# President Obama's Approved Raid on ISIS was Successful



## SeaBreeze (May 17, 2015)

Even McConnell and Rubio have to admit it was a success...http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05...dmit-obama-approved-raid-isis-successful.html





> Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) have been forced to admit on the Sunday shows that the Obama approved raid on ISIS in Syria has been successful.
> 
> McConnell and Rubio are two of the Republicans who tried to sabotage President Obama’s foreign policy with their letter to Iran, so for Republicans to not only admit the mission was a success, but also praise the president is something that has been virtually unseen during the Obama presidency.
> 
> ...


----------



## AZ Jim (May 17, 2015)

If republicans only cared for our country enough not to try and tear it down.  Goldwater and Eisenhower both would turn over in their graves if they could see what became of the "Grand Old Party" since they passed on.


----------



## Falcon (May 17, 2015)

Sheesh!  After 7 years, it's about time.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 17, 2015)

Oh please....:boo::lame:


----------



## Falcon (May 17, 2015)

:lol1:


----------



## SeaBreeze (May 17, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> If republicans only cared for our country enough not to try and tear it down.  Goldwater and Eisenhower both would turn over in their graves if they could see what became of the "Grand Old Party" since they passed on.



I agree Jim, I've never followed politics very closely, but from everything I've read and heard, it seems that the republican party has changed a lot over the years, and not for the better.  Even some within the party are disheartened by this.


----------



## BobF (May 17, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> I agree Jim, I've never followed politics very closely, but from everything I've read and heard, it seems that the republican party has changed a lot over the years, and not for the better.  Even some within the party are disheartened by this.



And the same can be said about the Democrat party.   Lots of changes and mostly for the worse.


----------



## Laurie (May 17, 2015)

Forget the politics.

Thanks and well done America.  Your guys do you credit.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 17, 2015)

BobF said:


> And the same can be said about the Democrat party.   Lots of changes and mostly for the worse.



Really? I named two very prominent Republicans who by their statements while alive point to my statement being accurate, Eisenhower on his speech regarding being wooed into a trap by the military trap of excesses and abandonment of social responsibility , and Goldwater's statement about the republicans allowing religion to enter politics in any form.  Now, your assignment is to find me two prominent Democrats who you feel would bolster your rebuttal.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 17, 2015)

BTW Falcon why after 6 or so years why did Bush let Osama Bin Laden get away when he was told exactly where he was (at Tora Bora) by accurate intelligence?  Why did it take another President, President Obama, to wipe this scourge from the earth?  It matters not what the President does he will not get credit from the hard rightwing, unless they somehow twist events to make it look like a mistake then they won't let up.


----------



## BobF (May 17, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Really? I named two very prominent Republicans who by their statements while alive point to my statement being accurate, Eisenhower on his speech regarding being wooed into a trap by the military trap of excesses and abandonment of social responsibility , and Goldwater's statement about the republicans allowing religion to enter politics in any form.  Now, your assignment is to find me two prominent Democrats who you feel would bolster your rebuttal.



We have one of the worst examples of lousy Democrat governments running right now.   They refuse to sit down and work with any Republicans at all.  They have driven our government debt from about 7.5 trillion all the way up to over 18 trillion debt beginning with Pelosi and Reid during Bush's last two years.   Our present government, under Obama still has not explained how he intends to pay off all this unnecessary debt or why we even have it.   Plenty of problems with our current Democrat party.   One being we should not be run by either party and should be run by our Congress as it should be.   Lots for the blind to see if they just open their eyes.   Being rid of the current leadership and still being Democrat driven means we will be on the way to some recovery at least.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 17, 2015)

BobF said:


> We have one of the worst examples of lousy Democrat governments running right now.   They refuse to sit down and work with any Republicans at all.  They have driven our government debt from about 7.5 trillion all the way up to over 18 trillion debt beginning with Pelosi and Reid during Bush's last two years.   Our present government, under Obama still has not explained how he intends to pay off all this unnecessary debt or why we even have it.   Plenty of problems with our current Democrat party.   One being we should not be run by either party and should be run by our Congress as it should be.   Lots for the blind to see if they just open their eyes.   Being rid of the current leadership and still being Democrat driven means we will be on the way to some recovery at least.



These are your and your fellow rightwingers positions and I reject it all.  I posted two REPUBLICANS positions and I asked that you find to Democrats quotes that bolster your position that the republican party is as it always was but Democrats are not as they were historically.  YOU FAILED!  No more of your lip flapping, it's over.


