PDA

View Full Version : ISIS and the Journalist



garhkal
08-21-2014, 10:15 PM
We all know about ISIS and the beheading of the Journalist, but i would like to know. IF Obama and co were willing to hand over 5 Taliban leaders in trade to get Bergall back, why was there no 'negotiations' to get the journalist back? Only a bad intel'ed rescue attempt?

MitchellJD1969
08-21-2014, 10:44 PM
We all know about ISIS and the beheading of the Journalist, but i would like to know. IF Obama and co were willing to hand over 5 Taliban leaders in trade to get Bergall back, why was there no 'negotiations' to get the journalist back? Only a bad intel'ed rescue attempt?

Beats me...anybody up for a round of golf?

BENDER56
08-22-2014, 12:14 AM
Beats me...anybody up for a round of golf?

I don't play but I can meet you at the 19th hole.

sandsjames
08-22-2014, 01:25 AM
We all know about ISIS and the beheading of the Journalist, but i would like to know. IF Obama and co were willing to hand over 5 Taliban leaders in trade to get Bergall back, why was there no 'negotiations' to get the journalist back? Only a bad intel'ed rescue attempt?

One was military...ordered to be there. One was there on his own, knowing the threat.

On another note...golf sounds great.

Chris_1991-2011
08-22-2014, 02:16 AM
We all know about ISIS and the beheading of the Journalist, but i would like to know. IF Obama and co were willing to hand over 5 Taliban leaders in trade to get Bergall back, why was there no 'negotiations' to get the journalist back? Only a bad intel'ed rescue attempt?

Another reason could be that ISIS wouldn't negotiate. I've read that ISIS only made demands and didn't respond to attempts to negotiate and/or wouldn't engage in negotiations. They wanted between $100 - $135 million and the release of prisoners. (The dollar amount was either $100, $132, and $135 million in different articles I've read.) The money they demanded was FAR more than has been demanded for release of other prisoners. You mention that "only" a rescue was attempted. Why in the almost 5 years that Bergdahl was held were there no rescue attempts? I remember reading and/or hearing that there were times (was a time) we knew where he was. Why try and rescue a civilian journalist and not a Soldier? IMO if you want answers to this question or yours, you can try searching the web or asking those involved (the Government) and see which yields answers.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-22-2014, 02:26 AM
Why did the WH release info regarding a classified rescue attempt?

garhkal
08-22-2014, 08:43 AM
Why did the WH release info regarding a classified rescue attempt?

Prob to look good. "they tried".
But it fits in with everything else they do these days. Letting everyone know when and where we will attack etc.

Capt Alfredo
08-22-2014, 11:01 AM
Why did the WH release info regarding a classified rescue attempt?

From what I read, it was going to be leaked by the press so rather than let the media speculate as to the facts, they offered some statements. I swear you people (yeah, I said it) wouldn't be happy no matter what Obama did. He could be the second coming of Reagan and you'd find a reason to find fault.

Capt Alfredo
08-22-2014, 11:03 AM
Prob to look good. "they tried".
But it fits in with everything else they do these days. Letting everyone know when and where we will attack etc.

I will refrain from questioning your intelligence (ha ha), but revealing a rescue attempt after the fact does not let anyone know where and when we will attack. Obama has been very good about using his Special Operations Forces appropriately. Are you suggesting that the professionals who "tried," as you put it, did anything less than the best they possibly could? Do you not get tired of beating this drum?

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-22-2014, 01:20 PM
From what I read, it was going to be leaked by the press so rather than let the media speculate as to the facts, they offered some statements. I swear you people (yeah, I said it) wouldn't be happy no matter what Obama did. He could be the second coming of Reagan and you'd find a reason to find fault.

"You people?" You're pretending you actually know me? Come on now, I wouldn't do that to you.

TJMAC77SP
08-22-2014, 02:34 PM
I will refrain from questioning your intelligence (ha ha), but revealing a rescue attempt after the fact does not let anyone know where and when we will attack. Obama has been very good about using his Special Operations Forces appropriately. Are you suggesting that the professionals who "tried," as you put it, did anything less than the best they possibly could? Do you not get tired of beating this drum?

That is not the issue. "Sources and Methods"...................................

BTW: Even if the 'leaked' information was about to be published, what is the nonpolitical upside to the administration releasing the mission's broad details?

EDIT: Just to save anyone the effort of trying to glean my entire mindset and belief system from this one post let me be clear in saying that I am not up in arms over the release. This kind of 'leak' is not exclusive to the Obama administration or even the Democratic party but to call it anything but a political move and an attempt to influence the narrative is disingenuous.

Rainmaker
08-22-2014, 08:27 PM
Another reason could be that ISIS wouldn't negotiate. I've read that ISIS only made demands and didn't respond to attempts to negotiate and/or wouldn't engage in negotiations. They wanted between $100 - $135 million and the release of prisoners. (The dollar amount was either $100, $132, and $135 million in different articles I've read.) The money they demanded was FAR more than has been demanded for release of other prisoners. You mention that "only" a rescue was attempted. Why in the almost 5 years that Bergdahl was held were there no rescue attempts? I remember reading and/or hearing that there were times (was a time) we knew where he was. Why try and rescue a civilian journalist and not a Soldier? IMO if you want answers to this question or yours, you can try searching the web or asking those involved (the Government) and see which yields answers.

