War Mongering President, War Criminal, Blood On His Hands!

[tosacco]

No war but class war.

 

[Freewill]

OH! Never mind!

What am I talking about? A Democrat is president! It's OKAY when HE talks about war, right????

Obama lays out plan to 'eradicate cancer' of Islamic State fighters

President Obama vowed to “destroy” Islamic State in Iraq and Syria terrorists in a prime-time address Wednesday that sought to restore eroding public confidence in his leadership and ability to safeguard national security.

The president announced a “systematic campaign of airstrikes” against fighters with the ISIS “wherever they exist,” signaling U.S. targets will expand from Iraq to Syria.

I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country wherever they are,” Obama said during the 15-minute address from the White House. “That means I will not hesitate to take action against [ISIS] in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.”

Obama lays out plan to eradicate cancer of Islamic State fighters TheHill

Remember the good old days liberals? When a Republican was president and your messiah could shoot his mouth off about Iraq anytime he wanted?



Yeah, those were the "good old days."

Now, the shoe is on the other foot. NOW, a Democrat is president and what do you know? Terrorists DON'T love us more because a black man/muslim/Kenyan/whatever is president.

Now, Obama finally has the problem in HIS lap.

So, he TALKS tough. He draws red lines like he already did in Syria and then did . . . . NOTHING.

So, he's talking tough again. Does he still think that all he need do?

Wait and see.

Just count on HYPOCRITE LIBERALS not to call Obama a war criminal, claim he's violating the Geneva Convention (that was always a funny one) or he violating the Constitution (and when has Obama cared about the Constitution???)

Wow, expect crickets from liberals on this.

But cheer up libs. You can always rant, rave and keep on blaming Bush!

Well, what a surprise. TPS didn't like the President's strategy.

If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.

Yep. And Iran wouldn't be so emboldened. They should have sent Bush a Thank You card.

This was all predictable. This was all predicted.

.

Predicted by whom? Who predicted that the Iraq war would lead to Assad in Syria? Who predicted that a war in Iraq would lead to ISIS coming out of Syria with American backing.

More then likely what was predicted is that if we supported terrorists in Libya and Syria the outcome would not be a good outcome.

Iran? What have they done lately?

One of the primary reasons we were against the war was that we knew we were stepping into a hornet's nest. The situation in the Middle East was so unstable and unpredictable that no one could have predicted anything specific, but we damn sure could predict that we, WE, were going to make a bad situation worse.

And we were absolutely right.

And what has Iran done lately? Well, aside from speeding up their nuclear program, thumbing their nose at us and the world, funding and supporting those who want us dead and Israel gone, and achieving significant influence in what remains of Iraq after WE took out Saddam, nothing, I guess.

.

Wait a second, I thought one of the reasons to be against removing Saddam is that he brought stability to the region and kept Iran in check. No matter how brutal his sons and him were in so doing it. Never mind using WMD against his own people.

How can you say we made a bad situation worse? HOW? Libya's Kaddafi gone. Syria has removed the gas that he probably got off of Saddam. Iran/Iraq is not longer at war. And the biggest thing is Saddam is GONE. A well known sponsor of terrorism.

What was predicted if a democracy was established in the ME? Exactly what we see happening, people rising up against the dictators. Which I don't see as a bad thing. ISIS is bad but there is nothing to link their rise to the Iraq war.

What we have to lose is that after showing the world that we would stand against those like Saddam we whimper and say all is lost.

 

[1776]

Yeah....when are the kooks going to march in the streets.

Oh...he is a 1/2 black, so he gets a pass......

 

[Mac1958]

Wait a second, I thought one of the reasons to be against removing Saddam is that he brought stability to the region and kept Iran in check. No matter how brutal his sons and him were in so doing it. Never mind using WMD against his own people.

How can you say we made a bad situation worse? HOW? Libya's Kaddafi gone. Syria has removed the gas that he probably got off of Saddam. Iran/Iraq is not longer at war. And the biggest thing is Saddam is GONE. A well known sponsor of terrorism.

What was predicted if a democracy was established in the ME? Exactly what we see happening, people rising up against the dictators. Which I don't see as a bad thing. ISIS is bad but there is nothing to link their rise to the Iraq war.

What we have to lose is that after showing the world that we would stand against those like Saddam we whimper and say all is lost.

