US sending arms to Kurds in Iraq

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 2:34 p.m.

    The Wahabi are the militant mullahs from Saudi Arabia and have been stirring up Muslims for years. Someone ought to have a talk with the Saudi's about them. It will not be good for us if the Islamic State takes over Kurdistan and Iraq and Syriaa, and on and on. I am glad if we can send weapons and supplies to the Kurds and they don't need ground to air missiles.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Aug. 13, 2014 12:02 a.m.


    It's not about Democrats, Republicans, or what happened in the past.

    It's about what's right or wrong, today.

    We have trouble today, and the commander feels he can lead from a golf course at Martha's Vineyard.

  • stevan madrigal murray, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 3:06 p.m.

    re: procuradorfiscal
    Status of Forces agreement -
    established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.On December 14, 2008, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the security pact with Iraq.
    On 16 November, Iraq's Cabinet approved the agreements; on 27 November, the Iraqi Parliament ratified them; on December 4, Iraq's presidential council approved the security pacts.
    You are entitled to have your own opinion, but not your own facts.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 2:49 p.m.

    You all can argue over whether Barry or Dick Cheney are to blame over the current TARFU in the Near East.

    Both sides are wrong. It goes back to the borders drawn up after WW1. Had the Turks (Ottoman Empire) not sided w/ Germany; there might still be some semblance of order in the region?

    p.s. ISIS is a Wahabbist group. You know the nuts jobs who backed bin Laden & want to overthrow the status quo in Riyadh.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 12, 2014 2:48 p.m.

    Hey Objectified -

    “ . . . your comments are long on rhetoric and short on facts.”


    My rhetoric is full of facts.

    “ . . . many Congressional Republicans had been calling for Obama to arm the Kurds . . . “

    Really? I haven’t heard a thing from Jason Chaffetz or Mike Lee about that. . . . Plenty of talk about impeachment though.

    Obviously, our Democratic President and our Tea-Party-infested Congress have different agendas. Obama is interested in helping this nation, while Tea-Partiers continue obstructing and destroying.

    “Fast and Furious?” Fast and Furious was a gun-walking sting. No one involved in border security or law enforcement believes themselves to be out of harm’s way. They have dangerous jobs. Sometimes they are injured and killed. It does happen. But this law enforcement sting gone wrong does not approach the enormity of GW’s attempt at “nation building.”

    “Please try to be more objective in your assessments.”

    I am pretty objective. I rely on facts. And the facts tell me that Republican policies over the last few decades have done an incredible amount of harm to this nation and the world, much more so than Democratic policies.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Aug. 11, 2014 6:07 p.m.


    You didn't address Mexican cartels, Pakistan, Indonesia, Qatar, etc. Billions of dollars worth of weapons sent to them

    How did Bush, and Reagan cause those? Let's get the cognitive juices going!

  • Objectified Richfield, UT
    Aug. 11, 2014 3:10 p.m.

    @ GaryO:

    Once again, your comments are long on rhetoric and short on facts. Your first one was actually doing pretty good until your wrote that last sentence. That totally negated the effect you were trying for.

    If you do more research, you'll discover that many Congressional Republicans had been calling for Obama to arm the Kurds before he finally did it. If anything, he did it under pressure from other politicians, similar to how he responds to most crisis.

    Did you forget that current democrat attorney general Eric Holder armed some of the worst drug gangs in Mexico via Fast and Furious? So much for your statement that democrats always get it right and Republicans always get it wrong. Neither party has a lock on either. They both do some thing right and some things wrong. Even a near-blind person could see that.

    Please try to be more objective in your assessments. It would make the ongoing dialog much less biased and much more meaningful.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Aug. 11, 2014 12:19 p.m.

    Re: ". . . all of that incredibly nonsensical and destructive Republican leadership of the past is still very much haunting the world today."

    So, when Obama pulls up stakes, abandons the Kurds, leaves behind untold heaps of weapons, but no training or other support on using them, as he cynically declares victory, then cuts and runs out of Iraq, that's somehow "nonsensical and destructive Republican leadership?"

    And, when his vacuous, uninvolved leadership brings about the military and humanitarian disaster that every honest military expert predicted at the time of his retreat, that's also, somehow, "nonsensical and destructive Republican leadership?"


    Truth is -- Obama owns this disaster. He wanted it. He created it. His refusal to deal directly and seriously with it, suggesting we avert our gaze and foolishly buy into his assertions that the world is a more peaceful place for his anti-American politics is just pathetic.

