Situation in Iraq Deteriorates

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

As situation in Iraq deteriorates, Obama still weighing all options. What a joke. The options are over.. Hope he had fun playing golf in Palm Springs

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3624212815001/isis-gunmen-appear-to-be-executing-iraqi-government-troops/#sp=show-clips

http://www.foxnews.com/

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Hurry! Do something. Do Anything. If Iraq falls, all the domino's will fall.

What's the big rush PT? Is there some sort of time limit?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Probably not now. The opportunity has passed if you have kept up.

Yawn......I'm gong to bed.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Probably not now. The opportunity has passed if you have kept up.

Yawn......I'm gong to bed.

What opportunity was that?

[AURaptor 1,137]

I thought Iran was gonna come in and save the day. What happened to all that ?

How'd the Prez shoot on the links, btw ?

[TexasTiger 13,556]

I thought Iran was gonna come in and save the day. What happened to all that ?

How'd the Prez shoot on the links, btw ?

I thought the Iraq war was supposed to be cheap, quick and relatively painless-- what happened to that?

[alexava 6,974]

Iraq deteriated about 12 years ago. It got worse when our former Pres. Declared victory. It's a death trap now. No win situation for any president not wanting continued war. Just to think bush called it a war against terror. I would give air support at most but I don't even know who I'd be supporting.

[Strychnine 1,804]

I thought Iran was gonna come in and save the day. What happened to all that ?

How'd the Prez shoot on the links, btw ?

Iran has been quite vocal about both their willingness to help and cooperate with us on Iraq, but no one said they were "gonna come in and save the day." If the onus is on anyone to step in and help, it certainly is not Iran. However, Iran does have a few motives for helping Iraq, and cooperating with us in doing so. First, there is the obvious that they are not particularly keen on ISIS eventually being on their border. Second, they would prefer to have a more stable western neighbor that they have an increasingly better relationship with. Third, Iran has been trying to move forward in international relations, and they have been specifically interested in improving their relationship with us. This is a great opportunity for them to do something about all three.

[japantiger 4,077]

Bush derangment syndrome still alive after all these years. Sort of like Harry Truman blaming FDR for WW2 and then not doing anything to end it and pretending it wasn't happening because it wasn't his fault. Real leadership .... this clown (Obama, that is) couldn't lead a drive in window. Real leaders step up to the plate in tough circumstances; they take unpopular positions when necessary to do the right thing...but they don't fall victim to the events around them. Real leaders control their destiny....they don't lead from behind which is, well, not leading at all is it.

I laid out a plan in another post. Would love to see some engagement on the "what do you do now" topic that we have another avoidable "crisis" on our hands.

[EagleFlight34 101]

Don't fool yourself, Iran is motivated predominantly by one thing concerning Iraq, and that is making sure the current "government" does not lose control. They do not want Isis or any Sunni-leaning power to gain control.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Bush derangment syndrome still alive after all these years. Sort of like Harry Truman blaming FDR for WW2 and then not doing anything to end it and pretending it wasn't happening because it wasn't his fault. Real leadership .... this clown (Obama, that is) couldn't lead a drive in window. Real leaders step up to the plate in tough circumstances; they take unpopular positions when necessary to do the right thing...but they don't fall victim to the events around them. Real leaders control their destiny....they don't lead from behind which is, well, not leading at all is it.

I laid out a plan in another post. Would love to see some engagement on the "what do you do now" topic that we have another avoidable "crisis" on our hands.

I doubt even you really believe any of that.

[alexava 6,974]

Did he just say "unpopular decisions when necessary "? Lol

[EagleFlight34 101]

That part of the world is a lose/lose proposition when conflict is concerened. If you do engage them, you either take the country over completely or you don't engage at all.

The worst mistake we as a country make every single time we go into that part of the world is politicizing the conflict. The root of the conflict is not, has never been, and will never be politics.

