Air strikes ordered by Obama in Iraq!

Ralphy1

Ralphy1

Well-known Member
Here we go again! Some will say it is about time and others will say it is nuts. The humanitarian side of saving the lives of non-combatants being threatened by Isis is understandable, but it seems to me that the military side is unwise. Your thoughts are encouraged...
 

My main feeling is great grief for all the lives of Americans & our allies already lost there, with good intentions but nothing accomplished. Grief that it seems that the moderates of the world are increasingly becoming victims of the fanatics.
 
I think that the American public is sick of trying to fix not only Iraq, but the world. It may not be the way to go but an isolationist movement is growing as our problems at home mount...
 
Ralphy1 said:
I think that the American public is sick of trying to fix not only Iraq, but the world. It may not be the way to go but an isolationist movement is growing as our problems at home mount...
Click to expand...

Obamas poll number have been dropping all this year so the best way to correct this is to have more press conferences,3 so far this month,and go bomb someplace,anyplace and say "it was for humanity to save lives".

My question is where the hell is Germany,France,England,Canada in all this????
 
We don't want anything to do with it thanks; neither do the Scots or Welsh. Tony Blair dragged us in last time....now he is Middle East peace envoy.
With that as an example; they don't want us either....
 
We shouldn't have ever been in Iraq in the first place, IMO. I don't think Obama is a war monger like some past presidents, and would like to end the senseless wars this country was in when he took office. His administration has had a lot to deal with, and I think he's doing the best he can, trying not to actually put boots on the ground again. He's damned if he does, and he's damned if he doesn't. With the nonsense in Gaza, Russia, Iraq all going on at once, topped off with border issues and Ebola, it's a mess for sure. I know one thing, I wouldn't want to be president if it meant handling all the nonsense that others before me have started.
 
re:trying not to actually put boots on the ground again.


If a pilot of any planes are shot down and catured/killed then there is American soldiers boots on the ground.
Same goes for the Marines guarding those embassies if they step outside those embassy grounds.
 
SeaBreeze said:
We shouldn't have ever been in Iraq in the first place, IMO. I don't think Obama is a war monger like some past presidents, and would like to end the senseless wars this country was in when he took office. His administration has had a lot to deal with, and I think he's doing the best he can, trying not to actually put boots on the ground again. He's damned if he does, and he's damned if he doesn't. With the nonsense in Gaza, Russia, Iraq all going on at once, topped off with border issues and Ebola, it's a mess for sure. I know one thing, I wouldn't want to be president if it meant handling all the nonsense that others before me have started.
Click to expand...

Amen.
 
Falcon said:
Obama only thinks about his own agendum; nothing else.
Click to expand...

Obama has tried to reach across the aisle on countless occasions & had his hand slapped for it on every one of them.

And what President hasn't thought primarily about his own agenda?

That's kinda the point of having an agenda, isn't it?
 
SeaBreeze said:
We shouldn't have ever been in Iraq in the first place, IMO. I don't think Obama is a war monger like some past presidents, and would like to end the senseless wars this country was in when he took office. His administration has had a lot to deal with, and I think he's doing the best he can, trying not to actually put boots on the ground again. He's damned if he does, and he's damned if he doesn't. With the nonsense in Gaza, Russia, Iraq all going on at once, topped off with border issues and Ebola, it's a mess for sure. I know one thing, I wouldn't want to be president if it meant handling all the nonsense that others before me have started.
Click to expand...

.......and a Congress fighting every move he makes.
 
So what else is new?


The fighter jets took off from the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush, in the Persian Gulf. After the first strike, the warplanes returned a short time later to hit the target a second time. The mission marked a return to U.S. military engagement in Iraq, three years after Obama removed U.S. forces.
 
I support the President's action; the humanitarian move to drop food and water. We will be joined by the Brits on this humanitarian effort. Protecting our troops in the north and the northward move against the Kurds.
 
Not much else Obama could do.

As was said earlier... we never should've been in Iraq to begin with.
 
