King Hussein is pissed

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

OK, so this is POTUS's fault?

No, dipshit. We don't "blame" Neville Chamberlain for WWII. But we do blame him for being delusional and promising "peace in our time". Historians will look back on Obama in the same way. By dilly-dallying and thinking he can run the clock out, he will only make everything much harder and more costly for his successor and the nation as a whole.

Question for assup - do you not see ANY shortcomings in our foreign policy (or lack thereof) under Obama? Be honest and forget about what anyone else on this board thinks.

[BigLouie]

The ISIS totally miss played their hand. They did not get anything they wanted. They have no more hostages and they pissed off all the countries around them.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

The ISIS totally miss played their hand. They did not get anything they wanted. They have no more hostages and they pissed off all the countries around them.

So ..... are you thinking they'll just take "their ball" and "go home"?

[BigLouie]

No, I think they will get slaughtered without mercy by the countries around them. The Kurds, Jordan, no mercy

[JD Barleycorn]

Now that Obama has become aware of the multiple situations (he saw it on MSNBC and CNN) he might issue a few orders....that he doesn't want this stuff to interfere with his next golfing vacation.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Question for assup - do you not see ANY shortcomings in our foreign policy (or lack thereof) under Obama? Be honest and forget about what anyone else on this board thinks.

Sure I do. Do you see any benefits?

What's your point?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Sure I do. Do you see any benefits?

What's your point?

My point is let's admit the shortcomings and discuss them openly because that may point the way to what we should be doing or doing better.... if it helps you remove your partisan blinders, pretend W owns our current policy instead of Obama...

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Because Obama has NO strategy; he has no plan to destroy ISIS. As evidenced by his own Defense Nominee (Carter) who couldn't tell the Senate what the Obama strategy for defeating ISIS was.

Obama is running out the clock; but more importantly, he is working hard to hand the keys to the region over to a nuclear capable Iran and their mullahs.

It is part of his strategy to fundamentally transform Amerika.

So he has no strategy. ... yet he has a strategy.! Which is it?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

No, I think they will get slaughtered without mercy by the countries around them. The Kurds, Jordan, no mercy

Hopefully OUR country will at least keep the animals "lit up" and the heavy lifters well stocked with "dry powder" ..... and since GITMO is getting shut down "we" really don't have any place to stockpile POW'S ... so they can just be stacked up like cord wood until a sufficient hole is fnished.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Now that Obama has become aware of the multiple situations (he saw it on MSNBC and CNN) he might issue a few orders....that he doesn't want this stuff to interfere with his next golfing vacation.

Isn't the "deflatafootball" crisis over?

[gfejunkie]

A leader with balls...

What a concept!

[Whirlaway]

Originally Posted by WTF

So he has no strategy. ... yet he has a strategy.! Which is it?

He has NO strategy to destroy ISIS; because his strategy is to strike a deal with Iran. In essence, let Iran be the regional power broker, have nukes, and keep the region quiet. The problem with Obama's Iran strategy is you can't trust Iran and you can't trust Obama to negotiate a good deal for US interests. Also, if Iran goes nuclear, so will others in the region. Obama thinks he is the smartest guy in the room; that is why he ignores the advice of his advisors.

When has Obama gotten anything right with regard to domestic or foreign initiatives?

[boardman]

I think part of the reason that weapons supply slowed down is because a lot of the time we aren't sure where those weapons are ending up. Just like the weapons that went into Syria last year. IMO that's a reasonable concern when shipping weapons to any country in that region.

If Jordan is coming at ISIS with a vengeance I think we need to keep them supplied but I want to know what they are doing, when and how.

I'd rather have Jordanians fighting Muslim radicals than our boys. Even better if they're pissed.

One thing we still need to keep in mind is the fact that, even though he might be a badass, the King is still a Sunni Muslim.

As far as Obama goes. Look at it this way. Netanyahu is meeting with Congress soon, Abdullah met with Congress, hell even the pope is going to address Congress. The world has lost it's faith, hope or whatever it is they had in Obama, that's why they aren't going to him anymore to get their problems solved. Obama was, is and always will be a community organizer. He's good at leading a group of people that have a common interest. When the dissension starts he doesn't have the ability to change minds. Time and again it becomes evident in his defensive and combative attitude in the face of diversity.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by boardman

I think part of the reason that weapons supply slowed down is because a lot of the time we aren't sure where those weapons are ending up.

When we walk off and leave weapons behind we have to assume they will end up being used on us. When we FINALLY go after ISIS on the ground our own shit will be fired at US troops. That's a risk we have to take if we are going to rely on surrogate ground forces.

As for knowing what they are doing ... we are telling them what they are doing.

We've been doing that since the 67 war. Sharing intelligence.

[I B Hankering]

The Jordanians are some of our staunchest allies in that region; second only to the Israelis. The Jordanians served alongside of us in Afghanistan: very reliable.