Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic

tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 164 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 2/1/2016 6:02:00 PM (view original):
See where I said "my bad" in the post above the one you quoted? I was wrong. I have no problem admitting that.




Unlike you.
Where was the "my bad" after you insisted that I was calling for a massive invasion in the Middle East to go after ISIS after I clarified that I was only calling for special forces missions and air strikes?
2/1/2016 6:18 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10041 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 279 18
Pro
Posted by bheid408 on 2/1/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):
Only reason why they had a weakness in Iraq was because dumba$$ Obama withdrew troops too soon. The war in Iraq DIDN'T CREATE ISIS OR ALLOW THEM TO GET A FOOTHOLD THERE. THE WITHDRAWAL OF OUR TROOPS TOO SOON WAS THE CAUSE.

Blame who's really responsible for the JV TEAM. OBAMA!!!!
It's amazing how many staunch Republican supporters, or just angry anti-Obama conservatives, totally ignore the fact that Obama withdrew the troops in accordance with the strategic withdrawal plan drawn up by the Bush administration...
2/1/2016 6:22 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
dahsdebater
Posts: 10041 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 279 18
Pro
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/1/2016 6:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 2/1/2016 5:18:00 PM (view original):
As for covert ops, you said that didn't work for **** when I mentioned it.   Make up your mind, dahsluck.
This is also a bad-faith argument.  I explicitly explained at the time that covert ops wouldn't work against ISIS because of its size, organized military aspect, and governmental organization.  Al'Qaida was and remains a more traditional terrorist organization, smaller and with less depth in the leadership structure.  That makes them more vulnerable to targeted actions.  It took them several years to recover from the loss of Bin Laden.  Just killing most of the leaders sends the same message to terrorists and the American people - come after us, and we'll come after you - without generating nearly as much new negative sentiment towards the United States from Joe Muslim living day to day in the Middle East.  He probably doesn't have the means to worry about the United States unless we do something really egregious to **** him off.  Of course, that's exactly what we did.
I don't think you did.   So, to clarify, are you saying they have no leadership?    Or that killing them would only create a bigger, badder ISIS?   
They have too much leadership.  The governmental aspects have led to basically a large-scale beaurocracy, so there are built-in replacements for guys we take out.  There were really only a handful of important guys in Al Q'aida's leadership hierarchy.  There are at least dozens if not hundreds in ISIS at this point.  It would be nearly impossible to kill them all at once.

In fact, you might say it would be similar in scale to trying to leave the United States leaderless.  We have a well-established chain of command with a lot of names in it, and we make sure they aren't all in the same place at the same time.  Makes it a Herculean task to remove them all.

2/1/2016 6:24 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 164 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bheid408 on 2/1/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):
Only reason why they had a weakness in Iraq was because dumba$$ Obama withdrew troops too soon. The war in Iraq DIDN'T CREATE ISIS OR ALLOW THEM TO GET A FOOTHOLD THERE. THE WITHDRAWAL OF OUR TROOPS TOO SOON WAS THE CAUSE.

Blame who's really responsible for the JV TEAM. OBAMA!!!!
You also need to understand history and get your facts straight.

ISIS was formed in 1999, before 9/11 and before the war in Iraq.  But it was a minor, insignificant entity for many years.

Obama's actions did not create ISIS.  But it did create a vacuum in Iraq that ISIS was able to take advantage of to establish itself and grow.

