Obama Announcement - Do We own Irag Now?

Jump to Last Post 1-1 of 1 discussions (63 posts)

81
GA Andersonposted 10 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
reply report
1. 91
  IslandBitesposted 10 years agoin 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...
  reply report
  87
  Jean Bakulaposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  81
  GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin 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
  reply report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  And yet we abandoned Iraq rather than leave a significant force and an established US base behind, Why?
  reply report
  69
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  87
  Jean Bakulaposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  69
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  
  I take it objectivity is not one of your strong suits.
  
  I would love to hear your take on the American Civil war. It should make for some hysterical reading.
  reply report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Swallowing the garbage fed to me by a lying media that beats a liars drum full of lies is not something I do. If Bill Clinton had the least bit of courage he would have bombed the hell out of Iraq the very first time Iraqis fired on American aircraft patrolling the "No Fly Zone" because it was not a negotiated peace, there was no peace treaty. The agreement was that Iraq had to fulfill multiple requirements for a cease fire. Perhaps you should read more rather than just buy the circulated stories of the partisan and ill informed.
  
  Name the Peace Treaty that ended the Persian Gulf War?
  
  http://www.history.com/topics/persian-gulf-war
  
  Here is a three question test of Iraq War objectivity.
  
  How many countries participated in the Iraq War?
  
  What does unilateral mean?
  
  How many Congressional Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq?
  
  http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/w … #coalition
  
  http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de … unilateral
  
  http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/1 … f-iraq-war
  reply report
  69
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Hit a nerve did I? I hope so because your drone induced coma of approved conservative propaganda has numbed your senses. You have no idea of what the truth is by just some of the references you have offered. The media is bought and that includes your precious "truth" references. Get a grip man. The reason why I referenced the Civil War is because you are still dragging up much of the archaic thinking that took us that direction over a 150 years ago. Get an original idea and stop trying to find a scape goat. The whole middle east is our fault and we still rub salt in the wounds of those we wronged. We took up after the Brits and still carry on that we know how to rule their people. Go ahead blindly back Israel and see how much peace will be accomplished. Why else do you think the Iraqis fired on our planes? We are the enemy to them and not nation builders.
  reply report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Obama owns the broken Libya and the extremely broken Iraq. Bush hasn't been anything but a mountain bike rider for the past 5 1/2 years.
  
  As for your Civil War reference, it is meaningless.
  report
  69
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  ....Obama owns the broken Libya and the extremely broken Iraq.
  
  Another "Newsflash". Libya owns Libya and Iraq owns Iraq as it should be. How it survives and prospers or fails is on them just as it is with us.
  
  .....Bush hasn't been anything but a mountain bike rider for the past 5 1/2 years.
  
  And thank God for that and the Constitution that limited him to 8 years as Commander of Grief. He did enough stupid s#!t for us to dig out from for at least another 5 1/2 years.
  
  ....As for your Civil War reference, it is meaningless.
  
  To you and that is why referred to it as I knew it would fly over your head. Just an experiment and you did not let me down.
  
  You really are too much fun.
  report
  0
  SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The whole Middle East is not our fault. They have been fighting among themselves for centuries.
  
  As for Israel & Gaza, all that blood falls on this Administration. In the past, Israel knew the US had their back if push came to shove and they were threatened, so they listened when we asked them to stand down. This Administration turned their backs on our only true ally in the region and they no longer feel that way. So they no longer listen to us. All this bloodshed could have been avoided. Yes, there would still be conflict and we would still need to find a way for these two sides to live peacefully, but there would not have been this bloodshed.
  
  There is no win situation for us in the Middle East. I hope you understand that. They hate us for such varied reasons and they aren't all because of any military presence.
  
  They hate us for McDonalds. They hate us for blue jeans. They hate us for scantily clad women. They hate us for open internet where their young people get a taste of life outside their own strict laws and rules. They hate us for religious reasons. They simply hate us and I honestly can't remember a time when it was any different. Even leaders we have backed have not liked us and have spoken badly about us. We don't own that, sorry.
  
  But when push comes to shove in that region, you can bet your bottom dollar, they come running with their hand out - proclaiming they are trying to oust some abusive regime and are looking for democracy. Which never becomes democracy but instead some other abusive regime.
  
  Do we own Iraq? In a sense, yes. We toppled a cruel dictator but we left too soon. We left them without any real government in place. On the other hand, the interim powers that be told us to leave, so , no. They own it.
  report
  69
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  ....The whole Middle East is not our fault. They have been fighting among themselves for centuries.
  
