Obama to Address Nation in Prime Time Speech on ISIS.

Leadership hoping to avoid vote on ISIS

And shame on those in Congress who would rather dodge a war vote for political reasons. Your cowardice is evident.

This country seems to get physical symptoms of withdrawal from war during peacetime.

Some excerpts from his speech:

Obama: We will destroy ISIS

Pew pew pew, take that ISIS!

Aren't law makers usually supportive of bombing people in the middle east? Or is it only when 'their' president is in charge?

I'm against using proxies to fight this group. Lets get in there, cut them out like the cancerous growth they are, and instead of paying to rebuild a country, leave.

Airstrikes won't work when your army can hide behind civilians, when they can hide their weapon caches underneath hospitals, mosques and schools. Say what you will about drone strikes, the US does not carpet bomb entire cities in order to get our targets. The only thing that even has the slightest chance of working is our own boots on the ground. We've been fucked over helping rebels in these middle eastern countries. If we want to do it right we need to do it ourselves.

I think your analogy to cancer is incredibly apt. Both are composed of a group of loosely related individuals that we would want to treat by skillfully removing without killing the host. And, like cancer, once the organization is cut out of the region, the remaining loose individuals are likely to reform into another threat without a sustained presence/treatment of the issue.

I think that's the trap we find ourselves in.

Yes, the US should go to war with ISIS. However, I'm worried our strategy will be fucked. They're still dropping arms into Syria to fight Assad and those arms just end up in the hands of ISIS. We give the "moderate" radical Islamic rebels weapons to fight ISIS and those guns just end up in ISIS hands too. We don't want to support Assad to handle ISIS, which I'm actually in favor of allying with Assad on this because these people pretty much need a secular dictator to keep their radical Islam tendencies in check. We saw the shit that's gone down since the removal of Gaddafi and Saddam secular regimes... what's the point though, we won't support Assad. They're gonna need boots on the ground. They won't wind this on air power alone.

I think we as a people need to make a choice: Do we ignore the middle east and see what happens? Or do we go in and try and fix it?

Either way, we risk something. ISIS will continue to kill our people and provoke us at every turn. Do we want to live with that or try and put an end to it? Arming rebels won't work in the long-term. Sure, maybe they'll deal some damage to ISIS but eventually they're going to turn right back around and bite us.

I agree that a choice needs to be made. I'd just like to avoid false dichotomies and romanticized views of the likely outcomes of the options. We owe it to ourselves to be pragmatic and realistic.

So Obama is taking the easy way out.

All I hear when politicians speak...

Whenever a threat comes up that a pat on the head won't solve it seems all leftists run for the hills.

Sometimes you need to fight, ISIS is a legit threat and won't just leave us alone if we be nice to them. They will kill Americans and anybody against them if left alone, evil doesn't vanish if not confronted it just grows like a cancer until it kills the host or is cut out. We don't need to invade, but bombing them so Iraq and Syria can regain their land is a good start.

Yeah, because the KILL KILL WAR WAR method has never let us down before. Hey, Vietnam is bound to work sometime, right? The US needs to be a little pragmatic than that.

48% of you are fucking suckers. The US certainly needs no more "war".

Well I was sort of hoping to say that we haven't been at war in the mideast for literally half my life, but I guess that's out of the question now.

I wonder, would those who want us to go to war actually prefer a vote from congress? What if they say no?

Though to be fair regardless of what happens people are going to be upset.

Perhaps the US should go to war with ISIS, but I think in the long run, the US needs to take a long hard look at it's foreign policy. I'm not saying I could do better, in fact, I don't know all the facts associated with US foreign policy, all I'm saying is the ever increasing negativity towards the US makes me believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with US foreign policy. Sure, you can keep fighting wars, but that's just putting a band-aid on a larger problem.

ironic considering Obama is the one who created Isis.

Something should be done about ISIS. Absolutely

They are IRL orcs from mordor.

I assume you don't have a better solution, then, since you didn't bother to post it.

Not too clear on Vietnam, but I'm pretty sure they didn't want to take over the world and kill (more or less) everyone. Especially civilians, since, they don't fight back. Being the big brave people they are.

Sniper, why are you still posting here? You obviously didn't respect this community enough to not get banned. Why do you continue to post here?

America should just go to the Middle East and set up shop there not just America either. Middle East can't be left unattended at all.

ISIS is nothing more than a US Government created boogeyman.. Obama gave the so called "Syrian rebels" fighting Assad's regime hundreds of millions of dollars and now he is gonna use that as a pretext to bomb the hell out of Syria to get rid of Assad and continue to destabilizing the entire region. You can see this coming from a mile away and Americans wonder why the entire world hates our country lol

Go back to infowars, buddy.

