If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   "Why Obama did something for Iraq" Because he's a pantsless, weak-willed dictator-in-chief, duh   (politico.com) divider line 85
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

910 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Aug 2014 at 10:42 AM (5 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-08 08:48:35 AM
Because there was no b-b-b-b-b-b-butBushing his way out of the situation what with everybody from the Pope on down expecting the US to Do Something.

We're stuck with the global policeman's gig. It sucks when we intervene, and it sucks even more when we don't, except when we do.
 
2014-08-08 09:13:53 AM
I think Obama made the right decision--mostly.  Somebody needs to beat back Islamic State, and it's apparent no one else has to ability and stomach to do it.

Good on Obama, even if he's doing it reluctantly.  Hopefully, it won't be an anemic response and we'll really bomb them back to a place where the Iraqis and take back over.
 
2014-08-08 09:58:16 AM
I'm glad to see it, but I hope it's not too late. ISIS has seriously destabilized the region and has been doing so for months on end. I know he wanted to stay out of it, and not without good reason, but it may be too late to turn back the tide.
 
2014-08-08 10:06:53 AM
John McCain and Lindsay "Butters" Graham aren't happy, nothing new there.
 
2014-08-08 10:16:37 AM
Well, he did use Bush's War Plan on this. Obama heard of all the slavery and human rights violations in Syria and promptly sent bombers to Iraq.
 
2014-08-08 10:44:53 AM
The way no one did anything in Rwanda during their genocide.. we don't need that again.
 
2014-08-08 10:48:39 AM

vernonFL: John McCain and Lindsay "Butters" Graham aren't happy, nothing new there.


I assume both of them were loudly insisting that Obama bomb ISIS up to about 30 seconds before they were made aware of the bombings.
 
2014-08-08 10:52:29 AM
Because he couldn't stand buy while his fellow Muslims get killed.
 
2014-08-08 10:56:01 AM

Arkanaut: Because he couldn't stand buy while his fellow Muslims get killed.


you do realize he is protecting Christians and Yazidis.

/or is that the joke.
 
2014-08-08 10:57:06 AM

Nabb1: I'm glad to see it, but I hope it's not too late. ISIS has seriously destabilized the region and has been doing so for months on end. I know he wanted to stay out of it, and not without good reason, but it may be too late to turn back the tide.


ISIS didn't destabilize Iraq.  That was all the United States' doing - first by toppling the existing government, and then by running away rather than keeping security in place for long enough for new societal frameworks to be built.

They just need to partition the country in three and be done with it; all these strikes are doing is creating a de facto border between Sunniland and the rest of Iraq.
 
2014-08-08 10:59:06 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-08-08 11:00:05 AM

Arkanaut: Because he couldn't stand buy while his fellow Muslims get killed.


So we no that 0bama is shiat in general lol but is he a shiite too??
 
2014-08-08 11:00:28 AM
Initially, some thought bombing ISIS would be seen as pro-Shia.  Is this going to seem pro-Kurdish?
 
2014-08-08 11:00:43 AM
Operation Iraqi Freedom, the gift that keeps on giving.
 
2014-08-08 11:02:09 AM

TrollingForColumbine: Arkanaut: Because he couldn't stand buy while his fellow Muslims get killed.

you do realize he is protecting Christians and Yazidis.

/or is that the joke.


Right, the sekrit Muslims.
 
2014-08-08 11:02:29 AM
It was the best of times
It was the worst of times
But now it is time to play another round of

WHO SAID DAT?!

"We're Leaving Behind a Sovereign, Stable and Self-Reliant Iraq"

Well, kids? Show your wisdom and tell us

WHO SAID DAT?!
 
2014-08-08 11:03:49 AM

Cat Food Sandwiches: Initially, some thought bombing ISIS would be seen as pro-Shia.  Is this going to seem pro-Kurdish

BP?

If we wanted to stop the atrocities we could have bombed weeks or months ago. If we wanted to protect Big Oil's interests by bombing ISIS, we had to wait until the oil fields in norther Iraq fell from Kurd hands into ISIS hands.

They did and we are.
 
2014-08-08 11:04:09 AM
How about no. Confine it to humanitarian aid and defending our drop planes and embassy. This clusterfark is beyond redemption.
 
2014-08-08 11:04:43 AM
Well, it is pants-optional Friday.  Obama is just trying to fit in.
 
2014-08-08 11:05:17 AM

Agneska: It was the best of times
It was the worst of times
But now it is time to play another round of

WHO SAID DAT?!

"We're Leaving Behind a Sovereign, Stable and Self-Reliant Iraq"

Well, kids? Show your wisdom and tell us

WHO SAID DAT?!


Are you having a stroke?
 
