This is a war of aggression

[morningfog]

We have not been attacked. As Obama made clear last night there is no threat of an attack on the US. Nor is it in self-defense. This is a war of aggression, different only in degree from bush's Iraq war. Here, Obama is initially committing only about 1500 troops on the ground in Iraq. That number will undoubtedly keep increasing and Obama is clearly going to try to not engage in a ground war. But the fact remains this is an offensive war of choice.

[blkmusclmachine]

1. You got that right. Every. Single. Word.

[Adam051188]

2. executing u.s. citizen journalists doesn't justify intervention?

well i suppose we execute our own citizens at such a rate that maybe isis thought they were just helping out or something.

"hey you guys hate journalists, and you like to kill people, WE CAN HELP!"

total misunderstanding.

[morningfog]

5. A 3-year regional war is not simply "intervention."

They were private citizens who were murdered. We don't go to open-ended war to avenge every American killed overseas.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Occasionally, we defend others who are victims of aggression. Where have you been?

It's neither a war of aggression nor a purely offensive action.

It's a counter offensive action in defense of others, non uncommon among civilized people.

Have a good day.

[morningfog]

8. That argument may have worked when the scope

was limited to rescuing a minority population off a mountain.

Not now. Now we entering the business of regular old war for land.

[JoePhilly]

26. Iraq asked for Obama's help, did they ask for Bush's help?

[Bragi]

35. You mean Saddam didn't ask to be deposed?

That changes everything! Not.

[JoePhilly]

46. The current Iraq government has asked

for our help. We are not invading or even attacking Iraq.

Bush invaded the Soverign nation of Iraq.

If you don't understand the difference, you can't be taken seriously.

[Bragi]

55. Both are wars of aggression /nt

[Jester Messiah]

129. I'm not sure how one would go about having a war without it! [nt]

[morningfog]

60. When did Syria ask for our help?

[jeff47]

103. Did Germany ask for our help in WWII? (nt)

[neverforget]

119. Germany declared war on the US and then conducted offensive operations against US shipping in the

Atlantic.

[jeff47]

120. And did they ask for our help?

If we're going to pretend the aggressors have to ask for help before intervention (ie. the Syria question I responded to), then that's not unique to the current situation.

[neverforget]

121. Germany is a bad analogy then.

[jeff47]

122. No, Syrians (as members of ISIS) invaded Iraq.

Their bases are in Syria, and Syria is not stopping them. Mostly because Syria can't.

[neverforget]

123. ISIS is NOT a nation-state. Germany declared war as part of the treaty with Japan after Japan

attacked us. ISIS never attacked us. They've killed 2 American citizens which is not an act of war. They are a terrorist organization. Basically, we're going to get involved in a civil war because we must go into Syria to "degrade and destroy" ISIS. What does winning look like? Iraq? Libya?

[jeff47]

126. Doesn't matter. Syrians are invading.

Syria is supposed to prevent that. They can't. As a result, a military response in Syria is now legal.

What does winning look like?

This is a decade old war, started a century ago by the British and French, over a schism a thousand years old. It's not going to be "won" any time soon. Instead, the goal is to try and steer the war towards the least brutal groups.

[randome]

31. 'Regular old war'? What does that mean? Tanks and infantry?

That's not what has been proposed.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[JoePhilly]

47. For the outrage to remain at current levels...

... all military action of any kind must be viewed as equal to a full scale invasion with ground troops and a 10 year occupation.

[Dustlawyer]

88. We are in it so the MIC can continue to soak up our tax dollars.

They did not like the interruption in arms and equipment sales. How is a poor Defense Contractor supposed to make a living? Do we expect them to lay off employees or something? We are in the process of cutting off military equipment to local police departments as well, dang, they would have to survive with sales to third world countries and the like, so heartless!

[Maraya1969]

91. Thank you. I can't believe people are call it a war of aggression when we were asked to help.

[NYC_SKP]

93. Thank you. And it's about as measured and limited in scope as anyone could ask for.

And keeps in mind the November elections, in which we do NOT want to look weak as a party if we want to gain some seats in congress, win other offices.

Amazing.

[KoKo]

124. We are always promised about "measured war and limited in scope operations."

How did out with Vietnam and afterwards?

ENDLESS WAR....they FINALLY GOT...ENDLESS WAR. On our Tax Dollar...while we live with the Austerity Programs.