Wow! these IS/IS/L guys are really crazy. Where in the hell they gettin that $100M number from? $988,400 is the amount of GWOT supplemental funding that the Reverend Doctor Barrack Hussein Obama administration ordered the DoD to illegally transfer to Qatar to house the 5 each Taliban prisoners they swapped for the 1 each Traitor Bergdahl. guess McCain needs to go over and try and talk some sense to these ISIS/L/IS/Al/CIA-DA/ JV guys again. These neocons gonna be gettin they apocalyptic war in Syria come hell or highwater. nomsayin?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/18/mccain-rejects-report-claiming-syrian-rebels-are-largely-jihadis/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis

Rainmaker
08-22-2014, 08:57 PM
That is not the issue. "Sources and Methods"...................................

BTW: Even if the 'leaked' information was about to be published, what is the nonpolitical upside to the administration releasing the mission's broad details?

EDIT: Just to save anyone the effort of trying to glean my entire mindset and belief system from this one post let me be clear in saying that I am not up in arms over the release. This kind of 'leak' is not exclusive to the Obama administration or even the Democratic party but to call it anything but a political move and an attempt to influence the narrative is disingenuous.

They have a pattern of leaking JSOC ops to try and give themselves some skreet cred whenever the "news" gets bad.

garhkal
08-22-2014, 09:38 PM
I will refrain from questioning your intelligence (ha ha), but revealing a rescue attempt after the fact does not let anyone know where and when we will attack. Obama has been very good about using his Special Operations Forces appropriately. Are you suggesting that the professionals who "tried," as you put it, did anything less than the best they possibly could? Do you not get tired of beating this drum?

It was more in response to we seem to announce our plans to attack somewhere, BEFORE we attack (like in many of the assaults in the afgan war/iraq war), rather than MAKE the attack, then announce what we did and why.

Capt Alfredo
08-23-2014, 04:07 AM
It was more in response to we seem to announce our plans to attack somewhere, BEFORE we attack (like in many of the assaults in the afgan war/iraq war), rather than MAKE the attack, then announce what we did and why.

I can't recall any of these special ops being announced before the fact...

Capt Alfredo
08-23-2014, 04:10 AM
That is not the issue. "Sources and Methods"...................................

BTW: Even if the 'leaked' information was about to be published, what is the nonpolitical upside to the administration releasing the mission's broad details?

EDIT: Just to save anyone the effort of trying to glean my entire mindset and belief system from this one post let me be clear in saying that I am not up in arms over the release. This kind of 'leak' is not exclusive to the Obama administration or even the Democratic party but to call it anything but a political move and an attempt to influence the narrative is disingenuous.

What sources and methods were revealed that were not already in the public domain?

Secondly, thank you for acknowledging that political leaks are not the exclusive domain of any particular political party.

Capt Alfredo
08-23-2014, 04:12 AM
"You people?" You're pretending you actually know me? Come on now, I wouldn't do that to you.

Nope, I don't know you, but I've seen enough to deduce that you might be a little, shall we say, predisposed to a certain mindset.

TJMAC77SP
08-23-2014, 05:23 AM
What sources and methods were revealed that were not already in the public domain?

Secondly, thank you for acknowledging that political leaks are not the exclusive domain of any particular political party.

Aren't you an in intel guy? You really want to discuss this?

Capt Alfredo
08-23-2014, 05:30 AM
Aren't you an in intel guy? You really want to discuss this?

Maybe I didn't read the same article you did, but all I saw was that the operation involved "air and ground elements." Also read that military ops had been launched in the past (Somalia, bin Laden, Libya, etc). None of that was secret. Maybe I'm not reading the "right" articles to see what was revealed.

Stalwart
08-23-2014, 12:04 PM
Prob to look good. "they tried".

Probably correct. How the 'optics' are perceived is that we were trying to get him back.



But it fits in with everything else they do these days. Letting everyone know when and where we will attack etc.

"When and where" nothing they put out was predictive. It does indicate that we will, if the opportunity presents itself try to get people back.



It was more in response to we seem to announce our plans to attack somewhere, BEFORE we attack (like in many of the assaults in the afgan war/iraq war), rather than MAKE the attack, then announce what we did and why.

From first hand experience, we also in many cases tell the locals to get out of an area before we roll through, to avoid civilian casualties, no doubt tipping off the people we are targeting as well, this is nothing new.

BT BT

Overall, nothing I saw in the reports really revealed at TTPs that would (speaking now as a former operator) jeopardize how we conduct personnel recovery. The big thing from this perspective that would put a recovery team in danger would be to reveal predicative information (when & where) before it happened.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-23-2014, 01:42 PM
Nope, I don't know you, but I've seen enough to deduce that you might be a little, shall we say, predisposed to a certain mindset.

Individual liberty, balanced budgets, free market economy, respect for US sovereignty, honesty from our POTUS, adherence to the US Constitution and equal opportunity (not results) for all US citizens or those on the legal path to become one. That's what I'm for, simple as that. The current POTUS doesn't meet my expectations, therefore I have no respect for him. Same thing for Bush 2, thanks to invading Iraq and the Patriot Act.

