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.

 

What should the President do?

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   
After recent news that some US troops will be sent back into Iraq, many new threads and even more posts have been putting down the President's decision to do this. Some say it is to assist Americans already there and to provide security until they can get out. Others think it's just starting as a trickle, but eventually we will have more and more troops poured in.

My question is for all of you, is there a right answer to this problem? Some might say troops never should have been in the Middle East. I do believe they would be worse off if we did not aid the country in defending against a terrorist organization.

Personally, I do not think America should be in charge of policing the world. The Middle East is a screwed up place, and I believe us being there does show that we care about people in other countries. Our care for human lives shouldn't stop at the borders of our own country. Again, that means we should help, not babysit the world. It also doesn't mean we should allow illegal immigrants into the country at the downfall of our own citizens.

For everyone that believes Iraq is screwed up because American troops go in and rape all the women and gun down the children: stop taking your news from msm. I would much rather take my news from soldiers who were actually there and saw the differences they were making. They saw they were making streets safer for families that felt they might be shot every time they went outside.

This may have turned into a bit of a rant, but what do you think the right thing to do here? And then think what others might think of this decision. What might be the repercussions following what happens. Don't say "I don't care what other people think." The Obama administration has been doing enough of that.

Thanks for any insights everyone.




posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Sadly, I do not think that there is a correct answer to your question.
In my opinion, the US should closely monitor the situation, but should not go in and take control.
Let the ones fighting fight and when a clear winner is emerging, then the US should make it's move if needed.
Some people want to do air strikes, but to me that is just inviting civilian loss that has the potential to make even more anti-western terrorists.
Some want "boots on the ground" I feel this is NOT the right direction. So many have already given up so much to advance the US's interests in the middle east and it is not fair to ask more young men and women to go die for national INTEREST (not national security or "protecting freedoms. more soldiers are realizing what they are really fighting for)
The main reason the US is concerned, in my opinion, is to protect Israel from potential danger.
I truly feel that if the Israelis had any balls, THEY would be the one fighting and sending troops. Not the US.
It is high time they did something useful to fight the "war on Terror" instead of invoking it.
Until there is a "legitimate" threat to Americans in America, then the US should focus on securing our southern border and trying to take care of the soldiers who already sacrificed so much, and returned to a flawed VA system and a flawed gov't who does not give them the help the need to survive civilian life after war.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
We should pull our people out and let Iraq solve their own problems. Before we pulled out we trained and armed them that should be the end of our responsibilities. These nations need to start standing up for themselves.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
America needs Iraqi oil... so does Canada and many other Western states. Because of that unpleasant truth, America will do whatever it can without being seen as directly involved.

The group is fighting to carve out an Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (whither comes ISIS) ruled by the majority of Sunni in the area. This will be untenable to those states (like Iran) who have a majority of Shia and threaten to engulf the whole of the ME in a war.

Beyond the ME, particularly in the Far East and Africa, lie other Islamic states which may also become embroiled in a quickly widening conflict.

IMO, the West should stay out of it as much and as long as possible and get busy on alternative sources of oil (such as derived from hemp). It's time to be inventive rather than relying on the standards of the past.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
We should pull our people out and let Iraq solve their own problems. Before we pulled out we trained and armed them that should be the end of our responsibilities. These nations need to start standing up for themselves.


I really hate doing this but I agree with buster.

Iraq can either be a perpetual quagmire for the USA, or hands off, get out and let the Sunnis and Shiites have their battles until the end.

It has been in the works for well over a thousand years.

Americans in Iraq now and in the future are literally potential targets for either killing, or capture for ransom... Get out!

The only other viable option for the USA is a full invasion, occupation and making Iraq permanent US territory... A 51st state?

All the way or nothing, and get out completely.

Simple choice eh?



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   
The easy answer is leave and let them sort it out. Of course short term that might be ok but, long term that could be a disaster. A collapse in Iraq would then lead to a defeat of both Assad and the Syrian Rebels in Syria. ISIS also hates Iran and the Arab States nor do they have any love for the Turks. The loss of Iraqs oil would be bad, perhaps bad enough to stall the economic recovery. The spreading of he conflict into Iran and the Gulf States would be a disaster for the global economy. By doing nothing now we could be setting ourselves up for something much worse down the road. This is the lesson we learned from two world wars.

On the other hand if the US rushes in and saves day then the Iraqi forces will never feel the need to risk their own skin if they know they can take off and the American will comes save the day.

So a measured repsonse is what we are doing and that is the best answer in my opnion. Enough to show support and give the Iraqis some advantages without doing the heavly lifting to for them. Will they depend on us still down the road? Yes but, at least at much more limited level and we avoid the disaster that could follow by inaction.
edit on 17-6-2014 by MrSpad because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ArnoldNonymous

What should the current Destroyer-in-Chief; Narcissist-in-Chief; Pathological Liar-in-Chief

do?

Confess his many traitorous evil doings; repent and make it as right as he can by leaving the post via:

Firing Biden. Replacing him with a patriot.

Then resigning himself.

Oh, about Iraq?

Hmmmmm . . .

Perhaps destroying the ISIS from the air . . . or via exotic tech weapons . . .

But I doubt his globalist bosses would support that . . .

It's a mess. It will get worse. That's their script. The White House thug cannot rewrite their script. He's their stooge.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: masqua


We only get a small slice of oil from Iraq, China gets the largest amount and the didn't even fight.

