USA and ISIS in Iraq
First Prev
of 8
Next Last
Opinion

Custer, SD

#1 Aug 25, 2014
As far as ISIS goes here are my thoughts and I am open to any "intelligent reply". I'm not set in concrete if someone has a better thought on the matter.

I believe we were misled by Bush/Cheney & crew --- lied to either knowingly or “unknowingly”, when we invaded Iraq. No doubt that Saddam Hussein was a worthless strong arm dictator who killed his own people but he was no major threat to the USA. We spent a lot of money and created a lot of debt over nothing gained but major problems created. We made war in Iraq, and we made it dishonestly and frivolously and stupidly. We destabilized Iraq and opened the door for this to happen. ISIS actually is a different issue, but just different chapters in the same war. ISIS is a different breed of cat than Saddam or Iraq initially was. ISIS is a terrorist group and is going to cause problems throughout the Middle East. We have no dog in this ISIS fight YET, other than for creating the opportunity for it to happen. The right wing nuts will say he’s blaming Bush again. Well, yes. I’m afraid these dots are preposterously easy to connect unless one wants to be blind to the oblivious.

The top U.S. military brass and former administration officials are publicly pressuring the White House to consider taking the fight against the Islamic State into Syria. The War Drums are starting to be beaten.

I have a problem with just how deep “we”(alone & footing the costs) get involved. To me the question is “just how much do we want to get involved” if the other Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia don’t want to step up to the plate and supply the funding and the troops? Where is the rest of the European world that ISIS/Syria threatens more than the USA? Where is direct interest and involvement by other European countries like England, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Turkey and even Russia? It would seem that they have far more at stake to be worried about. Whether or not the U.S. again becomes deeply embroiled militarily we must remember we still haven't paid for the Bush/Cheney never ending wars. Not one politician beating the war drums will ask the question, "who will pay for this action?"

First, I believe that military actions should be paid in part for at the time, rather than charged on the credit card like Iraq War was. A special War Tax should be levied.

Second Congress needs to get off their do nothing butts and either authorize or stop any further action. The Constitution mandates that duty too them. They are simply ignoring and waiting to see which way the political wind blows and likely blame Obama regardless of what he does whether it succeeds or fails.

Third if we are going to have never ending wars and military involvement then the draft should to started up and maybe that will also make it more personal for people to decide if all the wars and involvements around the world it worth it.

So the short of it is that I would not do much more than President Obama has already done. I hate to see boots back on the ground inside of Iraq without Congressional approval. President Obama has already gone further than I would have gone without Congressional approval and commitment. It will certainly run into the next presidency.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#2 Aug 25, 2014
Saddam Hussein was a badguy, but he held the badguys in check. The world would be a safer place if Mr Hussein was still in power.
Opinion

Custer, SD

#3 Aug 25, 2014
-Sprocket- wrote:
Saddam Hussein was a badguy, but he held the badguys in check. The world would be a safer place if Mr Hussein was still in power.
I noticed the Boston in the picture. There has been five in my extended family over the years. I had two.
Fine little dogs.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#4 Aug 25, 2014
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
I noticed the Boston in the picture. There has been five in my extended family over the years. I had two.
Fine little dogs.
Thanks. I agree. There my favorite. I have many dogs tho. But ya can't beat a terrier....*smiles*
nac

Bellmore, NY

#5 Aug 25, 2014
Opinion wrote:
...
Second Congress needs to get off their do nothing butts and either authorize or stop any further action. The Constitution mandates that duty too them. They are simply ignoring and waiting to see which way the political wind blows and likely blame Obama regardless of what he does whether it succeeds or fails.
...
Our Congress is pathetic, no question about that... But couldn't the same be said of obama when looking at the situation in Syria?

Remember last summer when obama was trying to get us into war in Syria? Remember when he told us that Assad had crossed his red line in the sand by gassing his people, so action needed to be taken?

Then when Obama saw "which way the political wind blew" on that... he immediately backed off and "made the decision" to leave it up to congress... even though the CONSTITUTION already did that?

What's worse is the fact that the UN & others later concluded that the rebels, not Assad... used the chemical weapons... that Obama tried to use as a pretext for war in Syria.

++++++++++

I know that there is no way in the world that you understand the point of all of this, polly... so I'll dumb it way down:

Just because bush did a bad job, and just because congress is dreadful... those things DO NOT make obama good.

He's proven, with his actions and words, to be every bit the buffoon that they have.

