The city of Mosul, and now Baiji and Tikri have fallen. Mosul is the second largest city in Iraq. A large chunk of the oil sector now lies within AQ territory. Bagdad is becoming increasingly isolated.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/insurgents-seize-iraqi-city-of-mosul-as-troops-flee/2014/06/10/21061e87-8fcd-4ed3-bc94-0e309af0a674_story.html
http://news.yahoo.com/sunni-insurgents-close-iraqs-biggest-oil-refinery-111013537.html
I am waiting to see the response of the Obama administration. Of course, nothing (publicly) will happen until the news media picks up on the shakiness of the Maliki government. Will US troops be asked to take the same ground a third time?
Go USA! Go USA! Go USA!
Best country on earth.
Bringing Al Qaeda to your country since 1979!
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 12:22:13 PM
I am waiting to see the response of the Obama administration.
This is their response: "The United States has been funneling tons of weapons into Iraq -- including sniper rifles, tank rounds and missiles -- to help the government fend off the militants' assaults, but the country's U.S.-trained military has not been able to dislodge them."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2014-06-11-Militants-seize-Iraqi-city-of-MosulUSABrd_ST_U.htm
Quote from: finehoe on June 11, 2014, 12:41:55 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 12:22:13 PM
I am waiting to see the response of the Obama administration.
This is their response: "The United States has been funneling tons of weapons into Iraq -- including sniper rifles, tank rounds and missiles -- to help the government fend off the militants' assaults, but the country's U.S.-trained military has not been able to dislodge them."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2014-06-11-Militants-seize-Iraqi-city-of-MosulUSABrd_ST_U.htm
Many of those weapons belong to someone else now. The Iraqi Army pulled a French retreat and left their uniforms and weapons.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/500000-civilians-flee-iraq-fighting/26433318?item=0
This is the same group that our government is funding and supplying in Syria.
Bueller!, Beuller?
Americans don't really care what's happening in that part of the world anymore.
I don't think that the American public is that stupid. What makes you think so?
Yep, no danger here:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/11/world/middleeast/isis-control-map.html?_r=0
Sounds like you now agree with the rest of us that invading Iraq was a big mistake, NotNow.
Quote from: BoldBoyOfTheSouth on June 11, 2014, 02:01:44 PM
Americans don't really care what's happening in that part of the world anymore.
Don't really care "anymore"?
Ha!
When did they care?
....
Quote from: ben says on June 11, 2014, 04:28:37 PM
Quote from: BoldBoyOfTheSouth on June 11, 2014, 02:01:44 PM
Americans don't really care what's happening in that part of the world anymore.
Don't really care "anymore"?
Ha!
When did they care?
....
When gas was creeping up near $4/g.
That leaves us just under 2 years to get another
war conflict hysteria over oil supply..... to get the political machine started.
Easy not to care about any of this except for the loss of American lives attempting to bring a sense of normalcy to that country. When it happens in Pakistan (and it will), we will all care. Pakistan does have nuclear weapons.
Bold Boy and Ben Says...if you don't mind...how old were you when Hussein invaded Kuwait? How about 9/11/01? Just curious.
And FH, I was opposed to pulling completely out of Iraq. It was obvious then that the country would fall to jihadist extremist. Most Americans don't understand the conflict that we are involved in. You are being told that the "war" is over. I am afraid that you will find that it is not.
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 05:43:04 PM
I was opposed to pulling completely out of Iraq. It was obvious then that the country would fall to jihadist extremist. Most Americans don't understand the conflict that we are involved in. You are being told that the "war" is over. I am afraid that you will find that it is not.
So you are more in the John McCain camp:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-mccains-100-years-in-iraq/
No. The Germany/Japan model will not work in the Middle East. The "democracy experiment" will not work there except possibly in Egypt and Lebanon. These are largely ancient societies, tribal or other loyalties in nature, with a strong social order that is not anxious to change. To make the description as understandable as possible, America and its citizens are the equivalent of Jews in Germany to these groups. Young people across that part of the world are being taught that America is the evil that causes all of the pain and poverty in their lives and that same evil debases their religion. They are taught that criminality and murder against Americans is not only OK, but are rewarded in Heaven.
The Obama administration seems to be of the mind that the "war" is over. I am waiting to hear what the other side says.
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 05:43:04 PM
Bold Boy and Ben Says...if you don't mind...how old were you when Hussein invaded Kuwait? How about 9/11/01? Just curious.
And FH, I was opposed to pulling completely out of Iraq. It was obvious then that the country would fall to jihadist extremist. Most Americans don't understand the conflict that we are involved in. You are being told that the "war" is over. I am afraid that you will find that it is not.
Old enough.
BTW, that's entirely irrelevant. How old were you when the Civil War happened? WWI? I'm sure you have opinions...opinions based on facts...facts based on those events...etc
Or, are you trying to argue something alone the lines of: "weren't old enough to witness the event? Then your opinion is dead on arrival".....?
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 06:58:51 PM
No. The Germany/Japan model will not work in the Middle East.
So...me thinks you know nothing about the current state of Okinawa.
Quote from: ben says on June 11, 2014, 08:13:38 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 05:43:04 PM
Bold Boy and Ben Says...if you don't mind...how old were you when Hussein invaded Kuwait? How about 9/11/01? Just curious.
And FH, I was opposed to pulling completely out of Iraq. It was obvious then that the country would fall to jihadist extremist. Most Americans don't understand the conflict that we are involved in. You are being told that the "war" is over. I am afraid that you will find that it is not.
Old enough.
BTW, that's entirely irrelevant. How old were you when the Civil War happened? WWI? I'm sure you have opinions...opinions based on facts...facts based on those events...etc
Or, are you trying to argue something alone the lines of: "weren't old enough to witness the event? Then your opinion is dead on arrival".....?
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 06:58:51 PM
No. The Germany/Japan model will not work in the Middle East.
So...me thinks you know nothing about the current state of Okinawa.
OK, if you don't want to state your age, that's fine. You appear to me to lack a sense of history. A common fault of youth. I am not sure what you are referring to in Okinawa. It is part of Japan. Are you referring to the lack of support for the US troop presence by some Okinawans?
No more troops. Drone their asses or make them govern these towns they have taken over for a while but we have given enough blood for that country. When we decided to pretend to look for WMD over there some of the boys who are now in uniform were 6 years old. That country has nothing that is worth even one of our GIs.
At this point Iraq needs to fight this fight and it looks like men are volunteering to do just that.
Jeffrey,
Would you continue to send material support to Iraq? Would you continue to send material support to ISIS in Syria?
Yes
Hmmm...so you would continue to arm BOTH sides. So you support the creation of the Islamic State in Syria...and Iraq? Or just Syria? I hear that Obama is considering air strikes against ISIS in Iraq, would you support that involvement? What should we do if, five years down the road, the ISIS caliphate attacks Israel, either alone or in concert with other Arab nations? I'm just trying to get a feel for your idea of our relationship with the area.
