Bombing Iraq. Not what I voted for.

[grahamhgreen]

[Shivering Jemmy]

1. Good to know

[pansypoo53219]

2. technically. bush never won. president*.

what exactly was obama supposed to do. ignore it?

[grahamhgreen]

84. Ignore what? Starving homeless people I walk by on a daily basis?

[zappaman]

3. Sometimes circumstances change.

The world is constantly evolving.
I didn't vote for this either, but I wasn't asked to.

[MADem]

4. Did you vote for ISIS committing wholesale murder?

I'll bet that wasn't on your radar in the voting booth, either.

Who "votes for bombing Iraq?"

I mean...really.

[DocwillCuNow]

27. And ISIS isn't the flowers and candy I expected either. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

80. 1) we destabilized Iraq & Syria 2) we supported ISIS 3) we committed wholesale murder 4) we tortured

And refuse to prosecute the torturers... That's OK, claims the president, because the torturers are patriotic.... Why can't ISIS claim the same logic?

5) we have followed the cry for war for 12 years and the situation has continued to deteriorate. It's time you folks listen to reason, not knee jerk into violence.

6) this war is 1400 years old, our involvement in it has only inflamed the region.

7) what about the deficit? Why cut anything if we can afford war? The military budget is killing is.

8) it's all about war profiteering, these people make money from death.

9) how many times must war hawks be proven wrong?

[joshcryer]

136. Did you vote for the guy that destabilized Iraq?

[grahamhgreen]

138. Hell no! I don't vote for people who can only see violence as the solution to their problems. I

prefer to let cooler heads prevail.

What's your prediction for Iraq a month from now? A year?

[CJCRANE]

5. The MIC always finds a way to trick the voters.

Remember how the Dems won big in '06 by running against the Iraq War?

What happened?

Rumsfeld resigned, which was good. But Bushco went ahead with the "Surge" which sent even more troops to Iraq.

Obama ran on ending the war in Iraq and fighting Al Qaeda.

What happened?

He removed troops from Iraq and went hard after Al Qaeda, taking out their chief propagandist (Anwar Al-Awlaki) and their leader (Osama Bin Laden). He also implemented the drone policy to target Al Qaeda affiliates (which he overdid IMO, but that's for another argument).

So far, so good.

But in the meantime, supporting uprisings in Libya and Syria incubated a whole new breed of terrorists, even worse than Al Qaeda and this time with a standing army.

So we're back to square one. The MIC gets its wars and the police state gets what it wants. The good side is that there are less American boots on the ground in the war zones.

(Not to mention the posturing against Russia, which was a u-turn from previous indications).

A step towards a way out of this is to release the various reports that are being held back.

[woo me with science]

67. We are exhorted to ignore the patterns. Did you see this post by IchingCarpenter?

We are bombing our own guns.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025359142

[RandiFan1290]

6. I didn't vote for the Bush tax cuts

Join the club!

[woo me with science]

8. I didn't vote for austerity and a surveillance state, either.

[ellenrr]

7. well, then if bombing Iraq was not what you wanted, you shouldn't have voted for Obomba

Did you not know anything about him before you voted for him?

Did you not know the interests he serves?

[Octafish]

10. Not what I voted for.

Nor did I vote for continued Secret Government.

[woo me with science]

15. [phone]

[840high]

97. ....

[hifiguy]

125. The Secret Government is eternal

and it secured its final supremacy back in November 1963

[ellenrr]

140. you all should ask yourself: How come many of us knew what Obama would do BEFORE he was elected??

Maybe you should start paying attention...

[DCBob]

11. You are terribly naive if you think any US President is not going to bomb something somewhere.

[woo me with science]

13. I know, let's not complain about it!

In fact, let's snipe at anyone who does!

[DCBob]

24. Feel free to complain..

but to assume any US President, no matter how anti-war they are, will not use "bombs" at some point is absurd.

[woo me with science]

32. Again, a smear at those who complain.

Please explain how you conclude that anyone who complains about policy, is naive about policy?

And what purpose does sniping at anyone who complains, serve?

[krawhitham]

47. So it is OK to complain about Obama but not OK ot complain about you

GOT IT

[BuelahWitch]

139. When Woo bombs something, you can complain, how's that? n/t

[Vattel]

51. No one has assumed that.

[grahamhgreen]

105. When does the bombing end? What is the metric for success?

[DCBob]

119. I suppose when those murderous maniacs are forced to give up trying to take over Iraq and..

stop trying to kill everyone who doesn't bow to their perverted version of Islam.