I wish that wasn't the case as much as any American... but I think it is about time we all recognize the fact that President obama is VERY different from Candidate/Senator obama.
Forget

Minneapolis, MN

#6 Aug 25, 2014
Saddam invaded Kuwait, he was a real bad guy to his people AND to countries next door, he proved it..

Democrats and Republicans voted to invade Iraq, INCLUDING HILARY CLINTON!! Even Russia agreed Iraq had WMD and was a terrorist nation.

Of course we continue to blame GW for everything OR we can look at Obama in his second term as president and he still hasn't pulled us out of Iraq OR Afghanistan, FACTS. The only thing Obama has done is micromanage every situation involving a black criminal. What a racist he is.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#7 Aug 25, 2014
Forget wrote:
Saddam invaded Kuwait, he was a real bad guy to his people AND to countries next door, he proved it..
Democrats and Republicans voted to invade Iraq, INCLUDING HILARY CLINTON!! Even Russia agreed Iraq had WMD and was a terrorist nation.
Of course we continue to blame GW for everything OR we can look at Obama in his second term as president and he still hasn't pulled us out of Iraq OR Afghanistan, FACTS. The only thing Obama has done is micromanage every situation involving a black criminal. What a racist he is.
Saddam Hussein was santa claus compared to the other leaders in the middle east. Its showing now.
Opinion

Custer, SD

#8 Aug 25, 2014
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
Our Congress is pathetic, no question about that... But couldn't the same be said of obama when looking at the situation in Syria?
Remember last summer when obama was trying to get us into war in Syria? Remember when he told us that Assad had crossed his red line in the sand by gassing his people, so action needed to be taken?
Then when Obama saw "which way the political wind blew" on that... he immediately backed off and "made the decision" to leave it up to congress... even though the CONSTITUTION already did that?
What's worse is the fact that the UN & others later concluded that the rebels, not Assad... used the chemical weapons... that Obama tried to use as a pretext for war in Syria.
++++++++++
I know that there is no way in the world that you understand the point of all of this, polly... so I'll dumb it way down:
Just because bush did a bad job, and just because congress is dreadful... those things DO NOT make obama good.
He's proven, with his actions and words, to be every bit the buffoon that they have.
I wish that wasn't the case as much as any American... but I think it is about time we all recognize the fact that President obama is VERY different from Candidate/Senator obama.
Well I have to admit that I like things explained as simple and clear as possible so that I understand what someone is saying.

Do you have any opinion about ISIS and what should be done?
nac

Bellmore, NY

#9 Aug 25, 2014
-Sprocket- wrote:
<quoted text>
Saddam Hussein was santa claus compared to the other leaders in the middle east. Its showing now.
Saddam wasn't willing to do what the US & Europe told him to do.

It had very little to do with WMDs & humanitarian distractions...

It had a LOT more to do with Saddam flooding the market with oil when it benefited Iraq & not US/European oil companies.

If Saddam had "played ball" with regard to oil, he could use all the mustard gas in the world and still be praised by the west.

Instead, he flooded the market with oil to pay down his debts from the Iran/Iraq war and Desert Storm... when western influences didn't want him to... so he was taken out. Replaced with "leaders" that will do as they are told.
nac

Bellmore, NY

#10 Aug 25, 2014
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I have to admit that I like things explained as simple and clear as possible so that I understand what someone is saying.
Do you have any opinion about ISIS and what should be done?
The government that recently called them the "junior varsity jihad" now says that they are really dangerous....

So I guess we should turn in our guns and give up all of our rights.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#11 Aug 25, 2014
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
Saddam wasn't willing to do what the US & Europe told him to do.
It had very little to do with WMDs & humanitarian distractions...
It had a LOT more to do with Saddam flooding the market with oil when it benefited Iraq & not US/European oil companies.
If Saddam had "played ball" with regard to oil, he could use all the mustard gas in the world and still be praised by the west.
Instead, he flooded the market with oil to pay down his debts from the Iran/Iraq war and Desert Storm... when western influences didn't want him to... so he was taken out. Replaced with "leaders" that will do as they are told.
That makes sense. So its all over oil and who can run there war machine the longest? Preserve ares. Is ISIS American made?
nac

Bellmore, NY

#13 Aug 25, 2014
-Sprocket- wrote:
<quoted text>
That makes sense. So its all over oil and who can run there war machine the longest? Preserve ares. Is ISIS American made?
Probably. We'll see.

