Obama defends the Isis jobs comment with "kill them with kindness".

originally posted by: infinityorder

originally posted by: Dabrazzo
a reply to: nwtrucker

Just slightly confused why you refer to them as being practitioners of "appeasement", seems to be most American presidents, including Obama do not in any way adhere to that political doctrine.

Russia gets to just annex sovereign territory of another state Obama does nothing...check

Iran defies UN mandates and continues to bs around as they approach breakout...check

Isis takes entire swaths of sovereign nations over committing atrocities and crimes against humanity, Obama wants to give them a jobs bill and address their grievances by killing them with kindness...check

This is the ww2 definition of the appeasement doctrine attempted on hitler.

" they feel slighted, so if we make this one consession it will be enough to appease them."

" well there are still German speaking people in Poland, he is only freeing them"

" Yugoslavia does have numerous German speaking people, this last concession will appease him".......

You must draw line and actually stick to it, at least once this pussified wimp of a Sherman, this Nancy has let everyone cross every line he has drawn without consequences, this is the textbook definition of appeasement, and the application of the appeasement doctrine.

Or have you not read the history of ww2?

Hey man I like your post and all, imma let you finish but...

I was hammered for bringing Hitler into an argument a while ago. In pretty much the same vein as you, even. I guess your delivery method was better than mine. I need more stars for this.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Dabrazzo

Try Winston Churchill.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Basically, Obama's entire demeanor where the ME and radicals has been concerned has been to be nice to them and give them more or less everything they want. We can see the results.

"give them more or less everything they want." What exactly has the US given ISIS? Anything short of boots on the ground is a concession? Have you not been following the news about the repeated airstrikes? According to CENTCOM a month ago, coalition airstrikes led by the US had killed more than 6,000 ISIS fighters and roughly half of their senior leadership.

So please tell me, is that what they wanted? Is that "being nice to them?"

It seems to me that right-wingers and ISIS have a similar desire for religious war.

a reply to: aorAki

It worked in Japan. No trouble from them anymore...

Look, the more terrible the consequence of war, the less likely war will occur.

As horrific as flattening a country is, and it is, you can bank on a following period of actual peace. Yes, WWI was horrific, yet it was stopped short of flattening Germany. That merely gave us WWII. This time they were flattened. That ended it.

I would rather share a tea with a Muslim Radical and discuss the weather any day of the week than kill him or be killed by him.

There is a line though. For many, and that number is increasing, that line has been crossed. Almost irrevocably.

I would end it.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Obama has carried out more drone strikes than any other president in history.

Seems to be you just have something against Obama, me too, he is a #ing scumbag, he is a corrupt tyrant in the pocket of bankers and war racketeers. But at the same time he has done more for the military industrial complex than any other president in recent memory.

Obama’s Breathtaking Expansion of a President’s Power To Make War

Empire Under Obama: America's "Secret Wars" in Over 100 Countries Around the World

Obama expands US military role in Afghanistan

Obama's Expanding Covert Wars

Obama's legal rationale for Isis strikes: shoot first, ask Congress later

How Obama Expanded the National Security State

THE LIST GOES ON AND ON.

Lets just stop pretending this is anything to do with appeasement ok?

a reply to: jimmyx

Just another overseas base again..nothing to see here, just a Vietnam remake in the way they are fighting a war.
Politicians control the effort and troops have to survive their LONG DISTANCE errors of judgment.
THEN take the blame for it.

a reply to: theantediluvian

So YOU say NIHILISTS?
Am I correct?
AND what counters such a person?

a reply to: cavtrooper7

A well directed Warhead!

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: nwtrucker

This is the leadership that America voted (twice) for.

I don't have much to say other than, perhaps the leadership is a reflection of America. So we deserve whatever we get.

*shakes head and hops away*

what part of bush's leadership worked so well for America?.... I'd much rather see Arab soldiers fighting against these ISIS a** holes than our own American servicemen. I guess you don't

What part of my statement is incorrect?

well good...I guess I was wrong in the implied meaning of your actual words...I'm glad you support Obama in what he said, and I do apologize for thinking you were making a cynical statement.

It was a statement of resignation.

No cynicism at all.

Should we be surprised at the absolute lack of actual quoted material in the OP?

The comment in question's source: Marie Harf, State Department.

