Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Some time ago I wrote that Barack Obama’s foreign policy for the remainder of his regime tenure was going to be sweep everything under the rug and leave the mess for his successor. It’s largely true, now I realize how horribly cynical it really is.
Remember when, in the face of the JV ISIS, getting repeatedly humiliated by Putin, being hacked by the Chinese, Barack Obama declared that the biggest threat we face is climate change?
What President Barack Obama described as the greatest threat to future generations was neither terrorism nor ISIS. It wasn’t nuclear weapons in rogue states either.
“No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” said Obama in his State of the Union speech Tuesday.
His statement was met with scattered, muted applause.The United States should lead in international efforts to protect “the one planet we’ve got,” he said.
The general reaction was incredulity. And rightly so.
There is more than a faint hint of rat on the nose. I properly presume that anything Obama says is a lie and generally is a set-up for something else.
They’re climate refugees.
Picking up a pattern here? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? It’s already established that climate change causes more snow, less snow, more hot days, colder winters, greater frequency of stronger hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, more tornados and fewer tornados, loss of Antarctic ice and the growth of Antarctic ice. And we’ve seen that the Arctic has been ice-free since 2013. On top of all of that, climate will lead to less sex.
Now it has a strong interaction with the geopolitical theater.
Yes, the Syrian refugee flight is not cause by ISIS or war. It’s all about climate change, and Angel Merkel has jumped onto the non-stop Looney Tune Central train. Climate change causes refugee flight via drought, except when causing it by too much water.
Drawing one of the strongest links yet between global warming and human conflict, researchers said Monday that an extreme drought in Syria between 2006 and 2009 was most likely due to climate change, and that the drought was a factor in the violent uprising that began there in 2011.
The drought was the worst in the country in modern times, and in a study published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the scientists laid the blame for it on a century-long trend toward warmer and drier conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean, rather than on natural climate variability.
This immense human tragedy also affirms the significance of a recent study in the journal Nature, regarding climate change and sea level rise. The study concludes that unless we limit global temperatures to 1.5 to two degrees Celsius above present levels, the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet will cause unstoppable sea level rise that will continue for hundreds to thousands of years.
Angel Merkel of Germany is so bent on destroying her country by flooding it with refugees that she’s leading it toward civil war. She’s on board with the climate change conspiracy and only cutting emissions is going to stop ISIS and the refugee flood. Rat grows from a faint hint to a clear odor. The odor rapidly grows into a puerile stench with the addition of one George Soros. Soros asserts the problem with the world is national borders:
Soros said in an e-mailed statement that a six-point plan published by his foundation helps “uphold European values” while Orban’s actions “undermine those values.”
“His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle,” he said in the statement. “Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”
Obama’s attitude toward our national borders is much the same. The plan now is clear. Obama’s pathetic and tepid response to ISIS is part of an extortionist scheme. Climate change is the wedge issue if we’re going to even discuss ISIS. If America wants ISIS stopped then it has to address climate change on Obama’s terms. After all, according to Obama climate change is a bigger threat than is ISIS. ISIS could have been crushed early on. Obama allowed ISIS to grow, thinking of ISIS as a means to further his ends.
I think Merkel has lost her mind over this. I think she too underestimated the magnitude of the Muslim refugee problem and now it has overwhelmed her. The sands in her hourglass are disappearing.
Crush ISIS and the refugee flood stops, but that’s not what Obama wants. If ISIS is allowed to continue, Obama gets to continue his efforts to “fundamentally transform” the demographics of this nation, especially diminishing the influence of the white Christian population.
ISIS is a direct threat to our nation. It’s going to take boots on the ground to crush them. It’s going to take a strong American leader to cobble together a coalition to utterly destroy them, and that is what is necessary, and what is entirely doable. It’s is absolutely not going to happen under a President who can’t even say “Islamic terrorist.” I’ll address this in a separate post, but if it turns out that ISIS took down that Russian airliner, it’s not just Russia’s problem. It’s ours too. This idiot President cannot be gone too soon. The ante may have just upped- to the house limit.
I used to think that James Buchanan would always go down in history as the worst US President…not anymore.
America’s muslim, terrorist pres., a prime example of welfare fraud.