TJMAC77SP
08-23-2014, 06:03 PM
Maybe I didn't read the same article you did, but all I saw was that the operation involved "air and ground elements." Also read that military ops had been launched in the past (Somalia, bin Laden, Libya, etc). None of that was secret. Maybe I'm not reading the "right" articles to see what was revealed.

I don't know what article you are referring to. I first heard of the story during a press conference.

Let's look at my question posed.....

What is the nonpolitical upside to releasing information simply because it is coming out in a story. The press discusses classified information daily. Many times the answer is simply "No Comment". Why not in this case?

I don't want this to turn into an extracted debate. In the end it isn't that important. I just see this 'leak' for what it is....politics.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-23-2014, 07:39 PM
I don't know what article you are referring to. I first heard of the story during a press conference.

Let's look at my question posed.....

What is the nonpolitical upside to releasing information simply because it is coming out in a story. The press discusses classified information daily. Many times the answer is simply "No Comment". Why not in this case?

I don't want this to turn into an extracted debate. In the end it isn't that important. I just see this 'leak' for what it is....politics.

Elections are looming, so Obama knows that any actions he takes will be used against his party, whether justified or not. It's about politics, first and foremost.

Max Power
08-23-2014, 07:54 PM
These are some scary dudes. Bombing them here and there probably will not get the job done.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUjHb4C7b94

Rainmaker
08-24-2014, 02:49 AM
These are some scary dudes. Bombing them here and there probably will not get the job done.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUjHb4C7b94

yep and The rhetoric on the chosen news network is about ramped up to about the point it was in 2003 before we went into Iraq. It's fishy that just a couple months ago obama was calling these guys a JV team and now they're all of a sudden the scourge of the earth. if we hadn't armed and funded Isis (thru qatar, kuwait and saudi) in the first place this probably wouldn't be happening. Interesting to note that Assad has come out and stated that any bombing of ISIS in Syrian Territory will be considered an act of war.

USAF-Controller
08-25-2014, 04:56 PM
One was military...ordered to be there. One was there on his own, knowing the threat.

On another note...golf sounds great.

I just got my retirement orders. BRING ON THE GOLF!


From what I read, it was going to be leaked by the press so rather than let the media speculate as to the facts, they offered some statements. I swear you people (yeah, I said it) wouldn't be happy no matter what Obama did. He could be the second coming of Reagan and you'd find a reason to find fault.

[/TROPIC THUNDER] What do you mean "you people"? [/TROPIC THUNDER]

sandsjames
08-25-2014, 05:53 PM
I swear you people (yeah, I said it) wouldn't be happy no matter what Obama did. He could be the second coming of Reagan and you'd find a reason to find fault.

You really think this applies solely to Obama and not most presidents in recent memory?

sandsjames
08-25-2014, 05:57 PM
yep and The rhetoric on the chosen news network is about ramped up to about the point it was in 2003 before we went into Iraq. It's fishy that just a couple months ago obama was calling these guys a JV team and now they're all of a sudden the scourge of the earth. if we hadn't armed and funded Isis (thru qatar, kuwait and saudi) in the first place this probably wouldn't be happening. Interesting to note that Assad has come out and stated that any bombing of ISIS in Syrian Territory will be considered an act of war.

I'm no Obama fan but him calling them the "JV" is no different from the "Mission Accomplished" 10 years ago. Things change rapidly in the world. As has been said many times, hindsight is 20/20. If people would spend more time working on resolving problems and less time on blaming the "other guy" then we'd be doing much better.

TJMAC77SP
08-25-2014, 06:25 PM
You really think this applies solely to Obama and not most presidents in recent memory?


It's Bush's fault !!!!!!!!!!!!

garhkal
08-26-2014, 05:04 AM
It wouldn't surprise me if one of Obama's staff tried to get him to blame ISIS all on Bush.

sandsjames
08-26-2014, 11:25 AM
It wouldn't surprise me if one of Obama's staff tried to get him to blame ISIS all on Bush.

Really though, who cares? If the GOP gets elected in 2016 do you not think they are going to spend plenty of time blaming Obama? That's politics now...it's not "What can we fix?" It's "We can't fix it because the guy before me messed it up too bad". That's not going to stop with a different person, or party, in the office.

Capt Alfredo
08-26-2014, 12:25 PM
You really think this applies solely to Obama and not most presidents in recent memory?

No, sadly it's become a popular trend. There are plenty of things to blame Obama (and Bush, and Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan, and Carter, and Ford, and Nixon, and so on) for, but most people are loathe to give any credit where it is due.

sandsjames
08-26-2014, 01:31 PM
No, sadly it's become a popular trend. There are plenty of things to blame Obama (and Bush, and Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan, and Carter, and Ford, and Nixon, and so on) for, but most people are loathe to give any credit where it is due.

It's a sign of the times, though. Look at any social media site (this one not withstanding). I'd venture a guess that 90% of the comments are negative ones, whether it's about a politician, a celebrity, a funny cat video, etc. Nobody has anything constructive to say about anything.

I'd challenge anybody who posts here or anyone else to put themselves in the President's position. Even with the best of intentions and the "perfect" plan for everything, you still have huge obstacles (Congress, 24 hour news, etc) in the way. Most people claim that politicians never compromise. I'd say that, not only do they compromise, they are forced to do things they are pretty sure won't be successful. Whether it's Obama, Bush, Clinton, whoever, I promise that they are not the ones making the decisions. Sure, they may propose policy, but I'd bet that the final copy of that policy looks nothing like it was intended to.