My priority would be Iraq and any supplies to ISIS would come with conditions. If the second part proves fruitless I am ok with dropping them.
It is too late. The best we can do now is nothing. Shortly... forces from Iran will stream across the border. The ISIS and Shia forces will begin a meat grinder civil/religious war that will pale in comparison to Syria.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 13, 2014, 08:14:15 AM
It is too late. The best we can do now is nothing. Shortly... forces from Iran will stream across the border. The ISIS and Shia forces will begin a meat grinder civil/religious war that will pale in comparison to Syria.
The Iranian Army has deployed into Iraq:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-deploys-forces-to-fight-al-qaeda-inspired-militants-in-iraq-iranian-security-sources-1402592470
The US now faces the prospect of supporting the Iranian military with air strikes and/or material support. The US is currently providing material support both to the Iraqi government and ISIS in Syria. :o
Quote from: stephendare on June 13, 2014, 09:46:35 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 13, 2014, 08:14:15 AM
It is too late. The best we can do now is nothing. Shortly... forces from Iran will stream across the border. The ISIS and Shia forces will begin a meat grinder civil/religious war that will pale in comparison to Syria.
And how exactly did this area destabilize again?
I heard it was a youtube video.
Wow...
State Dept: Terrorist Group's Presence in Syria and Iraq 'Entirely Different Situations'
'There are different coalitions and different factions'
June 11, 2014 4:47 pm
In the view of the State Department, the actions of militant group the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Syria and Iraq are "entirely different situations."
At a briefing Wednesday, a reporter asked State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki to reconcile the United States' cautious position on intervening in Syria, where ISIL is active, with its recent declared support of Iraq in fighting ISIL. "But you're not making a distinction, are you, between the group's activities in Iraq and the group's activities in Syria? I mean, they're just as deadly to the Syrian people as the Iraqi people, and they're going back and forth across the border."
"Well," Psaki responded, "they're entirely different situations."
Psaki claimed that there have been "many different conflicting reports" about ISIL in Syria and Iraq, and "there are different coalitions and different factions."
"They claim to be one and the same," a reporter countered.
"But regardless," Psaki said, "any threat, any terrorist threat — there are many that unfortunately exist in that particular region — are of concern to us and that's why we are upping our focus on the changing threat — changing threats that we're facing today."
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bp91bazCYAAvrSm.png)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 13, 2014, 08:14:15 AM
It is too late. The best we can do now is nothing. Shortly... forces from Iran will stream across the border. The ISIS and Shia forces will begin a meat grinder civil/religious war that will pale in comparison to Syria.
I have a different take this is where Iraq learns what freedom takes. We can help air support and such like France helped the birth of our country. Now can Iraq do it? most can't
However the ISIS is not built for the long haul they may be able to storm in but that is it unless they take Bagdad.
(http://humboldtsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/GB-mission-accomplished.jpg)
Quote from: JeffreyS on June 13, 2014, 10:17:34 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 13, 2014, 08:14:15 AM
It is too late. The best we can do now is nothing. Shortly... forces from Iran will stream across the border. The ISIS and Shia forces will begin a meat grinder civil/religious war that will pale in comparison to Syria.
I have a different take this is where Iraq learns what freedom takes. We can help air support and such like France helped the birth of our country. Now can Iraq do it? most can't
However the ISIS is not built for the long haul they may be able to storm in but that is it unless they take Bagdad.
An optimistic view... to be sure. We gave them a relatively stable country(free of saddam, uday, qusay and the rest)... they had free elections... we trained their military. And now their uniforms and weapons lay abandoned to be picked up by this Islamic fundamentalist mob. The Sunni and Shia (with a Kurd sideshow) now has their battlefield.
Let Allah sort em out...
Quote from: stephendare on June 13, 2014, 10:03:23 AM
Quote from: NotNow on June 13, 2014, 10:00:49 AM
Quote from: stephendare on June 13, 2014, 09:46:35 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 13, 2014, 08:14:15 AM
It is too late. The best we can do now is nothing. Shortly... forces from Iran will stream across the border. The ISIS and Shia forces will begin a meat grinder civil/religious war that will pale in comparison to Syria.
And how exactly did this area destabilize again?
I heard it was a youtube video.
Considering your information sources, Im not surprised.
But you know, when you guys insisted that we invade the country that had literally nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, this was kind of the outcome that most people who were actually aware of the Middle East were warning against.
After all, there was a reason why we originally funded and backed Saddam Hussein in the first place.
Interesting analysis. Based on nothing but political ass covering, but interesting anyway. The military action in Iraq was supported by all of our elected representatives and a majority of the American people. Saddam Hussein made his own undoing, by his actions in the invasion of Kuwait and multiple criminal actions by his government in the years following. Your selective memory is not uncommon, however, as many Democrats have forgotten how they voted.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/reminder-biden-supported-iraq-war-2002_654352.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm
Your sudden Saddam Hussein fanboy status is noted though.
For those with a selective memory:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/13/flashbacks-obama-and-biden-laud-iraqs-stability/
If your going to take credit, then be prepared (and mature enough) to take responsibility.
Of course, none of this political ass covering offers any solution for the current debacle in Iraq. Much like StephenDare!'s struggle to place blame, I don't see any leadership from President Obama either. And to think some are asking "And how exactly did this area destabilize again?"
Quote from: stephendare on June 13, 2014, 10:13:41 AM
Quote from: Jameson on June 13, 2014, 10:12:26 AM
Wow...
State Dept: Terrorist Group's Presence in Syria and Iraq 'Entirely Different Situations'
'There are different coalitions and different factions'
June 11, 2014 4:47 pm
In the view of the State Department, the actions of militant group the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Syria and Iraq are "entirely different situations."
At a briefing Wednesday, a reporter asked State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki to reconcile the United States' cautious position on intervening in Syria, where ISIL is active, with its recent declared support of Iraq in fighting ISIL. "But you're not making a distinction, are you, between the group's activities in Iraq and the group's activities in Syria? I mean, they're just as deadly to the Syrian people as the Iraqi people, and they're going back and forth across the border."
"Well," Psaki responded, "they're entirely different situations."
Psaki claimed that there have been "many different conflicting reports" about ISIL in Syria and Iraq, and "there are different coalitions and different factions."
"They claim to be one and the same," a reporter countered.
"But regardless," Psaki said, "any threat, any terrorist threat — there are many that unfortunately exist in that particular region — are of concern to us and that's why we are upping our focus on the changing threat — changing threats that we're facing today."
Jameson, have you paid any attention, at all, to the past thirty years of American Policy in the middle east?
Did you even
read the article? For God's sake, it is a glaring example and indictment of the Obama administrations incompetence. Does anybody know what's been going on in Iraq for the last
two years? Does anyone in our government have a plan for what to do now? Those are the pertinent questions.
Quote from: stephendare on June 13, 2014, 11:45:24 AM
watch the video, nn.
