Airstrikes on ISIS Militants Have Begun, Kurds and Iraqis Say

#21

I doubt the GOP members would complain about this particular action. More likely they would say it’s “too little, too late” but necessitated by Obama’s leaving Iraq to be fought over between Sunni Islamists and Iran, with all sorts of people caught in the middle; something anybody could have predicted as long ago as 2008.

0 Likes

#22

I am glad he’s evolved.

From 2007:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

“We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea,” he said.
Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, said it’s likely there would be increased bloodshed if U.S. forces left Iraq.

Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis,” Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. “There’s no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there.”

Perhaps had we not left precipitously, we wouldn’t be seeing the wholesale slaughter and torture of Christians. While I am glad that Obama has decided to provide some limited support to rescue the Yezidis, it is horrific that he has been silent about the beheadings and crucifixions of Christians that has been going on for months.

My only question is, once the Yezidis have been rescued, will he again turn a blind eye to the genocide against Christians that has been going on for months?

0 Likes

#23

I’m guessing that all he’s going to do is drop some food and water. Some will get to them, some will be taken by ISIS. We’ll drop a few bombs on obvious targets threatening Erbil. That will just about be it. He will not aid the Kurds and the minorities they are protecting, with arms.

One has to understand that for Obama to do anything effective in Iraq, he would in effect be admitting not only that he and his party were wrong in his Iraq pullout, but that they are the persons responsible for this bloodbath and more to come.

So, they’ll do some things in order to look concerned, but they will not do anything that really changes the situation.

0 Likes

#24

Aspirin factory?

Invoke another no fly zone?

0 Likes

#25

And let’s not forget that while we look like getting bogged down in the middle east again…Russia is not only flexing its muscle in the Ukraine…but is also taunting us by flying their military aircraft close to US naval ships and close to Alaska…meanwhile we don’t hear boo from China…interesting and worrying times maybe

0 Likes

#26

I don’t know Jim, I listened to McCain and Lindsey and both think Congress is the path. There’s the Obama issue from 2008 forward with Iraq and division now with democrats, and there’s also public opinion from Iraq and Syria.

I imagine Obama is conflicted somewhat himself. Its plain to see its looking like genocide on a daily basis. They have the advisors out there as bait with air support covering. Isis isn’t going away though.

0 Likes

#27

I don’t see any of the GOP complaining about Obama’s use of military force. :nope: In fact, I’ve seen more conservative strategists insist we go more aggressively after ISIS.

However, Democratic Representative Grayson is leading a campaign to make there is “no new war in Iraq”.

So the blame each party equally strategy will not work here.

0 Likes

#28

The President is the Commander in Chief. He doesn’t need congresses permission to deploy the military or take military action he feels is in the best interest of the country.

I applaud Obama for the actions he is taking

0 Likes

#29

Now we have criticism of Obama’s actions. From the usual sources, right?

From the Hill:

Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-Hawaii) criticized President Obama’s decision to conduct airstrikes on Sunni fighters in Iraq.

“Airstrikes are the wrong response to this situation,” Hanabusa said Thursday. “Getting involved in airstrikes moves us a dangerous step closer to direct involvement in Iraq’s sectarian civil war, an entanglement we must avoid.”

Darned Republicans… :shrug:

0 Likes

#30

I do too, and no he doesn’t need permission.

President Obama himself described the importance of congressional authorization for the use of force abroad just last year when he announced his decision to seek a congressional vote before taking military action in Syria. “A country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited,” he said. As the President acknowledged, in our constitutional democracy the people’s representatives must all be accountable for such decisions “and that can only be accomplished with a
vote.” The President further recognized that, although he believed he had the authority to carry out this military action on his own, “the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.” All of these reasons apply to the decision whether to take military action now…Center for National Security Studies
The Constitution Project

To unify constitutes in light of the past, its the right move for now, and as this continues. The city of Ebil had to have been a major military concern, the humanitarian aid was the second priority. Running parallel this week. There’s going to be a broader mission than suggested I do believe.

0 Likes

#31

The Radicals captured the damn. Apparently they could cause havoc with the Yazidi.

The Yazidi:

are an Arab and Kurdish religious community whose syncretic but ancient religion is linked to Zoroastrianism and ancient Mesopotamian religions.[11] They live primarily in the Nineveh Province of northern Iraq, a region once part of ancient Assyria.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidi

Everything happening is unbelievable.

In Nigeria, Boko Haram can hide among the ordinary citizens as well so in ways are difficult to attack. That probably pertains to most of these rebels world-wide.

0 Likes

#32

Heck, what is taking place was predicted before Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. We would either have to stay in there forever, or leave and watch a sectarian war break out, which is the case now.

Obama had no choice, but to leave Iraq when he did. Bush had the agreement with the Iraqi’s to leave and negotiations with the Maliki government demanded that they would not allow us to stay without our troops being put under Iraqi Law.

No American would’ve stood for a situation where an American Soldier would be put to death for accidentally running over an Iraqi with a Hum-V.

I’m glad Obama left Iraq. I’m concerned now a that we’re being sucked back in.

Jim

0 Likes

#33

In light of recent developments, I have to give a big thumbs up to little Lebanon’s military for routing ISIL in the border town of Arsal, while the Iraqi army and the Peshmerga continued to display serious ineptitude in confronting this terrorist group.

