Discussion: White House: Military Action In Iraq To Be 'Very Limited In Scope'

Discussion for article #226151

Oh Jeezus in a Juicemaster. I can already hear the tree house and Birkenstock lefties, lecturing us about how Both Parties Are The Same, and we need to Vote Our Conscience, and if ALL the People just smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another right now, Bernie can win, blahdy-blahdy-blah.

Save it. I’m more socialist than you lot will ever be. But I understand reality.


Have the feeling that by the end of his term, Obama will have a few K American troops back into Iraq, leaving behind an unpredictable situation very reminiscent of Kennedy’s “limited in scope” situation in Vietnam.

Have the feeling that Conservatives have them a penchant for wishful thinking.


Well if it’s that ‘limited’ then why bother? Unless what we hear about is just cover for a covert COIN ground game. I’m not saying this is the case, just what difference does one artillery piece make?

The neocons are out working overtime. This opens up a whole new realm of blather. You can hear the excitement in their voices talking about unscrambling the eggs and such.

1 Like

All thinking people need to go to an extended brunch/lunch on Sunday, come home late, not record the gab fests, because this will be Topics A through Z with spewing by all the wrong people, some of whom have started already, i.e. The Twins.


Odd. You perfectly described the situation that W. left Obama, except you got the numbers wrong. He left a lot more than just a few thousand troops in Iraq…4 years after he declared mission accomplished.


Here is the first thought that hit me after listening about this on NPR today.

The terms the President set down are to protect American lives and American property. Sounds reasonable enough.

The part that is not mentioned is we have already deployed roughly 300 advisers to Iraq. And its not much of a leap to assume that many of those advisers are being deployed with the front line Iraqi troops.

Thus the chance for American lives being threatened has increased significantly. And even if Obama isn’t playing word games here, he has backed himself into a bit of a corner. What choice does he have if an American adviser gets killed in a skirmish?

And the Pentagon seems to be under the impression that this uprising/invasion/conflict isn’t going to be quelled anytime soon. Which increases the chance of an American escalation quite a bit higher over the next two years…

…and if that occurs, I don’t see it as a favorable condition for Hilary’s presidential run.

And before everyone starts trying to punch me for having long hair and listening to the Grateful Dead, let me point out that the terms have already expanded, in less than 12 hours since the President’s statement last night. We are now bombing artillery positions to slow down an attack on a religious minority group in northern Iraq…not because American lives or property is threatened.


I see you are done with your time-out, welcome back.

So are you suggesting President Obama is going to be assassinated and Joe Biden is going to invade Iraq en masse?

Given that is the only way your prediction would be at all reminiscent of Kennedy vis-á-vis Vietnam, I wouldn’t put much money on your bet if I were you.


‘Very Limited In Scope’

This is Obama fine tuning a runaway train.

Obama fine tuning a runaway train

He has a very impressive track record of doing just that. Rather telling how you think that’s somehow an insult. I consider it an endorsement of just how capable President Obama has demonstrated himself to be over these past five years.

In fact, I like your turn of phrase so much, I am going to lift it and re-use it often. Very Freudian slip you made there in your over-reach to attempt to be denigrating and derogatory.

1 Like

I was attempting to state the obvious but obviously you missed it … 'cause Obama. I know, 11th dimensional chess, “precision” air strikes, “preventing genocide.” Jeebus, you got it bad.