It will save lots of embarrassment for you later.
Quote from: stephendare on June 13, 2014, 10:37:13 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/13/rachel-maddow-iraq-attack_n_5491463.html
This is probably the most succinct and informative commentary out there.
Who should be embarrassed now? The administration was warned over and over of the dangers of abandoning our position in Iraq. Yet now you guys want to blame any one else. Your not just blaming Bush, your blaming the British for God's sake. This is like dealing with elementary school children.
I am not calling for reengaging in Iraq. I have asked for analysis and opinion. Personally, I think if the President wants to fight with the Iranians against our equipment he should draft people like you to do it with.
finger pointing... doesn't it get sore?? ;D This was going to happen no matter what... ask Qaddafi... or Assad... or the former rulers of Egypt. It is soon going to happen to Jordan... Kuwait... Bahrain. Of course Israel will get swept in. I think they like killing each other and are just mad at Jews and westerners for getting in their way.
Time to get out of the way...
Quote from: stephendare on June 13, 2014, 12:26:20 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 13, 2014, 12:23:15 PM
finger pointing... doesn't it get sore?? ;D This was going to happen no matter what... ask Qaddafi... or Assad... or the former rulers of Egypt. It is soon going to happen to Jordan... Kuwait... Bahrain. Of course Israel will get swept in. I think they like killing each other and are just mad at Jews and westerners for getting in their way.
Time to get out of the way...
ah. so after years of calling everyone else names and assuring that the invasion of a sovereign country was a good idea, now when its time to face up to the gruesome reality, you think its 'finger pointing' when people interrupt your fingerprinting to point out how we got here in the first place?
Ok. Sure. Its all that terrible Obama's fault.
he should never have invaded iraq and acted like such an idiot in the first place, right?
As it happens, I think he's going to launch the first real robot war on this one.
As usual... you finger is misdirected. it really should be pointed directly at the French and Brits for creating this mess to begin with.
Quote from: stephendare on June 13, 2014, 11:55:30 AM
Quote from: NotNow on June 13, 2014, 11:51:50 AM
Quote from: stephendare on June 13, 2014, 11:45:24 AM
watch the video, nn.
It will save lots of embarrassment for you later.
Quote from: stephendare on June 13, 2014, 10:37:13 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/13/rachel-maddow-iraq-attack_n_5491463.html
This is probably the most succinct and informative commentary out there.
Who should be embarrassed now? The administration was warned over and over of the dangers of abandoning our position in Iraq. Yet now you guys want to blame any one else. Your not just blaming Bush, your blaming the British for God's sake. This is like dealing with elementary school children.
I am not calling for reengaging in Iraq. I have asked for analysis and opinion. Personally, I think if the President wants to fight with the Iranians against our equipment he should draft people like you to do it with.
yes. you cheered this war, you claimed to have 'inside knowledge' that there really were WMDs in Iraq, you pledged that NO AMOUNT OF DEBT was too much in order to pursue this, and yet you were completely wrong.
This was the outcome that literally the rest of the world assured you would happen when you took out the strong man and brought al qaeda into the area, and propped up Iran, making it the strongest power in the region, and scoffed at the idea that Sunnis and Shias simply did not get along.
And why was it that you cheered for those things to happen again?
How many more decades did you want America to squat in Iraq exactly?
You took out the only secular government in the middle east and replaced it with anarchy.
Congratulations, you wanted this, now you have it.
As usual, you are "misrepresenting the truth".
I have never "cheered" war. Having actually seen it, I know how horrible it really is. Yet, I understand that it is sometimes necessary:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)
I have never "claimed" anything. The Iraqi Army deployed poison gas against its own people. I provided documentation about the uranium that was found and shipped out of Iraq. That is not speculation, that is fact.
The rest of the world was largely in the fight with us. The majority of Congress, including democrats like Biden and Clinton included, approved the Iraq War Resolution. The majority of the American public agreed. Despite your recent affection for Saddam Hussein, he was a widely despised war criminal. Our elected government made the decision to fight rather than endure the continuing problems from the Hussein government.
I hope that you were comfortable when you wrongly accused US troops of war crimes. I hope you were comfortable when you made fun of my friends who were injured. You felt no qualms when you called our leaders horrible names and passed on every rumor and mistruth that you could to further your political agenda.
I assume that you are in a comfortable chair right now, blaming me and others for the foreign policy disaster that is taking place in Iraq. Two years ago Obama, Biden, and you were claiming a "great victory for the administration". Now, with Iraq "suddenly" in danger of falling to an Islamist Jihadi group that your great leader armed and financed, you feel a great urge to blame those of us that removed the threat of Hussein and stabilized that country for all groups there. The fact is that your great leader failed to negotiate a status of forces agreement. His administration either ignored the danger caused by these jihadi's or was incompetent in dealing with them. His administration either ignored the situation on the ground in Iraq (a two year struggle) or was just incompetent in recognizing it.
I'll be curious to see your spin when your great leader commits forces to this debacle that he, and people like you, have created. But of course, either way, you will remain comfortable in whatever hole you write this drivel from.
I want nothing more to do with Iraq. I have done my part. I have lost too many friends and listened to too may "citizens" like you and Rachel Maddow insult the memory of those that protect your sorry behinds.
Quote from: stephendare on June 13, 2014, 12:35:13 PM
Front Page today in Germany:
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1853134/thumbs/o-NEWSPAPER-IRAQ-570.jpg?6)
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/12/watch-joe-biden-call-iraq-one-of-the-great-achievements-of-this-administration/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/21/president-obama-has-ended-war-iraq
Traitor? I had a few other descriptions in mind. I'm glad to see that you still understand at least the meaning of the word "moral".
Meanwhile, as world events continue to make the US more and more irrelevant, the talking point domestically is to "blame Bush".
Quote from: NotNow on June 13, 2014, 12:44:51 PM
The rest of the world was largely in the fight with us. The majority of Congress, including democrats like Biden and Clinton included, approved the Iraq War Resolution. The majority of the American public agreed.
Until it became clear that the Bush administration's case for war was built on lies.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/index.html?_s=PM%253APOLITICS
I haven't found any reference to any of our allies quoting the fight over 'Bush's Lies.' Are the terrorists that are now retaking Iraq doing so because of Bush? Maybe those lies pissed them off so much that now they're going to make someone pay for it? Personally, I don't care if we went to war over illegal Starbucks drink smuggling, these guys have shown that they are deadly and that they wish to kill anyone that disagrees with them. Those kinds of nut cases only understand extreme violence, Bush was willing to hand it to them, and 'Dear Leader' has generally joined the other side. At his toughest, Obama, HAS drawn lines in the sand, but then he runs back in, resets the date, erases the line, and moves it back ½ mile, only to repeat the process.
"I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."
George W. Bush 2007
Quote from: NotNow on June 14, 2014, 08:29:14 PM
"I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."