As I expected, the fervor for climate change response grows stronger as more and more evidence proves it was a farce all along. Global warming is seen as the perfect excuse to take control of the means of production and the effort to initiate control needs to be accelerated.
It is only a matter of time before people begin to notice colder winters, milder summers and the news of more and MORE ice at the poles cannot be concealed forever.
This nation is rudderless.
Putting Hillary Clinton in charge is such a terrifying thought, I am starting to suspect it is inevitable, in the name of gender equality, because it’s the only thing that will get anyone enthused about voting. It’s as if all the important issues are too much for people to handle, so they’ll go for something utterly meaningless in the non-academic world, like the color of one’s skin or one’s reproductive organs because that, at least, is something they know won’t get them yelled at by people who watch The View.
I believe there is an additional reason that Obama wants to talk about Global Warming or Climate Change – whatever, is that he knows that he is a fraud, and incapable of actually solving real problems.
This is where the climate comes to the rescue. He can solve that. Anyone can. Just make up some rules. Any rules about anything. Then after a while announce that climate change has been stopped by this tough action in dealing with the problem. Loving huzzahs from everyone.
Are you aware that Obama’s policy has included 6,164 airstrikes against ISIS targets, both in Syria and Iraq? That’s the count as of November 3, 2015. It’s probably gotten higher since yesterday.
That’s all been on his own authority, since the hypocritical, worse-than-useless, quite-possibly-brain dead republican-majority House of Representatives has refused to authorize the use military force against ISIS in Syria, despite a formal request for such authority having been submitted last February. They have, in fact, refused to even allow the topic to be debated on the floor of Congress.
Meanwhile, they’re running their mouths about how Obama does nothing, or is even pro-ISIS.
How gullible does someone have to be not to see that there’s an inconsistency here? It’s kind of hard to miss, being approximately the same size as the Hoover Dam.
What he’s doing ain’t working, Greg. Why does a dictator need a AUMF to do what he’s already doing? He didn’t need it in Libya. Odd, no?
The only reason he wants one now is to spread the blame for his failures.
What about the October 22 commando raid by U.S. special forces that freed Iraqi security forces from ISIS before they could be executed? Did that never happen? Who do you think authorized that?
Maybe I’d be more receptive to criticisms of what Obama is doing if republican leaders clearly stated their own alternative approach in no uncertain terms. But they never do. They only attack and attempt to undermine the one person who actually is trying to do something, while avoiding the political risks of advocating any specific alternatives voters might not approve of.
I’m laughing at an Obama supporter bitching about Republicans not allowing discussion on the Senate floor after Harry Reid (a man who literally gave himself a black eye) ran the Senate like he owned it.
Number of sorties in the 43-day Desert Storm air campaign in 1991: 48,224
Number of sorties our friend above is bragging about after one year of battling ISIS: 6,164
Where the hell would I get the idea Obama and his supporters are full of crap in their enthusiasm to defeat ISIS?
What does Obama consider as a ”target,” Greg?
Buildings, tanks and trucks.
But mostly buildings.
And those buildings WERE the infrastructure of Syria and Iraq, not of ISIS.
ISIS simply moves to a different building.
Oh, and, by the way, Obama insists any buildings (targets) be leafleted first to warn civilians (and ISIS) to be far away before the bomb hits.
So, how successful has Obama been?
He’s dropped a bunch of bombs.
But ISIS is growing in power, scope and terror.
Obama had no desire to defeat ISIS.
He wanted (as he put it) to degrade an ULTIMATELY destroy ISIS…..as long as ultimately was way after Obama is out of office.
How can the Republicans in congress vote to support or oppose a strategy Obama doesn’t have?
Kerry: U.S. not at war with ISIS
We’re not at war, and it’s those stupid Republicans’ fault we’re not winning the war we’re not fighting! LOL you guys crack me up.
Most likely from the bullshit propaganda outlets that you like to think of as sources of accurate information.
If republicans have all the answers concerning how to deal with ISIS, why are they afraid to allow an open debate of Obama’s authorization request on the floor of the House?
I’ve never seen a more pathetic display of hypocrisy and political cowardice in my life.