----------



## SeaBreeze (May 17, 2015)

Laurie said:


> Forget the politics.
> 
> Thanks and well done America.  Your guys do you credit.



Thank you Laurie, for giving recognition and credit where credit is due.


----------



## Don M. (May 17, 2015)

I'm just glad to see that this mission was a success, and all our troops returned unharmed.  I see no need to engage in petty partisan politics over something like this...rather we should be honoring those who risk their lives on such a dangerous mission, and thank the military who were able to plan and execute this successfully.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 17, 2015)

Don M. said:


> I'm just glad to see that this mission was a success, and all our troops returned unharmed.  I see no need to engage in petty partisan politics over something like this...rather we should be honoring those who risk their lives on such a dangerous mission, and thank the military who were able to plan and execute this successfully.



I celebrate this with you, but I will not allow to go unchallenged any comment bringing anything but praise for the President's courage and the brave men who carried out this mission.


----------



## Falcon (May 17, 2015)

The men who carried it out were the ones with courage.  It doesn't take courage to sit behind a desk.

Don't dilute the courage of these BRAVE men who ACTUALLY  carried out the mission.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 17, 2015)

Falcon said:


> The men who carried it out were the ones with courage.  It doesn't take courage to sit behind a desk.
> 
> Don't dilute the courage of these BRAVE men who ACTUALLY  carried out the mission.



Have you any idea of the fodder for the right wing canon would have been created has this mission failed in a country entered without permission to kill these people?  I submit it took courage to do what was right and damn the criticism had it failed.   As to the men who carried out the mission obviously they were indeed  brave and deserve all the accolades no doubt awaiting them.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 17, 2015)

Falcon said:


> The men who carried it out were the ones with courage.  It doesn't take courage to sit behind a desk.
> 
> Don't dilute the courage of these BRAVE men who ACTUALLY  carried out the mission.




Yet, If it were a Republican president who ordered this...and all the other sucesses under President Obama.... we'd already be chiseling away at  Mount Rushmore..   lol!!


----------



## BobF (May 17, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> These are your and your fellow rightwingers positions and I reject it all.  I posted two REPUBLICANS positions and I asked that you find to Democrats quotes that bolster your position that the republican party is as it always was but Democrats are not as they were historically.  YOU FAILED!  No more of your lip flapping, it's over.



One, I am not a right winger as you claim.   Two, there is not need to quote any one or two Democrats to support my comments.   It is in the news all the time and no simple quotes need to be used at all.   There have been a number of Democrats that have posted their disappointment in the way things have been going.   It is more important that the  general news shows the US to be in ever deepening trouble under our current government.   That I why I suggest that after the next election we will have the opportunity of returning to our regular, Constitutional, type of government.    And that even includes Hillary Clinton should she win the election.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 17, 2015)

BobF said:


> One, I am not a right winger as you claim.   Two, there is not need to quote any one or two Democrats to support my comments.   It is in the news all the time and no simple quotes need to be used at all.   There have been a number of Democrats that have posted their disappointment in the way things have been going.   It is more important that the  general news shows the US to be in ever deepening touble under our current government.   That I why I suggest that after the next election we will have the opportunity of returning to our regular, Constitutional, type of government.    And that even includes Hillary Clinton should she win the election.



Once again your personal blabbering.  You failed in the challenge, the facts let you down.  No more on this with you as it's clear you are not familiar with the subject at hand.  Have a nice day.


----------



## BobF (May 17, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> These are your and your fellow rightwingers positions and I reject it all.  I posted two REPUBLICANS positions and I asked that you find to Democrats quotes that bolster your position that the republican party is as it always was but Democrats are not as they were historically.  YOU FAILED!  No more of your lip flapping, it's over.



I have not failed at all.   Only you and your OPINION is that I have not responded to your notes.   I have and consider your claims to be as false as your support of our current government is.   Well known that we in the US are in some big problems now, financial and otherwise.   When did all this begin?   When the Democrats took over the Congress in Bush's last two years and forever increasing with our current government.    That number of 18 trillion debt is something that our future members of the US will have to take care of.   Not something nice for a Democrat government to have done to our younger folks at all.   Anyone really know where those trillions of new debt were for?   I don't think the current government really knows or cares.


----------



## Falcon (May 17, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Have you any idea of the fodder for the right wing canon would have been created has this mission failed in a country entered without permission to kill these people?  I submit it took courage to do what was right and damn the criticism had it failed.   As to the men who carried out the mission obviously they were indeed  brave and deserve all the accolades no doubt awaiting them.



 Why are you bringing this up? We're discussing a mission that succeeded, NOT Failed !

