Aa
Obama OKs airstrikes, civilian aid
As much as hate to see us reengaged in Iraq, we owe this to the Kurds. They were the best fighters and the closest thing we had to a real ally there. Ten years of an ersatz war and reconstruction just to make **** Cheney and his friends rich at the American taxpayers expense. We owe this just so we aren't taking a crap on these people and walking away.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/politics/article/AP-Analysis-Obama-puts-US-on-brink-of-Iraq-return-5676163.php
"WASHINGTON (AP) — After years of resisting the pull of more Mideast conflicts, President Barack Obama is ready to return the United States to military action in Iraq, the very country where he accused his predecessor of engaging in a "dumb war."
The president's authorization of airstrikes against militants in Iraq threatens to upend his legacy as the commander in chief who ended the long, unpopular war which killed nearly 4,500 American troops. It also raises fresh questions about whether Obama's desire to end that conflict clouded his assessment of the risks of fully withdrawing U.S. troops, as well as his judgment about the threat posed by the Islamic extremists who have taken advantage of a vulnerable Iraq.
As he addressed a war-weary nation late Thursday, Obama insisted the U.S. was not moving toward another protracted conflict in Iraq.
"I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq," he declared, while also announcing that U.S. military aircrafts had already completed airdrops of humanitarian aid to Iraqi religious minorities under siege.
To be sure, the actions unveiled by Obama are more limited in scope than the full-scale invasion of Iraq that he inherited from his predecessor, George W. Bush.
Yet the president's maneuvers in Iraq this summer underscore the difficulty in pulling back once the military edges into a tenuous security state. The central rationale for Obama's authorization for military strikes in Iraq is to protect American forces serving in the northern city of Irbil — including some of the same forces the president deployed earlier this summer to help train and assist Iraqi security forces struggling to contain the militants.
Obama also authorized the use of U.S. military strikes to help struggling Iraqi security forces protect civilians. He argued that the U.S. has a responsibility to take action to stop imminent massacres, echoing the rationale he used when the U.S. joined the 2010 NATO bombing campaign in Libya.
Both liberal and conservative interventionists have urged Obama to use similar logic to respond to Syria's civil war, in which more than 170,000 people have died, but he has resisted.
Aides cast Obama's authorization of airstrikes in Iraq as a reaction to a set of fast-moving developments on the ground. Over the past week, the Islamic State group has swept through areas in Iraq's north that are heavily populated by Christians and Yazidis, a people following an ancient religion who fled to the mountains to escape the extremists and are suffering without food and water.
While the situation may be evolving quickly, the conditions that returned the U.S. to the brink of military action in Iraq can be traced back months — or to the president's critics, even years.
As recently as January, Obama was publicly dismissive of the Islamic State group, which at the time was under the al-Qaida banner. In an interview with the New Yorker magazine, he said comparing the upstart group to the terror network established by Osama bin Laden was like comparing a jayvee basketball team to an NBA squad.
"I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian," Obama said.
Even at the time, U.S. intelligence and defense officials were warning about the threat that could be posed by the Islamic State, which had strengthened in Syria amid the chaos of that country's bloody civil war. But Obama's comments reflected his limited appetite for wading back into Iraq or for starting a new military engagement in Syria, where he authorized an air assault last summer after a chemical weapons attack but never gave the order for a strike
Obama's critics draw a direct connection between that approach and his decision to withdraw all American troops from Iraq in late 2011. He did so in large part because Iraq's government refused to sign a security agreement providing U.S. troops immunity, but White House opponents say the president should have pushed harder for a deal in order to avoid the type of situation now unfolding in Iraq.
"We are already paying a very heavy price for our inaction, and if we do not change course, the costs of our inaction will only grow," Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a joint statement following Obama's remarks.
They called on Obama to extend his authorization of airstrikes against the Islamic State beyond Iraq and into Syria, a step administration officials said they were not prepared to take at this time.
For Obama, the threat of undermining his own legacy on Iraq could hardly come at a worse time.
His overall approval ratings have plummeted, as has the public's opinion of his foreign policy. And he has faced a barrage of questions about his ability to influence world events, from Russia's provocations in Ukraine to the latest round of clashes between Israel and Hamas.