[grahamhgreen]

85. What's more naive is thinking Americancan end a 1400 year old war by using bombs and torture.

[DCBob]

121. I protested this war back in the Bush era before the war started.

It was a massive mistake to try to nation build there. I am sure President Obama has no intentions of trying to do that again. These barbarians need to be stopped or there could be millions of innocents killed or forced to flee. A good use of our military in my opinion.

[randome]

12. You get to vote on foreign policy?

Do the rest of us need to sign up for that somewhere?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[woo me with science]

14. What is your problem with opposing bombing?

Why the need to get everyone in line and snipe at them for expressing an opinion about our blood-soaked, profiteering foreign policy?

How disturbing.

[randome]

17. I don't oppose bombing the shit out of ISIS.

To stand by and do nothing is not the right option, IMO.

And I didn't see any opinion expressed, simply a soundbite.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[woo me with science]

19. What were you looking for, a dissertation with links?

Of course there was an opinion there, and one that obviously a lot of people here share.

Shall we pull up some of your posts to see how many of them are "soundbites"?

[randome]

20. Okay, you and the OP are against bombing evil people.

Why?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[woo me with science]

21. This nation bombs evil people and not so evil people.

We bomb the evildoers out and somehow the promised flowers for liberators never arrive. And we bomb other places and create more evildoers. Sometimes we ally with the evildoers before we bomb them. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, including funding and arming the bombing of captive populations and children.

Maybe we should just stop bombing for a while and see how that works out, instead.

I like this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025355401

[randome]

22. A valid opinion. I'd even vote for that option to see how it works out.

But it shouldn't be a surprise that a politician sees things differently.

It's very much an interconnected world. There are no doubt people in this country who have relatives endangered or even killed by ISIS. I don't have a problem with taking action to try and alleviate some of the abominable actions going on there.

Bush, Junior gave us this hellhole. We can't pretend it doesn't exist, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Vattel]

53. I share your general opposition to bombing the shit out of everything. But

I have yet to see solid evidence that Obama cannot do a lot of good in this instance by threatening the use of force to protect those threatened with slaughter. I too worry that Obama will go further than he should in Iraq. Only dumb luck saved him from bombing the hell out of Syria. But one can be in favor of some use of force in Iraq without endorsing excessive force.

[woo me with science]

59. I appreciate your rational responses throughout this thread,

and I respect your argument here, although I don't share your leaning toward trust. IMO, there will always be another humanitarian venture used by the MIC to expand their wars...and in many cases we have a hand in creating them. The first Iraq was supposed to last six weeks. I can't name a recent "humanitarian" venture that actually turned out to be humanitarian rather than an entry into more MIC profit and expanding pain and devastation. On the other hand, humanitarian crises that don't happen to be in areas of strategic interests for the US, for the most part, need not apply.

Bottom line, at this point I actively distrust any claims about "humanitarian" bombing from our government anymore. I think history shows clearly that humanitarian causes are the last concern of our MIC, unless they are used as a wedge to insert us into ventures that end up expanding into even more blood and death and wild profitability. We are warned about the need to bomb to prevent "potential genocide" in Iraq, while we abet *ongoing* genocidal slaughter in Gaza...carpet bombing of neighborhoods using our tax money and our bullets. And our military is engaged every single day in droning civilians to create more angry people to create more humanitarian crises.

I'm going to link again to this post by JackRiddler that I think should have hundreds of recommendations:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025355401

It describes the persisting behavior and policies by the MIC that ensure the continuation of this cycle of violence: humanitarian crisis followed by urgent bids for military "rescue" followed by bloodbath and escalation, followed by more military expansion, arming the lesser of evils, causing more unrest, which leads to more humanitarian crises and profit for the warmongers. The post rightly points out that there are things the MIC could be doing to show good faith in actually trying to end the violence rather than perpetuating this cycle, but their behavior, and the behavior of US politicians, does exactly the opposite.

We are constantly urged to see each new MIC project in isolation, instead of observing the larger pattern that reveals the true motive and intentions. The cycle of war is increasingly tethering our economy to military empire and hollowing out the rest of the country. At a certain point, we need to demand an overall change in behavior instead of allowing this constant reactivity to crisis that perpetuates the cycle of war and death and destruction and the draining of our national coffers into the pockets of the banks and the businessmen and their MIC.

