surprised" at the lack of conversation about a coalition to fight the Islamic State.

"The Kurds are only going to do so much," Odierno said of the regional group President Barack Obama has called a partner in the war against ISIS.

"You need a plan that goes after Iraq, that goes after Syria."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ray-odierno-destroy-boots-on-the-ground/2015/12/09/id/705150/#ixzz3trhRgWaW

we all already know this...its just a question of WHOSE boots are going to be on the ground...NOT OURS

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63862
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #198 on: December 28, 2015, 08:55:11 AM »
Poll: Most Americans Say US Is Losing the War on Terrorism

Image: Poll: Most Americans Say US Is Losing the War on Terrorism (AP)
By Sandy Fitzgerald   |   Monday, 28 Dec 2015

Most Americans say they are not satisfied with how the war on terror is progressing, a new CNN/ORC poll finds, and more are now saying the terrorists are winning than at any point since the 9/11 attacks.

The poll of 1,018 adults, conducted between Dec. 17-21, found that 75 percent say they're dissatisfied following the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris, CNN reports, marking a high point of 61 percent in August 2007.

However, fewer than half of Americans, or 40 percent, say the terrorists are winning. But that is still 17 points above the previous high of 23 percent that was recorded in August 2005.

In other findings:
40 percent say neither side has an advantage;
18 percent say today that the U.S. and its allies have the upper hand;
59 percent of Democrats are dissatisfied with how the Obama White House fights terrorism;
79 percent of independents are dissatisfied;
86 percent of Republicans are not satisfied.
55 percent of Republicans say the terrorists are winning;
52 percent of Republicans believe neither side has an edge.
However, Americans are still holding out hope, CNN reports.

Most Americans believe the government can prevent all major attacks from happening, but 45 percent said terrorists will always find a way to launch a major attack, no matter what the government does. This number was down from about 60 percent in previous polling.

In other numbers:
53 percent of Americans polled say the U.S. can absolutely repel attacks;
58 percent of Republicans said all attacks can be prevented;
46 percent of Democrats have faith in the government's ability.
45 percent are worried they or a family member will be a victim of terrorism;
51 have at least a moderate amount of confidence in the White House's ability to protect citizens from terrorism;
17 percent say they have a great deal of confidence.

The worry and dissatisfaction is reflected in Obama's approval ratings, reports CNN, wit his ratings remaining in negative territory since late November:

52 percent of Americans disapprove of his handling of the presidency;
60 percent disapprove of his handling of terrorism;
64 percent disapprove of how he's handling ISIS.

Americans are still divided, meanwhile, on putting boots on the ground in Syria to fight ISIS, with 49 percent favoring ground troops, compared to 53 percent last month, just shortly after the San Bernardino attacks.

Further, Americans remain reluctant to call the U.S. engagement against ISIS a war, with 57 percent saying the U.S. is involved in a military conflict while 40 percent called it war.

The poll carried a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Americans-US-Losing-War/2015/12/28/id/707268/#ixzz3vdRrPOMe

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63862
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #199 on: February 02, 2016, 01:01:43 PM »
Top US General in Iraq: More Ground Troops May Be Needed

Image: Top US General in Iraq: More Ground Troops May Be Needed  (Getty Images)   
By Cathy Burke   
Monday, 01 Feb 2016

More American boots on the ground may ultimately be needed to help the Iraqi army defeat Islamic State militants, according to the top U.S. general in Iraq.

 But Army Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland said it's President Barack Obama who will have to decide.

 "Yes, there is a good potential that we will need additional capabilities, additional forces to provide those capabilities," MacFarland said in a video teleconference from Iraq, Military Times reports.

He added: "And we're looking at the right mix … in consultation with the government of Iraq and our other partners."

"We have shifted from a pure counterinsurgency focus and are now preparing the [Iraqi security forces] to conduct what we refer to as combined arms operations," he said. "Now, that doesn't necessarily equate to boots on the ground. It doesn't necessarily equate to American boots on the ground."

"The decision as to whether or not … something is on or off the table is not my decision. That's really, at the end of the day, that's my commander in chief's. So, you know, all of us in uniform are … preparing various options. The president will decide."

There are about 3,700 U.S. troops in Iraq who provide training for the Iraqi security forces and sometimes accompany them to forward positions to support Iraqi-led combat operations.

MacFarland conceded ISIS could "revert to some sort of insurgency."

"That's a possibility and we will ensure that the holding force that is in Iraq is sufficient … to deter or defeat those types of attacks or respond to them, should they occur," he said.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/top-general-ground-troops/2016/02/01/id/712272/#ixzz3z2w4rMKD