And 'round and 'round we go. Obama says this will be a Long Term Project

You folks sure give Obama a lot of credit. Reading your posts would give one the idea that Obama knows EVERYTHING done by EVERY individual on this planet at ALL times. That kinda puts him in a God-like light. I mean, if it's Obama's fault for EVERYTHING that EVER happens, then he obviously knows EVERYTHING. Maybe God (Obama) is just punishing us for being naughty little boys and girls. He does work in mysterious ways, you know.

Give it a break. This "it's Obama's fault for everything" has really gotten old. It's easy to point fingers, but it's a lazy way out; it's a lot harder to implement solutions.

You know, there's a big difference difference between our unjustified invasion, occupation and destruction of Iraq and using air strikes to prevent an evil, muderous terrorist group from commiting genocide. Considering we (Bush Admin) are largely responsible for setting the stage for this catastrophe, we're morally obligated to act accordingly to help the innocent people being slaughtered over there right now. If not for our war mongering, nation building, blood thirsty neo-cons, this would not have taken place. The person we so proudly hung by the neck over there would not have allowed it.

Unlike today, there was a time in this country when it had at least some small sense of moral and ethical values. What there was of it seems to have degenerated into today's dumbed-down, torch-bearing lynch mob mentality. If we spent half the energy solving problems as we spend on hating everything, this might just be a halfway decent place to live.

It is what it is...

a reply to: netbound

These atrocities have gone on for months unmitigated. All of it has been covered in the news, are you saying that Obama was unaware of it until recently?

I think the rabbit hole is deeper, I think obama is afraid, I think his inaction and reluctance even now suggest that his actions are governed by outside influences.

He had to be dragged into this kicking and screaming...

imo.

By the way, if you don't want to blame Obama, blame Bush, that always seems to work.

originally posted by: TDawgRex
Welcome to the real world Barack. This ain't a popularity contest.

Well, actually, it is.

That's why Obama won two elections by popular vote.

When the Drunken Cowboy that caused the mess in the first place only won One.

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: netbound
By the way, if you don't want to blame Obama, blame Bush, that always seems to work.

Good idea!

Let's lay the blame firmly where it is due.

a reply to: ausername

I put the blame where I think it belongs. Fair enough?

I can understand Obama's (America's) reluctance to get involved in Iraqi (or any other middle-eastern) affairs. We just got out of a decade's long war there, and most American's do not wish to go back. Obama has made it clear that air strikes alone will not resolve this problem; that it's ultimately up to Iraqi leadership to haqndle it. Aside from responding to the genocide taking place, what the US is doing is trying to protect Americans that may be in danger if ISIS makes any further progress into Kurdish territory. There are some American diplomats located there.

Are you suggesting we should have gone into Syria, or where-ever, long ago to eliminate ISIS? I don't get where you're coming from. What is your solution to the problem? Impeach Obama? You apparently have inside information.

You know, it's a very violent, chaotic world out there right now. There are atrosities going on all over the world. The US must pick and choose which one's are appropriate for us to meddle into. We can't put out EVERY fire in the world. You can sit around turning everything Obama does into some kind of conspiracy, but that doesn't solve anything. It just an uninformed opinion that gives you something to post on this board.

a reply to: netbound

Brief and simple, it is far too little, far, far too late....

a reply to: ausername

He is intervening to support the Kurds not the devil worshipers. You think the USA should have a war with ISIS?

a reply to: ispyed

My first post in this thread will answer that.

a reply to: TDawgRex

Who was Sec. of State back then?

Maybe that person should have done their job a little better, eh?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: TDawgRex
Who was Sec. of State back then?
Maybe that person should have done their job a little better, eh?

Which?

Powell or Rice?

Powell lied to the UN, obviously. But Rice rode the lie too.

originally posted by: BritofTexas

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: TDawgRex
Who was Sec. of State back then?
Maybe that person should have done their job a little better, eh?

Which?

Powell or Rice?

Powell lied to the UN, obviously. But Rice rode the lie too.

But Clinton, then Kerry picked up the baton and continued to carry it. I find it pretty silly that you think that Obama is any different than Bush. Well, maybe in melanin they are, but that's about it.

Another thing before you get on your high horse, both Powell and Clinton had the sense to resign when they could see that it was all a lie. Powell because he had a sense of standards and ethics and Clinton because she could see where this was all headed and knew it would ruin her chances of becoming POTUS.

a reply to: TDawgRex

So a Sec. of State resigns to protect her career instead of doing her ####ing job.

Yeah, a sure bet for POTUS.

a reply to: TDawgRex

Lets see our multi million dollar CIA, FBI and all the other agencies we have didn't see the fall of the Soviet Union until the walls were coming down.
They failed to detect and stop the Oklahoma City bombing.
They didn't see or stop the 9/11 attacks.
Did they ever catch who was responsible for the anthrax attacks?
They were wrong about Iraq in every way.
They apparently didn't see the Benghazi attack coming.
They failed to detect or stop the Boston bombing.