ISIS were funded, trained and armed by the US and allies to fight against Assaad in Syria. John McCain now will be the first one to say he wants to kill ISIS but before he was the first one to work with them and take pictures with the leader of ISIS seen here:

Just like Hussein and Gaddafi, these leaders in the Middle East will be taken out. The US and it's allies will fund whoever they could use to take out these leaders. They were the ones to fund al-Qaeda and even worked with Bin Laden. Now they want to arm, train and fund these "Syrian rebels". History will repeat itself and some of these rebels will branch out and became or be a part of a "terrorist" organization just like how some al-Qaeda forces are ISIS now. Doesn't matter who's president, doesn't matter what the religion is, doesn't matter who the "bad guys" are, they're all pawns and the goal is to take control and neutralize the oil fields and put place a "banking system" in the Middle East. It's crazy how Iraq invaded Kuwait but for some reason the US and allies intervened in the Gulf War.

so youre saying the US Government didnt fun the rebels that formed ISIS? Obama doesnt want Assad gone and every country we have been in isnt a mess now? They are gonna do to Assad just like they did to Saddam and Gaddafi.. you must be ignorant if you really think Obama is doing this to protect America. i dont watch infowars, guy

That's not what you said. I have your original post quoted so you can see that. You said something completely different in an attempt to sensationalize.

Obama said he doesn't want to get in the middle of the Syrian civil war. Considering it took this to get him to actually do something about ISIS, I'm inclined to believe him. ISIS is a threat. You're delusional if you think this is about anything but stopping monsters.

It isn't about what they want, it is about what it is Constitutionally required. If they say no they say no.

radiation treatment works on cancer....

just saying.

I gotta say I don't envy Obama on this. He will get support early but in 12 months this war will be unpopular like the rest and he will get crucified. I mean the rumors are that he is planning A THREE YEAR BOMBING CAMPAIGN.

But you gotta question Obama's logic and this is one of the reasons I can't take him seriously: if it's true like Defense Secretary Hagel says that "The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is beyond "just a terrorist group" and "poses a greater threat than al Qaeda" and "This is beyond anything that we've seen"".

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215724-hagel-isis-beyond-anything-weve-seen

then how could you justify not putting boots on the ground? For political reasons? Because you said you wouldn't and now are beholden to that? **** what you said, you did it once already with your red line comment. No consistency.

US officials have already said "that American airstrikes have slowed the advance of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria’s forces (ISIS or ISIL), but are unlikely to weaken the terror group’s overall capabilities."

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/214874-pentagon-us-airstrikes-wont-weaken-isis

But wait, the Iraq Army and the Free Syrian Army is coming to the rescue. The same Free Syrian Army "Obama has repeatedly disregarded as "an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists, and so forth".

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-flaw-in-obamas-isis-strategy-2014-9#ixzz3CvrXzbxK

I can't wait until this clown is out of the WH.

I have my doubts on the effectiveness of this campaign until we actually see results. Considering he came up with a strategy fairly quickly I'm not entirely optimistic. But I know Harper and his goons will be up Obama's ass like usual and bring us along down the rabbit hole with the Americans, where ever it may lead us this time. It is funny how you have Cheney and McCain on TV telling everyone that the US needs to do this, the US needs to do that, yet those are the same crotchety old fucks that created this mess. I am truly stunned that those neo-conservative nutcases are still given a platform to spread their crap. If anything the US should do exactly the opposite of what those vile old men say - it's the only way to be sure.

In terms of going on a land invasion, I'm starting to lean towards "yes". Seems to me if these ISIS jabronis are as scary as Obama and Hagel say, the best solution would be to go all out with ending them. Not putting your faith in the elusive "moderate Syrian rebels" or the Iraqi government that haven't even nominated anyone for the role of Defence Minister or Minister of the Interior yet.

You Americans alway's have some sort of problem with something or other.Why don't you just put the guns on yourselves and rid the world of the assache from the U.S.Your gov'nt are a bunch of a-holes.I like the U.S.,but I don't like your government,at all.

@Aljosa23: Come on man. You yourself acknowledged that military action between us and them has done nothing but created more and more and MORE of them.

The US needs to stay out of the Middle East as much as possible. Every action we take in the region amps up the severity of reactionary action we might receive. Having reporters getting beheaded is not enough I guess...

It has before absolutely but not all situations are a like and in this case I think it's a risk worth taking. They attack all religious minorities in the region and even go after other muslims and they have no friends that aren't terrorist groups so I don't know who would go to bat for them if the US invaded. ISIS has no one to gain sympathy from if the US just goes after them with full force. I'd like if the army would get out as soon as the threat is defeated and leave the local populace to decide how to draw the lines on the map.

The ideal end game would be three different countries made up of what we know now as "Iraq". The US gets its bad rep from occupying territory and wanting to overthrow the entire political system - ideally that wouldn't be the case here. Like I said I'm leaning "yes" because I can't think of a better solution if ISIS are as bad as everyone is saying.

Well, at this point, if we're going to bomb Iraq, might as well drop some bombs in Syria.

Exactly. My point was that after the initial surgery removing the tumor, free floating cancer cells remain that must be eradicated through long, sustained chemo and radiation therapy.

Similarly, the idea that we will be able to go in, wipe them out quickly, and then leave is a fantasy.

I say we shouldn't go to war. The United States doesn't need to send more of its men to die in war because some terrorist group beheaded a few journalists. If we go to war, everyone around the world instantly becomes anti-American (slight exaggeration). We can't fix the Middle East no matter how hard we "try". It's an unstable region, and it will likely stay that way for the time being. The US needs to focus on legitimate problems at home rather than policing the world and going to war over two dead journalists. And I'm aware that ISIS is spreading, but why the **** should we care about policing the area when we have problems here to deal with? Unless they become a legitimate threat to the US or its allies, we should just back off.

LOL These three trolls posting right after the other.