Politifact rates the following story TRUE. Not partly, not kinda–TRUE.
John McCain says 75% OF AIRSTRIKE MISSIONS AGAINST ISIS RETURN WITHOUT FIRING A WEAPON
May 28th, 2015
As the United States struggles with how best to respond militarily to Islamic State advances in Iraq, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., offered a bit of context about how airstrikes in the region are proceeding.
On the May 24, 2015, edition of CBS’ Face the Nation, McCain — a leading Republican voice on military matters — was asked by host Bob Schieffer, “You have called this strategy a disaster. But what can, what should we be doing about this?”
McCain responded that the first thing to do is to stop arguing that the United States is making significant progress against ISIS (also known as ISIL, the Islamic State or DAESH).
“We need to have a robust strategy,” McCain said. “We need more troops on the ground. We need forward air controllers. But just referring to airstrikes, do you know that 75 percent of those combat missions return to base without having fired a weapon? It’s because we don’t have somebody on the ground who can identify … a moving target. … We found in Vietnam that if you don’t have the right strategy, airpower is minimal in its effect.”
We wondered whether it’s correct that “75 percent” of combat airstrike missions “return to base without having fired a weapon.”
When we checked with the senator’s staff, they said that McCain — who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee — was basing his claim on data he was given by the U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, the part of the military that oversees activities the region where the airstrikes are being carried out. The data McCain’s staff had at the time of his appearance on Face the Nation showed that through the end of March, there had been 2,950 strikes out of 12,121 strike-sorties, or 24 percent. That leaves 75 percent of sorties that had no strikes. (Strike-sorties do not include support flights, such as those for surveillance or tanker refuelings.)
We double-checked with the Pentagon, and two officials said that McCain got his numbers right.
As of May 27, 2015, the United States had flown approximately 15,600 strike-sorties resulting in approximately 4,198 strikes, said Cmdr. Elissa Smith, a spokeswoman with the Office of the Secretary of Defense. That works out to 27 percent — slightly higher than the data McCain had, but close enough for our purposes.
Pentagon officials told PolitiFact that there was nothing unusual or surprising about that ratio.
“The fact that aircraft go on missions and don’t strike anything is not out of the norm,” said Air Force Capt. Andrew “Ender” Caulk of Air Forces Central Command Public Affairs. Despite U.S. strikes being “the most precise in the history of warfare,” Caulk said, “conducting strike operations in the heavily populated areas where DAESH hides presents challenges. We are fighting an enemy who goes out of their way to put civilians at risk. However, the vast majority of pilots understand the need for the tactical patience in this environment. This fight against DAESH is not the kind of fight from previous decades.”
Caulk added that if the United States engaged “the way some of these ‘critics’ want us to, we would be operating in violation of agreements established between the coalition nations and Iraq and putting civilians and Iraqi forces at greater risk. The bottom line: We will not stoop to the level of our enemy and put civilians more in harm’s way than absolutely necessary.”
McCain said that if you count United States airstrikes against ISIS, “75 percent of those combat missions return to base without having fired a weapon.”
Statistics from the Pentagon back that up. We won’t wade into the debate over whether the current approach is right or needs adjusting, but on the specific data point McCain mentioned, we find no fault. We rate the claim True.
This is congress NOT doing their part to fight ISIS?
You guys on the left just lie a lot to support Obama. You ever feel guilty about that? (Of course not, because it’s ok to lie to those oppose your god-boy.)
Look at this–a bill that gives Obama all the military (including ISIS) money he wanted…is opposed by most DEMOCRATS!
Even when the Dems controlled the Senate, the R’s voted in SUPPORT of Obama’s defense request–whaddayaknow! (Bernard Sanders voted no.)
This is congress not debating Obama’s ISIS war. Source: MSNBC.
Sorry, you lose again.
Greg seethed: “Most likely from the bullshit propaganda outlets that you like to think of as sources of accurate information.”
My sources in this thread:
Yes, indeed, propaganda sources, for your side.
You lose again.
Actually, anyone with good sense will recognize that I’ve posed serious questions. I’d guess that the responses I get to such questions sometimes run around 95 percent hate and insults.
