Obama says 'authorized' targeted US strikes on Iraq

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
oldguy said:
I wasn't passing judgement on whether the President should or shouldn't be conducting these operations. I was commenting on how the left made Bush out to be a war monger when he did go to Congress, he did go to the UN, he did form a coalition. But, all the people that were so sure the right thing is to do all of those things, (including giving our enemy weeks/months of advance notice), are now suddenly deafeningly silent.

Trust this administration? That is a scary thought, given how honest this president has been with the people and his past record on foreign policy.

Go Blazers
Click to expand...
I don't subscribe to bipartisan politics but my view of Obama as president is largely one of respect. This Congress, not so much. I doubt there will ever be a great president in my lifetime and I've seen 60 years of them. Most of the times I've voted against someone rather than for someone which is sad. The job is only for someone with an enormous financial base so there will be no Lincolns in the future or Harry Trumans. The system is flawed. We know that but one thing I'm not is scared.
 
riverman said:
I don't subscribe to bipartisan politics but my view of Obama as president is largely one of respect. This Congress, not so much. I doubt there will ever be a great president in my lifetime and I've seen 60 years of them. Most of the times I've voted against someone rather than for someone which is sad. The job is only for someone with an enormous financial base so there will be no Lincolns in the future or Harry Trumans. The system is flawed. We know that but one thing I'm not is scared.
Click to expand...

I don't know... I think Reagan and Clinton were pretty damn good presidents.
 
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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Still no blessings from the UN.

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?

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.

No Blood For Oil!

Go Blazers
 
oldguy said:
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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Still no blessings from the UN.

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?

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.

No Blood For Oil!

Go Blazers
Click to expand...

Democrats are only for their own. They would support their party, even if they were killing innocent people.
 
I'm not trying to make that case, Mags. I just would like to better understand why this hypocrisy is ok to the left.

Go Blazers
 
oldguy said:
I'm not trying to make that case, Mags. I just would like to better understand why this hypocrisy is ok to the left.

Go Blazers
Click to expand...

Do you think ISIL is imaginary like Bush's WMDs?
Do you think air strikes are equivalent to a ground war?

barfo
 
oldguy said:
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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Still no blessings from the UN.

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?

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.

No Blood For Oil!

Go Blazers
Click to expand...

Air strikes are not a full blown war. Also there isn't a cool war catch phrase for the media. I suggest Desert Eagle Storm from Above!

We have lots of pretty flying toys, as long as we are only using those and not putting troops on the ground I'm fine with this.
 
>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.

>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.

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

France doesn't count huh?

>Still no blessings from the UN.

No comment.

>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? How many men has Obama killed in fighting ISIL so far? Where are the WMDs?

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.

>No Blood For Oil!

Well we're not getting oil.

>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?
 
Oh and PS, you're assume that Democrats still like Obama. He was a liar, and turned out to be a 90s Republican.
 
Eastoff said:
>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.

>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.

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

France doesn't count huh?

>Still no blessings from the UN.

No comment.

>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? How many men has Obama killed in fighting ISIL so far? Where are the WMDs?

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.

>No Blood For Oil!

Well we're not getting oil.

>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?
Click to expand...

Wait you telling me you support our president? Do you think he's doing a good job? It's a real question
 
Eastoff said:
>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.

>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.

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

France doesn't count huh?

>Still no blessings from the UN.

No comment.

>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? How many men has Obama killed in fighting ISIL so far? Where are the WMDs?

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.

>No Blood For Oil!

Well we're not getting oil.

>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?
Click to expand...

Your last line is a little over the top.
 
magnifier661 said:
Wait you telling me you support our president? Do you think he's doing a good job? It's a real question
Click to expand...

I think some stuff he's doing a pretty good job. I think ISIS is a shitty situation that we've gotten into because we didn't address Assad in Syria and because Iraq is ruled by assholes who don't include their minority voters.
 
Eastoff said:
I think some stuff he's doing a pretty good job. I think ISIS is a shitty situation that we've gotten into because we didn't address Assad in Syria and because Iraq is ruled by assholes who don't include their minority voters.
Click to expand...

Okay like percentage of everything that he's done in office? 20%, 40%, 60%. What are the good jobs?
 
Eastoff said:
It sounded like he was a picking a fight to me. I'll shut the fuck up though, I can tell my emotions are done with the OT section.
Click to expand...

It's all good. I enjoy your posts in the OT section.
 
magnifier661 said:
Okay like percentage of everything that he's done in office? 20%, 40%, 60%. What are the good jobs?
Click to expand...