2014-08-08 11:05:37 AM

vernonFL: John McCain and Lindsay "Butters" Graham aren't happy, nothing new there.


where the f*ck do they get off blaming Obama for what is happening in Iraq?
 
2014-08-08 11:06:03 AM

Shaggy_C: ISIS didn't destabilize Iraq. That was all the United States' doing - first by toppling the existing government, and then by running away rather than keeping security in place for long enough for new societal frameworks to be built.


actually, there's one step you left out between toppling the government and leaving, we also de-Baathified the country, which meant all the people that knew how to keep the country running and the military in shape, were all booted because we had to set up a purity test

/what the hell is up with the GOP and purity tests? They even export that shiat
 
2014-08-08 11:06:50 AM

Fart_Machine: How about no. Confine it to humanitarian aid and defending our drop planes and embassy. This clusterfark is beyond redemption.


from what I understand, we can't get humanitarian aid to the refugees dying on the mountaintop, because of ISIS.
Those are the assholes we are bombing, and it's so we can get water to the dehydrated folks.
 
2014-08-08 11:07:31 AM

Alphax: The way no one did anything in Rwanda during their genocide.. we don't need that again.


And Darfur and the Falun Gong of China ...

I don't know why everyone is so damned determine to go back to war again.
 
2014-08-08 11:13:37 AM
img.fark.net

Obama is clearly trolling them. Teatards won't know how to react.
 
2014-08-08 11:18:38 AM

Agneska: It was the best of times
It was the worst of times
But now it is time to play another round of

WHO SAID DAT?!

"We're Leaving Behind a Sovereign, Stable and Self-Reliant Iraq"

Well, kids? Show your wisdom and tell us

WHO SAID DAT?!


It's almost as if, as time goes by, situations can deteriorate.
 
2014-08-08 11:18:59 AM
We broke Iraq, it's our responsibility to at least try to fix it, as much as that sucks.

That being said, ISIS is a major threat to world security, and the world needs to step up and do something about it. I want to see a truly multinational coalition go in there and do something about them if reasonable attempts by the United States do nothing to stop them.
 
2014-08-08 11:19:12 AM
What's the over/under on how long it takes Russia to use this reasoning to do the same thing in the Ukraine?
 
2014-08-08 11:20:27 AM
Agneska:
WHO SAID DAT?!

RAND PAUL?
 
2014-08-08 11:21:48 AM

BravadoGT: I think Obama made the right decision--mostly.  Somebody needs to beat back Islamic State, and it's apparent no one else has to ability and stomach to do it.

Good on Obama, even if he's doing it reluctantly.  Hopefully, it won't be an anemic response and we'll really bomb them back to a place where the Iraqis and take back over.


Ugh.  The Iraqis weren't doing that good a job of running the place to start with. Much like Afghani government, I'm not really sure we can trust them to do well if we're not actively present.
 
2014-08-08 11:22:59 AM

Lord Dimwit: We broke Iraq, it's our responsibility to at least try to fix it, as much as that sucks.

That being said, ISIS is a major threat to world security, and the world needs to step up and do something about it. I want to see a truly multinational coalition go in there and do something about them if reasonable attempts by the United States do nothing to stop them.


First, we broke lots of things. Doesn't mean we should be fixing them. It could mean we should stop meddling.

Second, how is ISIS a major threat to world security?
 
2014-08-08 11:23:04 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: vernonFL: John McCain and Lindsay "Butters" Graham aren't happy, nothing new there.

where the f*ck do they get off blaming Obama for what is happening in Iraq?


Who cares?  Lindsey Graham only has two modes: creepy childlike whimsy (fig. 1) or crippling hysteria (fig. 2). And McCain only has one: confounded pancakes house (fig. 3).

www.contactsenators.comimg.fark.netjoeforamerica.com
Fig. 1                             Fig. 2                                       Fig. 3
 
2014-08-08 11:24:25 AM
So why do we need the F-35 again? Dropping 500 lb bombs on tangos in the desert from a carrier based plane is accomplished just fine by the F-18E.
 
2014-08-08 11:26:26 AM

uberlemming: What's the over/under on how long it takes Russia to use this reasoning to do the same thing in the Ukraine?


Well, considering that in the case of Ukraine, Russia and the separatists more closely correlate with ISIS than with Iraq (or the US), I'm going to go with the over regardless of what it is.
 
2014-08-08 11:26:38 AM

theknuckler_33: Agneska: It was the best of times
It was the worst of times
But now it is time to play another round of

WHO SAID DAT?!

"We're Leaving Behind a Sovereign, Stable and Self-Reliant Iraq"

Well, kids? Show your wisdom and tell us

WHO SAID DAT?!

It's almost as if, as time goes by, situations can deteriorate.


They wouldn't if we had a Tea Party Republican in the White House!
 
