Demonstration of Obama's incompetence: morning of Paris attacks, Obama claimed "we have contained IS

Again, Obama has some of the blame for the rise of ISIS due to his incompetence when it comes to foreign policy. Talking about that is relevant after a terrorist strike by that organization whether you like it or not.

Perhaps, not everything I said in the previous post was relevant to you.....but it's absolutely relevant to a lot of your buddies on the left who were freaking out about this thread yesterday. If it's not relevant to you, good for you, but don't pretend like there wasn't a ton of faux outrage all over this thread early on.

 

Sure, I agree that letting in refugees requires planning and delibration, but I see how in history, mass waves of immigrants have been grateful to America and have been a very vibrant part of society even after bouts of persecution (Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, the Hmong).

I think the potential benefit outweighs the cost.

 

Again:

A whole lot of people have blame for the rise of ISIS, why is this thread only about one man?

 

What benefit? There's really no benefit whatsoever. Also, immigration is different than taking in refugees, some of which might belong to terrorist organizations.

Seriously though, what benefit are you talking about?

 

Don't feed the trolls

 

Because he's the president. When the incompetence of the sitting president of the US directly leads to the rise and expansion of a terrorist organization....and that organization carries out a large scale terrorist attack.....well you talk about it.

 

To expand on that, if Bush was still the sitting president, then this thread would have had his name attached to it for his role in the rise and expansion of ISIS....the difference is that if that were the case, a different person would have started the thread and those whining about the thread now would have no problem with it, which is why I can't take them seriously.

 

so...close the borders and call people "Islamic terrorists" and the problem will be solved.

Oh yeah, and roll in air strikes and arm the Kurds.

Ted Cruz is a "strict constitutionalist", he's aware that President Obama may not be calling them anything but that he's been ruthless at killing them in defying the Constitution?

Years of warfare and he wants to go back to "shock and awe" when 90% of drone casualities are "accidental". Is he off his rocker? What good has "shock and awe" done for the Middle East?

The funny thing is, arming the Kurds has become a placeholder. America is signing arms deals with Saudi Arabia instead because, well oil--and arming different groups continues to happen anyways.

But you see, when you give humvees and tanks to the Iraqi army and spend billions training them only to see those armored vehicules taken, does it ever occur to anybody that the war cycle isn't working?

 

Just to be clear, your argument is that Obama is directly responsible for the rise/expansion of ISIS?

 

LOL "ruthless"

He's been so ruthless that they've expanded their area of control many times over and are now shooting down planes and committing terrorist attacks in countries 2000 miles away.

 

This is a total strawman and you know it. Find me a thread that attacked Bush for lax handling of Islamic terror before 9/11 started on the day of 9/11. And no, the world hasn't changed that much lest you forget the USS Cole, Beirut, American embassy attacks.

Regardless, I'm tired of arguing this point. I can freely admit Obama has been incompetent in some regards, just not as incompetent as some others would have been with their lack of reasonable policy proposals. I'd rather focus on the latter then spend time arguing phantoms with you.

 

He's killed thousands of people in direct violation of several executive orders.

People say all this crap about how they want to preserve America as a "nation of laws, not man" and don't do very much about it.

And yeah, ruthlessness doesn't help a war unless you decide to end it all (and I haven't discounted the crazies who wanted to nuke Iran still holding some sway).

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">16% of French citizens support ISIS, poll finds <a href="http://t.co/d76JuVynA0">http://t.co/d76JuVynA0</a></p>&mdash; Newsweek (@Newsweek) <a href="https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/504318092282183681">August 26, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Syrian refugees beginning to arrive in New Orleans
<a href="https://t.co/pjGK52H9PE">https://t.co/pjGK52H9PE</a></p>&mdash; KPLC (@KPLC7News) <a href="https://twitter.com/KPLC7News/status/661922412502585344">November 4, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

My argument is that Obama's incompetence when it comes to foreign policy led to the rise and expansion of ISIS, yes. Now, he doesn't have ALL of the blame, part of the blame goes to Bush for agreeing to pull out US troops....but Obama is to blame for continuing a bad policy instead of fixing it, and then campaigning on it as if it was a great accomplishment. The power vacuum in Iraq caused by abandoning the Iraqi people gave ISIS plenty of room for rapid expansion, but that's only part of it. Failing to respond to the threat early in Syria was yet another foreign policy failure.

When you don't take threats seriously, and you don't know the consequences for your actions or your inaction, bad things happen.

 

You're an immigrant to the United States or come from immigrant stock somewhere down the line, you tell me.

This class of Syrian migrants is well-educated. They happen to be desperate to leave killing fields. A world that leaves them to their fates is a world without any hope for the future and one that prefers to let its problems rot and catalyze rather than dealing with them.

 

You are talking about drone strikes, you don't win a war with drone strikes. It's just another example of incompetence.

 

So you still don't understand the difference between immigration and taking on 100k refugees that you know pretty much nothing about?

Do I REALLY have to spell that one out to you?

 

Drones are the physical representation of the assassination policy. It doesn't matter how you do it, assassinations are illegal under US law. This is very very clear--and even security agencies are questioning the intelligence gains of killing so many people (nevermind the propoganda coup it represents for all extremists).

So how do you win a war? Massive "shock and awe" missile shows? Nukes? What has America done wrong in previous wars that it should have righted?

 

If they're vetted properly, the benefit of a refugee is the same as the benefit of an immigrant.

America was built by immigrants and refugees. Never forget that when you're asking for the "benefit". See the Hmong people for details.