Yet in a sign of his continued wariness about the effectiveness of military action, Obama made clear that even if he did inject U.S. airpower into Iraq, it would not solve that nation's myriad problems.
"There's no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq," he said."
http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/politics/article/AP-Analysis-Obama-puts-US-on-brink-of-Iraq-return-5676163.php
"WASHINGTON (AP) — After years of resisting the pull of more Mideast conflicts, President Barack Obama is ready to return the United States to military action in Iraq, the very country where he accused his predecessor of engaging in a "dumb war."
The president's authorization of airstrikes against militants in Iraq threatens to upend his legacy as the commander in chief who ended the long, unpopular war which killed nearly 4,500 American troops. It also raises fresh questions about whether Obama's desire to end that conflict clouded his assessment of the risks of fully withdrawing U.S. troops, as well as his judgment about the threat posed by the Islamic extremists who have taken advantage of a vulnerable Iraq.
As he addressed a war-weary nation late Thursday, Obama insisted the U.S. was not moving toward another protracted conflict in Iraq.
"I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq," he declared, while also announcing that U.S. military aircrafts had already completed airdrops of humanitarian aid to Iraqi religious minorities under siege.
To be sure, the actions unveiled by Obama are more limited in scope than the full-scale invasion of Iraq that he inherited from his predecessor, George W. Bush.
Yet the president's maneuvers in Iraq this summer underscore the difficulty in pulling back once the military edges into a tenuous security state. The central rationale for Obama's authorization for military strikes in Iraq is to protect American forces serving in the northern city of Irbil — including some of the same forces the president deployed earlier this summer to help train and assist Iraqi security forces struggling to contain the militants.
Obama also authorized the use of U.S. military strikes to help struggling Iraqi security forces protect civilians. He argued that the U.S. has a responsibility to take action to stop imminent massacres, echoing the rationale he used when the U.S. joined the 2010 NATO bombing campaign in Libya.
Both liberal and conservative interventionists have urged Obama to use similar logic to respond to Syria's civil war, in which more than 170,000 people have died, but he has resisted.
Aides cast Obama's authorization of airstrikes in Iraq as a reaction to a set of fast-moving developments on the ground. Over the past week, the Islamic State group has swept through areas in Iraq's north that are heavily populated by Christians and Yazidis, a people following an ancient religion who fled to the mountains to escape the extremists and are suffering without food and water.
While the situation may be evolving quickly, the conditions that returned the U.S. to the brink of military action in Iraq can be traced back months — or to the president's critics, even years.
As recently as January, Obama was publicly dismissive of the Islamic State group, which at the time was under the al-Qaida banner. In an interview with the New Yorker magazine, he said comparing the upstart group to the terror network established by Osama bin Laden was like comparing a jayvee basketball team to an NBA squad.
"I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian," Obama said.
Even at the time, U.S. intelligence and defense officials were warning about the threat that could be posed by the Islamic State, which had strengthened in Syria amid the chaos of that country's bloody civil war. But Obama's comments reflected his limited appetite for wading back into Iraq or for starting a new military engagement in Syria, where he authorized an air assault last summer after a chemical weapons attack but never gave the order for a strike
Obama's critics draw a direct connection between that approach and his decision to withdraw all American troops from Iraq in late 2011. He did so in large part because Iraq's government refused to sign a security agreement providing U.S. troops immunity, but White House opponents say the president should have pushed harder for a deal in order to avoid the type of situation now unfolding in Iraq.
"We are already paying a very heavy price for our inaction, and if we do not change course, the costs of our inaction will only grow," Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a joint statement following Obama's remarks.
They called on Obama to extend his authorization of airstrikes against the Islamic State beyond Iraq and into Syria, a step administration officials said they were not prepared to take at this time.
For Obama, the threat of undermining his own legacy on Iraq could hardly come at a worse time.
His overall approval ratings have plummeted, as has the public's opinion of his foreign policy. And he has faced a barrage of questions about his ability to influence world events, from Russia's provocations in Ukraine to the latest round of clashes between Israel and Hamas.
Yet in a sign of his continued wariness about the effectiveness of military action, Obama made clear that even if he did inject U.S. airpower into Iraq, it would not solve that nation's myriad problems.
"There's no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq," he said."