2014-08-08 11:27:07 AM

HST's Dead Carcass: Well, he did use Bush's Reagan's War Plan on this. Obama heard of all the slavery and human rights violations in Syria and promptly sent bombers to Iraq.

the CIA to arm the brutal terrorists.

FTFY
 
2014-08-08 11:28:48 AM

Shaggy_C: Nabb1: I'm glad to see it, but I hope it's not too late. ISIS has seriously destabilized the region and has been doing so for months on end. I know he wanted to stay out of it, and not without good reason, but it may be too late to turn back the tide.

ISIS didn't destabilize Iraq.  That was all the United States' doing - first by toppling the existing government, and then by running away rather than keeping security in place for long enough for new societal frameworks to be built.


I know, I know, it's all Bush's fault. We all know that. Blaming bush and Cheney has not really seemed to slow ISIS down. I get it. But the mess in the Middle East was part of the job when Obama took it. Just because Bush and Cheney were world-class f*ck ups doesn't mean Obama has been doing a laudable job. You would think over six years into it, we'd see someone dealing with what the situation is, not to simply be content trying to milk some political talking points out of it.
 
2014-08-08 11:30:34 AM

Nadie_AZ: It could mean we should stop meddling.


You think it's okay to watch ISIS go on a genocidal tear against every non-Muslim group in Iraq? I guess you probably would be since it would make Bush look bad and your party might pick up some political capital.
 
2014-08-08 11:33:44 AM
we should have kept control at the syrian border and bombed these guys when they began to move into iraq.

but we didn't.  now it will be 100x harder.
 
2014-08-08 11:36:19 AM
See that libs?  Now don't you wish you had voted for Mitt?

"But wouldn't that have been 10 times worse?"

HAHAHA MITT 2016!
 
2014-08-08 11:37:27 AM

GoodyearPimp: See that libs?  Now don't you wish you had voted for Mitt?

"But wouldn't that have been 10 times worse?"

HAHAHA MITT 2016!


They're going to run Santorum, with a straight face.  I can't wait.
 
2014-08-08 11:37:57 AM

Nabb1: Nadie_AZ: It could mean we should stop meddling.

You think it's okay to watch ISIS go on a genocidal tear against every non-Muslim group in Iraq? I guess you probably would be since it would make Bush look bad and your party might pick up some political capital.


I could are less about which political party is right or wrong. I have no desire to send more American capital spent or people to die in a region where the US cannot win, has not won and will not win. People don't care about this genocide any more than they care for any other genocide the US hasn't taken part in defending over the decades. They think that somehow this group of terrorists will somehow pose a threat to the US and bring down more buildings and make the US look weak.

Somehow the 'Domino Theory' is engrained in the American psyche and they are terrified of it. Too bad. The USSR was terrified the US would attack and had no active plans for military aggression that were nearly as extensive as that of the US. We've projected our pants sh*tting fear of the Domino Theory into a region that has been a pile of sh*t since the end of World War 1. And the only reason the US is there to begin with is to help Corporations maximize shareholder wealth. No. Other. Reason. Exists.
 
2014-08-08 11:38:07 AM
Has Great Britain tried to ride the US's coattails yet ?


You would think they would not miss that opportunity.

...again
 
2014-08-08 11:39:36 AM

Nabb1: Nadie_AZ: It could mean we should stop meddling.

You think it's okay to watch ISIS go on a genocidal tear against every non-Muslim group in Iraq? I guess you probably would be since it would make Bush look bad and your party might pick up some political capital.


the ENTIRE world once again ignore terrible suffering like Darfur while expecting someone else to die for values the rest of the world isn't even willing to pay for, let alone die for?

/I don't remember ever seeing Big Oil executives lay a wreath at Arlington Sec. 60. I don't remember seeing any foreign country leaders lay a wreath at Arlington Sec. 60.
 
2014-08-08 11:40:56 AM

Nadie_AZ: Nabb1: Nadie_AZ: It could mean we should stop meddling.

You think it's okay to watch ISIS go on a genocidal tear against every non-Muslim group in Iraq? I guess you probably would be since it would make Bush look bad and your party might pick up some political capital.

I could are less about which political party is right or wrong. I have no desire to send more American capital spent or people to die in a region where the US cannot win, has not won and will not win. People don't care about this genocide any more than they care for any other genocide the US hasn't taken part in defending over the decades. They think that somehow this group of terrorists will somehow pose a threat to the US and bring down more buildings and make the US look weak.

Somehow the 'Domino Theory' is engrained in the American psyche and they are terrified of it. Too bad. The USSR was terrified the US would attack and had no active plans for military aggression that were nearly as extensive as that of the US. We've projected our pants sh*tting fear of the Domino Theory into a region that has been a pile of sh*t since the end of World War 1. And the only reason the US is there to begin with is to help Corporations maximize shareholder wealth. No. Other. Reason. Exists.