George W. Bush 2007
Wow spot on. Too bad he is so stupid he could not follow the Obama doctrine. Run away!!
No wrong and obviously wrong. More likely in2007 had we left the Kurds would have controlled the north, Iran would have controlled Baghdad and the Saudis would have controlled the southwest. Yes there would have been some unrest but just like now stability will follow someone will be in power after we are gone. Al Qaeda doesn't govern.
Thousands of lives and billions of dollars in equipment invested in what is probably the most strategically located country in the middle east, now squandered. This was easily predicted. This is a disaster for our interests in the region, not to mention the great human costs suffered by the "governing" of this group. I am greatly saddened to see the deterioration of America's influence and standing in the world. I am sorry to say that I don't see this progression of setbacks to our worldwide national interests stopping anytime soon under our current leadership.
I agree this was easily predicted and there were two ways to avoid it. 1. not go in 2. The Korea solution spend 50 years and counting there.
The decision to go in had already been made. The world has not had a Hussein led Iraq for many years now. We were committed. That commitment has been wasted, lost, due to incompetence (at best). Libya, Egypt, Syria, and antagonizing Israel...this middle east "policy" has been a complete and utter failure. There are serious dangers building from this and we have never been weaker in the region. The President is fund raising and playing golf.
I won't even mention the rest of the world.
The commitment has always been a waste. Iraq is fighting back and they will succeed or fail. We have oil and as much as people want to paint the President as squandering our importance in the world that is just fantasy. We are still the end all be all of economic and military power. Whatever happens in the middle east won't change that. Whatever is going to happen isn't worth the life of even one of our young GIs and I don't think a spike in gas prices is worth one of our soldiers lives either.
Whether one agreed with the initial commitment or not, over four thousand American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars were spent to accomplish a goal in Iraq. Once accomplished, to ignore all warnings and waste that entire commitment is unforgivable.
While I respect your opinion, Libya being largely a terrorist run country is not a fantasy. Egypt struggling with the Muslim Brotherhood in essentially a civil war (with us on the wrong side) is not a fantasy. The Iranian nuclear program continuing unabated is not fantasy. Russian military expansion, the Crimea, and the ongoing efforts of the Russians in the Ukraine is not a fantasy. Chinese military expansion and the bullying of their neighbors in the South China Sea is not fantasy. Russian and Chinese efforts to make the petrodollar a thing of the past is not fantasy. The rise of Muslim extremism in Africa is not fantasy. The fall of Northern Iraq to a terrorist group is not fantasy. The only real fantasy is the idea that our government is capable of dealing with any of this.
In the same vein, it is important to look to the future in this case. Essentially, Obama has signaled his decision when he delayed any decision and went to California for fund raising and golf. I pray that this "no-decision" won't come back to haunt us, but every indication is that it will.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/06/isis-chief-to-usa-soon-we-will-be-in-direct-confrontation-and-the-sons-of-islam-have-prepared-for-such-a-day
Quote from: Ocklawaha on June 14, 2014, 04:14:55 PM
I haven't found any reference to any of our allies quoting the fight over 'Bush's Lies.'
You must not have looked very hard.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1348462/Iraq-war-Chilcot-Inquiry-New-evidence-bury-Tony-Blair-lies.html
The reality is that Northern Iraq has already been lost. ISIS is a well equipped, well organized force now, thanks largely to our government. It is "doom", it is the current situation. I hope the Iraqi government can hold Baghdad. We are not "teaming" with Iran. We are giving money and equipment to almost anyone. Iran is building a new position in Shia Iraq. The map will look very different soon. A far cry from the position we were in when President Bush ("oaf" in your lexicon) left office. Be as crude as you want, spin however you want. This stands as a major foreign policy disaster in a long line of Obama foreign policy disasters.
Yes a much different position our troops are no longer dying in Iraq.
Quote from: JeffreyS on June 15, 2014, 04:45:26 PM
Yes a much different position our troops are no longer dying in Iraq.
Let's see how if works out. I hope you don't have to regret those words.
http://robjonesforpresident.com/
Let's see... the Barbarians at the gate of our billion dollar embassy, bought with not only treasure but the blood of our military... are "freedom fighters" from Syria, which as memory serves were armed by our CIA in violation of law at the president's direction.
They are led by a guy that was in US custody until Obama took office.
Our embassy hasn't been evacuated, because "it is too politically sensitive" (ie – it'd make Obama look bad). Besides, despite the fact this is Iraq, and this takeover has been in progress all year, we apparently didn't have any contingency plans for such an eventuality.
We have no military force in the country to defend them except the embassy guard, because Obama was in a hurry to exit. He sent Biden, a semi-competent on his best day, to secure a status of forces agreement allowing a residual force, and he failed. Obama exited anyway.
But we can't put fresh boots on the ground to protect them because that too would make Obama look bad, since someone claimed we won already the war on terror (ie – bin laden is dead and al qaida is on the run").
So now we are largely left trusting the locals to protect our diplomats for us, because that strategy worked so well in Benghazi.
Our choices if Malaki loses will either look like the fall of Saigon at best... or Benghazi mixed with the Iran Hostage crisis at worst... except this foe is known for sharing vivid execution videos on the net. Did I miss anything?
Meanwhile... the US southern border is under siege and overwhelmed, the IRS is defying subpoenas with excuses that sound like "the dog ate my emails", nobody has been fired despite the VA fraud that has cost lives...
... and the Commander in Chief spent the weekend golfing and fundraising.
Conclusion: This is all the fault of George Bush.
___________________________
>:(
Your conclusion is correct.
Quote from: JeffreyS on June 14, 2014, 11:21:50 PM
I agree this was easily predicted and there were two ways to avoid it. 1. not go in 2. The Korea solution spend 50 years and counting there.
Because Bush chose to ignore number 1.
I guess it is Obama's fault that we aren't engaging in number 2.
Hmmm....are you sure? I think that we are in number 2 right now. ;)
You make a good point I am not sure.
"W" has been silent so far... Here is what Tony Blair has to say... Pretty interesting.
Some excerpts...
QuoteHowever there is also no doubt that a major proximate cause of the takeover of Mosul by Isis is the situation in Syria. To argue otherwise is wilful. The operation in Mosul was planned and organised from Raqqa across the Syria border. The fighters were trained and battle-hardened in the Syrian war. It is true that they originate in Iraq and have shifted focus to Iraq over the past months. But, Islamist extremism in all its different manifestations as a group, rebuilt refinanced and re-armed mainly as a result of its ability to grow and gain experience through the war in Syria.
QuoteIs it seriously being said that the revolution sweeping the Arab world would have hit Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, to say nothing of the smaller upheavals all over the region, but miraculously Iraq, under the most brutal and tyrannical of all the regimes, would have been an oasis of calm?
