jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (63 posts)

Obama Announcement - Do We own Irag Now?

  1. GA Anderson profile image83
    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

    Whether we want to or  not?

    Pres, Obama's announcement - we will engage ISSA!

    Hold on folks, before you jump...

    If I had my druthers, the Iraq war would not have happened - I think it was a dumb move.

    When we left Iraq - I was hoping we could stay "left."

    But...

    No matter your political leanings... we ousted a dictator that was at least "controlling" his domain, ie. terrorists, sectarian genocide - holding the country together, even if his methods were despicable.

    Now an extremely dangerous faction is overtaking the country - one which, besides the humanitarian tragedies will be a much more dangerous threat to us, (the Western World).

    But... does anyone really believe this can be contained to humanitarian airdrops and drone targets?

    What say you?

    GA

    1. IslandBites profile image85
      IslandBitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      “When we have the unique capacity to avert a massacre, the United States cannot turn a blind eye,” he said.

      Oh, the irony...

      1. Jean Bakula profile image93
        Jean Bakulaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I have to agree with GA. It's risky. I can understand an airdrop of food and water to the poor people who fled to that mountain. If somebody shoots at our planes, we should shoot back, but high tail it out of there. We never should have gone in the first place, and we'll never completely leave anyway. I never understood why the US needs bases in practically every country. It's expensive, and we have enough of our own problems to solve.

        1. GA Anderson profile image83
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Jean, once again you offer an understandable response, but, about this...

          " I never understood why the US needs bases in practically every country. It's expensive, and we have enough of our own problems to solve"

          Yes, we do need bases on a lot of foreign soils. We are no longer in the earlier eras when our oceans were a sufficient defensive barrier. We are no longer in an era where we can safely ignore world developments that can be influenced by a physical presence.

          For example; Given what I perceive to be a generally common perspective that North Korea is a totally rogue state, and given their blatant sabre rattling, even with our forces present in S. Korea, and the  condemnation of world opinion - do you think they would not already have invaded S. Korea if our forces weren't physically between them, (even as a token), and the S. Korean Army?

          Are you familiar with the strategic and logistical importance of our base(s) in Germany? Do you think Germany's safety and eventual reunification would be as it is now if we did not have a physical presence there?

          (I apologize for posing these examples as questions without "full disclosure" that of course I think the answers are obvious.)

          I would continue with more lesser known examples, but my point is that in today's "global" world - isolationism is a very dangerous concept.

          GA

          1. profile image60
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And yet we abandoned Iraq rather than leave a significant force and an established US base behind, Why?

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Two reasons.
              1. The American public was tired of the made up war and the casualties.
              2. We can't afford it, or many of the bases we occupy in other foreign countries.

              1. profile image60
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Would you give me the President's phone number, it appears he tells you things he tells no one else.  I wonder how expensive it will be when ISIS sets the entire Muslim world ablaze, slaughters all the women and children of non-Muslims and controls the Persian Gulf.  Part two of a war is always more expensive than part one and the world is busy rushing toward part two.

                1. Jean Bakula profile image93
                  Jean Bakulaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  rhamson,
                  I agree that the American public is sick of wars that we were lied to about anyway, we had no business going to Iraq in the first place. This person is only on this forum to stir up trouble and has not published any hubs. Don't waste your energy.

                  1. profile image60
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I am here to sharpen my thinking and writing while challenging poor thinking on the part of others.

                    A state of war existed with Iraq dating from the Persian Gulf War. It was not ended by a negotiated peace but by a cease fire under conditions. One of those conditions was that Iraq prove the destruction of its banned weapons, including but not limited to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and their components. There were other banned weapons on that list and many were found, along with chemical weapons and the production capacity for nuclear and biological weapons.

                    It is always a great way to support your belief system by tuning out rather than defending. So tune out and be forgotten as insignificant.

