Poll: 57% disapprove of Obama handling of ISIS

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> In the News

Previous 1 2 3 4 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

Are you among the 57% who disapprove of how Obama is handling the threat posed by ISIS?

Yes, I am not happy with the Obama is handling the issue.

63%

[ 31 ]

No, I am happy with the Obama is handling the issue.

16%

[ 8 ]

Polls are inaccurate. The number of those who disapprove is way higher.

16%

[ 8 ]

Polls are inaccurate. The number of those who disapprove is way lower.

[ 2 ]

Total Votes : 49

Mevater

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 3:35 pm

Barbara wrote:

So I take it that you're ready and willing to volunteer to fight.

I'm impressed. In fact, I hope that Yael would allow me to appeal here for funds to help your family during your enlistment and service in the Middle East.

Now the second part of the question. What would you have the US do?

What would I have the US do? Not sure, and no one asked me, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Imho, doing as much as being done, seems way too little. Not frightening enough.

Just in case you were thinking Im packing my bags, let me assure you, they wouldnt want me. First of all, Im too old and I cant deal with the sight of blood and murder (even when necessary).

May I ask you,

1- Are you 100% comfortable with the way the ISIS acts are being handled presently?

2- Did the USA soldiers who lost their lives in WW2, lose their lives in vain?

3- How would you have stopped Hitler, or would you not have stopped Hitler?

4- If you were a world leader, would you not allow your army to fight in a war outside your country, no matter how noble the cause?

Barbara

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 4:49 pm

Mevater wrote:

You're too old? Well, then, I'm sure you'll be willing to send your kids in a couple of years.

And I asked you what the US should do. You've started thread after thread after thread criticizing President Obama's response to terrorism. I just don't understand how you can be so adamant that the President is getting it wrong, without having any clue as to what would be getting it right.

And that's where I'm stuck. I want the US to do "something," but until I have some viable alternative as to what that something should be, I'm not able to say that what is being done is so gawdawful.

For your questions:

(1) See above. I'm not comfortable. But I'm not criticizing, because I don't know what else can or should be done.

(2) No the soldiers who died in WW2 didn't die in vain. Nor would soldiers who would die fighting ISIS if there were a legitimate plan that would have some chance of eliminating ISIS and stabilizing the region. They would die in vain if they die just because we want to do "something," but that something is ill thought out and destabilizes the region further. But I find it extraordinarily hypocritical for people to urge our soldiers into war unless and until they are willing to send themselves, their spouses or their children. In WW2, everyone went. Now, in the US, that's not the case.

(3) Germany during WW2 was a lot easier to fight than is ISIS, or terrorism today. Who are you going to fight, and where are you going to fight them? And what are you going to do after you win, if you win? Do you think that the Middle East is more or less stable today than it was in 2001?

(4) See (3).

MagentaYenta

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 5:25 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Here is one suggestion for every country to follow: if someone is discovered trying to join ISIS, they are convicted immediately of high treason and immediately executed.

And how are you planning on having govt laws amended to reflect this? What you may consider 'high treason' may not even be a charge in some countries.

dimples

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 5:29 pm

Whoops I take back my vote I voted that I'm happy with the way he is handling it instead of being not happy!

southernbubby

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 5:43 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

And how are you planning on having govt laws amended to reflect this? What you may consider 'high treason' may not even be a charge in some countries.

If a world summit agrees on handling ISIS that way, then it would become international law. The world needs to unite to fight ISIS or terrorism will spread everywhere. Each country needs to try to contain ISIS from within.

MagentaYenta

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 5:48 pm

southernbubby wrote:

'World Summit' didn't work the first time around when we called it The League of Nations.

Barbara

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 5:52 pm

southernbubby wrote:

You're willing to execute people based upon their intentions?

So let's take Ahmed. He's 16. In the past few years, he's repeatedly been called a raghead and a terrorist at school, even though he hasn't done anything more serious than bring his girlfriend home a little late on Saturday night. He's angry. And so when he's approached by radicals, told how HE should be on top, he's on board. He doesn't know much about ISIS, except that no one calls them ragheads.

Ahmed doesn't get far. Someone overhears his plans at school. His counselor gets involved. Calls his parents, who are horrified.

Off with his head?

southernbubby

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 6:08 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

'World Summit' didn't work the first time around when we called it The League of Nations.

There are some international laws. Is the world simply ready to be Muslim dominated? Do we need to be frightened to go to the Kosher supermarket on Fridays?

southernbubby

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 6:09 pm

Barbara wrote:

If it gets passed as law, then yes, he would be subject to the laws of treason. If he is 16 and intends to kill someone and tells someone that or posts his intentions somewhere do we let him do it?