QuoteThe problems of the Middle East are the product of bad systems of politics mixed with a bad abuse of religion going back over a long time. Poor governance, weak institutions, oppressive rule and a failure within parts of Islam to work out a sensible relationship between religion and Government have combined to create countries which are simply unprepared for the modern world. Put into that mix, young populations with no effective job opportunities and education systems that do not correspond to the requirements of the future economy, and you have a toxic, inherently unstable matrix of factors that was always – repeat always - going to lead to a revolution.
QuoteThis is a generation long struggle. It is not a 'war' which you win or lose in some clear and clean-cut way. There is no easy or painless solution. Intervention is hard. Partial intervention is hard. Non-intervention is hard.
Boris Johnson denounces Tony Blair as 'unhinged' on Iraq
Johnson said Blair and then-US president George Bush had shown "unbelievable arrogance" to believe toppling Saddam Hussein would not result in instability which resulted directly to the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis and hundreds of British and American troops
He suggested there were "specific and targeted" actions that could be taken by the US and its allies to deal with latest threat – as Barack Obama considers a range of military options short of ground troops.
But he said that by refusing to accept that the 2003 war was "a tragic mistake", "Blair is now undermining the very cause he advocates: the possibility of serious and effective intervention.
"Somebody needs to get on to Tony Blair and tell him to put a sock in it, or at least to accept the reality of the disaster he helped to engender. Then he might be worth hearing," Johnson concluded.
Clare Short, who quit Blair's cabinet in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, said he had been "absolutely, consistently wrong, wrong, wrong" on the issue, and opposed more strikes.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/15/boris-johnson-unhinged-tony-blair
Its uncanny... finger pointing and name calling... ::)
So I have a question:
Quote from: NotNow on June 13, 2014, 12:44:51 PM
The fact is that your great leader failed to negotiate a status of forces agreement.
Minus the snark of 'dear leader' (which is disrespectful to the Office, btw, but I digress), why would Obama negotiate a new SOFA, after the SOFA that Bush signed in 2009 to have all American combatant forces out of the country by 2011 had run its course?
Why leave and
then do a new SOFA? Could you elaborate?
Quote from: NotNow on June 13, 2014, 12:44:51 PM
I'll be curious to see your spin when your great leader commits forces to this debacle that he, and people like you, have created.
Which debacle? Invading a sovereign country on what later became false pretenses? Or adhering to a SOFA enacted by a previous administration mandating your Armed Forces leave said country? How is abiding by treaty stipulations a debacle?
Quote from: Doctor_K on June 16, 2014, 02:30:55 PM
So I have a question:
Quote from: NotNow on June 13, 2014, 12:44:51 PM
The fact is that your great leader failed to negotiate a status of forces agreement.
Minus the snark of 'dear leader' (which is disrespectful to the Office, btw, but I digress), why would Obama negotiate a new SOFA, after the SOFA that Bush signed in 2009 to have all American combatant forces out of the country by 2011 had run its course?
Why leave and then do a new SOFA? Could you elaborate?
You are right. "dear leader" is disrespectful to the office. I apologize. SOFA's are renegotiated all of the time. It was common knowledge at the time that the 2008 SOFA agreement stipulation of withdrawal was for internal political reasons in Iraq. Everyone knew that the SOFA was going to be renegotiated. The Obama/Biden team just didn't get it done. It was a big story at the time, remember?
Quote from: NotNow on June 13, 2014, 12:44:51 PM
I'll be curious to see your spin when your great leader commits forces to this debacle that he, and people like you, have created.
Which debacle? Invading a sovereign country on what later became false pretenses? Or adhering to a SOFA enacted by a previous administration mandating your Armed Forces leave said country? How is abiding by treaty stipulations a debacle?
The Iraq Resolution of 2002 (per Wikipedia):
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
-Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
-Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
-Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
-Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
-Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
-Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
-Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
-Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
-The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
-The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
-The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
_________________________________
That resolution was passed by Congress and enacted on October 16th, 2002. False pretenses?
The debacle is the loss of at least Northern Iraq and the huge investment made by this country in lives and treasure. The Obama administration simply ignored wiser advise and failed to negotiate a new agreement. The US has provided hundreds of billions of dollars to the government of Iraq. We had the leverage to negotiate a new agreement, we just didn't use it.
Every President is dealt a deck of cards. You don't pick the cards you get, you play your hand when your turn comes around. President Obama chose to pull out of Iraq. He chose to arm and train the ISIS fighters. I have walked you to water.
6 REASONS OBAMA LOST IRAQ
As hundreds of thousands flee before the onrushing Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terrorist army, media defenders of the Obama administration are rushing to prop up the ailing Obama foreign policy.
"Who lost Iraq?" writes the Washington Post's Fareed Zakaria. "Whenever America has asked this question – as it did with China in the 1950s or Vietnam in the 1970s – the most important point to remember is: the local rulers did." Joy Reid of MSNBC blamed former President George W. Bush by implication: "it's this unpleasant recent history that helped set the stage for the bloody events that we're seeing in Iraq right now." And Democratic Governor of Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee went after Bush directly: "These neocons [neo-conservatives] all through the '90s were talking the importance of regime change in Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, the strongman. I just didn't understand stirring up the hornets' nest that is the Middle East. It just never made any sense to me, and now we're seeing some of the ramifications of having deviated from our Cold War containment strategy."
The reality, however, is that neither weak local rulership nor the rationale for the Iraq war in 2003 explains just why the country has fallen back into chaos. After all, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been in power since 2006; he has been incompetent and corrupt since day one. President Obama's attempt to suggest that only tremendous leadership by al-Maliki can achieve victory is a plausible way of punting. And Bush has been out of office since 2008.
Nor was Iraq unwinnable. The same pundits who state that Vietnam and China were unwinnable wars forget that by 1973, Vietnam had been won, and that Mao had been defeated long before World War II, but was brought back into the fold by the United States in the aftermath of the defeat of Japan. United States foreign policy matters.
President Obama is responsible for the collapse of security in Iraq. Here are the six top reasons why.
Pulling Troops Out of Iraq After The War Was Won Left a Power Vacuum. By 2008, President Bush's surge in forces had achieved large-scale security in Iraq. In November of 2006, 3,475 Iraqis died in battle and 69 Americans were killed as well; that number was down to 500 and 12, respectively, by November 2008. Violence in Anbar province had dropped 90 percent. As leftist Peter Beinart wrote in 2009 in the Washington Post, "if Iraq overall represents a massive stain on Bush's record, his decision to increase America's troop presence in late 2006 now looks like his finest hour."
In 2008, the Bush administration negotiated a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government that would remove troops by the end of 2011. Bush signed that agreement in anticipation of Obama's entry to the White House. Sure enough, Obama then failed to sign a renewed status of forces agreement. According to David Filkens of the New Yorker:
[E]very single senior political leader, no matter what party or what group, including Maliki, said to them privately, we want you to stay. We don't want you to fight. We don't want combat troops. We don't want Americans getting killed, but we want 10,000 American troops inside the Green Zone training our army, giving us intelligence, playing that crucial role as the broker and interlocutor that makes our system work. We want you to stay.
