Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 01:57 PM Jun 2014

UPDATED: Obama: Iraq Is Going To Need Help From Us

Last edited Fri Jun 13, 2014, 11:03 AM - Edit history (2)

Source: TPM

CATHERINE THOMPSON – JUNE 12, 2014, 1:08 PM EDT

President Barack Obama said Thursday that Iraq is "going to need more help" from the US to fight back a militant group that has already taken over two cities and vowed to march on to Baghdad.

"What we've seen in the last couple of days indicates the degree to which Iraq's going to need more help," Obama said following a meeting with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott at the White House. "It's going to need more help from us and it's going to need more help from the international community."

Obama said that his administration has been working closely with the Iraqi government over the past several months, at times providing military equipment or intelligence assistance. He wouldn't rule out any options in addressing the Iraqi insurgency, he added.

"We do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either Iraq or Syria for that matter," he said.

###

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-iraq-will-need-us-help



UPDATE:

Obama: US Will Send Help To Beleaguered Iraq

JULIE PACE AND LARA JAKES – JUNE 13, 2014, 10:14 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — Less than three years after pulling American forces out of Iraq, President Barack Obama is weighing a range of short-term military options, including airstrikes, to quell an al-Qaida inspired insurgency that has captured two Iraqi cities and threatened to press toward Baghdad.

"We do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold," Obama said Thursday in the Oval Office.

However, officials firmly ruled out putting American troops back on the ground in Iraq, which has faced resurgent violence since the U.S. military withdrew in late 2011. A sharp burst of violence this week led to the evacuation Thursday of Americans from a major air base in northern Iraq where the U.S. had been training security forces.

Obama, in his first comments on the deteriorating situation, said it was clear Iraq needed additional assistance from the U.S. and international community given the lightning gains by the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. Republican lawmakers pinned some of the blame for the escalating violence on Obama's reluctance to re-engage in a conflict he long opposed.