Are you under the impression that the video clip you linked somehow disproves what I’ve been saying about Congress’s dereliction of duty? Maybe you should watch it a couple more times. What resulted from Jim McGovern’s parliamentary maneuver falls into the category of “exceptions that prove the rule.” They essentially debated the need for having a debate, which they still haven’t quite gotten around to.
No, you simply pose Democratic Party talking points.
Stop being paranoid, Greggie Goebbels. No one here hates you. You get insulted because you continue to exhibit your idiocy and the fact that you are nothing more than a pimp for the left.
Obambi does not want to defeat ISIS because they are his guys.
He wants to be the Caliph, and he can’t do that without ISIS.
So forget about the United States. We do not matter. What matters is militant Islam.
And please ignore @Greg. He is a troll.
I take it, then, that you have nothing in the way of a substantive rebuttal to the points made in post #6.
@VoteOutIncumbents: In my lifetime I would say Carter, Johnson, and then Slick!!
@Greg: And you still don’t believe Obola lied about his healthcare plan or that Reid falsely accused Romney about his tax returns!! Greggie your credibility is almost as bad as Obola’s!!
Sure I do.
Point #1; the number of airstrikes. Nan has already addressed that issue. On top of that, it has been reported that planes are returning with their payloads, so the air “strikes” are not really “strikes”, just are just fly overs.
Just because Obama asks for authorization, it doesn’t mean the Congress has to submit to his demands. And Obama does not have the legal authority to wage war without Congressional approval. How hypocritical of you to tout how Obama has done that (wage war) on his own with out an AUMF, while Bush got one and yet you stupid liberals continued to demand Bush waged an illegal war. If anyone is engaged in illegal war making, it is Obama. But your opinion on that seems to change depending on who is residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That’s why people view you as an idiot, Greggie.
ISIS was formed to fill a void. A void created by Obama with his insane policy of removing all the troops from Iraq when every military adviser (except for the boot lickers) advised against it. Now, we see the results and you slam the Republicans because they don’t give Obama carte blanche when it comes to conducting warfare in his inept way. You are one of the most dishonest people I have ever had the misfortune of encountering.
@Greg: I was under the impression that “strategy” was an executive branch responsibility. The legislative branch approves or disapproves the “strategy” when it is presented to them. It is very difficult to approve or disapprove a “strategy” when none is presented IAW procedures. Drawing a line in the sand and then changing the subject to “climate change” when the line is crossed is not a strategy.
My brother has over 150 white tailed deer eating his crops. They decimate a corn crop within weeks. He asked me to assist him in ridding his fields of the pests as part of his strategy to rid them from his fields. We fired over 6,000
sortiesshots with only killing 1 deer. I guess you would think that was an effective strategy. (There was no need to pick the corn since none was left!)
@Randy: Would you explain your 2nd paragraph Randy. Thanks
To do what, Greg? What is Obama’s strategy? What is his goal? Obama himself states publicly that he has no idea what he is going to do, yet he wants Congress to authorize him to do it?
Addressed how? ISIS targets in Syria are often occupying parts of the Syrian urban infrastructure. ISIS targets in Iraq are within the Iraqi infrastructure. ISIS components that are within buildings when they’re targeted don’t simply move on to another building. The point of destroying the building was to kill the people inside it.
ISIS desertion and recruiting problems were being reported long before Russia entered the picture. Airstrikes and coalition efforts have been taking a serious toll for months.
When it turns out that a designated target or targets of opportunity are not present, do you think it’s a good idea to expend your weapons and munitions anyway? The effectiveness of an air combat mission is not determined by how much ordnance you manage to burn through.
If Congress refuses to authorize the use of military force, where the hell do they get off criticizing the President because he’s not using sufficient military force to meet with their approval? Congress may have become dysfunctional as a legislative body, or possibly even effectively schizophrenic. Fortunately for the United States, the Executive Branch has not.
No matter how many times you tell that bullshit tale, it’s still bullshit. The void was created because we invaded Iraq, toppled the Saddam Hussein regime, and dismantled a well-trained Iraqi military, replacing it with armed Boy Scouts. We then hastily finalized an agreement to leave completely, that could only be altered with the approval of a replacement Iraqi government that wanted us to get the hell out even quicker than we agreed to leave. That was all wrapped, tied up with a bow, and left on the desk in the Oval Office for the incoming president to deal with.