It is "good versus evil" but it really isn't a place for us to intervene. I understand a "humanitarian" effort but I don't understand why we won't pursue a humanitarian effort of this magnitude domestically. We almost understand that battle here at home. We will never understand a battle over there that is thousands of years old..
US sending arms directly to Kurds in Iraq
Previously, the U.S. had insisted on only selling arms to the Iraqi government in Baghdad, but the Kurdish peshmerga fighters had been losing ground to Islamic State militants in recent weeks.
The officials wouldn't say which U.S. agency is providing the arms or what weapons are being sent, but one official said it isn't the Pentagon. The CIA has historically done similar quiet arming operations.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the operation publicly.
The move to directly aid the Kurds underscores the level of U.S. concern about the Islamic State militants' gains in the north, and reflects the persistent administration view that the Iraqis must take the necessary steps to solve their own security problems.
A senior State Department official would only say that the Kurds are "getting arms from various sources. They are being rearmed."
To bolster that effort, the administration is also very close to approving plans for the Pentagon to arm the Kurds, a senior official said. In recent days, the U.S. military has been helping facilitate weapons deliveries from the Iraqis to the Kurds, providing logistic assistance and transportation to the north.
The additional assistance comes as Kurdish forces on Sunday took back two towns from the Islamic insurgents, aided in part by U.S. airstrikes in the region. President Barack Obama authorized the airstrikes to protect U.S. interests and personnel in the region, including at facilities in Irbil, as well as Yazidi refugees fleeing militants.
U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, speaking to reporters here, said the airstrikes "have been very effective from all the reports that we've received on the ground." He declined to detail how or when the U.S. might expand its assistance to Iraq, or if military assessment teams currently in Baghdad would be moving to a more active role advising the Iraqi forces.
"We're going to continue to support the Iraqi security forces in every way that we can as they request assistance there," Hagel said during a press conference with Australian Defense Minister David Johnston.
At the same time, the administration is watching carefully as a political crisis brews in Baghdad, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned Iraq's embattled prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to maintain calm among the upheaval.
"We believe that the government formation process is critical in terms of sustaining the stability and calm in Iraq," Kerry said. "And our hope is that Mr. Maliki will not stir those waters."
Speaking in Australia on Monday, Kerry said there should be no use of force by political factions as Iraq struggles form a government. He said the people of Iraq have made clear their desire for change and that the country's new president is acting appropriately despite claims of malfeasance by al-Maliki.
Maliki is resisting calls to step down and says he'll file a complaint against the president for not naming him prime minister.
Kerry noted that Maliki's Shia bloc has put forward three other candidates for the prime minister job and says the U.S. stands with the new president, Fouad Massoum.
Maliki has accused Massoum of violating the constitution because he has not yet named a prime minister from the country's largest parliamentary faction, missing a Sunday deadline.
Hagel and Kerry are in Sydney for an annual meeting with Australian defense and diplomatic leaders.
http://news.msn.com/world/us-sending-arms-directly-to-kurds-in-iraq
Previously, the U.S. had insisted on only selling arms to the Iraqi government in Baghdad, but the Kurdish peshmerga fighters had been losing ground to Islamic State militants in recent weeks.
The officials wouldn't say which U.S. agency is providing the arms or what weapons are being sent, but one official said it isn't the Pentagon. The CIA has historically done similar quiet arming operations.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the operation publicly.
The move to directly aid the Kurds underscores the level of U.S. concern about the Islamic State militants' gains in the north, and reflects the persistent administration view that the Iraqis must take the necessary steps to solve their own security problems.
A senior State Department official would only say that the Kurds are "getting arms from various sources. They are being rearmed."
To bolster that effort, the administration is also very close to approving plans for the Pentagon to arm the Kurds, a senior official said. In recent days, the U.S. military has been helping facilitate weapons deliveries from the Iraqis to the Kurds, providing logistic assistance and transportation to the north.
The additional assistance comes as Kurdish forces on Sunday took back two towns from the Islamic insurgents, aided in part by U.S. airstrikes in the region. President Barack Obama authorized the airstrikes to protect U.S. interests and personnel in the region, including at facilities in Irbil, as well as Yazidi refugees fleeing militants.
U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, speaking to reporters here, said the airstrikes "have been very effective from all the reports that we've received on the ground." He declined to detail how or when the U.S. might expand its assistance to Iraq, or if military assessment teams currently in Baghdad would be moving to a more active role advising the Iraqi forces.
