Obama faces questions on prospect of expanded war

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Hold the line Obama. It is one thing to take potshots from 5000 feet and another thing to let the chicken-hawks gode you into a real war.

" It is one thing to take potshots from 5000 feet and another thing to let the chicken-hawks gode you into a real war."

So your logic is that airstrokes do not constitute real war? Then, that would put Pearl Harbor into that same non-war category?

There's nothing to think about............... troops must go in. Any war America goes into "in the future" that leads to a new government being formed, must see a new constitution made. A freeze on it for 30 years. 2 terms in office at most. Power shifts for 2 months if a deal is not reached and there is a deadlock in government. Army gens must be replaced each year and with a different religion / Shiite Sunni Kurd. FBI departments can't shut down and can forward info and proof to a court" for a judge to decide", and last resort, the other party or party's in gov can vote on kicking him or her out if 70% find the evidence to be correct..

Stop being scared as the Iraq war was won, there was no strategy's for 3/4 years then smashed them hard. People look at it as if they got destroyed, but there was know strategy's unto 2007 won won won.

Obama faces questions on prospect of expanded war

Here's a question. How are there nearly two thousand US military personnel in Iraq without a status of forces agreement?

It is one thing to take potshots from 5000 feet and another thing to let the chicken-hawks gode you into a real war.

This sentiment seems to match Obama's view of the situation fairly well. He wants to kill people that he has determined to be a threat to his country but wants to do so with the least commitment possible. He preemptly rules out things to keep his party together ahead of an important mid-term election thus constricting his ability to accomplish what he has stated is important enough to kill people for. It is fairly obvious that he will either have to break his no combat troops pledge or he will be forced to concede that his strategy has failed. There is no coalition to do the dirty work for him on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

@Wolfpack So what if we concede? Why you so hung up on keeping a broken region together anyways?

@John Galt Well, thankfully, the US can decide whether it is at war or not. Your comparison with Pearl Harbor is not fair because it is proving far more difficult to defeat these fundamentalists than Japan. You don't declare a war you can't win in a reasonable time-frame.

"Your comparison with Pearl Harbor is not fair because it is proving far more difficult to defeat these fundamentalists than Japan. You don't declare a war you can't win in a reasonable time-frame."

Your complaint is illogical. The comparison stands. It's inconvenient for your argument. The fact is that aerial attacks are acts of war any way you slice it, and the nature of the opponent matters not.

Here's a simple litmus test; what if some government fired one missile at and struck a target within CONUS? Would that not be defined as an act of war? Of course it would! To deny that is hypocrisy.