2/1/2016 6:25 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10041 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 279 18
Pro
Posted by dahsdebater on 1/29/2016 7:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/29/2016 9:03:00 AM (view original):
To be honest, I was all ready to give tec **** when I started reading that quote but this, The way to handle the terrorist organization, like ISIS, is to go in after them, hunt them down, and eradicate them, could certainly be done with small teams.    Designate the target, send them in, take them out.   Unless, of course, tec sees a group of 500 and designates that as the target.   Snipers taking out leaders would work in that situation.  
I don't think this is true for ISIS at this point.  It's not just a terrorist organization, it's also a political entity, with control over substantial territory and large-scale military forces in addition to guerrilla militants.  Special ops aren't going to deal with a problem of that magnitude.  Even the 10,000 number somebody cited is way too low - it's probably at least 50,000 armed militants, with some claims as high as a quarter of a million or more...  The ISIS-controlled territory is roughly the size of Nebraska and contains millions of people.  How can you still feel that this is an enemy you would fight exclusively with small targeted actions?
Here's where I originally made this point.  You can see here that the reasons why I don't think targeted strikes bring down ISIS wouldn't apply to post-9/11 Al Q'aida, I would think.
2/1/2016 6:30 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by dahsdebater on 2/1/2016 6:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/1/2016 6:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 2/1/2016 5:18:00 PM (view original):
As for covert ops, you said that didn't work for **** when I mentioned it.   Make up your mind, dahsluck.
This is also a bad-faith argument.  I explicitly explained at the time that covert ops wouldn't work against ISIS because of its size, organized military aspect, and governmental organization.  Al'Qaida was and remains a more traditional terrorist organization, smaller and with less depth in the leadership structure.  That makes them more vulnerable to targeted actions.  It took them several years to recover from the loss of Bin Laden.  Just killing most of the leaders sends the same message to terrorists and the American people - come after us, and we'll come after you - without generating nearly as much new negative sentiment towards the United States from Joe Muslim living day to day in the Middle East.  He probably doesn't have the means to worry about the United States unless we do something really egregious to **** him off.  Of course, that's exactly what we did.
I don't think you did.   So, to clarify, are you saying they have no leadership?    Or that killing them would only create a bigger, badder ISIS?   
They have too much leadership.  The governmental aspects have led to basically a large-scale beaurocracy, so there are built-in replacements for guys we take out.  There were really only a handful of important guys in Al Q'aida's leadership hierarchy.  There are at least dozens if not hundreds in ISIS at this point.  It would be nearly impossible to kill them all at once.

In fact, you might say it would be similar in scale to trying to leave the United States leaderless.  We have a well-established chain of command with a lot of names in it, and we make sure they aren't all in the same place at the same time.  Makes it a Herculean task to remove them all.

I think you're giving them too much credit for too much organization.   I know that probably sounds Obama-like but comparing their political/leadership infrastructure to the US seems insane to me.    As you say, they have a plot of land the size of Nebraska under their control but the leadership/population in Nebraska is not comparable to the USA. 

I'm sure you recall Al Haig's "I'm in charge now" statement.    Put that in play with a dozen ISIS leaders who aren't 100% positive who's right.

2/1/2016 6:34 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 164 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 2/1/2016 6:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 2/1/2016 6:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 2/1/2016 6:02:00 PM (view original):
See where I said "my bad" in the post above the one you quoted? I was wrong. I have no problem admitting that.




Unlike you.
Where was the "my bad" after you insisted that I was calling for a massive invasion in the Middle East to go after ISIS after I clarified that I was only calling for special forces missions and air strikes?
Please quote where I ever said you called for a massive invasion.

I'll wait for you to say "my bad."
OK, my bad.  You did not use the words "massive invasion".

You said I was calling for a ground war.

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?ForumID=530&TopicID=480083&ThreadID=10546627#l_10546627

2/1/2016 6:35 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect

You did say "boots on the ground."

That's a ground war. By definition. Maybe you meant a small ground war.

2/1/2016 6:37 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10041 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 279 18
Pro
I'm sure you recall Al Haig's "I'm in charge now" statement.    Put that in play with a dozen ISIS leaders who aren't 100% positive who's right.
I think this is actually making my point for me.  The point here isn't how well-developed the chain of command is, it's the size of the leadership structure.  If there are upwards of a dozen guys with a legitimate claim - one which at least some adherents believe - to be the leader of the movement, that means you have to kill a dozen guys to leave them without a leader.  May not speak all that well to their organization, but that again furthers my point.  Clearly no one individual or influential group is centrally planning all of their activities.  That means that killing a small group of leaders isn't going to stop all of said activities.

