Should we declare war against ISIL or any of the terrorist groups

[Burning_Ember]

I'm talking about math. You can mathematically trace what policies are responsible for what portions of the debt. Decrying it as academic and repeating Obama is responsible for everything since he went into office simply demonstrates you're unable to put any math behind a mathematical argument about a math problem. Cite evidence from say, non-partisan economists for your argument that proves that Obama is responsible other than repeating the same line over and over. Math does not care about moral principle. It's math. If you're making an argument about a math problem, then show the math. It's far more involved than a Obama + Debt = his fault. 

 

Those "pointless academic topics" are important. The history of the region is important. Whether there were civil wars happening or not is important. Whether or not the region got destabilized somehow is important. How/why ISIL has so much support, fund themselves so well. What is causing any sort of sectarian conflict in the area is important. The power structures in the area are important. Why someone would fight on the side of ISIL in Syria, especially, is key to understanding, and therefore solving the conflict. Blaming Obama for being at fault for the rise of ISIL is simply without any sort of logical basis in the one dimensional argument you've presented.

 

250K Iraqi troops are unable to deal with ISIL, which numbers probably about 30K, who are growing rapidly. Additionally, they recruit far more foreign fighters far faster than Al-Qaida. How many soldiers

 

Obama didn't fund ISIL. He did not create ISIL. Obama did not give them military equipment. They took that from the Iraqi security forces, who fled. Obama did not start the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which by your figures, have cost $2 Trillion thus far, and will end up costing several times more than that. Obama did not do Medicare part D, which contributed to the debt. Obama did not engage in policies which caused a massive drop in income tax receipts like the previous administration did. Obama did not cause the financial crisis which evaporated trillions of dollars worth of assets.

 

Boots on the ground/war by itself does not a stable nation make. 

 

So why are you blaming Obama for a myriad of issues that he did not cause? That doesn't seem very nice.

[Guest shiloh357]

I'm talking about math. You can mathematically trace what policies are responsible for what portions of the debt. Decrying it as academic and repeating Obama is responsible for everything since he went into office simply demonstrates you're unable to put any math behind a mathematical argument about a math problem. Cite evidence from say, non-partisan economists for your argument that proves that Obama is responsible other than repeating the same line over and over. Math does not care about moral principle. It's math. If you're making an argument about a math problem, then show the math. It's far more involved than a Obama + Debt = his fault. 

 

BE, it is common knowledge that Obama is the most spendy president in history.  Even liberals admit that.  I don't need to cite anything.  It is common knowledge that is easily googled.  If I am wrong, prove it.

 

If we were having this discussion 5 years ago, you might have a point.  The problem is that we are far enough removed from Bush that trying to find ways to blame him for our $7 Trillion in additional debt simply won't work.  Obama has been in office for six years.  The first two of those years, the democrats controlled all of the levels of power. 

 

The Dems can't blame much on the Republicans in terms of spending.  Just about everything sent to the Senate by the house never gets voted on.   This is all Obama. 

 

Those "pointless academic topics" are important. The history of the region is important. Whether there were civil wars happening or not is important. Whether or not the region got destabilized somehow is important. How/why ISIL has so much support, fund themselves so well. What is causing any sort of sectarian conflict in the area is important. The power structures in the area are important. Why someone would fight on the side of ISIL in Syria, especially, is key to understanding, and therefore solving the conflict. Blaming Obama for being at fault for the rise of ISIL is simply without any sort of logical basis in the one dimensional argument you've presented.

 

He is directly responsible for the rise of ISIS.  There is no ISIL.  ISIS   Obama made it possible for them to grow and thrive and the ONLY reason he is doing anything about these Muslim cockroaches is because of public opinion.  

 

250K Iraqi troops are unable to deal with ISIL, which numbers probably about 30K, who are growing rapidly. Additionally, they recruit far more foreign fighters far faster than Al-Qaida. How many soldiers

 

Obama didn't fund ISIL. He did not create ISIL. Obama did not give them military equipment. They took that from the Iraqi security forces, who fled.

 

 

Obama, by his incompetence created an environment favorable to ISIS being able to form and rise to power.  Had he established the SoF like he should have, ISIS might not have existed at all.   That is his responsibility.   It doesn't matter if Obama directly funded them or not.  He made it possible for them to exist and we are paying the price for it now.  