How will we pay? They say the Arab States will pay.... But, they will only pay by buying our arms and that doesn't build roads, bridges, airports or help us with switching from Fossil Fuels if we are propping up their Oil and Nat Gas Economies.

Look at our country since we invaded Iraq. Our infrastructure is falling apart and our national fabric is fraying with Militarized Police trained in Israel and with discarded War Machines and Armaments given to our Police Departments that will be replaced as we begin New War in ME that is neverending against the "ISIL" that Bush's Folly created..by invading Iraq.

We are in a mess with 1% vs. 99% in the USA. This is NOT PRODUCTIVE for AMERICA and its CITIZENS...and will not end well....

[F4lconF16]

138. Ignoring the rest of the issue,

being afraid to look weak is NEVER a good reason to go to war.

[liberal_at_heart]

131. Occasionally? There are billions of people in this world who need help. Why the middle east?

Why not North Korea? Why not African countries? We are receiving unsupervised child immigrants because of violence in South America. Should we send military down there? Who do we help militarily and who makes the decision on who is worthy of being helped and who gets ignored? When does it end? Where does it stop? You can never kill all the bad guys. There are always more bad guys. This is not altruism. This is not about saving people. It never is. It is about securing oil. Always is. We can save a hell of a lot more people if we spend more money on humanitarian aid and education than by trying to kill all the bad guys in the world.

[cali]

4. Yes it is. It is not counter-terrorism. It is war.

[HereSince1628]

6. He said there were threats to American interests.

"American interests" is a foil, I'd like those interests to be revealed.

Are we doing someone else's bidding? Again?

[morningfog]

7. And the more American money and personnel we send,

The more interests we have to protect.

[HereSince1628]

11. Yes, that's part of the "Sunk Cost" effect, usually exploited by casinos

but also very applicable to military gambits.

[sub.theory]

9. Human Rights - To Hell with Em

Who cares if ISIS is murdering, raping, and pillaging the Middle East? Who cares about the ocean of blood they have spilled? Who cares how dangerously destabilizing they are in an explosive part of the world? Who cares what happens to anyone on the other side of the world? Who cares about going to the UN about the issue? Who cares about human rights?

The only thing that matters is that the US is always wrong!

[morningfog]

17. The best way to avenge human rights abuses is with more human rights abuses.

You realize we will kill innocent people over the course of this long campaign, right?

[randome]

33. You realize how many innocents will die if no one lifts a finger to help?

A Commander-In-Chief has to make the calculation as to which is preferable.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Vattel]

37. Actually, Congress is supposed to make that calculation

[randome]

43. The CIC makes the calculation and presents it to Congress. Same thing.

So long as Obama has the authority to use limited military action on his own, he has my support. He is asking for Congress' support and funding.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Vattel]

62. He doesn't have the authority to place the nation in a state of war, which is what he is doing.

[randome]

69. So call for him to be impeached, then.

But you already know that issue has been muddled since Bush, Junior came to town. This is not defined as a 'war' but limited military action.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Vattel]

75. Muddled thinking has muddled it. And the suggestion that this is not war in the relevant sense is

pure sophistry. I suppose anytime you don't like what the Constitution says, you can always make up new meanings for the words in the Constitution. But don't expect to be taken seriously by a constitutional scholar if you do that. Attacking a group like ISIL with the aim of dismantling it is clearly waging war as that concept was understood by those who wrote and ratified the Constitution.

[randome]

81. War, 'as that concept was understood', related to nations. ISIS is not a nation.

I would prefer that Congress have the final say on when we use our military resources, period. But they already do and they aren't stepping up to stop Obama so...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Vattel]

117. In 18th century America the concept of war was not used only to apply to international violence.

[amandabeech]

125. You have it backwards.

Under the Constitution, the President cannot go to war unless the Congress authorizes him to do so.

What you are arguing is that the President can do whatever he wants unless Congress stops him. That's not the law of the land.

You might want to re-read what poster Vattel has written.