[Vattel]

141. You make a strong case for distrust, and I too am very worried that

the use of force in Iraq will not be discriminate and beneficial enough to be justified. I remember arguing with a friend when the US invaded Afghanistan that the campaign would not simply crush Al Qaida and the Taliban with little collateral damage, but would end up being itself a long, indiscriminate and ineffective attempt at nation-building. He concedes now that I was right.

I wish Obama had not lied during his campaign in 2008 about who has the power to take the nation to war. He claimed that Congress did and now he openly claims that he does. Not that I trust Congress, but I do think the power of war is less dangerous when placed in the hands of Congress, and that is what the Founders wisely tried to do. It is hard not to be skeptical about any use of military force when claims about how force will be used are made by the single person in charge who almost never reveals his strategic thinking and who is himself the CIC and a tool of the MIC.

[grahamhgreen]

102. Exactly Woo! Let's try a different solution for once.

[TheKentuckian]

25. Like Saddam? Every right wing talking point has been fetched from the recycling bin.

[randome]

30. It's understandable that you're confused.

We've heard them cry 'Wolf' far too many times. But we knew it was bullshit when applied to Sadaam. We can still use our heads and see that ISIS is a very real wolf.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[TheKentuckian]

61. Hussein really was a wolf too. As was Gaddafi. There are all kinds of wolves.

Our actions so far have proven disastrous, including Obama's. Libya is orders of magnitude a greater mess and the games to piss of Putin and deprive Russia of seaports has no doubt played no small role in creating room and opposition while increasing resources and firepower for related groups in Syria which may right now being used to hunt down and torment these people in Iraq and if not certainly alleviated demand for supply and reinforcement so other could push.

No, it isn't just the boy crying wolf too many times but also the ineptitude at best and malicious intent at the worst points of the wolf killing crew that comes in and beds wolves and worse while generally fucking up far worse than the wolves ever thought of.

ISIS has no airforce, if they are a real threat to stability then we are not the only option by any stretch, the Saudis could mop this up themselves, the combined Arab forces would make child's play of the espoused operation. England and France both would have overwhelming air superiority (and England helped break it too), Russia loves taking these sorts out and could use the press if we'd allow it and maybe any of those other potential actors would find some way not to screw the pooch like we have at every turn.

No, big picture I don't see different. Not being stupid as Junior Bush or twisted as Cheney won't carry the day here. Hell, we can't really depend on good intentions because this is brought to us by the exact same folks funneling weapons and resources to the same folks across the border (that they don't give one shit about, by the way that is a figment of our imagination) and telling us for months they are moderates, they are anything but.

I am more fearful of ineptitude than malevolence here because if the broader actions aren't willfully seeking to further destabilize the region then we could accidentally open any number of gates to Hell scrambling to "do something".
The handling and choices for operations in the region are not the same as BushCo but they have also been dangerously bad, further inflaming the area and fostering even more radical elements.

Folks need to stop stupidly celebrating and high fiving not getting into ground wars with Libya and or bombing Syria because doing either would be insanely stupid. It takes no over mind to avoid insanely stupid nor does it mean what actions that were taken were positive, not counter productive, or even weren't stupid and/or screwy themselves because yes Operation Enduring and Ever Expanding clusterfuck continues even under new management.

There is no indication whatsoever that we have any idea what we are doing over there unless the end game is a complete meltdown.

Nope, we bring noting operationally special to the table here except a reverse Midas touch. There is always a noble hook that can be baited but the hole keeps getting deeper and we get cave ins on our heads no matter who digs, no more digging seems best.

We have very plausibly already unleashed World War III and aren't about to stop it so we need to stop accelerating it and hope there is enough blow back to the radicals that the movement implodes are is strangled internally but we are not helping.

[randome]

108. Good points, really.

But not being able to predict every possible outcome is still no excuse for sitting back and twiddling our thumbs while ISIS does whatever the hell it wants in Iraq.

I don't think Obama is inept so, in general, I support what he's trying to accomplish. I had no idea what Bush, Junior was trying to do but he and his were clearly inept from the start.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[TheKentuckian]

124. Why not aside from devotion and stubbornness, at least as it relates to actions in the region

Why would toppling the comparatively secular governments (rogues and villains they may be) not generate further regional instability and give hard line radical breathing room and resources they'd otherwise not enjoy?

