Obama Bombs Iraq: Do you Support It?...

[saveliberty]

I don't see any of these bombs labeled napalm, got one called thermonuclear. That's about the same right?

^^^
why I'm not in the military.

 

[SmedlyButler]

So Obama has begun bombing Iraq. How do you feel about it? Do you support it?

we would hear from the blamebots if Obama took no action under these circumstances and American personnel in Irbil were killed or, God forbid, captured.

In a statement made Thursday night, President Obama said he has authorized military strikes on Islamic State militants if they continue their advancement on the city of Irbil, where military personnel and the U.S. consulate are located.

Let's try to stay real. How long and how loud have the Benghazi crowd been calling for blood? Of course no amount of bombing will destroy ISIS. Limited airstrikes though will hopefully protect any U.S. diplomats or service members in danger. And just maybe help the Kurds to push back. The Pesh Murga are one of the few groups in the region who seem willing to take on ISIS, the so-called "Iraqi Army" is a joke.

My oft-stated opinion has been much the same as this;

saveliberty - Even "normal" terrorists don't like ISIS. The Kurds were definitely allies. Muslims need to wake up and put down these people in their own faith or stand judged with the terrorists. Enough is enough.

The only force that has the potential to end terror in the region is a united front of a rational Muslim coalition. Will that ever happen? It has to or they will live in the dark ages for ever. Action by the West and America has only ever made matters worse.

For now I don't see any other option than to support defensive airstrikes, the possible consequences of doing nothing at this point are chilling.

The F/A-18 combat aircraft targeted artillery being used by militants of the Islamic State extremist group against Kurdish forces defending Irbil, the Pentagon said. It said the artillery was fired at Kurdish forces “near U.S. personnel.”
The planes, flying from an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, dropped 500-pound laser-guided bombs at about 6:45 a.m. EDT on a “mobile artillery piece” near Irbil, said Rear Adm. John F. Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary. Islamic State fighters were “using this artillery to shell Kurdish forces defending Irbil where U.S. personnel are located,” he said in a statement. “As the president made clear, the United States military will continue to take direct action against [Islamic State militants] when they threaten our personnel and facilities.” - LINK:WAPO

 

[Lakhota]

Obama Bombs Iraq: Do you Support It?...

No, I don't support it. **** Iraq! Let those tribal lunatics fight it out.

 

[HenryBHough]

And here we thought He was going to start an entirely new war but, no, He just reheats an old one.

 

[peach174]

We are attacking another sovereign country

Are we? Would you call the Islamic State a sovereign country?

How does being Islamic make it not sovereign? This is irrelevant to my point anyway, it's not the United States, call it what you want.



Words are not attacking us and Iraq and Saudi Arabia are not the United States

It violates the US Constitution which grants only the power to use the military for "defense."

Can you cite the section of the US Constitution you're drawing that quote from?

Sure

"provide for the common Defence."

In case you don't know, the Constitution is an enumerated document. So by the 10th amendment, any power not granted to the federal government is prohibited to it.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Defending Saudia Arabia and Iraq and going after people who talk and don't threaten us is not defense, and is therefore prohibited.

They are very much a threat to us. These are the very same people who have been using suicide bombs on us. On the World Trade Center and in Boston and all of our embassies.
What part of ISIS wants to raise the Islam flag in the White House are you not getting?
They want to force Islam in the whole world and kill all Jews and Christians.

 

[depotoo]

Just in-
Iraqi Official Says Hundreds of Yazidi Women Taken Captive by Islamic State Militants - ABC News

 

[U2Edge]

Except it was President Bush who signed the agreement withdrawing our troops completely by 2012. He really had no choice because the Iraqis were not budging on the immunity issue. Since the occupation government gave way to the new Shiite dominated Iraq government, Iran (Majority Shiite) has gained considerable influence. Had the Iraqi given in on the immunity issue President Obama would have left troops on the ground.

Nuri Al Maliki did agree to the immunity deal. THE PROBLEM WAS THAT OBAMA INSISTED THAT THE ENTIRE IRAQI PARLIMENT VOTE ON THE IMMUNITY AGREEMENT AND IT LOST BY A FEW VOTES. HAD OBAMA SIMPLY LET NURI AL MALIIKI's ENDORSEMENT STAND, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM.