We cannot continue to take a Western approach to Mid-Eastern problems and expect different results.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

[japantiger 4,077]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Not sure why he would think I don't believe every word of that. I don't fault this President or any President for making mistakes while actually trying to do something. For context, I was proud of Jimmy Carter for trying the hostage rescue that ended in tragedy at Dessert One. I was proud of Jimmy Carter for the Israel/Arab peace treaty. What I, and America, punished Carter for was his failure to grasp the circumstances in the region that lead him to turning his back on the Shah and allowing the Ayatollah to rise; and his retreat into the Flower Garden; his feckless response to oil embargoes, etc., and letting the US become victim of circumstances in the aftermath of Dessert One vs controlling our destiny.

We have an incompetent president that came into this job woefully unprepared and has failed to learn. He has neither the training from his past; nor the disposition for the office of President...he has no actual experience leading; and has failed to learn from his mistakes in office. He is controlled by the events around him and has thus ceded US leadership in the world to the thugs, murderers and bad actors in every region. Community organizers/agitators don't lead or administer anything....why would anyone think we would get a different result? He is disinterested in the administration of his office and has no talent for it. He lacks the disposition to lead; or be decisive and he makes terrible hiring decisions because he has no experience in hiring competent people or understand what competent looks like. And when Rome is burning, real leaders don't go play golf and say we'll get back to you...

[Strychnine 1,804]

That part of the world is a lose/lose proposition when conflict is concerened. If you do engage them, you either take the country over completely or you don't engage at all.

The worst mistake we as a country make every single time we go into that part of the world is politicizing the conflict. The root of the conflict is not, has never been, and will never be politics.

We cannot continue to take a Western approach to Mid-Eastern problems and expect different results.

It is indeed. In fact, if conflict could settle it in a meaningful and permanent way, it would have long been settled and these conversations would be moot.

I would say the root of their conflicts is actually political, but not in the sense that we view politics. Islam, and the sectarian or philosophical divides contained therein, is quite at the root of their culture, national identities, and thus political motives. A more progressive country, like Turkey, has learned the balance between a passionately religious people and the real need for a moderate and secular government in order to effectively run the country and deal with others. Oddly enough, it's a natural progression that you see in conjunction with an increased emphasis on education. Jordan and Turkey, for example, have literacy rates above 90%. Jordan is likely ready to take more steps toward secular democracy, but they are also doing well enough with a monarchy.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Not sure why he would think I don't believe every word of that. I don't fault this President or any President for making mistakes while actually trying to do something. For context, I was proud of Jimmy Carter for trying the hostage rescue that ended in tragedy at Dessert One. I was proud of Jimmy Carter for the Israel/Arab peace treaty. What I, and America, punished Carter for was his failure to grasp the circumstances in the region that lead him to turning his back on the Shah and allowing the Ayatollah to rise; and his retreat into the Flower Garden; his feckless response to oil embargoes, etc., and letting the US become victim of circumstances in the aftermath of Dessert One vs controlling our destiny.

We have an incompetent president that came into this job woefully unprepared and has failed to learn. He has neither the training from his past; nor the disposition for the office of President...he has no actual experience leading; and has failed to learn from his mistakes in office. He is controlled by the events around him and has thus ceded US leadership in the world to the thugs, murderers and bad actors in every region. Community organizers/agitators don't lead or administer anything....why would anyone think we would get a different result? He is disinterested in the administration of his office and has no talent for it. He lacks the disposition to lead; or be decisive and he makes terrible hiring decisions because he has no experience in hiring competent people or understand what competent looks like. And when Rome is burning, real leaders don't go play golf and say we'll get back to you...

You guys cheered on Bush's "decisive action " and it has led to a destabilized region .

[icanthearyou 4,468]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

You have quite an attitude problem lately. Seems like everybody but you is lost. Anyhow, I'm threu with it so yada, yada away all you want.

[AURaptor 1,137]

It wasn't Bush's decisive action ( voted in favor for by the Dems, btw ) that lead to this, it was the mismanagement of the post war effort.

[alexava 6,974]

there was no post war.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Looking back has never been a strong point of any U.S. president or anyone that proclaims "thought" as a guiding principal. This spans all parties involved here.

Instead of casting blame to the one who may have started the confrontation (GWB) look at the one who sought to gain control of the situation (Obama) and how he has managed this fiasco (among many, many others) and let the end result determine the outcome of this presidents performance.

