Obama tells Baghdad that Islamic State is THEIR fight

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Willtell

Problem with the world wide revolution, is most folks couldnt care for themselves long enough to wipe their asses with a leaf. I can identify over 500 wild plants vastly more propagated...so what would you have people do...once the "successful" revolt is over. My family is going to be just fine barring bigger guns then we have...but what about you and others that more than likely still buy your food?

my goodness aren't you fabulous.

a reply to: BlueJacket

Chill out bro


In the end of the beginning we will win

and we are near


Keep the faith

peace out

originally posted by: xuenchen

I have no idea why and I don't know what Obama's end goal is.

Thats your problem right there.

You think he actually HAS a end goal.

More likely he is bumbling along and making things up on the fly.

I seriously doubt the US president has much power anyway.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: stormcell
Considering that the USA and UK bombed the **** out of Iraq, deposed a dictator that kept the country stable, dropped the quality of life and standard of living for the whole population, resulting in continuing suicide bombing attacks, forced educated workers to emigrate resulting in poor medical health care, if I were an Iraqi, I wouldn't have any motivation to stop ISIS either. I'd just stand aside, point and say "Europe's in that direction", and let them rumble past.

What a load of BS.

What the the invasions of 1991 and 2003 were just a dream?

We dropped love hugs and Freedom on Iraq ?

I am failing to see the BS.

a reply to: xuenchen

George Bush created this mess by sending our troops into Iraq when we had no business sending them over there in the first place!!! Stop spreading your conservative rhetoric and ignoring who started this entire destabilization.

Yeah, I can make sense of this. ISIS is in their territory and it's their fight! The rest of the Middle East needs to band together if they want to wipe it out once and for all. I believe the reason why ISIS has gained so much ground in the middle east is because there's more support for them than we're led to believe.

Is Obama guilty for continuing this crap, absolutely!!! However, I think I speak for a majority of parents out there. We don't want to sacrifice our sons or daughters on foreign land due to a secret agenda by politicians that revolved around the control of oil and influence in a region that's made up of religious fanatics which have been fighting among themselves for over a thousand years!

Armies were created to defend their homeland from attack, not to influence and force our will on another sovereign nation no matter how much their ideology differs with ours. Foreign countries have taken the U.S. for granted way too long. They expect us to sacrifice our young men and women to preserve their way of life. Yet these countries would turn around and dance in the street the minute we are attacked by another country. Just like they did after 911.

Maybe if we had a hands-off foreign policy, we would have less enemies and be at peace. Maybe if these countries realize their was no life line, they would have no choice but to pick-up arms and defend their own country! A snake will always strike back when it's cornered. There's absolutely no difference here.

I can imagine if ISIS was rolling into the U.S. to take over cities. Residents who have never even owned a gun would take up arms to defeat them. There would be so much anger, people of this country would unite to defeat this evil. Unfortunately, it seems like the middle east people don't find ISIS a big as a threat as the rest of the civilized world does. Have them live under it and than watch the pot boil over.

a reply to: xuenchen

This is a bit more complicated than that.

ISIS was initiiated as a reaction against shia militias brutalitiy against sunni demonstrators, who for months staged demos against Iraq prime minister (shia) Nour Al-Maliki. That fellow did not want to leave before the situation had escalted into full ISIS led civil war (he pleaded more troops and aid from Obama, and received yes with condition he resigns (Maliki that is).

So, at this point, Maliki and shias indeed manhandled sunnis in Iraq, and managed to alienate most of the nation against them - and are now facing the ultimate fruit of their actions - and if ISIS is to consult in this matter - these shias will die.

If not then Obama joined with IRAN to give military protection to Baghdad and other shia areas in Iraq.

Wow, I can't believe I am saying this but I agree with Obama.

It is the Iraqis fight, along with the other regional players and the the only one's who seem to be fighting ISIS, the Kurds. In fact if it ever ends up that the west goes back into the sandbox, I hope that is in alliance and defence of the Kurds. I think that may be the only scenario that I could possibly support, even then I'd be iffy in giving my support to that.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Ok, so he said that. And...........

HE'S RIGHT.

It is their fight. How much I wish Bush had the shown the same wisdom in the first place by leaving Saddam the hell alone. Had we left Iraq alone back in 2003, ISIS wouldn't have likely even been a problem today.

If there is ever going to be a real blow against religious extremism in the Middle East, it has to be made by countries themselves. Have people gone brain dead and forgotten how the past 14 years of the "war on terror" in the Middle East have gotten us no where, and just led to even worse problems?

That said, if the Iraqis themselves have no will nor desire to fight ISIS, then why the hell should we? Especially seeing how WE ARE BROKE AND DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO TAKE CARE OF THE DAMAGED VETS FROM THE PREVIOUS WARS, LET ALONE FIELD MORE INTERVENTION AND THUS, MORE WOUNDED WARRIORS TO KICK OUT ON THE STREETS.

Telling someone to deal with the fires they started themselves is one thing, starting a fire in someone's house and then saying it's not your problem is something different, and it's exactly what the Obama administration is doing here.

We destabilized Iraq. We AT LEAST funded and trained a good number of fighters that became/joined with ISIS, this is OUR fire.

I hated Bush, I hated him getting us involved with wars. I hate Obama and I hate him getting us involved in crap all over. This is a different situation. We were already involved. Now we are cutting on our responsibility.