My one wish is that they would just be honest. Quit campaigning for the party or yourself and actually start leading. Come out and say why things aren't working (other than just blaming the other side). Come out and tell us what the proposal was and what caused it to fail. Quit making promises.

I can't even imagine what goes on in the oval office, with advisors coming in constantly, PR people telling the President how to improve his approval rating, etc.

I can't see any President, in my lifetime, actually having a chance to succeed and really improve the problems we struggle with from one President to the next. There is no way to get things fixed. All we can hope for, I guess, is that whoever is in office can keep things from getting worse.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-26-2014, 01:55 PM
No, sadly it's become a popular trend. There are plenty of things to blame Obama (and Bush, and Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan, and Carter, and Ford, and Nixon, and so on) for, but most people are loathe to give any credit where it is due.

Go back and watch Obama's 2008 campaign speeches, then compare them to his actions since then. Back then, what was his stance on the VA, raising debt limits, abuse of executive office, the nuclear option, bi-partisanship relations? How about thumbing his nose at the IRS scandal, Benghazi, enforcing our border laws, or any of the Obamacare opponents who've voiced legitimate concerns? As it turns out, the guy is one of the most devisive POTUS's we've had. He has not been a leader.

So, if you want to "give credit where it is due," then let's start with this low hanging fruit first, shall we?

Absinthe Anecdote
08-26-2014, 01:58 PM
There are very few politicians that will go against their party when they think that their party is wrong. They get shut out when they do.

Senator Joe Liberman was one of the Democrats who did this.

I do believe that the vast majority of our politicians enter office with the intent to work hard and do good, but are forced to go against their beliefs by a multitude of compromises within their own parties.

They are manipulated and pressured on all sides.

Industry, special interests, news media also play a role in this.

I don't see a way to fix it either. It is an inherently flawed system, because humanity is inherently flawed.

The best we can do is to try to stay informed as voters.

sandsjames
08-26-2014, 02:19 PM
Go back and watch Obama's 2008 campaign speeches, then compare them to his actions since then. Back then, what was his stance on the VA, raising debt limits, abuse of executive office, the nuclear option, bi-partisanship relations? How about thumbing his nose at the IRS scandal, Benghazi, enforcing our border laws, or any of the Obamacare opponents who've voiced legitimate concerns? As it turns out, the guy is one of the most devisive POTUS's we've had. He has not been a leader.

So, if you want to "give credit where it is due," then let's start with this low hanging fruit first, shall we?

Go back and look at EVERY President and the promises they made during the campaign. They cannot possibly know what they will do once they're in office because they don't have all the information they need to make those decisions, until they are elected. This is why they need to quit saying what they WILL do and start saying what their vision is and what they will TRY to do. It's simple, and it hits both sides of the aisle.

Again, I'm not a fan of Obama, I'm just speaking in general about the Presidency. The complaints you are making are comparable to the issues the Dems had with Bush...a partisan person is ALWAYS going to find all the faults. It's easy to play armchair quarterback.

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2014, 02:20 PM
It wouldn't surprise me if one of Obama's staff tried to get him to blame ISIS all on Bush.

Gark.........I was kidding.

sandsjames
08-26-2014, 02:23 PM
The best we can do is to try to stay informed as voters.How do you stay informed, though? There are no more news organizations that aren't partisan so we'll never actually get the facts...only the spin. Of course the internet is a source, but that's also partisan.

I'm one that firmly believes that it doesn't matter who the President is. The position has basically become the same as the Royal Family in England...merely a figurehead...which means that we have to rely on Congress and advisors surrounding the presidency.

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2014, 02:25 PM
There are very few politicians that will go against their party when they think that their party is wrong. They get shut out when they do.

Senator Joe Liberman was one of the Democrats who did this.

I do believe that the vast majority of our politicians enter office with the intent to work hard and do good, but are forced to go against their beliefs by a multitude of compromises within their own parties.

They are manipulated and pressured on all sides.

Industry, special interests, news media also play a role in this.

I don't see a way to fix it either. It is an inherently flawed system, because humanity is inherently flawed.

The best we can do is to try to stay informed as voters.

I was always angrily amused when John McCain was painted as a clone of G.W. Bush during the 2008 campaign. I suppose anyone who ran that year would have been so painted. McCain has often bucked his own party and disagreed with Bush many times during his administration. He is without a doubt a staunch conservative but he doesn't always follow the party line if he doesn't buy it.

sandsjames
08-26-2014, 02:29 PM
I was always angrily amused when John McCain was painted as a clone of G.W. Bush during the 2008 campaign. I suppose anyone who ran that year would have been so painted. McCain has often bucked his own party and disagreed with Bush many times during his administration. He is without a doubt a staunch conservative but he doesn't always follow the party line if he doesn't buy it.

Same thing is going to happen with Hilary. The GOP will try to paint her as a clone of Obama while she and her supporters (as is already happening) will try to distance her from him. This is ALWAYS going to happen when the previous president from your party has a low approval rating.

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2014, 02:31 PM
How do you stay informed, though? There are no more news organizations that aren't partisan so we'll never actually get the facts...only the spin. Of course the internet is a source, but that's also partisan.