I didn't say the area was stable, I said it was a hornet's nest. What Saddam provided was a strategic counter-balance to Iran and a firewall against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The fact that it wasn't as fucked up as it could have been doesn't mean it was stable.

Now, Iraq is in the process of falling into pieces, it can't defend itself, ISIS has planted its flag, Iran is scaring the shit out of people with its nuclear program, Iran is supporting area terrorism unimpeded, terror groups have metastasized all over, things are still a hornet's nest.

At very best, and I don't believe this, things are no better, no worse. And at what cost? A trillion dollars that we didn't have, thousands of young American lives, limbs and minds lost, AND an American populace that is understandably war-weary and likely to hamstring future military action as a result.

This is another self-inflicted wound.

.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- No, he's no chickenhawk a-hole like Booosh, Cheney, Rummie, Reagan, etc etc, no matter how hard every RW media whore tries to gin up controversy and ratings, or just Pub hate and idiocy. Thank god the "calmest president ever"(-Bill Maher) and adults are in charge now. Playing it cool has shown the light to our a-hole ME allies. Will also work with Russia in the long run.

As always, I couldn't care less what brainwashed, fear mongered, functional idiot, ADD hater dupes "think"....

 

[francoHFW]

bump for educating ignorant ADD hater dupes...

 

[Peach]

Wait a second, I thought one of the reasons to be against removing Saddam is that he brought stability to the region and kept Iran in check. No matter how brutal his sons and him were in so doing it. Never mind using WMD against his own people.

How can you say we made a bad situation worse? HOW? Libya's Kaddafi gone. Syria has removed the gas that he probably got off of Saddam. Iran/Iraq is not longer at war. And the biggest thing is Saddam is GONE. A well known sponsor of terrorism.

What was predicted if a democracy was established in the ME? Exactly what we see happening, people rising up against the dictators. Which I don't see as a bad thing. ISIS is bad but there is nothing to link their rise to the Iraq war.

What we have to lose is that after showing the world that we would stand against those like Saddam we whimper and say all is lost.

I didn't say the area was stable, I said it was a hornet's nest. What Saddam provided was a strategic counter-balance to Iran and a firewall against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The fact that it wasn't as fucked up as it could have been doesn't mean it was stable.

Now, Iraq is in the process of falling into pieces, it can't defend itself, ISIS has planted its flag, Iran is scaring the shit out of people with its nuclear program, Iran is supporting area terrorism unimpeded, terror groups have metastasized all over, things are still a hornet's nest.

At very best, and I don't believe this, things are no better, no worse. And at what cost? A trillion dollars that we didn't have, thousands of young American lives, limbs and minds lost, AND an American populace that is understandably war-weary and likely to hamstring future military action as a result.

This is another self-inflicted wound.

.

Much worse, ISL was able to use the "crusade"* to recruit, the Saudis, still deferential to the US at the end of the millenium became our masters 1/2001-1/2009. I said it then, it remains true; it will take decades to recover what the US lost during the Dark Years. From 9/11/01, through Iraq, Katrina, deregulation**..........the unnecessary deaths and trillions in debt cannot be erased. ISL was a natural outgrowth once al Qaeda was allowed to stand in 2003.

*Bush's own word.....
**Sago mine for example.

 

[CitizenSeven]

I doubt that you'll see involvement under Obama. Post Obama...who knows.

Bombing is involvement. Arming the opposition is involvement, one that hasn't worked out too well. Sending in "advisers" is involvemet, again one that has never worked out well. An operational definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. By that criteria, the current course is insane.

 

[francoHFW]

Bombing is VERY popular involvement, unlike STUPID, dishonest, chickenhawk RW invasions...

 

[CitizenSeven]

Bombing is VERY popular involvement, unlike STUPID, dishonest, chickenhawk RW invasions...

The 2003 invasion was VERY popular, greater than 80% at the time. You'd think people would remember that when the political class starts beating the wardrums, but as if on cue, they forget. Then wonder five years out with no end in sight how they got in such a quagmire.

I guess the familiarity adds to the comfort. Shrug.

 

[francoHFW]

Bombing is VERY popular involvement, unlike STUPID, dishonest, chickenhawk RW invasions...

The 2003 invasion was VERY popular, greater than 80% at the time. You'd think people would remember that when the political class starts beating the wardrums, but as if on cue, they forget. Then wonder five years out with no end in sight how they got in such a quagmire.

