Obama Authorizes Airstrikes In Iraq To Stop Genocide

[Purveyor]

Source: USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Thursday he authorized "targeted airstrikes" if needed to protect U.S. personnel in Iraq, as well as airdrops of food and water to religious minorities in Iraq who are under siege from Islamic militants and trapped on a mountain top.

The U.S. military made an initial airdrop of meals and water to thousands of civilians threatened by militants on Thursday. The aircraft that made the drop safely exited the region, the official said.

"Today, America is coming to help," Obama said.

Innocent families face the prospect of "genocide," Obama said, justifying U.S, military action that could eventually include airstrikes.

The U.S. "cannot turn a blind eye," Obama said.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/07/iraq-christian-villages-flee/13710265/

[Turbineguy]

1. Good.

ISIS is a mass murder machine.

[TheMick]

2. I understand that ISIS is basically.....

....a gang of butchers, but.....so was Saddam Hussein.

[Amonester]

7. Saddam was head of a legitimate government, in accordance to IL.

al-baghdadi is not head of any recognized state... just a self-appointed ruler.

Not in accordance to IL.

[ZombieHorde]

81. Politically speaking, legitimacy is an illusion.

Whoever is best at violence "rules."

[candelista]

88. So is the US.

Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says


Nearly half a million people have died from war-related causes in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003, according to an academic study published in the United States on Tuesday.

That toll is far higher than the nearly 115,000 violent civilian deaths reported by the British-based group Iraq Body Count, which bases its tally on media reports, hospital and morgue records, and official and non-governmental accounts.

The latest estimate by university researchers in the United States, Canada and Baghdad in cooperation with the Iraqi Ministry of Health covers not only violent deaths but other avoidable deaths linked to the invasion, insurgencies and subsequent social breakdown.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html

[grahamhgreen]

77. US is a mass murder machine - we started all this. OUT NOW. Our feeble popguns will not stop 1400

years of war.

[gateley]

3. I can't help but think this wouldn't be occurring had not

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld gotten the ball rolling.

But that's water under the bridge, we are where we are, but I will hate those three with a fire in my heart until the day I die.

And I HAVE to take this opportunity to remind everyone that Biden has been saying "there is no military solution" to the problems in Iraq. NOW they're listening to him?

No wonder I'm fed up.

That whining done, I agree with Obama's decisions regarding this. Not that anybody cares. It's what we have to do at this moment.

[Kath1]

8. Agree 100%!

Very well Said - "Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld gotten the ball rolling." Yes, they did. And I will always despise them for this.

I support President Obama on this. He is doing what he HAS to do. No fault of his own. The fault is squarely with Bush, Inc.

[candelista]

89. I don't understand your logic.

Bush and Cheney started this evil, so Obama has to reinstate it?

[Retrograde]

16. Same here. Can we drop NeoCons on ISIS?

They're always so gung-ho about bombing people, let's let them get in on the action.

We destabilized Iraq (and just what did happen to all the money we sent there?), it's unfortunately our problem now and, much as I'd like to, we can't just walk away now.

[davidpdx]

20. Exactly

Though Saddam would still be in power, these different religions wouldn't be slaughtering each other.

[Igel]

53. This mess has a lot of parents.

One of them is the 2003 Iraq War. Without destabilizing Iraq--and then making sure that a strongman wasn't in power to suppress any rebellions that might spring up later--this kind of thing was plausibly going to happen.

Note, however, that what happened with Jugoslavija was likely in the stars for Iraq, as well. Tito held things together. The strongman that came along after him was a bit more moderate and couldn't hold it together. Hence the tensions from Ottoman days, exacerbated by the Nazis/nationalists and Communists, exploded.


Had a strongman or more stable country been left, one in which everybody had a stake, in 2011, that would have also led to this being either contained or not as bad a problem. Nobody bothered to even seriously try to do that, however. It was geopolitically necessary to make an attempt, but much more politically expedient to fail in the attempt. And claim that the failed attempt was a victory, a campaign promise kept. Until things fell apart and the partial amnesia that underlay the claimed victory was remembered.


