Obama Announces Air Strikes On ISIS In Iraq To Prevent Genocide, page 4

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 08:32 AM

link

a reply to: SirKonstantin

I've felt that way for many years now. Who made the US responsible for the problems in the rest of the world? All I ever hear about is how bad off we are here in the US with debt, poverty, homelessness, scandals, etc... and next I hear how we're spending trillions on war and financial aid in other countries. For once I'd like to hear on the news: "Today we spend $500 billion providing homes for the homeless in the US and feeding our hungry."... It's a pipe dream and will never happen because since when is the US government truly humanitarian? Since when has it ever had it's priorities straight? I believe that JFK was the last REAL president we ever had. He knew what was going on and was outspoken about it. He even tried to end the Federal Reserve, but look what being real for the American people got him. He was taken out for doing the right thing... and the sheep went "BAAAA!"

OpinionatedB

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 08:33 AM

link

a reply to: MrSpad

You are always saying the one thing muslims need to do is learn to work together, and you are correct. I fear it would take ISIS growing far worse to see the day that Hezbollah works with Kurds works with Nusayri works with Twelver works with Sunni works with Iran and so forth.

To be honest, I think this must be though... while America can be a help, their intel is notoriously bad and they always seem to be bumbling idiots running around. In the end, this is a scourge that Muslims need to deal with, as they can best deal with it... should they come together.

I have so many conflicting emotions... honestly. I don't want to see ISIS get stronger, I don't want to see more people die senselessly... but at the same time this is a thing I believe Muslims need to handle - if we want to survive as free men.

edit on 8-8-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

GreyGoo

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 08:36 AM

link

"To prevent genocide" - "humanitarian efforts" Utter bull crap, they pick and choose who they want to help to suit there agenda. They don't do this out of empathy. I'm pretty sure they don't even understand the concept of empathy. My idea is they're just doing a bit pruning to keep isis in check, I imagine isis is working out well for the west. We've got enough war and future wars to keep the ol boys well into there retirement now, well played.

FlyersFan

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 08:40 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
when he made a prisoner trade by "just authorizing it and doing it", he got reamed by Congress and the right for "lawlessness".

Because he broke the law with that trade ... the very law that he himself had recently signed. He called it 'an oversight'. What he did with going around congress was just plain illegal.

This bombing of ISIS, on the other hand, is something that should not be announced ahead of time. It gives ISIS time to prepare. If he's going to do it ... and at this point I don't have any problem with him doing it ... then for crying out loud don't announce to ISIS that you are about to come in and blow them up. They'll hunker down and become a hardened target instead of the soft target they are now.

It's military strategy ... don't announce your intent to the enemy.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

SirKonstantin

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 08:45 AM

link

a reply to: LrdRedhawk

Exactly,

I wonder what would happen if we just said F-Everyone Else and Spent all that money towards border control & defensive set-ups in place to have less men in harms way (heat detecting laser locking tec with sub silencer machine rail guns for both land and air), cleaner energy (cleaner environment), renew-able resources development (sustainable economy), Research and development of viruses, etc. for only Americans (maybe people outside with special interests, but deff everyone within the boarders)(and no biological control evil-ness attached to it)

, Allow free womens choice abortions, kill the condemn killers OR kick them out of the State( i give 2 choices). With this in place, health care would never be an issue because we are ensuring the survival and population control of USA.
Did i miss anything? I kept it all in a general sense to understand where i was heading.
We wouldn't need to rely on others.

FlyersFan

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 08:46 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

So the question I have is this ... Why not let Saudi Arabia deal with it? It's in their backyard. They have the money for the humanitarian aid. They have the fire power. How about they put their hardware on the line and they put their people in the meat grinder for a change?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

LrdRedhawk

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 08:50 AM

link

originally posted by: FlyersFan

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
when he made a prisoner trade by "just authorizing it and doing it", he got reamed by Congress and the right for "lawlessness".

Because he broke the law with that trade ... the very law that he himself had recently signed. He called it 'an oversight'. What he did with going around congress was just plain illegal.

This bombing of ISIS, on the other hand, is something that should not be announced ahead of time. It gives ISIS time to prepare. If he's going to do it ... and at this point I don't have any problem with him doing it ... then for crying out loud don't announce to ISIS that you are about to come in and blow them up. They'll hunker down and become a hardened target instead of the soft target they are now.

It's military strategy ... don't announce your intent to the enemy.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Kurdish news was reporting that US air strikes had already begun hours before the White House said anything about it. From there it started showing up in the NY Times and other MSM sources (which the Pentagon promptly said was false). Then, amazingly, the official announcement was made that the US "will" be conducting air strikes on ISIS in Iraq. Personally, I believe the initial news report from the Kurds that the air strikes had already begun. Like I said before, everyone knows that the White House only announces things to the American people after the fact... after they've already done what they say they are going to do. And again the sheep go "BAAA!"

OpinionatedB

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 08:53 AM

link

a reply to: FlyersFan

They wont. I'm serious, all the wahabi groups have said they are willing to give (allow ISIS to have) Iraq to ISIS, and are hoping they will stay contained there. Anywhere but Iraq the allies of the wahabis will fight ISIS, but they wont fight them in Iraq.