[randome]

140. It's a difference without a distinction. Yes, you are both correct.

All I'm pointing out is that Congress is implicitly behind the President.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[amandabeech]

142. Under the Constitution, there is a difference.

I suggest that you read this NYT Oped by a very distinguished professor from Yale Law School:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/opinion/obamas-betrayal-of-the-constitution.html?ref=opinion&_r=0


Don't dismiss the piece because of the title, because the writer's views apply to all presidents.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

141. I agree with you but if I may add a historical note --

During the Barbary War the same issue arose. Congress never passed a declaration of war because they assumed it to be unnecessary as war had already been declared upon the US by the Pasha of Tripoli. The nature of that declaration was the Pasha's forces had entered the grounds of the American embassy and cut down the flag staff.

ISIS has outright declared war on the US and the murders of Foley and Sotloff as ultimatums to the US as a geopolitical entity far exceed the cutting down of a flagpole.

That said I want Obama to seek an AUMF to define what is the acceptable limits of what we as a nation seek as an end state, the use of appropriate force and to recover from the disastrous blow he dealt the War Powers Resolution when he unilaterally engaged us in Libya.

[sub.theory]

44. The US Won't be Targeting Innocent Civilians

The US will not be targeting innocent civilians. Will unfortunate civilian casualties occur? Very probably, especially since these terrorists love to hide behind women and children. It's a good strategy for them too, because we actually do care about not killing people indiscriminately. They have no such inhibitions. They murder, bomb, behead, and crucify without hesitation. After all, everyone else are the enemies of Allah.

There is no possible way to stop this death cult without the use of force. Do you see one? Taking the path of peace is wonderful, but useless when the enemy will stop at nothing because God is commanding them to kill everyone.

[Bragi]

57. Thanks for your preemptive apologetics /nt

[morningfog]

61. The US is not at threat. This is not our fight. Even Turkey, who shares a large border

does not see the need to fight in Syria's civil war.

[sub.theory]

68. Thus, the hell with human rights

"This is not our fight." = Who cares about human rights?

Also, Turkey has been assisting ISIS. All of ISIS supply lines, international recruitment, and oil sales are done through Turkey. Turkey has done nothing to stop it. It is unknown how much military aid they are supplying either under cover of supporting the Syrian rebels. They have been a huge part of the problem.

[morningfog]

70. What a valuable coalition member!

[sub.theory]

71. I agree with you there

They have been no ally lately. They are supposed to be a close NATO ally and have been anything but in regards to ISIS.

[joeglow3]

74. You didn't address the question down below, so I will ask it again

If I am walking to my car and witness a woman being violently raped in an alley, is it wrong for me to attack the rapist or should I keep walking since it is not my fight?

[morningfog]

76. Wrong question. Here is a better analogy:

If you heard that there was a deadly gang war going on on the other side of the country with several gangs fighting for the same territory, would you go jump in to fight one of those gangs?

[joeglow3]

77. What gang was the beheaded journalist in?

What gang was the village full of men that were herded up and executed in?

[Schema Thing]

98. Were we at threat from Al Qaeda?

[FrodosPet]

132. We need to let brown people kill brown people and stay out of it

Pull up the comfy chair, grab some popcorn, and enjoy the show in self-satisfaction that we are only involved as spectators.

Do you not understand that there are thousands of people, already resident in our country, who support Islamic extremism, and that a small group of ten to twenty can cause the death of hundreds, thousands, and if they attack key points of the electric grid with relatively simple weapons, HUNDREDS of thousands of people?

But all we have to do is sit back and say "Sorry, not our mess, fuck you ALL, leave us alone, a pox on all your houses, we're outta here!" and then everything will be rosy and bright, correct?

[morningfog]

134. Bombing Syria would not address those residents

in this country. If anything, it would be a rally point for more.

[FrodosPet]

139. I suppose you are right

If I was in Syria or Iraq, I would be much more worried about being one of the few dozen innocents killed by American air strikes against military targets then I would to be one of hundreds of thousands brutally murdered by militants from Indonesia, Sudan, Yemen, Great Britain...

[markpkessinger]

130. Of COURSE we won't be targeting innocent civilians -- we never do! But . . .

. . . hey, if some innocent Iraqis or Syrians happen to get in the way of our bombs, well, what is a white knight supposed to do, right?

Something tells me that if one of those "unfortunate civilian casualties" that "occurs" happens to be one's family member, the distinction between dying as a result of being targeted and dying as an 'unintentional' result of U.S. bombs becomes a distinction without a difference. And afterwards, if you are the surviving family member of one of these "unfortunate civilian casualties, with which side of the conflict are you likely to sympathize? We may manage to crush ISIL, but what we will not crush is the kind of resentment of U.S. meddling that has fueled Middle Eastern terrorist groups for decades. In fact, it will merely earn us more enemies in the region than we already have.