  I said that the Middle East is all our fault because we continue to ignore our role in it and yes this has always been a area of unrest. What is our fault is the continued support of one side over the other. Israel gets around 3 billion dollars in support from the US. Some estimate the real time cost at 3 trillion over time. http://rense.com/general41/trill.htm Is this the actions of a neutral peacemaker?
  
  ....As for Israel & Gaza, all that blood falls on this Administration. In the past, Israel knew the US had their back if push came to shove and they were threatened, so they listened when we asked them to stand down. This Administration turned their backs on our only true ally in the region and they no longer feel that way. So they no longer listen to us. All this bloodshed could have been avoided. Yes, there would still be conflict and we would still need to find a way for these two sides to live peacefully, but there would not have been this bloodshed.
  
  The all or nothing feeling that this administration over "all" the others has blood on their hands is rather a broad statement. Have no other administrations had anything to do with the failed peace process's over the years. You place Israel as a staunch ally but would an ally spy on its benefactor?
  http://thewip.net/2014/05/15/israel-con … ed-states/
  
  ....There is no win situation for us in the Middle East. I hope you understand that. They hate us for such varied reasons and they aren't all because of any military presence.
  
  They hate us for the interference we run by injecting capital and weapons into their enemies hands. We are a part of the problem and not the cure in their eyes.
  
  ....They hate us for McDonalds. They hate us for blue jeans. They hate us for scantily clad women. They hate us for open internet where their young people get a taste of life outside their own strict laws and rules. They hate us for religious reasons. They simply hate us and I honestly can't remember a time when it was any different.
  
  They don't want a part of our culture period. Their religion is their guide. They don't want us to interject our culture on their youth as our morals are in question in their eyes. Is it all justified? I don't know because some of their methods and reasoning's are not of their faith. But guess what? That is their prerogative as our way of life is ours. Just as we are experiencing our growing pains so must they and if it is through war they wish to pursue it then it is their decision as well.
  
  ....Even leaders we have backed have not liked us and have spoken badly about us. We don't own that, sorry.
  
  We don't own Saddam Hussein, Hamid Karzai, The Shah, Osama Bin Laden. All brutal dictators or terrorists who started on our side with our backing but soon turned against us. I don't know how you can so easily disassociate yourself from this.
  
  ....But when push comes to shove in that region, you can bet your bottom dollar, they come running with their hand out - proclaiming they are trying to oust some abusive regime and are looking for democracy. Which never becomes democracy but instead some other abusive regime.
  
  Or better yet we come forth showering them with gifts to be our friend to do our bidding against their countries best interest. We don't like elected leaders in foreign countries. They are not there for us but are there for those who elected them. In the absence of any direction we always put "our guy" in charge and then arm him to the teeth to defend him against his own people. Some plan.
  
  ....Do we own Iraq? In a sense, yes. We toppled a cruel dictator but we left too soon. We left them without any real government in place. On the other hand, the interim powers that be told us to leave, so , no. They own it.
  
  We own the responsibility of letting them choose their own destiny. If it be a brutal Islamic regime that wants harsh laws that is their choice. If the people who do not wish to live in this situation want to get out then they should get out. Currently we are working on solutions to that problem.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It doesn't matter what they wanted or didn't want. Keeping an American military presence in Iraq would have served the security concerns of the United States. That should always be paramount to the government of the United States. Yes we own the broken Iraq, just as we own the broken Libya.
  report
  69
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Well that was a useless point. Iraq owns Iraq and it is just as well they do. This way we can't mess it up anymore than it is. Oh by the way there are no American troops there as well as the Embassy has been evacuated. So much for your plans to rule the world huh.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So Al Qaeda is free to fester and plot right next door to an nuclear terrorist state. Your understanding of how the world works is so sad. The next terrorist attack on American soil is likely to be far more terrible than 9/11.
  report
  69
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You are the one who doesn't understand. The scare tactics you have bought into is what drives the defense contractors income. Pakistan, who is terrorist friendly, has had nuclear weapons since 1998 with Al Qaeda and the Taliban living within their borders. I don't know how much more of a threat that is than your scenario but it nullifies your terror scare tactics.
  