              2. profile image60
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                When you are in a fist fight and get tired of fighting do you get to quit unilaterally? If you stop fighting you get beaten, perhaps to death. Jihadist Islam is at war with all non-Muslims, regardless of how war weary anyone gets.

                If you think we can't afford a military presence in the Middle East, wait until a lack of the presence encourages the rise of a powerful, disciplined, well equipped Jihadist army...too late, that is exactly what ISIS is and its rise is a direct consequence of Obama's detachment from the brutal reality of the real war of Islam on non-Islam.

                The smartest woman in the world blames Obama for ISIS

                http://www.salon.com/2014/08/10/illary_ … civil_war/

                1. profile image0
                  Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow, your last comment really sums it up.  I can't understand why others just don't see this coming?  Perhaps they just put it on ignore and hope it will go away.  Heck, why not, that is what our elected leaders are doing.  Just blame it on Bush and go on vacation.

                  1. rhamson profile image76
                    rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    ....Perhaps they just put it on ignore and hope it will go away.  Heck, why not, that is what our elected leaders are doing.  Just blame it on Bush and go on vacation.

                    This statement is so disingenuous to the reality of the political climate that runs our country. Everything is going according to plans as far as the politicians are concerned. The only thing allowed to change is when the oligarchy and the party want something to change. Hillary is the shoe in because all the rhetoric is ridiculous. The God and country, homosexual morality, abortion and gun crap keep us off the most important topics that shape our lives. Jobs, personal safety and education are immediately forgotten when these side issues distract us from the real issues. I thought it was so peculiar that so many of the staunch GOP followers I knew thought Romney was a horrible choice prior to the primaries. But once nominated by the party he was the best person they could have chosen. Their words, not mine. They hated him until someone else chose him for them. This is mob rule at its best and nothing will change until we unseat the mobsters.

                2. GA Anderson profile image83
                  GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You really meant politically smartest woman in the world didn't you? smile

                  You make excellent points - all of which boil down to the understanding that even more importantly than in the lead-up to WWII - isolationism is not an option. We live in a globally connected world - in communications, travel,  and ideology.

                  You are right, the nation may be war weary, and some political powers-that-be have different agendas, and many of us may not see the "big picture," but the "big picture" is the reality we have to deal with - and that is what our leaders are supposed to do for us.

                  I think the majority of the failure is Pres. Obama's fault - he is supposed to be our leader, our protector, our "big picture" guy. But in his defense, (he is not the only one at fault), he is a creature of his environment, and that environment is one of a "kumbahya" generation of voters and an isolationist political base.

                  Even though I think Hillary is right... she is only going public with this position now because of politics. She is running in 2016 and needs to show she is not an Obama democrat. But still,  on this issue, and as smart as I think she is politically - her motives are obvious and I don't trust her. Where was this "independence" prior to her pre-campaign season?

                  And this...
                  "...If you think we can't afford a military presence in the Middle East, wait until a lack of the presence encourages the rise of a powerful, disciplined, well equipped Jihadist army..."

                  ... is pure blasphemy!  You are attempting to apply common sense to a news-bite informed public. It won't work until we have another 9/11 - or worse.

                  Good post.

                  ps. I have been a long time Hillary critic, and have read extensively on her. My latest read, Partners in Power by Roger Morris is a very in-depth book on Hillary and Bill's political path from college days to the presidency, and it confirms how politically savvy and capable she is. But it also documents that Hillary's agenda is Hillary - not the altruistic goal of serving her country, as she portrays. She is a bone-deep politician. Whether that is good or bad for the country is another question.

                  GA

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So let me get this right, you think that by sending troops to Iraq you will prevent terrorist attacks like 9/11, an attack perpetuated by absolutely no Iraqis.

                    All it takes for a major terrorist attack is  for a few committed and intelligent people to meet and plan one, no amount of troops in Iraq will prevent it.

                    If however you cared to read the terrorist's statements on why they committed the 9/11 attacks you will see it's precisely BECAUSE of the US intervening in the Middle East.