We’re killing a lot of them and we’re going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians, so are the Jordanians. They’re in this fight with us. But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs, whether…

And the actual Obama quotes being referred to as the "defense"

So just as leaders like myself reject the notion that terrorists like ISIL genuinely represent Islam, Muslim leaders need to do more to discredit the notion that our nations are determined to suppress Islam, that there’s an inherent clash in civilizations. Everybody has to speak up very clearly that no matter what the grievance, violence against innocents doesn't defend Islam or Muslims, it damages Islam and Muslims.

and

So that’s the first challenge -- we've got to discredit these ideologies. We have to tackle them head on. And we can't shy away from these discussions. And too often, folks are, understandably, sensitive about addressing some of these root issues, but we have to talk about them, honestly and clearly. And the reason I believe we have to do so is because I'm so confident that when the truth is out we'll be successful. Now, a second challenge is we do have to address the grievances that terrorists exploit, including economic grievances. Poverty alone does not cause a person to become a terrorist, any more than poverty alone causes somebody to become a criminal. There are millions of people -- billions of people -- in the world who live in abject poverty and are focused on what they can do to build up their own lives, and never embrace violent ideologies.

and

And terrorist groups are all too happy to step into a void. They offer salaries to their foot soldiers so they can support their families. Sometimes they offer social services -- schools, health clinics -- to do what local governments cannot or will not do. They try to justify their violence in the name of fighting the injustice of corruption that steals from the people -- even while those terrorist groups end up committing even worse abuses, like kidnapping and human trafficking.

So if we’re going to prevent people from being susceptible to the false promises of extremism, then the international community has to offer something better. And the United States intends to do its part. We will keep promoting development and growth that is broadly shared, so more people can provide for their families. We’ll keep leading a global effort against corruption, because the culture of the bribe has to be replaced by good governance that doesn’t favor certain groups over others.

The fact is extremist philosophies take root in areas that have been decimated economically ... like Iraq and Syria.

Germany, economically decimated after WW1.

Etc.
Etc.

Now, back to your regularly-scheduled hooting and cawing.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

From PLANES at high altitude?
NO my friend.
SCOUT'S direct such fire or MANY innocents DIE as opposed to maybe a few of me,MOST would say good trade...some a bit sooner than later.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Sorry. That's terribly oversimplified. The world is a basket case of economically devastated areas and not even close to half of them have given rise to murderous ideologies.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

I agree about the drone strikes. No question at all.

The rest? Sorry. I think your buying smoke on the rest. Check out the number senior officers cashiered under Obama. Now it's down to majors, 500, if the reports are accurate.

Continued downsizing and budget cuts in the military. Stopped production of Hellfire missiles. The planned scrapping of the A-10s.

Parking one of the Nimitz class carrier for want of refueling the nuclear plant.

Most of the references you cite I have problems with. The one hundred countries is a stretch unless one is referring to assisting the locals in combatting Isis and Isis-like organizations. (Which has occured under his watch.)

Yes ,increased activity in Afghanistan...after he stripped our military of any effective ROEs and allowed the growing strength of the insurgents to reach a point that he had no choice other than create an image of troop escalation. (They don't DO anything.) From what I can see, all Obama does is appease. Every move he makes appeases some interest and achieves NOTHING but more mess.

If he's 'preparing for war, it's by making it almost inevitable for the next administration. Not something he wants for HIS legacy....

I do see your point. Lots of smoke here and I'm unsure where this all goes or why.

The intent of thread was to point out a similarity that struck me in his statement, after that? Who knows...

Overflying U.S. airspace by Russian Bears and backfires with no comment or response.

a reply to: ketsuko

You didn't read the Presidents comments; he agrees with you.

I mean, don't let that stop the bashin' or anything ....

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: jimmyx

Just another overseas base again..nothing to see here, just a Vietnam remake in the way they are fighting a war.
Politicians control the effort and troops have to survive their LONG DISTANCE errors of judgment.
THEN take the blame for it.

yup....I almost get drafted for Viet Nam, a couple of friends of mine came back pretty screwed up....like now, as back then, it was about oil....Mobil, Texaco, Standard Oil, etc. couldn't get drilling rights off of the coast of Viet Nam...something that's not talked about even decades later.

a reply to: jimmyx

They were SHUNNED and are angry,nobody talked to them about ther pain so it dug in.
REALLY sucks.
WE ALL knew that and voluteered anyway.
So that way those who don't have that spirit don't HAVE to, no matter what names we are called AT LEAST WE have that.

a reply to: Answer

I kind of agree with you on that. At the least, having them involved makes it a bit easier for us to assist with our own. IF that becomes necessary...

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think the crux of the problem is here:

"So just as leaders like myself reject the notion that terrorists like ISIL genuinely represent Islam, Muslim leaders need to do more to discredit the notion that our nations are determined to suppress Islam, that there’s an inherent clash in civilizations."

Many American conservatives feel that ISIS/ISIL is the most genuine representation of Islam and want Islam wiped from the face of the Earth and like ISIS, want an all out clash of civilizations (or more appropriately, a religious war).

a reply to: theantediluvian

I fear you may be right, but I would hope that followers of the "Prince of Peace" might find some other solution rather than slaughtering millions.