0 Likes

#34

The Pershmerga are often just a bunch of old men (60s) with WW2 era rifles. While ISIL uses state-of-the-art captured US weapons and worse but still better than Kurdish captured Iraqi stuff. And they seem very tough. They seem not to care too much for their lives. I would not call them mere terrorists because that suggests they’re cowards who don’t fight soldiers, sort of like the 911 or Beslan men and women terrorists, although surely there is a division of labour among them with some being frontline soldiers and others being rear line decapitators of “infidels” and captured soldiers. While some of them surely are terrorist taking on civilians many seem to be taking on the conventional forces and are very effective. They’re using Japanese Kamikaze tactics but no-one here would call the WW2 Japanese “terrorists” because of that.

Heard that the Kurds are using 2 T-72 tanks to protect their capital city.

Now what can the West do? Blow up the ISIL troops.

Anyone see the Catholicnews.org site with the links to the images of a decapitated 2 year old girl? Some sites now claim ISIS are murdering young children too.

0 Likes

#35

Foreign intervention is always tricky. Sometimes you liberate people who share similar ideals as you and have even helped create your very own institutions in the past, other times you don’t and you stir up a Hornets nest. Many in the Middle East don’t have the same ideas about democracy as the West does. Going in there is very dangerous. Bombing Serbs was OK, some civilians were killed and now Kosovo has been ethnically cleansed in the opposite direction but at least Serbia has European ideals and it has not become a den of terrorism. How many Serbs blow themselves up?

Had for example the US and Britain gone on and liberated Poland and Czechoslovakia from Soviet Communist oppression in 1945, these people would not need US soldiers to police them and no-one would be blowing themselves up with bombs.

Obama had no choice, but to leave Iraq when he did. Bush had the agreement with the Iraqi’s to leave and negotiations with the Maliki government demanded that they would not allow us to stay without our troops being put under Iraqi Law.

I think that’s also fair. If you want to operate in a country you should operate within their laws. Otherwise get out because you’re seen as an army of occupation whatever your ideals and the locals will never buy into that. You’re always a young trigger happy scared guy in a tank with a huge gun trained at them (of course you have to be to protect your life, which is a Catch 22 situation, local compatriots blow themselves up to kill foreign soldiers). People will not like that. But do you have an obligation once you went in the first place and destabilised the place terribly? I don’t know. What do you think? People who make decisions to go in, should think in those terms to. If we do go in, will we have to police the place? Will our troops be happy to follow local laws? If not, we will obviously leave soon. If that happens what about the innocent people who will die as a result? Should we look at consequences of our actions into the future or not.

I think there should be less intervention. Much less. That goes for the West and for Russia and others. I remember our John Paul II was very vocal against the second Iraqi War. It’s a pity it occurred.

No American would’ve stood for a situation where an American Soldier would be put to death for accidentally running over an Iraqi with a Hum-V.

But that does not happen in other middle eastern countries. Many US (and other Western) expats work in Saudi Arabia and drive cars and how many are executed for that when they do kill someone accidentally? Don’t tell me accidents never happen. In Middle Eastern countries one takes out special blood money insurance which protects one from the “eye-for-an-eye” justice you would otherwise see. Not sure why something similar could not have been extended to include foreign soldiers. Still any such rules would possibly put the foreign soldiers under some degree of local control which for armies is unthinkable.

I’m glad Obama left Iraq. I’m concerned now a that we’re being sucked back in.

It’s possible because how can one resist the images of displaced Christian and Yazidi innocents.

0 Likes

#36

I’d just like to post this here:
zenit.org/en/articles/bishop-s-letter-to-u-s-president-bush-on-iraq

Would the United States and the international community commit to the arduous, long-term task of ensuring a just peace or would a post-Saddam Iraq continue to be plagued by civil conflict and repression, and continue to serve as a destabilizing force in the region?

Let’s not say we were not warned about this.

For curiosity’s sake were most Catholics in the US opposed to the 2nd Iraqi War or not? Or was it even an issue? I was personally opposed to the war because primarily of what our Church said.

0 Likes

#37

I think as long as we are there we are responsible because we are responsible for our own in Baghdad and north. The consultation,training and so forth is going to take time also. Isis knows all this. Also a short term strike plan will not likely resolve the long term problem. In my thinking we would have to train, supply air support and remain till its complete. Further when the media, Kerry and so forth continue to speak in the term genocide, then its major breach in international law. So the intent to involve or engage is there and for the international community. Theres no allowing Isis to build a state, then negotiate with them? I can’t imagine that going well.

But yes the time and mission becomes a factor. Should we pack it all up and leave when? Building and training their military as we see, didn’t work last time either.

0 Likes

#38

I meant in a moral sense not a legalistic one. If regime change which took out albeit a cruel and at times murderous dictatorial government and replaced it with a civil war which has morphed through various stages and resulted in millions of dead and wounded Iraqis has occurred because of the West’s insistence despite going against their moral compass --if the Church can still be called that in the neoliberal secular West–does the West have a responsibility in a moral sense? The suffering seems to see no end. Would ISIL be there if Saddam was in charge or even if just a Baathist regime was in charge?

0 Likes

#39

Yes there is a moral sense and the Pope has repetitively asked the international community to intercede as far back as the 20th of last month I believe because there is a humanitarian crisis with the people on the mountain etc.

Further as I was saying, it is civil war and Isis is much closer to establishing a state. Are you saying you believe they should be allowed to establish a state? And who should contend with them and when?

0 Likes

#40
0 Likes

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.