There is not a single thing we can do militarily that will accomplish anything other than making a decade-plus debacle worse. Nothing.

[pnwmom]

97. And if we hadn't aggressively invaded Europe in WW2, how many more millions would have died?

[Progressive dog]

23. ^^K&R^^

[cali]

36. Who cares if Boko Haram is murdering, raping and pillaging?

And it is indisputable that the U.S. has had an enormous role in destabilizing the ME. Yes, we broke it. That doesn't mean we can fix it with bombs.

And it has zipshit to do with the U.S. always being wrong- at least for me.

[sub.theory]

48. They need to be dealt with too

The US recently killed the leader of Al-Shabaab. Obama is neither unaware, nor indifferent to terrorism in Africa. ISIS is of particular concern due to their scale and the explosiveness of the region. We also have significant responsibilities in Iraq due to the consequences of our invasion. Add to that the murder of two American citizens. That's why they are getting all the attention right now.

The President made it clear that we will continue to pursue all of these terrorist groups on a global scale. He's proven he means it, too.

[cali]

58. so far, we have seen dismal failure- in Iraq, in Afghanistan. We have seen the growth

of radical groups, not the diminishing of them.

Afghanistan is a failed state. Libya is a failed state. Iraq is a failed state. We partner with people who are loathsome, murderous fucks in their own right.

Past is prologue. We have failed massively with this war on terrorism. Time to try another approach.

[sub.theory]

73. What other approach?

What other options are there? I'm not being snide. I'm serious. What other way can we stop ISIS?

Have mistakes been made? Unquestionably. The US Invasion of Iraq, the overthrow of Gaddafi, the Maliki government, etc. The fact remains: what do we do about ISIS now? I think the President's strategy makes sense. What do you suggest?

[Chathamization]

111. Thanks for the flashback from 2003. This is exactly what caused this mess in the first place.

Who cares if Saddam is murdering, raping, and pillaging Iraq? Who cares about the ocean of blood he has spilled? Who cares how dangerously destabilizing he is in an explosive part of the world? Who cares what happens to anyone on the other side of the world? Who cares about going to the UN about the issue? Who cares about human rights?

The only thing that matters is that the US is always wrong!

[NuclearDem]

10. Lots of people in Kurdistan and northern Iraq would disagree on who the aggressor is.

This is a war of aggression, different only in degree from bush's Iraq war.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Saddam Hussein, who posed no threat to the region and was falsely implicated in the deaths of Americans, is not the same as ISIS.

[The_Commonist]

12. It is. However...

...I think this falls under the "Pottery Barn Rule."
This situation only exists because we broke it in the first place.
Now, apparently, we gotta buy it.

Sucky situation all around. I thought Obama's speech was the worst I've ever seen him give. Full of corporate-speak and platitudes. However, again, we created this situation, we gotta do something about it. This is a wrong something, but it's not the worst something. If it were RMoney, he would've gone all in, it would be full-scale invasion.

[CJCRANE]

18. I agree. I think he's stewarding

events that were set in motion before he came into office.

He had one term to do things his way, now it's back to the neocons creating reality.

But he's doing the best he can with the hand he was dealt (which like you said is a whole lot better than Romney would have done).

These events also set the scene for a more neocon-friendly next President (or a backlash, but I haven't seen that so far).

[amandabeech]

127. We have been buying it for years,

with no success whatsoever.

Perhaps we should consider settling our obligation with a negotiated payment, the same as lawsuits are settled.

Then we can let the parties on the ground figure out how to conclude the conflict.

[Octafish]

13. PNAC by any other name would still smell of death.

''Money trumps peace." -- George W Bush

[Mercy_Queen]

14. We should just allow them to behead American citizen journalists with no consequences?

I feel so badly for the families, having to watch their sons beheaded.

[morningfog]

20. I feel badly for their families, too.

I also feel badly for all the innocent people killed by US bombs.

But, regional war is not an appropriate response to two murders.

[CJCRANE]

22. More Americans died in the ensuing wars than on 9/11.

I'm sure the same will happen here.

If you allow the terrorists to jerk your chain that means you're not in control of yourself, the terrorists are in control.