"We're going to continue to support the Iraqi security forces in every way that we can as they request assistance there," Hagel said during a press conference with Australian Defense Minister David Johnston.
At the same time, the administration is watching carefully as a political crisis brews in Baghdad, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned Iraq's embattled prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to maintain calm among the upheaval.
"We believe that the government formation process is critical in terms of sustaining the stability and calm in Iraq," Kerry said. "And our hope is that Mr. Maliki will not stir those waters."
Speaking in Australia on Monday, Kerry said there should be no use of force by political factions as Iraq struggles form a government. He said the people of Iraq have made clear their desire for change and that the country's new president is acting appropriately despite claims of malfeasance by al-Maliki.
Maliki is resisting calls to step down and says he'll file a complaint against the president for not naming him prime minister.
Kerry noted that Maliki's Shia bloc has put forward three other candidates for the prime minister job and says the U.S. stands with the new president, Fouad Massoum.
Maliki has accused Massoum of violating the constitution because he has not yet named a prime minister from the country's largest parliamentary faction, missing a Sunday deadline.
Hagel and Kerry are in Sydney for an annual meeting with Australian defense and diplomatic leaders.
http://news.msn.com/world/us-sending-arms-directly-to-kurds-in-iraq
I think this issue transcends politics.
It is essentially good versus evil.
It is essentially good versus evil.
The only thing I can say is that if our initial interference in the country caused the instability that then allowed these nuts to begin what they are doing, then we have to help the people. But it still makes me sad that it comes to our dropping bombs. That isn't about Obama by the way. I am not trying to make this a political issue to score points for one side or the other.
The whole thing is a mess. every day is like a horror story reading what is going on in that part of the world. I hate that it is like that. But it seems to get worse and worse.
The whole thing is a mess. every day is like a horror story reading what is going on in that part of the world. I hate that it is like that. But it seems to get worse and worse.
WARNING GRAPHIC PHOTOS (RAW) - ISIS begins killing Christians in Mosul, CHILDREN BEHEADED
http://www.catholic.org/news/international/middle_east/story.php?id=56481
Islamic State terrorists have begun their promised killing of Christians in Mosul, and they have started with the children. According to a report via CNN, a Chaldean-American businessman has said that killings have started in Mosul and children's heads are being erected on poles in a city park.
A child is photographed, waiting to be killed by militants. ISIS uses these images to terrorize others and to glorify their spree of terror.
LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - "There is a park in Mosul," Mark Arabo told CNN during a Skype interview from San Diego, "where they actually beheaded children and put their heads on a stick and have them in the park."
Arabo, who is a prominent Chaldean-American businessman and met with other leaders of his community in the White House last week, has called upon American political leaders to grant asylum to about 300,000 Christians fleeing the ISIS invasion.
In the name of mercy, please give today to help these people.
"The world hasn't seen this kind of atrocity in generations," he told CNN. He's mostly correct. Although genocides have happened repeatedly throughout history, including famous genocides in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, as well as Cambodia, the genocide perpetrated against Christians and other minorities is extreme, partly because it is being gleefully publicized.
The terrorists who have invaded Mosul and other ancient Christian communities in Syria and Iraq have made music videos of themselves murdering civilians and captured soldiers. They are literally enjoying the act of killing and the fear and suffering experienced by others. This sadism may be the purest manifestation of evil witnessed since the Rape of Nanking during WWII.
Already, several images have emerged of Christian children beheaded by ISIS, merely for being Christian.
According to Arabo, women are being raped, then murdered, and men are being hanged. These are the people who were warned - convert to Islam of be put to the sword.
Even families that pay the tax, mandated by ISIS for Christians who remain, are now being victimized. The women are allegedly being taken from their husbands and made into "wives" belonging to the ISIS fighters. This means they can rape them and even kill them, if they do not subsequently agree to convert to Islam.
Not all Christians could flee, perhaps because they were caring for elderly relatives or small children or had some other reason they could not walk out of the city and trek across the desert. Perhaps some thought paying a tax would save them and their homes and businesses.
Still, in another part of Iraq, refugees retreated into the mountains where they have been surrounded by ISIS rebels who are now waiting for them to starve and die from exposure.