MAN!  You'll do anything to promote an argument.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 17, 2015)

Falcon said:


> Why are you bringing this up? We're discussing a mission that succeeded, NOT Failed !
> 
> MAN!  You'll do anything to promote an argument.



I believe it was YOU who wanted to promote an argument by insinuating that the President only sat behind a desk and none of the credit of the mission should go to him... to which I call BS..  HE made the decision.. and as Jim pointed out, if it had failed he certainly would have been held accountable and blamed... It suceeded... so.. heck.. all he did was sit behind a desk...


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 18, 2015)

Poor old Jimmy Carter found out what happens when the mission to rescue the hostages in Iran failed...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 18, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Poor old Jimmy Carter found out what happens when the mission to rescue the hostages in Iran failed...



So which is it?  Is the President responsible when a mission he orders fails?  Or is he not.   Apparently he is..   However, if he is a Democratic president, he is NOT given credit for a mission he orders when it is a success.   

Then again a Republican president gets credit either way.   But see here the difference is obvious... Bush ACTUALLY went out there an flew a fighter plane..  Wait... NO?


----------



## BobF (May 18, 2015)

Yes, he was rated as a fighter pilot.   So what is the problem now?    Facts bother some folks?


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 18, 2015)

But he didn't fly missions in Iraq or Virtnam, as he ducked it in the Air National Guard...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 18, 2015)

BobF said:


> Yes, he was rated as a fighter pilot.   So what is the problem now?    Facts bother some folks?



So are you saying that Bush actually got in a fighter plane and flew missions in Iraq in 2003?

Here's his ACTUAL record...  Never in combat... Might have learned to fly a plane... Details of his end of military service very unclear..  

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]May 28, 1968: Bush enlists as an Airman Basic in the 147th Fighter-Interceptor Group, Ellington Air Force Base, Houston, and is selected to attend pilot training. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]July 12, 1968: A three-member board of officers decides that Bush should get a direct commission as a second lieutenant after competing airman's basic training. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]July 14 to Aug. 25, 1968: Bush attends six weeks of basic training at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Sept. 4, 1968: Bush is commissioned a second lieutenant and takes an 8-week leave to work on a Senate campaign in Florida. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Nov. 25, 1968 to Nov. 28, 1969: Bush attends and graduates from flight school at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia. (UTP Course #P-V4A-A Moody AFB, Ga. 53 weeks November 1969)[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]January 1,1970 147th changes from doing Alerts to training F-102 pilots. [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]December 1969 to June 27, 1970: Bush trains full-time to be an F-102 pilot at Ellington Air Force Base. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Febuary 1970 Bush attends Preint Pilot Training (T-33 ANG112501 5 weeks ) [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]June 1970 his records are not clear his computer records show RGRAD NAV TNG  but his discharge shows F102 Intcp Pilot Training (F102 ANG1125D 16 weeks).

His Military Biography shows: Professional Military Education: Basic Military Training, Undergraduate Pilot Training and nothing else.


http://bushwatch.tripod.com/LiesAboutBush/id4.html[/FONT]


----------



## QuickSilver (May 18, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> But he didn't fly missions in Iraq or Virtnam, as he ducked it in the Air National Guard...




Yeah... but he just wanted to show off his cod piece!   lol!!


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 18, 2015)

Such a jerk, and the repub candidates fumbling the whole Iraq thing, more jerks...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 18, 2015)

Yeah... none can seem to get the story straight..  Perhaps Carl Rove should offer a "Republican talking Points 101"  refresher course.


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 18, 2015)

And there may be up to thirty candidates soon to explain their position...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 18, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> And there may be up to thirty candidates soon to explain their position...



OMG....  I simply cannot wait!..... Can you imagine the Primary Debates?  What could ever go wrong?   What a circus


----------



## BobF (May 18, 2015)

A bunch of empty air headed comments made here.   And Republican candidates fumbling the entire Iraq thing?   Not sure what you folks are talking about.   Which Iraq event for one question?    Most recent was the US leaving Iraq and that was Obama.   Now Iran is in Iraq and they too are a big problem these days.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 18, 2015)

BobF said:


> A bunch of empty air headed comments made here.   And Republican candidates fumbling the entire Iraq thing?   Not sure what you folks are talking about.   Which Iraq event for one question?    Most recent was the US leaving Iraq and that was Obama.   Now Iran is in Iraq and they too are a big problem these days.



