Iraq unravels!

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

That's true Finn, but he was going to do it. I'm criticizing him for bowing to pressure, not a judgment error. Well that might be

Pete

So, you're criticizing him for doing what you believe to be the right thing for the wrong reasons?

[Rajoo]

Bowing to pressure from the people that elected him?

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

Bowing to pressure from the people that elected him?

He's a "lame duck" POTUS, he's essentially free to make the best determinations depending on the presence of good info and advisors, regardless of politically motivated outside pressure.


Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by finnbow

So, you're criticizing him for doing what you believe to be the right thing for the wrong reasons?

No, I'm criticizing him for not doing what he knew he should have, in international politics - for domestic reasons. That's weak AND dumb.

Now I'm defending his current actions, in the face of the same folks who pressured him into backtracking last time.

Pete

[Bigerik]

The US of A totally screwed up their country, so they should take some responsibility for fixing it again. Obama s latest move is in the "fixing it" department.

And when did it become a bad thing for a president to be unwilling to send young American men and women to die. Didn't that used to be considered a last resort?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

The US of A totally screwed up their country, so they should take some responsibility for fixing it again. Obama s latest move is in the "fixing it" department.

And when did it become a bad thing for a president to be unwilling to send young American men and women to die. Didn't that used to be considered a last resort?

It's only a bad thing to NeoCon's. They've never met a conflict where they unwilling to send someone else's kids to fight and die.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

And when did it become a bad thing for a president to be unwilling to send young American men and women to die.

Pete doesn't mind sending them into harms way.

After all, it will me my kid that goes, not his.

[piece-itpete]

Nice try. For the 8 millionth time the ONLY thing I have advocated was ARMS AND AID.

But if it makes you all feel better by putting words in my mouth knock yourselves out. It shows a lack of facts.

Pete

[Bigerik]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Nice try. For the 8 millionth time the ONLY thing I have advocated was ARMS AND AID.

But if it makes you all feel better by putting words in my mouth knock yourselves out. It shows a lack of facts.

Pete

Didn't you just say you supported what Obama is doing? Which is sending kids into harms way.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Nice try. For the 8 millionth time the ONLY thing I have advocated was ARMS AND AID.

But if it makes you all feel better by putting words in my mouth knock yourselves out. It shows a lack of facts.

Pete

There were (well-founded) concerns of these weapons falling into the wrong hands (ISIS), as has proven true in Iraq with the Iraqi army we trained, supplied and funded for over a decade abandoning their high-tech American weaponry tout-de-suite.

You gotta get the notion out of your head that we have the capacity to bend this area (or any area) to our will and once bent, they'll magically transform themselves into a Jeffersonian democracy and it will all be peace, love and understanding.

If $2 trillion and thousands of dead didn't work in Iraq, why would a few odd weapons work in Syria? BTW, even the currently very well-armed ISIS (with captured American tanks and artillery) is largely ineffective against Assad with his airpower. The only way to have ensured their success against Assad would have been to do it for them as we did in Iraq against Saddam. However, we didn't have the Russians to contend with in Iraq as we did in Syria. They would have poured even greater support into Syria to support their only port outside of the former Soviet Union.