 

Obama did not start the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which by your figures, have cost $2 Trillion thus far, and will end up costing several times more than that. Obama did not do Medicare part D, which contributed to the debt. Obama did not engage in policies which caused a massive drop in income tax receipts like the previous administration did. Obama did not cause the financial crisis which evaporated trillions of dollars worth of assets.

 

Again, another pointless argument.  No one is blaming Obama for the wars started by the Bush administration.   Nor, did I say that Bush didn't contribute to the debt.  But the fact remains that Obama has contributed more to the debt than any president.  It happened on his watch and he is responsible for that, like it or not. 

 

 

Boots on the ground/war by itself does not a stable nation make. 

 

So why are you blaming Obama for a myriad of issues that he did not cause? That doesn't seem very nice.

[Burning_Ember]

 

I'm talking about math. You can mathematically trace what policies are responsible for what portions of the debt. Decrying it as academic and repeating Obama is responsible for everything since he went into office simply demonstrates you're unable to put any math behind a mathematical argument about a math problem. Cite evidence from say, non-partisan economists for your argument that proves that Obama is responsible other than repeating the same line over and over. Math does not care about moral principle. It's math. If you're making an argument about a math problem, then show the math. It's far more involved than a Obama + Debt = his fault. 

 

BE, it is common knowledge that Obama is the most spendy president in history.  Even liberals admit that.  I don't need to cite anything.  It is common knowledge that is easily googled.  If I am wrong, prove it.

 

If we were having this discussion 5 years ago, you might have a point.  The problem is that we are far enough removed from Bush that trying to find ways to blame him for our $7 Trillion in additional debt simply won't work.  Obama has been in office for six years.  The first two of those years, the democrats controlled all of the levels of power. 

 

The Dems can't blame much on the Republicans in terms of spending.  Just about everything sent to the Senate by the house never gets voted on.   This is all Obama. 

 

Those "pointless academic topics" are important. The history of the region is important. Whether there were civil wars happening or not is important. Whether or not the region got destabilized somehow is important. How/why ISIL has so much support, fund themselves so well. What is causing any sort of sectarian conflict in the area is important. The power structures in the area are important. Why someone would fight on the side of ISIL in Syria, especially, is key to understanding, and therefore solving the conflict. Blaming Obama for being at fault for the rise of ISIL is simply without any sort of logical basis in the one dimensional argument you've presented.

 

He is directly responsible for the rise of ISIS.  There is no ISIL.  ISIS   Obama made it possible for them to grow and thrive and the ONLY reason he is doing anything about these Muslim cockroaches is because of public opinion.  

 

250K Iraqi troops are unable to deal with ISIL, which numbers probably about 30K, who are growing rapidly. Additionally, they recruit far more foreign fighters far faster than Al-Qaida. How many soldiers

 

Obama didn't fund ISIL. He did not create ISIL. Obama did not give them military equipment. They took that from the Iraqi security forces, who fled.

 

 

Obama, by his incompetence created an environment favorable to ISIS being able to form and rise to power.  Had he established the SoF like he should have, ISIS might not have existed at all.   That is his responsibility.   It doesn't matter if Obama directly funded them or not.  He made it possible for them to exist and we are paying the price for it now.  

 

Obama did not start the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which by your figures, have cost $2 Trillion thus far, and will end up costing several times more than that. Obama did not do Medicare part D, which contributed to the debt. Obama did not engage in policies which caused a massive drop in income tax receipts like the previous administration did. Obama did not cause the financial crisis which evaporated trillions of dollars worth of assets.

 

Again, another pointless argument.  No one is blaming Obama for the wars started by the Bush administration.   Nor, did I say that Bush didn't contribute to the debt.  But the fact remains that Obama has contributed more to the debt than any president.  It happened on his watch and he is responsible for that, like it or not. 

 

 

Boots on the ground/war by itself does not a stable nation make. 

 

So why are you blaming Obama for a myriad of issues that he did not cause? That doesn't seem very nice.

 

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/c82a9_httpi.huffpost.comgen28288TAX-CUTS-DEBT.jpg

That more or less disassembles your argument that it was Obama that caused the debt.

[Guest shiloh357]

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/c82a9_httpi.huffpost.comgen28288TAX-CUTS-DEBT.jpg

That more or less disassembles your argument that it was Obama that caused the debt.

