So now we are sending 130 'military advisers' (Special Forces and Marines.) That brings US forces on the ground to about 1000. The administration is also now talking about the need for lots of boots on the ground. Still no coalition, congressional vote, or UN blessing. Still waiting to hear whether the President's supporters here are for this or against it. Seemed like Bush was painted a war monger when he actually did form a coalition, did go to congress, did process with the UN, and did give Iraq lots of time to prepare. The very things the D's insisted were necessary before starting a war. No Blood For Oil! Go Blazers
Given the elections in Turkey and having that country turn its back on a secular government, I say we go all out and support the Iraqi Kurds. The eastern third of Turkey is Kurdish, and we can keep Erdogan occupied by the Turkish Kurds wanting to join the Iraqi Kurds. In fact, because the other third of what should be Kurdistan is in Iran, we can get a two-fer. Time to give ISIS a little rolling thunder.
So, 10 days in, and the US is now providing air support for Kurdish troops on the ground. Not saving people from genocide. Seems, to a large extent, we are now destroying weapons that we left for the Iraqi's when we left. Does that seem odd to anyone else? We provide weapons to one group, who run instead of fight with those weapons, allowing the terrorists to take the weapons, then we destroy those weapons to help another group. Seems expensive, at the very least. Still no coalition. Still no congressional involvement. Still no UN action. Still no D's wanting to commit to supporting or not supporting these actions. Go Blazers
Fox News will not like it when they read this thread. Those who oppose Obama favor a massacre of 30,000 Christians on a mountaintop by angry Muslims.
This enemy is unique in history. It's a global responsibility to contain the fundamentalist jihadists who are scrambling for strongholds all over the globe. As a combat vet myself who worked processing intel in the Viet Nam conflict, I can tell you first hand that containing a dangerous rebellion requires black ops and 20 years later you'll find out why. Let the administration use it's judgement and trust it until you really have cause not to has been my motto since. War sucks but believe me, it's profitable for Texas arms dealers. Bomber pilots get hazardous duty pay when they fly these missions and they want to have an impact. Maybe isolationism is a good thing, I struggle with that but nobody in the civilian world besides in the field journalists has a fraction of a clue what intel triggers these events and responses. Personally, been there, done that and far from surprised. Does Al Qaida ask a governing body like a congress or UN what to do? The world has bought and sold arms for thousands of years. we armed Iraq against Iran and actually armed Bin Laden to counter the Russian effort in Afghanistan. I'm actually proud of our record in confronting and neutralizing tyranny when necessary. And then again, the election is coming up so there's that old Hatfield vs McCoy diversion to ignore.
Re: The USA is Bombing Iraq Again. Do they bomb anymore? More like laser guided missiles fired from so far away there is no hazard. Except for the guy aiming the laser.
Re: The USA is Bombing Iraq Again. You're absolutely right Denny, I'm speaking in 1971 words and still never had a cell phone. Drones probably do most of it. The weapons have most certainly changed.
Re: The USA is Bombing Iraq Again. They used to carpet bomb. I haven't heard that phrase in decades. Except on the military channel documentaries.
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
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.
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
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
Do you think ISIL is imaginary like Bush's WMDs? Do you think air strikes are equivalent to a ground war? barfo
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.
Wait you telling me you support our president? Do you think he's doing a good job? It's a real question
