Obama: U.S. to 'start going on some offense' in ISIS fight

[Gunny]

(CNN) -- U.S. President Barack Obama will deliver a speech Wednesday to explain to the nation "what our game plan is going forward" in the fight against ISIS.


In an interview that aired Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Obama expressed confidence that the United States, with help from regional partners, will be able to wipe out the terror organization.

The United States will not put its own troops on the ground, he said, but will orchestrate airstrikes in support of Iraqi and Kurdish troops.



http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/07/politics/obama-isis-speech/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Gee, I can't wait to hear THIS. A "plan"?

Who's taking bets? I'm betting a lot of rhetoric comes out of his mouth and he says nothing. :)

[NightTrain]

Beating up the IS with air power is all well and good, but I don't see any real gains to be made without competent ground forces to exploit our air strikes.

So far the Arabs have demonstrated completely inept ground offensive capabilities... the only real wins I can think of with Arab armies is only when they're facing another Arab army, just like the old French joke goes.

They've got money. They've got training. They've got equipment. It seems to me they lack courage and leadership on the battlefield.

I understand that when they were facing the US in direct combat that they were completely outclassed in every way and they were surrendering to CNN camera crews, I get that. Israel completely shamed all of them multiple times as well, against impossible odds. But they're facing the IS, who can't be that hard to beat by trained military troops, and yet they're losing miserably.

Did we beat them so completely that Iraqis today have no will to fight?

[Gunny]

Beating up the IS with air power is all well and good, but I don't see any real gains to be made without competent ground forces to exploit our air strikes.

So far the Arabs have demonstrated completely inept ground offensive capabilities... the only real wins I can think of with Arab armies is only when they're facing another Arab army, just like the old French joke goes.

They've got money. They've got training. They've got equipment. It seems to me they lack courage and leadership on the battlefield.

I understand that when they were facing the US in direct combat that they were completely outclassed in every way and they were surrendering to CNN camera crews, I get that. Israel completely shamed all of them multiple times as well, against impossible odds. But they're facing the IS, who can't be that hard to beat by trained military troops, and yet they're losing miserably.

Did we beat them so completely that Iraqis today have no will to fight?

No. "We" declared victory and left before we had completed the job of creating a military force that was functional. We allegedly learned this lesson (apparently not) in Vietnam. You can give them all the equipment and manuals in the world, and they aren't worth crap if you don't build an army that is viable from top to bottom. Sticking someone in a position and handing him a manual and claiming he is "trained" is like putting Obama in the White House.

Obama played politics with REAL lives, and it's come back to bite him on the ass.

[hjmick]

But... But... They're the JV team... I mean he did say, "“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland, versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian."


So why step up on the offense for the "JV" team?

Oh sure, Josh Earnest said he never said these things, but the world knows he did...

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/5/humphries-the-liberal-bully-of-the-week-502316516/?page=1&utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=RSS_Feed#ixzz3CeLbgddP
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[Gunny]

I just think the hypocrisy is clear. The party of "human rights' has no problem killing unborn human beings for their political goals, nor letting innocent non-combatants die for their political goals. They'll let them be slaughtered, but Heaven forbid some are killed by our actions as collateral damage, when in the end, it'd cost a LOT less lives to turn our military loose without political constraint than the slaughter that is happening now.

[NightTrain]

I think the bottom line is that we'll have to go back in and re-secure Iraq. I don't see any real help coming from ME countries, as usual... most of them are facing internal strife as it is.

It will most likely be bloody and expensive... and the poor bastard that shoulders the responsibility (our next President, I imagine) will hear howls of outrage from the lovable liberals about being a war-monger.

[Gunny]

I think the bottom line is that we'll have to go back in and re-secure Iraq. I don't see any real help coming from ME countries, as usual... most of them are facing internal strife as it is.

It will most likely be bloody and expensive... and the poor bastard that shoulders the responsibility (our next President, I imagine) will hear howls of outrage from the lovable liberals about being a war-monger.

Assuming our next President isn't a Democrat. I'm no fan of Hillary's but she IS smarter than Obama, and got more balls. :laugh:

We've been screwing around over there since the end of WWII. IMO, it's time to quit screwing around and clean out that litter box. Or, get out entirely. This half-stepping crap drives me nuts.

[aboutime]

But... But... They're the JV team... I mean he did say, "“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland, versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian."


So why step up on the offense for the "JV" team?

Oh sure, Josh Earnest said he never said these things, but the world knows he did...

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/5/humphries-the-liberal-bully-of-the-week-502316516/?page=1&utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=RSS_Feed#ixzz3CeLbgddP
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

hjmick. By now. I think we can all agree. Josh Earnest is nothing more that the new Obama "Deer in the Headlights" who is even worse than the other two liars Obama used to cover his butt.
We all know the "JV" Team in Washington is led by Obama, and when Obama called ISIS that. He was merely hiding his ignorance with that typical, expected...Blame Game tactic.
Do you remember hearing Obama BLAME Bush for the creation of ISIS?
I DO.

[Gaffer]

The JV team has turned out to be a major top pro team.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The JV team has turned out to be a major top pro team.

Dat boy sho' haz ta eat hiz werds awfer lotz ! :laugh:
Strange that such an eloquent and strong orator should have to be
eating dumbass words.
Of course that is if one was stupid enough to ever believe the hype about the bastard.
I never was.. Just sayin'... Tyr

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/IgmFQoTJ11c?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>