[Schema Thing]

100. I'm for us fight ISIS, but not simply to avenge the deaths of two Americans

It's pretty obvious drawing the US into a war was the purpose of the graphic beheadings in the first place.

[phil89]

102. Emotional reasoning at it's best

Get people out of the Middle East. Be headings are nothing new over there. It will never change.

[grahamhgreen]

118. No, you arrest them and bring them to trial. Don't need a war. How bout we go to war with Saudi

Arabia? Plenty of beheadings there!

[Laelth]

15. I disagree. I will have to launch an independent thread on this.

Last edited Thu Sep 11, 2014, 10:34 AM - Edit history (2)

Our allies in Europe and Asia are real. Our economies are intertwined. American interests are at stake. It's silly to pretend that we are alone in this world and have no interest in global economics that affect our allies.

The thread I promised on this subject is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025519110 .

-Laelth

[The Magistrate]

16. Not Even Close, Ma'am

It does not have the remotest resemblance to aggressive war as defined in international law.

Under law, we are assisting a state, Iraq, at its request, to defend itself against invasion mounted from territory within Syria's borders, but which Syria's government is incapable of exercising authority over.

One may consider the action wise and appropriate or not, but there is no question regarding its legality.

[morningfog]

24. US air force for hire. Free of charge. What a great set up.

We'll be your air force against radicals, we'll float the bill, and we'll take the blow back.

[The Magistrate]

28. Be That As It May, Ma'am, This Is Straight Charter-Sanctioned Self-Defense And Not Aggressive War

Iraq has the right to defend itself, and the right to request assistance in doing so, and assistance provided at request is not aggressive war.

[morningfog]

30. It is not US self-defense. It is a war of choice and aggression for us to enter.

[The Magistrate]

42. That Is Not How It Works, Ma'am

You might as well say that a person who sees someone attacked in an alley, and responds to the cry of 'Help!' by striking their assailant with a baseball bat, has committed felony assault.

A state which is attacked has the right of self-defense, and may fight back. If it requests assistance in fighting back from another country, that second country's use of military force is considered part of the requesting state's self-defense. It is not by any stretch, whether of imagination or of law, an act of aggression.

[morningfog]

54. Our mission is much broader than protecting the people of Iraq or Iraq's territorial integrity.

[The Magistrate]

66. I Question Your Analysis, Ma'am

To destroy an invading power, you go its source and bases. You are not required to limit your engagement to that portion of it which is presently on your territory.

[jeff47]

107. So in WWII we should have stopped at France's border? (nt)

[cali]

40. there appear to be many questions regarding its legality.

It's being widely argued across the web by legal experts.

[The Magistrate]

45. People Can Always Be Found, Ma'am, To Claim Use Of Force By The U.S. Is a Crime

In this instance, they are wrong, as a matter of international law.

[cali]

50. From what I've been reading it doesn't appear that way at all. Some very

prominent jurists are discussing this. it's quite interesting. There is decidedly no broad consensus that it's legal.

[The Magistrate]

65. Most Of What I Have Seen, Ma'am, Relates To Constitutionality

That is a separate question from international law regarding wars of aggression and exercise of self-defense and assistance to a state exercising that right.

I confess the Constitutional 'question' does not much interest me. The actual state of affairs here, for better or worse, is that a President can do as he pleases regarding employment of air power and commandos, and will do so as he ( or she, eventually ) deems necessary. We are at an awkward phase in the difficult transition from constitutional republic to imperium, in which there is still some complaint about the Emperor's exercise of his full prerogatives, at times....

[Comrade Grumpy]

106. And Syria? Syria isn't asking us to bomb their territory.

There is no UN authorization for attacks in Syria.

What do you call military attacks on the territory of a sovereign state without its permission?

(Actually, Syria would probably be okay with us bombing ISIS, if we only asked nicely.)

[The Magistrate]

110. Syria Exercises No Governance Over Areas Held By I.S.I.L., Comrade

Invasion of a neighboring state is being mounted from those areas. It is well within legitimate exercise of self defense to engage supporting bases for an invasion on territory under de facto control of the invader, and without permission from the nominal sovereign, where it has no capability of exercising control there.

[GeorgeGist]

114. Like Nixon bombing Cambodia.

[The Magistrate]

115. Bombing North Vietnamese Forces In Cmbodia Was Not Illegal, Sir

It may have been many things, but not in and of itself illegal.