What is happening in Iraq and Syria, especially to Christians, is not hyperbole. The pledges of ISIS must be taken seriously. They have carried out every threat they have made. They have shown no mercy to children or their mothers. They revel in killing and are nothing more than an army of religious zealots and psychopaths. Their numbers are growing because nobody in the world is doing anything to stop them. Every murderous, blood-lusting Muslim who can reach the area is flocking to join ISIS and participate in the killing spree.
This is no longer an issue for Iraq alone to deal with. The entire planet has a solemn responsibility to deal swiftly with ISIS and to neutralize their threat to all civilized people.
That the world sits and watches is the epitome of shame and an indelible blight on humanity.
There are some terribly gruesome photos accompanying this article.
http://www.catholic.org/news/international/middle_east/story.php?id=56481
Islamic State terrorists have begun their promised killing of Christians in Mosul, and they have started with the children. According to a report via CNN, a Chaldean-American businessman has said that killings have started in Mosul and children's heads are being erected on poles in a city park.
A child is photographed, waiting to be killed by militants. ISIS uses these images to terrorize others and to glorify their spree of terror.
LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - "There is a park in Mosul," Mark Arabo told CNN during a Skype interview from San Diego, "where they actually beheaded children and put their heads on a stick and have them in the park."
Arabo, who is a prominent Chaldean-American businessman and met with other leaders of his community in the White House last week, has called upon American political leaders to grant asylum to about 300,000 Christians fleeing the ISIS invasion.
In the name of mercy, please give today to help these people.
"The world hasn't seen this kind of atrocity in generations," he told CNN. He's mostly correct. Although genocides have happened repeatedly throughout history, including famous genocides in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, as well as Cambodia, the genocide perpetrated against Christians and other minorities is extreme, partly because it is being gleefully publicized.
The terrorists who have invaded Mosul and other ancient Christian communities in Syria and Iraq have made music videos of themselves murdering civilians and captured soldiers. They are literally enjoying the act of killing and the fear and suffering experienced by others. This sadism may be the purest manifestation of evil witnessed since the Rape of Nanking during WWII.
Already, several images have emerged of Christian children beheaded by ISIS, merely for being Christian.
According to Arabo, women are being raped, then murdered, and men are being hanged. These are the people who were warned - convert to Islam of be put to the sword.
Even families that pay the tax, mandated by ISIS for Christians who remain, are now being victimized. The women are allegedly being taken from their husbands and made into "wives" belonging to the ISIS fighters. This means they can rape them and even kill them, if they do not subsequently agree to convert to Islam.
Not all Christians could flee, perhaps because they were caring for elderly relatives or small children or had some other reason they could not walk out of the city and trek across the desert. Perhaps some thought paying a tax would save them and their homes and businesses.
Still, in another part of Iraq, refugees retreated into the mountains where they have been surrounded by ISIS rebels who are now waiting for them to starve and die from exposure.
What is happening in Iraq and Syria, especially to Christians, is not hyperbole. The pledges of ISIS must be taken seriously. They have carried out every threat they have made. They have shown no mercy to children or their mothers. They revel in killing and are nothing more than an army of religious zealots and psychopaths. Their numbers are growing because nobody in the world is doing anything to stop them. Every murderous, blood-lusting Muslim who can reach the area is flocking to join ISIS and participate in the killing spree.
This is no longer an issue for Iraq alone to deal with. The entire planet has a solemn responsibility to deal swiftly with ISIS and to neutralize their threat to all civilized people.
That the world sits and watches is the epitome of shame and an indelible blight on humanity.
There are some terribly gruesome photos accompanying this article.
NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!!!!!
TRY OBAMA FOR WAR CRIMES!!!!!
TRY OBAMA FOR WAR CRIMES!!!!!
Bush bombs Iraq: ADMONISHED & CONDEMNED
Obama bombs Iraq: APPLAUDED & COMMENDED
Sounds pretty reasonable to me, given the audience here at CE.
That said...
I completely support Obama's decision to bomb Iraq (or whatever action he and his advisors think is best). Just as I supported Bush's decision to invade/attack/bomb Iraq, so I support Obama.