Makes me wonder what were paying for.

originally posted by: LDragonFire

Makes me wonder what were paying for.

Stocking the wet bars in every congressman's office.

a reply to: TDawgRex

As I always start out with this analysis on this topic I say again, baring any globalist plot, it’s clear to me why Obama and the administration has failed in this area.

Very simply: you can’t fight two different wars at the same time with the same people with
divergent priorities

I am shocked that the so called experts can't figure this out.

The US was trying to fight terrorism and the Assad regime at the same time. A ridiculous and self-defeating methodology.

Did the US fight Russia and Germany in WWII?
Of course not. You alliy with the lessor of two evils and then fight the worst enemy at one time.

What Obama did amounted to fighting a war on two fronts. A methodology that lost Germany two wars.

In any strategic war one has to choose priorities, not cross purpose confused allegiances such as the US did in Syria Iraq.

Do they want to eliminate terror or bother with the hidden neocon agenda to overthrow Assad?

You CANT DO BOTH!

Obama tried to placate both of these agendas and therefore ended up lacking success in both.

Now he has a real problem on his hands.

He has to forget Syria and concentrate all his energy on defeating the menace ISIL

originally posted by: ispyed
a reply to: ausername

He is intervening to support the Kurds not the devil worshipers. You think the USA should have a war with ISIS?

no he isn't, he hasn't even sent MRE's to the kurds!

he is ONLY doing something coz the world is watch him now. it took the collapse of his greatest accomplishment to force him to move

and then it's only grudgingly to drop a couple bombs.

all he is doing to IS is annoying them and the rest of the world.

a reply to: tsingtao

I looks like some one in the UG Gov't is sending arms now. Maybe the State Dept?

www.foxnews.com...

The Associated Press, citing senior U.S. officials, reported early Monday that the weapons were being provided to the Kurds. The officials did not specify which government agency is supplying the weapons, but one did say it is not the Pentagon. However, the officials did say that the Obama administration is close to approving a plan for the Pentagon to arm the Kurds.

originally posted by: netbound
a reply to: ausername

I put the blame where I think it belongs. Fair enough?

I can understand Obama's (America's) reluctance to get involved in Iraqi (or any other middle-eastern) affairs. We just got out of a decade's long war there, and most American's do not wish to go back. Obama has made it clear that air strikes alone will not resolve this problem; that it's ultimately up to Iraqi leadership to haqndle it. Aside from responding to the genocide taking place, what the US is doing is trying to protect Americans that may be in danger if ISIS makes any further progress into Kurdish territory. There are some American diplomats located there.

Are you suggesting we should have gone into Syria, or where-ever, long ago to eliminate ISIS? I don't get where you're coming from. What is your solution to the problem? Impeach Obama? You apparently have inside information.

You know, it's a very violent, chaotic world out there right now. There are atrosities going on all over the world. The US must pick and choose which one's are appropriate for us to meddle into. We can't put out EVERY fire in the world. You can sit around turning everything Obama does into some kind of conspiracy, but that doesn't solve anything. It just an uninformed opinion that gives you something to post on this board.

Your argument is flawed from that line I highlighted for you. Obama was quick to attack Libya and Syria, no matter WHAT the peoples or Congresses voice on the matter, but when the situation calls for it he drags his feet when it is needed for atrocities but its ok to destabilize nations??? That is some pretty twisted logic.

Grim

ausername

These atrocities have gone on for months unmitigated. All of it has been covered in the news, are you saying that Obama was unaware of it until recently?

I think the rabbit hole is deeper, I think obama is afraid, I think his inaction and reluctance even now suggest that his actions are governed by outside influences.

He had to be dragged into this kicking and screaming...

imo.

quite right... ISIS even got loose from the Saudi & Qatar control...
al-Baghdadi = Caliph Ibrahim got a case of the hubris...in the sense that ~absolute power corrupts absolutely~

imho... Saudi-Qatar-UAE all forced the USA to be aiding the fragmented factions of the AQ in Syria body of fighters

and ISIS blindsided all the big powers in the region...ISIS backstabbed Saudi by not being their puppet proxy army to counter the Shia led Baghdad & Shia led Iranian Republic... but instead went for the independence route as a self proclaimed Caliphate...

ushering in a Caliphate & allowing human nature to go unrestrained in committing atrocities ISIS is still growing in popularity and attracting foot soldiers to Its own version of overthrowing TPTB (the West, Arabia, Mecca, etc)


this 'stand' by the USA, in the form of Air Strikes upon ISIS was most likely demanded by the Saudi's...to get their proxy army (IS) back under control...
~I do not think that Obama has rescinded his philosophy that there are no such persons as 'Radical Muslims', and chose to attack ISIS on humanitarian grounds~ No, he has been coerced to bomb fellow Muslims