A neutral has certain obligations; its territory cannot simply be used as a safe haven or transit for belligerent forces. A neutral is supposed to intern or expel belligerents on its territory, though it may give them a short space of time to vacate in the latter response to belligerent intrusion. If a neutral fails to do, whether because it is incapable of it, or because it has no desire to do so, protections of neutrality no longer apply. The belligerent party disadvantaged by its behavior may do anything from treat the former neutral as a belligerent, to such lesser steps as it considers necessary to address the situation.

[malaise]

19. Like Iraq it will also be a violation of international law

That is all

[newfie11]

49. +1

[JoePhilly]

21. So no invasion and occupation?

I like your new prediction of ever increasing numbers of ground troops.

Think we'll hit 10k by end of year?

What's your prediction?

[morningfog]

29. No occupation.

I have seen you use the term "invasion" before. No ground invasion, thankfully.

There is currently a broad and expanding air war in Iraq and it seems clear there will be an air invasion into Syria. Like I said, I think Obama is going to try very hard to not engage in a ground war. I think the number of ground troops in Iraq (and eventually in Syria?) will tick up over time. I have no way to predict how many will be there at year end or the following year or the following year. It's clear this will outlast President Obama, who knows what President ________ will do in 2017.

It is simply too volatile and unpredictable to know what the consequences will be from this. Will IS respond by actually targeting the US in the US? Will Syria devolve to such instability that other armed forces are drawn in? Who knows. There are many realistic scenarios that could lead to real, undeniable US ground troops in combat in Iraq and/or Syria. I hope it doesn't go that way, but we can't be sure.

[JoePhilly]

39. So when you say we'll be adding troops

on the ground "endlessly", what you mean is that you have no idea.

You are very angry about what maybe could happen.

[morningfog]

51. This isn't about me Joe.

I know you'd like to make it that.

I didn't say "endlessly." I said the number of troops will increase undoubtedly. But, stay focused here, that isn't the worst part. The bombings are. The risk of US escalation is. The destabilizing effect on the region is. The innocents we kill is what I am talking about.

As I have said repeatedly, concerning ground troops, read it slowly this time, I think Obama is going to try very hard not to engage in ground combat. But, the consequences of this air war are unpredictable as is what the next president will do.

[JoePhilly]

63. It's about your opinion.

By posting on the internet, you asked for others to comment on your opinion.

I did not seek you out.

You equate Obama's action here with that of Bush when he invaded Iraq.

I believe you are wrong.

You also made predictions about what will happen next. Predictions that you've walked back some since being challenged.

The use of US military power is always a serious matter. The details matter. It's always complex.

Some on right over simplify things and argue for an over use of our force. Some on the left do the same thing, just in the other direction.

Was Clinton wrong to engage in Bosnia? Was Bush wrong to invade Iraq?

Our military can be used effectively. Or not. To not recognize this is foolish.

And when you run around screaming that what is happening now is the same as Bush's invasion of Iraq, it's clear that your opinion isn't based in reality.

[morningfog]

67. I haven't walked shit back.

Here is when you make it personal: "when you run around screaming"

Stop doing that, it's obnoxious. It's a nasty habit of yours. You also completely misrepresent what I write. And I don't think it is due to a lack of reading comprehension. I see no point or value in further discussions with you. You are now free to strut around as if you made some point, as you are want to do. Enjoy!

[JoePhilly]

83. You did walk some "shit" back.

You went from claiming we were going to be continuously adding ground troops in the OP, to later in response to me, saying you couldn't predict if we would or not. Read read your own posts.

And you don't get to tell me what I can comment on, or how I should do so. Welcome to the internet.

I'll continue to post how I see fit, and I'll make the primary point that I made here as often as I see fit.

The Point: Some folks on DU like to post over the top views and predictions that are not based on reality, but on hyperbole and selective omission of important details.

Moreover, some of those who do this, do so repeatedly, no matter how many times their over the top predictions fail to come true.

[Puzzledtraveller]

25. Wrong, it's only when there is an R in office that it's aggression.

As it stands now it's just comeuppance.

[JoePhilly]

32. Unless the country asked for our help.

Some seem upset that Obama didn't announce a full scale invasion like they knew he would,

So now any action is "basically the same" as the invasion that's not going to happen.