(Notice how I didn't bash Obama, just because he's a dem? It's called bi-partisan support... try it, dem's. It might grow on you. Supporting something simply because it's a dem doing it, but bashing it when it's a repub doing it, is ignorant. Again, I guess I need to look at my audience)
Obama bombs Iraq: APPLAUDED & COMMENDED
Sounds pretty reasonable to me, given the audience here at CE.
That said...
I completely support Obama's decision to bomb Iraq (or whatever action he and his advisors think is best). Just as I supported Bush's decision to invade/attack/bomb Iraq, so I support Obama.
(Notice how I didn't bash Obama, just because he's a dem? It's called bi-partisan support... try it, dem's. It might grow on you. Supporting something simply because it's a dem doing it, but bashing it when it's a repub doing it, is ignorant. Again, I guess I need to look at my audience)
Struck me as odd that there were so many people demanding that we pull out at once, regardless of cost.... and now we are back, basically trying to finish business and that urgency, those demands are not being shouted.
Just odd... and it has me wondering again, how many of Cheneys friends are getting rich again/still?
Just odd... and it has me wondering again, how many of Cheneys friends are getting rich again/still?
Nope... didn't say that.
It's complicated, isn't it? While I understand why we did it, it sure did make me sad to see.
MedHelp terms of use prohibit fowl language.
It was okay when a Republican was doing it is what your saying? Try to remember now, it was a Republican that took us there to begin with? Now we own the damn thing, like it or no.
We toppled the only sob that kept the pigs at bay to begin with. Now all we have is a bay of pigs fighting to take that leadership position that we vacated.
We are so damn smart we will destroy our selves, no one will have to do a damn thing to us.
We toppled the only sob that kept the pigs at bay to begin with. Now all we have is a bay of pigs fighting to take that leadership position that we vacated.
We are so damn smart we will destroy our selves, no one will have to do a damn thing to us.
Of course its okay that we are bombing them now... its a democrat in power.
Likewise, I'm sure.
"I'm surprised none of our resident President bashers have weighed in on this. I guess they have to wait to see what Scammity or Plush Oompah tells them what to think."
Thanks for that valuable contribution to the thread.
Thanks for that valuable contribution to the thread.
I'm surprised none of our resident President bashers have weighed in on this. I guess they have to wait to see what Scammity or Plush Oompah tells them what to think.
Thank you for your response teko.
Thank you for your response teko.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/fighting-isis-iraq-questions-linger-u-s-strikes-n176071
"President Barack Obama has given the green light to take two very different steps — airstrikes and airdrops — to address a security threat and a humanitarian crisis in Iraq. But what comes next remains unclear.
The president authorized the airstrikes to fight ISIS, the Islamic militant group terrorizing northern Iraq, as it approaches the city of Erbil.
Erbil is strategically important because it is the capital of the Kurdish region, home of the most reliable American support in the country, and is considered a stronghold against ISIS. It also has a U.S. consulate and hosts some of the 800 military personnel that Obama sent to Iraq earlier this year.
The United States also began dropping food and water to tens of thousands of Iraqis, most of them Christians and members of an ancient religious sect called the Yazidi, who have been trapped by ISIS on a mountain range.
Here are some outstanding questions about the U.S. action:
How many airstrikes? And for how long?
ISIS militants, who have already seized swaths of the Iraqi north, are coming close to Erbil, where the United States has a consulate. The first U.S. airstrikes to stop them came Friday — 500-pound laser-guided bombs aimed at artillery units.
Obama, in announcing authorization for the strikes on Thursday night, said that they would be “targeted,” but he gave no indication of how long they might last or how frequent they might be.
“The president has not laid out a specific end date,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said Friday.
Can the Kurds stop ISIS?
The United States is providing additional arms to the Kurds, the most reliable U.S. ally among the ethnic groups in Iraq, as they try to protect Erbil. The Kurds have been asking for the weapons for some time.
The Kurds are the strongest fighters in Iraq, but their ability to fight off ISIS was called into question this week when ISIS routed Kurdish security forces, killed men from the minority Yazidi religious sect, and trapped women and children on the mountain.
Speaking from Erbil on Friday, Tracey Shelton, a reporter for Global Post, told MSNBC that the ISIS advance had shattered Kurdish faith in their own security forces, known as the peshmerga.