more
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/us-to-send-help-to-iraq
71 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
UPDATED: Obama: Iraq Is Going To Need Help From Us (Original Post) DonViejo Jun 2014 OP
He's Getting Sucked In...... global1 Jun 2014 #1
He is NOT getting sucked in. There will not be American boots on the ground to fight this lostincalifornia Jun 2014 #2
Boots On The Ground Or Not (Airstrikes Maybe) It's Going To Cost Us...... global1 Jun 2014 #7
+1 million Louisiana1976 Jun 2014 #27
"You did a heck of a job, Rummy" zonkers Jun 2014 #42
Mission Accomplished warrant46 Jun 2014 #54
There is more to "getting sucked in" than just boots on the ground. totodeinhere Jun 2014 #15
Tell me how many billions in cash pocoloco Jun 2014 #62
he is no "getting sucked in", he is choosing what he will do nt msongs Jun 2014 #4
We Broke It gussmith Jun 2014 #3
Deja vu, around the maypole once again in a paegan ritual? saidsimplesimon Jun 2014 #5
being asked for help is much different than pre-emptive strikes VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #29
Thanks, Dubya. AzDar Jun 2014 #6
Worry. mahatmakanejeeves Jun 2014 #11
Yup. He left us quite a mess. And now while he kicks back and totodeinhere Jun 2014 #16
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2014 #17
he still bears the blame. hrmjustin Jun 2014 #23
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2014 #24
it is still bush's mess. hrmjustin Jun 2014 #25
You make a valid point. Bush got us into this mess, but if Obama goes back into totodeinhere Jun 2014 #36
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2014 #41
I agree with you here. The average person ballyhoo Jun 2014 #52
Wait A Minute billhicks76 Jun 2014 #61
It's Dubya's fault there is a there to go back into. babylonsister Jun 2014 #51
You need to thank every member of Congress who voted for the Iraq AUMF without which none of it 24601 Jun 2014 #20
The AUMF also said that the Weapons Inspectors would continue....it was the ONLY way of possibly VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #31
Also: AUMF Repeal Bill Would End Extraordinary War Powers Granted After 9/11 freshwest Jun 2014 #48
VIDEO and GOP response to Obama's call to end the AUMF: freshwest Jun 2014 #50
So how long are we going to stay stuck inside? sakabatou Jun 2014 #8
why? superdem1984 Jun 2014 #9
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2014 #10
Here we go - - "Iran sending troops to Iraq" Baclava Jun 2014 #12
My pet theory is that Sauds are ginning up a war between Sunni and Shia in Iraq and Iran. AngryAmish Jun 2014 #38
how is this to the saudi's advantage? jacks price of oil up? divert attention from their corruption? KittyWampus Jun 2014 #47
The south of Iraq essentially is an extension of Khuzestan province of Iran. roamer65 Jun 2014 #57
Yes, let's leverage our extensive credibility in the region. arcane1 Jun 2014 #13
O please no abelenkpe Jun 2014 #14
Well said. Let's stay out. Louisiana1976 Jun 2014 #33
haven't we 'helped' them enough? They were better off before the Bush crime family helped them. olddad56 Jun 2014 #18
Let them all gather together in one city and then blow the whole city up. LLD Jun 2014 #19
Again?? 1Greensix Jun 2014 #21
Stay as far away from Iraq as possible. Perhaps kiranon Jun 2014 #22
Who is "US"? 4Q2u2 Jun 2014 #26
As Colin Powell said before the invasion, "We broke it". Tarheel_Dem Jun 2014 #28
Crap. Iraq was not worth one drop of American blood or one cent of American money Glorfindel Jun 2014 #30
+1 get the red out Jun 2014 #34
people with families and lives of their own live their. It might be worth our blood if we had yurbud Jun 2014 #46
CNN video and article on the situation... PoliticAverse Jun 2014 #32
No, no and hell no!!!! Swede Atlanta Jun 2014 #35
If I were in the Marines I would get my will updated. AngryAmish Jun 2014 #37
And my nephew is a Marine. Brigid Jun 2014 #64
So why doesn't Saudia Arabia Fight them. they created this thing. bahrbearian Jun 2014 #39
Take it to the UN. If there is a way to help, no one on the Security Council will veto pampango Jun 2014 #40
Strange, we train and fund them with our allies. Jesus Malverde Jun 2014 #43
This is where the discussion should be. ozone_man Jun 2014 #70
No more corporatists and warmongers. woo me with science Jun 2014 #44
When they flee into Syria's territory, will the Air Force follow them ? /nt jakeXT Jun 2014 #45
Send the Bush and Cheney families warrior1 Jun 2014 #49
What did you say? Rand Paul, 45th President of the United States? Dawson Leery Jun 2014 #53
Well I hate to say it Dyedinthewoolliberal Jun 2014 #55
Riyadh is NOT going to like their proxies being bombed. roamer65 Jun 2014 #56
Didn't we do this OneCrazyDiamond Jun 2014 #58
No. Are they a "sovereign" country now or not? Amonester Jun 2014 #59
Very hard to stop a civil war when the people want one. WHEN CRABS ROAR Jun 2014 #60
Helping them would probably be letting them tend to their own affairs nolabels Jun 2014 #63
Send every warmongering RWer there now. reflection Jun 2014 #65
"Help them?" Brigid Jun 2014 #66
Help does not mean troops treestar Jun 2014 #67
Obama: Iraq Is Going To Need Help From Us workinclasszero Jun 2014 #68
Iraq does not need 'help' from it's serial abuser. grahamhgreen Jun 2014 #69
No. Just no. No. No. NO. liberalhistorian Jun 2014 #71

global1

(25,168 posts)
1. He's Getting Sucked In......
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 02:02 PM
Jun 2014

Thank you BushCo for your illegal wars that have created this situation.

global1

(25,168 posts)
7. Boots On The Ground Or Not (Airstrikes Maybe) It's Going To Cost Us......
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 02:16 PM
Jun 2014

If we're going to do anything with this situation and if it's going to cost us money - put it to the Repubs - to pay for it - we need to close corporate loopholes and raise taxes on the top echelon of this country. Otherwise - we don't do anything.

