Obama says key allies ready to join U.S. action in Iraq

Here we go again.

No. This time we go in with our allies. See, that's called "leadership."

Leadership?? What allies? No one has really signed on yet. We are still paying 75% of NATOs military budget, so without us, there is NO NATO, seems like we'll be taking the lead again on this (as usual) so besides perhaps Turkey, who else is going to join this so called coalition?

LOL today reading that post Bass. And I really shouldn't laugh. I should cry when blind support is given.

The British public is deeply wary of foreign military intervention

Really? Because I've seen several newspaper headlines stating that us Brits are urging Cameron to "stop droning on" and send in the drones, the RAF and the SAS. The general opinion that I'm aware of is stop dithering and blast IS back to the Stone Age. I've heard two people who seem opposed, compared to hundreds who are strongly in favour. I think if this goes ahead, it'll all come down to whether or not Cameron can dig deep and grow a pair. Seems to me like Britain's ready for action, if members of the public are petitioning the government to put an end to IS.

bass

so besides perhaps Turkey, who else is going to join this so called coalition?

Britain, Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Turkey.

US and UK are the ones responsible for creating this mess in the first place, so its their responsibility to take action.

France and Germany opposed US led invasion, yet they are ready to help clean up, Good.

“Obviously I think that’s a red line for everybody here: no boots on the ground,” Kerry told the meeting."

This is good news for military personnel and their families and missile manufacturers.

"British and German ministers warned that it would be a long campaign to push the Sunni militants back after stunning gains they have made in Syria and Iraq, drawing volunteers from many countries including in the West."

These "volunteers" must be brainwashed.

Someone above mentioned the Stone Age. Funny enough but when you look at a long view of the region, and I'm talking about going back to biblical times (small b), this is nothing. A few heads roll, and it is horrendous. Doesn't compare to the wholesale slaughter of people that typically goes on in the middle east (again a long view is needed). We're actually really close to peace. Really close. Still. Let's be positive!

JTDanManSep. 06, 2014 - 08:25AM JST No. This time we go in with our allies. See, that's called "leadership."

I'm sure the Brits, Aussies and Poles would appreciate that comment.

Don't forget Tuvalu

Sigh.

Isn't this kind of thing what got us into this in the first place?

We're actually really close to peace. Really close. Still. Let's be positive!

You must be kidding. Look at the state of Iraq, Syria and Israel right now. It's a region beset by war, violence, religious devision and discontent. I'd be willing to bet that this proposed action is ultimately going to make that worse, not better.

As for the UK, Cameron's decisions are now made with both eyes completely focused on the election next year. He saw how the disaster in Iraq destroyed Blair's credibility and integrity but Blair had an enormous majority and was faced with a succession of appalling opposition leaders who agreed with his foul behaviour anyway. UKIP are putting forward the sane argument ( one of the few sane things they do say ) that western intervention in this area almost always leads to disaster and people are listening. The last thing Cameron wants is to go into 2015 with a potentially drawn out military disaster on his hands. It's not so much about Cameron 'growing a pair' as one poster said, it's more about this comically insincere PR man not destroying what little chance he has of a majority next year.

ISIS has REALLY screwed itself over doing what it's done and threatening whom it's threatened. I really wonder if they're serious about their own survival and making an Islamic state, because as it is they're going to be utterly destroyed. Other Islamic sects won't go near them and even AL QAEDA is calling these guys extremists!

Threats like ISIL is why we have militaries. Not to remove dictators we don't like or takeover lands with resources we want, but to defeat dangerous fascist groups that threaten the lives of millions worldwide in the name of a religion.

It is the responsibility of the mighty to defend the weak and it's also the responsibility of the mighty to protect the culture and way of life of the weak, not homogenize it. I hope this time, the US will remove the real threat without getting caught up in naming leaders and collecting rebuilding contracts.

We shouldn't have gone in the first time. And after going in, we shouldn't have left, because it created the necessity of going back in. The second Iraq war may be more bloody than the first one.

Commanders had said that a force of 20,000 American combat troops should have been left to prevent the problems whch have just occurred. Obama overruled them, and brought all the soldiers home. Now he may have to send them to take back what might never have been lost in the first place, had he listened to his commanders.

What are the consequnces of not acting? The IS gets control of much of the world's oil supply, turns off the tap, and pushes the world into another recession. America, Europe, and Japan are teetering on the edge as it is, a little push will send them all tumbling.

The IS gets control of much of the world's oil supply, turns off the tap, and pushes the world into another recession. America, Europe, and Japan are teetering on the edge as it is, a little push will send them all tumbling.

