BlaxicanX wrote: It's almost as if the entire war was a waste of money, effort and lives and we never should have had our asses over there in the first place.
Pretty much this. Aren't there still a handful of troops over there?
A status of forces agreement (SOFA) is an agreement between a host country and a foreign nation stationing military forces in that country. SOFAs are often included, along with other types of military agreements, as part of a comprehensive security arrangement. A SOFA does not constitute a security arrangement; it establishes the rights and privileges of foreign personnel present in a host country in support of the larger security arrangement.[1] Under international law a status of forces agreement differs from military occupation.
If a SOFA Agreement had been done or permitted by the Iraq government then this might have a different outcome.
In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”
US Government is not at fault. Since I sweated some blood and tears in Iraq and had personnel stake in the outcome of Iraq. They can go stuff themselves (Iraq)
Jihadin wrote: You do not remember the thread when US pulled out from Iraq and Whembly hammering its Obama fault for not signing a SOFA Agreement?
Not for signing. The issue was for not pursuing it. The administration made no efforts, they pulled up chalks and bugged out without looking back. Any collapse that will occur that we may have helped to prevent is squarely on their shoulders.
Jihadin wrote: You do not remember the thread when US pulled out from Iraq and Whembly hammering its Obama fault for not signing a SOFA Agreement?
I forget...
Maybe it was the fact that we were in this mess to begin with, we might as well stick through it to ensure our efforts isn't wasted.
But, then again, at some point the Iraqis need to stand on their own two-feet... I was just arguing that the military would make that recommendation, and not just the politicians.
Obama: "Hey, about the SOFA Agreement?"
Iraq: "Um. No."
Obama "But.."
Iraq "We're in control now. Thank you for the money and generators."
Obama "Sure?"
Iraq "Go infidel."
Obama "Tell the military in Iraq they have 30+ days to get everything out."
We're about to have a repeat I think in Afghanistan
Jihadin wrote: Obama: "Hey, about the SOFA Agreement?"
Iraq: "Um. No."
Obama "But.."
Iraq "We're in control now. Thank you for the money and generators."
Obama "Sure?"
Iraq "Go infidel."
Obama "Tell the military in Iraq they have 30+ days to get everything out."
We're about to have a repeat I think in Afghanistan
Jihadin wrote: You do not remember the thread when US pulled out from Iraq and Whembly hammering its Obama fault for not signing a SOFA Agreement?
I do. What I'm saying is, you're calling it the Status Of Forces Agreement Agreement, and it's driving me nuts.
So far as fault, I really can't find any to assign. They didn't want us there, we didn't want to be there, the sooner we're gone the better.
whembly wrote: But, then again, at some point the Iraqis need to stand on their own two-feet... I was just arguing that the military would make that recommendation, and not just the politicians.lol
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the proper role of the military, when it's subservient to our civilian leadership as in the United States.
Whether we go to war, remain at war, fight or surrender, support or withdraw, these are all political decisions, made on a political timetable, not military ones. You've read Starship Troopers, right?
You are being predictably deceptive, Jihadin. The reason Iraq wanted America out is not because they are "infidels", but because America wanted them to be above the law.
The U.S. said repeatedly this year it would entertain an offer from the Iraqis to have a small force stay behind, and the Iraqis said they would like American military help. But as the year wore on and the number of American troops that Washington was suggesting could stay behind dropped, it became increasingly clear that a U.S. troop presence was not a sure thing.
The issue of legal protection for the Americans was the deal-breaker.
Iraqis are still angry over incidents such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal or Haditha, when U.S. troops killed Iraqi civilians in Anbar province, and want American troops subject to Iraqi law.
American commanders don't want to risk having their forces end up in an Iraqi courtroom if they're forced to defend themselves in a still-hostile environment.
A status of forces agreement (SOFA) is an agreement between a host country and a foreign nation stationing military forces in that country. SOFAs are often included, along with other types of military agreements, as part of a comprehensive security arrangement. A SOFA does not constitute a security arrangement; it establishes the rights and privileges of foreign personnel present in a host country in support of the larger security arrangement.[1] Under international law a status of forces agreement differs from military occupation.
Alex, That entails what you are talking about.
South Korea
Japan
Germany
UK Belgium
Italy
Few countries to name a few that the US has a SOFA Agreement with.
Its to protect the Service Member from prosecution of a Foreign Government for any actions that happens while performing missions in Iraq. Opt out an Insurgent. Your squad verifies it was indeed an insurgent but the Iraqi's might not agree and prosecuted under Iraq Judicial system for murder of a Iraqi
When there was that rape of a girl in Japan by Marines (i think) a few years ago, were they prosecuted locally or under UCMJ? The details escape me, I think it was about a decade ago.
Ouze wrote: When there was that rape of a girl in Japan by Marines (i think) a few years ago, were they prosecuted locally or under UCMJ? The details escape me, I think it was about a decade ago.
The SOFA with Japan is weird, I'm not sure of the particulars, but I know of service members serving time in Japanese prisons, and I know of service members who were not handed over to the authorities.
I just made sure to keep myself out of trouble while I was there. People decry our justice system, they should see a Japanese prison...
I just googled it. It was 1995 (man, I'm getting old) and at least in that case, they were handed over for prosecution (and conviction, and imprisonment) before getting a dishonorable.
So it looks like there is some flex between different SOFA's.
And yes, they were not too pleased with Japanese prison, but wiki says they got off light compared with how the UCMJ would have treated them (I don't know what that would have been but Jihadin probably does?)
whembly wrote: But, then again, at some point the Iraqis need to stand on their own two-feet... I was just arguing that the military would make that recommendation, and not just the politicians.lol
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the proper role of the military, when it's subservient to our civilian leadership as in the United States.
Whether we go to war, remain at war, fight or surrender, support or withdraw, these are all political decisions, made on a political timetable, not military ones. You've read Starship Troopers, right?
I'm not saying it sould be like Starship Troopers...
Although... co-ed showers would be a great idea.
I'm saying, this, for the the blood, sweat and tears we spent in this war, was bugging out like that the smart thing to do? You'd think the commanders on the ground can give the politicians what it would take to gracefully exit Iraq and give the Iraqis a fighting chance to survive on their own. Was the question even asked?
whembly wrote: I'm saying, this, for the the blood, sweat and tears we spent in this war, was bugging out like that the smart thing to do? You'd think the commanders on the ground can give the politicians what it would take to gracefully exit Iraq and give the Iraqis a fighting chance to survive on their own. Was the question even asked?
Lets say you go to a casino, and make a bet, and lose. Now you're down $10. You better keep betting, forever, while you still have money, because they more you bet - and the more you lose - the more invested you are in not having all of your time and money having gone to waste if you walk out a loser.
At some point you need to cut your losses. Iraq would be screwed up if we stayed there another 5 or even probably 10 years.
So far as "was the question even asked", of course it was asked and it's a silly partisan move to even pretend it couldn't have been. This President and any other President would prefer a clear victory versus walking away to a huge disaster. However, at some point you have to weigh the lives of the US troops yet to arrive in country against the sacrifices that came before them.
There's definitely such a thing as a sunk cost, sometimes, no matter what was invested, you just need to shut some things down to avoid hurting yourself more.
Likewise, I don't believe the Iraqi's were willing to have US troops and especially Contractors remain there and be immune to Iraqi prosecution.
Ouze wrote: I just googled it. It was 1995 (man, I'm getting old) and at least in that case, they were handed over for prosecution (and conviction, and imprisonment) before getting a dishonorable.
So it looks like there is some flex between different SOFA's.
And yes, they were not too pleased with Japanese prison, but wiki says they got off light compared with how the UCMJ would have treated them (I don't know what that would have been but Jihadin probably does?)
Yeah, depends on the crime in question, sometimes UCMJ can have some pretty harsh punishments. And, IIRC, Germany/European stations are fairly similar to Japan where, if a Joe commits a crime outside the fence of his/her base, they'll usually deal with local legal systems first.
Majority of the incident though are alcohol related. Most time the locals won;t raise a fuss when they submit damage estimates which they take out of "Joe" paycheck for max two months. Homicide the military quick as Hell turn them over to the locals once verified the service member committed it.. Deaths by accident, example being the two South Korean kids that was run over by a track recovery vehicle I believe is UCMJ
Granted none of us here are subject matter experts on SOFA "Agreement" ( ) all we can do is give examples and somewhat explanations on how it works.
There are other cases though where the SOFA will save our ass. A few years back in Kyrgyzstan a Security Forces officer shot a Kyrgy truck driver and killed him, after the man pulled a knife on him. The Kyrgyz government demanded we turned the Security Forces member over to face their justice system, completely contradicting the SOFA. Lucky for our guy, we did no such thing, and got him the hell out of country.
My money would be on the country turning into gak hole .
What country in it's right mind would want to support a SOFA agreement (for you ouze) . I sure as hell wouldn't want one (though knowing my country -the pissant little US bottom licker it probably has one. *sigh* New Zealand , now there is a country I admire). So lets get this straight, a country invades another , occupies , stays there for a while , gets some rescources/concessions , and then wonders why the invaded country doesn't want them there any more. Blame the victim Dakka style but on the world stage.