  As far as another attack on American soil it's academic. As the US picks at the wounds of the Israeli/Palestinian relationship supplying and favoring one over the other the threat continues to fester and adds fuel to the fire of the terrorists to inflict pain on the Israelis ally, us. Our intelligence capabilities have proved promising over the years stopping some from getting in the US and others who were incompetent to carry out their plans. The Boston bombing is a grim reminder of how our whack-a-mole ability to hold terrorism at bay can't even catch the domestic threat.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  " Pakistan, who is terrorist friendly"
  
  http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/pakistan … terrorism/
  
  Apparently not.
  
  The Pakistani government is not a nascent and fracturable one, like the Iraqi government.
  
  "Pakistan has had nuclear weapons since 1998 with Al Qaeda and the Taliban living within their borders. I don't know how much more of a threat that is than your scenario but it nullifies your terror scare tactics."
  
  http://www.indianagazette.com/news/opin … ,18141531/
  
  Apparently not.
  
  There have been several countries and organizations concerned about the security of Pakistani Nukes and the Pakistani government has been cooperative, unlike Iran or Saddam's Iraq. The US has been so concerned as to use covert means to ascertain the security of Pakistani Nukes.
  
  The Pakistani government isn't trying to establish The Caliphate, ISIS is.
  
  "The Boston bombing is a grim reminder of how our whack-a-mole ability to hold terrorism at bay can't even catch the domestic threat."
  
  http://www.blacklistednews.com/FBI_Knew … 8/Y/M.html
  
  Apparently not.
  
  American liberals have decided that Jihadist Islam is not a threat and that potential Muslim terrorists are one of the new protected classes.
  report
  0
  SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  But it does matter.
  
  I agree it was certainly in our best interest to keep a larger military presence in Iraq for a time. We should have worked harder and come to some agreement with the interim government instead of just throwing up our hands and leaving. However, once they asked us to leave and no agreement was reached, were we to then take the country by force? That isn't how we do.
  
  We don't own it - they do. They asked us to leave and really didn't want to come to the table to talk about it. It belongs to them.
  
  That said - it is still in our best interest to help fend off ISIS.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Germany was in Allied control until 1949, four years after the conclusion of the war. Japan was an occupied until 1952.
  
  There was no effort at pretending that a viable state existed at the conclusion of hostilities. German and Japanese governments were not immediately created by American political forces. Both countries had broken political and economic systems. Both had been brutal regimes prior to the war.
  
  Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan should have been treated like functioning states until they demonstrated they were ready - just as the Germans and Japanese had to do. We had already taken Iraq, we were hasty and foolish in handing it back to a people who had never run their own government.
  
  The state sponsors of terrorism will soon include the ISIS Caliphate of Baghdad. When that state blows an El Al airliner out of the sky slaughtering hundreds or detonates bombs in Vatican City during Easter Vigil the American left will blame Bush.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin 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/
  reply report
  0
  Old Poolmanposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  69
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  81
  GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You really meant politically smartest woman in the world didn't you?
  
  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
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  81
  GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No, you did not get it right. I did not say I think sending troops to Iraq would prevent another 9/11. I did not say Iraqis were responsible for 9/11. I did not say ISSA was the only terrorist threat to the US.
  
  And I agree we should be clear... allowing a group like ISSA to gain state power would be a threat to our national security.
  
  GA
  reply report
  79
  Sed-meposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Isis?
  reply report
  87
  Jean Bakulaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The name ISIS always makes me do a double take. A culture who hates women and wants to deny them all rights in any area chooses to represent themselves with the name of a Goddess?
  
  I still think those in the Middle East hate the US for our interference in their culture, which we don't understand. I do get that the religious extremists are a big threat, and we do need to be vigilant about what they are doing, as we don't want another 9/11 (Yes, I know it was the Taliban, not Iraq). But more boots on the ground isn't the answer, too many Americans and innocent people have died and the situation is not better.
  
  I think one weakness the US has is it's inability to sit down, assess where the country is NOW, and change plans accordingly. Even with other issues, like climate change, we are so behind Europe and other countries. We can't rest on our laurels from when we were the strongest and best country in the world, because we are slipping. I still love this country, and would rather be here than anywhere else (though the Caribbean is nice). But the US has to come up to speed in a lot of areas besides war, like unfair trade agreements that cost us jobs, climate change, high costs of education, and a lot of other things.
  
  I do think Hillary Clinton is the most capable candidate, but the country may be sick of Clintons, like they were of Bushes. I don't know who the R's could run against her. It's clear that she and Bill care only about themselves and it was always a political marriage and partnership from the start. She is beginning to distance herself from Obama now, though they had that phony "hugging" photo shoot yesterday. From what I read, they didn't agree on any foreign policy, and she travelled so much during her time as Secretary of State so he could get her out of the way.
  