Filkens told NPR that James Jeffrey, an American ambassador, said he "got no guidance from the White House."
Now there is no stabilization force in Iraq. And with an ISIS force that is merely hundreds large, according to some reports, rushing through Iraq with impunity, it is difficult to argue that even a minor force wouldn't have made a difference.
Pulling Troops Out of Iraq Allowed Al-Maliki's Sectarianism to Dominate. Al-Maliki was, as noted, always a disaster area. But America's presence prevented him from using his power to dominate the Sunni minority in Iraq and forge close ties with Iran. Filkins points out, "Time and again, American commanders have told me, they stepped in front of Maliki to stop him from acting brutally and arbitrarily toward Iraq's Sunni minority." Then, he writes, "the Americans left," and everything went to hell in a handbasket:
In the two and a half years since the Americans' departure, Maliki has centralized power within his own circle, cut the Sunnis out of political power, and unleashed a wave of arrests and repression. Maliki's march to authoritarian rule has fueled the re-emergence of the Sunni insurgency directly. With nowhere else to go, Iraq's Sunnis are turning, once again, to the extremists to protect them.
The Leader of ISIS Was Released by The Obama Administration. Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, leader of ISIS, was in US custody in Camp Bucca, in Iraq. He was released in 2009 when the US shut down the camp in anticipation of the end of US presence in the country.
Enabling Iran. Al-Maliki has turned to Iran in this crisis. And why not? The United States is nowhere to be found, and al-Maliki's radical anti-Sunni policies make him a popular man with the mullahs. Not only that – President Obama has surrendered all pretense at holding Iran accountable throughout his tenure, from abandoning the Iranian opposition in 2009 to signing an empty-headed nuclear deal with the mullahs last year to leaving Iranian-backed Syrian dictator Bashar Assad untouched after Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Iran is now the regional power. Which means that Iraq itself will now become a proxy war in which America loses either way: either ISIS wins, or the Iranians do.
Contributing to Syrian Chaos. Focusing on Israel instead of Syria, then arming the Syrian opposition while refusing to do anything after Bashar Assad's gassing of civilians, President Obama has contributed to a chaotic situation that facilitated ISIS' rise in Syria. ISIS plays both sides of the aisle. On the one hand, they want to break away from Assad's regime; on the other hand, they are saving their ammunition for use against erstwhile allies who don't want an Islamist state.
ISIS began working in Syria in 2009 as an anti-Assad, al Qaeda-associated rebel faction. A few years later, the Obama administration began shipping arms into the country. One of the great concerns with the situation in Syria has always been the capacity for weaponry to fall into the wrong hands. While the Obama administration has claimed that it has the perfect ability to follow the weaponry, that is doubtful at best – and ISIS has been seizing warehouses of weapons.
Now the Obama administration, including President Obama, claims that it is busily vetting the Syrian opposition to which America has shipped arms. On Sunday, National Security Advisor Susan Rice explained, "the United States has ramped up its support for the moderate vetted opposition, providing lethal and non-lethal support where we can to support both the civilian opposition and the military opposition." Meanwhile, ISIS is grabbing US humvees in Iraq itself.
Caving All Over The World. Ukraine. Afghanistan. The Palestinian Authority. Fear of the United States is passé, because there is simply nothing to fear. ISIS knows this; so do the Iranians. The only true fear is the fear of our allies, who now know better than to trust a United States that will abandon them at the worst possible time.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/06/13/6-reasons-Obama-lost-Iraq
It's not lost it was never ours. I love our conservatives say leave Americans to handle their problems alone but think big government and our soldiers dying for Iraq is a great idea.
Quote from: stephendare on June 16, 2014, 08:27:02 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/pT7Ik_X1HU0
and by the way, breitbart? Really? James O Keefe's home away from home?
Its about as credible as talking to Alex Jones about Chinese domestic policy under Mao.
Sooo, question the source but not the facts huh? James O Keefe has done a great job as an amateur journalist. You would do well to emulate him. And I don't question your often inaccurate, biased sources, I just prove them wrong.
StephenDare!,
The decision to invade Iraq for the second time was authorized by the Iraq Resolution, enacted by Congress in 2002. I WAS a major undertaking, but successfully accomplished its stated objectives. President Obama inherited an Iraq with an elected government that had problems with corruption and a small insurgency largely encouraged by sunni's who were out of power or financed from outside Iraq. President Obama claimed a pacified and democratic Iraq as one of his administrations "premier accomplishments". Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the same claim as a great accomplishment of her time as Secretary. This is the administration that decided to completely leave Iraq militarily. Many warned against this. This administration trained and armed the muslim revolutionaries in Syria. The same fighters that are in Iraq today. The Obama administration released the leader of the ISIS force. While I have become accustomed to any amount of incredulous spin from you, I would have much more respect for this President if he would actually take responsibility for his own actions and those of his staff.
I know there is this burning desire to get our Men and Women in harms way but less compare policy for some of the places where the hawks want our Young GIs.
Afganistan over 2000 dead
Iraq over 4500 dead
Seria Zero
Libia Zero
Egypt Zero
I like the Obama policy better.
Quote from: stephendare on June 16, 2014, 10:23:12 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 16, 2014, 09:45:56 PM
StephenDare!,
The decision to invade Iraq for the second time was authorized by the Iraq Resolution, enacted by Congress in 2002. I WAS a major undertaking, but successfully accomplished its stated objectives. President Obama inherited an Iraq with an elected government that had problems with corruption and a small insurgency largely encouraged by sunni's who were out of power or financed from outside Iraq. President Obama claimed a pacified and democratic Iraq as one of his administrations "premier accomplishments". Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the same claim as a great accomplishment of her time as Secretary. This is the administration that decided to completely leave Iraq militarily. Many warned against this. This administration trained and armed the muslim revolutionaries in Syria. The same fighters that are in Iraq today. The Obama administration released the leader of the ISIS force. While I have become accustomed to any amount of incredulous spin from you, I would have much more respect for this President if he would actually take responsibility for his own actions and those of his staff.
you are just so full of it.
And I think that you might as well sit tight and stop predicting doom.
I am not predicting doom. Doom has already happened. The only things likely to happen from here are bad. Our (US) options are extremely limited at this point.
I have relayed the facts. If that makes me "full of it" then so be it. You might try embracing TRUTH for a change.
Quote from: JeffreyS on June 16, 2014, 10:35:39 PM
I know there is this burning desire to get our Men and Women in harms way but less compare policy for some of the places where the hawks want our Young GIs.
Afganistan over 2000 dead
Iraq over 4500 dead
Seria Zero
Libia Zero
Egypt Zero
I like the Obama policy better.
I have no desire to put anyone in harm's way. I am simply pointing out the massive incompetence to let years of American lives and treasure slip away. This is a massive error in an administration with a long record of errors. The decision on whether to oppose ISIS militarily rests with President Obama.
