Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Timo wrote:Plant, Lore, you both are forgetting, or not even paying attention to the target and focus of the reinstatement of troops in Iraq. Those troops are not there to continue the war that Bush started. The troops have been sent in again to HELP fight ISIL! If we do nothing, and just watch from the sidelines, that would cede victory to ISIL, and that would render the entire purpose of the trillion dollar war completely mute! The original war enabled ISIL to come into existence. Obama's prosecution of the war enabled ISIL to expand their territories. ISIL is a very, VERY dangerous consequence of the initial invasion under Bush. Obama's not perfect, but at least he didn't invade the homeland of most of the 9-11 terrorists who actually flew into the World Trade Center. (Hint: It's NOT Iraq!)

It's a continuation of the same conflict we started. Whether we're fighting Iraqi troops, al-Qaeda, or ISIS (they're the exact same people in some cases). Back in February of 2015 Obama requested a AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) in Iraq to fight ISIS which never went anywhere. All he can attempt to do is tack on military units to the existing AUMF after 9/11.

As Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution writes on the Lawfare blog, "Congressional failure to act arguably constitutes acquiescence to [Obama's] broad claim of authority under the 2001 AUMF, since few of the members of Congress who are refusing to pass a new authorization are also claiming that the president lacks legal authority to take action."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ed/390618/

None of the above however constitutes a declaration of a formal war.

Timo wrote:Plant, Lore, you both are forgetting, or not even paying attention to the target and focus of the reinstatement of troops in Iraq. Those troops are not there to continue the war that Bush started.

I haven't forgotten that at all. In fact I've made that point repeatedly in my posts above. For some reason Lore doesn't seem to understand it, but I'm glad you get it.

Timo wrote: Time to blame the current leadership for the mistakes of the previous leadership. Obama's to blame for everything! Sorry to bring reality into the discussion. Carry on.

I don't understand why you are blaming Obama for what Bush did 10 years earlier---that really doesn't make any sense, now does it?

Obviously Bush is to blame for his decision in 2004 to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein, and Obama is to blame for his decision ten years later in 2014 to go to war against ISIS in Iraq. Bush and Obama are each individually responsible for their own decisions. Right?

Personally, I'd rather discuss the current war and current events then continually rehash things that happened a decade ago---this thread is for the discussion of Obama's Iraq policy, which is in danger of collapse now that Mullah Sadr in Iraq has called for the Prime Minister of Iraq (a US puppet) to step down.

Cheers!


Bush and Obama are each responsible for their own decisions and policies---why is that so hard for folks to understand?

Plantagenet wrote:Obviously Bush is to blame for his decision in 2004 to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein, and Obama is to blame for his decision ten years later in 2014 to go to war against ISIS in Iraq. Bush and Obama are each individually responsible for their own decisions. Right?

ISIS would not be a factor for Obama to deal with if it were not for Bush's original invasion.

But, go ahead and blame Obama for not cleaning up after Bush correctly. The fact that he inherited the entire cluster does not absolve him of scorn and blame on doing it differently than the hawks would have preferred. Operating with minimal ground presence, thus minimizing US casualties and US taxpayer expense was clearly the wrong approach. Shame on Obama for not escalating the war/AUMF in a timely manner. She should never have thought twice about his actions, and their resulting consequences.

I'm glad we can finally agree on something.

Timo wrote:ISIS would not be a factor for Obama to deal with if it were not for Bush's original invasion.

ISIS is from SYRIA. Bush never invaded Syria. What are you talking about?

Timo wrote:
... Obama .... inherited the entire cluster ...

?????

Again, what are you talking about? That just isn't true.

Obama didn't inherit the mess in Syria. Bush had nothing to do with Syria---you are making false claims. Dont' you ever read the newspapers?

Face facts: The war in Syria started AFTER Obama took office.

And what triggered off the war in Syria? Obama himself admits that the war in Syria is related to Obama's own "Arab Spring" initiative. Once the Arab Spring in Syria turned into an armed resistance, Obama stepped in to support the rebels, leading to the current 6-year-long bloodbath in Syria.

It wasn't Bush who sent huge amounts of military aid and covert training for the rebels to help them force Assad out of power---it was obama. But Obama miscalculated----he didn't send ENOUGH aid to the rebels, and so the Syria regime was able to hang on until Russia stepped in to help and Russia and Assad have been blasting the rebels ever since. Did it escape your notice that Obama gave speech after speech ENCOURAGING the rebellion in Syria and boasting that Assad would be forced from power-- Don't you know that OBAMA has covertly sent in billions in US aid to the rebels, including US weapons?