 

The link doesn't work. 

 

But I am amused at watching you try to deny that Obama has added $7 Trillion to the debt.  

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/9/obamas-national-debt-rate-on-track-to-double/

 

Chew on that one for a while.

 

Also:

 

 

America's first 43 presidents took 223 years to rack up the country's first $7 trillion in red ink.

Obama has duplicated that dubious achievement in less than five years and seven months.

After the same number of days in office, former President George W. Bush had increased the national debt by a comparatively paltry $2.720 trillion.

Bill Clinton's debt load at the same point in his presidency had increased by just $1,324 trillion.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715986/U-S-debt-balloons-7-TRILLION-Obama-took-office.html#ixzz3EhGGpQKC

 

 

And I will remind you of something else:

 

Obama was receiving all kinds of intelligence about ISIS.  For over a year his military advisers were delivering briefings to him on the growing threat and Obama ignored those briefings.  He completely ignored the growing threat and allowed ISIS to to thrive. 

 

Obama was committed to his promise that there not be ONE American left on Iraqi soil.  He fulfilled that promise refused to leave a residual force, refused to establish a SoF and now we are in the mess we are in because of THIS administration.   No amount of blame shifting to Bush is going to change the fact that this administration is 100% responsible for this current mess.  Shows why Liberals should not be allowed to have jobs in the government.  They belong some place like the food court at the mall.

[udx]

ISIS won't be stopped as long as they still play a geopolitical role in the region for the US. It has been US policy to fund and train rebels to bring down or contain regimes it doesn't like.

Closer to our current timeline US is funded rebels in Syria to take down Assad's govt. The rebels broke off and form what is now named ISIS.

This is all a manufactured threat, to fight ISIS on the ground is like fighting against your own, that is why all the airstrikes have been superficial and avoid the real army of ISIS. The airstrikes are just an act to show the people the govt is doing something.

 

The article says it best.

"America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance. By rapidly increasing both government secrecy and surveillance, Obama's government is increasing its power to watch its citizens, while diminishing its citizens' power to watch their government. Terrorism is an excuse to justify mass surveillance, in preparation for mass revolt."

 

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/columns-17998-America+created+ISIS+and+Al-Qaeda/columns.aspx

[Burning_Ember]

One of ISIS's single biggest recruiting tools was the civil war in Syria, along with problems in the Iraqi government. Those are definitely two issues that have to get solved, and countries in the region like Turkey are going to have to be the frontline fighters. Otherwise it becomes much more difficult to solve.

[Guest shiloh357]

One of ISIS's single biggest recruiting tools was the civil war in Syria, along with problems in the Iraqi government. Those are definitely two issues that have to get solved, and countries in the region like Turkey are going to have to be the frontline fighters. Otherwise it becomes much more difficult to solve.

Nope, we simply need to make the price for terrorism higher than the terrorists want to pay.  This could have been almost over had the powder-puffs in our weak-kneed administration had done the right thing and sent in ground troops in concert with air strikes. 

 

You can't depend on Turkey or any other of those Muslim governments to do anything.   They are all cowards at heart.

[Burning_Ember]

Russia is more or less allied with Syria. You really can't send ground troops into Syria. The most Russia has bent on that has been allowing people to remove at least some of the chemical weapons when the US was threatening air strikes in Syria previously.

 

That's why you have to solve the problems on the ground, because this isn't a one dimensional problem with success being determined solely by how many troops get deployed.

[Guest shiloh357]

Russia is more or less allied with Syria. You really can't send ground troops into Syria. The most Russia has bent on that has been allowing people to remove at least some of the chemical weapons when the US was threatening air strikes in Syria previously.

 

That's why you have to solve the problems on the ground, because this isn't a one dimensional problem with success being determined solely by how many troops get deployed.

LOL  Some ally.  We have been bombing inside of Syria and the Russians haven't done or said anything.   The Russians don't care about Syria that much.  Besides, we would not be sending ground troops into Syria to fight Syria.  We would be sending them in to fight ISIS.   Russia isn't going to do anything.   A little commonsense goes a long way, BE.

[Burning_Ember]

So common sense is to attack strictly ISIS but not Assad in Syria, when ISIS  (who recruits soldiers very, very fast) uses the fight against Assad, a brutal dictator, as one of their primary recruiting tools?