Last summer we were funding and arming "moderate" rebels in Syria to "fight Assad"...

Now ISIS is so "well trained & well funded" that we are told that they are more dangerous than AQ ever was...

You do the math
Bloody Bill Anderson

Cadiz, KY

#15 Aug 26, 2014
Forget wrote:
Saddam invaded Kuwait, he was a real bad guy to his people AND to countries next door, he proved it..
Democrats and Republicans voted to invade Iraq, INCLUDING HILARY CLINTON!! Even Russia agreed Iraq had WMD and was a terrorist nation.
Of course we continue to blame GW for everything OR we can look at Obama in his second term as president and he still hasn't pulled us out of Iraq OR Afghanistan, FACTS. The only thing Obama has done is micromanage every situation involving a black criminal. What a racist he is.
You are conflating two situations more than 10 years apart. Yes, Saddam invaded Kuwait. Yes, he had some weapons of mass destruction (gas) at that point. Yes, Russia agreed. So did the UN. The USA led a multi-national coalition to liberate Kuwait. Saddam then in effect surrendered to the UN. UN inspectors collected and destroyed his chemical weapons and Scud missiles.

The second time around was a totally different situation. Virtually nobody agreed with the Bush administration's claims except the Israelis, who wanted Iraq destroyed and destabilized and the USA dragged deeper into the Middle East quagmire. The strategy seems to have been to make as many enemies for the USA as possible in the Arab / Muslim world.
Bloody Bill Anderson

Cadiz, KY

#16 Aug 26, 2014
-Sprocket- wrote:
<quoted text>
That makes sense. So its all over oil and who can run there war machine the longest? Preserve ares. Is ISIS American made?
Indirectly, yes, the USA created ISIS. It was not "all over oil" however. There is considerable evidence that Israel backed several of the diverse Sunni groups that coalesced into ISIS in their fight against the Assad regime in Syria. Assad is a member of a religious minority called the Alawites. The Alawites are an offshoot of the Shiites.(The Alawites in Syria and the Assad regime are traditionally allies of the Syrian Christians, too.) Assad is backed by Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, also Shiite. Iran is no. 1 on Israel's enemies list. Syria is no. 2. The Israelis armed the Sunni extremists in Syria with the expectation that they would cause problems for Assad and, in the longer term, for Iran.
Forget

Minneapolis, MN

#17 Aug 26, 2014
Bloody Bill Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are conflating two situations more than 10 years apart. Yes, Saddam invaded Kuwait. Yes, he had some weapons of mass destruction (gas) at that point. Yes, Russia agreed. So did the UN. The USA led a multi-national coalition to liberate Kuwait. Saddam then in effect surrendered to the UN. UN inspectors collected and destroyed his chemical weapons and Scud missiles.
The second time around was a totally different situation. Virtually nobody agreed with the Bush administration's claims except the Israelis, who wanted Iraq destroyed and destabilized and the USA dragged deeper into the Middle East quagmire. The strategy seems to have been to make as many enemies for the USA as possible in the Arab / Muslim world.
You overlook: Congress voted to invade Iraq, including Hillary Clinton.

None of Congress stood up and opposed the invasion. So you can blame GW Bush but anyone with 1/2 a brain understands what happened after 9/11. Emotions were very high and everyone wanted blood from terrorists.
Bloody Bill Anderson

Hopkinsville, KY

#18 Aug 26, 2014
Forget wrote:
<quoted text>
You overlook: Congress voted to invade Iraq, including Hillary Clinton.
None of Congress stood up and opposed the invasion. So you can blame GW Bush but anyone with 1/2 a brain understands what happened after 9/11. Emotions were very high and everyone wanted blood from terrorists.
Yes. Americans, me included, wanted the blood of the terrorists after 9-11. But with hindsight the worst mistake that President Bush made was in declaring the "War on Terror" and casting it in military terms. That opened the door to the thorny problem of who is and who is not entitled to prisoner of war status.

A better way would have been to cast the attack as a criminal act, the result of a criminal conspiracy, and made a special prosecutor the head of the fight against al-Qaeda. That fight should have been led by the FBI, not the military. The FBI would have been able to call upon military assistance abroad. The precedent for such an approach is to be found in the way governments dealt with pirates on the high seas in the past. A pirate was an international outlaw, and fair game for any naval vessel of any nation. Sometimes that took quite a lot of military effort, but the pirate was still a common criminal, and the fight against pirates was law enforcement, not war. Once captured, the pirate was handed over to a civilian court, tried, convicted, and hanged.