The only thing obvious to me is that no matter what Obama does, American lives will be lost due to this incredible incompetence. The thought that the job of minimizing those losses rest with this bunch of boobs just scares me to death.
Oh, you might change that Libya number to "four".
Quote from: stephendare on June 16, 2014, 10:50:42 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 16, 2014, 10:44:22 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 16, 2014, 10:23:12 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 16, 2014, 09:45:56 PM
StephenDare!,
The decision to invade Iraq for the second time was authorized by the Iraq Resolution, enacted by Congress in 2002. I WAS a major undertaking, but successfully accomplished its stated objectives. President Obama inherited an Iraq with an elected government that had problems with corruption and a small insurgency largely encouraged by sunni's who were out of power or financed from outside Iraq. President Obama claimed a pacified and democratic Iraq as one of his administrations "premier accomplishments". Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the same claim as a great accomplishment of her time as Secretary. This is the administration that decided to completely leave Iraq militarily. Many warned against this. This administration trained and armed the muslim revolutionaries in Syria. The same fighters that are in Iraq today. The Obama administration released the leader of the ISIS force. While I have become accustomed to any amount of incredulous spin from you, I would have much more respect for this President if he would actually take responsibility for his own actions and those of his staff.
you are just so full of it.
And I think that you might as well sit tight and stop predicting doom.
I am not predicting doom. Doom has already happened. The only things likely to happen from here are bad. Our (US) options are extremely limited at this point.
I have relayed the facts. If that makes me "full of it" then so be it. You might try embracing TRUTH for a change.
So there is an insurgency in Iraq, and thats doom for the US??
well ok.
Have it your way. In the meantime, an actual terrorist group has just gathered all of its soldiers and combatants into a cohesive, easily identified group and committed the kind of atrocities that have united almost the entire Middle East against them.
How exactly do you imagine that will turn out?
The loss of literally billions of dollars in equipment, hundreds or thousands dead, the loss of Northern Iraq and its industry, and the loss of billions of dollars in infrastructure rebuilt by the US qualifies as BAD for us StephenDare!. If the current Iraqi government cannot defend Baghdad, which is likely at this point, then at least double the loss in all of those areas.
How will it turn out? That depends on the decisions of about five different men. Do you really think the entire middle east is against this group?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/06/12/iraq_mosul_isis_sunni_shiite_divide_iran_saudi_arabia_syria
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html
Quote from: stephendare on June 16, 2014, 10:54:55 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 16, 2014, 10:51:35 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on June 16, 2014, 10:35:39 PM
I know there is this burning desire to get our Men and Women in harms way but less compare policy for some of the places where the hawks want our Young GIs.
Afganistan over 2000 dead
Iraq over 4500 dead
Seria Zero
Libia Zero
Egypt Zero
I like the Obama policy better.
I have no desire to put anyone in harm's way. I am simply pointing out the massive incompetence to let years of American lives and treasure slip away. This is a massive error in an administration with a long record of errors. The decision on whether to oppose ISIS militarily rests with President Obama.
The only thing obvious to me is that no matter what Obama does, American lives will be lost due to this incredible incompetence. The thought that the job of minimizing those losses rest with this bunch of boobs just scares me to death.
Oh, you might change that Libya number to "four".
so are you still claiming that those weapons of mass destruction are still there?
Or that the sunni rebels have acquired both an H bomb and the method of delivering it?
1. The ISIS forces are dedicated enemies of the US and will not hesitate to take American lives when they can. If they can create the caliphate that they desire, it will be a base of operations for anti US operations. They have told us that. The threat cannot be denied.
2. The sunni rebels have modern stinger missiles. They shot down an Iraqi Army helicopter today with one. Does that concern you? Does the mass murder of Iraqi prisoners concern you? Does even the possibility of our largest diplomatic mission in the world being captured by these terrorists concern you? Do the lives of the tens of thousands in Baghdad who cooperated with the US in the establishment of a democracy in Iraq concern you?
Once again, in your haste to sound snarky, you reveal your ignorance of the losses, risks, and dangers of the current situation in Iraq and Syria.
If you would like to know what the "mission" was, look back to my post on the Iraq Resolution or just google it. Educate yourself. I'm not sure how to address the rest of your post. If you don't understand the loss of equipment, Iraqi lives and freedom, and the rebuilt infrastructure of the country, then it is beyond me to make you get it. I know when to stop talking to a brick wall.
Do you have any idea of when the last use of a "weapon of mass destruction" was used and who used it?
Quote from: stephendare on June 16, 2014, 11:26:56 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 16, 2014, 11:21:28 PM
If you would like to know what the "mission" was, look back to my post on the Iraq Resolution or just google it. Educate yourself. I'm not sure how to address the rest of your post. If you don't understand the loss of equipment, Iraqi lives and freedom, and the rebuilt infrastructure of the country, then it is beyond me to make you get it. I know when to stop talking to a brick wall.
Do you have any idea of when the last use of a "weapon of mass destruction" was used and who used it?
So it was a bad idea to build the largest embassy in the world in the middle of a country fighting a civil war?
I think it was a bad idea to militarily abandon a country that was not yet stable after investing over four thousand lives and hundreds of billions of dollars there.
It seems like when this was pointed out to you, you said that such ideas were a little too liberal for your tastes.
Building an embassy? Please reprint when you said that was wrong and when I said that building an embassy was "a little too liberal". Of course, like most of your drivel, it doesn't exist.
you seem the think that the Shia majority of the country isn't going to defend themselves.
I seem to think that they have done a crappy job so far this month.
Seriously. You do realize that shooting all those prisoners and beheading has spread like wildfire over the muslim social media, right?
Yep. So have all of the beheadings over the years by AQ. Seriously, do you think that there will be some "middle east coalition" that will fight these terrorist? The Iranians are the only ones willing to send forces so far, but they have their own agenda.
Or do you think that they are all children and can't be trusted? Because you know....
No. I don't know. What are you trying to say? Speak up if you have something to say.
What does it take for the US to be considering cooperating with Iran, as Republican Lindsay Graham is demanding?
That would put Graham with Kerry on the "dumb idea of the month club".
Or haven't you thought this one through?
Have you?
See, this is why Obama was able to actually locate and kill Osama, and your boys ended up abandoning the goal pretty much altogether. Even with torture-----which you advocated.
Yeah, OK...you actually believe that? I'll stick with crediting the teams that worked for years to locate and kill OBL. I'll give credit to Obama for the balls it took to OK the flight into Pakistan.
And you still don't know squat about "torture" . I advocate winning wars...and living. What has happened in Iraq this month has not contributed to either. Tell these guys about how upset you are that three US prisoners were made "uncomfortable".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/15/militants-iraq_n_5496248.html
Quote from: NotNow on June 16, 2014, 10:51:35 PM
I am simply pointing out the massive incompetence to let years of American lives and treasure slip away. This is a massive error in an administration with a long record of errors.
