Originally Posted by Greegon (Post 1601965)

yeah they've probably already suffered the shit that they're doing to others so it isn't surprising that they're acting so monstrously. rallying around some grand cause like religion just makes it easier for them to justify it

Originally Posted by Hurb (Post 1601900)

this is why women arent in charge and the men who can cut the most heads off will end up raping u

buy a gun i suggest

Originally Posted by Lune (Post 1601837)

You know they are just trying to provoke us into expending more resources on them, right?

Nothing brings a band of durka-jihads more street cred than getting the USA on your ass. Recruitment would swell, and their (suffering) reputation among the arab world would increase. They also know that as soon as the USA shows up, all they have to do is put away their "uniforms" and flags, blend in with civilians, and they can't be touched. Meanwhile, we're spending billions of dollars on a useless occupation while they exert a cursory effort inflicting casualties with IED's, etc.

This is exactly why the terrorists are winning the 'War on Terror'. Until Obama, we've done everything they wanted us to do. We got bogged down in an extremely expensive and useless war in Afghanistan, and an equally useless occupation in Iraq which had the added effect of toppling Saddam, creating a power vacuum that allowed groups like ISIS to flourish. All while our economy and standard of living floundered.

Obama has been more reluctant to be provoked, opting instead to use black ops and his trusty drone swarm to violate the sovereignty of those countries who are either unwilling or incapable of controlling terror groups operating in their borders (Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya). Retards like to interpret this kind of foreign policy as indecisiveness or 'being a pussy'. If not being a pussy means you manage foreign policy like G.W Bush, I'd rather be a pussy. Sometimes the best action is just to stand by and wait for better conditions/opportunities, instead of making harmful emotional decisions.

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if some day, perhaps 100 years from now, it comes down to genocidal extermination of fundamentalist Muslims. They would be doing it to us right now if they could. All it would take is a really, really bad terrorist attack, such as a nuclear device, and suddenly the kind and gentle "Don't kill civilians!" NATO would go Nazi on their asses.

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 (Post 1602723)

Cept he's the one who toppled libya's government and didn't stick around long enough to prevent Al-Qaeda from taking Tripoli, which is going to require american attention in the future.

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 (Post 1602723)

Hopefully, once enough people have ceased to exist on this planet as a result of ISIS, you and your great leader Obama will decide to stop genocide.

Originally Posted by Lune (Post 1603997)

That was primarily France and the UK with US support. Obama actually wouldn't go in until neighboring Arab states were involved in the no-fly zone.

How would you propose we should have prevented Islamist rebels from taking Tripoli?




How? It's that easy, huh? We just show up and kill the ISIS bad-guys? Because that worked so well in Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Iraq? The second NATO troops hit the ground, every ISIS member rips off their uniform and hides their flags, then sets up IED's while we spend billions of dollars on a useless occupation.

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 (Post 1604249)

No, it was primarily an American effort; and the Saudis and Jordanians begged us not to do it. Obama is no different than Bush.

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 (Post 1604249)

As for ISIS, I would've armed the syrian and Iraqi Kurds two years ago... The US still isn't delivering anti-tank weapons directly to Arbil.

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 (Post 1604249)

We aren't putting boots on the ground, duh. There are allies that we can arm, and, last time I checked, we have plenty of predator drones.

Originally Posted by Lune (Post 1604392)

The no-fly zone was proposed and then initially enforced solely by the French and British. The French flew the most sorties (35%) during the air campaign, and leading up to the G8 summit the French begged Hillary to intervene. The French carried out their first sorties on March 18th, 2011-- two days before Obama even consulted congress.



You would have armed Syrian Kurds? Look what happened to all the arms we gave to Iraqis... they ended up in the hands of ISIS because the Iraqi army did not constitute a reliable fighting force. The Kurds in Syria are the same way... unreliable. They are riddled with infighting, with Kurds in different regions being loyal to different groups and frequently fighting one another.



Drones? How is that any different than what Obama is already doing? We aren't sending aircraft into Syria currently because Assad has sophisticated Russian anti-aircraft systems, and a shootdown or failed air campaign would be extremely humiliating. Plus, we would either be helping Assad, who used chemical weapons, or Islamist rebels.

You're so eager to hate on Obama that you don't even employ enough critical thinking to do it for the right reasons. How about his complete and utter failure to confront money in politics, campaign finance, and election transparency, which were some of his key campaign issues and are much more dangerous to the USA than a bunch of towel-heads? In a lot of ways, Obama is even worse than Bush. At least Bush didn't operate under the pretense that he was anything other than a corporate puppet-- it was obvious.

Sometimes, when options are limited, the best course of action is to wait for a better opportunity. No action is better than the wrong action.