Obama says 'authorized' targeted US strikes on Iraq

[oldguy]

>So, here we are, 5 weeks in. Now we're at war with ISIS. We will continue to bomb Iraq. We will begin bombing in Syria.

How many American troops have we sent to this war?

>We now begin a full blown war against ISIS/ISIL/Al Qaeda. These are the same guys the President wanted to provide US weapons to a year ago.

These are not the same guys we wanted to provide US weapons to a year ago? Citations please.

>The President wanted to bomb Assad a year ago, when Assad gassed his own people. Now we will start providing air support for Assad's troops. We are now allies with a government that gasses its own people. No reason to have Congress weigh in on that, I guess.

It's legal and they seem to be an actual threat to me. You know, what with them killing American journalists.

Assad did that? Citation please.

You seemed to miss the part where we are now allies with and, providing air support for, a Syrian government that gassed its own people a year ago. No problem? The President should make that call on his own?

Go Blazers

 

[barfo]

How do you think Assad should have been addressed?

Go Blazers

Bashar al-Assad
c/o Mailroom
Summer Palace
Damascus, Syria

barfo

 

[3RA1N1AC]

This is why we should stay out of this shit and let them have their holy war. Any side we arm or back financially will eventually (if they arent already) be our sworn enemy in the never ending war on "terror"

Let them buy their own guns, the invisible hand of the free market will decide who lives and dies

 

[Denny Crane]

This is why we should stay out of this shit and let them have their holy war. Any side we arm or back financially will eventually (if they arent already) be our sworn enemy in the never ending war on "terror"

Let them buy their own guns, the invisible hand of the free market will decide who lives and dies

co-sign.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

>We now begin a full blown war against ISIS/ISIL/Al Qaeda. These are the same guys the President wanted to provide US weapons to a year ago.





So, not only wanted to arm them, but did. Goggle is your friend. You do realize that Al Qaeda was the most effective fighting force of all the rebel groups, right?

So, we arm the Syria rebels and, what?, they promise not to give any weapons to their best fighters?

There is a huge difference between the Syrian rebels and ISIS and/or al-Qaeda. The fear was not that the rebels would give ISIS or al-Qaeda weapons, it was that the ISIS or al-Qaeda would kill the rebels and take their shit.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

the syrian rebels against assad are militant muslim freedom fighters, and they are our allies, but the rebels against the rebels in syria are militant muslim terrorists and our mortal enemy in our never ending war on terror. so the enemy of our enemys enemy is our friend, until they arent. or something.

all i know is that we should definitely keep sending weapons and money to them, it is working splendidly.

 

[oldguy]

There is a huge difference between the Syrian rebels and ISIS and/or al-Qaeda. The fear was not that the rebels would give ISIS or al-Qaeda weapons, it was that the ISIS or al-Qaeda would kill the rebels and take their shit.

To me, it's more what Denny said....Sunni vs. Shia. It's still Al-Qaeda. When we started arming the rebels in Syria, we were arming Al-Qaeda Iraq/ISIS.

The Islamic State, also widely known as ISIS, ISIL and Daʿesh, originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999. This group was the forerunner of Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

Iran is scared shitless because there's a big bad enemy at their doorstep. Iran is Shi'ia, their enemy is Sunni.

How about we make a big batch of popcorn and watch the show?

 

[barfo]

Iran is scared shitless because there's a big bad enemy at their doorstep. Iran is Shi'ia, their enemy is Sunni.

How about we make a big batch of popcorn and watch the show?

How times change. I remember when we had to take out Saddam because he was a bad, bad man. Guess ISIL are better in your book than Saddam?

barfo

 

[3RA1N1AC]

For people to change their views can often be a good thing. if someone was naïvely FOR war in the past, but now realizes that interventionism is often fucking stupid, shows progress imo. Yes it is fun to point and laugh, but at least they are headed in the right direction

 

[Denny Crane]

How times change. I remember when we had to take out Saddam because he was a bad, bad man. Guess ISIL are better in your book than Saddam?

barfo

Not because Saddam was a bad man, but because we gave him weapons and Intel that kept him in power. I don't know that we gave aid to ISIL.

Nice try.