  I think Obama is disciplined and cautious when deciding what to do about warring nations, two good traits to have. In the end the Middle East is going to have their war to end all wars anyway, and there's not a thing we can do about it.
  reply report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  When Iraq falls it will provide what the Taliban provided in Afghanistan, a safe base of operations. Al Qaeda remnants are already joining ISIS and the arms left with US trained Iraqi troops are gathered by ISIS. It is easy to imagine lefties belly ache about the US arming ISIS.
  report
  69
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  And why wouldn't you want them all in one place? Sounds pretty academic to me. Your ready made one stop bomb drop at your convenience.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Then why aren't the bombs raining on ISIS?
  report
  69
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Oh yeah I forgot the Obama Boogeyman doesn't work according to your schedule. Thank God for that. We have been operating airstrikes on them in case you did not keep up. To rain bombs on the country now as it is trying to straighten out its government and leadership would be counter productive as innocents might get caught up in the mess. Patience is not one of your virtues is it?
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The Iraqi government begged for air support. The Iraqi government begged for aircraft. ISIS overran the Iraqi Army. ISIS now has the weapons of the Iraqi Army. ISIS has declared itself the returned Caliphate. The atrocities of ISIS are accumulating and well documented. Seems like the time to strike against ISIS has passed. Well done Barack, blessed be his name.
  
  A few bombs here or there won't make a difference - ask the Germans, Japanese, North Koreans, Vietnamese about that.
  
  Patience produced 9/11.
  report
  69
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The sky is falling, the sky is falling! You better get your boots on because it is getting deep in here. The restraint displayed by the Obama Boogeyman is one of making the Iraqi's standing up for themselves. Sink or swim is what they were given and a humanitarian solution for the refugees is still being worked out with the limited bombing. This is further proof that Iraq belongs to Iraq. You don't like it because it proves Georgy Porgy screwed up in thinking there was some sort of nation building element to his disaster. The Obama Boogeyman said enough is enough and campaigned on it, was elected to do it and did just that. It hurts so bad doesn't it. Your constant bull trying to reason the whole Iraq war and the consequences is null because we went in with no plan and came away with oil to sell the Chinese. Now that the oil is threatened again do we find the whole rhetoric starting up again.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  As "war for oil" goes, Iraq was a bad deal for us.
  
  http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archive … omiraq.php
  
  But Obama's war for French oil, oops, NATO oil, was much more effective.
  
  http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/ga … -deals.php
  
  Nation building only works if peace can be maintained while stable government emerges. Germany was , and some would say still is, occupied for years after all hostilities ceased. The same is true of Japan. American lefties demonstrated no ability to see that nation building trough, exemplified by Obama's disastrous withdrawal of all American troops despite the obvious danger to the already faulty Iraqi government.
  
  He and is foreign policy are a disaster for the entire world. The brigands are aware of his weakness and are racing to gobble up all they can while he bike's at Martha's Vineyard with the other girls.
  
  The Iraqi government will fall. ISIS will succeed and Obama will be to blame.
  report
  69
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  ....As "war for oil" goes, Iraq was a bad deal for us.
  
  Absolutely! The cheap readily available source is still Saudi Arabia. If we decided to pull back a little support for their monarchy we might have a chance at getting realistic oil prices. But! Gerogie Porgy 1 fell in with The Carlisle Group with his buddy's and that meant Georgie Porgy 11 had to try another source to exploit.
  
  ....But Obama's war for French oil, oops, NATO oil, was much more effective.
  
  http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/ga … -deals.php
  
  Nice try but it does not wash when you look at what was done and what happened. The Obama Boogeyman was trying to make a play on Libyan oil is your contention? That's a good one.Remenber Obama is in the pockets of Wall Street and showed it when the financial meltdown went unpunished. His supposed war on oil exemplifies just how much he is an outsider with those thieves.
  
  ....Nation building only works if peace can be maintained while stable government emerges. Germany was , and some would say still is, occupied for years after all hostilities ceased. The same is true of Japan. American lefties demonstrated no ability to see that nation building trough, exemplified by Obama's disastrous withdrawal of all American troops despite the obvious danger to the already faulty Iraqi government.
  