Its the first time a US President insisted that A Status of Forces Agreement be ratified by a foreign countries parliament.


Finally, even without an immunity deal, Obama could still of had US troops deployed in Iraq. The United States did not have an immunity agreement when it first invaded Iraq in 2003, nor did it need one. There would be very little need for an immunity agreement since the likely hood of Iraqi military or police forces seizing US military personal was unlikely or at least would be a rare instance.

So the whole, I couldn't get an immunity agreement is really just a smoke screen and a very poor excuse for not conducting sound policy in Iraq after 2011!

All of the agreements were passed by the Iraqi Parliament before President Obama took office. The Iraqis wanted us out.

Iraqi Government to UN: 'Don't Extend Mandate for Bush's Occupation' | Alternet'

There are factions in the Iraqi government that foolishly wanted the United States to leave, but their was a way to stay longer and Obama failed to do it. The Bush administration never signed anything that would not have given the United States troops imunity in 2008. The Sunni Arabs, from where most of the anti-US insurgency was formed, WANTED THE UNITED STATES to stay!

Yes, Bush did sign an agreement in 2008, but agreements can be renegotiated. The Obama administration was in the process of doing that. But it dropped the ball, and that has created the crises that the United States finds itself in today.

Regardless of what factions or groups wanted, the fact remains, that had US troops remained in Iraq in support of the Iraqi military, the advances that IS made back in June to today would never of happened.

Obama dropped the ball on Iraq. Iraq was NOT READY to stand on its own without US military, economic and diplomatic support that we had been providing. The Pre-mature withdrawal of the US military and other US organizations and diplomats 2.5 years ago created the current crises!

 

[Crystalclear]

I don't get why people support this. Killing people because people were killed won't solve anything.

Of course it will, killing IS members means that they are not able anymore to slaughter the Yezidites.

 

[U2Edge]

Why should we even bother if Obama himself said: "There are no American military solutions to the problems in Iraq".

There is likely no solution in Iraq that does not involve the US military in some way. No solution is purely military or non-military. It involves both.

 

[Vandalshandle]

US foreign policy:

When frustrated. When everything else fails, or when it doubt, kill some people. That will make everything right....

 

[Kosh]

Except it was President Bush who signed the agreement withdrawing our troops completely by 2012. He really had no choice because the Iraqis were not budging on the immunity issue. Since the occupation government gave way to the new Shiite dominated Iraq government, Iran (Majority Shiite) has gained considerable influence. Had the Iraqi given in on the immunity issue President Obama would have left troops on the ground.

Nuri Al Maliki did agree to the immunity deal. THE PROBLEM WAS THAT OBAMA INSISTED THAT THE ENTIRE IRAQI PARLIMENT VOTE ON THE IMMUNITY AGREEMENT AND IT LOST BY A FEW VOTES. HAD OBAMA SIMPLY LET NURI AL MALIIKI's ENDORSEMENT STAND, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM.

Its the first time a US President insisted that A Status of Forces Agreement be ratified by a foreign countries parliament.


Finally, even without an immunity deal, Obama could still of had US troops deployed in Iraq. The United States did not have an immunity agreement when it first invaded Iraq in 2003, nor did it need one. There would be very little need for an immunity agreement since the likely hood of Iraqi military or police forces seizing US military personal was unlikely or at least would be a rare instance.

So the whole, I couldn't get an immunity agreement is really just a smoke screen and a very poor excuse for not conducting sound policy in Iraq after 2011!

All of the agreements were passed by the Iraqi Parliament before President Obama took office. The Iraqis wanted us out.

Iraqi Government to UN: 'Don't Extend Mandate for Bush's Occupation' | Alternet'

Proof that providing a link does not mean that one has backed up their religious beliefs with facts.

AlterNet? Seriously? A known far left blog site?

Another far left lie exposed.

 

[Lakhota]

The sucker game is picking up. I'm starting to see lots of pitiful pictures of Iraqi babies and children on TV to pull on American heartstrings.