*edit curiously the bad word catcher isn't working
I think I might have Streisand affected that phrase, there.
Jihadin wrote: I be highly critical if Obama loses his frame of mind and send US "Boots" to Iraq if they ask for help stabilize the country.
I'm not sure how he legally can for longer than 60 days, right - even if he were so inclined, which I suspect he would not be. Is the AUMF/Iraq still in place?
As a Canadian, and also as an individual who isn't particularly bright, I've never actually understood much about the specifics/logistics or the politics of the war (a lot of it started when I was a kid and I never took interest in it), but I have paid a bit more attention in recent years in University.
The re-taking of major cities by insurgents that were hard-won by Americans and supporting allies is pretty upsetting. I can understand the emotions Americans are feeling, considering the toll the war has had on its economy, the families, the whole of the country. Just terrible.
PrehistoricUFO wrote: I can understand the emotions Americans are feeling, considering the toll the war has had on its economy, the families, the whole of the country. Just terrible.
Which is nothing in comparison to the gak that it did to the Iraq people.
The U.S. said repeatedly this year it would entertain an offer from the Iraqis to have a small force stay behind, and the Iraqis said they would like American military help. But as the year wore on and the number of American troops that Washington was suggesting could stay behind dropped, it became increasingly clear that a U.S. troop presence was not a sure thing.
The issue of legal protection for the Americans was the deal-breaker.
Iraqis are still angry over incidents such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal or Haditha, when U.S. troops killed Iraqi civilians in Anbar province, and want American troops subject to Iraqi law.
American commanders don't want to risk having their forces end up in an Iraqi courtroom if they're forced to defend themselves in a still-hostile environment.
They didn't want them to be above the law. They just wanted them to be held accountable by the UCMJ and not by Iraqi law.
Is that not being above the law? I'd consider that to be the exact definition of being above the law, especially considering we are talking about Iraq and not US soil.
There were a few trials that some in the region think a more severe sentence could have been given. A few that wanted the death sentence given. Under their law yes it can happen. Under UCMJ its a different outcome.
Lets put this in better perspective. Who here who is not familiar with the Military, combat operation, situational awareness of the given area, and threat level can judge my actions? No one in the civilian world. Only ones that can judge me is those who are military. Being they are familiar with my situation being they themselves were in the same situation I was.
Bullockist wrote: Is that not being above the law? I'd consider that to be the exact definition of being above the law, especially considering we are talking about Iraq and not US soil.
No, because they are still being held accountable under the law. We just wanted to have the ability to take care of our own dirty laundry, so to speak.
Bullockist wrote: My money would be on the country turning into gak hole .
What country in it's right mind would want to support a SOFA agreement (for you ouze) . I sure as hell wouldn't want one (though knowing my country -the pissant little US bottom licker it probably has one.
There is one in place, yeah. But then, Australia has SOFA arrangements with Papua New Guinea, Malaysia and East Timor. Everyone pisses on the next guy down.
What country in it's right mind would want to support a SOFA agreement (for you ouze) . I sure as hell wouldn't want one (though knowing my country -the pissant little US bottom licker it probably has one.
You may be surprised to know that you do have one with the US, because there is a US military base in Australia. I believe its out in Adelaide?? (it's kinda in the NW "corner" and from what I've been made to understand its up in kinda the worst part of Straya, out with the big prisons and whatnot)
What country in it's right mind would want to support a SOFA agreement (for you ouze) . I sure as hell wouldn't want one (though knowing my country -the pissant little US bottom licker it probably has one.
You may be surprised to know that you do have one with the US, because there is a US military base in Australia. I believe its out in Adelaide?? (it's kinda in the NW "corner" and from what I've been made to understand its up in kinda the worst part of Straya, out with the big prisons and whatnot)
We have a USAF Solar Observatory in the NW. There is also a base being built in N. Aussieland for C-17's and Marines as I understand it. But yes, we have a SOFA with Australia. Overall we have one with 58 nations.
Man... I love the feelings of love and joy our coming from Bullockists posts. Brightens my heart.
Here is the SOFA we have with Australia btw, if anyone wanted to read through it, and what they can entail.
What country in it's right mind would want to support a SOFA agreement (for you ouze) . I sure as hell wouldn't want one (though knowing my country -the pissant little US bottom licker it probably has one.
You may be surprised to know that you do have one with the US, because there is a US military base in Australia. I believe its out in Adelaide?? (it's kinda in the NW "corner" and from what I've been made to understand its up in kinda the worst part of Straya, out with the big prisons and whatnot)
We have a USAF Solar Observatory in the NW. There is also a base being built in N. Aussieland for C-17's and Marines as I understand it. But yes, we have a SOFA with Australia. Overall we have one with 58 nations.
Man... I love the feelings of love and joy our coming from Bullockists posts. Brightens my heart.
There's an army one as well though, I think it's primarily a (very) tiny maintenance depot/facility. My guess is it's a pan-asian repair echelon for severely damaged vehicles that for whatever reason, can't be fixed in theater, but are still able to get transport
Jihadin wrote: Lets put this in better perspective. Who here who is not familiar with the Military, combat operation, situational awareness of the given area, and threat level can judge my actions? No one in the civilian world. Only ones that can judge me is those who are military. Being they are familiar with my situation being they themselves were in the same situation I was.
So you can only be judged by your peer group.... yeah there's this river in egypt...
What country in it's right mind would want to support a SOFA agreement (for you ouze) . I sure as hell wouldn't want one (though knowing my country -the pissant little US bottom licker it probably has one.
You may be surprised to know that you do have one with the US, because there is a US military base in Australia. I believe its out in Adelaide?? (it's kinda in the NW "corner" and from what I've been made to understand its up in kinda the worst part of Straya, out with the big prisons and whatnot)
We have a USAF Solar Observatory in the NW. There is also a base being built in N. Aussieland for C-17's and Marines as I understand it. But yes, we have a SOFA with Australia. Overall we have one with 58 nations.
Man... I love the feelings of love and joy our coming from Bullockists posts. Brightens my heart.
Here is the SOFA we have with Australia btw, if anyone wanted to read through it, and what they can entail.
I must have woken up on the wrong side of the forums.
My post did mean to read "(though knowing my country -the pissant little US bottom licker it is probably has one." missed out one word.
I knew we had bases here, I cannot tell you how thrilled I am about the new one . The NW, I assume would be somewhere near Broome and Darwin. Big area, but it would have to be near one of those cities (towns?)
I knew we had bases here, I cannot tell you how thrilled I am about the new one . The NW, I assume would be somewhere near Broome and Darwin. Big area, but it would have to be near one of those cities (towns?)
I want to say it was near Adelaide, but could be wrong... From a buddy who was stationed there, he said it was in a region that has heavy aboriginal violence (as in, the aborigines commit more crimes against non-aborigines as well as have them commited against them more heavily in the region than elsewhere in Australia).. but that it was also near one of the larger heavier security prisons in the country, where... unsurprisingly, a lot of aboriginal criminals go
Its Australia Ensis. Criminals and anything that's a bug can kill you, that slithers around can kill you, fire axe wielding teenager can attack park cars, Quigley still running around in the Outback still freaking lost, river boats, and man eating croc's. I want to petition the US Government to send Justin Bieber on a Good Will tour in the Outback
Bullockist wrote: Is that not being above the law? I'd consider that to be the exact definition of being above the law, especially considering we are talking about Iraq and not US soil.
No, because they are still being held accountable under the law. We just wanted to have the ability to take care of our own dirty laundry, so to speak.
I think some of their issues might have been from stuff like Blackwater security. But that's just a guess on my part.
Iraq prosecuted those Iraqi's hired by Blackwater that was involve in the shoot out at an intersection. Blackwater IIRC flew their people out at the BIAP. One of the reasons why Blackwater was "Blackballed" from Iraq and Afghanistan. Which in turn their contracts within the Middle East was not renewed renewed by the military. Triple Canopy, Four Horsemen, and some other Security contractors were picked up in placed of Blackwater.
One of the saddest things for me about Iraq (aside from loss of life, destruction of lives etc.) was how the museums in Baghdad, which had some of the finest collections of Mesopotamian/Babylonian antiquities in the world, got utterly trashed during the invasion/war.
Seeing that camera footage of a guy in denim hotpants dragging some 4000-year old Babylonian sculpture through the street was painful to watch, although I suppose pales in comparison to the level of human suffering involved.
I want to say it was near Adelaide, but could be wrong... From a buddy who was stationed there, he said it was in a region that has heavy aboriginal violence (as in, the aborigines commit more crimes against non-aborigines as well as have them commited against them more heavily in the region than elsewhere in Australia).. but that it was also near one of the larger heavier security prisons in the country, where... unsurprisingly, a lot of aboriginal criminals go
Sadly that description doesn't help much Ensis. Violence is rife in Aboriginal communities. Aboriginal women are 6 times more likely to be murdered than other women in Australia. Last I heard violence in aboriginal communities in the north eastern part of Northern Territory (apparently there were 3 towns involved in some long running dispute) was particularly bad. I'd guess though the north eastern tip of Northern Territory would be an ideal place to put a base.