If we don't find a way to eliminate these scum they will eventually find their way to city near you.


Buckle up boys and girls it's going to be one hell of a ride.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArnoldNonymous

What should the President do?


Resign.

In disgrace.


edit on 6/17/2014 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Buster, you are definitely known as an opinionated individual on this site and often give good arguments. Sometimes I think we should just let them deal with it and let them kill each other. The main issue I see with this is once the religious extremists get enough power there (which they would because they’re taking over cities all over by day), they will look to attack America. Then it really becomes an issue with national security.

a reply to: MrSpad

I agree with you there. We can't solve their own problems for them. It's good to assist, but not do everything.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: CaticusMaximus

Haha. Can't disagree with that sound logic.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   
The problem is perspective.

Folks in that part of the world don't see things the way we do. Our version of good and evil is so far different than theirs that there is a total lack of understanding on both parts. Choosing sides doesn't work without a clear understanding of their perspective. It only gets us in trouble.

You ask what the president should do? Stop supplying them with weapons. Stop supplying them with bullets. Stop teaching them in the art of war. Take a defensive roll in backing out completely. If we really wanted to give a hand up to Iraq and it's neighbors we would subsidise their farms, share some of the progressive farming techniques and completely ignore their tribal disputes.

They do have much more than oil to offer in trade. They need to stop harvesting the oil and start building safe effective Infrastructure. The oil is only fuelling greed on both sides.
edit on 17-6-2014 by Quauhtli because: ...



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ArnoldNonymous



The main issue I see with this is once the religious extremists get enough power there (which they would because they’re taking over cities all over by day), they will look to attack America.

All of the extremists have been saying the same thing for years. Get out of our countries and stay out. The only reason why they hate us is because we keep interfering with their nations. We overthrow their governments and install puppet dictators that allow our corporations to go and rape their natural resources and treat the natives like dirt. If another nation were to do that to America would you welcome that nation with open arms or would you fight against them?
Even if they were able to take over these nations they still wouldn't be able to attack America. None of these nations air forces have the capability to reach America they don't have ICBM's and their Navy's would never be able to get past ours. We have nothing to fear from these groups because as soon as one takes power another group forms to fight against them.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
A finger needs to be pointed at Islam deliberately for once. They need to reconcile the Sunni, Shi'a and Shiite sects.
This perpetual war is good for no one except war profiteers and the people pushing violence for their sect.

Islam needs to be analyzed internationally. What is it's purpose? Why do people follow Islam?
Why is it worth this bloody mess?



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Question...."what should the president do?
Answer.....STEP DOWN.....



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   
he should protect & defend the Embassy there... from the lawless Jihadist fundamentalist killers he armed & paid to fight against the Assad Armies in Syria

the ISIS went Rogue and is determined to take out the puppet regime of the American installed dictator 'Maliki' who has continually punished & singled out the Sunni population for persecution by that regime...
Obama just getting his deserved 'blow-back'

the USA, (preferably without mr. BHO, the occupant-of-the-Oval-Office)...
should protect the 5,000 Embassy personnel in that mini-city compound and then---> give All Out support to the Kurds & their creation of a 'Kurdistan' country carved out of Iraq...

and forget about Saudi Arabia....just like they have dissed the USA...
imho, Saudi Arabia changed the mission of ISIS from fighting the Syrian Army to a 'kill everything' 'March to Baghdad'
with the purpose to destroy the USA installed, Shia led Iraq government
edit on th30140303943617102014 by St Udio because: clarity



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: St Udio
he should protect & defend the Embassy there... from the lawless Jihadist fundamentalist killers he armed & paid to fight against the Assad Armies in Syria

the ISIS went Rogue and is determined to take out the puppet regime of the American installed dictator 'Maliki' who has continually punished & singled out the Sunni population for persecution by that regime...
Obama just getting his deserved 'blow-back'

the USA, (preferably without mr. BHO, the occupant-of-the-Oval-Office)...
should protect the 5,000 Embassy personnel in that mini-city compound and then---> give All Out support to the Kurds & their creation of a 'Kurdistan' country carved out of Iraq...

and forget about Saudi Arabia....just like they have dissed the USA...
imho, Saudi Arabia changed the mission of ISIS from fighting the Syrian Army to a 'kill everything' 'March to Baghdad'
with the purpose to destroy the USA installed, Shia led Iraq government


I know the region can be confusing so I am going to help you out a bit. The ISIS in Syria is not western backed, nor Arab backed. The West and Arab backed the Free Syrian Army and some other less radical groups. The ISIS and the Syrian rebels have been fighting each other for sometime now just as they have been also been fighting Assad. The ISIS would like to topple all the Arab states in the region and the Royals who rule them as enemies. The leadership of Iraq is hardly a US puppet and in fact has closer ties with Iran. Of course the Kurds claim the ISIS is now working with Assad and that he is supporting this move in Iraq.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ArnoldNonymous

Forget about Iraq and help the soldiers who are already suffering instead of making new suffering soldiers. In other words. Fix the VA. Or at least worry about domestic problems for once...



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: ArnoldNonymous

What should the current Destroyer-in-Chief; Narcissist-in-Chief; Pathological Liar-in-Chief do?

Once again...

I don't have to spell that out, do I?



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
The President should listen to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other intel and strategy experts and advisers. The UN is not going to be helpful, the only thing Obama has to gain my obeying the UN is a future chair.

Just my $.02, I am not even an arm chair general.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join