They are trying to say that Obama is asleep at the wheel here and are going to blame him for this escalation. Let them put their money where their mouth is. If they don't want to go along with funding it this way - then place the onus back on them.

I'm tired of us fighting other people's wars. This is an internal conflict in Iraq. We left the country - having trained their people to fight their own wars. If the Iraqi government can't control the situation - that's their problem. We shouldn't have been there in the first place. Thank you BushCo.

warrant46

(2,205 posts)
54. Mission Accomplished
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 07:02 PM
Jun 2014


Former President George W. Bush unveiled his presidential library April 25 to a beaming crowd of supporters. It was, as former President Bill Clinton called it, "the latest, grandest example of the eternal struggle of former presidents to rewrite history."

If there's one day in particular Bush could choose to rewrite, it might be May 1, 2003.

After landing, Bush changed out of his combat suit and stepped up to the podium, surrounded by a crowd as receptive as the one in Dallas last week.



Having marched U.S. troops through Iraq and deposed of Saddam Hussein's regime (and his statue), Bush called Operation Iraqi Freedom "a job well done."

totodeinhere

(13,037 posts)
15. There is more to "getting sucked in" than just boots on the ground.
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 02:44 PM
Jun 2014

The president said today that he does not rule out air strikes. If we do resort to airstrikes that is a military involvement and it a form of getting sucked in. If we try airstrikes and they are not effective what do we try next? As always it s a slippery slope.

 

gussmith

(280 posts)
3. We Broke It
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 02:06 PM
Jun 2014

Any fool could have foreseen that our training of Iraqi and Afghanstan soldiers was totally a pipe dream. Before that, any fool could have foreseen that our staying would have no positive result. Let's vote on our 'wars' in the future.

saidsimplesimon

(7,888 posts)
5. Deja vu, around the maypole once again in a paegan ritual?
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 02:10 PM
Jun 2014

More refuges, more war, more death just means More for some, less for others

totodeinhere

(13,037 posts)
16. Yup. He left us quite a mess. And now while he kicks back and
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 02:54 PM
Jun 2014

paints pictures of flowers someone else is left to try to clean it all up. And it won't be easy.

Response to AzDar (Reply #6)

Response to hrmjustin (Reply #23)

totodeinhere

(13,037 posts)
36. You make a valid point. Bush got us into this mess, but if Obama goes back into
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 04:35 PM
Jun 2014

Iraq then it's his mess. But having said that, I don't think that Obama will do something that stupid.

Response to totodeinhere (Reply #36)

 

ballyhoo

(2,060 posts)
52. I agree with you here. The average person
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 06:57 PM
Jun 2014

always blames the LAST President for military usage in other countries. If Obama goes in there, he will be blamed and it will change the 2016 election outcome irrespective of anything else happening between now and then. I cannot believe he is even considering it. Or is there something deeper going on here and is Iran involved?

 

billhicks76

(5,082 posts)
61. Wait A Minute
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 10:47 PM
Jun 2014

Defend Iraq from the Al Qaida and ISIS rebels we were arming to destabilize Syria? What did we do now? Yeah Bush let the genie out of the bottle. All those free floating weapons and artillery. And bring back all the new surveillance command and control technology to US police departments along with thousands of unstable, scarred soldiers. Throw in The Patriot Act and all that 911 fear...wow. He ruined here and there. Now Obama should get that tech off people's backs at home, treat these vets and maybe realize that arming Syrian opposition militants is a bad idea.

babylonsister

(170,963 posts)
51. It's Dubya's fault there is a there to go back into.
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 06:55 PM
Jun 2014

And I find it rather strange that you're defending dimson here.

24601

(3,940 posts)
20. You need to thank every member of Congress who voted for the Iraq AUMF without which none of it
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 03:24 PM
Jun 2014

would have happened. First my personal comments then the link and information.