Sad, but tough shit.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nuri Al Maliki did agree to the immunity deal. THE PROBLEM WAS THAT OBAMA INSISTED THAT THE ENTIRE IRAQI PARLIMENT VOTE ON THE IMMUNITY AGREEMENT AND IT LOST BY A FEW VOTES. HAD OBAMA SIMPLY LET NURI AL MALIIKI's ENDORSEMENT STAND, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM.

Its the first time a US President insisted that A Status of Forces Agreement be ratified by a foreign countries parliament.


Finally, even without an immunity deal, Obama could still of had US troops deployed in Iraq. The United States did not have an immunity agreement when it first invaded Iraq in 2003, nor did it need one. There would be very little need for an immunity agreement since the likely hood of Iraqi military or police forces seizing US military personal was unlikely or at least would be a rare instance.

So the whole, I couldn't get an immunity agreement is really just a smoke screen and a very poor excuse for not conducting sound policy in Iraq after 2011!

All of the agreements were passed by the Iraqi Parliament before President Obama took office. The Iraqis wanted us out.

Iraqi Government to UN: 'Don't Extend Mandate for Bush's Occupation' | Alternet'

There are factions in the Iraqi government that foolishly wanted the United States to leave, but their was a way to stay longer and Obama failed to do it. The Bush administration never signed anything that would not have given the United States troops imunity in 2008. The Sunni Arabs, from where most of the anti-US insurgency was formed, WANTED THE UNITED STATES to stay!

Yes, Bush did sign an agreement in 2008, but agreements can be renegotiated. The Obama administration was in the process of doing that. But it dropped the ball, and that has created the crises that the United States finds itself in today.

Regardless of what factions or groups wanted, the fact remains, that had US troops remained in Iraq in support of the Iraqi military, the advances that IS made back in June to today would never of happened.

Obama dropped the ball on Iraq. Iraq was NOT READY to stand on its own without US military, economic and diplomatic support that we had been providing. The Pre-mature withdrawal of the US military and other US organizations and diplomats 2.5 years ago created the current crises!

If anyone can be blamed for the current crisis it is al-Maliki for his persecution of the Sunnis since our troops left.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm not very certain why we are doing any of this or how bombing helps our interests or values.

If we have a good reason and good objectives, I don't have a problem with it, I just find it very difficult to see what they are. Seems to be no matter who we attack and who we help, we are somehow still losing out in the end.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nuri Al Maliki did agree to the immunity deal. THE PROBLEM WAS THAT OBAMA INSISTED THAT THE ENTIRE IRAQI PARLIMENT VOTE ON THE IMMUNITY AGREEMENT AND IT LOST BY A FEW VOTES. HAD OBAMA SIMPLY LET NURI AL MALIIKI's ENDORSEMENT STAND, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM.

Its the first time a US President insisted that A Status of Forces Agreement be ratified by a foreign countries parliament.


Finally, even without an immunity deal, Obama could still of had US troops deployed in Iraq. The United States did not have an immunity agreement when it first invaded Iraq in 2003, nor did it need one. There would be very little need for an immunity agreement since the likely hood of Iraqi military or police forces seizing US military personal was unlikely or at least would be a rare instance.

So the whole, I couldn't get an immunity agreement is really just a smoke screen and a very poor excuse for not conducting sound policy in Iraq after 2011!

All of the agreements were passed by the Iraqi Parliament before President Obama took office. The Iraqis wanted us out.

Iraqi Government to UN: 'Don't Extend Mandate for Bush's Occupation' | Alternet'

Proof that providing a link does not mean that one has backed up their religious beliefs with facts.

AlterNet? Seriously? A known far left blog site?

Another far left lie exposed.

Hey what's up re-tread?

Are you trying to say the the Iraq government didn't ask the UNSC to not extend the occupation mandate? Or are you saying you don't understand what that means?

As one of the far right kooks, do you support the Commander in Chief?

 

[CitizenSeven]

I didn't support bush when he got the U.S. involved in Iraq, and I don't support Obama getting us sucked back in. That region needs to determine its own destiny, for good or ill, and it really is none of our concern.