[Progressive dog]

27. We are part of the world

and we have been rightly criticized in the past for not acting to prevent atrocities.
It is not a war of aggression, except on the part of ISIS.

[morningfog]

34. That argument only worked when there was a specific threat to a specific people.

We're now engaging in a territory war with an impossible objective in a country where we are not authorized to be.

[Progressive dog]

59. So the Kurds and the people trapped on the mountain

are not a specific people. I did not know that.

[morningfog]

64. Iraq's territory and everything within Syria are not specific atrocities to people.

Furthermore, that is not the justification given by Obama. The reason for this war is preemption because some day, maybe, possibly IS could threaten the US.

[Progressive dog]

112. ISIS leaders actually have threatened the USA,

and brutally executed American citizens for being American. Furthermore , he has both moral and legal justifications to act against them.
He gave a speech, not a courtroom summation.

[treestar]

38. oh come on

It's one thing to argue that we should stay out of it, but claiming we are the aggressors now - why do you feel you have to claim that? You don't even need that. Simply argue that we should not get involved.

[JoePhilly]

41. Because he's been sure we were going to invade

Syria or Iraq for over a year now, but it hasn't happened. And Obama said it wasn't going to happen last night.

And so, to maintain the appropriate level of anger, it's time to equate limited military action by our air force with endless full scale invasion and occupation.

Damn Obama for not doing what they predicted.

[marions ghost]

52. Wars R Us

The US economy is heavily dependent on conducting wars --so there is no incentive to do otherwise. We are easily drawn into them.

[valerief]

56. +1

[Thespian2]

78. Correct.

American government has completely forgotten the warning that Eisenhower gave them about the military-industrial complex. The greedy bastards who control America need endless war, and like Bush, Obama is supplying it. Grayson was correct when he called on other countries in the middle-east to fight ISIL. How many people must die to make sure the M-I is satisfied? Given that America is rapidly becoming a third-rate country, the Greedy Bastard will continue to bleed the treasury dry, killing anyone who stands in their way.

[marions ghost]

94. Endless war is the agenda

--however it can be rationalized and sold. As you call it, "the Greedy Bastard" wins again...

[valerief]

53. I seem to recall over the past couple of years seeing people on the teevee promoting books about how

soldiers say they love being with their fellow soldiers in war zones. Maybe even interviews with soldiers saying it.

I guess if young people are told about the "wonderfulness" of war, they'll keep signing up for it.

Brainwashing works.

[LanternWaste]

72. As was the air campaign against Bosnia and Herzegovina.

As was the air campaign against Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[freebrew]

79. The unanswered question to me...

how will this be different from all the other times we had 'limited engagement'.

Vietnam comes to mind. Will the next president keep Obama's promises?

Guarantees? And where is the UN in all of this?

[riqster]

80. Back in 2001, people were pissed off because the Bushistas ignored al-Quaida.

Somehow, advocating that Obama act like Shrubya did, and ignore ISIS until after they attack us on our own soil seems a wee bit crazy to me.

[sub.theory]

85. Doesn't make sense, does it?

I'm not really sure how to respond to people who think that we should ignore a brutal terrorist organization, that has threatened to drown us in blood, until we are actually attacked and more Americans killed.

And you're spot on about the hypocrisy that Bush was rightfully savaged on DU for not taking the threat of Al-Qaeda seriously enough the summer before 9/11, but now we are supposed to follow that same strategy.

The unanswered question is: how else can ISIS be stopped? That hasn't been answered except for vague talk about new strategies being needed, or claiming we shouldn't do anything at all and just hope ISIS doesn't mean what they say. Or that the local governments can solve the problem despite all evidence that they haven't been able to do so.

[riqster]

89. Agreed. It's a huge mess, partly of America's devising.

Since we helped make the problem, we are obliged to try and fix it. The question of what "fixing it" means is nearly as knotty as "how to fix it".

[Man from Pickens]

82. We have always been at war with Eastasia

Anyone else getting Vietnam flashbacks? Modest engagement with no clear plan leads to... what? Another set of killing fields in order to save face? Another draft? Where are we going with this?

[ballyhoo]

84. It is that and more. Are we in fact

expanding the caliphate ourselves? Did he not say last night that we were going provide for the Syrian rebels? All those provisions will find their way to IS. Are we picking the right side here? We are going to waltz into Syria and start shooting Syrian regulars? And no one will say anything, right? One more country on the checkerboard. No, that will be prevented, and the person preventing it won't be some bedraggled warlord firing from a Toyota pickup.