Dumb actions don't become noble and wise because there were even more foolish moves available and the folks celebrating and pushing the hardest for these actions now want to pretend they didn't escalate an already bad situation dangerously.
Some also forget that the arguments and events are all running together, always there is hand wringing about some humanitarian and/or a threat to "our vital strategic interests", we go and slowly ramp up, then next thing we know we are in the midst of a long national nightmare, we kill a shitload of people for a while, completely fuck up whatever we touched, and get out of dodge as soon as we can patch together some bullshit that allows us to believe we have "won a peace with honor" and rinse and repeat for generations now.

No, what we need is a heaping helping of "thumb twiddling" because based on what we have been doing it is the very best thing we can do to no screw the pooch anymore than we have already screwed it.

I also don't get why we have one fucking tool in the repair kit, the military and the clandestine services. Apparently, if there is a problem you bomb it or destabilize a government but the thing is no matter how much we "fix" shit it gets more broken.

This isn't about any perfect prescience but rather a strong track record of fucking shit up and getting embroiled in things we cannot control and exacerbating them.

[randome]

128. Yeah, but I don't see negotiating with cutthroat murderers to be an option.

There is nothing noble about dropping bombs. Ever. But sometimes it's the right thing to do.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[grahamhgreen]

88. Let me remind you, these are the same 'evil' forces we supplied to overthrow Syria.

[randome]

104. So they should have foreseen this happening, then?

I'm not sure it was all that clear from the start but then I wasn't privy to the intelligence information that led to it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[grahamhgreen]

107. Yup. But this outcome is profitable tor the defense industry.

[randome]

111. So? That doesn't necessarily mean that trying to stop ISIS springs solely from a profit motive.

Sometimes doing what we can to stop a slaughter really is the right thing to do.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[mythology]

70. I'd want a reason why not bombing ISIL is the right choice

Why doing nothing while a group of mass murdering fanatical nutjobs slaughter innocents is the right choice.

If the OP is simply opposed to violence in any circumstance, well that's a naive philosophical position, but at least it's a philosophical position. Instead we got foot stomping without any logic behind the opinion that we shouldn't do anything about ISIL.

[woo me with science]

72. More Third Way surrealism. There are several good arguments against bombing above.

How convenient that you answer here and pretend those posts don't exist.

Meanwhile, you offer *nothing* except the predictable Third Way smear ("foot stomping&quot and demands for rebuttals to arguments you haven't even made.

[grahamhgreen]

89. Because our violent solutions thus far simply further destabilize the region, agreed? Or is it

better now than before the invasion.

If one were serious about stopping human rights abuse, one would start by prosecuting known torturers here at home.

[grahamhgreen]

82. We got ISIS by funding these same rebels in Syria. It's a cycle of violence. Just like Vietnam begat

Khmer Rouge, now we have these wackos. We are the problem. How has resorting to violence worked out for us so far?

[randome]

129. It hasn't worked out so well, has it?

Does that mean we stop trying? I don't have a problem with doing something to stop ISIS from gaining more power and killing more people. The last thing the world needs is another fundamentalist Islamic republic.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[grahamhgreen]

81. Our representative vote for us. When the cease to represent us, they should be removed.

[woo me with science]

16. The list of things I didn't vote for is a hell of a lot longer at this point

than the things I did.

I didn't vote for more bombing *or* elevation of "patriot" torturers.

[JaneyVee]

18. We all voted for bombing Afghanistan though.

[Vattel]

45. To vote for someone is not to endorse their whole agenda.

Often it is merely aimed at avoiding a worse agenda.

[randome]

26. Wow. Another nuanced opinion expressed.

I accumulate so much wisdom from DU these days.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[PowerToThePeople]

31. no need for nuance

we bomb
we torture
we love them both

Pretty clear, no nuance needed.

[randome]

41. If by 'we', you mean America through the years, yes, we have done some atrocious things.

But that shouldn't blind us to the here-and-now. If we want to see the truth through the smoke and mirrors, it appears to me that Obama is not invading another country to capture its resources and it appears to me that ISIS is an abominable group of people who deserve everything they get.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[MineralMan]

64. And misspelled, to boot.

"peace" is not the word the poster was thinking of, I'm sure. Homophones abound in English.

[randome]

99. Did not even notice that.

I almost posted "Before this post is hidden, I just want to say you're an idiot." But then I realized I could easily have my own post hidden so I decided against that.