I guess the familiarity adds to the comfort. Shrug.

Wasn't popular in IRAQ, or in the ME. Americans should consider OTHER COUNTRIES. RW idiocy...

 

[francoHFW]

Bombing is VERY popular involvement, unlike STUPID, dishonest, chickenhawk RW invasions...

The 2003 invasion was VERY popular, greater than 80% at the time. You'd think people would remember that when the political class starts beating the wardrums, but as if on cue, they forget. Then wonder five years out with no end in sight how they got in such a quagmire.

I guess the familiarity adds to the comfort. Shrug.

Political class my arse- that was lying Pub/Boooshie hypocrites...And always is....

 

[Freewill]

Bombing is VERY popular involvement, unlike STUPID, dishonest, chickenhawk RW invasions...

Popular with left wingers, Al Quada, and other terrorist groups.

 

[Freewill]

Wait a second, I thought one of the reasons to be against removing Saddam is that he brought stability to the region and kept Iran in check. No matter how brutal his sons and him were in so doing it. Never mind using WMD against his own people.

How can you say we made a bad situation worse? HOW? Libya's Kaddafi gone. Syria has removed the gas that he probably got off of Saddam. Iran/Iraq is not longer at war. And the biggest thing is Saddam is GONE. A well known sponsor of terrorism.

What was predicted if a democracy was established in the ME? Exactly what we see happening, people rising up against the dictators. Which I don't see as a bad thing. ISIS is bad but there is nothing to link their rise to the Iraq war.

What we have to lose is that after showing the world that we would stand against those like Saddam we whimper and say all is lost.

I didn't say the area was stable, I said it was a hornet's nest. What Saddam provided was a strategic counter-balance to Iran and a firewall against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The fact that it wasn't as fucked up as it could have been doesn't mean it was stable.

Now, Iraq is in the process of falling into pieces, it can't defend itself, ISIS has planted its flag, Iran is scaring the shit out of people with its nuclear program, Iran is supporting area terrorism unimpeded, terror groups have metastasized all over, things are still a hornet's nest.

At very best, and I don't believe this, things are no better, no worse. And at what cost? A trillion dollars that we didn't have, thousands of young American lives, limbs and minds lost, AND an American populace that is understandably war-weary and likely to hamstring future military action as a result.

This is another self-inflicted wound.

.

Really, and no offense intended, but Saddam was not the savior of the middle east. He was paying suicide bomber for crying out loud. He attacked both Iran and Kuwait. He was shooting at our jets. You can write the history any way you want but the ME was f..ked up before Iraq and I see one big difference, democracy in Iraq. If we let that fall we are nothing but a pussy nation that believes in nothing and THAT will encourage our enemies.

 

[paulitician]

They should demand he return his Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[Discombobulated]

"Mr. President, you break it, you own it."

Colin Powell, before our invasion

.

Owning it is something Republicans will never do.

 

[candycorn]

I doubt that you'll see involvement under Obama. Post Obama...who knows.

Bombing is involvement. Arming the opposition is involvement, one that hasn't worked out too well. Sending in "advisers" is involvemet, again one that has never worked out well. An operational definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. By that criteria, the current course is insane.

And the expectation that just because you can cite where you tied your left shoe first, had toast and jelly instead of a bagel and cream cheese, and took only left turns to work one day and had a great day is proof that if you do the same things again you'll have a great day every day is bunk as well.

You do have a point, bombing is involvement.

I doubt you'll see boots on the ground under Obama.

 

[francoHFW]

Bombing is VERY popular involvement, unlike STUPID, dishonest, chickenhawk RW invasions...

Popular with left wingers, Al Quada, and other terrorist groups.

We're talking about US air power helping Iraqis, Kurds, moderate Syrian rebels, and ever more Arabs destroy ISIS, dingbat.

 

[francoHFW]

Wait a second, I thought one of the reasons to be against removing Saddam is that he brought stability to the region and kept Iran in check. No matter how brutal his sons and him were in so doing it. Never mind using WMD against his own people.

How can you say we made a bad situation worse? HOW? Libya's Kaddafi gone. Syria has removed the gas that he probably got off of Saddam. Iran/Iraq is not longer at war. And the biggest thing is Saddam is GONE. A well known sponsor of terrorism.