This current round, however, had its start in the chaos in Syria, which started entirely *after* 2009. It was made very difficult for Assad to end the chaos. And with the declaration that the US would arm and train one side, the international prohibitions against arming any of the rebels vanished. The only reason *not* to provide arms and money to the "bad" rebels was that they were "bad." "Bad," of course, is a word that different people apply differently. The rebellion spread, and then in a bit of spineless wonderment the massive outpouring of aid to be given to moderate rebels (by which was meant "moderately extremist" in many cases, and "moderately dysfunctional" at best) faltered. All that was left was sanction to help anybody. And the Islamic extremists got help.

Iraq war, mistake.

Leaving Iraq meta-stable, and confusing that for "stable," mistake. But one of omission, not commission.

Preventing stability in Syria and not encouraging replacement "stability," mistakes. One was an act of commission, the other of omission.

I don't know that helping the Yezidi do anything more than be given a means to exit the area--permitting ethnic cleansing in order to avoid genocide--is a good idea. Don't know that it's a bad idea. But like the others, they all were immediately judged by their party's supporters as "good" or "bad". I suppose we'll know in 10 years.

[grahamhgreen]

78. What we have to do is fix our own country first, imho.

[ZombieHorde]

83. Everyone who voted for the war is to blame. nt

[cheapdate]

9. Gaza is a tragedy.

1,800 people in Gazan killed in the last month. There are an estimated 40,000 people trapped on a mountain in north-west Iraq who are facing complete destruction. More than 100,000 people have been killed in Syria. In the city of Aleppo alone, around 21,000 people are believed to have died.

Gaza is a tragedy but it's not the only tragedy and it's not the biggest.

[cheapdate]

66. That's a fact in the real world.

[George II]

15. You people are comparing ISIS with Israel?????? Un-fucking-believable!!!!

[Throd]

21. I don't think he is.

[SnakeEyes]

24. But will the US response be proportionate!?

[George II]

52. "Proportionate" to what?

Not you, but others dragging Gaza into THIS discussion is disingenuous and simply taking another veiled opportunity to criticize Israel, which has nothing to do with this discussion.

[cheapdate]

67. You might not agree,

but it's possible to look upon the destruction, loss of life, and devastation caused by war purely in terms of a human tragedy and a humanitarian crisis. Whether its Gaza, or Nagasaki, Japan, it's possible to talk about the human dimension without making a statement on the politics.

[George II]

70. Katrina was a human tragedy and a humanitarian crisis...

...as was the great San Francisco earthquake. When do the comparisons to those events begin?

The only comparison between the two (and I'm amazed I'm even addressing this) is that civilians are dying. The reasons why, the manner in which, and the rationale behind the two are totally dissimilar.

[cheapdate]

73. Again, you may not agree with the concept of nonpolitical humanitarianism

but it exists in the world nonetheless.

[cheapdate]

5. As problematic as it may be for a powerful nation like the United States

to use military force against a smaller state for humanitarian reasons, there are strong arguments for why in some cases, any agency that has the power to stop a large scale atrocity is morally obligated to do so. Even if that agency is the United States,

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Exactly

The very reason why it was wrong of the U.S. to not intervene in Rwanda during the genocide there.

[gateley]

11. Agree --

We sure don't hold back criticism for not "doing something" about Pol Pot, for example.

Well, this time we're DOING something.

[McCamy Taylor]

10. Kurdistan! The US needs to create a new, true ally in the Middle East.

Never mind what Turkey says. The people of Kurdistan are more like us than they are like the Arabs that surround them. Mountain people around the world are more like each other than they are like the lowlanders who live next to them. Mountain people learn self reliance, individualism----traits that Americans value.

If we can protect the Iraqi Kurds and the Kurds of Iran, Syria and Turkey and help them form a single country, we will have another Middle Eastern alley at least as valuable as Israel. I see nothing wrong with sending military aid to them.