Right. You don't care about people, women, children, getting brutally slaughtered because of your politics. That's what I said.
 
2014-08-08 11:41:43 AM

Nadie_AZ: Lord Dimwit: We broke Iraq, it's our responsibility to at least try to fix it, as much as that sucks.

That being said, ISIS is a major threat to world security, and the world needs to step up and do something about it. I want to see a truly multinational coalition go in there and do something about them if reasonable attempts by the United States do nothing to stop them.

First, we broke lots of things. Doesn't mean we should be fixing them. It could mean we should stop meddling.

Second, how is ISIS a major threat to world security?


Well, a radical group with guns and money that wants to start a pan-Levant caliphate? You do not see how radicals controlling oil and shipping lanes that have their eyes on eventually toppling other sovereign nations, hitting Israel, trying to get the Suez Canal, and sooner or later starting a bloody war of attrition with the Iranian radicals would be a threat to world security?
 
2014-08-08 11:41:58 AM

Nabb1: Shaggy_C: Nabb1: I'm glad to see it, but I hope it's not too late. ISIS has seriously destabilized the region and has been doing so for months on end. I know he wanted to stay out of it, and not without good reason, but it may be too late to turn back the tide.

ISIS didn't destabilize Iraq.  That was all the United States' doing - first by toppling the existing government, and then by running away rather than keeping security in place for long enough for new societal frameworks to be built.

I know, I know, it's all Bush's fault. We all know that. Blaming bush and Cheney has not really seemed to slow ISIS down. I get it. But the mess in the Middle East was part of the job when Obama took it. Just because Bush and Cheney were world-class f*ck ups doesn't mean Obama has been doing a laudable job. You would think over six years into it, we'd see someone dealing with what the situation is, not to simply be content trying to milk some political talking points out of it.


Apart from ousting Maliki who told us to GTFO what was your solution?
 
2014-08-08 11:43:29 AM

rebelyell2006: Nadie_AZ: Lord Dimwit: We broke Iraq, it's our responsibility to at least try to fix it, as much as that sucks.

That being said, ISIS is a major threat to world security, and the world needs to step up and do something about it. I want to see a truly multinational coalition go in there and do something about them if reasonable attempts by the United States do nothing to stop them.

First, we broke lots of things. Doesn't mean we should be fixing them. It could mean we should stop meddling.

Second, how is ISIS a major threat to world security?

Well, a radical group with guns and money that wants to start a pan-Levant caliphate? You do not see how radicals controlling oil and shipping lanes that have their eyes on eventually toppling other sovereign nations, hitting Israel, trying to get the Suez Canal, and sooner or later starting a bloody war of attrition with the Iranian radicals would be a threat to world security?


Yeah, I highly doubt the 2 nations we pay a sh*t ton to (Egypt and Israel) to protect the canal will let it fall to this group of nutbags.
 
2014-08-08 11:48:06 AM

Nadie_AZ: rebelyell2006: Nadie_AZ: Lord Dimwit: We broke Iraq, it's our responsibility to at least try to fix it, as much as that sucks.

That being said, ISIS is a major threat to world security, and the world needs to step up and do something about it. I want to see a truly multinational coalition go in there and do something about them if reasonable attempts by the United States do nothing to stop them.

First, we broke lots of things. Doesn't mean we should be fixing them. It could mean we should stop meddling.

Second, how is ISIS a major threat to world security?

Well, a radical group with guns and money that wants to start a pan-Levant caliphate? You do not see how radicals controlling oil and shipping lanes that have their eyes on eventually toppling other sovereign nations, hitting Israel, trying to get the Suez Canal, and sooner or later starting a bloody war of attrition with the Iranian radicals would be a threat to world security?

Yeah, I highly doubt the 2 nations we pay a sh*t ton to (Egypt and Israel) to protect the canal will let it fall to this group of nutbags.


No, but the fighting would be bloody and destructive, and if they start shelling or tossing suicide bombers at the Suez Canal locks that would have a huge impact on the world economy. Plus wars and equipment are incredibly expensive, and we would blow up our economy keeping Israel and Egypt afloat.
 
2014-08-08 11:48:12 AM

Nabb1: Right. You don't care about people, women, children, getting brutally slaughtered because of your politics. That's what I said.


I'm more interested in devoting some of our resources to helping 60k children that have flooded our southern border seeking help. I'm more interested in helping Mexico and Central American nations stabilize so that immigration can slow down. Plus I like the idea of having neighbors I get along with.

Yes, I'm honest about it. But most people aren't. They are outraged at the 'World Atrocity of the Day' and wish to White Knight it.
 
Displayed 50 of 85 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report