DescentBB

I note that some on the right simply saw last night's speech and heard only 'gun control'.However, for those that heard for read the text of the entire speech, there was, to my mind, good and bad, and the gun issue was but a small part of it. One part I objected to was the characterization of 'self-radicalization' as new. It isn't. Richard Reid, years ago, self-radicalized before attempting the shoe bomb thing. On the other hand, steadfastly holding to no mass of troops in the region is very sound, as that is just what ISIS wants to see. Why appease them? Yes, we are paying a price for years of doing equally stupid things in the region, but there is no need to continue the mistakes. As for the bulk of the speech it was more of an attempt to call for folks to deal with the modern issue of terrorism with a measure of solemn thoughtfulness, not lashing out with stupidity and xenophobia. That was the correct tone, and always has been sound advice.
I note, this morning that the right in the US just went back to assailing Obama in some of the dumbest ways they've managed to date, thus accomplishing exactly what he warned about: divisiveness projecting American weakness. Our President Lincoln grasped that, at Gettysburg, and apparently some folks here are far too stupid to grasp the lesson 165 years down the road.

The speech was a dud in my opinion, all I got out of it was politics…but anyway...

Anybody that believes ISIS wants Americans on the ground in Iraq is falling for the biggest load of reverse psychology ever conceived.

In reality ISIS wants no such thing, because utter defeat is a pretty bad recruiting device. And the left is buying this load of crap, because it fits into their own thinking about putting troops into Iraq.

Believe me…the last thing ISIS wants is a large fully trained/equipped…and now motivated ground force in there. (because…you know…defeat is not a good thing)

But of course all I keep hearing is “exactly what ISIS wants” like people actually have a clue what a group like that actually wants.

That claim is 10% bravado and 90 % BS.

Spidey wrote:The speech was a dud in my opinion, all I got out of it was politics…but anyway...

Anybody that believes ISIS wants Americans on the ground in Iraq is falling for the biggest load of reverse psychology ever conceived.

In reality ISIS wants no such thing, because utter defeat is a pretty bad recruiting device. And the left is buying this load of crap, because it fits into their own thinking about putting troops into Iraq.

lessee, how well did we settle things when we sent 100,000 young people to Iraq? We didn't. At all.

Believe me…the last thing ISIS wants is a large fully trained/equipped…and now motivated ground force in there. (because…you know…defeat is not a good thing)

you would be well to look at recent(say, post WWII) history and realize that a large trained and equipped force doesn't EVER overcome an insurgency with any level of local popular support.

But of course all I keep hearing is “exactly what ISIS wants” like people actually have a clue what a group like that actually wants.

they have published manifestoes, and I linked a while ago to a synopsis of those. Didn't read it, did you?

know what you're dealing with:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the ... li=BBnbcA1

ISIS is not an insurgency, they are a state, and they have very little popular support.

ISIS has a military that can be destroyed, soldiers that can be killed and territory that can be taken back.

“published manifestoes” yea, and of course terrorists never lie.

............

And just so you understand…I don’t personally support sending a large American force back into Iraq…………but somebody is going to have to do it. Obama’s four point plan is doomed to fail without somebody placing large numbers of troops on the ground in there.

Spidey wrote:ISIS is not an insurgency, they are a state, and they have very little popular support.

got some proof of that latter asssertion. They are, indeed a formative state, based upon end times fundamental theology.

ISIS has a military that can be destroyed, soldiers that can be killed and territory that can be taken back.

yeah, I remember hearing that same chorus from Vietnam to present. Hasn't been correct yet. Feel free to repeat history's mistakes, but not on my dime or with my fellow citizens.

I already stated that I don’t support sending in American forces, but believing the idea that anybody with half a brain would want a large and powerful force invading their territory is silly, and yes ISIS may be evil and crazy but they are not stupid.

Common sense should tell anybody that crap is bluster.

“got some proof of that latter assertion.”

Well with most of the world wishing they were gone…….maybe your definition of “popular” is different from mine.

Spidey wrote:I already stated that I don’t support sending in American forces, but believing the idea that anybody with half a brain would want a large and powerful force invading their territory is silly, and yes ISIS may be evil and crazy but they are not stupid.

if one's guiding philosphy is essentially an apocolyptic vision of the Middle East, that fits just fine.

Perhaps...

So…the obvious question becomes:

What does the president mean when he says “we will destroy ISIL”.

Because if we are not talking about destroying their military and taking back territory, then just what are we talking about?

Spidey wrote:So…the obvious question becomes:

What does the president mean when he says “we will destroy ISIL”.

fair question, because my guess is that we can destroy a group and not destroy the core problem that created it.