U.S. troops meet refugees on besieged Iraq mountain

It has been a really long time since I have used the words "justifiable US military intervention". This was just an assessment mission though.

I would support sending troops just to protect those people this one time. Much better than airstrikes.

But of course the U.N. should be doing it or at least paying for it.

A shame that U.S. service men and women are again being put in harm's way because George W. did not truly take the time to understand Colin Powell's sobering advice:

“You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people. You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You’ll own it all.”

But I am proud that President Obama is not shirking that responsibility, as FullM3tal says, a:

"justifiable US military intervention".

Hope they all come home safely and save the lives of these people.

From no boots on the ground, to 100 'advisers,' now 300, what next?

Sounds just like Vietnam huh?

Saddam would have prevented this nonsense.

From no boots on the ground, to 100 'advisers,' now 300, what next?

Whatever it takes to get the job done at this point, now that Obama is FINALLY waking up to the realization that this is NIT going away.

Sounds just like Vietnam huh?

Not really. The Vietnamese weren't trying to establish a Caliphate.

Saddam would have prevented this nonsense.

Very different from Nam and Saddam is NIT here, NO reason to mention that Tyrant, thank God for that.

Sounds just like Vietnam huh?

If you know next to nothing about the Vietnam war, then, yeah, I guess maybe?

jerseyboy, yes, GW invaded Iraq. Obama pulled them out. Too soon? I though so at that time. Obama owns that! Then he played the ostrich, you know, head in the sand, and waited until too late to act.

As for Sadam, he was old. Who would have succeeded Sadam? Would he have been a more evil brutal dictator?

I have absolutely no doubt the Arab Spring would have been in Iraq years ago along with much of the ME. What would have happened? What death toll? What human atrocities?

Glad that we aren't sending in any troops.

Glad that we aren't sending in any troops.

Huh? Article clearly mentions that US troops were being sent to the mountain. Not to mention the other 'advisors,' basically US troops, that were already in Iraq.

But not to worry, soon we'll have even more boots on the ground.

Big things start small.

@triumvere

If you know next to nothing about the Vietnam war, then, yeah, I guess maybe?

Yes, if you DON'T know. But comparing the two is like comparing a kiwi with a pear.

@warkarimasen

Glad that we aren't sending in any troops.

There are already special forces on the ground, but the way this is expanding at the rate it is, that could very well possibly change.

If there is ever an analysis of the number of Iraqi deaths under Saddam rule and number of deaths under 'democracy', people would be begging to go back to Saddam's reign.

I highly doubt that.

Good to see,,,,,thanks U S A

But comparing the two is like comparing a kiwi with a pear.

Equating might be a problem. But there are yet plenty of generalized similarities. One lesson that should have been obvious from Vietnam is that an outsider cannot rush in and convince local people to be buddies if they got their heart sets on killing each other or being separate. Obviously, America did not learn the lesson.

Of course, the lesson that the arms makers learned was that war equals big bucks. But they learned that long before Vietnam. And another lesson learned was that enough people will fall for the patriotic garbage routine every time.

And while I do approve of this mission, I hope it does escalate into another foolish American attempt to make Iraq one whole country again. Its obvious to any man who wants to see peace that it should be three countries. Those who decided to keep it as one obviously don't give a damn for peace.

'If there is ever an analysis of the number of Iraqi deaths under Saddam rule and number of deaths under 'democracy', people would be begging to go back to Saddam's reign.'

There have been many comparisons made of the death toll under Saddam and since his removal. The numbers vary depending on who you ask. The right have accused studies by Johns Hopkins and The Lancet of exaggeration and claim a much lower number. One thing is certain, Saddam's worst crimes were carried out at a time when he was tolerated by the west which had armed him with appalling weaponry including chemical weapons. They armed him for a million-dead war with Iran, supported him at a time he was murdering those under his rule and removed him with no thought to how to reconstruct the deeply divided country which would be left, leaving chaos behind. One of the most disgraceful episodes in modern history just keeps delivering and perhaps it's time to throw more lives at this after a short break.

Oy vey!! Nobody likes these Yazidi. Their religion is at odds with every other religion in the area, and they've even been called Satan worshippers by Christians.

At heart Iraq is still a loose coalition of Arab tribes united very loosely by religion, but still pursuing ancient feuds that god back thousands of years. The tribalism and tribal warfare in the Middle East is not about to change anytime soon. If the US army stands there with guns they'll stop it for a while.

If they give the Yazidi guns then it'll be the Yazidi attacking other tribes. They gave high tech weapons to Israel and then acted all surprised when Israel took every opportunity to blow the heck out of their neighbors.

This is what the US has consistently failed to grasp about Africa and the Middle East. Short of standing back and allowing genocide there is no hope for peace while tribalism prevails. The only way to dilute tribalism is to stimulate economic growth and urbanization, which dilutes and homogenizes cultures. And this won't be a fast process. You're looking at generations.

Frungy, I do not think it is that simple. Even inside of the USA, parts of that country resemble tribes, white folk only wanting to deal with whites, blacks with blacks, latinos with latinos, asians with their own particular asian group etc..so going back to the MIDDLE EAST?? There is NO EASY solution, but the USA does have the moral responsibility to PROTECT these people!! Vietnam?? Somethings do resemble that war, so maybe now these Yazidi folk are like the Cambodian and Laostions that were left behind enemy lines at the end of that war?? Hopefully Mr.Obama knows better that to do such a cruel thing to our friends and allies around the world.

David - I didn't say it was easy. What I was objecting to was the normal ham-handed military solutions the US uses. They inevitably cause massive civilian casualties and are short-term solutions that solve nothing... Apart from generating business for the US arms industry and further destabilises the region so more business is generated downstream.

Don't talk about moral obligations. The US agenda is so transparently self-serving that only US citizens exposed to a lifetime of propaganda still believe the US is still the good guy, and even then a lot of US citizens are waking up.

If they give the Yazidi guns then it'll be the Yazidi attacking other tribes.

They haven't had a history of trying to exterminate the Arabs, you can't say that for sure.

They gave high tech weapons to Israel and then acted all surprised when Israel took every opportunity to blow the heck out of their neighbors.

Yes, after they have been attacked, they should.

The only way to dilute tribalism is to stimulate economic growth and urbanization, which dilutes and homogenizes cultures. And this won't be a fast process. You're looking at generations.

And with the Billions that the US and other nations have poured into these countries, what was the result? The money was stolen, mismanaged, used by dictators, how about giving blame to these countries since they had over 100 years to use the money to build up their lives, infrastructure and economy. That's all on them, if they want to live in the stone age, that's up to them.

"Islamic State"

There shouldn't be any Islamic states, people in any country should be able to choose whether they want to follow Islam, or another religion or no religion.

jerseyboy, yes, GW invaded Iraq. Obama pulled them out. Too soon? I though so at that time. Obama owns that! Then he played the ostrich, you know, head in the sand, and waited until too late to act

MarkG -- since you posed it as a question, I would say "No", Obama did not pull the troops out too soon. There was a legitimate, democratically elected government in place, and a well-trained and well-equipped military as well. The fact that Maliki was too stupid to make it an all-inclusive governement is not Obama's fault. Were we supposed to keep spilling U.S. blood until he finally woke up, or left office? Plus he refused to sign a SOFA.

'There shouldn't be any Islamic states, people in any country should be able to choose whether they want to follow Islam, or another religion or no religion.'

Very true. Democracy, freedom of and from religion and free speech. I wonder why the western powers have no problem with countries like Saudi Arabia?