Obama authorizes renewed airstrikes in Iraq

Airstrikes to protect the civilians? Isn't that one of the ways we protected them when millions died? And why are Americans still there, it's not like they have been bringing peace to that region since the war.

If Obama had his way last year these guys would be running Syria right now.

Are you saying war is better? Or that the Assad regime is good? Or that the Assad regime is the lesser of the two evils?

Aside, I wish American had made a free Kurdish state in northern Iraq when it had the chance. What an ally they would be by now!

The guys he wants to attack, Sunni militants, are the same guys he has been supporting and arming in neighbouring Syria for the past 3 years.

Burning Bush, that canard has been repeatedly debunked; either you do not read much or you willfully ignore it. The very reason Obama has not gotten the US involved in Syria is precisely that: Assad is no better than Hossein, and discerning between the various rebel factions is difficult.

That said, the US has provided non-military aid to many factions known to be hostile to the ISIS. Read this story from the New Yorker and wonder if these Yazidis would have been able to escape via Kurdish-held Syria back into Kurdish-held Iraq if America had not supported them.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/friend-flees-horror-isis

Who created the conditions for them to flourish and exist?

For the latter, you can thank Assad himself (with a nod to GWB); for the former, Sunni plutocrats who hate Iran and its allies.

Don't be so foolish as to put the so-called "Free Syrian Army" under one tent, though. Obama was observant enough to note the dangers; that is why he never armed them, and that is why he did not bomb Assad's forces after Assad agreed to surrender his chemical weapons.

I agree that the Saudis and other petrodollar players have acted shamefully and that the US should reign them in somehow, but solutions in no way extend to punishing non-ISIS members of the "Free Syrian Army" nor supporting Assad.

@Laguna:

" Burning Bush, that canard has been repeatedly debunked; either you do not read much or you willfully ignore it. The very reason Obama has not gotten the US involved in Syria is precisely that: Assad is no better than Hossein, and discerning between the various rebel factions is difficult. "

But Obama IS involved in Syria. He is helping the "vetted rebels" which are exactly the same people he now wants to bomb in Iraq. Did you ever notice that they have been busy eliminating the border between Iraq and Syria, and proudly call themselves the Islamic state of SYRIA AND IRAQ? Does not give you a hint? ISIS is simply the radical arm of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, the same people who have been fighting the Assad regime in Syria for decades, and the same people who Obama has been supporting all across the region, most notably recently in Egyt.

@CrushThem:

Yes, the Assad regime is vastly preferrable to the radical islamic caliphate that ISIS is now establishing. Yes, the Assad Alevite regime is authoritarian, but secular and they respect minority rights. Under ISIS you get medieval Shariah and a genocide of Christians, Yazidis, and even Shias as you are now witnessing in Iraq.

He is helping the "vetted rebels" which are exactly the same people he now wants to bomb in Iraq.

No, WilliB, they are not.

Wait, is this the same Iraq that the U.S. spent years "liberating" and "stabilising"? ... I guess they failed miserably at the cost of hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

Armies don't "poof" themselves into existence in one day.

Exactly. If America could "poof" an rebellion into existence, it would certainly have already done so in North Korea or Iran (or certain fractious areas of China or Russia, perhaps). Certain conditions are required for rebellion, the most important of which is the commitment of a people - and that is something that America cannot create. It's a bit like weather.

Once formed, though, reactions are limited to three: Oppose (either actively or passively), ignore, or support (again, either actively or passively).

Obama, the West and Saudi Arabia are responsible for creating ISIS, by sending weapons and millions if not billions in cash to the Syrian rebels.

I appreciate how you phrased this - by confusing the passive support of the US with the active support of Gulf countries, a very false comparison.

"Today America is coming to help"

What about the Chinese and the Russians?

Ridiculous.

Let them deal with their own mess, a mess which American government is responsible for by the way.

The Russians, you say? The backers of a regime who slaughtered peaceful protesters leading to the chaos where radicals thrive? It worked so well in Syria that they exported it to The Ukraine.

But let's not talk about that.

"a mess which American government is responsible for by the way."

So the British had nothing to do with the carving up of Persia?

"Today America is coming to help"

Yes and Santa Claus is real too. The only ones America is helping are their masters, the zionists.

This means coming to a city near you in the USA 100,000 displaced Iraqi also with 22 million illegal aliens! Obama will say this is a humanitarian issue and before you know it we will have more meyhem in the US which is destined to fall!

@BurningBush, you are right on the money on everything you have posted. Those feeding themselves from mainstream media are not getting the truth.

I love the smell of JT in this evening!

The only ones America is helping are their masters, the zionists.

Yes, the Kenyan Muslim Marxist president is a tool of the Zionists. It all makes sense now.

This means coming to a city near you in the USA 100,000 displaced Iraqi also with 22 million illegal aliens!

Meaning absolutely falls apart! Does the poster suggest that there are 22 million illegal aliens in the US, and that Iraqi immigration will increase even after the chaos of Bush's war? Does the poster inhabit a sentient reality?

You mean the Western backed Ukrainian regime that has killed 1500 of its own people in the last two months

It would appear that its "own people" would not agree with that description - which is why they are accepting weapons from a neighboring country to secede. I've got no problem with that, but when the "western media" accurately reports that rebels are accepting weapons from a neighboring country to secede and the facts support this, I use my brain.

It's amazing how short people's memories are. Good old Dubya with his WMD fairytale and his regime change policy for any country that gave Daddy stress. What a success story! And how many people knew that Iraq and Libya would become like this? Anyone with half a brain knew. It's a disgrace. Iraq would be better off with Saddam, and Libya with Gaddafi. Hundreds of thousands have died for what exactly?