What was predicted if a democracy was established in the ME? Exactly what we see happening, people rising up against the dictators. Which I don't see as a bad thing. ISIS is bad but there is nothing to link their rise to the Iraq war.

What we have to lose is that after showing the world that we would stand against those like Saddam we whimper and say all is lost.

I didn't say the area was stable, I said it was a hornet's nest. What Saddam provided was a strategic counter-balance to Iran and a firewall against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The fact that it wasn't as fucked up as it could have been doesn't mean it was stable.

Now, Iraq is in the process of falling into pieces, it can't defend itself, ISIS has planted its flag, Iran is scaring the shit out of people with its nuclear program, Iran is supporting area terrorism unimpeded, terror groups have metastasized all over, things are still a hornet's nest.

At very best, and I don't believe this, things are no better, no worse. And at what cost? A trillion dollars that we didn't have, thousands of young American lives, limbs and minds lost, AND an American populace that is understandably war-weary and likely to hamstring future military action as a result.

This is another self-inflicted wound.

.

Really, and no offense intended, but Saddam was not the savior of the middle east. He was paying suicide bomber for crying out loud. He attacked both Iran and Kuwait. He was shooting at our jets. You can write the history any way you want but the ME was f..ked up before Iraq and I see one big difference, democracy in Iraq. If we let that fall we are nothing but a pussy nation that believes in nothing and THAT will encourage our enemies.

Now that Boosh's idiot/hater Maliki is gone, change is coming for the better. Booosh couldn't get ANYTHING right, a total catastrophe, never learn a gd thing hater dupes...

 

[Mac1958]

Wait a second, I thought one of the reasons to be against removing Saddam is that he brought stability to the region and kept Iran in check. No matter how brutal his sons and him were in so doing it. Never mind using WMD against his own people.

How can you say we made a bad situation worse? HOW? Libya's Kaddafi gone. Syria has removed the gas that he probably got off of Saddam. Iran/Iraq is not longer at war. And the biggest thing is Saddam is GONE. A well known sponsor of terrorism.

What was predicted if a democracy was established in the ME? Exactly what we see happening, people rising up against the dictators. Which I don't see as a bad thing. ISIS is bad but there is nothing to link their rise to the Iraq war.

What we have to lose is that after showing the world that we would stand against those like Saddam we whimper and say all is lost.

I didn't say the area was stable, I said it was a hornet's nest. What Saddam provided was a strategic counter-balance to Iran and a firewall against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The fact that it wasn't as fucked up as it could have been doesn't mean it was stable.

Now, Iraq is in the process of falling into pieces, it can't defend itself, ISIS has planted its flag, Iran is scaring the shit out of people with its nuclear program, Iran is supporting area terrorism unimpeded, terror groups have metastasized all over, things are still a hornet's nest.

At very best, and I don't believe this, things are no better, no worse. And at what cost? A trillion dollars that we didn't have, thousands of young American lives, limbs and minds lost, AND an American populace that is understandably war-weary and likely to hamstring future military action as a result.

This is another self-inflicted wound.

.

Really, and no offense intended, but Saddam was not the savior of the middle east. He was paying suicide bomber for crying out loud. He attacked both Iran and Kuwait. He was shooting at our jets. You can write the history any way you want but the ME was f..ked up before Iraq and I see one big difference, democracy in Iraq. If we let that fall we are nothing but a pussy nation that believes in nothing and THAT will encourage our enemies.

Again, that's not what I said, I did not say that Saddam was "the savior of the Middle East". Come on, please don't mis-characterize my words. His presence, his behavior, his ego -- all as ugly as it was -- provided military and strategic balance against other bad guys. Not everything is black & white, good vs. bad. This is bad vs. bad, and on balance it kept the Middle East from becoming the even bigger disaster it is today, all at our hands.

This is where we blew it, and made things worse. We simplistically saw that Saddam was a bad guy and decided it was our right to invade another sovereign country and take out its leader -- a former friend and ally of ours, by the way -- without giving a goddamn moment's pause regarding the larger-picture ramifications. It's what Bush wanted, and he pushed it through.

So now, since we broke it, we own it. We have to fucking go back in. And we've put ourselves into a position in which we may have to be allies -- ALLIES -- of Iran and SYRIA. What the fuck. Those thousands of American lives and limbs and minds, that trillion dollars, all pissed away because of Bush's historically bad idea. The one many of us begged him not to run with.

.