                    So to be clear 9/11 would not have occurred but for interference in the Middle East and cannot be prevented by intervening in the Middle East and your response to preventing another 9/11 is to intervene in the Middle East?

                    In the meantime thousands of Americans died needlessly in these Middle Eastern interventions in a toll much worse than another 9/11.

                  2. profile image60
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Tongue firmly planted in cheek. I don't think Hillary is politically smart. She is, however, a member of the protected class with a vast host of palace guards in the academy, press room and movie studio.

                3. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Isis would not exist if it were not for American interference in the middle east, we constantly create these problems and Republican as the definition of madness will attempt to solve them in the same way. We funded Saddam Husein, we funded the Taliban, we helped destroy the secular movements that opposed the rise of fundamentalists.

                  Allow the Middle East to resolve itself and it will, as time passes religion recedes and these people become irrelevant, it's a process we have seen all over the world, but every time we intervene we revert that process.

                  Not to mention we just don't have the money to be spending billions on pointless wars in the Middle East.

                  None of these wars ever work out for the better, the Iraq war toppled a murderous dictator (who oversaw ending Sharia law, allowing women back to school, and massive health and education programs) and he is now being replaced by something far worse in the vacuum we created.

                  As for well trained dangerous Jihadist army phhhhttt I have not heard anything so ridiculous in years, dealing with armies is easy for an American military force, it took days to crush the enormous and well equipped Iraqi army, then ten years losing a war with guerrillas, it's always the same, frankly a disciplined and well equipped army is much less of a threat to the US.

                  1. profile image0
                    Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Josak - Good to see you are still in here.

                    While you and I seldom agree on anything I have to say you have my 100% agreement on this one.  We should just stay the heck out of all these problems in the Middle East and concentrate on our problems here in the USA.

                    We do not understand their culture and never will.

                4. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  .....When you are in a fist fight and get tired of fighting do you get to quit unilaterally? If you stop fighting you get beaten, perhaps to death. Jihadist Islam is at war with all non-Muslims, regardless of how war weary anyone gets.

                  We already left the fight and those who remained behind are losing the fight. Why are they losing? Because the culture and religion is stronger than the western influence to sustain it. We are being told to get out and stay out. Our ego can't handle that so we have all sorts of machinations of what it should be rather than accepting what it is not to us. Poor us sad  We got into something we could not control. Sound familiar? We did not win there either. We were at war with everything communist during the cold war and now our biggest trading partner is communist. Were we right then and wrong now?

                  ....If you think we can't afford a military presence in the Middle East, wait until a lack of the presence encourages the rise of a powerful, disciplined, well equipped Jihadist army...too late, that is exactly what ISIS is and its rise is a direct consequence of Obama's detachment from the brutal reality of the real war of Islam on non-Islam.

                  Once again the domino theory comes into play with you. Scare tactics that have been used successfully and with an under informed US electorate may grant you a victory in your continuing violent reaction to other countries internal affairs. We screwed them up enough by invading their country and cemented a distain and hatred for everything American so your answer is more violence? Let's just stay out of their country and their affairs. The rest of the world is. And the blame is not on Obama for getting us out of Iraq, it is Georgey Porgey boy's for getting us into Iraq in the first place. What is funny is your statement "real war of Islam on non-Islam" wreaks of religious conflicts that has never and can never be won. Faith is faith and reality is reality but when faith becomes reality wars start and never end.

                  ....The smartest woman in the world blames Obama for ISIS

                  That is a hoot. Maybe a savvy politician and sly negotiator but the smartest woman in the world? Maybe you are right as the GOP has not a clue as to where this country wants to go and cannot adjust to it. They better get an answer soon and stop repeating old useless rhetoric or they maybe dealing with her in the White House.

                  1. profile image60
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry, I was busy watching the President vacationing, again, while the world burns.

    2. profile image0
      Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I agree that we never should have gotten involved and gone there in the first place.