Hordini wrote: Which doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to try to clean up the messes we start, rightly or wrongly.
Even if the country doesn't want our help?
No, that's their decision, as Jihadin said. But that's why it was right to at least try to put together a SOFA, rather than just picking up and leaving as soon as things started going south.
Which should provide some decent popcorn newscasting... watching Iraq beg us for help when turkey comes to feth them up
If any Iraqi actually has internet, and actually plays 40k, and is registered on this site: There's ALWAYS more turks than there appear to be (if you see one, there's probably more like 15-20, you just don't see them)
That's what I was trying to get at. With no SOFA the Iraqi government clearly did not want US forces in country, lets wish them the best of luck with this problem.
That's what I was trying to get at. With no SOFA the Iraqi government clearly did not want US forces in country, lets wish them the best of luck with this problem.
I could be mis-remembering, but I think the Iraqi government did want a SOFA, but we didn't want to.
Jihadin wrote: Think Turkey would become unhinged if they executed their Embassy staff and Diplomats. Even the Kurds are telling AQ affiliates they're "Dead Stupid"
I think the Kurdish leaders are talking simultaneously to AQ, and Turkish officials... To the Turks they're probably saying, "hey, when you're done fething up these stupid Iraqis, can you just leave us a decent chunk of land so we can FINALLY after like, 3000 years have our own damn lands? We'll just take a slice of Iraq, we don't even want any of your lands "
(CNN) - Iraq's government Wednesday indicated a willingness for the United States military to conduct airstrikes against radical Islamist militants who have taken over one large city and are threatening to fully control another, a U.S. official told CNN.
It's a lost fight anyway. Assad is a competent leader and he's barely holding on; Maliki is just some guy who got swept into a position of power. ISIL, on the other hand, has shown that they are quite able to project their power and took a lot of lessons from the Taliban playbook. Unless the west invades again, Iraq's a goner and will be replaced by something akin to Taliban Afghanistan.
Perverse as it may be, our best hope to contain these monsters would be Assad, Turkey and Iran, in no particular order. Pick your poison.
PS: Not that anyone would be able to tell them apart by their goals, but ISIL is *not* affiliated with al Qaeda anymore, they had a huge fallout earlier this year (?) because ISIL refused to bow down to the al Qaeda clowns who in their eyes are all talk and no results, which arguably isn't too far from the truth.
Allod wrote: It's a lost fight anyway. Assad is a competent leader and he's barely holding on; Maliki is just some guy who got swept into a position of power. ISIL, on the other hand, has shown that they are quite able to project their power and took a lot of lessons from the Taliban playbook. Unless the west invades again, Iraq's a goner and will be replaced by something akin to Taliban Afghanistan.
Perverse as it may be, our best hope to contain these monsters would be Assad, Turkey and Iran, in no particular order. Pick your poison.
PS: Not that anyone would be able to tell them apart by their goals, but ISIL is *not* affiliated with al Qaeda anymore, they had a huge fallout earlier this year (?) because ISIL refused to bow down to the al Qaeda clowns who in their eyes are all talk and no results, which arguably isn't too far from the truth.
And I'm sure that Iran wants Iraq to stay weak also
Can't we just seal the borders in that whole region and let them get on with it? It's the 21st Century... if you can't play nice with others then you shouldn't be allowed to play at all. It's not even them v The West, it's them v them. "My way of worshiping Allah is better than yours..." sheesh!
Wolfstan wrote: Can't we just seal the borders in that whole region and let them get on with it? It's the 21st Century... if you can't play nice with others then you shouldn't be allowed to play at all. It's not even them v The West, it's them v them. "My way of worshiping Allah is better than yours..." sheesh!
When others espouse this idea we get looked at funny.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Reports are now that the Kurds have taken Kirkuk.
Is it me or does Iraq look like its about a maybe a week away from breaking apart? Biden may have been more prescient then we thought.
The West fails to realise that some societies only work under a Dictatorship. We may not like it but that's how it is. There must be some reason why The West developed a democratic system of rule while a lot of the world didn't?
The "nation" of Iraq left the world stage when the coalition invaded - there's neither a strong nor a weak Iraq anymore, just a collection of disparate provinces and a nominal government in Baghdad.
If ISIL manages to bring all the Sunni Arab provinces under its control, Iran will have to do *something* to protect the Shia Arabs in the southeast. Turkey might need to step in to prevent de-facto independent Kurdistan from breaking away from Iraq officially. And If Assad ever manages to regain control of Syria's northeast, he will need to move on into Iraq as well to eliminate his opponents. In any scenario, Iraq will not return to being a functional, unified state.
Not that it ever was "unified", but that's more the fault of Sykes and Picot.
ISIS maybe part of the large umbrella that is Al-Qaeda, but not all groups under that umbrella are friends.
Reports this morning indicated the the Syrian opposition grpoups were in a three way war with Assad and the ISIS. As we famously know, some of those groups that are part of the Syrian Opposition are also under the A.Q. umbrella. Yet, they seem to be fighting against each other.
Wolfstan wrote: The West fails to realise that some societies only work under a Dictatorship. We may not like it but that's how it is. There must be some reason why The West developed a democratic system of rule while a lot of the world didn't?
We developed that system as a natural consequence of events. It wasn't forced onto us by outsiders at the barrel of a gun. It's extremely difficult to force a defeated people to accept democracy when every tradition of theirs goes against it. The only exception I can think of is Japan, but they where at least a united people, unlike Iraq which was a fractured and divided nation held together by a dictator, which arguably goes back to the nations rather dubious origins.
Wolfstan wrote: The West fails to realise that some societies only work under a Dictatorship. We may not like it but that's how it is. There must be some reason why The West developed a democratic system of rule while a lot of the world didn't?
We developed that system as a natural consequence of events. It wasn't forced onto us by outsiders at the barrel of a gun. It's extremely difficult to force a defeated people to accept democracy when every tradition of theirs goes against it. The only exception I can think of is Japan, but they where at least a united people, unlike Iraq which was a fractured and divided nation held together by a dictator, which arguably goes back to the nations rather dubious origins.
That's the interesting point, what allowed this to happen? I wondered if the geographical and environmental conditions helped? Did the fact that they were generally stable allow us to focus more on developing society rather than having fighting for resources. Does that make sense?
Wolfstan wrote: Can't we just seal the borders in that whole region and let them get on with it? It's the 21st Century... if you can't play nice with others then you shouldn't be allowed to play at all. It's not even them v The West, it's them v them. "My way of worshiping Allah is better than yours..." sheesh!
When others espouse this idea we get looked at funny.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Reports are now that the Kurds have taken Kirkuk.
Is it me or does Iraq look like its about a maybe a week away from breaking apart? Biden may have been more prescient then we thought.
Just read as being...'more president than we thought'... is that bad or just plain horrifying as a thought?
Automatically Appended Next Post: News.
Mosul and Tikrit held by ISIS.
Delayed vote on PM emergency powers 128/425 MPs turned up.
Parliament in Baghdad has delayed voting on a request to grant the prime minister emergency powers as the north slips out of government control.
Just 128 out of the 325 MPs turned up for the vote on Nouri Maliki's request.
In the north, Kurdish forces claimed control of the oil city of Kirkuk, saying government forces had fled.
The Kurds secured the area after the cities of Mosul and Tikrit fell to Sunni Islamist insurgents during a lightning advance.
Kurdish fighters are seen as a bulwark against the Sunni Muslim insurgents but they have also been locked for years in a dispute with Baghdad over Kirkuk, seeking to incorporate it into their own autonomous area.
Led by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), the insurgents are believed to be planning to push further south to the capital Baghdad and regions dominated by Iraq's Shia Muslim majority, whom they regard as "infidels".
The "nation" of Iraq left the world stage when the coalition invaded - there's neither a strong nor a weak Iraq anymore, just a collection of disparate provinces and a nominal government in Baghdad.
If ISIL manages to bring all the Sunni Arab provinces under its control, Iran will have to do *something* to protect the Shia Arabs in the southeast. Turkey might need to step in to prevent de-facto independent Kurdistan from breaking away from Iraq officially. And If Assad ever manages to regain control of Syria's northeast, he will need to move on into Iraq as well to eliminate his opponents. In any scenario, Iraq will not return to being a functional, unified state.
Not that it ever was "unified", but that's more the fault of Sykes and Picot.
Then maybe like the tides, this was bound to eventually happen. Iraq wasn't originally a country, just lines on a map.
As noted, "Iraq" was never really a unified nation identity in the first place. It was an arbitrary border imposed in multiple ethnic groups, and was never really a particularly stable or benevolent state.
Partition is likely to be better in the long run as a more realistic expression of the ethnic groups located therein. It's been functionally partitioned for decades in terms of actual operation.
"They've got WMD's!"
No WMDs found.
"They're linked to AQ!"
No links to AQ found until after the invasion.
"Mission accomplished!"
War drags on interminably.
"We really came to bring democracy!"
Terrorist attacks dog Iraq as they never did under Saddam.
"We're leaving!"
Collapse starts.
"It was fate, they were never a real democracy."