    Real people know it's way too late to blame Obama's serial foreign-policy disasters on George Bush, notwithstanding the bleating of callow Obama apologists.

    Obama owns this tragedy. His cowering in the face of monstrous evil will be his legacy.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 11, 2014 11:41 a.m.

    Hey Worf –

    “What ever happened to gun control?”

    Whatever happened to critical thinking? Apparently it’s been banned in Right Wing circles.

    “This had nothing to do with Reagan, or Bush.”


    The condition of the Middle East has everything to do with Reagan and Bush.

    GW Bush is a Reagan acolyte. GW tried to out-Reagan Reagan. He followed and even accelerated Reagan’s ridiculous policies to the great detriment of America.

    Reagan gave tons of weapons to Al Qadah . . . rocket launchers, LPG’s, rpg’s, artillery, thousands of small arms. And GW did the same in Iraq but more so, after he declared war and occupied the nation for NO good reason. Obama, BTW, is very much on record for having opposed that war.

    And yes, ISIS now possesses many of those weapons given to Iraq, after we “won” that unprovoked war. “Mission Accomplished!” Remember?

    Try to think critically. The present is the PRODUCT of the past . . . And all of that incredibly nonsensical and destructive Republican leadership of the past is still very much haunting the world today.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Aug. 11, 2014 11:16 a.m.


    Get out of the past. Fix the problems of today!

    Obama just agreed to eleven billion dollars of military weapons to Qatar, who is supplying arms to Hamas, and ISIS. ISIS is also fighting with weapons we left sitting there in Iraq.

    ISIS are using weapons from our country, and now the Kurds.

    And yes! American ranchers along the southern border have been killed by Mexican cartels using American weapons. Our commander did little to protect our citizens.

    This had nothing to do with Reagan, or Bush.

    What ever happened to gun control?

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 11, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    Worf -

    Ronald Reagan armed Al Qadah to the teeth. And GW Bush did the same for ISIS.

    But those two are both Sunni groups.

    Obama is arming the Kurds.

    What you need to keep in mind, is that those fundamentalist Sunni groups are dedicated to the destruction of America.

    And the Kurds have always been our friends.

    See the difference?

    Apparently, only Democratic Presidents have the good sense to arm our friends instead of our enemies.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Aug. 11, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    ISIS are using weapons from our country, and now the Kurds?

    What ever happened to gun control?

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 11, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    So I guess Obama is a war monger after all. Hope and Change!!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Aug. 11, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    Re: ". . . I hope arming the Kurds doesn't turn out like the Russians arming the Ukrainian separatists with surface-to-air missiles."

    No need to worry about that.

    The Russians never actually armed Ukrainian separatists. The Russian Army is the "Ukrainian separatists," so there was no need to arm them.

    They were already armed.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    Aug. 11, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    U.S. arming Kurds in Iraq? You could probably find a headline 30 years ago that says "U.S. arming Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan".

    What could possibly go wrong?

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    Aug. 11, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    Well, all I can say is that I hope arming the Kurds doesn't turn out like the Russians arming the Ukrainian separatists with surface-to-air missiles. That turned out real well...

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Aug. 11, 2014 7:51 a.m.

    You mean to tell us that Old Lead from Behind is actually doing something.

  • Dave T in Ogden Ogden, UT
    Aug. 11, 2014 7:38 a.m.

    Please consider the following to protect the minorities in Iraq.
    First, our military ought to airdrop powerful "smart weapons" as part of humanitarian aide so the minorities in Iraq can protect themselves. We have a few materials engineers in the upper brass of our military. We also have our many materials engineering professors at our universities. Can they invent an attachment that will melt certain components of these weapons in case it ends up in the hands of the enemy? Then it will make these "smart weapons" useless when activated.
    They would weld these attachments to only powerful weapons. They would include GPS as part of this attachment. By applying this to only powerful weapons, the military would have enough space on the electromagnetic communication spectrum to make this possible. The military would use satellite communications to activate these attachments by remote means. Thus you could provide big American firepower to the minorities in Iraq with the insurance that these powerful weapons will not end up in the hands of the enemy to use against the minorities. These attachments could also be applied to tanks and Humvees engines. Then you balance this war without the risks.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 11, 2014 7:31 a.m.

    This is a smart way to fight a war. Drop a few bombs, provide intelligence to the good guys, and provide them with arms if need be so they can fight the terrorists effectively.

    I'm starting to remember why I voted for Obama in the first place.