My take: Pretty much every every senator wanting to keep a presidential run in their future voted for the AUMF. This included those who I believe really opposed it (including Senators Biden, Clinton & Kerry) but made their presidential ambitions their top priority. How many actually went to the Capitol's secure facility & read the intelligence? Most never bother to do so.

The following information comes from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq: [I added the numbers and whether in retrospect it was true]

1. Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors. [true]

2. Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." [not true]

3. Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." [true]

4. Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". [capability was not true, willingness true but required capabilities]

5. Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by
a. the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush [true] and
b. firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. [true]

6. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. [not true]

7. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. [true]

8. Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers. [true]

9. The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them. [true, but not relevant in Iraq with respect to al-Qaeda]

10. The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. [true, but not relevant in Iraq with respect to al-Qaeda]

11. The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power. [true]

12. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. [true - it was passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton]

The Congressional Votes:

United States House of Representatives

Party Yes Nays PRES No Vote

Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0

TOTALS 297 133 0 3

82 (40%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.

6 (<3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).

The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)

Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.

United States Senate

Party Yes Nays PRES No Vote

Republican 48 1 0 0
Democratic 29 21 0 0
Independent 0 1 0 0

TOTALS 77 23 0 0

58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting against the Democratic majority include: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).

1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).

The only Independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)

[added by me - Senate rules prohibit filibuster on AUMF resolutions.
Also, the Iraq AUMF was passed when Democrats, along with the ind. Jeffords had a majority in the Senate.
Republicans had a slim majority in the House of Representatives and did not have sufficient votes to pass the AUMF without Democratic votes - but the two Republican no votes were probably held in reserve if needed to reach the required 217]


 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
31. The AUMF also said that the Weapons Inspectors would continue....it was the ONLY way of possibly
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 04:07 PM
Jun 2014

avoiding a war.....unfortunately Bushco was not being reasonable.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
48. Also: AUMF Repeal Bill Would End Extraordinary War Powers Granted After 9/11
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 06:51 PM
Jun 2014

Posted: 06/10/2013

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/aumf-repeal-bill-war-powers_n_3416689.html

Obama signed NDAA since vetoing it would have left the AUMF in force:

The House Will Vote To Repeal 2001 Authorization To Use Military Force


Schiff’s proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is deceptive in how brief it is. Just six lines long, the amendment set for debate on the House floor on Wednesday calls for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed in 2001 to finally sunset. “The Authorization for Use of Military Force (50 U.S.C. 1541 note; Public Law 107–5 40) is hereby repealed,” the legislative text reads. “This section shall take effect on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.”

That’s the entirety of the amendment. But should those thirty-one words be added to the NDAA, the effect would be extremely wide reaching, erasing the scope of the sixty words that it would be replacing in the way that the United States conducts operations against terrorists overseas. In the years after Congress hastily passed the 2001 AUMF, both the Bush and Obama administrations have used it to conduct operations in places like Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia where no declaration of war exists, but the local government allows the presence of special operators, unmanned drones, and missile strikes on their soil. Pulling back on that ability has been the goal of many almost since the AUMF was put into place, but now the landscape appears to be shifting away from those who would rather keep it intact...

The debate over Schiff’s amendment comes nearly one year exactly after President Obama pledged in a wide-ranging speech on national security that he would work closely with Congress to “refine, and ultimately repeal” the AUMF. “Groups like [Al Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula] must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States,” Obama said at the time. “Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.”

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/05/21/3440156/schiff-aumf-ndaa/

It's been spun to appear PBO is dying to go to war. If I had proof the neo-cons helped to pull this latest crime spree off, I'd post it. Their fast track war making power ends December 31, 2014. You know they're getting hysterical.

And see here:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/44327/aumf-repeal-obama-once-again-stands-up-for-democracy

Going to be a gruesome media cycle through the elections and beyond year, just the same as they pulled to get the Tea Party in 2010.