Oh bob...  Name calling AGAIN?   Fact is .. you make it SOOOOO easy..  Actually it was President Bush that set the timeline for withdrawal.. NOT Obama, who was bound by this agreement and held to it by the Iraqi government.   Is this just one of those pesky facts you keep yammering about?  lol!

http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/06/27/memo-to-media-bush-set-a-timetable-for-withdraw/166835

*



			Bush agreed to timeline for withdrawal from Iraq
		
Click to expand...

*


> *Iraq and U.S. agree that all U.S. forces will withdraw "no later than December 31, 2011."* On November 17, 2008, US and Iraqi officials signed a Security Agreement, often referred to as a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), stating that "All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011." The agreement also called for all U.S. combat forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities "no later than June 30, 2009." [U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, 11/17/08]



You can't bring yourself to admit that Republicans screwed this entire thing up from start to finish...  NOW they want to re-write history.   They also expect Americans to give them another shot at the Middle East?   Fat chance.


----------



## SeaBreeze (May 18, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Actually it was President Bush that set the timeline for withdrawal.. NOT Obama, who was bound by this agreement and held to it by the Iraqi government.



Isn't it true that the Iraqi government wanted us out of there, and there was no possibility of reaching any kind of agreement with them for our troops to stay anyway?  I think those in government and America as a whole, will be much better off if we stop invading countries, acting like we own them and want to rule them ...while the needs of the citizens in our own country go ignored.  Maybe if we stopped our high-horse attitude of dominating other countries, there wouldn't be so many people in the world who hate us and want to see us destroyed.


----------



## Warrigal (May 18, 2015)

Hind sight is a wonderful thing and useless to correct past mistakes but we could use it to make better decisions in the here and now.

Can anyone say that invading Iraq with a plan to topple Saddam Hussein and introduce democracy was a good idea? It seems to have led to the destabilisation, not only of Iraq, but most of the Arab world.

First the Sunni insurrection in Iraq, then the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and now IS wherever it chooses. Al Qaeda in comparison now seems like small beer. We seem to have thrown petrol on a bonfire and set off  a full scale bush fire.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 18, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> Isn't it true that the Iraqi government wanted us out of there, and there was no possibility of reaching any kind of agreement with them for our troops to stay anyway?  I think those in government and America as a whole, will be much better off if we stop invading countries, acting like we own them and want to rule them ...while the needs of the citizens in our own country go ignored.  Maybe if we stopped our high-horse attitude of dominating other countries, there wouldn't be so many people in the world who hate us and want to see us destroyed.



From out of memory, I believe that the main sticking point was that the Iraqi government refused to grant our troops immuninty

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44998833/...raq-pm-immunity-issue-scuttled-us-troop-deal/


----------



## Warrigal (May 18, 2015)

After Abu Grahib, who can blame them?

I hope the US troops operating on our soil aren't being given carte blanche to do whatever they like with impunity, but I really don't know what the conditions of the treaty actually are. I do know that both Japan and the Philippines in the past have had trouble getting justice when US troops have raped local civilian women. Men have been smartly repatriated to avoid an embarrassing trial.


----------



## BobF (May 18, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> Isn't it true that the Iraqi government wanted us out of there, and there was no possibility of reaching any kind of agreement with them for our troops to stay anyway?  I think those in government and America as a whole, will be much better off if we stop invading countries, acting like we own them and want to rule them ...while the needs of the citizens in our own country go ignored.  Maybe if we stopped our high-horse attitude of dominating other countries, there wouldn't be so many people in the world who hate us and want to see us destroyed.



We, happens to be many countries and with UN agreement for Iraq with Bush I and a second entry with the encouragement of a English General to just return as waiting for the UN to do anything was going to be too long and much dangerous.   Many of those invasions of other areas were done in response to UN requests to help hold down the cruelty and hateful ways of some countries over their own people or neighboring countries.   The US was not just wandering around and trying to destroy other countries as implied.

Copy from an older post:

An English General that totally dislikes G Bush said the extension of the Iraq war was legitimate after 10 years of Saddam's defiance of the UN and the surrender terms.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1561891/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-attacks-US-over-Iraq.html


Sir Mike says he satisfied himself on the legality of invading Iraq by careful study of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and concluded that action was "legitimate under international law without a 'second' resolution.


----------



## Don M. (May 18, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> Isn't it true that the Iraqi government wanted us out of there, and there was no possibility of reaching any kind of agreement with them for our troops to stay anyway?  I think those in government and America as a whole, will be much better off if we stop invading countries, acting like we own them and want to rule them ...while the needs of the citizens in our own country go ignored.  Maybe if we stopped our high-horse attitude of dominating other countries, there wouldn't be so many people in the world who hate us and want to see us destroyed.