  To have nation building you have to have a vanquished enemy. It did not happen under Georgy Porgy and the longevity of the conflict proved the point. Germany was annihilated as was Japan following WW II. We never had a chance as Georgy Porgy got sidetracked in Afghanistan, abandoning the conflict we came there for following 911. And then he smelled the oil he was after in Iraq using a made up war. Good try again. OOHH the Obama Boogeyman screwed the pooch again!
  
  ....He and is foreign policy are a disaster for the entire world. The brigands are aware of his weakness and are racing to gobble up all they can while he bike's at Martha's Vineyard with the other girls.
  
  Oh yes, yes he must hasten off to the White House now so he can clean up the disastrous American Policy that has been laid down by all of the incompetents who have contributed to the mess before him and we call foreign policy.
  
  ....The Iraqi government will fall. ISIS will succeed and Obama will be to blame.
  
  You may be right but for all the wrong reasons.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  A combination of words that strains credulity.
  report
  87
  Jean Bakulaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Why? If I was the President and Congress blocked anything I wanted to do out of spite, even if it was a good idea, and had to deal with all the hatred and mean spirited actions of people who just didn't like me for personal reasons, I could never deal with them in as cool of a manner as Obama does. He keeps doing what he can, and now even when he does things by Executive Order, like any other President, the R's want to sue him? What a waste of our taxpayer money. Too bad we can't fire them all, we have to wait to vote them out of Congress. The best people don't run because they know what a sham it all is.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So adorable that you think it is out of spite.
  report
  87
  Jean Bakulaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You have to admit some of it is. Like improving infrastructure, all our unsafe, crumbling, roads and bridges. That's worthy of money and attention, and I think Congress did throw Obama a bone there, not enough to really do anything substantial. And immigration. Everyone here except the Native Americans were descended from immigrants, and now R's are backing away from that too, because of the crisis on the border. I see that and the original immigration issue as two separate things. Now no R will touch it. So they are responsible for doing nothing, for large salaries and great health care benefits, not to mention all of August off. Most people have to work 5 years at a company to get 3 weeks off, and they actually work a 40 hour week or more.
  report
  87
  Jean Bakulaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  This is just getting silly now. Obama can't take a vacation? Bush took more vacation time than any other President in history. I'm off this thread now, it's getting too off topic.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Crawford, Texas versus the 1%er play grounds of Martha's Vineyard, Costa Del Sol (oops that was just the queen) Every day is a golfing vacation for Obama. Every other day is a campaign day. When was the last time he sat in on a security briefing.
  report
  87
  Jean Bakulaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Presidents are briefed every morning and all throughout the day whether they are on vacation or not. Why do you think they age so much during their presidencies? They aren't really ever off, even if it looks like it in a photo op.
  
  Obama has publically admitted he hates golf, but in the world of men and business, a lot of what needs to be said is evidently said during golf games. He claims to like basketball better. And I think Bush was ignorant putting up that "Western White House" sign at his Crawford ranch. It was inappropriate for a President. As far as who you befriend and where you like to vacation, that's a personal choice.
  
  Do I think Obama campaigns too much? Yes. But the Supreme Ct. keeps giving candidates and sitting Presidents more and more latitude when it comes to raising money. So we will keep getting 1%-ers, because now nobody else can afford a campaign. Another great decision from a conservative court.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Why? The Press called Reagan's ranch the "western white house." By your previous argument doesn't the "White House" travel with the President? After all, it isn't the location it is the office.
  report
  87
  Jean Bakulaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  OK, I guess we agree on that one. The office does travel with the President. I don't recall Reagan's ranch being called a Western White House, just remember it as a time period where the country seemed to be running smoothly.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Old Poolmanposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  82
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Totally in concurrence with Josak and Old Poolman. This is going to be a losing battle like the war in Vietnam. We did not understand the Vietnamese culture as we definitely do not understand the culture of the Middle East. Let us take care of our own internal problems.
  reply report
  69
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I am in total agreement with this.
  reply report
  69
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin 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 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.
  reply report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, I was busy watching the President vacationing, again, while the world burns.
  reply report
  69
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Okay I get it. Tootle do.
  reply report
2. 0
  Old Poolmanposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  81
  GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin 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
  reply report
3. 69
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin 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.
  
  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.
  reply report
  81
  GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin 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
  reply report
  87
  Jean Bakulaposted 10 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  59
  retief2000posted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  69
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Obama Announcement - Do We own Irag Now?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Obama Announcement - Do We own Irag Now?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies