whonew wrote:
fancyred wrote:
ldyb2 wrote:
We are engaged in IRAQ again http://m.kcra.com/national-news/obama-authorizes-targeted-strikes-in-iraq/27370490

Thanks to GW Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and company, we will always have to be involved in Iraq one way or the other.  Just as long as they don't put ground forces back.   The U.S. destroyed Iraq and we should make sure their people who are being targeted are safe, but without soldiers on the ground.

Going back to what we had there in the 1990's is OK.


How did those Republicans force this Democratic president to launch air strikes - or do anything else - in Iraq?

No matter what precedent someone else set, one could always just choose to stop the cycle, right?

I'm not saying that we should ignore this humanitarian crisis...but the president has free will and the Bush family isn't forcing him to do anything.

By the way: Bill Clinton also launched air strikes against Iraq and he was left completely off of your list. Why?

Iraq would not be in the mess it is in today if there had not been a destruction of Iraq in 2003.   If Bush had continued what Bush 1 had started and then Clinton continued through the 1990's instead of destroying Iraq, staying in Afghanistan, we would have a handle on the mess over there.    Obama really didn't have a choice of protecting those people since it is the U.S. fault they are in the mess.    We saw all but the elite Iraqi Guards run during the first Gulf conflict and how a heck of a lot of them turned their selves in instead of fighting.  The Iraqi don't seem to have a sense of patriotism for their own country only survival which doesn't mean fighting other nations for their survival.

  

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

-- Dwight Eisenhower