I wonder where he picked up that phrase.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[IronGate]

66. Wow!!!

Did he really say this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025357861#post23

We all voted for a peace of shit used car salesman. Twice.

That right there should be grounds for being escorted off the property.

[JTFrog]

77. If the first guy who posted that sentiment had been escorted off the property....

If the first guy who posted that sentiment had been escorted off the property for spouting that kind of hatred, I think people would think twice before repeating it.

But hey, rules are only for peons.

[msanthrope]

101. This. nt

[FSogol]

135. +1. Exactly. n/t

[MohRokTah]

29. .

[MohRokTah]

28. So you agree with ISIS that the Yazidis should be wiped out?

Wow, just wow.

[JoePhilly]

34. Apparently the Iraqi government asked us to bomb them.

The OP thinks bombing terrorists at the request of the Iraqi government is the same as bombing the country of Iraq.

I used to think only far right wingers struggled to understand that Afghanistan was not Iraq, and that Shite, Sunni, and Kurds were not all the same thing.

DU has taught me otherwise.

[MohRokTah]

36. I've noticed a few things more and more

The progressive left has its own version of the tea party that demands absolute ideological purity even if that means doing some completely stupid shit.

[JoePhilly]

40. Yup and ... they are starting to fragment some more ...

... with recent events in Isreal / Gaza, and now with ISIS in Iraq ... its getting easier and easier for one of DU's high priest's of liberalism
to fail a purity test such as this one.

[rbrnmw]

94. So true

There is no reasoning with them either. There is also a group that hates this President every bit as much as the Tea Party.

[madokie]

48. The op is more against anything Obama does actually

Seems to me like anyway. After a while it becomes obvious where a persons heart lies, where they're coming from, what they think. IMO

[grahamhgreen]

96. No, I support his effort to close tax loopholes for off shored corporations.

I oppose continuing a failed Iraq war.

[JoePhilly]

33. The poutrage continues.

[woo me with science]

37. Ah, here you are. Right on cue.

I find it fascinating that as soon as someone expresses an opinion about MIC activities, the swarm shows up not to justify those activities with information, but to begin the derisive commentary about the critics.

It's like clockwork.

[JoePhilly]

42. I could see the Hair bursting into flames from miles away.

So it wasn't hard to miss.

Hey ... so are we going to invade Iraq like we were going to invade Syria last summer??

The reality is some of you knee jerk into a frenzy so often, its impossible to take it seriously.

[PowerToThePeople]

46. It is sad, so many Repukes on this board

Threads like this should deliver lots of pizza for right wing views (which are not allowed per TOS) sadly the repukes never seem to get tossed.

[MohRokTah]

49. Yeah, the Repukes posing as liberals to stir shit are sickening. Good catch. eom

[SidDithers]

50. Yup. Another outrage widget gets produced...

and passed around amongst the perpetually disgruntled.

As predictable as the sun rising in the East.

Sid

[JoePhilly]

52. Always.

But their purity tests are starting to thin their ranks.

The latest purity tests ...

1) The Palestinians are all innocent and Israel is conducting a full scale genocide. Say anything different ... you aren't a real liberal.
2) The US should not be bombing ISIS. Say anything different ... you aren't a real liberal.

Will be fun to see if they allow the blasphemers back in the herd.

[SidDithers]

35. Good luck finding a President...

who will never use the military. No matter what the curcumstance, no matter what the situation. No matter how many people may be in danger.

And you want a President who will never, ever use the military. Will always rule it out, even before knowing anything about the situation.

Good luck finding that President.

Sid

[MohRokTah]

38. Kucinich.

Kucinich said he would take the military option completely off the table.

See how far that got him in Democratic primaries? How many delegates did Kucinich get?

Oh, yeah.

None.

The OP wants a Kucinich.

Not a very realistic expectation.

[SidDithers]

44. Exactly. And the usual suspects...

who live in a fantasy, peaceful utopia, where everyone loves each other, and ISIL joins hands with Yazidis, and they all sing Kumbayah.

It's a lovely place, this utopia, that exists only in their heads.

Sid

[woo me with science]

39. This appears to be the new talking point. That those who criticize bombing Iraq again

EXPECT THAT NO PRESIDENT WILL EVER USE THE MILITARY AGAIN.

This is the second time I have seen that strawman in this thread.

[JoePhilly]

43. So bombing ISIS is bad ... why?

I hear lots of gnashing of teeth, but little else.