From my vantage point down under I saw the invasion of Iraq as something personal for George Bush Jnr. It was unfinished business from the first Gulf War. The justification, weapons of mass destruction, was tissue thin at the time. I think the attempted assassination of his father was something that stirred the President's anger.

Afghanistan was different. Clearly it was a base for terrorism and was directly linked to the events of 9/11. Even so, the problem mostly decamped across the border into Pakistan and from there to other muslim countries.

After Hussein was toppled in Iraq all hell broke loose. He had, by his own brutal methods, maintained control of his fiefdom. Rebuilding and quelling the populace proved difficult and costly, in lives as well as dollars. In spite of all the training invested in the Iraqi army, when called upon in the north against the rebels, they did not stand their ground and fight. They had the numbers but they failed to hold firm.

IMO, no outside power can do the job for Iraq. It must solve it's own problems and that goes for the whole of the Middle East. However, when a massive humanitarian crisis presents, the rest of the world must try to do something. When the UN is powerless, as it is in the case of a civil war or an insurgency, then other agencies are all that is left.

I think Obama has no other choice but to lead. Other nations should stand by to take evacuees and offer logistical support - airbases, relief supplies etc. What none of us want is Gulf War III.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
From my vantage point down under I saw the invasion of Iraq as something personal for George Bush Jnr. It was unfinished business from the first Gulf War. The justification, weapons of mass destruction, was tissue thin at the time. I think the attempted assassination of his father was something that stirred the President's anger.

Afghanistan was different. Clearly it was a base for terrorism and was directly linked to the events of 9/11. Even so, the problem mostly decamped across the border into Pakistan and from there to other muslim countries.

After Hussein was toppled in Iraq all hell broke loose. He had, by his own brutal methods, maintained control of his fiefdom. Rebuilding and quelling the populace proved difficult and costly, in lives as well as dollars. In spite of all the training invested in the Iraqi army, when called upon in the north against the rebels, they did not stand their ground and fight. They had the numbers but they failed to hold firm.

IMO, no outside power can do the job for Iraq. It must solve it's own problems and that goes for the whole of the Middle East. However, when a massive humanitarian crisis presents, the rest of the world must try to do something. When the UN is powerless, as it is in the case of a civil war or an insurgency, then other agencies are all that is left.

I think Obama has no other choice but to lead. Other nations should stand by to take evacuees and offer logistical support - airbases, relief supplies etc. What none of us want is Gulf War III.
Click to expand...

I think you're right about the personal aspect of why Bush was so hot to invade Iraq, but I think there were other components to it as well.

I think #1, he wanted to be seen as taking some sort of retribution for 9/11, against a hostile Arab country. I think he figured that any Arab country would do, but Afghanistan, where the attackers actually were, was so remote & underdeveloped, that all attacking them would amount to, would be little more than making holes in the sand. So he went with the next best place, which, conveniently for him, had a bogie man in the form of Saddam Hussein at it's head. And everyone hated Saddam Hussein, so it was the perfect deflection. "Hey look... Bush is blowing up those Arabs who attacked us!!! Yayyyyyyy!!!!"

And #2, I think he figured Iraq would be a cake walk & that after going in there, taking out Hussein & turning Iraq into another mini-America with 7 Elevens & McDonald's on every corner, he would be seen by Americans, the world & by history, as a great foreign policy genius with his name mentioned in the same breath with Ronald Reagan. And of course, cementing a second term for himself.
 
There are some parts of the world that history tells us are places to avoid if you don't want to invite disaster - Russia (Napoleon and Hitler), Afghanistan (Britain, Russia, USA and friends), China and it's satellites, and above all of these, the Middle East, especially Arabia.
 
Such a tangled mess over there, with much to debate about past policies and finger pointing as to blame for what is now reality. I'm generally not a supporter of many of this president's policies, but who can doubt that he is right and had no choice in sending humanitarian aid and pinpoint air strikes to protect Americans already there in danger? Beyond that, he says that there will be no American boots on the ground under his regime, but only time will tell. God help us all if ISIS is allowed to continue on it's crusade of persecution and elimination of Christians and establishment of their ideal of worldwide Sharia Law.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top