That has already been established. This is what they have said - and these wahabi al-qaeda groups speak for Saudia, the kingdom does not go against them in matters like this. At least they never have before, I see no reason why they would now.

Benevolent Heretic

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 08:56 AM

link

a reply to: SirKonstantin

I understand your point. And I do think others should help. But if you're walking down the street and see an old lady fall down in the traffic, are you going to look around and ask why others aren't helping or are you going to jump in and help her yourself? While I think others should provide assistance, I don't think we can afford to wait for them to act. Helping these people is the right thing to do, whether others have the balls to do it or not.

ispyed

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 08:56 AM

link

originally posted by: FlyersFan

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

So the question I have is this ... Why not let Saudi Arabia deal with it? It's in their backyard. They have the money for the humanitarian aid. They have the fire power. How about they put their hardware on the line and they put their people in the meat grinder for a change?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

The Saudis wont get involved unless ISIS attacks them. They do not want to fight ISIS or offend ISIS because ISIS are a Sunni Muslim organisation, ISIS's aims are the same as Saudi Arabias. Turn Iraq into a Sunni Muslim nation. ISIS are fighting the Shia led iraqi government and Saudi Arabia wants this government overthrown.

The reason America has been the policeman of the world is to prevent world war. The second world war has had a huge effect on world politics to now, but things seem to be changing and it is quite scary looking at the number of conflicts going down at the moment.

LrdRedhawk

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 08:58 AM

link

originally posted by: FlyersFan

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

So the question I have is this ... Why not let Saudi Arabia deal with it? It's in their backyard. They have the money for the humanitarian aid. They have the fire power. How about they put their hardware on the line and they put their people in the meat grinder for a change?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Because that would be logical and make sense. The point you just made proves there's some agenda to all this and we're not being told the truth.

SirKonstantin

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 09:03 AM

link

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You make a great point. And i know modesty is a virtue, but, we need to toot our own horn and call others out for what they didn't do, that we did, and let them feel bad about it. Bring out everyone's true colors so the world knows who is doing what for who. It just gets to me some times and its good to know im not alone in this idea.

LrdRedhawk

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 09:13 AM

link

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: SirKonstantin

I understand your point. And I do think others should help. But if you're walking down the street and see an old lady fall down in the traffic, are you going to look around and ask why others aren't helping or are you going to jump in and help her yourself? While I think others should provide assistance, I don't think we can afford to wait for them to act. Helping these people is the right thing to do, whether others have the balls to do it or not.

Isn't it a prerequisite to helping someone else that you have yourself in order? Where is the help for our own homeless, our own hungry, our own veterans, our own cities falling into ruins? There is none. In fact, the US government sequesters all the money from programs that help our own people and use it for things like this overseas.

American: "I'm cold and hungry, can you please help me?"

White House: "Sorry bud, we had some blankets and food for you, but we just gave it all away to Iraq."

jvm222

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 09:21 AM

link

I found it quite odd that there is massive media coverage on the hurricane ISelle just around the same time he announced the airstrikes because of the group calling themselves "ISIS". 11 years later and still bombing Iraq eh...

I see a bad moon rising.

OpinionatedB

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 09:25 AM

link

a reply to: LrdRedhawk

I very much agree with that. We have so many in need we can ill afford anything overseas. And don't forget our own borders too... we are leaving them in purposeful neglect all the while talking about living in fear of terrorism.

LrdRedhawk

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 11:00 AM

link

UN Special Representative for Iraq says UN is preparing a 'humanitarian corridor' to allow people in need to flee areas under threat - @nmladenov

LrdRedhawk

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 11:01 AM

link

Associated Press videographer @BramJanssen, who is embedded in Islamic State territory in northern Iraq, is tweeting that airstrikes have started near his location. This comes after earlier airstrikes were confirmed by Pentagon officials.

Stormdancer777

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 11:31 AM

link

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I agree, there should be no debate here, when children are being beheaded, how one earth does on sit back and say its not our problem?

edit on 113131p://bFriday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

FlyersFan

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 11:40 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

LIke I said, I have no problem with going in and bombing the heck out of ISIS. Fine.

The things that bug me are ...

1 - Apparently we announced it ahead of time. That's bad military strategy. There are conflicting reports on this but the majority of reports are saying we announced before the limited strike.

2 - A limited strike isn't much help. ISIS should be hit so hard they can't stand back up. Our generals have said that ISIS isn't a terrorist group, it's an army. And you have to fight an army with an army. I'm not saying 'boots on the ground'. I'm saying you need more than a limited airstrike to make a difference.

3 - This is in Saudi Arabias backyard. They should be spending the money and they should be sending their people into the meat grinder to stop this. But as the previous posters - OpinionatedB and ispyed - said so well, the Saudis aren't going to do anything even though they should. The Saudis are punking out.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

tombangelta

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 01:04 PM

link

unbelievable

1) Destroy Iraq's Army
2) Overthrow its Leader
3) Train New Iraq Soldiers
4) sell Arms to Iraq
5) Arm/Syrian dissidents ISIS
6) Let ISIS destroy Iraq army
7) Destroy ISIS
8) Re-arm Iraq army
9) Sell Arms to Iraq.

Couldn't make it up