Those are the simple, straightforward facts regarding the power vacuum that ISIS has exploited. It was a likely possibility from the beginning.
@Randy: Here in Wisconsin we call that a food plot;) 6000 rounds, 1 deer, with that you need more hours at the range to sight in that gun.
Corn fed venison yummmmmmmmmmmmm
@Rich Wheeler: Sure, If you do not hit anything with your sorties, your strategy is BS.
Why would the targets no longer be present, Greggie Goebbels? Do you think ISIS is as speedy as Superman, able to leap tall buildings with a single bound? If we are sending out bombers, at great expense I might add, and our intel is that shoddy, that lands square at the feet of this administration
The bigger purveyor of bullshit on this board is you, Greg. Hand’s down. As to the “Boy Scouts”, they were U.S. military. We didn’t get the Boy Scouts in Iraq until Obama entered office and declared that he was too inept to renegotiate the SOFA and was pulling out our troops. Footnote to Al Baghdadi; here’s the date we will be totally out. Do what you will.
Wordsmith absolutely bitch/slapped you with your “it was all George Bush’s fault” meme about Iraq. I guess Wordsmith didn’t hit you hard enough.
Tell me, Greggie, what causes a man to sell his soul like you have to the point you can no longer deal with truth? What have you gained? You always have some excuse to defend the actions of Obama/Democrats in spite of the truth being presented to you.
What a miserable little man you are.
Because they’ve moved to another location? Some intended targets have clearly been tanks and armored vehicles. Tanks, in particular, are worth an airstrike, owing to their ability to dominate any conflict setting they enter into.
I base this difficult bit of reasoning on the fact that 126 tanks and 354 armored vehicles under the control of ISIS are known to have been destroyed, and on the fact that tanks and armored vehicles are capable of movement. When they move from one location to another, they are no longer present where they were to begin with.
Do I need to add that I’m being sarcastic, or can you figure that out for yourself?
@JSW: OMG no one watches that show. They have to say something reallly stupid to get snippets of airtime on news shows.
Why would the targets no longer be present, Greggie Goebbels?
The top speed of an Abrams is around 40-45 miles per hour. Are you trying to tell me that when these tanks are on the move, our bomber pilots lack the information that we should be getting from intel, be it HUMIT or satellite intel? Is our intel so decimated under this administration that we don’t know that? Really, Greggie? That’s the argument you want to present that we are not getting the intel we should be?
And where did ISIS get those tanks? Oh, that’s right, they’re AMERICAN tanks.
Well, duh! No shit, Sherlock. If you move an item it is no longer where it was. How brilliant of you. Except, why don’t you tell me why Obama’s administration doesn’t have that intel so that we are not sending bombers on a wild goose chase?
Why are you asking me to figure out something when you obviously can’t figure out that all you are good for is to make excuses for an incompetent Administration headed by Obama?
Also, if any bomber pilot was to read your latest bunch of bullshit, they would be holding their sides due to laughter.
You’re an idiot.
Surveillance satellites are not in fixed positions over the surface of the earth, every tank is not assigned its very own drone, and neither can see through overhead cover, which may be nothing more than a tarp. Forty-five miles per hour is plenty fast, if you’re looking to disappear in an urban environment.
From the Iraqis, who turned tail and ran as a ISIS militants approached Ramadi, despite outnumbering ISIS force by an estimated 10 to 1.
I’m not the one who thinks he knows everything and imagines he’s always right.
Basic military concepts…the kind taught to brand new, green, wet-behind-the-ears lieutenants fresh out of West Point, ROTC and OCS….includes the simple idea that air power alone cannot ever win a war. 6800+ air sorties, of which not all dropped ordinance on enemy targets over a year, will NEVER defeat an enemy on the ground, short of unleashing nuclear weapons. Air attacks used properly soften an enemy force making it easier for the ground forces to take land and defeat the enemy. But without the ground forces doing the necessary work to bring violence to the enemy, victory is impossible. There has never been a war won solely by dropping non-nuclear bombs from the air. Being the leftist political animal that Obama is, he will never commit the necessary military resources for crushing the cockroaches of ISIS.