I'm one that firmly believes that it doesn't matter who the President is. The position has basically become the same as the Royal Family in England...merely a figurehead...which means that we have to rely on Congress and advisors surrounding the presidency.

I find that seeking as many sources as possible and vetting the known positions of these sources helps. It is difficult at times. I think the biggest problem is the inherent laziness of most people when it comes to staying informed. The thirty minutes between 6:30 and 7:00pm is enough for them.

People also often seek to hear what they want to. The individual on FB that I spoke of on another thread a few days ago also posted a link to an article about Zimmerman being arrested in Ferguson, MO. The story was a hoax by a satirical website, The National Record (http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/zimmerman.asp). Most people who don't crave negative news about those they don't like would have had pause after reading such a headline and at least questioned the story. Not in this case..........nope.........just link it on his wall and make some remark about Zimmerman not learning.

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2014, 02:35 PM
Same thing is going to happen with Hilary. The GOP will try to paint her as a clone of Obama while she and her supporters (as is already happening) will try to distance her from him. This is ALWAYS going to happen when the previous president from your party has a low approval rating.

I agree although I am not sold on Hillary for her own actions and positions. I guess that is fodder for another thread.

sandsjames
08-26-2014, 02:42 PM
I find that seeking as many sources as possible and vetting the known positions of these sources helps. It is difficult at times. I think the biggest problem is the inherent laziness of most people when it comes to staying informed. The thirty minutes between 6:30 and 7:00pm is enough for them.



But how much time should people spend? Life wouldn't be very enjoyable if all one did was try to track down the "facts".

Also, I don't think it would help. It would only create more Monday morning QBs than we already have.

sandsjames
08-26-2014, 02:48 PM
The fact is that every President is in a no-win situation and I can easily, off the top of my head, give very valid points as to why each of them, from Reagan to Obama, has put us in the situation we are in today. Of course one side will argue why it was a good move and the other will argue why it wasn't, each with their own valid points.

Reagan -- "Trickle down economics" -- has caused the income gap to increase, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. The cause of our recession.

Bush Sr. -- Not going into Baghdad -- allowed the current situation we are in over there to happen.

Clinton -- Not killing Bin Laden -- allowed 9/11 which created the situation we are currently in.

G.W. Bush -- Invading Iraq -- created the current situation we are currently in

Obama -- Not keeping troops in Iraq...waiting so long to go after ISIS...etc.

It's simple to play the blame game.

Measure Man
08-26-2014, 04:31 PM
The fact is that every President is in a no-win situation and I can easily, off the top of my head, give very valid points as to why each of them, from Reagan to Obama, has put us in the situation we are in today. Of course one side will argue why it was a good move and the other will argue why it wasn't, each with their own valid points.

Reagan -- "Trickle down economics" -- has caused the income gap to increase, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. The cause of our recession.

Bush Sr. -- Not going into Baghdad -- allowed the current situation we are in over there to happen.

Clinton -- Not killing Bin Laden -- allowed 9/11 which created the situation we are currently in.

G.W. Bush -- Invading Iraq -- created the current situation we are currently in

Obama -- Not keeping troops in Iraq...waiting so long to go after ISIS...etc.

It's simple to play the blame game.

Yes...and so many people only want to hear what they want to hear...that people can make a good living spinning every Presidential decision into the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of the U.S....rile up the masses and cash the checks.

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2014, 04:43 PM
But how much time should people spend? Life wouldn't be very enjoyable if all one did was try to track down the "facts".

Also, I don't think it would help. It would only create more Monday morning QBs than we already have.


I suppose. I just think that watching (fill in the blank with national broadcasting network) for 30 minutes a day isn't going to cut it.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-26-2014, 05:44 PM
I don't think we have the national will to go into Iraq and Syria to clean out ISIS currently.

That changes if they hit us in the homeland. They can behead all the reporters they want, and we won't send large formations of troops. No matter who is president.

I'm not saying we should, it is just very unlikely right now.

Besides lacking national will for another large conflict, we don't even appear to have national goals for the end-state in Iraq and Syria.

I still think a very large regional conflict is brewing in the Middle East. It might simmer for several more years, but that entire region will unravel and reform. Iran and Saudi Arabia included.

The USA can influence some of the major players, but a big war is coming, and it doesn't matter who is president.

Our country can speed up the coming conflict, or slow it down, but we can't stop it.

Measure Man
08-26-2014, 05:53 PM
I don't think we have the national will to go into Iraq and Syria to clean out ISIS currently.

That changes if they hit us in the homeland. They can behead all the reporters they want, and we won't send large formations of troops. No matter who is president.

I'm not saying we should, it is just very unlikely right now.

Besides lacking national will for another large conflict, we don't even appear to have national goals for the end-state in Iraq and Syria.

Agree.

And then the next problem...if we do somehow help them achieve "democracy" like the Palestinians, they go ahead and democratically elect someone like the Hamas. :-/

I'm not sure how we get them to democratically elect only the people we want them to...


I still think a very large regional conflict is brewing in the Middle East. It might simmer for several more years, but that entire region will unravel and reform. Iran and Saudi Arabia included.

The USA can influence some of the major players, but a big war is coming, and it doesn't matter who is president.

Our country can speed up the coming conflict, or slow it down, but we can't stop it.

Sometimes, I just feel like we need to let them fight it out, but quit supplying the weapons.

garhkal
08-26-2014, 08:31 PM
Really though, who cares? If the GOP gets elected in 2016 do you not think they are going to spend plenty of time blaming Obama? That's politics now...it's not "What can we fix?" It's "We can't fix it because the guy before me messed it up too bad". That's not going to stop with a different person, or party, in the office.

I don't remember hearing bush SR, or Jr ranting about they can't do this or that, or they can't fix this or that cause of Clinton or Reagan. Heck i can't really remember if Clinton did any of it with Bush Sr. Just Obama and bush Jr.


There are very few politicians that will go against their party when they think that their party is wrong. They get shut out when they do.

Senator Joe Liberman was one of the Democrats who did this.

I do believe that the vast majority of our politicians enter office with the intent to work hard and do good, but are forced to go against their beliefs by a multitude of compromises within their own parties.

Courage is defined as doing right, even in the face of adversity. So i guess all politicians lack courage if they are so easily manipulated/coerced into going against their beliefs cause of fears of getting shut out by their party.

sandsjames
08-26-2014, 09:53 PM
I don't remember hearing bush SR, or Jr ranting about they can't do this or that, or they can't fix this or that cause of Clinton or Reagan. Heck i can't really remember if Clinton did any of it with Bush Sr. Just Obama and bush Jr. So you never heard the Reps talking about Clinton not going after Bin Laden was a mistake? And how if he would have killed him when we had the chance that 9/11 wouldn't have happened?

BENDER56
08-26-2014, 09:59 PM
...

I do believe that the vast majority of our politicians enter office with the intent to work hard and do good, but ...

I suppose I once thought that way, but now I have this belief (albeit unsupported) that there's a specific type of person who aspires to political achievement. These people are, by nature, narcissistic, selfish, self-absorbed, solipsistic seekers of fame, power and wealth. They may very well be psychopaths, also. The ones who become successful at it and reach state and national positions are also highly motivated and goal-focused. If there are still some of the type of politicians such as you described, they are eventually supplanted by the ones I describe.

Like I said, it's not supported by any empirical data of which I am aware, but I've come to believe it simply because of the sheer number of politicians who wind up self-identifying as scheming, what's-in-it-for-me scumbags. I don't know, maybe I think this way 'cause I live in Florida and every elected official is in the pocket of Big Sugar and Duke Energy.

You see the problem as good people being corrupted by the unseemly facets of the political system, and I'm sure that happens, too. But the problem as I see it is that most "normal" people like us have no desire to enter politics to begin with and the type of people drawn to politics are the exact wrong people to be in charge.

BENDER56
08-26-2014, 10:06 PM
Sometimes, I just feel like we need to let them fight it out, but quit supplying the weapons.

Exactly. This is their fight right now, not ours.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-26-2014, 10:28 PM
Bender

I'm sure there is no shortage of power hungry politicians as you describe.

However, I think most people are corrupted by the system. This is nothing new either, if anything it was worse a hundred years ago.

In many ways it is much easier to expose corruption in the modern age, especially at the federal level.

I am convinced that the really bad stuff goes on at the state and local level.

BENDER56
08-26-2014, 10:36 PM
Bender

I'm sure there is no shortage of power hungry politicians as you describe.

However, I think most people are corrupted by the system. This is nothing new either, if anything it was worse a hundred years ago.

In many ways it is much easier to expose corruption in the modern age, especially at the federal level.

I am convinced that the really bad stuff goes on at the state and local level.

Odd, I've always thought things were better at the local level. Of course I could be wrong about that, too.

Here's a piece that mirrors my previous comment:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/humanity-surprised-it-still-hasnt-figured-out-bett,36361/

sandsjames
08-27-2014, 01:08 AM
Bender

I'm sure there is no shortage of power hungry politicians as you describe.

However, I think most people are corrupted by the system. This is nothing new either, if anything it was worse a hundred years ago.

Agree...I think most people get into it because they are tired of the way things are and think that they can fix them. Then something happens...whether money, power, or ego...or just realizing that there is no fix.

garhkal
08-27-2014, 06:52 AM
So you never heard the Reps talking about Clinton not going after Bin Laden was a mistake? And how if he would have killed him when we had the chance that 9/11 wouldn't have happened?

If they did i can't remember it..

sandsjames
08-27-2014, 11:14 AM
If they did i can't remember it..


Of course not. But you would if you were on the other side. That's the point.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-27-2014, 12:46 PM
Of course not. But you would if you were on the other side. That's the point.

I think it comes down to ideology. My dislike of one POTUS over another has more to do with how I perceive their vision for this country, evident from their college days throughout comments made throughout their campaign and presidency. For example, the definition of "fair share," somehow meaning that some pay a huge percentage, while others pay zero. Or when the word "equality," doesn't really mean EQUALITY. Or the notion that equal opportunity should somehow equate to equal results. The current POTUS scares the shit out of me....sorry. And no, this doesn't make me a Bush fan either.

Capt Alfredo
08-27-2014, 12:56 PM
I think it comes down to ideology. My dislike of one POTUS over another has more to do with how I perceive their vision for this country, evident from their college days throughout comments made throughout their campaign and presidency. For example, the definition of "fair share," somehow meaning that some pay a huge percentage, while others pay zero. Or when the word "equality," doesn't really mean EQUALITY. Or the notion that equal opportunity should somehow equate to equal results. The current POTUS scares the shit out of me....sorry. And no, this doesn't make me a Bush fan either.

You prove my point. There is NOTHING this president could do that you would view charitably, because you believe his very existence to be fundamentally at odds with your worldview. Thus, the president should continue to do what he's doing, because he couldn't please you or people like you, so, like Romney and his (paraphrase) "screw the other 47%" comment, he's best off ignoring people who aren't on board. Not a recipe for kumbaya, but you wouldn't be happy anyway.

sandsjames
08-27-2014, 01:01 PM
I think it comes down to ideology. My dislike of one POTUS over another has more to do with how I perceive their vision for this country, evident from their college days throughout comments made throughout their campaign and presidency. For example, the definition of "fair share," somehow meaning that some pay a huge percentage, while others pay zero. Or when the word "equality," doesn't really mean EQUALITY. Or the notion that equal opportunity should somehow equate to equal results. The current POTUS scares the shit out of me....sorry. And no, this doesn't make me a Bush fan either.

Personally, I don't care about their ideology. Someone can have the greatest ideology in the world and still be a shitty President. On the other hand, someone can be a great President and have shitty ideology. As I've said, the President can't get stuff done on his own. If he tries (executive order) he gets called out for it. Which means that he's pretty much a puppet of Congress. This is by design during the creation of our political system. It doesn't matter what one says they believe in and want. It's what they can actually get accomplished. And with the majority of the voters who really get involved in the political process caring about nothing more than backing their guy and discrediting the other, we'll never get anywhere.

It's been said before, and I'll say it again. The presidency is now a reality TV show. It's about nothing more than "staying in the house". We've been hearing about the 2016 election since November, 2012. Everything said and done is for nothing more than keeping the other party out.

I say screw ideology. We are past that point. Give me someone who is actually going to be a President.

sandsjames
08-27-2014, 01:03 PM
You prove my point. There is NOTHING this president could do that you would view charitably, because you believe his very existence to be fundamentally at odds with your worldview. Thus, the president should continue to do what he's doing, because he couldn't please you or people like you, so, like Romney and his (paraphrase) "screw the other 47%" comment, he's best off ignoring people who aren't on board. Not a recipe for kumbaya, but you wouldn't be happy anyway.Great point with the 47%. Whether Romney made that comment or not, those people were going to disagree with everything he said anyway. And his supporters were going to back the statement and try to soften the blow of the statement, no matter what.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-27-2014, 01:44 PM
You prove my point. There is NOTHING this president could do that you would view charitably, because you believe his very existence to be fundamentally at odds with your worldview. Thus, the president should continue to do what he's doing, because he couldn't please you or people like you, so, like Romney and his (paraphrase) "screw the other 47%" comment, he's best off ignoring people who aren't on board. Not a recipe for kumbaya, but you wouldn't be happy anyway.

The POTUS still refuses to commit ground troops to fight ISIS. I agree with that and give him credit. So, you're wrong.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-27-2014, 01:46 PM
Great point with the 47%. Whether Romney made that comment or not, those people were going to disagree with everything he said anyway. And his supporters were going to back the statement and try to soften the blow of the statement, no matter what.

I disagreed with Romney's statement, but still voted for him.

sandsjames
08-27-2014, 01:59 PM
I disagreed with Romney's statement, but still voted for him.I'm talking about the "media" supporters. The ones who actually determine the outcome of the elections. Of course there are individuals who can agree/disagree with one particular statement and still show support...but in the big picture, it just doesn't happen. We aren't a country of policy, we are a country of spin. All you need to look at are the policies the GOP initially wanted, but when the Dems proposed them, the GOP opposed. It also happens the other way around. This is not party specific. Everything is about discrediting the other guy, not making thing better.

Measure Man
08-27-2014, 04:03 PM
Great point with the 47%. Whether Romney made that comment or not, those people were going to disagree with everything he said anyway. And his supporters were going to back the statement and try to soften the blow of the statement, no matter what.

What he failed to realize is that some of the remaining 53% also had a problem with his comment.

Now, I do believe his comment was spun out of context...he's was talking from a political strategy perspective and not a governing perspective. Part of the problem with your system is campaign success has nothing to do with actual effective governing success. Our campaign system is sort of like holding a 5-mile race to see who you are going to hire as your accountant. Yes, you can be an excellent 5-mile runner and an excellent accountant...but, you just have to get lucky to find one that way.

sandsjames
08-27-2014, 04:11 PM
Our campaign system is sort of like holding a 5-mile race to see who you are going to hire as your accountant. Yes, you can be an excellent 5-mile runner and an excellent accountant...but, you just have to get lucky to find one that way.Or a 1.5 mile race to see who is the top NCO?:p

I don't think too many of those 53% really had a problem with it. Maybe publicly, sure. But I don't think it really made a difference in the voting statistics.

TJMAC77SP
08-27-2014, 07:04 PM
What he failed to realize is that some of the remaining 53% also had a problem with his comment.