Iraq collapses.
"See? Told you. They were never a real country. Even all of our bombs and troops couldn't make it a democracy!"
Da Boss wrote: "They've got WMD's!"
No WMDs found.
"They're linked to AQ!"
No links to AQ found until after the invasion.
"Mission accomplished!"
War drags on interminably.
"We really came to bring democracy!"
Terrorist attacks dog Iraq as they never did under Saddam.
"We're leaving!"
Collapse starts.
"It was fate, they were never a real democracy."
Iraq collapses.
"See? Told you. They were never a real country. Even all of our bombs and troops couldn't make it a democracy!"
Sigh.
That made me laugh more than it should.
On a side note for any of our Biritish posters, do you think this will affect the Iraq war inquiry?
Da Boss wrote: "They've got WMD's!"
No WMDs found.
"They're linked to AQ!"
No links to AQ found until after the invasion.
"Mission accomplished!"
War drags on interminably.
"We really came to bring democracy!"
Terrorist attacks dog Iraq as they never did under Saddam.
"We're leaving!"
Collapse starts.
"It was fate, they were never a real democracy."
Iraq collapses.
"See? Told you. They were never a real country. Even all of our bombs and troops couldn't make it a democracy!"
Sigh.
That made me laugh mote than it should.
On a side note for any of our Biritish posters, do you think this will affect the Iraq war inquiry?
Da Boss wrote: "They've got WMD's!"
No WMDs found.
"They're linked to AQ!"
No links to AQ found until after the invasion.
"Mission accomplished!"
War drags on interminably.
"We really came to bring democracy!"
Terrorist attacks dog Iraq as they never did under Saddam.
"We're leaving!"
Collapse starts.
"It was fate, they were never a real democracy."
Iraq collapses.
"See? Told you. They were never a real country. Even all of our bombs and troops couldn't make it a democracy!"
Sigh.
That made me laugh mote than it should.
On a side note for any of our Biritish posters, do you think this will affect the Iraq war inquiry?
There's an "Iraq War Inquiry"?? Whatzat?
IIRC, its main purpose is to investigate Tony Blair and the actions he took that led to war.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wikipedia has the answers to your questions!
Da Boss wrote: "They've got WMD's!"
No WMDs found.
"They're linked to AQ!"
No links to AQ found until after the invasion.
"Mission accomplished!"
War drags on interminably.
"We really came to bring democracy!"
Terrorist attacks dog Iraq as they never did under Saddam.
"We're leaving!"
Collapse starts.
"It was fate, they were never a real democracy."
Iraq collapses.
"See? Told you. They were never a real country. Even all of our bombs and troops couldn't make it a democracy!"
Sigh.
That made me laugh mote than it should.
On a side note for any of our Biritish posters, do you think this will affect the Iraq war inquiry?
There's an "Iraq War Inquiry"?? Whatzat?
IIRC, its main purpose is to investigate Tony Blair and the actions he took that led to war.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wikipedia has the answers to your questions!
Da Boss wrote: "They've got WMD's!"
No WMDs found.
"They're linked to AQ!"
No links to AQ found until after the invasion.
"Mission accomplished!"
War drags on interminably.
"We really came to bring democracy!"
Terrorist attacks dog Iraq as they never did under Saddam.
"We're leaving!"
Collapse starts.
"It was fate, they were never a real democracy."
Iraq collapses.
"See? Told you. They were never a real country. Even all of our bombs and troops couldn't make it a democracy!"
Sigh.
That made me laugh mote than it should.
On a side note for any of our Biritish posters, do you think this will affect the Iraq war inquiry?
There's an "Iraq War Inquiry"?? Whatzat?
IIRC, its main purpose is to investigate Tony Blair and the actions he took that led to war.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wikipedia has the answers to your questions!
Da Boss wrote: "They've got WMD's!"
No WMDs found.
"They're linked to AQ!"
No links to AQ found until after the invasion.
"Mission accomplished!"
War drags on interminably.
"We really came to bring democracy!"
Terrorist attacks dog Iraq as they never did under Saddam.
"We're leaving!"
Collapse starts.
"It was fate, they were never a real democracy."
Iraq collapses.
"See? Told you. They were never a real country. Even all of our bombs and troops couldn't make it a democracy!"
Sigh.
That made me laugh mote than it should.
On a side note for any of our Biritish posters, do you think this will affect the Iraq war inquiry?
There's an "Iraq War Inquiry"?? Whatzat?
IIRC, its main purpose is to investigate Tony Blair and the actions he took that led to war.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wikipedia has the answers to your questions!
Da Boss wrote: "They've got WMD's!"
No WMDs found.
"They're linked to AQ!"
No links to AQ found until after the invasion.
"Mission accomplished!"
War drags on interminably.
"We really came to bring democracy!"
Terrorist attacks dog Iraq as they never did under Saddam.
"We're leaving!"
Collapse starts.
"It was fate, they were never a real democracy."
Iraq collapses.
"See? Told you. They were never a real country. Even all of our bombs and troops couldn't make it a democracy!"
Da Boss wrote: "They've got WMD's!"
No WMDs found.
"They're linked to AQ!"
No links to AQ found until after the invasion.
"Mission accomplished!"
War drags on interminably.
"We really came to bring democracy!"
Terrorist attacks dog Iraq as they never did under Saddam.
"We're leaving!"
Collapse starts.
"It was fate, they were never a real democracy."
Iraq collapses.
"See? Told you. They were never a real country. Even all of our bombs and troops couldn't make it a democracy!"
Sigh.
That made me laugh mote than it should.
On a side note for any of our Biritish posters, do you think this will affect the Iraq war inquiry?
There's an "Iraq War Inquiry"?? Whatzat?
IIRC, its main purpose is to investigate Tony Blair and the actions he took that led to war.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wikipedia has the answers to your questions!
If we ever get it. Apparently, there were a few problems revealing US related things.
Get Snowden on it then.
:shrug:
So, what are we hoping to see? Some sort of Bush/Chaney/Haliburton cabal orchastrating some false data with Blair?
Can we link to this glorious example of "politicians lied, Americans died, who gives a gak because I sure as hell fething don't" next time we get crocodile tears and fake outrage whenever the Benghazi thread pops back up on page one?
Da Boss wrote: "They've got WMD's!"
No WMDs found.
"They're linked to AQ!"
No links to AQ found until after the invasion.
"Mission accomplished!"
War drags on interminably.
"We really came to bring democracy!"
Terrorist attacks dog Iraq as they never did under Saddam.
"We're leaving!"
Collapse starts.
"It was fate, they were never a real democracy."
Iraq collapses.
"See? Told you. They were never a real country. Even all of our bombs and troops couldn't make it a democracy!"
Sigh.
That made me laugh mote than it should.
On a side note for any of our Biritish posters, do you think this will affect the Iraq war inquiry?
There's an "Iraq War Inquiry"?? Whatzat?
IIRC, its main purpose is to investigate Tony Blair and the actions he took that led to war.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wikipedia has the answers to your questions!
If we ever get it. Apparently, there were a few problems revealing US related things.
Get Snowden on it then.
:shrug:
So, what are we hoping to see? Some sort of Bush/Chaney/Haliburton cabal orchastrating some false data with Blair?
Can we link to this glorious example of "politicians lied, Americans died, who gives a gak because I sure as hell fething don't" next time we get crocodile tears and fake outrage whenever the Benghazi thread pops back up on page one?
It would be funny, if it wasn't so obvious that you are perfectly fine with these mental gymnastics that you somehow justify in your mind. But the sad thing is that you are way to smart for the stuff you post.
Da Boss wrote: "They've got WMD's!"
No WMDs found.
"They're linked to AQ!"
No links to AQ found until after the invasion.
"Mission accomplished!"
War drags on interminably.
"We really came to bring democracy!"
Terrorist attacks dog Iraq as they never did under Saddam.
"We're leaving!"
Collapse starts.
"It was fate, they were never a real democracy."
Iraq collapses.
"See? Told you. They were never a real country. Even all of our bombs and troops couldn't make it a democracy!"
Sigh.
That made me laugh mote than it should.
On a side note for any of our Biritish posters, do you think this will affect the Iraq war inquiry?
There's an "Iraq War Inquiry"?? Whatzat?
IIRC, its main purpose is to investigate Tony Blair and the actions he took that led to war.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wikipedia has the answers to your questions!
If we ever get it. Apparently, there were a few problems revealing US related things.
Get Snowden on it then.
:shrug:
So, what are we hoping to see? Some sort of Bush/Chaney/Haliburton cabal orchastrating some false data with Blair?
Can we link to this glorious example of "politicians lied, Americans died, who gives a gak because I sure as hell fething don't" next time we get crocodile tears and fake outrage whenever the Benghazi thread pops back up on page one?
d-usa wrote: It would be funny, if it wasn't so obvious that you are perfectly fine with these mental gymnastics that you somehow justify in your mind. But the sad thing is that you are way to smart for the stuff you post.
It's sad that you think it's okay the Obama administration and his crew lied to you.
IRBIL, Iraq — Iraq was on the brink of disintegration Thursday as al-Qaeda-inspired fighters swept through northern Iraq toward Baghdad and Kurdish soldiers seized the city of Kirkuk without a fight.
Lawmakers gathered at the Iraqi parliament to discuss the declaration of a state of emergency, a day after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki assured Iraqis that the insurgents’ gains were temporary and would soon be reversed by the Iraqi army.
But after the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) captured fresh territory and set its sights on Baghdad, Iraq seemed to be fast slipping out of government control.
Iraqi state television claimed that government forces recaptured the north-central city of Tikrit on Thursday, a day after ISIS said it seized the home town of former Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein. The group, an al-Qaeda offshoot, asserted, however, that it has completely surrounded the city of Samarra, south of Tikrit and just 70 miles north of Baghdad, leaving the situation on the ground unclear.
The semiautonomous Kurdish government said its pesh merga forces took control of the Kurdish city of Kirkuk in northern Iraq, after Iraqi security forces there fled rather than fight. The capture of Kirkuk follows the seizure by the (ISIS) on Monday of the important northern city of Mosul, putting northern Iraq beyond the central government’s authority.
A top leader in ISIS, a radical Sunni Muslim group that U.S. forces spent eight years trying to defeat, urged fighters to press on to Baghdad, where he said there are “scores to be settled” with the Shiite-led government.
In an audio address posted on the Internet, Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, an ISIS spokesman, taunted Maliki. “What have you done to your people, o foolish one,” he said. “You lost a historic opportunity for your people to control Iraq, and the Shiites will always curse you for as long as you live.”
Adnani also vowed that ISIS would take the southern Iraqi Shiite cities of Karbala and Najaf, sites of two of the holiest shrines in Shiite Islam.
In the north, Kurdish forces are in full control of Iraq’s oil-rich city of Kirkuk after the federal army abandoned its bases there, a Kurdish military spokesman said Thursday.
Kirkuk lies at the heart of a long-running dispute between the central government in Baghdad and the Kurds, who run their own autonomous region in the north of the country and have an armed force called the pesh merga.
“The whole of Kirkuk has fallen into the hands of pesh merga,” said Jabbar Yawar. “No Iraqi army remains in Kirkuk now.”
The stunning speed with which the rout has unfolded in northern Iraq has raised deep doubts about the capacity of U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces, and it has also kindled fears about the government’s grip on the capital.
In a country already fraught with sectarian tension, with parts of western Iraq now in Sunni militant hands, the latest gains by ISIS insurgents prompted cries of alarm from leaders of Iraq’s Shiite Muslim majority.
It appeared that the militants faced more robust resistance as they moved south, where Iraq’s Shiites have a stronger presence. But several experts said it would be wrong to assume that heavily fortified Baghdad, with its large Shiite population and concentration of elite forces, could easily fend off an ISIS attack.
Sly reported from Beirut.
If the Kurds delcare their own state...Turkey is going to get ugly.
d-usa wrote: It would be funny, if it wasn't so obvious that you are perfectly fine with these mental gymnastics that you somehow justify in your mind. But the sad thing is that you are way to smart for the stuff you post.
It's sad that you think it's okay the Obama administration and his crew lied to you.
d-usa wrote: It would be funny, if it wasn't so obvious that you are perfectly fine with these mental gymnastics that you somehow justify in your mind. But the sad thing is that you are way to smart for the stuff you post.
It's sad that you think it's okay the Obama administration and his crew lied to you.
You really get too one-sided at a times. Look around a bit, the rational for getting into Iraq were complete fabrications.
Co'tor... lying and being wrong are two different things. Often times, critics of the Iraq War conflate the two.
We have absolute evidence that Obama and his administration knowingly lied.
We also have evidence that the Bush administration deliberately mis-led the american people. It's funny how that works, huh?
A) do some research what kind of an organization GobalResearch truly represent (they're a moonbat orgranization... just google-fu them and Libya )
B) you're falling into that "Bush lied, people died" trap.
Anyhoo...I'm hoping that the UK's Iraq War Inquiry can shed some light on that so that we can all shutup about this.
McCain blames Obama and his national security team for the rout by withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq and calling back the generals he called the successful architects of security in the war-ravaged country.
McCain specifically called for the resignation of Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
“The first thing is get rid of this national security team, which has been a total failure,” he said told reporters ahead of a classified Senate Armed Services briefing on the security situation in Iraq. “[They] called back in people who succeeded in Iraq like General Petraeus, General Mattis, many of the other leaders —General Keane, who’s the architect of the surge. …
“Get rid of his entire national security team, the same ones who said we’re safely out of Iraq,” he added.
Da Boss wrote: "They've got WMD's!" No WMDs found. "They're linked to AQ!" No links to AQ found until after the invasion. "Mission accomplished!" War drags on interminably. "We really came to bring democracy!" Terrorist attacks dog Iraq as they never did under Saddam. "We're leaving!" Collapse starts. "It was fate, they were never a real democracy." Iraq collapses. "See? Told you. They were never a real country. Even all of our bombs and troops couldn't make it a democracy!"
Sigh.
That made me laugh more than it should.
On a side note for any of our Biritish posters, do you think this will affect the Iraq war inquiry?
No . It has been abundantly clear since well before the war started that there was no valid casus belli (WMDs, etc.) and the CotW was being railroaded by the machinations of a few political leaders. (i.e. Blair and Bush.)
Every attempt at an inquiry since then has ended as a whitewash. I see no reason to suppose things will change now.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: So what will the history books say about the 2nd Gulf War? Will it be simply that America "lost" the war in the same way it lost the Vietnam War?
Probably, there is no evidence to suggest we were really defeated militarily. We pulled out due to politics...
Well, if the ultimate goal of the 2nd Gulf War was to establish Iraq as a viable democracy then we definitely lost. If it was to topple Saddam's regime then we won.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: So what will the history books say about the 2nd Gulf War? Will it be simply that America "lost" the war in the same way it lost the Vietnam War?
Probably, there is no evidence to suggest we were really defeated militarily. We pulled out due to politics...
Screwed up Iraq
Screwed up Afghanistan
Screwed up the American economy
Screwed up the lives of thousands of good American servicemen and women
Screwed up the civil rights of the illegal detainees
Screwed up the civil rights of the American people
Hey we killed bin laden Blair and bush should be hanging from lampposts by now.
TheCustomLime wrote: Well, if the ultimate goal of the 2nd Gulf War was to establish Iraq as a viable democracy then we definitely lost. If it was to topple Saddam's regime then we won.
I think overall it was to make America "safer". I would say that was also a failure. I'm sure the invasion generated a lot more terrorists than it eliminated. Also, could be argued that it was to make America more powerful/influential in the region. That seems to also be a failure. In fact, the war seems to have empowered Iran, another American rival.
Da Boss wrote: "They've got WMD's!"
No WMDs found.
"They're linked to AQ!"
No links to AQ found until after the invasion.
"Mission accomplished!"
War drags on interminably.
"We really came to bring democracy!"
Terrorist attacks dog Iraq as they never did under Saddam.
"We're leaving!"
Collapse starts.
"It was fate, they were never a real democracy."
Iraq collapses.
"See? Told you. They were never a real country. Even all of our bombs and troops couldn't make it a democracy!"
Sigh.
That made me laugh more than it should.
On a side note for any of our Biritish posters, do you think this will affect the Iraq war inquiry?
No . It has been abundantly clear since well before the war started that there was no valid casus belli (WMDs, etc.) and the CotW was being railroaded by the machinations of a few political leaders. (i.e. Blair and Bush.)
Every attempt at an inquiry since then has ended as a whitewash. I see no reason to suppose things will change now.
Think that's it in a nutshell.
And no amount of condemnation or even jail time (yeah right!) could ever make up for the suffering and misery their actions have caused. You can only hope that a tiny shred of consciousness remains within our former leaders, and they are haunted at night by scenes of destruction and wailing mothers.
Although, I don't think it's very likely. Bush was a mouthpiece for the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned of so many years before, and after reading a fair amount of the subject I'm convinced that Blair balances on the edge of sanity and is obsessed with his image in history. He genuinely believes (or at least tells himself) that there was a moral case for that war, as wide of the mark as that has since proven to be, and the UK certainly didn't get anything else out from it other than to kill its servicemen and to paint a massive bullseye on the population of the country for any future terrorist strikes.
Da Boss wrote: "They've got WMD's!"
No WMDs found.
"They're linked to AQ!"
No links to AQ found until after the invasion.
"Mission accomplished!"
War drags on interminably.
"We really came to bring democracy!"
Terrorist attacks dog Iraq as they never did under Saddam.
"We're leaving!"
Collapse starts.
"It was fate, they were never a real democracy."
Iraq collapses.
"See? Told you. They were never a real country. Even all of our bombs and troops couldn't make it a democracy!"
Sigh.
That made me laugh more than it should.
On a side note for any of our Biritish posters, do you think this will affect the Iraq war inquiry?
No . It has been abundantly clear since well before the war started that there was no valid casus belli (WMDs, etc.) and the CotW was being railroaded by the machinations of a few political leaders. (i.e. Blair and Bush.)