[woo me with science]

86. Bush Doctrine-Obama Doctrine=Corporate Doctrine.

Follow the money.

Time to repost this by William Pitt: Refresher Course on PNAC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025518146

The Link between War and Big Banks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025519258

[valerief]

87. War is what happens when you lower the U.S. deficit. Always. nt

[librechik]

90. why are you surprised? This is who we are now.

Oh, don't worry. Nobody's going to jail. We rule now. Isn't it great?

[raouldukelives]

92. As Al From said. "The antiwar people cannot define the Democratic Party."

And they don't. Not anymore. Mission accomplished.

[OldRedneck]

95. The Best and the Brightest

Back in the 1960's, when I was a young Army lieutenant I was 10-feet tall and bulletproof; I jumped out of airplanes, cleared out bars, thought beer was one of the seven basic food groups. The Best and the Brightest told me I should go to Vietnam and kill commies otherwise the commies would be in the streets of Hawaii.

So I went to Vietnam a couple of times and killed a stack of commies; got myself shot a time or two in the process.

Then somewhere along the line -- after 60,000 body bags came home -- we realized The Best and The Brightest were full of shit. And now we buy our Nikes from Vietnam.

The Best and the Brightest told us about WMD, mushroom clouds over American cities, we believed 'em, and 4,500 GI's died in Iraq.

Everyone tells us we need to go after the threat du'jour because of 9-11. 9-11 did not fundamentally damage this country -- after 9-11 we did not repeal the Constitution; didn't cancel elections; didn't close churches, schools, fraternal organizations, charities; didn't abolish Congress, state legislatures, county commissions.

If a member of "ISIS" with a US passport shoots up a shopping mall, well, we've had shopping malls shot up before.

It wasn't Al Qaeda who destroyed the housing market in 2008. It's not the Taliban passing the laws restricting people from voting. It's not ISIS who is causing our national infrastructure to crumble. All the "Mooslim terrorists" in the world didn't cause global warming.

One sign of a collapsing empire is the empire's involvement in non-consequential wars on the periphery while the fundamentals collapse at home.

And now The Best and The Brightest are at it again. Don't fall for it.

[phil89]

104. Exactly. We never learn

Nt

[amandabeech]

128. Thank you for posting. n/t

[pnwmom]

96. When we went to war against Germany, Germany hadn't attacked us.

So was that a war of aggression, too?

[sabrina 1]

99. Don't forget the mercenary armies we have over there. Why did Erik Prince move to

the ME?? I believe the law states that 'Contractors' as they like to call themselves are only allowed into a country that is of 'interest' to the US in order to 'assist' the US Military.

Once the Military leaves, it is illegal for Mercs to remain in the country. However with a small number of 'troops' present, there is no limit that I am aware of on how many Mercs can be present.

We don't know how many are operating in Iraq eg.

War is profitable for everyone except the people of this country and whatever is the our latest 'target' country. This time it's Syria it appears.

[jeff47]

101. No, it isn't.

Iraq was invaded by ISIS. Iraq has requested help to repel the invasion. We're the help.

This is no more a war of aggression by the US than WWII was - the Germans never attacked us, yet we invaded Germany. At the request of countries who were invaded by Germany.

[stevenleser]

105. Agreed. These ridiculous OPs contain the laziest most superficial analysis imaginable in order to

justify a point that isnt there.

[jeff47]

108. Slogans and labels are far more important than reality. (nt)

[morningfog]

137. Unlike your careful and sophisticated work.

LOL.

[stevenleser]

143. I always include facts and links, unlike you. nt

[morningfog]

144. Neener neener. No you don't.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

109. No it's not! They sunk the Maine...er..attacked our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin...er..the Alamo?

[woo me with science]

113. kick for the truth

[grahamhgreen]

116. especially when you include Syria.

[Niceguy1]

133. responding to Iraq's

Request for help isnt aggression.

I take it you support the rape brothels and the gifting of children to isis commanders as sex slaves? You must otherwise you wouldn't be trashing the efforts to stop it.

[morningfog]

136. Yeah, you got me pegged nice guy.

[raven mad]

135. Grenada, anyone?