      Yes we did eliminate a monster, but as you point out, his extreme and brutal methods are what was maintaining some degree of control over this region.  In hindsight we should have minded our own business and stayed out of that one.

      And now that we took the action we did we do have some responsibility to help repair the mess we created.  I often wonder if the outcome would have been different if we had stayed like we have in Germany, Korea, and many other places?

      My thinking is that if we go in there and fire even one round we will once again be involved in a full blown boots on the ground war.  You just can't "kinda sorta" be involved in a war, you are either in or out.

      1. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Years ago, I supported Pres. Bush's Iraq War. But for reasons that were completely different than the WMDs justification. I was wrong. "W" was wrong, and "H" was right for stopping where he did in the first "Gulf war."

        You are right, we eliminated one monster - but just to create a larger and more dangerous one.

        Now, the reality that this ISSA situation could truly turn into a terrorist national security threat to  our nation - means yes, we own the Iraq situation. It would not have happened without our actions, and the safety of our citizens, (and the Iraqi citizens of course), depend on us finding a solution.

        My bet is, (OMG! dare I admit it?), we are in that much-denied Vietnam-type quagmire where we are damned if we do and damned if we don't and we have no choice but that we must do.

        So there! Office pool for dates of the first wave of "boots on the ground" is open. But since this occurrence will surely be a blacked-out covert effort, a second office pool of the date of the discovery of the covert operations is also open.

        As to your pondering of the "If we stayed..." question - I don't think the Germany/Korea comparison is the same thing. I think the tribal and religious sect differences of the Middle East cultures are a completely different ballgame. The only "If we stayed" that would have had any impact was if the qualifier was "forever!"

        GA

        GA

    3. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I've got an idea! Let's send them to Israel! After all isn't that the place refugees go after being persecuted?

      Just a joke. smile

      I agree we have some responsibilities to the people we sucked into the idea of "Nation Building". Air strikes, drones and harassing special forces operations may be the way to go. Target their weaknesses and generally mess with their leadership. But boots on the ground is not an option as only the same result will occur. This is a terrorist war so lets fight them as a terrorist war, with terrorism.

      1. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Damn that was a bad joke. But your concluding thoughts, I think,  are an ugly real world answer that may be the honest truth of what is needed.

        Hmm... are our covert capabilities really as good as the movies show us?

        GA

        1. Jean Bakula profile image93
          Jean Bakulaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I still don't think we should spend so much money to keep military bases open in so many countries. Plus I never understood how the U.S. will bomb a country, then spend millions of dollars to rebuild it. We do have to be vigilant about terrorists, but we still can use a lot of the military budget to fix our decrepit infrastructure, and have enough weapons to destroy the Earth many times over, without spending another dime.

          I am not suggesting complete isolationism, but we don't need as many bases open as we do. Germany reunited when, in 1990? There's no reason to be there 24 yrs. later.

          As far as ISIS, now that we are back in Iraq, it's not going to be easy to get back out. I applaud the humanitarian aid, but wonder where those people will go. Other countries can start doing more too. As I write, bombs are being dropped, probably in hopes that ISIS is badly damaged before they do much more harm. But they are covering a lot of ground fast, taking a lot over, and they sound like monsters.

          The hardest issue is that it's a civil war. Iraq was just "thrown together" by Great Britain, who mixed warring tribes together on the piece of land we call Iraq, but knowing (or maybe not) that the tribal peoples had very differing views on everything. It's a no win situation if we go back in, we've been there for 13 yrs. already. I don't know what to do. Sometimes it seems like we are ready for another Civil War in our own country. How thinly can we spread ourselves?

          1. profile image60
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Military might isn't a tool of war, it is a tool of diplomacy. A powerful military and the will to use it goes a long way toward insuring peace.

        2. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know about government intelligence, an oxymoron if ever there was one, but we can blow the
          s#!t out of s#!t wherever and whenever we want. I think that gets us in their terrorist game.

 
working