It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Handles Iraq Crisis By Golfing In Palm Springs

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: gladtobehere




We already destroyed that country enough.


We did ?

We build roads, and bridges, and schools, and hospitals, and other 'infrastructure' there.

Seems to me We should at the very least protect that 'investment'

Right?


You can tout how we prettied it up all you want Neo, but we ruined the balance that had everyone living in much safer conditions. Saddam's own strikes notwithstanding, you cant argue that we made it even safer than he did, because we didn't. We destabilized a precarious social balance and it's like the country's run amok socially.




posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Well hell

Guess we should have been a brutal dictator like Saddam was instead.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   
so you'd rather he be sending another 200,000 of our troops to get slaughtered?



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice

Okay, so lets play this out.....

World War II had nothing to do with Truman...he just happened to catch the end, and gosh..just did what circumstances dictated. He didn't start it though, so certainly not his fault. Any of it. Right? (In his case, FDR did treat him like a Mushroom for information the whole time, making the new guy routine damn near accurate too)

Vietnam wasn't Nixons doing, and so, we should entirely forgive or just gloss over any screwups from Jan. of 1969 to the end, right? After all, he inherited it. Just like Obama...and if Obama isn't to blame 100% for actions since taking Iraq and Afghan? Then hell.. Nixon gets a pass too.

Applied to ONE *MUST* be applied to ALL equally or it's political hypocrisy at it's very worst.

Finally... The Battle for Mogadishu. A VERY mixed event, mixed outcome and mixed feelings had by all. We even learned later, Al Qaeda had been there..in the shadows..watching, advising and learning at that stage. Smart of them... However... That was Bush's thing too, huh? After all. Bill Clinton didn't START Somalia, so the 5 alarm screw up that the hunt for Aidid became couldn't rightly be his fault either..huh? He only inherited it.

For a 2 term President that rode in on the promise of CHANGE ..and breaks from the past..and a NEW way of running things...he sure gets every form of free pass ever devised for every way he's failed to meet those basic terms where it comes to war.

Hell.. He kept Bush's Secretary Of Defense right into JULY of 2011!. REAL interested in the wars and seeing change come there, huh? Yeah.. I could tell.. he couldn't wait to change those bad policies and bad people. So anxious..he didn't even changes names until over half way through his first term.

Obama owns everything after Jan 2009 because Obama CHOSE to do nothing to CHANGE it in any fundamental way. His option. His baby now.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
so you'd rather he be sending another 200,000 of our troops to get slaughtered?


No Muse

We expected to ISIS being on the current potus kill list.

You know the guy who got a pen, and a drone.

Isis should have been taken out before this cluster eff.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: muse7
so you'd rather he be sending another 200,000 of our troops to get slaughtered?


No Muse

We expected to ISIS being on the current potus kill list.

You know the guy who got a pen, and a drone.

Isis should have been taken out before this cluster eff.


So you want more drone warfare? I thought drones were evil



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: muse7

Did you read what ISIS is all about ?



The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (alternatively translated as Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) (Arabic: الدولة الاسلامية في العراق والشام‎ ad-Dawlat al-Islāmiyya fī’l-‘Irāq wa’sh-Shām), abbreviated as ISIL or ISIS, is an active Jihadist militant group and unrecognized state in Iraq and Syria influenced by the Wahhabi movement.[26][27] In its unrecognized self-proclaimed status as an independent state it claims the territory of Iraq and Syria, with implied future claims intended over more of the Levant (e.g. Lebanon)




n a July 2005 letter to Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Zarqawi outlined a four-stage plan to expand the Iraq War, which included expelling U.S. forces from Iraq, establishing an Islamic authority (caliphate), spreading the conflict to Iraq's secular neighbors, and engaging in the Arab–Israeli conflict.[76] The affiliated groups were linked to regional attacks outside Iraq consistent with their stated plan, such as the Sharm al-Sheikh bombings (2005) in Egypt which killed some 88 people, including many foreign tourists.


en.wikipedia.org...

If anyone needs to be droned it's them.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Neo, your making the same mistake our military made and we're now watching the bitter bitter defeat in full final color to show how utterly wrong it's been.

Not every terrorist belongs to some Union with common beliefs, codes and talking points. ISIS is not Al Qaeda, although they are spawned from it. The leader of this bunch is one even Al Qaeda called rogue and too vicious..and he's got BRAINS. Scary thing, this one is highly intelligent. Well educated formally for that matter, but I don't mean college smarts.

He isn't playing "screw me/find me" like A.Q. cowards did for countless years. he's doing what I've been waiting to see if anyone over there could or would do..and apparently the USG had just written off the whole idea could happen.

Muhammad wasn't some magic man. He's termed a Prophet. That means he wasn't anything special to anything on Earth ..except he was chosen, by Islamic belief, to be the recipient and conveyance for the wisdom of Allah. However..how did anyone ELSE know that or care?