Every attempt at an inquiry since then has ended as a whitewash. I see no reason to suppose things will change now.
Think that's it in a nutshell.
And no amount of condemnation or even jail time (yeah right!) could ever make up for the suffering and misery their actions have caused. You can only hope that a tiny shred of consciousness remains within our former leaders, and they are haunted at night by scenes of destruction and wailing mothers.
Although, I don't think it's very likely. Bush was a mouthpiece for the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned of so many years before, and after reading a fair amount of the subject I'm convinced that Blair balances on the edge of sanity and is obsessed with his image in history. He genuinely believes (or at least tells himself) that there was a moral case for that war, as wide of the mark as that has since proven to be, and the UK certainly didn't get anything else out from it other than to kill its servicemen and to paint a massive bullseye on the population of the country for any future terrorist strikes.
Well Bush aged like 20 years in his 8 years in office (which is actually pretty normal for a president) and now spends all his days painting flowers and whatnot and avoiding the news....
Da Boss wrote: "They've got WMD's!"
No WMDs found.
"They're linked to AQ!"
No links to AQ found until after the invasion.
"Mission accomplished!"
War drags on interminably.
"We really came to bring democracy!"
Terrorist attacks dog Iraq as they never did under Saddam.
"We're leaving!"
Collapse starts.
"It was fate, they were never a real democracy."
Iraq collapses.
"See? Told you. They were never a real country. Even all of our bombs and troops couldn't make it a democracy!"
Sigh.
That made me laugh more than it should.
On a side note for any of our Biritish posters, do you think this will affect the Iraq war inquiry?
No . It has been abundantly clear since well before the war started that there was no valid casus belli (WMDs, etc.) and the CotW was being railroaded by the machinations of a few political leaders. (i.e. Blair and Bush.)
Every attempt at an inquiry since then has ended as a whitewash. I see no reason to suppose things will change now.
Think that's it in a nutshell.
And no amount of condemnation or even jail time (yeah right!) could ever make up for the suffering and misery their actions have caused. You can only hope that a tiny shred of consciousness remains within our former leaders, and they are haunted at night by scenes of destruction and wailing mothers.
Although, I don't think it's very likely. Bush was a mouthpiece for the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned of so many years before, and after reading a fair amount of the subject I'm convinced that Blair balances on the edge of sanity and is obsessed with his image in history. He genuinely believes (or at least tells himself) that there was a moral case for that war, as wide of the mark as that has since proven to be, and the UK certainly didn't get anything else out from it other than to kill its servicemen and to paint a massive bullseye on the population of the country for any future terrorist strikes.
Well Bush aged like 20 years in his 8 years in office (which is actually pretty normal for a president) and now spends all his days painting flowers and whatnot and avoiding the news....
Yeah well bliar is still poncing around in an aircraft as an ambassador for peace
Jihadin wrote: Well. Be interesting prosecuting me for my actions during OIF and OEF. Feel free condemning me then for inflecting injuries to Insurgents
Edit
I for one will not throw my medals away. Even ones with the"V" device
No ones condemning you. We're talking Bush and Blair.
The American service people were lied to the same as everyone else.
Jihadin wrote: Well. Be interesting prosecuting me for my actions during OIF and OEF. Feel free condemning me then for inflecting injuries to Insurgents
Edit
I for one will not throw my medals away. Even ones with the"V" device
No ones condemning you. We're talking Bush and Blair. Then American service people were lied to the same as everyone else.
The call the Hague and compel Bush/Blair to testify.
Jihadin wrote: Well. Be interesting prosecuting me for my actions during OIF and OEF. Feel free condemning me then for inflecting injuries to Insurgents
Haven't you heard? They'll just get you for terrorism now, you dangerous veteran
Bush and Blair were in a leadership position. I was in a leadership position
If they were prosecuted then it rolls down hill because they would have to go after the ones who participated in enhance interrogation.
Which in turn go after the ones who willenly turn over Insurgents to host countries knowing what will happen to them
Which.....
That water that was under the bridge is now out in sea
Jihadin wrote: Well. Be interesting prosecuting me for my actions during OIF and OEF. Feel free condemning me then for inflecting injuries to Insurgents
Edit
I for one will not throw my medals away. Even ones with the"V" device
Inflecting? Were you giving them hideous injuries to their tongue by teaching them to speak with an American accent?
Jihadin wrote: Well. Be interesting prosecuting me for my actions during OIF and OEF. Feel free condemning me then for inflecting injuries to Insurgents
Edit
I for one will not throw my medals away. Even ones with the"V" device
Inflecting? Were you giving them hideous injuries to their tongue by teaching them to speak with an American accent?
Dude... it's Jihadin. We ignore the spelling errors, because it's sometimes an achievement in itself to understand just what he is saying.
Screwed up Iraq
Screwed up Afghanistan
Screwed up the American economy
Screwed up the lives of thousands of good American servicemen and women
Screwed up the civil rights of the illegal detainees
Screwed up the civil rights of the American people
Hey we killed bin laden Blair and bush should be hanging from lampposts by now.
Screwed up Iraq
Screwed up Afghanistan
Screwed up the American economy
Screwed up the lives of thousands of good American servicemen and women
Screwed up the civil rights of the illegal detainees
Screwed up the civil rights of the American people
Hey we killed bin laden Blair and bush should be hanging from lampposts by now.
Jihadin wrote: Well. Be interesting prosecuting me for my actions during OIF and OEF. Feel free condemning me then for inflecting injuries to Insurgents
Edit
I for one will not throw my medals away. Even ones with the"V" device
Inflecting? Were you giving them hideous injuries to their tongue by teaching them to speak with an American accent?
Dude... it's Jihadin. We ignore the spelling errors, because it's sometimes an achievement in itself to understand just what he is saying.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: So what will the history books say about the 2nd Gulf War? Will it be simply that America "lost" the war in the same way it lost the Vietnam War?
Probably, there is no evidence to suggest we were really defeated militarily. We pulled out due to politics...
Screwed up Iraq
Screwed up Afghanistan
Screwed up the American economy
Screwed up the lives of thousands of good American servicemen and women
Screwed up the civil rights of the illegal detainees
Screwed up the civil rights of the American people
Hey we killed bin laden Blair and bush should be hanging from lampposts by now.
To be fair, Afghanistan was screwed up way before we went in there.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: So what will the history books say about the 2nd Gulf War? Will it be simply that America "lost" the war in the same way it lost the Vietnam War?
Probably, there is no evidence to suggest we were really defeated militarily. We pulled out due to politics...
Screwed up Iraq
Screwed up Afghanistan
Screwed up the American economy
Screwed up the lives of thousands of good American servicemen and women
Screwed up the civil rights of the illegal detainees
Screwed up the civil rights of the American people
Hey we killed bin laden Blair and bush should be hanging from lampposts by now.
To be fair, Afghanistan was screwed up way before we went in there.
Hell, even Churchill was all for just throwing our collective hands up in the air and saying "just feth this place!"
In regards to Iraq and the surrounding region now going completely down the crapper, do we think it's time to just drop a dome over the whole area, cut them off from the rest of the actually civilized world and leave them to continue partying like it's still 999AD?
Jesus Jihadin , don't be correcting me when I'm correcting you first. It's just rude.
n·flect (n-flkt)
v. in·flect·ed, in·flect·ing, in·flects
v.tr.
1. To alter (the voice) in tone or pitch; modulate.
2. Grammar To alter (a word) by inflection.
3. To turn from a course or a specified alignment; bend.
v.intr. Grammar
1. To be modified by inflection.
2. To give all of the inflected forms of a word; to provide a paradigm.
I think that's the first time I have provided "evidence" on Dakka. Go me. If I keep this up I'll be having multi-quote arguments like everyone else...
Jesus Jihadin , don't be correcting me when I'm correcting you first. It's just rude.
n·flect (n-flkt)
v. in·flect·ed, in·flect·ing, in·flects
v.tr.
1. To alter (the voice) in tone or pitch; modulate.
2. Grammar To alter (a word) by inflection.
3. To turn from a course or a specified alignment; bend.
v.intr. Grammar
1. To be modified by inflection.
2. To give all of the inflected forms of a word; to provide a paradigm.
I think that's the first time I have provided "evidence" on Dakka. Go me. If I keep this up I'll be having multi-quote arguments like everyone else...
Really?
Inflection is the rise and fall in pitch and the tone changes of the voice.
a. The preparatory command is the command that indicates movement. Pronounce each preparatory command with a rising inflection. The most desirable pitch, when beginning a preparatory command, is near the level of the natural speaking voice. A common fault with beginners is to start the preparatory command in a pitch so high that, after employing a rising inflection for the preparatory command, it is impossible to give the command of execution with clarity or without strain. A good rule to remember is to begin a command near the natural pitch of the voice.
Inflection is the rise and fall in pitch and the tone changes of the voice.
a. The preparatory command is the command that indicates movement. Pronounce each preparatory command with a rising inflection. The most desirable pitch, when beginning a preparatory command, is near the level of the natural speaking voice. A common fault with beginners is to start the preparatory command in a pitch so high that, after employing a rising inflection for the preparatory command, it is impossible to give the command of execution with clarity or without strain. A good rule to remember is to begin a command near the natural pitch of the voice.