“It’s been an incredible week. It’s totally changed people’s opinion, and everybody is scared now,” she said. “No one expected this to happen at all, so it put everyone in shock and now nobody knows what to expect anymore.”
What happens if this doesn’t work?
The next move belongs to the militants, but threats so far have failed to stop their rampage. ISIS has made a secret of neither its ruthless intention nor its ambition. It wants to establish a vast, unified, Sharia-governed Islamic state.
If ISIS ignores the U.S. warnings and continues its advance, Obama will face a decision about how far to take the military intervention.
Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, an NBC News military analyst, told MSNBC on Friday that “we are making this up as we go, with political gestures to U.S. military power.”
“If you’re going to use military power,” he said, “you have to write down your objective and then use decisive force to achieve your objective. So I’m a little dismayed by what we’re up to here.”
How will Americans feel about all this?
Obama clearly understood that he was authorizing further military action on behalf of a country weary after years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said that it was morally justified and in the strategic interest of the United States.
He also said: “As commander-in-chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq.”
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in June found that more than 70 percent of Americans believe that the Iraq war wasn’t worth fighting in the first place.
In the same poll, 50 percent of respondents said that the United States has no responsibility to help the Iraqi government fight insurgents. Forty-three percent said that the United States did have a responsibility.
Is this turning into a genocide?
The United States thinks it might be. Obama used that word in his speech on Thursday night, and Secretary of State John Kerry said Friday that ISIS’s campaign of terror shows “all the warning signs of genocide.”
Most of the 40,000 refugees stranded on the mountain are Christians and members of a small religious sect, the Yazidi, that is closely allied with the Kurds. ISIS has threatened them with execution if they do not convert to Islam."
"President Barack Obama has given the green light to take two very different steps — airstrikes and airdrops — to address a security threat and a humanitarian crisis in Iraq. But what comes next remains unclear.
The president authorized the airstrikes to fight ISIS, the Islamic militant group terrorizing northern Iraq, as it approaches the city of Erbil.
Erbil is strategically important because it is the capital of the Kurdish region, home of the most reliable American support in the country, and is considered a stronghold against ISIS. It also has a U.S. consulate and hosts some of the 800 military personnel that Obama sent to Iraq earlier this year.
The United States also began dropping food and water to tens of thousands of Iraqis, most of them Christians and members of an ancient religious sect called the Yazidi, who have been trapped by ISIS on a mountain range.
Here are some outstanding questions about the U.S. action:
How many airstrikes? And for how long?
ISIS militants, who have already seized swaths of the Iraqi north, are coming close to Erbil, where the United States has a consulate. The first U.S. airstrikes to stop them came Friday — 500-pound laser-guided bombs aimed at artillery units.
Obama, in announcing authorization for the strikes on Thursday night, said that they would be “targeted,” but he gave no indication of how long they might last or how frequent they might be.
“The president has not laid out a specific end date,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said Friday.
Can the Kurds stop ISIS?
The United States is providing additional arms to the Kurds, the most reliable U.S. ally among the ethnic groups in Iraq, as they try to protect Erbil. The Kurds have been asking for the weapons for some time.
The Kurds are the strongest fighters in Iraq, but their ability to fight off ISIS was called into question this week when ISIS routed Kurdish security forces, killed men from the minority Yazidi religious sect, and trapped women and children on the mountain.
Speaking from Erbil on Friday, Tracey Shelton, a reporter for Global Post, told MSNBC that the ISIS advance had shattered Kurdish faith in their own security forces, known as the peshmerga.
“It’s been an incredible week. It’s totally changed people’s opinion, and everybody is scared now,” she said. “No one expected this to happen at all, so it put everyone in shock and now nobody knows what to expect anymore.”
What happens if this doesn’t work?
The next move belongs to the militants, but threats so far have failed to stop their rampage. ISIS has made a secret of neither its ruthless intention nor its ambition. It wants to establish a vast, unified, Sharia-governed Islamic state.
If ISIS ignores the U.S. warnings and continues its advance, Obama will face a decision about how far to take the military intervention.
Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, an NBC News military analyst, told MSNBC on Friday that “we are making this up as we go, with political gestures to U.S. military power.”
“If you’re going to use military power,” he said, “you have to write down your objective and then use decisive force to achieve your objective. So I’m a little dismayed by what we’re up to here.”
