Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

With calls growing for tougher action against ISIL in response to the Paris terror attacks, President Barack Obama is again reviewing a menu of policy options he has previously found unpalatable.
“Clearly there's going to have to be an intensification of our efforts,” Obama’s deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. Officials were mum on what that might mean. But several analysts predicted dramatic action in the coming days — including Special Forces raids on ISIL leaders and heavy airstrikes in Syria, like those conducted by France on Sunday. At the same time, they expressed doubt that Obama would dramatically shift his broader strategy in Iraq and Syria.
Story Continued Below

“He may pull the trigger on some targeted killings and claim it as counterattacks — or might hit some ISIL fixed sites in Syria or Iraq and do the same,” said Kenneth Pollack, a former Clinton administration official specializing in the Middle East now at the Brookings Institution. “But he has his strategy and he is sticking to it.”
Hewing to the current strategy will be a political challenge for Obama, however, as the critiques of his policy grow more bipartisan. Over the weekend, two leading national security voices within his party echoed longtime GOP criticisms that the U.S.-led campaign against ISIS has proved ineffectual.

kalm wrote:What should we be doing now against ISIL?

You're Commander in Chief. Is the threat of an attack here imminent? Are airstrikes and propping up the Iraqi's and Syrian rebels (whoever they are) enough? Send in ground troops? Drop some nukes in the middle of the desert?

It seems to me like the groups we really should be backing are perhaps the Kurds and the Turks (who btw, hate each other). They seem the least fanatical and most trustworthy. But I could be wrong.

What's your call?

Code: Select all

With calls growing for tougher action against ISIL in response to the Paris terror attacks, President Barack Obama is again reviewing a menu of policy options he has previously found unpalatable.
“Clearly there's going to have to be an intensification of our efforts,” Obama’s deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. Officials were mum on what that might mean. But several analysts predicted dramatic action in the coming days — including Special Forces raids on ISIL leaders and heavy airstrikes in Syria, like those conducted by France on Sunday. At the same time, they expressed doubt that Obama would dramatically shift his broader strategy in Iraq and Syria.
Story Continued Below

“He may pull the trigger on some targeted killings and claim it as counterattacks — or might hit some ISIL fixed sites in Syria or Iraq and do the same,” said Kenneth Pollack, a former Clinton administration official specializing in the Middle East now at the Brookings Institution. “But he has his strategy and he is sticking to it.”
Hewing to the current strategy will be a political challenge for Obama, however, as the critiques of his policy grow more bipartisan. Over the weekend, two leading national security voices within his party echoed longtime GOP criticisms that the U.S.-led campaign against ISIS has proved ineffectual.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/b ... z3rfzCUph0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SDHornet wrote:No ground troops (that would just be stupid), just continue the ceremonial-like bombing like France just did. Let the countries in the immediate area deal with it. Fuck it. France is putting on like they are really pissed about what happened in Paris. Let’s see if they have the wherewithal to put their boys on the ground instead of relying on our troops to do their heavy lifting for once. I think we all know what the answer to that will be.

Meanwhile we can/should sit back and let the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans do most of the defending for us while also dropping the ridiculous idea of allowing refugees into this country. Let the nearby Arab countries take in those refugees.

ASUG8 wrote:

SDHornet wrote:No ground troops (that would just be stupid), just continue the ceremonial-like bombing like France just did. Let the countries in the immediate area deal with it. Fuck it. France is putting on like they are really pissed about what happened in Paris. Let’s see if they have the wherewithal to put their boys on the ground instead of relying on our troops to do their heavy lifting for once. I think we all know what the answer to that will be.

Meanwhile we can/should sit back and let the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans do most of the defending for us while also dropping the ridiculous idea of allowing refugees into this country. Let the nearby Arab countries take in those refugees.

This.
Let's see how pissed Putin gets when they definitively say that ISIS took down the Rooskie airliner. Let them bankrupt themselves in a bombing campaign and they can wear the world police badge for a while.

SDHornet wrote:...dropping the ridiculous idea of allowing refugees into this country. Let the nearby Arab countries take in those refugees.

Baldy wrote:

SDHornet wrote:...dropping the ridiculous idea of allowing refugees into this country. Let the nearby Arab countries take in those refugees.

To me, that is just common sense.

There is no way in hell to properly vett all these Syrian refugees. We see what happened in Paris when the Frenchies showed compassion.

SDHornet wrote:And that is the sad thing. How is that not the immediate thought to anyone? If neighboring Arab countries aren't willing to take in these people, what should that tell you?

