Back in Iraq: Obama Orders Airstrikes
Options
Comments
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »
he also has the lovely position of not really giving a ? about terrorism when it involved Irish peoplekingblaze84 wrote: »I hate Peter King as well lol, it seems he wants to attack and bomb the whole world. There's never enough blood for him.kingblaze84 wrote: »As far as bombing ISIS artillery targets, I guess it's a decent position but I'm still not crazy about getting involved in an Iraqi civil war. Provoking ISIS may means mission creep eventually, although I'm totally in favor of humanitarian aid and even rescuing Yazidi refugees from that area
i think the question you have to ask is, is it possible it's less "getting involved in an Iraqi civil war" and more "facilitating people actually working together, aside from Maliki." it's POSSIBLE it could be the latter, i guess
eh, what have they done latelykingblaze84 wrote: »They have a pretty tough military too.
My point really is why does it HAVE to be America to be doing this whole bombing campaign? We're slowly sending more troops to Iraq, just today the Pentagon announced 150 more military advisors are going back to Iraq. Meanwhile, China, which is a LOT closer to Iraq then America is, doesn't feel threatened by ISIS and also doesn't feel obligated to bomb them either. Of course, many would say it's because they know America is bombing Iraq but AGAIN, why should it only be Americans who feel obligated to take on ISIS? Especially after all the billions and blood America invested in that country?
These "military advisers" now entering Iraq is how Vietnam got started.
Like i told you in another thread america has to beat isis because no one else can and if we don't it could lead to bigger problems
America just opened up a big can of worms but I understand why people dislike them of course. But America is better off pressuring other countries to get more involved, America is constantly putting itself and its people at risk attacking every little group in the Middle East. The view in much of the Middle East now will be that America is again bombing and maiming people who are fighting corrupt governments. I don't support the horrible things ISIS may be doing but America is better off sticking to the humanitarian side of things, rather then doing the same actions that always end up biting America back in the end. -
the question you have to ask in these situations is, "who else can actually do it?" granted, if you don't think the campaign should happen at all, it's a different debate.kingblaze84 wrote: »My point really is why does it HAVE to be America to be doing this whole bombing campaign?
it's almost like Obama doesn't feel bad about ? lying to people or somethingkingblaze84 wrote: »We're slowly sending more troops to Iraq, just today the Pentagon announced 150 more military advisors are going back to Iraq.
asked and answeredkingblaze84 wrote: »Meanwhile, China, which is a LOT closer to Iraq then America is, doesn't feel threatened by ISIS and also doesn't feel obligated to bomb them either. Of course, many would say it's because they know America is bombing Iraq-
that was, of course, a very different scenario, but if you think it's yet another example of Obama declaring "no boots on the ground" right before boots hit the ground, then yes, i agree with THATkingblaze84 wrote: »These "military advisers" now entering Iraq is how Vietnam got started.
-
So, whats the word? Obama going in or?
-
Not for the faint of heart (the first 6 minutes are NSFW)
-
? that video is beyond ill....it's easy to see why the rest of the Middle East is scared to take on these guys
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
he also has the lovely position of not really giving a ? about terrorism when it involved Irish peoplekingblaze84 wrote: »I hate Peter King as well lol, it seems he wants to attack and bomb the whole world. There's never enough blood for him.kingblaze84 wrote: »As far as bombing ISIS artillery targets, I guess it's a decent position but I'm still not crazy about getting involved in an Iraqi civil war. Provoking ISIS may means mission creep eventually, although I'm totally in favor of humanitarian aid and even rescuing Yazidi refugees from that area
i think the question you have to ask is, is it possible it's less "getting involved in an Iraqi civil war" and more "facilitating people actually working together, aside from Maliki." it's POSSIBLE it could be the latter, i guess
eh, what have they done latelykingblaze84 wrote: »They have a pretty tough military too.
My point really is why does it HAVE to be America to be doing this whole bombing campaign? We're slowly sending more troops to Iraq, just today the Pentagon announced 150 more military advisors are going back to Iraq. Meanwhile, China, which is a LOT closer to Iraq then America is, doesn't feel threatened by ISIS and also doesn't feel obligated to bomb them either. Of course, many would say it's because they know America is bombing Iraq but AGAIN, why should it only be Americans who feel obligated to take on ISIS? Especially after all the billions and blood America invested in that country?
These "military advisers" now entering Iraq is how Vietnam got started.
Like i told you in another thread america has to beat isis because no one else can and if we don't it could lead to bigger problems
America just opened up a big can of worms but I understand why people dislike them of course. But America is better off pressuring other countries to get more involved, America is constantly putting itself and its people at risk attacking every little group in the Middle East. The view in much of the Middle East now will be that America is again bombing and maiming people who are fighting corrupt governments. I don't support the horrible things ISIS may be doing but America is better off sticking to the humanitarian side of things, rather then doing the same actions that always end up biting America back in the end.
the other powerful nations will not be getting involved as much as they should, since ww2 the world has relied on america for it's security needs. They either don't know how to react or don't have the ? to do what is needed to keep the middle east in order, your just using wishful thinking. if we don't actually physically get rid of these people in 10 years when they are even stronger it will be harder to get rid of them. -
Not for the faint of heart (the first 6 minutes are NSFW)
If you parallel the islamic prophecies of the end times with that of the chirstian ones this is what you will find
the mahdi will be the christain anti-christ.
islam teaches that in the last days isa (christ) will return
the bible teaches that christ will return
the islamic christ will most likely be who christians call the false prophet.
revelations says mystery babylon will be destroyed islam teaches that mecca will be destroyed and isis is already talking about destroying the kabaa
i know many people here are either atheist or simply hate the christian ? but the pieces are being set up and if you can't see that i don't know what to tell you -
A Talented One wrote: »If it is true that there are thousands of people on that mountain facing either slaughter or starvation, I don't see how anyone can not support this.
you cant? how about all the Americans that have been killed in these wars already? enough of the ? , these people are gonna ? eachother regardless of us being there or not. Let it happen, cant fix the world when your own home aint right. -
he's going to attempt to have it both ways for as long as humanly possibleSo, whats the word? Obama going in or?
-
Smokey Tha Bandit wrote: »A Talented One wrote: »If it is true that there are thousands of people on that mountain facing either slaughter or starvation, I don't see how anyone can not support this.
you cant? how about all the Americans that have been killed in these wars already? enough of the ? , these people are gonna ? eachother regardless of us being there or not. Let it happen, cant fix the world when your own home aint right.
Amen -
Do you think Obama will send thousands of American troops in Iraq when it's all said and done? I'd like to think no but it seems he's slowly sending more and more, month by month -
-
probably not because at this point, i assume he's mostly interested in his legacy, and doesn't want that as a mark against it. of course, i have a low opinion of Obama for obvious reasonskingblaze84 wrote: »Do you think Obama will send thousands of American troops in Iraq when it's all said and done? I'd like to think no but it seems he's slowly sending more and more, month by month
if the politics over there get better (so far, so good) and the Kurds can fight at a higher level with better supplies, i don't know that it would even NEED those forces, but i guess we'll see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_NHqMFUHII