We get what we ask for when it comes to a president (considering the majority of the population doesn't even vote). The problem I have is with DC as a whole. No accountability. We are supposed to have co-equal branches of government but that hasn't been in place for decades.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

It wasn't Bush's decisive action ( voted in favor for by the Dems, btw ) that lead to this, it was the mismanagement of the post war effort.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Yellow Cake

Anthrax and Riacin

Smoking Gun in the form of a Mushroom Cloud

Suitcase Nukes

Aluminum Tubes

Centrifuges

Ties to Al Qaeda

True support cannot be based on lies. Perhaps there was no post war plan or, exit strategy because, the original intent was to never leave?

[japantiger 4,077]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

It is a fact of circumstance. He wanted the office; he said he had a solution for this and just about every ailment that has ever faced mankind. Really doesn't matter who started it; just matters how he deals with it.

As for the WW2 analogy; it's actually a pretty good one. We were attacked by forces from Afghanistan (Japan). As a result, we attacked Iraq that we had an old grudge with and felt was a bigger danger (hhmmm sort of like Germany) ... we had a transition of leadership in the middle of the war. The leader (Truman) who succeeded the guy (FDR) who started war with a country

(Germany) other than the one we were attacked (Japan) by reacts how? In 1945; Truman had one hell of a mess on his hand...a much bigger mess than Obama...and what did he do...he owned it, said the buck stops here and prosecuted the war to a conclusion and dealt with the aftermath; as ugly it was. He never blamed FDR for anything...he just did the duty to which he aspired. In 2008, well, we have a leadership transition and we are reaping the results of the transition....Instead of inspired leadership and accountability; we get feckless leadership, aimless policy, golfing in the face of crisis...

[Strychnine 1,804]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

It is a fact of circumstance. He wanted the office; he said he had a solution for this and just about every ailment that has ever faced mankind. Really doesn't matter who started it; just matters how he deals with it.

As for the WW2 analogy; it's actually a pretty good one. We were attacked by forces from Afghanistan (Japan). As a result, we attacked Iraq that we had an old grudge with and felt was a bigger danger (hhmmm sort of like Germany) ... we had a transition of leadership in the middle of the war. The leader (Truman) who succeeded the guy (FDR) who started war with a country

(Germany) other than the one we were attacked (Japan) by reacts how? In 1945; Truman had one hell of a mess on his hand...a much bigger mess than Obama...and what did he do...he owned it, said the buck stops here and prosecuted the war to a conclusion and dealt with the aftermath; as ugly it was. He never blamed FDR for anything...he just did the duty to which he aspired. In 2008, well, we have a leadership transition and we are reaping the results of the transition....Instead of inspired leadership and accountability; we get feckless leadership, aimless policy, golfing in the face of crisis...

While I get where you are going with this, there is an important distinction to make. In World War II, we were attacked by a tangible enemy that was a modern civilization (a pair of empires). The necessary response was obvious, as was the means by which to go about prosecuting the war. When you are attacked by such enemies, it is usually quite clear what they want: they either want what you have, or they want to neutralize you as a threat to what they want. Ceasefires and treaties can be negotiated with such people, or war can continue until they are willing to. In fact, war is fought to obtain the upper hand in those negotiations.

In the modern case we were attacked by a force within an area controlled by a force we considered hostile, but had taken no action against us themselves. They were not a modern civilization by most standards, and they lacked what we would consider a modern infrastructure. We then invaded another country that had taken no action against us. They were in better shape than Afghanistan, but still not modern or an empire. Our purpose in both places was not to clearly defeat a tangible enemy, but to completely replace their government with the guiding light of democracy. The people throughout the entire region have a long history of strife with one another, and a recent history of generally detesting our meddling. Most of the combatants to be engaged in both areas are people that are generally impervious to negotiation or even reason.

While the scale of warfare that Truman inherited was much greater, the challenge was not. He had clearly defined allies, clearly defined enemies, and a war machine already moving along the efforts. Obama inherited what would have been a nightmare for any leader the world has ever seen (aside from conquerors), with almost nothing clearly defined. I'm not defending Obama, as I'm certainly not a fan, but he said no different than any Presidential campaign I've heard in my lifetime. I doubt his opponents' decisions would have worked out much better had they been in his position either.