Yes, bloody really!
I'd like to point out that inflecting is a verb , or something close to a verb, (kind of wished I'd payed attention in english class now so I could appear smart) and inflection is a noun .
I was keen to use this opportunity to multi-quote , but nope, I'm too stupid to use a button on a web page :(
One day I can be smart like...Frazzled.... and then I'll be a lawyer.... He's my idol
Inflection is the rise and fall in pitch and the tone changes of the voice.
a. The preparatory command is the command that indicates movement. Pronounce each preparatory command with a rising inflection. The most desirable pitch, when beginning a preparatory command, is near the level of the natural speaking voice. A common fault with beginners is to start the preparatory command in a pitch so high that, after employing a rising inflection for the preparatory command, it is impossible to give the command of execution with clarity or without strain. A good rule to remember is to begin a command near the natural pitch of the voice.
Yes, bloody really!
I'd like to point out that inflecting is a verb , or something close to a verb, (kind of wished I'd payed attention in english class now so I could appear smart) and inflection is a noun .
I was keen to use this opportunity to multi-quote , but nope, I'm too stupid to use a button on a web page :(
One day I can be smart like...Frazzled.... and then I'll be a lawyer.... He's my idol
Maybe I typo the "e" instead of the "i" being I use the word "inflect" more then the word "inflict" eh or
maybe I set you up to be a "Spelling Nazi"
I think the spelling error is more likely, since half your posts are so riddled with them they are one step away from being unintelligible. He made light of an error of yours, then you tried to correct him on a joke he made about inflicting the pain of a US accent on them.
motyak wrote: I think the spelling error is more likely, since half your posts are so riddled with them they are one step away from being unintelligible. He made light of an error of yours, then you tried to correct him on a joke he made about inflicting the pain of a US accent on them.
Motyak , you are right but never fear for I have skewered Jihadin with the lance-like power of my razor sharp mind. He reels before me using the Godwin defence in a pathetic effort to cast aside the shame of being beaten like the 20 week old turtle carcass hanging disconsolately in the the afternoon sun with it's fly-blown cloaca swinging in the wind that knows himself to be.
I really hate to get on topic , but it always seems to me that for some reason the Sunni side of Islam seems to me to be more organised than the Shi'a one. I always thought Shi'a was the dominant sect but it appears I'm very wrong. I am quite concerned about a new Sunni state butting heads with Iran.
Bullockist wrote: I really hate to get on topic , but it always seems to me that for some reason the Sunni side of Islam seems to me to be more organised than the Shi'a one. I always thought Shi'a was the dominant sect but it appears I'm very wrong. I am quite concerned about a new Sunni state butting heads with Iran.
It's why Iran is in Baghdad right now offering them military aid. They do not want ISIS taking control of the nation.
While America was busy getting all hot and bothered about an American-for-Taliban prisoner exchange, the nation of Iraq has been collapsing. News broke from Iraq today that militants have seized the town of Tikrit almost without a fight. This comes on the heels of the fall of Mosul earlier this week to the same group—the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). For those without maps, Tikrit lies between Mosul, the second-largest city in the country, and Baghdad, the largest. Samarra could be next, and then the capital will be imperiled. Half a million Iraqis have been displaced since January. This is, no doubt, a historic foreign policy failure.
No one likes to think about Iraq anymore. If we did, people would know terrible things are brewing there and not be shocked by today's events. Now the nation is in crisis, and hundreds of thousands of war-weary people are once again on the front lines of revolution and repression. This time there is no major power to help them keep it together—unless Iran or (less likely) Turkey decides to move in.
Here are four things to consider as the bad news rolls in.
1. U.S. politicians are washing their hands of this—which is bad news for the Iraqi people.
Colin Powell's famous Pottery Barn rule about invasions—"you break it; you buy it"—assumes there are people in D.C. who feel obligated to make good on that promise. These days, there are not. Democrats will say, rightly, that a Republican administration made this mess by invading and mishandling the insurgency that followed. They will say Iraq was doomed to fail and support the Obama administration’s choice to pull troops from Iraq. Republicans will point out, rightly, that the Obama administration made a major error by leaving Iraq without a security agreement in place. This left Iraq without vital assistance. As recently as 2011 there was talk of leaving as many as 10,000 troops as training and intelligence assets; that could have helped keep the ISIL in check.
This is the worst situation for inspiring progress from Washington D.C. No one feels responsible, no one feels like salvaging the situation, and everyone can blame someone else. President Bush was willing to risk a new strategy in Iraq during his famous surge there, probably because his legacy was on the line. It worked. But now there's nothing to prompt a bold plan to help Iraq. Intervention is unlikely. The Iraq central government doesn’t seem to be a reliable partner. And so the winner is ISIL, which wants to create a theocratic caliphate, much like the one Al Qaeda dreamed of, and now controls wide swatches of Syria and Iraq. The losers are any U.S. personnel who fought and died for Iraq, and even more so, the Iraqis who supported democracy and equal rights in their nation.
2. This is linked to a wider mess in the Middle East, particularly Syria.
ISIL was founded in 2003 after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Iraqis didn’t like their bloodthirsty methods (even Al Qaeda complained against ISIL brutality) and thought the group was made of meddling foreigners. After some notable high ranking deaths, and flashes of political progress, the ISIL drifted into war-torn Syria to fight the regime of Bashar Assad.
ISIL made its terrible mark there, killing hundreds in other rebel groups, seizing territory from government control, and executing those who didn’t subscribe to their religious views. This is when Al Qaeda dumped them as a client, but ISIL was growing in clout and attracting a new crop of ambitious, super-religious adherents. They are now the top dog of the militant world.
3. The collapse of Iraq puts ISIS on the map. And they may not like how it feels.
A common enemy is one of the best way for two nations to forge a deeper relationship. The current Iraqi government is close to Iran; Tehran has had hooks in Iraq ever since Saddam fell, and supported insurgents during the U.S. occupation. On Wednesday, Iranian officials "extended Tehran's full support for the Iraqi government and security forces in their fight against the ISIL."
Being top dog is not a good thing. The ISIL will find itself hunted by Iran and its proxies, who are not known for fighting humanely. They can expect a full spectrum of war aimed their way: Warplanes and assassinations, spies and barrel bombs, helicopters and car bombs—the works.
4. This will inspire a Vietnam-esque narrative of failure.
Back in the U.S., the failure of Iraq will color military and political thinking in ways that will leave the nation less prepared for future fights. The lesson could go like this: Invasion only leads to chaos, and counter-insurgency is a dead doctrine because reliable partners are impossible to create within reasonable timelines. Therefore the United States should divorce itself from power politics in the Middle East, ceding it to Iran as America focuses on the tense but comparably stable Pacific Rim.
These ideas are simplistic, and they are dangerous because they take options out of the foreign policy playbook, leaving the United States with few options to stave off future crisis or respond to atrocities. If the U.S. can’t intervene or support proxies, it would cede the field to nations that are not shy about using such tactics, like Russia and Iran. If insurgencies are seen as effective against U.S. military might, more will spring up. It would be wiser for the U.S. to study the missteps. Learning from mistakes is how the aviation industry reduces airline crashes. Why should foreign policy be different?
motyak wrote: I think the spelling error is more likely, since half your posts are so riddled with them they are one step away from being unintelligible. He made light of an error of yours, then you tried to correct him on a joke he made about inflicting the pain of a US accent on them.
Motyak , you are right but never fear for I have skewered Jihadin with the lance-like power of my razor sharp mind. He reels before me using the Godwin defence in a pathetic effort to cast aside the shame of being beaten like the 20 week old turtle carcass hanging disconsolately in the the afternoon sun with it's fly-blown cloaca swinging in the wind that knows himself to be.
While America was busy getting all hot and bothered about an American-for-Taliban prisoner exchange, the nation of Iraq has been collapsing. News broke from Iraq today that militants have seized the town of Tikrit almost without a fight. This comes on the heels of the fall of Mosul earlier this week to the same group—the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). For those without maps, Tikrit lies between Mosul, the second-largest city in the country, and Baghdad, the largest. Samarra could be next, and then the capital will be imperiled. Half a million Iraqis have been displaced since January. This is, no doubt, a historic foreign policy failure.
No one likes to think about Iraq anymore. If we did, people would know terrible things are brewing there and not be shocked by today's events. Now the nation is in crisis, and hundreds of thousands of war-weary people are once again on the front lines of revolution and repression. This time there is no major power to help them keep it together—unless Iran or (less likely) Turkey decides to move in.
Here are four things to consider as the bad news rolls in.
1. U.S. politicians are washing their hands of this—which is bad news for the Iraqi people.
Colin Powell's famous Pottery Barn rule about invasions—"you break it; you buy it"—assumes there are people in D.C. who feel obligated to make good on that promise. These days, there are not. Democrats will say, rightly, that a Republican administration made this mess by invading and mishandling the insurgency that followed. They will say Iraq was doomed to fail and support the Obama administration’s choice to pull troops from Iraq. Republicans will point out, rightly, that the Obama administration made a major error by leaving Iraq without a security agreement in place. This left Iraq without vital assistance. As recently as 2011 there was talk of leaving as many as 10,000 troops as training and intelligence assets; that could have helped keep the ISIL in check.