MagentaYenta

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 6:13 pm

southernbubby wrote:

There are some international laws. Is the world simply ready to be Muslim dominated? Do we need to be frightened to go to the Kosher supermarket on Fridays?

I don't worry about going to the supermarket or to the library regardless of the day of the week. It's all in Hashem's hands. Worrying about it isn't productive and melts over into other areas of a persons life.

Now we also have a world court at the Hague. How would you use it's membership to defeat ISIS? Would you enlist NATO or any of the other international associations (far too many for me to enumerate here.) How do you think any of this will play out in the world of treaties and international trade? I see it all as herding cats so I'd like to hear more about your solution.

FWIW I'm merely playing devils advocate here.

Last edited by MagentaYenta on Tue, Feb 17 2015, 6:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

Barbara

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 6:15 pm

southernbubby wrote:

If it gets passed as law, then yes, he would be subject to the laws of treason. If he is 16 and intends to kill someone and tells someone that or posts his intentions somewhere do we let him do it?

I said that he wanted to join ISIS. I didn't say that he expressed any intent to kill anyone, or that he really understood what ISIS is. Maybe he wouldn't actually join. Or maybe he would change his mind. As of today, all he did is say, "I want to join ...."

Do you apply this to all expressions that someone might commit a crime in the future? After a particularly egregious terror attack in Israel, Shlomo, also 16, says, "we should really all just get guns and kill all the Arabs. Who is with me?" Shall we execute Shlomo as well? When its almost certain that he'll calm down, or his parents will stop him.

southernbubby

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 6:21 pm

Barbara wrote:

If someone actually succeeds in joining ISIS than they have joined a terrorist entity. If the students that shot up Columbine High school or any other school had been stopped, then the massacre could not have happened. People in the US have been arrested before for plotting murders or owning illegal weapons. If Shlomo is not stopped, then the Arabs will retaliate. He should be arrested but not executed. Those who join ISIS have joined the enemy and have committed treason.

southernbubby

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 6:24 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

I don't worry about going to the supermarket or to the library regardless of the day of the week. It's all in Hashem's hands. Worry about it isn't productive and melts over into other areas of a persons life.

Now we also have a world court at the Hague. How would you use it's membership to defeat ISIS? Would you enlist NATO or any of the other international associations (far to many for me to enumerate here.) How do you think any of this will play out in the world of treaties and international trade? I see it all as herding cats so I'd like to hear more about your solution.

FWIW I'm merely playing devils advocate here.

If ISIS were to penetrate in the US or it's territories, we would have to fight it and arrest anyone who joined it. We could not have citizens frightened to leave their homes because America would crumble. Each country has to fight the ISIS within it or the one that is threatening it. Egypt now needs to fight ISIS. Each country needs to agree at the Hague to fight within it's borders.

blini

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 6:41 pm

Has anyone read the article in the Atlantic earlier this week? At least for me, it was the first time I really understood how ISIS views itself and how the caliphate physically is such an intrinsic part. It makes me think that - at least going on his words - Mr. Obama is either unaware, misguided, or deliberately misrepresenting. I don't usually comment on politics in America, because I feel that being Canadian I am not so qualified. Anyhow, here's the article if you care to read it (very long, but really, I think worthwhile). Apologies if it's been mentioned before.

Atlantic article on ISIS

ETA: I'm editing this post to clarify that when I say misrepresenting I am not wearing a tinfoil hat. Perhaps not being explicit would be a better word. Either to not offend, keep allies, etc...

southernbubby

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 7:00 pm

blini wrote:

basically ISIS is at war with the world and not with specific people

blini

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 7:05 pm

southernbubby wrote:

basically ISIS is at war with the world and not with specific people

Yes, that's how I understood it too. And, if they lose the territory - the physical land of Dabiq that's prophesized in their end-of-days teachings - they cease to have any legitimacy at all. I found that very interesting.

southernbubby

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 7:06 pm

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2.....-isis

I hope that Obama succeeds.

Barbara

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 7:46 pm

blini wrote:

And can you share with us the bold and decisive military actions that Canada has been taking against ISIS?

Is Stephen Harper similarly "unaware, misguide or deliberately misrepresenting" the threat posed by ISIS by not sending in ground troops, or taking other bold action?

southernbubby

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 7:57 pm

http://www.ibtimes.com/uk-citi.....06685

apparently in some places, joining ISIS is considered treason

MagentaYenta

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 8:12 pm

southernbubby wrote:

http://www.ibtimes.com/uk-citizens-who-join-isis-could-be-charged-treason-british-foreign-secretary-1706685

apparently in some places, joining ISIS is considered treason

Yea Ted Cruz is proposing that any US citizen joining ISIS be stripped of their citizenship, tried for treason and banished. This proposed new law would have the same impact on any American who chose to fight for a foreign country.

Page 2 of 4

Previous 1 2 3 4 Next