US production now greater than imports, guess is by 2020 net imports will be zero, we can sell y'all some then.

http://www.drillingcontractor.org/analyst-numbers-show-that-us-is-drilling-its-way-to-zero-net-oil-imports-15686

US production now greater than imports, guess is by 2020 net imports will be zero, we can sell y'all some then

The US barely produces enough to meet it's own needs, what will the rest of the world do? How long would it take for America to fill in the gap?

"Sell", not "give". Why should America fill in the gap? They're already providing military services on a charity basis.

You figure the human race would have learned from past mistakes, NOT!! It's very sad we can't get along.

" he vowed to ‘take out’ the leaders "

That sounds to me like he wants more US drone strikes, which are only remote-controlled assassinations and won´t achieve anything.

What he should do is help the Kurds and Assad to deal with this horror on the ground, and to put pressure on the Saudi and Qatari ISIS sponsors to stop aiding them.

But we will wait for that in vain.

"Sell", not "give". Why should America fill in the gap? They're already providing military services on a charity basis.

The economic collapse of 2008 cost America as much as 50 Iraq wars. The cost of acting against the I.S. now would likely be far less costly than repairing the damage they may cause in the future.

The I.S. knows that it cannot defeat the west militarily, but they can do immense harm economically. It was no accident that Al Qaeds targeted the World Trade Center, and that it was attacked twice. The I.S. would love to push the entire world into depression, and to turn back the clock of civilization a few centuries. The latter is not likely, but the former is entirely possible.

ulysses:

" France and Germany opposed US led invasion, yet they are ready to help clean up, Good. "

Which invasion? France and German actually supported the stupid American bombing of Libya and the sanctions against Assad, which both are direct reasons for the current mess.

I understand that some people want to blame everything in the world on GWB incarnated, but reality is not so simple.

Obama I HAVE NO PLAN! But I have a secret GET THE OIL!

Obama said the Washington would hunt down and dismantle the organisation, which has seized swathes of Iraq and Syria, in the same way it had tackled al-Qaida since the Sept 11 attacks on the United States.

... you mean the plan that didn't work before, resulted in this mess, and now they're going to try it again?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

This NATO confab was in essence a bust. No new sanctions against Russia - just talk and no specifics. Germany continues to prevent any additional sanctions against Russia. No forward deployed troops in Eastern Europe to act as a trip wire to end Russia's irredentism. No firm commitments to oppose ISIS in Iraq and still no plan against ISIS in Syria. Even America's closest ally has made a point of stating that it will not commit to action against ISIS.

No nation has made a commitment to do anything to support Obama's goal of "managing" ISIS. It's great that Biden want's to pursue them "to the gates of Hell", but Obama still has no strategy and nothing more than rhetorical support from NATO. Bush had dozens of allies and Obama cannot even get the UK to help out. In their defense, I suppose you can say that since Obama still doesn't have a strategy to deal with the problem, NATO member states do not know what they are supposed to be signing up for.

More poor leadership from Obama. No plan and no ally's committed to do anything of substance. Stop playing golf Mr. President and do something!

zichi:

" What is need is an organisation based on peace not conflict. "

...and how exactly do you want such a peace organization to deal with ISIS?

What is need is an organisation based on peace not conflict.

Isn't that what the UN was created for? The UN has done absolutely nothing. It is structurally incapable of contributing to world peace.

As for NATO, it was created for mutual defense. An attack against one is an attack against all. Conversely if one NATO nation invades a country the other member nations are not obligated to join in the invasion.

Obama seems to think that the power of his oratory will convince the Europeans to join in opposition to ISIS and Russia. As usual Obama wants to lead from behind; which of course is not leadership. Obama is a follower not a leader. The problem with leading from behind is that none of the European nations want to be in front. Not only do the Europeans not want to be in front they do not have the capability to lead because their militaries are tiny relative to their size.

The UN has done absolutely nothing. It is structurally incapable of contributing to world peace.

Pretty clear you really don't know what you're talking about. The UN has had it's share of failures but also many accomplishments. Many of these accomplishments thanks to American leadership. It's easy just dismiss without knowing.

Pretty clear you really don't know what you're talking about. The UN has had it's share of failures but also many accomplishments. Many of these accomplishments thanks to American leadership. It's easy just dismiss without knowing.

Care to name any significant accomplishment on the part of the UN? Did it end the Cold War? Did it bring peace to the Middle East? Did it stop the genocide by Pol Pot or in Rwanda? The Korean War was a long time ago.

Can you explain what the UN is doing to combat ISIS in Iraq or Syria?

So, you're already walking back the "absolutely nothing" part.

Well, since you mention it, Korea's a good start. More recently Gulf War I was also on the basis of use force authorized by the UN Security Council.

Try a google search on "UN peacekeeping missions" or generally try reading material on the UN website, or wikipedia.

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/documents/factsheet.pdf

Then you can do your own research on UN and disarmament, etc.

Like I said the UN has had it successes and failures.