CID1990 wrote:Nothing. I would do absolutely nothing.

In fact, I'd pull completely back from the area. Keep a presence in the Kurdish areas to protect our friends, and pull back everywhere else.

This is just the latest act in an 800 year old schism. If we leave things alone they will bleed Iran and Russia until those two take off the gloves and eradicate the Daesh.

What will remain will be a stable, greatly depopulated Iranian puppet state, which will essentially be the same as it was before the wondrous Arab Spring began.

∞∞∞ wrote:

SDHornet wrote:And that is the sad thing. How is that not the immediate thought to anyone? If neighboring Arab countries aren't willing to take in these people, what should that tell you?

What are you talking about? The Arab world has taken in most of the refugees. Lebanon, a nation smaller than Connecticut, has more than double the refugees than all of the West combined. The top 10 nations in order that have taken in the most refugees is:

1. Turkey (2.2 million)
2. Jordan (1.4 million)
3. Lebanon (1.2 million)
4. Saudi Arabia (500k)
5. Iraq (250k)
6. UAE (240k)
7. Germany (200k)
8. Egypt (130k)
9. Kuwait (128k)
10. Sweden (78k)

BDKJMU wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: What are you talking about? The Arab world has taken in most of the refugees. Lebanon, a nation smaller than Connecticut, has more than double the refugees than all of the West combined. The top 10 nations in order that have taken in the most refugees is:

1. Turkey (2.2 million)
2. Jordan (1.4 million)
3. Lebanon (1.2 million)
4. Saudi Arabia (500k)
5. Iraq (250k)
6. UAE (240k)
7. Germany (200k)
8. Egypt (130k)
9. Kuwait (128k)
10. Sweden (78k)

Link? Those aren't accurate #s. Germany has taken 1/2 million this year alone..Early Nov:
"Germany has been inundated with 500,000 refugees already this year"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... paign=1490" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Grizalltheway wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Link? Those aren't accurate #s. Germany has taken 1/2 million this year alone..Early Nov:
"Germany has been inundated with 500,000 refugees already this year"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... paign=1490" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So are you going to dispute the other numbers, or just nit-pick that one?

kalm wrote:Is the threat of an attack here imminent?

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:Is the threat of an attack here imminent?

Quite honestly, I'm really not sure how we haven't had more attacks here. Looking forward to leaving the DC area soon.

No ground troops (that would just be stupid),

CitadelGrad wrote:Compassion is suicide.

http://buzzpo.com/this-is-the-most-dist ... -ever-see/

CitadelGrad wrote:Compassion is suicide.

http://buzzpo.com/this-is-the-most-dist ... -ever-see/

Ibanez wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Nothing. I would do absolutely nothing.

In fact, I'd pull completely back from the area. Keep a presence in the Kurdish areas to protect our friends, and pull back everywhere else.

This is just the latest act in an 800 year old schism. If we leave things alone they will bleed Iran and Russia until those two take off the gloves and eradicate the Daesh.

What will remain will be a stable, greatly depopulated Iranian puppet state, which will essentially be the same as it was before the wondrous Arab Spring began.

This. They want us out of the Middle East, so, let's leave. But make it known, if you fuck with us after we leave, the gloves come off. Total War.

Baldy wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:Compassion is suicide.

http://buzzpo.com/this-is-the-most-dist ... -ever-see/

Cancer.

∞∞∞ wrote:

SDHornet wrote:And that is the sad thing. How is that not the immediate thought to anyone? If neighboring Arab countries aren't willing to take in these people, what should that tell you?

What are you talking about? The Arab world has taken in most of the refugees. Lebanon, a nation smaller than Connecticut, has more than double the refugees than all of the West combined. The top 10 nations in order that have taken in the most refugees is:

1. Turkey (2.2 million)
2. Jordan (1.4 million)
3. Lebanon (1.2 million)
4. Saudi Arabia (500k)
5. Iraq (250k)
6. UAE (240k)
7. Germany (200k)
8. Egypt (130k)
9. Kuwait (128k)
10. Sweden (78k)

JohnStOnge wrote:

No ground troops (that would just be stupid),

I completely disagree with that. In fact, I think what is stupid is the constant "no ground troops" refrain. We have an all volunteer military. They sign up to do a job. What do you think that job is?

Ivytalk wrote:

89Hen wrote: Quite honestly, I'm really not sure how we haven't had more attacks here. Looking forward to leaving the DC area soon.

For where?

Please don't say you're moving to Sussex County full time. We have enough azzholes as it is.