[msongs]

12. too bad the iraqii nation as a whole doesn't seem to be concerned much nt

[SnakeEyes]

25. Actually they are

since many are having to flee and 100,000+ have been murdered. Problem is ISIS is stronger

[Igel]

57. But not obviously about the Yezidi.

There are other people much more important, the government thinks. And that would be themselves.

There are other people much more important, the Kurds think. And that would be themselves.

There are other people much more important, the Sunnis that hold IS in contempt and fear. And that would be themselves.

Most of the "defense" for the Yezidi that Iraqis clamor for involves getting rid of IS before they attack the really important "themselves." If IS was rounding up anybody else--even cute cuddly lemmings--there'd be the same calls for squashing IS. The Yezidi are, for most in the area, placeholdings, one more hurdle to stop the IS at. Before the IS gets to the important "themselves."

[ballyhoo]

14. Well, there goes the election. I hope

I'm wrong. And where will this money come from?

[George II]

17. Obama isn't a candidate in any election.

[ballyhoo]

18. Who's talking about Obama?

[George II]

19. Look up at the SUBJECT LINE!

[ballyhoo]

22. The subject line notwithstanding, Obama's

decision to attack ISIS will have an effect on both the election in November and the P election in 2016. Some of us consider subject lines and their unstated ancillary topics in a more abstract manner. Have a nice day.

[ballyhoo]

26. I said long ago that Iraq would be the US's

Parthia (Final days of Roman Empire). I was sure what is happening now would happen. The neocons are drinking $5000.00 brandy tonight. They will now be unleashed from Iraq by the low info public who will now see it as Obama's war.

[rhett o rick]

55. We all know that, do you have a point? nm

[grahamhgreen]

86. Yup - buh bye Dems....

[ballyhoo]

87. Do you think this attack decision was

made or even confirmed unilaterally? Not the question I want, but I'm a little tentative in asking the right one. Oh, well...I just have a suspicion, as we are closing in on the "ber" months and an election is nearing that may transform the world. The decision just seems unusual to me.

[Purveyor]

91. I think it was gone way before this event and I don't think the President gives

a fuck...

Just saying.

[ballyhoo]

92. I do, but not in the way you do, I would guess. But

thanks for your candid answer. Getting more rare.

[rhett o rick]

28. Once more I find my government rationalizing killing more people. We have a horrible track record

but we keep doing it. Always for the sake of goodness of course.

[SunSeeker]

29. So you're fine with 40,000 innocents literally dying of thirst on a mountain top...

while ISIS waits below to slaughter them should any of them come down?!

This isn't "a rationalization for killing people." We are moving to stop a genocide. Parents are watching children die of dehydration. They left with just the clothes on their backs as ISIS was storming their town.

What would YOU do?

[rhett o rick]

47. I am really getting tired of the tactic of starting with, "So you're

fine with..." and then adding the most asinine statement. If you really want to discuss this issue, please reread my post and start again.

[LTX]

48. Ok, I re-read your post. It seems pretty clear that you think the US is

illegitimately using military force here -- that it is just inventing some excuse to "kill people." Yet you offer no alternative, which isn't exactly conducive to "discussing the issue." So what's your alternative?

[rhett o rick]

50. Again with putting words in my mouth to make your argument easier. I didn't

come close to saying we were "illegitimately using military force here -- that it is just inventing some excuse to "kill people." I didn't come close to saying that.

I shouldn't bother responding if you guys are going to use those techniques to try to control the discussion.

I will say that I support humanitarian support and by-the-way Detroit could use some.

I will also say that those that want our government to unilaterally kill people have the onus to prove the need, and it better be better than "then might someday have WMD."

[George II]

59. Hmph....

"it better be better than "then might someday have WMD." "

Funny thing, of almost 60 posts in this discussion only ONE person has mentioned WMD. Wonder who THAT might be?

[rhett o rick]

60. In other words you don't anything reasonable to say? nm

[George II]

93. All that needs to be said here has already been said, by several people. Apparently...

...you choose to consider those comments to not be "reasonable".

So, I'll repeat a question you were asked but didn't answer:

"What would you do?"

[mvd]

85. I'm worried that this will turn into another war

Drop some bombs, then more bombs, then ground troops.. however I am giving President Obama a chance to keep it to a humanitarian effort. That is what it should stay.

[rhett o rick]

95. We should let the UN take care of it. Provide the humanitarian support and let the UN

handle ISIS. We must stop trying to intervene. We can't afford nor have the moral right to think we are the enforcers.

[EX500rider]

96. The UN has a peacekeeping wing...a war fighting one not so much.

[George II]

51. I think many are tired of the tactic of blindly stating.....

"our government rationalizing killing more people" without examining the background behind it and the alternatives.

[rhett o rick]

54. I would ask that those that don't agree with what I say, provide a decent argument and avoid

the intellectually dishonest games.

Once again I will say that those that are so eager to drop bombs on humans have the onus to explain why and not ask me to come up with an alternate. There always seems to be a good rational, usually "they are bad people and we are the worlds sheriffs."

If you think it's a good idea, then explain why. Too many Americans have been fooled too many times by our government.

[SunSeeker]

63. So do you approve of the actions described in Obama ' s speech yesterday or not?

Seems to me it is you who is avoiding the merits of the argument. You raise other actions/inactions rather than talking about whether THIS one is worthwhile.

Please, tell me why we shouldn't stop the genocide of Yazidis when we can readily do it here.

[rhett o rick]

72. I have said a number of times that humanitarian help is always good. Bombing and killing

people is usually wrong. Again, those of you that are so quick to drop bombs have the onus to prove the need. If the only rational is that we need to kill bad people to save good people, I would like to know how you choose Iraq over numerous other similar circumstances around the world. And why does the USofA have to be the sole police of the world?

[SunSeeker]

74. The President's speech answers your question(s).

I am not "quick to drop bombs." Geez. Can we dispense with the ridiculous personal attacks?

[rhett o rick]

75. And that's enough to satisfy you?? I am going to authorize dropping bombs but I am not "quick to

drop bombs." Really? Is he going to specify each and every bomb that's dropped? Do you recognize rhetoric?

I should have said, "those that are quick to support the President's decision to authorize dropping bombs on humans, have the onus to explain the necessity. Include how this instance is different from the dozens around the world. And why us?"

[SunSeeker]

100. It's obvious you didn't listen to his speech. nt

[rhett o rick]

102. He already started dropping bombs. Wow, that was quick, but he said he wasn't quick to drop bombs.

Speeches are speeches and are full of rhetoric. "I don't like to kill people, but I will authorize it." The fact that he "doesn't like it" seems to be enough for some.

[rhett o rick]

80. Well, so much for not being quick. We just started the bomb dropping. nm

[politicman]

30. why intervene in one scenario and not the other?

Why intervene in one scenario where 40,000 possibly face slaughter, and not intervene in another where 1.8 million are sitting ducks for the Israeli missiles?

[SunSeeker]

31. The 40,000 are not "possibly" facing slaughter. They are dying now.

They fled with just the clothes on their backs. They have no food, no water, and it is 106°F on that barren rock mountain. Children and elderly have died from dehydration.

Although the people of Gaza are in dire straights, there is currently a cease fire, they do have access to water, and Israel is not proceeding to kill all who have not converted to Judaism.

But even if the two are in just the same position, is not helping one justification for not helping the other?

[politicman]

33. its makes a huge difference..

Palestinians flee their homes to escape the bombardment and go to the only place that should be safe in Gaza, a U.N shelter yet still get bombed.
Is there anywhere in Gaza that is a safe zone for these civilians to evacuate to, U.N shelters are bombed, hospitals are bombed, etc.


Huge amounts of Palestinians are stuck indoors for long periods of time with no food or water or electricity because they are too scared that if they go outside to gather these things then they will be blown to pieces.


Now the Yazidis are stuck on a mountain which is horrible, they have no food or water and are to scared to go down the mountain to get these things for fear of getting slaughtered by ISIS, so tell me what is the difference between their position and the position I described above with the Palestinians.

It makes a huge difference that America wants to intervene to help the Yazidis and sits on the sidelines and even cheers what the Isrealis are doing to the Palestinians.

How can we sit here and applaud the actions of the U.S in helping the Yazidis when the very same U.S wont even put lousy diplomatic pressure to help the Palestinians?

[SunSeeker]

34. Wow. So your position is if we don't intervene in Gaza, we should let the Yazidis die.

Unbelievable.

[politicman]

36. read this carefully...

No my position is I would wholeheartedly support intervening on behalf of the Yazidis, even militarily, if the U.S would apply the same standard and intervene on behalf of the Palestinians, which by the way I am not even calling for military action but just diplomatic pressure.

I don't subscribe to the notion that helping the Yazidis is a goof thing to do whilst at the very same time refusing to even put limited diplomatic pressure on behalf of the Palestinians.
You cant argue to me that its the right thing to do to help the Yazidis because you can whilst at the very same time refusing to put only diplomatic pressure on Israel when you can.

[SunSeeker]

37. I understood your position the first time. No need to repeat it.

Obama IS putting political pressure on Israel. That morass has been impossible for many a President to fix.

But even if he wasn't, that is no reason to allow ISIS to wipe out the Yazidis when we can readily stop a genocide from happening.

[politicman]

38. being able to do 2 goods things but choosing only the one that doesnt affect your friends..

is not noble.

Yes we can readily stop a genocide from happening through using military airstrikes but why are we choosing to help only one set of people through the more difficult actions WHILST at the same time refusing to help another set of people with a more simpler set of actions, namely diplomatic pressure on Israel to stop its slaughter.

And Obama has done shit to try and stop Israel from its crimes with diplomatic pressure, he has stayed silent most of the time and the times he speaks he actually defends Israeli crimes, not to mention supplying them more money and weapons to keep slaughtering the Palestinians.

[SunSeeker]

39. Sounds like you think nothing Obama does is noble.

[politicman]

40. I used to respect his integrity, but lately he has changed so much from what he started off as.

Oh, no one was more than me when Obama was elected. I kept switching from channel to channel hoping to see who the latest state went to during election night.

I was over the moon when he was declared the winner, I was ecstatic when he won a second time, BUT somewhere between then and now Obama has become a shadow of his former self.

Really, I think he does many noble things when it comes to social issues and domestic issues, BUT his positions lately on foreign issues has me losing all respect I once had for him.


I understand that it is extremely difficult for any president to take a firm stand on Israel, YET I honestly believed that Obama was the one president that would take that stand because I believed that his compassion for people of any race and his integrity would not allow him to tow the usual line of supporting Israeli crimes.

Lately Obama has taken so many positions on foreign policy that make me question whether he was putting on an act earlier or if he has been compromised in some way.

Escalating drone strikes, glossing over the torture of the previous admin when he campaigned against it, getting into a stand off with Russia and acting like GWB with his public comments, wholehearted support for Israel when our tv screens are full of dead Palestinian children blown to bits with Israeli bombs, etc, etc.


I used to love the guy and will still applaud many things he has done on social issues and domestic issues, BUT the way his foreign policy has gone lately makes me lose all the respect I had for him.

[Delphinus]

44. I hear you

and I understand what you are saying. I feel your pain, as it resembles mine.

May peace come to this entire world.

[rhett o rick]

56. STRAWMAN argument. No one provided that position. Do you have an argument as to why we should

intervene militarily in this case and not other cases around the world?

[SunSeeker]

61. So are you saying because we didn't intervene in EVERY humanitarian crisis, we shouldn't here?

I don't purport the know all the reasons we do or do not get involves in humanitarian crisis. I imagine it is on a case by case basis based on facts and political realities. That being said, can we talk about the merits of THIS intervention, rather than blowing up his thread with complaints about Gaza?

[rhett o rick]

82. I haven't said a word about Gaza. I also didn't say anything about needing to

intervene in EVERY humanitarian crisis. Both are STRAWMEN. I feel we need to stop dropping bombs at every turn. We can't afford to be the world's police. And usually, it doesn't solve a thing.