I'll bet you don't even know that Obama sent in the CIA and Obama also sent in US special forces into Syria to train various Islamist groups making up the "Free Syrian Army" in Syria? Did you miss when the CIA-trained rebels in Syria starting fighting the Army Special Forces-trained rebels in Syria? Talk about a big and stupid screw-up!

ISIS is just one of the rebel groups fighting the Assad regime in Syria. Yes, some of the ISIS fighters are former members of the Iraqi regime, but Iraqis and foreign fighters also are present in other Syrian rebels groups, included the Al Nusra Front---the Al Qaida linked rebel group in Syria. NONE OF THESE GROUPS would've gotten established in Syria if Obama hadn't funded and armed multiple covert little rebel armies to fight the Syrian government and destabilize the country.

Some accounts even say the Obama regime provided weapons and training to Islamist rebel groups like ISIS and Al Qaida in their early days in Syria. Just today Seymour Hersh---a very famous investigative reporter, published a report that the Obama administration (including Hillary) transferred some Sarin (a chemical WMD) from Libya to the rebel groups in Syria.

seymour-hersh-says-hillary-approved-sending-libyas-sarin-syrian-rebels

Face facts---there was no war in Syria and ISIS didn't exist when Obama took office. Face Fact #2---ISIS didn't hold an inch of territory when Obama took office. Face fact #3---The Obama administration has funded and armed and trained rebel groups in Syria in an attempt to overthrow the Assad regime. Face Fact #4---Some of the rebels in Syria formed nasty Islamic extremist groups like the Al Nusra Front and ISIS, and some evidence suggests the Obama administration helped get these groups established. Face Fact #5 ISIS forces based in Syria crossed the border and invaded northern Iraq in 2014, catching Obama by surprise in the middle of other pleasant round of golf. After his golf game ended, Obama belatedly realized ISIS was a threat and took the US into a new war with ISiS.

Yes, ISIS has become a very nasty problem indeed, but no, Obama did not "inherit" ISIS---ISIS didn't exist when Obama took office. The mess in Sria, including ISIS and Al Nusra, is a direct by-product of Obama's failed Syria policy of covertly arming rebel groups to destabilizing the Syrian government.

Cheers!

The nature of being a back-seat driver in foreign policy is you can always argue on the basis that "If he had only done X, this wouldn't have happened."

But since all we have to show for it is what did in fact happen, it's just people's fantasies that create the road not taken.

In other words, if Obama had maintained Bush's seige approach and continued to pile-drive the enemy, he could have just as well created a host of other problems in the region that simpleton's like Planty can't seem to fathom.

The middle-east is a powderkeg. Even with Obama's lighter-foot on the military we've seen enough conflict as it is. Not that long ago Saudi Arabia and Iran seemed like they could go to war. And Iran was facing down potential military strikes over its nuclear program had Obama not chosen diplomacy.

What do you think would have happened with large numbers of US troops and hardware in the thick of things?

Not only that, the american public simply lost its stomach for war. They had enough body bags, and more importantly, had enough wounded warriors come back with permanent physical and mental scars, not to mention the financial cost.

Obama's approval rating would have gone into the crapper even as he pacified the region.

Does Planty factor in any of these tradeoffs? No, because the only motivation on Planty's part is to make Obama look incompetent. But foreign policy is hard for this very reason. Every move you make has a downside, and like I said, the armchair quarterbacks can only see these fantasy what-if scenarios that they've manufactured in their heads.

Well, guess what? Bush and company had a fantasy scenario in their head when they were planning out how to crush Saddam. They thought it was going to be a cakewalk and the people would throw flowers at their feet for liberating them. It's THAT kind of thinking that fuels Planty's critique.

This situation has no easy answers. Doomers should understand that--the definition of a dilemma. But since gas is cheap I guess some people have to pass the time away by continuing to kick sand in the face of a two-term president who earned a Nobel Peace Prize and forged historic diplomacy with Iran and Cuba who is months away from leaving office anyway.

ennui2 wrote:...make Obama look incompetent.

No one is making Obama look incompetent but himself.

Clearly Obama screwed up in Libya---the country is now a basket case.

Similarly Obama screwed up in Syria----Obama's policy of covertly arming and training Islamist militia groups to topple the Saddam regime has back-fired big time.

And the news last weekend that thousands of Iraqis invaded the Green Zone in Baghdad to protest against Obama's hand-picked prime minister suggests that Obama's policies may be screwed up in Iraq as well.


Cheers!

You didn't rebut my point. You can whine about the status quo but you can't prove that an alternate approach would not yield a whole other set of even worse problems in the region.

It seems that the public goes through waves of hawkish and dovish attitudes. Once the body bag count gets to a certain point, we want to lay off interventions. But once the world starts to go to hell in a handbasket, suddenly we want to mount a D-day style invasion. Short-term thinking.

Obama's level of application of power has been in sync with the public's wishes, which is a middle-of-the-road approach. Low casualties, few boots on the ground, police from the air.

The use of military force is always best exercised in hindsight.

Interestingly I'm just reading Rise and Fall of the British Empire. Written 1993 his text could easily fit on this thread unaltered. The ME is a quagmire that is impossible to unravel. No good can come of our involvement there. Britain, pushed by the US, needed ME bases to support possible bombing raids on Russia and to deny Russia the oil fields.

More than likely that is the international calculus that continues, control of the ME is critical in the ongoing chess game with Russia and China.

Reading tha. Oil one begins to ask....Is the US in the twilight of its empire?

Yes I think that has been common among Empires they extend themselves militarily and that drains the budget and the impetus of rebellion is always there even if dormant. Once weakness is perceived the embers of rebellion are stoked. So yes, nothing good can come of our involvement in the ME over the long terms but in the short term we need to be there to assure the spigot of Oil continues flowing towards us ie. US.

Another US soldier died in fighting yesterday in Iraq.

And yet the obama administration claims that US soldiers aren't involved in the fighting in Iraq.

I wonder how they can sleep at night telling lies like that.

ennui2 wrote: But since gas is cheap I guess some people have to pass the time away by continuing to kick sand in the face of a two-term president who earned a Nobel Peace Prize ......

Oh please, "earned" a Nobel Peace prize. He did $hit for that prize, other than demean it's value.

Video proves US Navy Seal killed in Iraq last week died in combat

navy-seal-isis-battle-video

Maybe this video will make the Obama administration rethink their ridiculous lie that US soldiers in Iraq aren't involved in combat

Plantagenet wrote:Another US soldier died in fighting yesterday in Iraq.

And yet the obama administration claims that US soldiers aren't involved in the fighting in Iraq.

I wonder how they can sleep at night telling lies like that.

It's part of the "politician entrance exam".

In Rise and Fall of the British Empire the author makes it clear that this "cluster" has been going on for a long, long time. The British got involved because they saw the ME as essential for protecting India. Later, after WWII, it became a major oil source and, for a brief period, bases there were important to deterrence.

The Carter Doctrine made the US portion pretty clear.

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

Wha we have today is a continuation of Empire, passed from Britian to the US coupled with local and traditional sectarian violence.

Our position there is stupid, we should get out ASAP. We have no obligation to stop them from killing one another, nor any right to do so. We are ONLY there for the oil.

If you want to make a moral statement about the ME reduce your energy consumption.

.......

Look at it another way. The ME is far, far beyond its carrying potential. On the oil is gone that population is toast. They will have to migrate or die. Who will take them?

I predict that within the foreseeable future, 50 or so years, we will see some nasty problems in that area which we will have not the slightest ability to correct. It is a pity but it is inevitable. Dead men walking. What good do we do by mucking with it?

2¢

careinke wrote:Oh please, "earned" a Nobel Peace prize. He did $hit for that prize, other than demean it's value.

He didn't set the standard. Nobel did. You've got an issue with that, take it up with them.

ennui2 wrote:

careinke wrote:Oh please, "earned" a Nobel Peace prize. He did $hit for that prize, other than demean it's value.

He didn't set the standard. Nobel did. You've got an issue with that, take it up with them.

And you were the one claiming he "earned" it, which is why I am taking it up with you.

Just goes to show you that even the prestigious Nobel is subject to a little bit of corruption.

Obama got his Nobel Peace Prize for bringing peace to Iraq.

How bizarre that the same person who supposedly brought peace to Iraq has taken the US into an illegal war in Iraq.

Army Captain sues Obama in federal court over Obama's illegal war in Iraq

is-the-us-war-against-isis-illegal

The Captain's lawsuit claims that President Obama is violating the War Powers Act by conducting an illegal, undeclared war in Iraq.

Interesting to see how quiet the Ds have been about "illegal wars" etc. when a D conducts an illegal war. Where are all the liberal Ds who supposedly oppose illegal wars?