[woo me with science]

58. Irony, thy name is Josh.

Now *that* is quintessential Third Way surrealism. You came onto the thread with empty attacks, and then when called on it, demand rebuttals to arguments you didn't bother to make.

Actually, I have seen some excellent arguments critical of bombing. I even linked to one above, after my own commentary, which you, of course, pretend isn't there.

You carry on with the requisite Third Way smear and diversion. But don't think the pattern isn't clear to everyone.

[JoePhilly]

123. so i need to go read all your posts to find

some one else's argument?

Ok.

[Vattel]

57. lol, it is a pretty silly talking point

[woo me with science]

60. +1 Patently absurd. nt

[TheSarcastinator]

75. your strawman is a strawman

Claiming that people against further military intervention in Iraq all think that NO PRESIDENT WILL [should] USE THE MILITARY AGAIN is total bullshit and a straw man in and of itself....but hey, nice try.

[woo me with science]

79. I think you misread my post, or I screwed up writing it.

I agree with you. That was the strawman I was pointing out.

[Vattel]

54. No one is looking for such a president.

[SidDithers]

55. The OP is...nt

Sid

[Vattel]

56. The OP wants a President who would not use military force under any circumstances?

Maybe, but I guess I would have to hear it from them.

[grahamhgreen]

83. We are the problem, not the solution, to the 1400 year old war in Iraq.

Sure, there are times for intervention, you've had 12 years that prove that American violence can be the solution in Iraq. How'd that work out so far?

[MineralMan]

62. No. You voted for a President who would use his wisdom and discretion

to decide what to do in such circumstances. The current Iraq response was not on the ballot.

We vote for people, not individual issues.

[m-lekktor]

65. pay no attention to those pesky issues

just support the people we vote for !! brilliant!!

[IronGate]

63. Then you run for and get elected President in 2016.

It's easy for the armchair Generals to sit and snipe at President Obama when he makes a decision like this, yet they won't do anything else except sit and snipe and maybe send a strongly worded letter of protest to their congresscritter.
Next time, run for President and see just how difficult it really is to have the weight of the world on your shoulders.

[TheSarcastinator]

68. what a ridiculous & clueless response

So shut up and do what you're told? Yeah, that's not gonna fly, genius. What a pathetic joke.

[IronGate]

69. The pathetic joke is your response to my comment,

but carry on armchair general, carry on.

[TheSarcastinator]

74. you can only think in terms of "generals" and followers, isn't that right?

You reveal yourself very quickly. Pathetic.

[IronGate]

76. Uh huh.

[woo me with science]

73. The thread is being swarmed with diversion

because the subject line contains an implicit criticism of the administration, and that can't be permitted.

Smear and absurdity for the sole purpose of pollution and diversion.

[grahamhgreen]

91. He is elected to represent us. We need to let him know our opinion. His job is to do what the

majority wants.

[IronGate]

95. And sometimes the President needs to make a difficult decision that goes against

the wishes of the majority, like this situation, if he didn't, those people would be slaughtered by ISIS and the Kurds would be over run and likely slaughtered also.

Letting him know an opinion is fine, but sometimes those opinions need to be ignored.

[grahamhgreen]

100. If he had listened to us and remained uninvolved in Syria, Assad would have crushed ISIS in Syria

Already, that's how I see it.

If he was serious about stopping human rights abuses he would prosecute torture, right?

[IronGate]

106. We're way beyond Syria and Assad,

we're now dealing with a maniacal, brutal terrorist army who've already committed hundreds of crimes against humanity.
If not us, than who? Do we let this terrorist army run amok in the ME? Do we continue to allow them to commit these horrific, brutal crimes?

There's nothing wrong, IMO, with targeted airstrikes against these terrorists to blunt their assault on the Kurds.

[grahamhgreen]

109. Well, he seems fine with allowing us to torture people. When does the bombing end? By what metric?

[IronGate]

112. And I disagree with his statement on those that committed the torture,

but that's not the subject here.
I will support the airstrikes until ISIS is degraded enough that the Kurdish and Iraqi Armies can handle them on their own, remember, the only reason ISIS is making the gains they are is because of the heavy armaments stolen from the Iraqi Army, tanks, up armored Humvees, artillery, etc, targeted airstrikes against this equipment will go a long ways towards degrading ISIS's ability to conduct combat ops.