No one is going to crush the cock-roaches, they have been a pain since Jefferson. They are taught from infancy to hate every religion and culture but their own. How ignorant is it to allow them sanctuary on our shores. They don’t want to co-exist they want genocide. Europe will soon be under Sharia law. A nuclear race in the middle east complete with ICBMs. Our electric grid is not protected from EMP strikes. One second after a weapon is detonated above the USA not even a direct hit we are without electricity, within a year 90% of americans die from starvation, lack of sanitation, nuclear power plant meltdowns and roving gangs looking for food stashes. But hey our Prez says global warming is the biggest threat so relax and buy carbon credits from weird Al. :O
Can I send you my Mosin? It’s one of those evil guns that just loves to kill things, maybe you can put it’s murderous desires to good use.
Just leave it in the field and let it kill to it’s heart’s desire.
You won’t even have to touch it.
… I’ve been reading the gun control screed…
Word has done a great job of reviewing this. You seem to have missed out on some terrific reading.
Obama owns this
@Greg: Obama will go down in history as, in addition to the Worst President, the Most Half-Assed President in History.
With Obamacare, it was not important to pass a law that accomplished its goals; only important to pass a law. So, staffers and underlings cobbled it together and Obama signed it, only to learn later “what was in it”. Failure was in it.
For the website he obviously never bothered with progress reports or updates of the development. All he cared about was that one was underway. It, too, resulted in ultimate failure.
Iraq; Obama did not care about the “power vacuum” that was so critical when Bush was President or the sustainability of the Iraqi government. All HE cared about was getting out and getting those headlines. “F___ you, hooray for me.”
Now, the conduct of the “war” on Isis. All he (and you) care about is a statistic; “6,164 sorties”. Not the accomplishments of the missions; do you know how dangerous it is to land with ordinance on board? Gee, global warming is the most dire threat facing mankind today (not ISIS) yet all Obama’s strategy is doing is leaving a big carbon footprint from a bunch of loaded-down fighter-bombers taking off, flying around and landing again, having done nothing. Obama hates the environment, huh?
They aren’t hitting anything because we have no eyes on the ground. Obama pulled them all out, remember? We have several thousand back in, but they are kept away from the kind of activity that might create bad press for him (just look at how much effort it took to alter the facts of the Army Ranger killed in the raid you mentioned). Further, since he has screwed over and abandoned every ally in the area we had, we cannot enlist the aid of the indigenous peoples for intelligence.
Half-assed, Greg. The only thing Obama has done completely is fail.
The M-1 Abrams tank has a top speed of 45 mph. That’s on paved road. On sand, or other terrain, it is reduced to about 30 mph. But here is Greggie Goebbels excuse for why we can’t find them or know they are moving:
That, folks., is what passes for intellect in the left. Is there any wonder why people like Greggie Goebbels would support the Democrats?
See, all you have to do is cover those tanks up with a tarp and our pilots are so dimwitted they would not be able to see them. Can you just hear the conversation?
Pilot #1: Hey, Joe, do you see any tanks? All I see is a bunch of tarps moving down the road. What do you think that is?
Pilot #2: Don’t know, Bob. Probably the Salvation Army marching band trying to stay out of the sun. Let’s just move on and continue to search for tanks.
Never mind that an Abrams would not be able to hit top speed of 45 mpg in an “urban environment”.
As ISIS rolled across Iraq on its way to Baghdad, it was open about its movement. Everyone was amazed at how fast it was rolling. But according to idiots like Greggie Goebbels, all ISIS had to do was cover those tanks with tarps and our fighter pilots would not be able to see them. Magical tarps that made those tanks invisible, I’m sure. That, or Obama has so decimated our military that our fighter pilots are now nothing more than a bunch of idiots.
Greggie Goebbels didn’t miss it. He ignored it. Word didn’t agree with Greggie Goebbels so Greggie discounted Word’s excellent rebuttal.
@retire05: Easy there on trashing the fighter pilots,(I hope you really didn’t mean the way it came out) you try going to a shooting range blindfolded. No boots on the ground means no competent eyes to call in airstrikes. Correct and on point about Obama he is so difficult to deal with intelligence has to be altered to please him. How may competent generals have retired rather than deal with this situation, leaving us with nothing but 4 star golf shoe lickers.