I have to agree that W certainly got the ball rolling (and badly) but at this point ISIS is so nasty that dropping bombs on them is probably better than letting them slaughter civilians who are from the wrong religion.

I'll agree with Obama on this one.

NY Times reported US airstrikes on ISIS while the Pentagon denied any such action a couple hours before the White House admitted anything. I smell a rat! THis needs investigation.

This action is too little too late I am afraid. THe Kurds will be fine. ISIS will grow, thrive, and hide as a result of the bombing.

Laguna:

" No, WilliB, they are not. "

Yes, they are. Want to continue this?

I suggest you take the time to read up on the history of the area. Radical Sunnis wanting to take over Syria is not something new. The idea that there is somehow miraculously a different, and pro-western militia in Syria that can be clearly distinguished from the Sunni radicals aka ISIS is pure wishful thinking. Like McCains stupid fiction of "vetted rebels". Get real.

ISIS must have gotten its weapons from somewhere, and it also needs millions in funding to operate.

Earlier reports indicated weapons were obtained in Mosul when Iraqi soldiers dropped their weapons before fleeing. Funds were reportedly obtained when banks in Mosul were raided.

Yes, the Kenyan Muslim Marxist president is a tool of the Zionists. It all makes sense now

Exactly!

Is this is the very same President Obama that based his entire political career on getting out of Iraq? Now he is ordering military strikes - in that very same Iraq. And the Left is falling all over themselves to endorse military action.

After Obama's unilateral declaration of victory and hasty withdrawal from the battlefield critic's repeatedly warned that he had to strike a deal to keep residual troops in country to provide stability. He told everyone he knew better. As usual, he was wrong. Ironically Obama's first military bombing mission was launched from an aircraft carrier named "Bush". Kind of humorous is it not?

Obama...>...said there was no U.S. military solution to the crisis.

I wonder if this statement was made before or after Obama ordered the first bombs dropped...

@Wolfpack

Is this is the very same President Obama that based his entire political career on getting out of Iraq? Now he is ordering military strikes - in that very same Iraq. And the Left is falling all over themselves to endorse military action.

Yes, its him. The one with the Nobel Peace Prize.

2 days ago I was going to post " Clint Eastwood had it right in 2012 when he spoke to the empty chair" This presidents second term IS that empty chair. Yesterday was a real person making the right decision. FINALLY!!!!!

Clint Eastwood had it right in 2012 when he spoke to the empty chair.

With respect to foreign policy it is Obama's head that's empty. At least one major crisis has sprung up on nearly every continent on Earth since Obama took office. If one ever wondered what the world would be like in the absence of American leadership - this is it.

@Burning BushAUG. 09, 2014 - 07:30AM JST

ISIS existed long before that, in Syria. Where they were receiving generous flows of cash and weapons from the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.

Former puppets suddenly became an inpedendent force. The direct result of U.S. foreign policy in that region.

@laguna

No, WilliB, they are not.

Yes, he is.

@serrano

So the British had nothing to do with the carving up of Persia?

No, no, you can't go that far, they bear NO responsibility for carving up the Persia and most of the Middle East, that is going back way too far and we need to only go as far back as Bush, but they don't need to go with the current President, so we are stuck in the bubble blame from 2000-2008 time frame, another word you could use is Selective Blaming.

@frungy

Wait, is this the same Iraq that the U.S. spent years "liberating" and "stabilising"? ... I guess they failed miserably at the cost of hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

No, they didn't. Iraq was pacified and Al Qaeda was beaten, to the point where they even admitted it on their website. Please stop lying like that. The surge worked in 2007 where both parties were against, Bush was advised to withdraw, Al Qaeda was getting stronger and under Petraeus led the surge and it decimated the entire Al Qaeda senior infrastructure. I know as with most libs, running and hiding is the mantra, but look at the results now since Obama has been in office. He pulling out our forces, barely leaving any contingency forces, not following up on the SOFA agreement. Bush implied that even with a gradual trop withdrawal, if there is no follow up after the surge and enough attention is being paid to the aftermath of the surge. Al Qaeda WOULD regroup and if nothing is done, it will be harder, almost impossible to root them out and that we might have to go in sooner or later again to fight a more formidable enemy. And he was right. Before you libs go on with, but if he didn't, wouldn't have, shouldn't have is totally irrelevant. We are here and the now and present. Obama slagged off, didn't want to be involved and here we are and now he wants to use drones to try and stop or at the very least minimum slow down the progress of ISIS? IT just might be a little too late and at the rate they are growing this will get very, very ugly. Either way, if the West doesn't have the stomach to fight or wanting to get involved in ANY wars, the terrorist Jihadists do and don't care and will continue on their Jihad rampage, so we just might have to get sucked in at some point and it might be better sooner than later to take some action.

@night knight

Former puppets suddenly became an inpedendent force. The direct result of U.S. foreign policy in that region.

I think you meant, FAILED U.S. foreign policy

Well, well. He's FINALLY done SOMETHING right.

@bass4funkAUG. 09, 2014 - 11:02AM JST

I think you meant, FAILED U.S. foreign policy

Correct. After American wars in Iraq or Afganistan, both countries turned to be a total mess and Hell Holes...

"W certainly got the ball rolling (and badly)"

Well, it's possible that if W had not "got the ball rolling" you-know-who would STILL be running Iraq with an iron fist, supressing the majority Shiites, but it's also possible by now that he might have been assassinated or somehow or another the minority Sunnis would have lost power and we would have basically the same situation except there would have been no free elections.