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

 

Baclava

(12,047 posts)
12. Here we go - - "Iran sending troops to Iraq"
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 02:28 PM
Jun 2014

Iran has sent elite troops to Iraq to assist the country's government against al Qaeda-inspired rebels

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101754226

 

AngryAmish

(25,704 posts)
38. My pet theory is that Sauds are ginning up a war between Sunni and Shia in Iraq and Iran.
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 04:50 PM
Jun 2014

They did it before in the 80s. Millions died. Human wave attacks, nerve gas...all that sort of stuff.

The House of Saud is very rich, very smart and completely without principle. They have the advantage of large size and tradition of choosing smart guys to lead them. They also have more outmarriage then the really inbred tribes of the middle east. Bandar bin Sultan (bastard of the crown prince and an african slave is a great example of this.)

The US is too naive.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
47. how is this to the saudi's advantage? jacks price of oil up? divert attention from their corruption?
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 06:06 PM
Jun 2014

roamer65

(36,739 posts)
57. The south of Iraq essentially is an extension of Khuzestan province of Iran.
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 07:28 PM
Jun 2014

Same demographics. Majority Arab Shi'a. The Iranians will defend them, even if it means an invasion.

 

LLD

(136 posts)
19. Let them all gather together in one city and then blow the whole city up.
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 03:21 PM
Jun 2014

Should take care of a good amount of the enemy.

1Greensix

(111 posts)
21. Again??
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 03:28 PM
Jun 2014

I think I recall about 2002 when protesters were trying to tell the world that Bush and Cheney were lying and removing Saddam by force would lead to militant extremists grabbing power. So. They were right. Iraq cost the US a couple of Trillion dollars, a few thousand dead and tens of thousands wounded and what did we get out of it besides gas prices that tripled.
And now, one more time, the US is thinking about using force to engage the latest CIA identified threat. The CIA has PROVEN that they can NOT be trusted when it comes to Iraq. They LIED to get the US to invade. Lied! And now, Cry Wolf, they say the ISIS is the new enemy threat.
I wonder which Saudi Prince is funding this group of murdering assholes? Did the CIA fund them in the first place and now they are out of control, like the swell job they did arming and training the future Taliban in Afghanistan, giving us Bin Laden twenty years later?
I'm just getting too old for this crap. Do I really care which group of anti-American Muslims are in charge of Iraq? One group Hates Americans and the other group Hates Americans. If they are bent on killing each other, and they are, then why should I care? Eventually the power will swing the other way and the killing will continue, but the other group that Hates Americans will dominate for a while.
When they get tired of killing each other they will stop. Tell me why I should care if any of them live when THEY don't care?
The US has wasted trillions in Iraq. Let the people who live there fight for their own freedoms. If they don't care to have freedom and aren't willing to stop their hatred of each other, it's none of our business.

kiranon

(1,727 posts)
22. Stay as far away from Iraq as possible. Perhaps
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 03:42 PM
Jun 2014

then Saudi Arabia will stop funding the Islamist extremists. Because the House of Saud is next in line to fall - of it's own duplicity. It all started with Bush/Cheney and "Shock and Awe" Rumsfeld. There is no way to put the pieces of Iraq back together again.

 

4Q2u2

(1,406 posts)
26. Who is "US"?
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 04:03 PM
Jun 2014

I hope he has a mouse in his pocket when he is talking about "US".
We already gave at the Office.

Glorfindel

(9,706 posts)
30. Crap. Iraq was not worth one drop of American blood or one cent of American money
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 04:06 PM
Jun 2014

when Bush & Cheney invaded. It still isn't. Please, God, keep us away from that putrid hellhole.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
46. people with families and lives of their own live their. It might be worth our blood if we had
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 05:35 PM
Jun 2014

really gone to help, but our government didn't, and if they go in again, it will not be for the welfare of the Iraqi people or anything of the sort.

It will be to create a safe environment for oil companies to operate.