I don't think I can accurately give you a number off the top of my head. Just that it's more than 50% and that'd I'd still vote for him again knowing all I do now, over McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan.
 
Eastoff said:
I don't think I can accurately give you a number off the top of my head. Just that it's more than 50% and that'd I'd still vote for him again knowing all I do now, over McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan.
Click to expand...

Wow I'm speechless. Guess pro party goes a long way
 
FYI,

Bush only deployed a few hundred special forces guys to Afghanistan initially. Was that a war?

Just curious how you spin it.
 
Eastoff said:
I don't think I can accurately give you a number off the top of my head. Just that it's more than 50% and that'd I'd still vote for him again knowing all I do now, over McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding, right?

What part of the fifty percent was wanting to arm what has become ISIS a year ago? What part is not standing up to Putin..how about his stance on any number of scandals that he has been involved with..dude..straight up, what is the positive? Give me three things he has done that are not controversial and have created a positive effect.
 
Eastoff said:
It sounded like he was a picking a fight to me. I'll shut the fuck up though, I can tell my emotions are done with the OT section.
Click to expand...

hahahhahahaaa

You know, I find myself reading your posts and suddenly I wonder..Who ties your shoes?
 
DaLincolnJones said:
You have got to be kidding, right?

What part of the fifty percent was wanting to arm what has become ISIS a year ago? What part is not standing up to Putin..how about his stance on any number of scandals that he has been involved with..dude..straight up, what is the positive? Give me three things he has done that are not controversial and have created a positive effect.
Click to expand...

The three things I would list, you would think are negatives. I believe your mind is already made up. But I'll keep playing along while the stress level is low at the moment.

Affordable Care Act
the new DADT policy being pushed for the armed services and marriage rights
the Dream act
 
Eastoff said:
The three things I would list, you would think are negatives. I believe your mind is already made up. But I'll keep playing along while the stress level is low at the moment.

Affordable Care Act
the new DADT policy being pushed for the armed services and marriage rights
the Dream act
Click to expand...

I'm no Obama fan, but I agree with you on the last two.

Too bad he can't find common ground with about half the people and instead chooses to push what he wants through king-like power he claims to have.
 
Denny Crane said:
I'm no Obama fan, but I agree with you on the last two.

Too bad he can't find common ground with about half the people and instead chooses to push what he wants through king-like power he claims to have.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think he's bending far more to the minority party than he should.
 
barfo said:
Do you think ISIL is imaginary like Bush's WMDs?
Click to expand...
Probably as real as the gas Assad used against the rebels.

Do you think air strikes are equivalent to a ground war?
Click to expand...
No, but I think war is war. The administration has already called it war.

“The United States is at war with ISIL [ISIS] in the same way we are at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Friday.
“We know we are at war with ISIL,” Pentagon press secretary Adm. John Kirby agreed.

http://nypost.com/2014/09/13/obama-administration-confirms-isis-conflict-is-war/
Click to expand...

barfo
Click to expand...

Go Blazers
 
Eastoff said:
I disagree. I think he's bending far more to the minority party than he should.
Click to expand...

uh, what has he done to appear like bending?

I never expected to see such a sorry excuse for a President. His complete disregard for the Constitution is appalling and it makes him a liar. Of course he proved he was a liar selling his affordable care act .

The main problem is, he has time for more.
 
Eastoff said:
The three things I would list, you would think are negatives. I believe your mind is already made up. But I'll keep playing along while the stress level is low at the moment.

Affordable Care Act
the new DADT policy being pushed for the armed services and marriage rights
the Dream act
Click to expand...

Okay..I will disregard the qualifier " three things he has done that are not controversial and have created a positive effect."...hell, you did..

DADT and The Dream Act are not new by any stretch, these ideas have been slowly progressing for two decades. what you give him credit for is stuffing it down the throat of congress and the american people. I find it to be a reasonable concept but take exception to the high handed and reckless means to bring it into law.

ACA, hahahah If you have to count this as a positive, you have already lost all credibility.
 
DaLincolnJones said:
Okay..I will disregard the qualifier " three things he has done that are not controversial and have created a positive effect."...hell, you did..

DADT and The Dream Act are not new by any stretch, these ideas have been slowly progressing for two decades. what you give him credit for is stuffing it down the throat of congress and the american people. I find it to be a reasonable concept but take exception to the high handed and reckless means to bring it into law.

ACA, hahahah If you have to count this as a positive, you have already lost all credibility.
Click to expand...

"The three things I would list, you would think are negatives. "

Some people have fundamentally different views on certain subjects. I think taxes and public programs are mostly good. You may disagree. It's just part of who I am.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top