Now, I do believe his comment was spun out of context...he's was talking from a political strategy perspective and not a governing perspective. Part of the problem with your system is campaign success has nothing to do with actual effective governing success. Our campaign system is sort of like holding a 5-mile race to see who you are going to hire as your accountant. Yes, you can be an excellent 5-mile runner and an excellent accountant...but, you just have to get lucky to find one that way.

The 47% comment not caring what he said was absolutely true. The part he failed on was stating the entire 47% have a sense of entitlement with regard to government payout programs. That brush was too big.

sandsjames
08-27-2014, 07:47 PM
The 47% comment not caring what he said was absolutely true. The part he failed on was stating the entire 47% have a sense of entitlement with regard to government payout programs. That brush was too big.Even though it's true? It's a shame we live in a society where we would rather have our leaders (or potential leaders) pussyfoot around in order to not hurt feelings.

TJMAC77SP
08-27-2014, 07:52 PM
Even though it's true? It's a shame we live in a society where we would rather have our leaders (or potential leaders) pussyfoot around in order to not hurt feelings.

But Romney took heat for doing exactly that, hurting people's feelings.

Of course it was a bit more complicated than that but the bottom line is that most of his comments were spot on and uncomfortably true. I realize that Obama could have said about the percentage which had already made up their minds not to vote for him.

Every election nowadays ends up being about getting the (truly) undecided vote. That is that shame.

garhkal
08-27-2014, 09:53 PM
Of course not. But you would if you were on the other side. That's the point.

Its rare i can remember stuff like that from 10+ years back.

Measure Man
08-28-2014, 12:19 AM
Of course not. But you would if you were on the other side. That's the point.

Probably moreso due to the internet, but maybe also the proliferation of cable news...I do think, more than any previous President, Obama has legions of folks hanging on his every word and action looking to misinterpret, spin and/or distort what he says and does in order to make it look horribly wrong, worst Pres in history, etc. Honestly there are not many scholars that would rank Obama as the worst...generally he's middle of the pack.

I don't think we've seen the level vitriol towards Obama against previous Presidents, well, at least not in my lifetime...I think some will credit that to racism, but I more think it's just a product of the Misinformation Age...perhaps it started somewhat during the Bush 43 years as he got a lot of that as well, but it's reached a whole new level, IMO...I'm just not sure how it's going to ever get better unless we get a truly popular leader that appeals to all. Tough job.

sandsjames
08-28-2014, 12:56 AM
I don't think we've seen the level vitriol towards Obama against previous Presidents, well, at least not in my lifetime...I think some will credit that to racism, but I more think it's just a product of the Misinformation Age...perhaps it started somewhat during the Bush 43 years as he got a lot of that as well, but it's reached a whole new level, IMO...I'm just not sure how it's going to ever get better unless we get a truly popular leader that appeals to all. Tough job.

I think that Bush received just as much, if not more than Obama. Though they are both in the misinformation age. I think that Clinton probably would have caught just as much, as well. But, as you say, the reason is the methods we had to make comments and hear what everyone else had to say is much different.

I remember when the stuff happened with Clinton. Sure, there was some "social media" type stuff, but I remember the only place I really heard anything was on talk radio and not everyone had access to the 24 hour news. Now every freakin' Joe Schmoe has a medium to reach the world.

Stalwart
08-28-2014, 01:59 PM
I don't see a way to fix it either. It is an inherently flawed system, because humanity is inherently flawed.

The best we can do is to try to stay informed as voters.

Very true. My impressions on the vast majority of the members I met was that they were genuinely nice people, yes ... some are in love with the sound of their voice (as many in very high positions are ... or get to be) and they do the things they do based on what their vision of the 'best' thing for [America, their State, their district etc.] is.

As far as informed voters, there has never really been an overly informed voter base. We have the potential in our time in history to be the most informed voters ever, but unfortunately too many form their opinions based on:

1. The news (any news outlet): all skew things one way or the other, most people tend to watch those outlets that align with their own personal beliefs.

2. An internet forum/social media: the internet gives even the most uninformed or knowledgeable person a platform. Unfortunately the content is often overlooked for the presentation ... I am guilty too ... a forum/website that looks like it was designed in 1995 using my AOL interface will not get much attention ... no matter how good the data.

3. Their friends: again, we tend to befriend and congregate with people that share similar ideas, ideals or sociopolitical leanings. Few tend to form circles that are going to challenge their beliefs or thoughts.

We should not kid ourselves that in the past voters used a more noble method of picking their preferred candidate or knew what was going on with the Legislative Branch or the legislative process, if anything the electorate was more interested in a popularity contest than now; what made someone popular was just different. As opposed to the 1800's, early 1900's up to the advent of the internet people had no way to pull the information before it was voted on and knew little to nothing of the content of legislation after it was passed.

Today, many are too concerned with other issues, or do not want to challenge themselves or their preconceived assumptions of what laws actually say. The capability for us to inform ourselves is there and can be tapped with minimal effort and a little bit of reading ... you just have to look for it. To be an informed voter, you don't have to let someone inform you ... you can inform yourself.

garhkal
08-28-2014, 08:32 PM
Well said Stalwart. Though on 2, even with sites that show stuff with good presentation, there are still people who won't take the time out to read it, as the initial info does not conform to their political belief (i am guilty of this myself).