The elephant in the room that you haven't even tried to address is the presence of essentially a military at this point.  They have at least 50,000 armed militants within the central territory, and possible 4-5 times that number.  Do you think all of those guys are just going to fade away quietly if we kill a handful of leaders they may or may not even recognize as such?
2/1/2016 6:43 PM
moy23
Posts: 13750 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 108
Prospect
Posted by dahsdebater on 2/1/2016 4:57:00 PM (view original):
At the end of the day, I'd rather have a president who doesn't feel the need to respond to public pressure to do something bad for the country.  I never implied we should do nothing, that was your misinterpretation all along.  But large-scale military operations were still the wrong choice.  In the case of Al Q'aida, targeted covert ops would have probably been far more effective than I think they would be against ISIS now, since Al Q'aida was so much smaller and more targeted in its own right.

With regards to "would ISIS have existed anyway," I would say the answer is absolutely no.  Almost no chance.  If Saddam or his sons were still in control of Iraq, he would never have allowed that to happen.  ISIS was able to grow because of the weakness of the Iraqi government.  That was a problem we created as a direct result of military intervention.
I think you are forgetting the internet was in its infancy in 2001-2003. There was no Facebook and it took an entire day to burn CDs back then. Now with social media its much easier to recruit for terrorists than it was for Bin Laden in his heyday. To say 'absolutely no' is a bit myopic imo.

Lets so not forget Saddam is not in Libya, Syria and half a dozen other countries and yet ISIS exists there.
2/1/2016 6:45 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/29/2016 8:17:00 PM (view original):
ISIS is not a country.   I have no idea how many militants they have but I know they have to have leadership.  While I imagine it's against some law of conflict, you target their leaders.  Maybe some one steps in and takes their place, maybe the infrastructure begins to collapse.  That's where you start.
My response.
2/1/2016 6:48 PM
moy23
Posts: 13750 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 108
Prospect
Posted by bheid408 on 2/1/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):
Only reason why they had a weakness in Iraq was because dumba$$ Obama withdrew troops too soon. The war in Iraq DIDN'T CREATE ISIS OR ALLOW THEM TO GET A FOOTHOLD THERE. THE WITHDRAWAL OF OUR TROOPS TOO SOON WAS THE CAUSE.

Blame who's really responsible for the JV TEAM. OBAMA!!!!
I agree with this^
2/1/2016 6:48 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/29/2016 8:38:00 PM (view original):
If they were a country, war could be declared on them and I'm not sure what person/country is gonna say "Whoa.  Let's not rush into this."    They are an organization that has taken over an area roughly the size of Nebraska.   They do not have citizens.   There are people who live in the area.  I imagine some support ISIS and some who do not. 

Again, they have leaders.   Targeting them would not be breaking the laws of conflict.

Again.
2/1/2016 6:49 PM
moy23
Posts: 13750 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 108
Prospect
Posted by dahsdebater on 2/1/2016 6:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bheid408 on 2/1/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):
Only reason why they had a weakness in Iraq was because dumba$$ Obama withdrew troops too soon. The war in Iraq DIDN'T CREATE ISIS OR ALLOW THEM TO GET A FOOTHOLD THERE. THE WITHDRAWAL OF OUR TROOPS TOO SOON WAS THE CAUSE.

Blame who's really responsible for the JV TEAM. OBAMA!!!!
It's amazing how many staunch Republican supporters, or just angry anti-Obama conservatives, totally ignore the fact that Obama withdrew the troops in accordance with the strategic withdrawal plan drawn up by the Bush administration...
George Bush, July 2007


"I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”



Obama negotiated that bush agreement about as good as he negotiated with republicans throughout his terms. Let's not pretend Obama didn't campaign on withdrawing the troops from Iraq and this was his political 'out' from holding himself accountable to that pledge.
2/1/2016 6:54 PM (edited)
◂ Prev 1...429|430|431|432|433...462 Next ▸
Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.