As it turned out, the USA charged headlong into the very trap that Osama bin Laden set for us.
Opinion

Custer, SD

#19 Aug 26, 2014
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
The government that recently called them the "junior varsity jihad" now says that they are really dangerous....
So I guess we should turn in our guns and give up all of our rights.
I would not be surprised that some of those terrorist groups closely related and are pretty much the same cat. Some may be more violent than others. ISIS appears to be a pretty violent bunch.

Do you have any opinion about ISIS and what should be done now by Obama or Congress?

What would you propose to do if you were President?

I doubt that gun control in the USA is going to solve the problem as is giving up any more rights.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#20 Aug 26, 2014
ISIS ? crisis?
nac

Bellmore, NY

#21 Aug 26, 2014
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
I would not be surprised that some of those terrorist groups closely related and are pretty much the same cat. Some may be more violent than others. ISIS appears to be a pretty violent bunch.
Do you have any opinion about ISIS and what should be done now by Obama or Congress?
What would you propose to do if you were President?
I doubt that gun control in the USA is going to solve the problem as is giving up any more rights.
I have no idea what obama and the equally idiotic congress should do about ISIS at this point.

Our constant meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations in the region has caused another problem that will require more bloodshed unfortunately.

Yet another disastrous example of why "change we can believe in" was a complete farce. Bush was long gone when we decided to arm & train "moderate" rebels (terrorists) to fight Assad. You know, the Assad that posed absolutely no threat to the US at all.

I wonder what sort of vetting process was done to determine who was a "moderate" enough terrorist to receive US training, funding, and weapons?

Doesn't arming & funding terrorists to fight someone that isn't a threat to us ... seem more like a bush idea than a president-peace-prize idea?

Doesn't it sound like an idea that was wide-open to, if not likely to backfire?

Well it certainly looks like it backfired, because the "junior varsity jihad" is now "somehow" more dangerous than AQ was.

So what do we do now???

Honestly, who knows? The only certainty is that we have a track record of almost exclusively doing the wrong thing in the middle east... so don't get your hopes up.
Opinion

Custer, SD

#22 Aug 26, 2014
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea what obama and the equally idiotic congress should do about ISIS at this point.
Our constant meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations in the region has caused another problem that will require more bloodshed unfortunately.
Yet another disastrous example of why "change we can believe in" was a complete farce. Bush was long gone when we decided to arm & train "moderate" rebels (terrorists) to fight Assad. You know, the Assad that posed absolutely no threat to the US at all.
I wonder what sort of vetting process was done to determine who was a "moderate" enough terrorist to receive US training, funding, and weapons?
Doesn't arming & funding terrorists to fight someone that isn't a threat to us ... seem more like a bush idea than a president-peace-prize idea?
Doesn't it sound like an idea that was wide-open to, if not likely to backfire?
Well it certainly looks like it backfired, because the "junior varsity jihad" is now "somehow" more dangerous than AQ was.
So what do we do now???
Honestly, who knows? The only certainty is that we have a track record of almost exclusively doing the wrong thing in the middle east... so don't get your hopes up.
I cannot say I disagree. Hard to get out of the mess.

I do know that Obama put the request to Congress to determine whether or not to take action in Syria. Congress has yet to bring the matter up for debate and it been a year.

Today I listened to a couple of Congressmen demanding that Obama start bombing Syria but they totally ignore making any decision or discussing it on the floor of the House.

Regardless of what Obama has done or will do in regards to ISIS or Syria the House of Representatives need to do their job as defined in the Constitution. Too me they don’t want to make the decision but set and condemn Obama regardless of what he does.

Declaration of War rests with Congress when American military are risking their lives. The one exception I can see is if an emergency exists and imminent action demands the President to act. Even then he should consult with the leaders of the House and Senate if possible.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jackson-Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
jets talk back (Dec '07) 9 min jimi-yank 16,002
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 9 min Paul Yanks 47,192
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 15 min Paul Yanks 344,022
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 22 min June VanDerMark 336,821
President Trump's first 100 days - Roadmap to D... (Nov '16) 1 hr Guinness Drinker 7,242
Ode to Bush (Mar '09) 1 hr THrilLa 2,227
The United Hates of America (Sep '10) 1 hr Guinness Drinker 3,199

Jackson-Heights Jobs

Personal Finance

Jackson-Heights Mortgages