- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
- Messages
- 28,824
- Reaction score
- 20,497
- Location
- Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I believe things in the ME are going exactly how Obama wants them too. His meager actions are just for show; to appear that he's doing something.
Haven't you been reading any of my posts? Why should America get involved, really? ISIS is rolling all over Syria, Iraq and now the Kurds, killing 100k's of innocent people. Next, it'll be Turkey and Jordan. That's a recipe for the US military to bring the hurt.
I'm not as cynical, but I can appreciate that point of view.
And again, the time for getting involved was 4 years ago, when Syria was first bubbling up, not 4 years later when all hell is breaking loose. If Turkey is attacked, NATO will be involved. If Jordan is attacked, the UN will be involved.
Let the Iraqi leadership go to the UN for assistance. As long as Maliki is still in charge in Iraq, let them fight their own battles - let him reap what he's sown. I'd be much more inclined to support an American led coalition to enter Ukraine and stand up to the Russians before it's too late.
The only other option is impotence.
You can't get your head out of the past long enough to see what's current. The President just got off the phone with King Abdullah of Jordan with promises of US defense. The UN couldn't beat up a wet napkin compared to us, nor are they positioned to act quickly.
The Pentagon has been watching this situation for years and months, knowing they might have to act. It's not matter of "if", it's only a matter of 'when'.
Stand up to the Russians, huh? Now you're showing your naivete and lack of geopolitical comprehension, because that ain't happening.
I hope you mean incompetence :shock:
Not living in the past and no interest in returning to the past.
My suggestions related to the UN were to assist the US in avoiding another unilateral action that would provide your country with no benefit and an infinite potential for being blamed again.
Blamed by who for what? For trying to make the world a safer place? The first Wars may have been ill advised but they weren't done to hurt innocent people.
The UN has become almost strictly concerned with Europe and 3rd world countries that affect it. Between arming the Kurds in the north, prodding the Iraqi ground troops from the south and US air support we can bring the wampum.
Not living in the past and no interest in returning to the past.
My suggestions related to the UN were to assist the US in avoiding another unilateral action that would provide your country with no benefit and an infinite potential for being blamed again.
I have no problem assisting the Kurds, arming them and providing tactical assistance and guidance. From my perspective, the Kurds are the only honest party in this whole mess. But the Kurds decided that they would back out of the central Iraqi government and retrench into their own area. If I'm not mistaken, they even officially or unofficially declared their part of the country as a separate entity. In my view, providing military support to the Kurds could set up the US for danger with the Turkish government who remains deeply concerned about the Kurdish elements within Turkey's borders attempting to secede and join in a larger Kurdish country.
I think what your seeing here is the result of inattention. My point, and I appreciate you don't agree, is that it is more to the benefit of America to stay out of this militarily at this point. It is impossible to know what the various outcomes will be going forward and what the impact of each outcome may be. I think it's too late now.
I didn't "fib" at all nor did I contradict myself - I read your post - it has one line and then a link entitled US, no source, nothing to explain what it is. I have no intention of going on a chase of your choosing. If you've got a point to make, make it.
Canada was never officially there. Canada was not part of the coalition and initial American adventure into Iraq although we did, secretly, provide logistical and naval support to the operation from our resources in the region at the time.
Apparently, this is another issue you're woefully ill informed about.
The pull out by Bush was planned to have a force left behind and keep airfields occupied, but no Obama pulled out everything. And now he has to gone back in with ground troops and now with planes from a ship. Of course Obama calls our ground troops "advisers."
Greetings, CJ. :2wave:
My questions here are why we are doing this unilaterally? What are the reasons that our allies are not backing this action and joining us?
Since I don't know the answers to those questions, I have come to the conclusion that the US is going to be blamed either way. Acting alone makes us look like aggressors by one side or the other, even though this is supposedly a humanitarian effort. So are we going to continue to help the people trapped in the mountains, or is this it? They're going to be hungry and thirsty next week too, if we don't get them out of harm's way. If we don't act, we are somehow shirking our duty, but our allies apparently don't agree with us. Maybe if we didn't have the reputation for being "policeman to the world," things would be different, but they sure don't have a problem expecting our help when they need it.
And lastly, our being invaded by thousands upon thousands of illegal children and adults, and being forced to feed, clothe, and house them was also called a "humanitarian crisis." Those words seem to be coming up a lot lately in the news.
That makes no sense.Well if Obama is enept in his handling of Iraq and Afghanistan, especially wrt "winning the war", it also underlines how utterly and fully incompetent the administration that put American boots on the ground there in the first place, was.
Riiiiight.
If the goal to prevent further genocide why didn't America foam a coalition months ago when ISIS crossed the border into Iraq? BTW this genocide was happening all along in Syria.
If the goal to prevent further genocide why didn't America foam a coalition months ago when ISIS crossed the border into Iraq? BTW this genocide was happening all along in Syria.
Well if Obama is enept in his handling of Iraq and Afghanistan, especially wrt "winning the war", it also underlines how utterly and fully incompetent the administration that put American boots on the ground there in the first place, was.
Here's another very possible scenario.
The US allows ISIS to grow in power and scope. They already control more land mass than Great Britain, a far cry more money and stolen US armament than Al Qaeda ever had. They march into southern Iraq taking over Baghdad and the oil fields, then onto Jordan. Iran and Saudi Arabia responds with all out war, possibly blocking the Persian Gulf. Oil markets cause a sudden rise in gas prices, while the weakened global economy causes stock markets start to tank. Eventually they hit the US on its own soil with multiple terrorists attacks. There's your next ten years or WW3.
Because it wasn't Politically relevent or advantageous to the Obama administration or the Democrats who're up for re-election in November.
Now, he may be looking at a real Genocide and a Genocide after he chose to clear every semblance of the American Military out of Iraq.
To Obama and the Democrats, nothing is done unless its Politically beneficial
Actually isis wasn't on the run killing Christians and threatening Genocide when Bush was President.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?