"U.S. Aircraft Could Strike Iraq Tomorrow" Topic

"The Iraqi government wants U.S. air power to help stop the terror groups taking over their cities. It wouldn't take long to deliver air support, if Obama gives the green light.

President Obama has so far turned down Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki's request for U.S. air strikes against the Islamic extremists taking over his country. But if Obama changes his mind, U.S. jets could be flying over Iraq in less than a day.

U.S. air bases, housing dozens of American fighters and bombers, are well within striking distance of Iraq. High-flying spy drones like the Global Hawk can just as easily fly over Iraq as Afghanistan or any other conflict zone in the region. The aircraft carrier U.S.S. George H.W. Bush is a few days' sail away, in the North Arabian Sea. And it boasts dozens more fighters on board…"

Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

US aircraft working alongside the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Who would ever have though it….

I am confused. Are these terrorists our terrorists this week or not? If we simultaneously arm and bomb them that must be good for GDP numbers.

Time to pull back, and tell Maliki, Netanyahu, and the House of Sa'ud that they're on their own.

Except for the Hashemite King of Jordan. Him we'll support.

If our aircraft "accidentally" bombed the Iranians.. would it be "friendly fire" incident?

I think… not.

Have we always been at war with Eurasia? or is it Eastasia? Does this change responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing back to Libya or is it someone else this time?

"Time to pull back, and tell Maliki, Netanyahu, and the House of Sa'ud that they're on their own."

It makes sense but we don't control our own press. Over fifty percent of campaign financing from the last US election came from the Pro-Israel camp (official figures). Politicians are obliged to follow an agenda or they will be swiftly thrown out of office – even into jail if there is "dirt" on them.

"Programs! Getcha programs here! Can't tell the terrorists we're supporting today from the ones we're not without a program!"

You lot are sounding a bit sour, . You broke it you own it. But can you fix it? Not as easy as a service on a Dodge Cherokee is it.

We should have broken it into 3 separate countries while we had the chance. Kurdistan in the North, a Shia nation, and a Sunni nation.

But this is what someone should have expected in the first place! The Sunnia hate the Shia, Shia hate the Sunni, and they both hate the Kurds!

For all the claims that the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers is the cradle of civilization, you sure couldn't prove it by me!

Why is it we have to pay to protect everyone?

Seems to me the Iranians, Saudis, and others need to step up to the plate.

Of course, if Iraq will reimburse us for all costs/expenses/losses, and give us $25 USD a barrel oil, we can discuss other options.

Otherwise, let them fight their own battles.

On the plus side, ISIS certainly gives the Iranians something to worry about, which is a plus in my book.

It is rather embarrassing to see the terrorists driving around in Humvees, MRAPs, and tanks. Hope they don't get anyone to fly F-16s.

Air power won't help when the troops on the ground are so badly lead that they flee when the odds are 25:1 in their favor.

It is going to be fun when the Afghanistan withdrawal happens as will go bad there even quicker than it did in Iraq.

Any student of history and conflicts of this sort should have seen this coming more than a decade ago – and many did, but their voices were drowned out by the drumbeat of war.

We should have broken it into 3 separate countries while we had the chance. Kurdistan in the North, a Shia nation, and a Sunni nation.

Too true.

But the Westerners are too hung up on borders they themselves wrote up back in colonial times.

The Europeans especially forget they fought quite a few wars for many hundreds of years to sort out their borders.

One can't expect functional nation states when those states don't represent actual "nations."

On the plus side, ISIS certainly gives the Iranians something to worry about, which is a plus in my book.

Why is it good? The Iranians are actually far less extremist than the Saudis and other Arab states who actively support far more anti-Western terrorism.

Qatar has been especially proactive in supporting AQ groups in Syria and Libya (with obvious flow through to Iraq).

After all Osama Bin-Ladin and co are Sunni Arabs, not Shia Persians.

The Americans are still hung up on the Iranian revolution of 1979 and have obviously been brought out by the Sunni Arabs in their centuries old conflict against Shia Islam.

Basically the Americans and their NATO buddies have become the hired thugs of extremist Sunni Arab regimes.

Iran actively supports, and exports terror as well.

They are/were the number one supporter of terrorism around the globe.

Sorry Thomas, that doesn't pass muster, since we are/were backing the Shia led, Malaki government in Iraq.

I see neither a declaration of war, nor an immediate threat to US territory/interests that would preclude proper Congressional authorization ;)

I would like to see that, too, SouthernPhantom. As you say, unless war has been declared on the US, or there's an immediate threat, there's no reason at all not to follow the rules that have been set down for this kind of thing, no matter who is in office.