[grahamhgreen]

113. And if they are never so degraded?

[IronGate]

115. It's pretty easy to take a tank out with anti tank missiles, same for the humvees

and artillery pieces.
Sooner or later, ISIS would find itself unable to conduct successful combat ops due to the dearth of functioning combat equipment, and at the same time, we can supply the Kurds with the necessary weapons system to counter what ISIS has.
I'm not advocating an open ended commitment on American combat ops, just long enough to assure that the Kurdish and Iraqi Armies have an upper hand on these terrorists.

[grahamhgreen]

117. I can get behind supplying the Kurds... Only with a new tax on the wealthy to pay for it and a vote

in congress.

But I've got to ask, after 12 years and trillions of dollars, why are they not in a position to defend themselves already.

In fact, I wonder if they aren't just leading ISIS into a trap in the mountains.

[IronGate]

118. We are in agreement.

I think that would be an excellent way to equip the Kurds, they're not afraid to fight, they just need the equipment to overcome ISIS's superiority in heavy combat vehicles.

[MrMickeysMom]

71. This wasn't my vote, either...

… Nor, was OUR funding of military hardware used to slaughter innocent men, women and children in Gaza.

Nope… No airstrikes there to cease THAT combat fire… Geez… We'd be playing a game against ourselves.

Hey, How's the Global Defense Industry? That, and debt is something I never voted be the primary mover in our GDP.

This is crazy fucking shit, people.

[woo me with science]

78. +10000 The Global Defense Industry needs to be the topic of discussion.

The patterns need to be the topic of discussion, and what the pouring of our money into warmongering is doing to this country needs to be the topic of discussion.

Instead, we are exhorted to view each new crisis as an isolated aberration, having nothing to do with the MIC's overall pattern of behavior.

The U.S. has been at war with Iraq for twenty-four years.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025355401

We are bombing our own guns.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025359142

[rock]

86. Unfortunately you are presented

with a very small number of "packages" (usually two, Dem or Rep). You do not get to vote with a line item 'yes' or 'no'. In this case though I think you have a valid point: I thought there was a promise of "get out Iraq for good!" Am I wrong? Anybody?

[bowens43]

87. Obama has always loved playing with his soldiers.....

[Thinkingabout]

90. Many did not vote any wars but Roosevelt found himself in a situation outside of his control.

I also did not vote for disasters we have faced in the US but again the US nor the president has "control" over everything in this world. We also did not vote for Isis to start their terror, but we must deal with the hand we have been dealt.

[grahamhgreen]

93. Ah, but we funded ISIS in a glib attempt to overthrow Assad in Syria. So, in my view,

Obama funds ISIS, then bombs them... It's about perpetual war for perpetual profit.

[Thinkingabout]

114. The US pushed to get Saddam in power while Dddy Bush was with the CIS, Baby Bush got him out.

Saddam was the cork on the Middle Eastern bottle, though brutal he kept Iran and other countries in check. We can now deal with the aftermath of a horrible situation or live in the squalor. What are you willing to do?

[grahamhgreen]

116. Leave. We can not solve the 1400 year old war.

[99Forever]

92. Always got plenty of money to bomb the crap out of somewhere...

... but never enough to do a damn thing for those who are hurting here.

WTG warmongers.

[840high]

98. Amen.

[grahamhgreen]

103. +1

[historylovr]

110. +1. So sick of it. nt

[woo me with science]

120. No shit. Can't even pass a transportation bill

without "pension smoothing."

Even the basics can't get done in this country without hurting ordinary Americans, yet we have billions for bombs.

[leftstreet]

122. +1

[JI7]

132. it's not a matter of not having money but republicans not supporting it

[99Forever]

137. Ahhh bull.

Same phoney excuse, different day. Different colored jerseys, same team.

[Renew Deal]

126. Did you vote for genocide?

What about heads on pikes?

[grahamhgreen]

134. Neither that, nor calling torturers patriots.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

127. Or, drones, surges, and "collateral damage".

[walkingman]

130. I agree with little of GOP

policies, I am becoming more and more disgusted with the Democratic Party as well. We are all simply faced these days with choosing with the lesser of two bad choices.

What has happened to America? Sad.

Peace

[woo me with science]

131. Nobel Peace Prize, representative government...

Tired of the oligarchy. Tired of the MIC. Tired of the scam.

[JI7]

133. OBama never campaigned as an isolationist and the dem party is not isolationist

and will never nominate an isolationist as president.

[LWolf]

142. Not in 2000, '04, '08, or '12. nt