World climate czar and caliph, with Erdogen, of the new Ottoman caliphate.
How will he benefit from the Iranian nuke agreement? Will take a couple years but will out.
Obama works for leftist billionaires and he wants his own fortune. Hungary and poland have drawn lines. 2017-2018 will be interesting.
Btw-no defence for his lack of strategy.
Peter Quinn knocks obama’s lack of mideast strategy. Awesome
first the left brands the republican party as the party of war, then when they dont want to fight you brand them as do nothing. you cant have it both ways, can you? not to mention that the problem with the authorization he wants is that it did not include boots on the ground, which is REQUIRED to accomplish anything meaningful. its been clear since WWII that you cant win unless you send people. but the funniest part is that if they did authorize it and it blew up, you would complain that it was their fault too as they didnt stop him.
which leads into your other point of their not suggesting a fix, why should they when EVERY move they make is not going to make you happy – that under critical theory, you get to complain endlessly without any regard to a better solution, which i notice you also dont put in, and then you expect action. here is a clue. when you make every move a bad move, you get people who dont take any move!!!
General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, indicated to the House of Representatives armed services committee that the strength of Isis relative to the Iraqi army may be such that he would recommend abandoning Obama’s oft-repeated pledge against returning US ground troops to combat in Iraq.
ie. without that, the task would fail, and if it failed would you blame obama? would the socialist left? of course not, you would blame the republicans. (and you thought they learned nothing from that same game in vietnam… )
why are you complaining that they are doing what the left has done for 50 or more years? turnaround fair play, no? you would lambaste them and get all the facts wrong as you usually do, so why bother to appease waht cant be appeased?
they are making sure that OBAMA OWNS ALL OF THIS… and by extension the LEFT OWNS ALL OF THIS… and so, GREG owns all of this by that extension, and you just dont like that because what you want is to deny responsibility if its bad, so you need something to pawn it off on, and negate their help if its good.
heads you win, tails we lose, and the only way to win that game is not to play.
because obama dont have to do what they say, and it opens them up to people like you… and as far as the propaganda, i guess you never realized that it was the left that raised that and brought it to the world… from the big lie, to eveyrthing else, and we knwo better than you as you dont read everything, and the not left does read everything on both sides and compares.
the key points you dont know is the lie by omission that guides you!!!!
yes, which is why obama drops warnings for them to move before they do… and why when its all over your going to then blame republicans for destroying the village to save it a la vietnam… which is what your now asking for.
ie. when it was vietnam… and they bombed out a village and buildings, that was bad, because it not only didnt get the enemy enouhg, but it also destroyed the infrastruture and made more enemies
now that its later and we learned that lesson from you, you want exactly what your positoin took off the table forever with not only the point, but with the idea that if they do do what you ask, its a war crime issue given the new laws your buddies made that your not including in your assesment and are not aware of either (or your lying by omission)
if republicans did do what you said, you would fry them for blowing up the hospital… no? you cant have it both ways sir… you can try, but you will never realize that your creating the damned either choice game…
nah, its just you have no self reflection and cant see that your creating your own impass with your own games which now your upset no one wants to play step on gregs landmine… big big dummy greg…
here i will show you the game:
how is it congress deriliction of duty? since when is it the job of congress to insure the USA is the police of the world when you elected a man who said he would stop us being the police of the world? your mentalpause is convenient to you, but we dont suffer it.
and when the same reason was with bush, what did you guys do? claim there werent any when the facts said they moved the chems to syria, then syria uses it and you think the people you screwed are gonna do the same thing twice? your hoisted by your own inconsistent position greg…
which is why obama unilaterally gave iran go ahead for nukes, didnt respond to chemical weapons, and let russia in, which negates using ground troops as its always done (though killing russian pilots in planes is ok given korea, and vietnam and now syria which is why they moved f15s which can only fight planes, not ground forces as we know that isis has a big air force)
funny, but its NOT a democracy, its a republic.. right greg? the whole paragraph of the peace prize president is basically, come with me so i have someone to blame… i can act alone, but wont… why not? cause then its all his…
and remember greg, this is the man who plays 53 level chess, so winning against isis in syria should be no problem without the do nothing congress and the people that block actiona nd all that…
now you want them? the only reason is to blame them as your doing now… except that blaming them for standing aside for a president that doesnt need them by his own words is not the same as joining in and taking the blame, is it?