 

[longknife]

So Obama has begun bombing Iraq. How do you feel about it? Do you support it?

I think he was forced into it.

Reports indicate the "Iraqi" air force has bombed ISIS - but the Russian planes are being flown by Russian "trainers".

Reports also indicate Turkey has acted and even hints that Israeli jets may have done so.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

This Ancient Religion Is Being Threatened With Extermination In Iraq [UPDATE: Obama Authorizes Air Strikes] | ThinkProgress

They represent the vast majority of a religion that rose alongside the world’s most popular faiths. Now, members of the Yazidi are cut off from the rest of the world, forced to choose between death at the hands of the militants threatening their families and the elements that have already ended the lives of dozens of children.

“There are children dying on the mountain, on the roads,” Marzio Babille, the Iraq representative for UNICEF, told the Washington Post. The situation that drove the Yazidi to the protection of Mount Sinjar is one that most analysts had hoped would not come to pass. Over the weekend, members of the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) managed to take the town of Sinjar from the Kurdish forces who held it. “There is no water, there is no vegetation, they are completely cut off and surrounded by Islamic State,” Babille continued. “It’s a disaster, a total disaster.”

 

[Ibentoken]

Obama is bombing muslim terrorists? Oh my. Thank god he's not pouring water up their noses, cause that's torture.

 

[Machaut]

We are attacking another sovereign country

Are we? Would you call the Islamic State a sovereign country?

How does being Islamic make it not sovereign? This is irrelevant to my point anyway, it's not the United States, call it what you want.

I was not addressing its Muslim nature, merely calling it by its name. ISIS has now changed their name from "the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" to simply "the Islamic State".

You claimed that the US attacked "another sovereign country," which is a very serious claim to make. I asked if you had determined that the Islamic State (or ISIS, if you need to still call it that) was a sovereign country, and now you're shifting from the US attacking "another sovereign country" to the US simply attacking "not the United States". So now, I must ask that you clarify your position. Has the US attacked "another sovereign country"? Do you even care whether or not the US has attacked "another sovereign country," or were you merely throwing that phrase around to denote that the attack took place outside the US borders?

Words are not attacking us and Iraq and Saudi Arabia are not the United States

Are you familiar with the legal definition of the term "assault"?

assault - Wiktionary

(criminal, law) An attempt to commit battery: a violent attempt, or willful effort with force or violence, to do hurt to another, but without necessarily touching his person, as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner, or by striking at him and missing him.

I will further remind you of the exact statement made by the spokesman for ISIS.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ISIS-Iraq-video-White-House/2014/08/08/id/587653/

"I say to America that the Islamic caliphate has been established," Abu Mosa, a spokesman for the terror group, also known as ISIS, told Vice Media in a video interview posted online Thursday.

"Don’t be cowards and attack us with drones. Instead send your soldiers, the ones we humiliated in Iraq. We will humiliate them everywhere, God willing, and we will raise the flag of Allah in the White House."

By declaring their intention to kill American soldiers, ISIS has "assaulted" the US and has made public their plan to invade the United States and conquer our capital.

But when you make the statement "Words are not attacking us," you are correct. Is it, then, your position that we should ignore public declarations of war against us? Should we treat only military action as an act of war? Should we close our ears and shut our eyes, cutting off all diplomacy in favor of a stricter, more isolationist stance that America is not being threatened until it has suffered an attack on US soil?

It violates the US Constitution which grants only the power to use the military for "defense."

Can you cite the section of the US Constitution you're drawing that quote from?

Sure

"provide for the common Defence."

A friendly reminder: A request to cite a section of a document you're quoting is appropriately responded to with the name of the section you found your quote, not by simply expanding the quote. So, I must reiterate my request that you cite the section of the US Constitution you're drawing your quote from.

Here is a link that you may find helpful in citing your source: The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I will respond to your post once you have taken the time to properly cite the sources you use for your arguments. Hopefully, you will realize your error and either retract or modify your position on this issue. If, after reviewing the Constitution carefully, you maintain that your arguments are still correct, I will respond to both this post and your next in this thread and explain to you why you are wrong.