ISIS is headed by a man who learned something we still haven't as a nation. Appearance of power *IS* power in itself and BY itself. Appearance of weakness works equal in opposite. Appearing all powerful (and so far, this guys hitting the bases for proving "mandate", to use the formal term) gets followers. Chopping heads off innocent people to a bloodbath? Does NOT get followers outside the psychopaths ..and intelligent leaders don't want a movement FULL of psychopaths.

THIS guy is attracting BOTH the foot soldier psychos *AND* what Al Qaeda largely failed....The NON-Partisan faithful who really want to see Islam regain it's former position of true glory..and see someone with both the ambition and until he's checked HARD at least ONCE....someone who is succeeding without resistance to slow for.

He's on a roll that's becoming self perpetuating by sheer momentum of people and hope, as warped as we find that word in the circumstances.
edit on 6/13/2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

This to me this is the reason there are just a few moderate Muslims willing to speak.

If you dare speak up...These people will kill your whole family.

That kinda keeps the moderates quiet.

There is no easy solution. We can't fix it.

At some point Iraqis must stand up for themselves. This is that point.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000




Neo, your making the same mistake our military made and we're now watching the bitter bitter defeat in full final color to show how utterly wrong it's been.


Nope.

Had I been in charge we would have won.

The military has three objectives:

1. kill the enemy.
2. WIN.
3 Come home alive.

What it should not have been about is politics.

What it should not have been about 'winning the hearts and minds' snipola.

What it is not about is 'nation building'.

Get in, Kill the enemy, Get out.

Throwing the full weight of the this country behind action abroad.

Had I been in charge ISIS wouldn't even be an issue.



Not every terrorist belongs to some Union with common beliefs, codes and talking points. ISIS is not Al Qaeda, although they are spawned from it. The leader of this bunch is one even Al Qaeda called rogue and too vicious..and he's got BRAINS. Scary thing, this one is highly intelligent. Well educated formally for that matter, but I don't mean college smarts.


Hows that ?

They are both Wahhabbists.

The only difference in the war prosecution I would have done is go straight to the head of the snakes and do regime changes in Saudi Arabia from where Wahhabism comes from. and their kissing cousin's in Iran.

Cutting off the cash, and the aid of both sides of that same coin.

But I am not in charge, never will be in charge, so people don't have to 'worry'.
edit on 13-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
the elite enjoy golf because it's a metaphor for their power

the goal is to put the ball into the hole with minimal expenditure of energy



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere

I don't honestly know if the Iraqis have it in them. I think they did in 2003 when this began, but even that was a people on the wrong end of a decade of severe sanctions which their 'glorious leader' determined should mean 'Pain for thee but NONE for me!'.

Since then, they've had another decade of outright war, since nothing about this war actually ended when U.S. troops left. One combatant side simply withdrew from the field of battle is all that happened. The others resumed their previous war, right where they'd left off.

Now? Who in Iraq would be fighting ....whom exactly? Do the Iraqis even KNOW who among the unoccupied areas are ISIS and who is not? That'll be a fatal error to make, and one not evident until after the area falls to the ISIS fighters. Then Mr. Abu from down the street tells the district ISIS commander that you were a worthless collaborator and you diddle farm yard animals in your spare time too! ....off with your head. Literally..sans trial or anything fancy like that.

I just think we may be seeing a truly broken people for morale after essentially being in economic or open shooting war, in one level or another, since 1990.

--

Maybe...and forgive me all but I WILL say it and screw Washington. Maybe..IRAN will come in and save those we cannot and at this stage, will not. Iran falls NEXT if Iraq goes fully to the Wahhabi. Tehran will be their next logical target, if Damascus isn't seen as a mop up to grab first on principle.

So....We may really see Iran stretch those creaky bones, get off their collective butts and DO something to help save a whole southern nation of Shia citizens in Iraq, who won't be living well if ISIS becomes the Government there. In fact...I don't know how many of those will even survive the transition without Tehran helping.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


Nope.

Had I been in charge we would have won.

The military has three objectives:

1. kill the enemy.
2. WIN.
3 Come home alive.


Well, if those are the objectives, we had absolutely no business ever putting a combat soldier inside that nation but for the personal amusement and ego stroking of the Bush dynasty to get 'the one that got away'. Saddam.

Saddam was hardly low key or subtle and a bullet to the brain pain from 500 meters would have done just as well as hundreds of thousands now dead, a nation in ruins and about to fall to the very garbage we used as a justification to have fought it in the first place.

We got our butts handed to us on this one and it's ending as a total and unmitigated defeat of all we attempted and all we did manage to accomplish. If Iraq falls like this...Not a damn thing our military did was worth the spit of one Iraqi kid in the street.

We have ourselves to thank and we might as well get to thanking each other. The world will be crediting us with this for generations to come, and I just about promise that. (sigh)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000




Well, if those are the objectives, we had absolutely no business ever putting a combat soldier inside that nation but for the personal amusement and ego stroking of the Bush dynasty to get 'the one that got away'. Saddam.