 

Swede Atlanta

(3,596 posts)
35. No, no and hell no!!!!
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 04:34 PM
Jun 2014

Let China help them out. They are getting all of the oil.

It is time for us to let the hellhole be the hellhole. If they want to kill one another so much the better. At some point you can't help stupid. If the Iraqi military put down their guns and ran away as some news reports are suggesting then the Iraqis have one another to blame.

Al Maliki has refused to include the Sunni in his government in any appreciable way. That tension gives room for outside terrorist interests. Al Maliki has done this to himself.

No, no second round on this. If the country goes up in flames it will just be a big bonfire. But I am opposed to spending one penny saving them from themselves.

 

AngryAmish

(25,704 posts)
37. If I were in the Marines I would get my will updated.
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 04:42 PM
Jun 2014

And go get drunk tonite. Kiss your spouse and give your kids a squeeze.

You are out the door.

Brigid

(17,621 posts)
64. And my nephew is a Marine.
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 09:04 AM
Jun 2014

He just joined last year. He is being trained to work on the new F-35s. Shit.

ozone_man

(4,825 posts)
70. This is where the discussion should be.
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 08:53 PM
Jun 2014

Why have we allowed our "allies" there to fund these extremists?

Dawson Leery

(19,348 posts)
53. What did you say? Rand Paul, 45th President of the United States?
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 06:57 PM
Jun 2014

Any more military quagmires will result in such an event as stated above.

Dyedinthewoolliberal

(15,485 posts)
55. Well I hate to say it
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 07:20 PM
Jun 2014

but tough shit................I was against the IRW in 2003 and I'm against putting anybody back in there in 2014. It's too late to resurrect the ones who sacrificed everything for a lie, but why would we agree to send more into the jaws of death?

roamer65

(36,739 posts)
56. Riyadh is NOT going to like their proxies being bombed.
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 07:20 PM
Jun 2014

They will start accepting other currencies for oil in retaliation.

Amonester

(11,541 posts)
59. No. Are they a "sovereign" country now or not?
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 08:02 PM
Jun 2014

Since *dimson* declared they are sovereign, being sovereign means they must deal with their own consequences.

That's it.

Do not make the same mistakes TWICE.

nolabels

(13,133 posts)
63. Helping them would probably be letting them tend to their own affairs
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 08:49 AM
Jun 2014

That of course, in 1984 speak is not what will be happening

reflection

(6,286 posts)
65. Send every warmongering RWer there now.
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 09:12 AM
Jun 2014

We might be able to solve two problems at once, but I imagine it would be only one, since they probably fight about as well as they govern.

Brigid

(17,621 posts)
66. "Help them?"
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 09:13 AM
Jun 2014

Like we "helped them" before?

If this idiotic idea doesn't set off riots in this country, I am sure I don't know what will.

 

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)
68. Obama: Iraq Is Going To Need Help From Us
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 10:09 AM
Jun 2014

I hear the sound of a hungry MIC foaming at the mouth with the thought of millions and millions and millions of sweet taxpayer dollars flowing their way like rain falling from the sky on a parched desert landscape.

It never ends folks, never.

If the President and reich wing repubs alike demand it fine. Before a single million dollar missile is fired, raise taxes to pay for the next grand Iraq adventure. Lets see how much the baggers love war when they actually got to pay for it out of their own damned pockets!

Course that wont do anything for the poor kids caught in the economic draft who will die saving people who hate our guts anyway but if baggers have to pay, they probably wont want to play!

liberalhistorian

(20,809 posts)
71. No. Just no. No. No. NO.
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 09:02 PM
Jun 2014

Make that fuck no, hell no, shit no, bloody fucking HELL NO! Good God, do they never learn or listen?

As Pete Seeger sings "when will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?" (Where Have All the Flowers Gone, which is one of the most haunting anti-war songs ever and which would likely get a modern singer thrown out and charged with treason nowadays).

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»UPDATED: Obama: Iraq Is ...