My Feelings Exactly!  I don't know when our government decided to be the world's policeman, but that decision has brought nothing but grief to the U.S.  The ONLY one's who have profited from this attitude are our Arms Industries.  Eisenhower warned about the Military/Industrial Complex many years ago, but few in Washington seem to have paid attention to his words.  By sticking our nose into every foreign conflict, our government has made this nation the Prime Target for every lunatic out there.  A far better approach, IMO, would be to heed Teddy Roosevelt's words about "Speak Softly, but Carry a Big Stick".  Unless directly threatened, we should let these whacko nations sort out their own problems...while making it clear that if we are attacked, we will come down on them multiple times harder than what they inflict on us.  

History will show that deposing Saddam Hussein will prove to be one of the biggest mistakes our government has made in many years.  Sure, he was a despotic dictator, but he kept the centuries old conflict between the Sunni and Shiite factions from exploding into the mess we see today.  When they got out of hand, he used the only language they understand...he "eliminated" them.  By removing him, we opened the door wide open to the mess we see today in the Middle East...and the threat these radicals pose to the rest of the world.


----------



## Warrigal (May 18, 2015)

Bobf said:
			
		

> Many of those invasions of other areas were done in response to UN requests to help hold down the cruelty and hateful ways of some countries over their own people or neighboring countries.   The US was not just wandering around and trying to destroy other countries as implied.



I get the impression that the US can usually engineer a UN request when it wants one, and when it can't it finds some other rationalisation. 

History has shown that Australia entered the war in Vietnam at the request of the Vietnamese government but that request was made at the request of the Australian government. Convoluted, isn't it?


----------



## SeaBreeze (May 18, 2015)

Don M. said:


> My Feelings Exactly!  I don't know when our government decided to be the world's policeman, but that decision has brought nothing but grief to the U.S.  The ONLY one's who have profited from this attitude are our Arms Industries.
> 
> Eisenhower warned about the Military/Industrial Complex many years ago, but few in Washington seem to have paid attention to his words.  By sticking our nose into every foreign conflict, our government has made this nation the Prime Target for every lunatic out there.
> 
> Unless directly threatened, we should let these whacko nations sort out their own problems...while making it clear that if we are attacked, we will come down on them multiple times harder than what they inflict on us.



Well said Don, I completely agree.


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 19, 2015)

But what about the oil?


----------



## QuickSilver (May 19, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> But what about the oil?



Where have you been?   We do not depend very much on Middle Eastern oil any longer.  We are pretty much producing enough on our own and what we do import if primarily from Canada and South America.   IT's not a question of oil, but a matter of the vast amount of money the Military industrial complex makes from war.


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 19, 2015)

But we still need it to keep our gas prices down so we can enjoy our SUVs...


----------



## BobF (May 19, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> I get the impression that the US can usually engineer a UN request when it wants one, and when it can't it finds some other rationalisation.
> 
> History has shown that Australia entered the war in Vietnam at the request of the Vietnamese government but that request was made at the request of the Australian government. Convoluted, isn't it?



Our first entry into the Iraq mess was at the request of the UN to member countries.   The second entry into Iraq was as I posted yesterday, the result of the Engliish General that help make the decision to return to Irag and end Saddam's nasy ways.   The Iraq and area problems were started by Iraq and ended by invitation from the UN and the continued efforts many years later.   I don't remember any UN objection to the second efforts.   The military did allow the Iraq people to redesign their government and allow them to actually have some voice in how it was running.   The military did start to return to their home countries and then Iran started to mess with the new government.   The various countries then should have stayed and made sure the Iranian meddlers were kept at bay while the Iraq countrymen learned to run a democratic style government rather than fall back into the dictator, from Iran, style of government.

Did the UN authorized new government give the people of Iraq a proper government of their choice?   Yes.   Should the forces have stayed a while longer?    Yes.   Like the forces stayed in Europe for long enough times for the people to learn to live with their new democracies and get away from the constant changing of dictators as they had done prior to WWII.    UN requested the military of several countries to help Iraq do its thing.    That was good.   But we who help Iraq gain some freedom ideas and practice, did not stay long enough for the countries to develop this sharing of responsibility among themselves.    All this dependency on religion and variations of religion has so far ended the ability of peoples to live together and share responsibilities.   Today we have one of the worst of all the religious variations trying to expand power and in doing so have destroyed even the smallest of peoples freedoms.   Hardly anything the UN had envisioned many years back when so much effort was being put into peaceful efforts to live together.


----------