How will Americans feel about all this?
Obama clearly understood that he was authorizing further military action on behalf of a country weary after years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said that it was morally justified and in the strategic interest of the United States.
He also said: “As commander-in-chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq.”
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in June found that more than 70 percent of Americans believe that the Iraq war wasn’t worth fighting in the first place.
In the same poll, 50 percent of respondents said that the United States has no responsibility to help the Iraqi government fight insurgents. Forty-three percent said that the United States did have a responsibility.
Is this turning into a genocide?
The United States thinks it might be. Obama used that word in his speech on Thursday night, and Secretary of State John Kerry said Friday that ISIS’s campaign of terror shows “all the warning signs of genocide.”
Most of the 40,000 refugees stranded on the mountain are Christians and members of a small religious sect, the Yazidi, that is closely allied with the Kurds. ISIS has threatened them with execution if they do not convert to Islam."
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/airstrikes-begin-u-s-navy-planes-drop-bombs-isis-forces-n175941
"The United States dropped laser-guided bombs on ISIS artillery in Iraq on Friday, the Pentagon said — the beginning of airstrikes threatened a day earlier by President Barack Obama.
The bombs, 500 pounds each, were dropped by two Navy F-18 fighter jets near Erbil, the strategically important city that serves as the Kurdish capital, and where the United States has a consulate. ISIS was using the artillery to shell Kurdish forces defending Erbil, the Pentagon said.
The strikes marked a return to U.S. military engagement in Iraq, three years after Obama removed U.S. forces.
Obama, in a speech Thursday night from the White House, said that he was authorizing airstrikes to protect American interests in Iraq and drops of food and water for tens of thousands of refugees trapped by ISIS on a mountain in Iraq.
Rear Adm. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, said Friday: “As the president made clear, the United States military will continue to take direct action against ISIL when they threaten our personnel and facilities.” ISIS and ISIL are acronyms to describe the same Islamic militant group."
"The United States dropped laser-guided bombs on ISIS artillery in Iraq on Friday, the Pentagon said — the beginning of airstrikes threatened a day earlier by President Barack Obama.
The bombs, 500 pounds each, were dropped by two Navy F-18 fighter jets near Erbil, the strategically important city that serves as the Kurdish capital, and where the United States has a consulate. ISIS was using the artillery to shell Kurdish forces defending Erbil, the Pentagon said.
The strikes marked a return to U.S. military engagement in Iraq, three years after Obama removed U.S. forces.
Obama, in a speech Thursday night from the White House, said that he was authorizing airstrikes to protect American interests in Iraq and drops of food and water for tens of thousands of refugees trapped by ISIS on a mountain in Iraq.
Rear Adm. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, said Friday: “As the president made clear, the United States military will continue to take direct action against ISIL when they threaten our personnel and facilities.” ISIS and ISIL are acronyms to describe the same Islamic militant group."
From one tht has been a staunch supporter of staying out of the region, I do feel like in this particular instance we should intervene. We cannot leave something like 40thousand people waiting to be slaughtered because of religious preference like this. The peoples government and military have failed them, and since we are the ones that went in and destablized the entire region, I feel that this is the right thing to do. We also need to protect our own people in the area as well.
Depending on how this evolves down the road? I dont know, but for now and in this particular situation, I support our efforts.
Im also sick of hearing how if the president does this or if he does that, he will suffer in his rating and the dems may pay the price. Devil be damned about all that, just do the damn job and let the chips fall where they may.We should not be leading the country depending on the next election cycle. Lead now and do what needs to be done and dont fall under that bus...That has been the problem with our politics and moving forward. Let em wail and if they dont like it, the people can speak in the next election, but it should not depend on what we do or dont do, it should be what needs done now.
Depending on how this evolves down the road? I dont know, but for now and in this particular situation, I support our efforts.
Im also sick of hearing how if the president does this or if he does that, he will suffer in his rating and the dems may pay the price. Devil be damned about all that, just do the damn job and let the chips fall where they may.We should not be leading the country depending on the next election cycle. Lead now and do what needs to be done and dont fall under that bus...That has been the problem with our politics and moving forward. Let em wail and if they dont like it, the people can speak in the next election, but it should not depend on what we do or dont do, it should be what needs done now.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