Those are what they should be, but because of politics they aren't.

When we go to WAR we need to GO TO WAR.

And FIGHT it.

Not half arsing it.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

I would much rather have our President golfing rather than sending troops or bombs to Iraq.

I will never understand why some people want us to get involved in another conflict that doesn't involve us. Iraq is their own country, let them handle it themselves.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: IAMTAT

I would much rather have our President golfing rather than sending troops or bombs to Iraq.

I will never understand why some people want us to get involved in another conflict that doesn't involve us. Iraq is their own country, let them handle it themselves.



It is not 'another' conflict.

It is the same conflict we have been dealing with since the Carter administration.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: IAMTAT

I would much rather have our President golfing rather than sending troops or bombs to Iraq.

I will never understand why some people want us to get involved in another conflict that doesn't involve us. Iraq is their own country, let them handle it themselves.



It is not 'another' conflict.

It is the same conflict we have been dealing with since the Carter administration.


It's not our conflict, we should have never been involved.

Now is just as good a time as any to remove ourselves and stay removed from something we should have never been involved with in the first place.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
So do we root for the Iraqi Army whom we trained and armed after we beat them?

Or

Do we root for ISIS which we armed and funded so they could fight against Assad?



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

Yeah well we were not really in the ME,, in the 70s, and 80s, but they came a knocking anyways.

Like the Lockerbie Bombing, and the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

Then the Beruit Embassy bombing, after that the Kobar Towers, the First World Trade Center attacks, and USS Cole, Somailia,September 11th, Benghazi, and a slew of others.

Spans from Carter,Reagan,Bush 1, CLinton,GWB, and now Obama, and the next guy will have to deal with it.
edit on 13-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000
Did I ever once mention my positions on Vietnam or World War II? No? Then why are you creating a strawman?

My point was specific to the Iraq War and the concept and execution of the "War on Terror". Each war that we have engaged in is different. The War on Terror, as a whole and as executed, was entering into an eternal state of war without end and the broader the sword, the greater the hydra. We could've parked ourselves in Iraq for 20 years and the outcome would've most likely stayed the same.

I do not support Barack Obama in many of his decisions and behaviors and I will be as quick to lay blame at his feet as you or any other. However, on this specific instance, we screwed up when we entered into Iraq and bombed the snot out of it. That was an extraordinarily broad sword. Additionally reports of our "enhance interrogation techniques in Abu Ghraib, Guatanamo and etc certainly did us no favors in that regard. Some of those shockings that surfaced from Abu Ghraib were actually authorized enhanced interrogation techniques--specifically the sadly iconic photo of a detainee totally nude with a black bag over his head. To do such things required high level authorization according to this 2004 correspondence released via FOIA:

www.aclu.org...

Gates maintaining his position as Secretary of Defense is not that unsurprising. He was put into position to replace Rumsfield after Rumsfield was forced to resign. He did not go down favorably viewed by either the public or the military. Gates' confirmation by Congress, on the other hand, was near unanimous and at the time where Obama took the presidency, Iraq seemed to be coming under control. Additionally, Gates actually released information to the public in regards to interrogation techniques in the previous administration. He was actually quite on point when he made these observations:


Another concern, Gates said, was the possibility that the Obama administration's release of the memos would cause a "backlash in the Middle East" that could adversely affect U.S. forces operating there. In discussions, he said, senior administration officials realized the disclosure could be "used by al-Qaeda" to generate opposition against the United States.

Despite these concerns, Gates said he believed it was very likely that the interrogation memos would eventually become public, especially considering congressional probes and lawsuits on detainee operations.

www.washingtonpost.com...

It was really a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation where being open might actually have a better outcome as a sign of openness. Furthermore, the question of interrogation v. torture had opened up years prior with the release of the pictures from Abu Ghraib. Although Abu Ghraib was stated to be an isolated incident, it still opened the door to those conversations and examination of what were considered acceptable interrogation techniques.

These things being done in an area where the population was either on the fence or against the US served to do nothing more than create the monster that became ISIS. That is on Bush. Obama has been utilizing drone strikes for the same purpose and now, every single drone strike that hits a civilian target simply acts to ignite. That's on him but the beast was more than likely already made long before.

I'm actually really curious to see what Obama is going to do in response to this because, quite frankly, the hydra we created is out and probably has a whole lot of heads if entire cities are toppling in Iraq. To be dreadfully honest, we probably would've needed to occupy Iraq for another 50 years while minding our P's and Q's so that a whole generation could be born under US control as terrible as it sounds. We didn't do that though so what are we going to do now? If you were commander in chief, what would you do? I don't envy Obama's position one iota.

Honestly, it feels like the only thing our country has been good at in the last 10 or so years has been pouring gas on itself and Iraq.

PS. I didn't vote for Obama in either election. Just so you know that.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join