no boots no win… period…
ridiculous terms of engagement means no win.. period…
and the fact that he can act alone, and ignore congress and make it bad for congress, means – why bother joining in if he dont need us and wants us only to pin blame on if it comes to crap.
then there is the point that his removal and war theory games ended up creating these things and making them stronger and of course helping russia, who he idolizes like his parents did when they met in a russian language class, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera
OBAMA asks the congress to do nothing, they do nothing
now you blame them for doing nothing…
your so stupid…
why should they clean up the mess and take the blame from obama and his works just to make you happy greg…. your going to be miserable no matter what is done, as you ALWAYS are…
besides your using soviet terms and such in your arguments and dont even know your using soviet terms, so your not too bright tovarish…
You are wrong more than you are right. The vast majority of surveillance-specific satellites are geostationary spacecraft, which means they are parked in an orbit covering a specific portion of the Earth. Were you to track this orbit from the Earth’s surface it would trace a figure-8 in the sky. Yes, they can be moved and re positioned, (which is why we in the field refer to them as “spacecraft”.) but that is not something you do lightly or often. The reason why is because they are very expensive and have limited fuel. Once you deplete that fuel, (aside from a reserve that must be retained for a deorbital burn to destroy the craft,) the spacecraft is stuck in position and can only be rotated on it’s X/Y/Z axis through other means.
I know this because remote command and control of these spacecraft was a part of my Air Force career.
Former US Air Force Lieutenant: Obama’s Syria Strategy Is An “Illegal Embarrassment”
@Ditto: mostly correct..
you can look to see here
some satellites move, some are stationary depending on area. the hottest areas have stationary, while areas like russia and china are flyovers that produce strips of information that cover large areas.
the plane that recently went down from russia was seen with IR satelites that are used over the middle east to track military events as explosions that cause heat show up nice.
take a look at the gobi dessert sometime on google earth, lots of strange stuff there from china including fake cities as models of us places to fight in, as well as whole empty areas in which you can see live ammo practice areas that shot at each other… with the oddest being large beautiful oasis compoinds of trees and buildings huge distances from anything else.
the resolution of these things is literally incredible.
they can see down to under a meter in size…
some may be able to read details as small as license plates (angled view).
even a news camera has more than a 12 to 1 distance ration limit.
meaning you can get a nice shot of the empire state building from upstate ny..
“Russia’s ties to the P.K.K. and the P.Y.D. date to the days of the Soviet Union, and it is believed to be offering support to Syrian Kurds”; PYD leader Salih Muslim confirms: “We have had relations with Russia for the past three years. We go back and forth to Russia, to Moscow”
“Mostly correct” my ass. I worked command and control of both types of these spacecraft. What I said was entirely correct. I know the full capabilities of the spacecraft involved. I wrote quite correctly that; The vast majority (not all) of surveillance-specific satellites are geostationary spacecraft.
The other type of spacecraft generally used are not surveillance-specific but are duel mission birds which follow a sun-synchronous orbit. The duel mission spacecraft utilizes path scanning optics that can only “paint” a specific area as it passes overhead. The duel mission spacecraft are not capable of giving a continual video image of a specific area. For that, you have to either send a surveillance aircraft to overfly the area, (drone or manned,) or you have to maneuver or move one of the geostationary surveillance-specific spacecraft to cover the area.
Of course it was, however, it is highly unlikely that this event would have been captured by one of the duel mission birds. That would require pure luck for one to be passing overhead just as the Russian plane exploded. Using simple logic; with the continual hotbed of events in the Middle East, don’t you think we have at least one of the geostationary surveillance-specific spacecraft parked in position to cover that area?
Yes, they are. 😉 I can not comment on the resolution capabilities of the military spacecraft because it is classified. but I can say that the imagery capabilities of satellites used by Google Earth are much, much poorer.