IF the people of Iraq call for our help it would be utterly disgusting (although completely expected) to see this administration sit on their hands.

I don't want our military used as an enforcement arm of corporations, I don't want the US government playing US police, but I do expect the government and the military to clean up messes that THEY MAKE instead of getting selective isolationism whenever it suits them politically.

I never thought that the office of the president could have it's bar lowered any further than it was with Bush, but that's gotta be one thing Obama was very successful at.

a reply to: xuenchen

Can Anybody Make any Sense from This?

Same thing happened in Vietnam. Back then they called it "Vietnamization". It also failed. Think about it. After all the decades of might and right from a military superpower failed to subjugate the country, when mega tons of bombs dropped on Jungle couldn't stop the placement of mines in the path of American Gis, who thinks this scenario will end any different?

Or differently in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Eastern Ukraine, Korea, Iran; and for what… Oil. Territory or Power?

Same s*** different day.

When everyone gets tired and every last dollar has been wrung from defense spending to prop up the puppet regime and every last drop of blood is shed to keep the war alive, then everyone will give up and go home. Unless we haven't learned anything from the past…

Vietnamization

Link to article and video

a reply to: xuenchen

In the words of the prophet Cartman:

"Scr.. you guys, i'going home "

It sounds like bait for Iran to get heavily involved, a hand in the cookie jar.

Also interesting that people who called for US troops to be deployed over Boko Haram and the Kony 2012 thing are now applauding Obama for doing nothing in this instance. Again, looks like some people are in favor of selective isolationism. People can't expect the government to only respond when it's something that's emotionally relevant for them personally.

Yes, partition seems like the only way out. ISIS holds those same Sunni areas that refused to accept a Shiite-led government before. Let's face it, it's a Sunni vs Shiite conflict once again. It's like India-Pakistan after the British left.
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

perhaps a little drunkin in my response last night but the point is valid, is it not? Most people in the modern world cant feed themselves in any way outside of purchasing or obtaining a finished good. Most if not all cannot medicate themselves, much less diagnose a disease. Most cannot build a shelter...the list is long. What do you suggest people do once the system stops after a revolution of the variety everyone speaks so glibbly about?

Pointing out my drunkin arrogance doesnt really address what I consider a salient point.

a reply to: xuenchen

Did Obama apologize for starting ISIS out of Syrian Rebels.

Guess not.

a reply to: James1982

So you're saying since out politicians started this war and destabilized Iraq, than the blood of our children should be used to right their wrong? Let our damn politicians right their wrong! I'm sick and tired of our politicians creating conflicts around the world, spying on other countries and meddling in their affairs. When they want to force their ideology on these countries they turn to our sons and daughters to enforce their wishes. We're all fools, because we readily start waving the red, white and blue and ask how high do they want us to jump! Instead of us questioning and protesting our continuing involvement in these parts of the world, we let them shove it down our throats.

We currently have 662 overseas bases in 38 foreign countries, if that doesn't say much about U.S. involvement in foreign affairs, I don't know what does.

I think Iraq "destabilized" in 1920.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

" That said, if the Iraqis themselves have no will nor desire to fight ISIS, then why the hell should we? Especially seeing how WE ARE BROKE AND DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO TAKE CARE OF THE DAMAGED VETS FROM THE PREVIOUS WARS, LET ALONE FIELD MORE INTERVENTION AND THUS, MORE WOUNDED WARRIORS TO KICK OUT ON THE STREETS."

Uh , lets see , we could then possibility see a Dominant Nuclear Fanatical Islamic State like Iran ,threatening it's Neighbor States with with Nuclear Weapon Strikes into their Sovereign Territory because of their possible Refusal of Political and Religious Demands . Yeah Well , a Stable " Middle East " that ain't Amigo...........

Had Saddam been left alone, Iran wouldn't have been a problem. Nor would ISIS.

Regardless now, I could care less if Iran gets nukes. So what if it does? It's not like Iran is any nuttier than Israel, who also has nukes, and certainly not as nutty as its neighbors. Pakistan and India both have nukes, and it has quieted things down there, compared to the old days. Russia would also play a major role, so it's not like instant pandemonium.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

People never want to talk about the money.

Well unless it is a social program, then we are up in arms about it.

Yeah. People forget that war and military cost money, way more than social programs. Hell, part of the military is social programs, in a sense. Troops require A LOT of logistical support on their own, but when you consider you also are supporting their families. On top of it, quite a good chunk of military families are also on some sort of social services, especially during deployments. People seem to forget that the military is filled with human beings with families they need to care for, lives they need to run, and basic needs to be met. And given the personal risk and sacrifices many end up making, we are obligated to make sure all these needs are met. And ya know.... it all costs MONEY.

And of course, let us not forget, that these folks in uniform will some day be veterans, veterans returning home and requiring a lot of readjustment back into civilian American life. A number of them will be permanently wounded in some way, some to the level of total disability. They will require disability income depending on how well their ability to support themselves and their families is effected. They will also need medical care, levels depending on their rate of injury. And this all costs LOTSA MONEY.

So invading and occupying the country yet again would cost even more money, create even more veterans coming home broken one way or another, that will get stuffed into a broke VA system and end up forgotten and on the streets. Given how broke and in debt this country is, we should maybe try repairing the damage here first before creating more damage elsewhere.