Well at least you finally admit the Bush/Cheney junta was a disaster for the United States.
What do you do with near-clinical fanatics who, in their own minds, never make mistakes and whose worldview remains intact even after it has been empirically dismantled in front of their eyes? In real life, you try and get them to get professional help.
In the case of those who only recently sent thousands of American servicemembers to their deaths in a utopian scheme to foment a democracy in a sectarian dictatorship, we have to merely endure their gall in even appearing in front of the cameras. But the extent of their pathology is deeper than one might expect. And so there is actually a seminar this fall, sponsored by the Hertog Foundation, which explores the origins of the terrible decision-making that led us into the worst foreign policy mistake since Vietnam. And the fair and balanced teaching team?
QuoteIt will be led by Paul D. Wolfowitz, who served during the Persian Gulf War as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and as Deputy Secretary of Defense during the first years of the Iraq War, and by Lewis Libby, who served during the first war as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and during the Iraq War as Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Next spring: how the Iraq War spread human rights ... by Donald Rumsfeld.
Most people are aware that relatively few of the architects of a war have fully acknowledged the extent of their error – let alone express remorse or even shame at the more than a hundred thousands civilian deaths their adventure incurred for a phony reason. No, all this time, they have been giving each other awards, lecturing congressmen and Senators, writing pieces in the Weekly Standard and the New Republic, being fellated by David Gregory, and sucking at the teet of the neocon welfare state, as if they had nothing to answer for, and nothing to explain.
Which, I suppose makes the following paragraph in Bill Kristol's latest case for war less shocking than it should be:
QuoteNow is not the time to re-litigate either the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 or the decision to withdraw from it in 2011. The crisis is urgent, and it would be useful to focus on a path ahead rather than indulge in recriminations. All paths are now fraught with difficulties, including the path we recommend. But the alternatives of permitting a victory for al Qaeda and/or strengthening Iran would be disastrous.
But it is shocking; it is, in fact, an outrage, a shameless, disgusting abdication of all responsibility for the past combined with a sickening argument to do exactly the same fricking thing all over again. And yes, I'm not imagining. This is what these true know-nothing/learn-nothing fanatics want the US to do:
QuoteIt would mean not merely conducting U.S. air strikes, but also accompanying those strikes with special operators, and perhaps regular U.S. military units, on the ground. This is the only chance we have to persuade Iraq's Sunni Arabs that they have an alternative to joining up with al Qaeda or being at the mercy of government-backed and Iranian-backed death squads, and that we have not thrown in with the Iranians. It is also the only way to regain influence with the Iraqi government and to stabilize the Iraqi Security Forces on terms that would allow us to demand the demobilization of Shi'a militias and to move to limit Iranian influence and to create bargaining chips with Iran to insist on the withdrawal of their forces if and when the situation stabilizes.
What's staggering is the maximalism of their goals and the lies they are insinuating into the discourse now, just as they did before.
Last time, you could ascribe it to fathomless ignorance. This time, they have no excuse. ISIS is not al Qaeda; it's far worse in ways that even al Qaeda has noted undermine its cause rather than strengthen it. It may be strategically way over its head already. And the idea that the US has to fight both ISIS and Iran simultaneously is so unhinged and so self-evidently impossible to contain or control that only these feckless fools would even begin to suggest it. Having empowered Iran by dismantling Iraq, Kristol actually wants the US now to enter a live war against ISIS and the Quds forces. You begin to see how every military catastrophe can be used to justify the next catastrophe. It's a perfect circle for the neocons' goal of the unending war.
I don't know what to say about it really. It shocks in its solipsism; stuns in its surrealism; chills in its callousness and recklessness. So perhaps the only response is to republish what this charlatan was saying in 2003 in a tone utterly unchanged from his tone today, with a certainty which was just as faked then as it is now. Read carefully and remember he has recanted not a word of it:
QuoteFebruary 2003 (from his book, "The War Over Iraq"): According to one estimate, initially as many as 75,000 troops may be required to police the war's aftermath, at a cost of $16 billion a year. As other countries' forces arrive, and as Iraq rebuilds its economy and political system, that force could probably be drawn down to several thousand soldiers after a year or two.
February 24, 2003: "Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for the world's sole superpower."
March 5, 2003: "We'll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction."
April 1 2003: "On this issue of the Shia in Iraq, I think there's been a certain amount of, frankly, Terry, a kind of pop sociology in America that, you know, somehow the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."
Yes, "always been very secular". Always. Would you buy a used pamphlet from this man – let alone another full scale war in Iraq?
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/06/16/kristol-meth-2/
Quote from: finehoe on June 17, 2014, 08:44:08 AM
Quote from: NotNow on June 16, 2014, 10:51:35 PM
I am simply pointing out the massive incompetence to let years of American lives and treasure slip away. This is a massive error in an administration with a long record of errors.
Well at least you finally admit the Bush/Cheney junta was a disaster for the United States.
You are really Howard Dean, aren't you? :)
Bush's toxic legacy in Iraq
One of George W. Bush's most toxic legacies is the introduction of al Qaeda into Iraq, which is the ISIS mother ship.
If this wasn't so tragic it would be supremely ironic, because before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, top Bush officials were insisting that there was an al Qaeda-Iraq axis of evil. Their claims that Saddam Hussein's men were training members of al Qaeda how to make weapons of mass destruction seemed to be one of the most compelling rationales for the impending war.
After the fall of Hussein's regime, no documents were unearthed in Iraq proving the Hussein-al Qaeda axis despite the fact that, like other totalitarian regimes, Hussein's government kept massive and meticulous records.
The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency had by 2006 translated 34 million pages of documents from Hussein's Iraq and found there was nothing to substantiate a "partnership" between Hussein and al Qaeda.
Two years later the Pentagon's own internal think tank, the Institute for Defense Analyses, concluded after examining 600,000 Hussein-era documents and several thousand hours of his regime's audio- and videotapes that there was no "smoking gun (i.e. direct connection between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda.)"
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded in 2008, as every other investigation had before, that there was no "cooperative relationship" between Hussein and al Qaeda. The committee also found that "most of the contacts cited between Iraq and al Qaeda before the war by the intelligence community and policy makers have been determined not to have occurred."
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/13/opinion/bergen-iraq-isis-bush/index.html?eref=edition
Quote from: stephendare on June 17, 2014, 10:15:27 AM
topic title changed for accuracy. The original title misidentified the actual insurgency, which is ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant)
Yep, accurate topic titles are important on this site. ;)
Of course it is StephenDare!. We all know what a stickler for accuracy you are. ::)
This may be workable...
(http://cdn4.spiegel.de/images/image-714613-galleryV9-buut.jpg)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 26, 2014, 10:38:52 AM
This may be workable...
(http://cdn4.spiegel.de/images/image-714613-galleryV9-buut.jpg)
They really should come up whit a better name for that eastern region. :o