[SunSeeker]

94. Speaking of strawmen, we don't "drop bombs at every turn." nt

[ZombieHorde]

84. I don't think you're going to get a real answer. nt

[7962]

45. The people on that mountain dont support those trying to kill them. nt

[harun]

65. We have proof in Gaza, Iraq... not yet.

[SunSeeker]

68. Not yet?! The videos of the Yazidi families on that mountain not good enough for you?

How about everyone from the Iraqi prime minister to the Pope asking us to stop ISIS from committing genocide?

There is no shortage of witnesses to what is happening on that mountain:
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28687329

Nor lack of video:

Iraqi Yazidis trapped and surrounded by IS milita…:

Iraqi Yazidi MP Breaks Down in Parliament: ISIL i…:

500 Yazidis killed in Terror Attack:

[stranger81]

69. We're not just "not helping" Gazans.

We're supplying the ammunition being used to kill them.

[SunSeeker]

71. Got it. So are you opposed to what we're doing for the Yazidis?

The subject of this thread is what Obama outlined he will do to stop the genocide of Yazidis and protect US personnel in Iraq.

[Democat]

32. There are scenario all over the world

No country can intervene in every scenario.

[politicman]

35. so we are supposed to applaud the action of Obama to help the Yazidis and forget his stance on I/P?

So we are supposed to be happy about America intervening to help the Yazidi while sitting quietly by and even cheering as their best friend slaughters another peoples?

Hell, I am not even asking for America to do anything militarily against Israel, it would not be so hard to put diplomatic pressure on Israel to stop its slaughter, why wont the U.S even do that? huh?

[lululu]

42. because Israel laughs at "diplomatic pressure."

It knows the U.S. will never do anything but shovel more money and military supplies and support at it.

[woo me with science]

43. Oh, but the US has intervened in Gaza.

To send ammo and funding to assist in the slaughter.

[blkmusclmachine]

62. Israel is Ground Zero in the fundamentalists End Times fantasy. All our tax money we shovel to

Israel is purely to aid to that religious fantasy.

[yurbud]

76. who's doing the killing and who's dying are the deciding factors

[grahamhgreen]

79. Awwww, stop making sense!

[lululu]

41. next up, the US does an airstrike into Israel. No, wait, sometimes genocide is okay.

[LTX]

49. You think the US should bomb Israel? n/t

[rhett o rick]

58. Do you think we should help (interfere) everywhere or just the places you choose? nm

[LTX]

64. First, Israel and ISIS are not equivalents, and it is rather appalling to suggest it.

Second, I can understand the rationale behind the airstrikes against ISIS. I see no diplomatic alternative to forestall the impending disaster that ISIS is fomenting. I don't decide where the US conducts military operations, and neither do you. But I can understand the decision and the objective. If you think there is an alternative, perhaps you would be so kind as to provide it.

With respect to Israel, what possible purpose would bombing Israel serve? Where and who would we bomb, and what would be the objective? Diplomatic pressure seems rather clearly the proper alternative there, which I don't think we have applied in any sufficient measure. Of course, that would be "interference" as well, which you seem to feel is unwarranted under any circumstances. I don't think that such isolationism is either practically or morally correct.

[Baclava]

46. Pentagon Announces U.S. Air Strike on ISIS Artillery

US military aircraft conduct strike on ISIL artillery. Artillery was used against Kurdish forces defending Erbil, near US personnel.

[url]https://twitter.com/PentagonPresSec/status/497725099970031616[/url]

[candelista]

90. However bad something is....

....the US always makes it worse, by use of its enormous firepower.

[EX500rider]

97. The French didn't think so in WWI & WWII...the South Koreans didn't think so...

...in the 1950's.

[candelista]

99. That was the 1950s.

I'm talking about Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

[EX500rider]

101. Oh, I'm sorry, i thought you meant always when you said "the US always makes it worse"

[daleo]

98. If the U.S. keeps going to war in Iraq to protect people

There will be nobody left to rescue, soon.

[SnakeEyes]

103. I'm glad you're positive that the US will be successful n/t