 

[barfo]

For people to change their views can often be a good thing. if someone was naïvely FOR war in the past, but now realizes that interventionism is often fucking stupid, shows progress imo. Yes it is fun to point and laugh, but at least they are headed in the right direction

Sure, but it was just a couple of days ago that Denny was defending the Iraq war. Call me a cynic, but I don't think he's evolved since then.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

For people to change their views can often be a good thing. if someone was naïvely FOR war in the past, but now realizes that interventionism is often fucking stupid, shows progress imo. Yes it is fun to point and laugh, but at least they are headed in the right direction

I am not convinced you can undo prior interventions by suddenly bailing on the situation.

My theory is if you install a brutal dictator, you undo it by removing him. Then throw a lot of cash at the people as reparations and to build good will.

Like taking out Noriega then giving the Panama Canal to the people there.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sure, but it was just a couple of days ago that Denny was defending the Iraq war. Call me a cynic, but I don't think he's evolved since then.

barfo

You're not presenting my views accurately.

But whatever.

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: The USA is Bombing Iraq Again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...494df2-3e85-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html

 

[barfo]

My theory is if you install a brutal dictator, you undo it by removing him. Then throw a lot of cash at the people as reparations and to build good will.

Well, that's pretty much what we did in Iraq. Boy, it sure worked out great for everyone!

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, that's pretty much what we did in Iraq. Boy, it sure worked out great for everyone!

barfo

No, it's not what we did in Iraq. Try again.

Hint: Did I say we should occupy the place for years after? No.

 

[barfo]

No, it's not what we did in Iraq. Try again.

Hint: Did I say we should occupy the place for years after? No.

No, sorry Denny, that is exactly what we did in Iraq, and exactly what you supported. And it most definitely was a disaster.

Saying, oh, if we'd only pulled troops out a few years earlier everything would have been great is fantasy on a grand scale.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

No, sorry Denny, that is exactly what we did in Iraq, and exactly what you supported. And it most definitely was a disaster.

Saying, oh, if we'd only pulled troops out a few years earlier everything would have been great is fantasy on a grand scale.

barfo

You should be sorry, you got it wrong, just plain wrong.

It is not exactly what we did in Iraq. The war was won. W made his victory speech. That was when we should have left.

The guy I voted for would have brought the troops home right away. The guy you probably voted for wanted to increase the size of the military by a brigade, if not more.

I don't know what would have happened in Iraq. What I do know is they would have determined their own destiny. And that is the point.

 

[barfo]

You should be sorry, you got it wrong, just plain wrong.

It is not exactly what we did in Iraq. The war was won. W made his victory speech. That was when we should have left.

No, we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. Leaving when W made his mission accomplished speech would have been better (for us), but not going at all would have been better for everyone.

I don't know what would have happened in Iraq. What I do know is they would have determined their own destiny. And that is the point.

That might be the point, but that's not the reality. They would have had a better chance of determining their own destiny if we hadn't invaded.

We didn't 'set things right' by getting rid of Saddam. We just made a much bigger mess.

barfo

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

To me, it's more what Denny said....Sunni vs. Shia. It's still Al-Qaeda. When we started arming the rebels in Syria, we were arming Al-Qaeda Iraq/ISIS.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

Go Blazers

All I'm saying is that the popular rebellion against Assad, which was a direct result of the Arab Spring, aren't ISIS/al-Qaeda.

 

[oldguy]

>The President says he doesn't need congressional action. And the very same Democrats that demanded that Bush needed congressional action....they are silent. Why? Is this President's foreign policy so outstanding that we should just trust him not to start a world war on our behalf?<

You're right, that's hypocritical for Democrats to have demanded congressional action. Clearly the President doesn't need congress for the actions he's taken. But if it were a War, unlike what you claim it to be, then you're right. He would and he WILL have to go back and get congress to vote on it.

I'm glad you can see the hypocrisy.

I don't think it is clear that he doesn't need congressional action for limited air strikes, the question is does he need it for a sustained air assault role. I mean, he did this so well in Lybia, why not give it another shot.

As far as this not being war:

Secretary of State John Kerry: (This is one of the President's guys, no?)
“In terms of al-Qaeda, which we have used the word war with, yes, we went -- we're at war with al-Qaeda and its affiliates. And in same context, if you want to use it, yes, we're at war with ISIL in that sense,”

US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel
We are at war with ISIL, as we are with al-Qaeda," Hagel said.
Hagel said he will recommend having US “military advisors” fight with Iraqi troops against the terrorist group if the situation requires it.

Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby
“make no mistake, we are at war with ISIL,”

I think it's safe to say it's war, unless you want to continue to argue semantics. Not seeing the President going back to Congress, as you suggest.

>Still no coalition....just some lip service to it.<

France doesn't count huh?

At the time that I wrote my post, there was no coalition. At that point France was talking about making its first reconnaissance flight.

>Still no blessings from the UN.<

No comment.

Why no comment on this? Didn't the D's demand that Bush get the UN's blessing before going into Iraq, giving them an additional 40 days notice we were coming?

>Isn't this what you D's were worried about with Bush? That he would go to war without these things in place? Where are you guys now? Why is it different now? How can you call Bush a war monger, and be silent about President Obama?<

I'm right here, raising a son. Are you busy picking fights because you're bored at the moment?

I guess I understand why you would see it that way.

How many men has Obama killed in fighting ISIL so far?

12? 198? 10,000? I give up. How many? (with a citation, please.)

Where are the WMDs?

They're in Syria. Assad is using them to gas his people.

>What it appears like is that the Democrats are happy to let their guy go to war wherever and however he wants. They also seem quite content to let this administration cover up the use of the IRS to attack his opposition. Seems pretty hypocritical to me. And, damned dangerous.<

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

No, we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. Leaving when W made his mission accomplished speech would have been better (for us), but not going at all would have been better for everyone.




That might be the point, but that's not the reality. They would have had a better chance of determining their own destiny if we hadn't invaded.

We didn't 'set things right' by getting rid of Saddam. We just made a much bigger mess.

barfo

You are continually wrong on this. Go read up on oil for food and how many children's lives it cost trying your failed way.

We didn't set it right by simply toppling Saddam, but it was the best thing we could have done.

But surely it didn't matter if Saddam butchered the people there. Let them eat cake.

 

[barfo]

You are continually wrong on this. Go read up on oil for food and how many children's lives it cost trying your failed way.

We didn't set it right by simply toppling Saddam, but it was the best thing we could have done.

But surely it didn't matter if Saddam butchered the people there. Let them eat cake.

Do you think the average Iraqi is better off today?

barfo

 

[tlongII]

Do you think the average Iraqi is better off today?

barfo

Sunni or Shiite?

 

[Denny Crane]

Do you think the average Iraqi is better off today?

barfo

Before Obama? Yep.

 

[barfo]

Before Obama? Yep.

Literally cannot understand that answer. The average Iraqi is better off today before Obama?

barfo

 

[oldguy]

>No Blood For Oil!

Well we're not getting oil.

Given that we imported somewhat more that 100 million barrels of crude from Iraq last year, I'm not sure I'm following you. Do you think the US will punish Iraq by reducing the amount of oil that we buy from them at the same time we are trying to help them militarily?


>Go Blazers<

You sound like a true Patriot ending your bullshit rant with "Go Blazers" because everyone else is a Lakers fan? Because the Blazers agree with your politics?

I think I'll not take the bait here, except to say I've ended my posts with "Go Blazers" for about 15 years now, no matter the topic.

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

Literally cannot understand that answer. The average Iraqi is better off today before Obama?

barfo

They were better off before Obama's foreign policy failures than when Saddam ruled. They're still better off, but less so.

By death toll alone. 500,000 children (not even talking about adults here) died under your preferred program over 10 years, per UNICEF and two Lancet surveys. Contrast that with 145,546 high end estimate of Iraq Body Count since 2003 (12 years).

But death toll alone doesn't tell the whole story. Your question suggests that the slaves in America were better off as slaves. Well, the Iraqis are actually free. to vote. For girls to go to school. To grow dates in the south. The Kurds don't have to fear whole towns being gassed from helicopters, and are thriving.

About Obama. Iraq Body Count site said 107,594 at the high end through 2010. The monthly death toll there has increased 10x since (from 200/month to 2000+).

Republicans (and the media, yeah right) should pin this on Hillary. Her foreign policy was disastrous. Though she's already distancing herself from Obama's foreign policy.

 

[julius]

So, the fact that this whole thing was caused by Bush (I know, I know.."Blame Bush") kind of actually puts the blame on him instead of the Obama.

Not saying he is blameless, but it's like saying someone with an already existing case of Aids moves into a hospice house, and then all the sudden gets really sick (say, pneumonia) because of a mistake made by the hospice. And then the person dies. Sure, it's not like the new hospice is completely blame free..but seriously, the person was already at deaths door.