This is the worst situation for inspiring progress from Washington D.C. No one feels responsible, no one feels like salvaging the situation, and everyone can blame someone else. President Bush was willing to risk a new strategy in Iraq during his famous surge there, probably because his legacy was on the line. It worked. But now there's nothing to prompt a bold plan to help Iraq. Intervention is unlikely. The Iraq central government doesn’t seem to be a reliable partner. And so the winner is ISIL, which wants to create a theocratic caliphate, much like the one Al Qaeda dreamed of, and now controls wide swatches of Syria and Iraq. The losers are any U.S. personnel who fought and died for Iraq, and even more so, the Iraqis who supported democracy and equal rights in their nation.
2. This is linked to a wider mess in the Middle East, particularly Syria.
ISIL was founded in 2003 after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Iraqis didn’t like their bloodthirsty methods (even Al Qaeda complained against ISIL brutality) and thought the group was made of meddling foreigners. After some notable high ranking deaths, and flashes of political progress, the ISIL drifted into war-torn Syria to fight the regime of Bashar Assad.
ISIL made its terrible mark there, killing hundreds in other rebel groups, seizing territory from government control, and executing those who didn’t subscribe to their religious views. This is when Al Qaeda dumped them as a client, but ISIL was growing in clout and attracting a new crop of ambitious, super-religious adherents. They are now the top dog of the militant world.
3. The collapse of Iraq puts ISIS on the map. And they may not like how it feels.
A common enemy is one of the best way for two nations to forge a deeper relationship. The current Iraqi government is close to Iran; Tehran has had hooks in Iraq ever since Saddam fell, and supported insurgents during the U.S. occupation. On Wednesday, Iranian officials "extended Tehran's full support for the Iraqi government and security forces in their fight against the ISIL."
Being top dog is not a good thing. The ISIL will find itself hunted by Iran and its proxies, who are not known for fighting humanely. They can expect a full spectrum of war aimed their way: Warplanes and assassinations, spies and barrel bombs, helicopters and car bombs—the works.
4. This will inspire a Vietnam-esque narrative of failure.
Back in the U.S., the failure of Iraq will color military and political thinking in ways that will leave the nation less prepared for future fights. The lesson could go like this: Invasion only leads to chaos, and counter-insurgency is a dead doctrine because reliable partners are impossible to create within reasonable timelines. Therefore the United States should divorce itself from power politics in the Middle East, ceding it to Iran as America focuses on the tense but comparably stable Pacific Rim.
These ideas are simplistic, and they are dangerous because they take options out of the foreign policy playbook, leaving the United States with few options to stave off future crisis or respond to atrocities. If the U.S. can’t intervene or support proxies, it would cede the field to nations that are not shy about using such tactics, like Russia and Iran. If insurgencies are seen as effective against U.S. military might, more will spring up. It would be wiser for the U.S. to study the missteps. Learning from mistakes is how the aviation industry reduces airline crashes. Why should foreign policy be different?
(CNN) - Iraq's government Wednesday indicated a willingness for the United States military to conduct airstrikes against radical Islamist militants who have taken over one large city and are threatening to fully control another, a U.S. official told CNN.
motyak wrote: I think the spelling error is more likely, since half your posts are so riddled with them they are one step away from being unintelligible. He made light of an error of yours, then you tried to correct him on a joke he made about inflicting the pain of a US accent on them.
Motyak , you are right but never fear for I have skewered Jihadin with the lance-like power of my razor sharp mind. He reels before me using the Godwin defence in a pathetic effort to cast aside the shame of being beaten like the 20 week old turtle carcass hanging disconsolately in the the afternoon sun with it's fly-blown cloaca swinging in the wind that knows himself to be.
I won WITH proof! I AM KING OF THE INTERWEB!
Wait... so is Jihadin sweating like a gypsy with a mortgage yet... or should he be busier than a one-armed brick layer in baghdad?
motyak wrote: I think the spelling error is more likely, since half your posts are so riddled with them they are one step away from being unintelligible. He made light of an error of yours, then you tried to correct him on a joke he made about inflicting the pain of a US accent on them.
Motyak , you are right but never fear for I have skewered Jihadin with the lance-like power of my razor sharp mind. He reels before me using the Godwin defence in a pathetic effort to cast aside the shame of being beaten like the 20 week old turtle carcass hanging disconsolately in the the afternoon sun with it's fly-blown cloaca swinging in the wind that knows himself to be.
I won WITH proof! I AM KING OF THE INTERWEB!
Wait... so is Jihadin sweating like a gypsy with a mortgage yet... or should he be busier than a one-armed brick layer in baghdad?
Seaward wrote: Plus, why do they even want our air? I thought we were terrible, terrible sky-rapers who just drop on weddings and special needs schools.
Seaward wrote: Plus, why do they even want our air? I thought we were terrible, terrible sky-rapers who just drop on weddings and special needs schools.
Only on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
Tuesday and Wednesday are reserved for POV vehicles
Seaward wrote: Plus, why do they even want our air? I thought we were terrible, terrible sky-rapers who just drop on weddings and special needs schools.
Only on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
Tuesday and Wednesday are reserved for POV vehicles
Sunday Game of Thrones is on, so everyone is at home watching TV so no bombing civilians Sundays either.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: So what will the history books say about the 2nd Gulf War? Will it be simply that America "lost" the war in the same way it lost the Vietnam War?
The historical view on Vietnam is more complex than that.
As far as the Middle East goes, can anyone deny that all of our war aims have failed to be accomplished? Except for the removal of Saddam which was not a primary aim anyway, and could have been brought about by waiting and doing nothing since he would have died naturally.
Given that the Baathist remnants are allied with the Isis, we may well see a Baathist regime headed by one of Saddam's ex-henchmen in a couple of years and the circle will be complete.
What did the US Military fail in Iraq? We met all goals as directed. Do not point to Iraq military that we trained. Some crazy "purges" happen to it after we left.
We all knew this was going to happen when the bingo date to withdraw was issued. In fact I pretty much stated this was going to happen.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: So what will the history books say about the 2nd Gulf War? Will it be simply that America "lost" the war in the same way it lost the Vietnam War?
The historical view on Vietnam is more complex than that.
As far as the Middle East goes, can anyone deny that all of our war aims have failed to be accomplished? Except for the removal of Saddam which was not a primary aim anyway, and could have been brought about by waiting and doing nothing since he would have died naturally.
Given that the Baathist remnants are allied with the Isis, we may well see a Baathist regime headed by one of Saddam's ex-henchmen in a couple of years and the circle will be complete.
I know the end of Vietnam was more complicated and the aftermath of the end of America's involvement in Iraq will be equally complicated but the popular lay narrative is that America lost the Vietnam war. I'm wondering if that will be the same outcome of the Iraq War.
I don't really see the argument for the US sending troops in again, or even lending support from the air. In terms of military power, Iraq has the men and gear to spank ISIS. The issue is whether there is the competent leadership and willingness to fight among the troops, and if those things aren't present then any US involvement will only be delaying the inevitable.
Korean Conflict was a draw no one arguing that. Politics played into that but I am glad Eisenhower put a check on MacArthur to not expand hitting targets on China border
The term for Vietnam being used is "We lost the war but won all the battles." Politics though played very heavy in the conflict
First Gulf War was to evict Saddam out of Kuwait. I believe Bush did not want to kill Saddam due to that power vacuum it would have left
Afghanistan, well we went in and to get AQ and booted Taliban for harboring them
Iraq, I blame freaking everyone in congress since pretty much they all agreed to it. To remove Saddam and whatever WMD he had. All circumstantial but to some its not enough to convict the POTUS
Libya. Lead airstrikes into it for a turn over in regime. Yet no one I think fully understood what parties were in play there
Syria. Fighter groups there are totally questionable on who was supporting them
Ukraine. Same thing. What exactly are we supporting there being they have some questionable members in public positions of authority.
I think the "Bench Mark" the Iraqi's had to make to show progress to satisfy those in DoS and POTUS is going to come in play. Were the Field Commander reports influence by what those two entity want to hear or were they willing to put their career on the line and state out right its a "No Go". I know of three commanders removed because of that
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: I don't really see the argument for the US sending troops in again, or even lending support from the air. In terms of military power, Iraq has the men and gear to spank ISIS. The issue is whether there is the competent leadership and willingness to fight among the troops, and if those things aren't present then any US involvement will only be delaying the inevitable.
To them, Iraqi Army, they are fighting their own can and have a strong sense of the outcome who be in charge in a year
Jihadin wrote: What did the US Military fail in Iraq? We met all goals as directed. Do not point to Iraq military that we trained. Some crazy "purges" happen to it after we left.
We all knew this was going to happen when the bingo date to withdraw was issued. In fact I pretty much stated this was going to happen.
I don’t mean the armed forces did a bad job. I mean they were sent to do the wrong job which created a situation impossible to be solved by the military.
The War Aim was to break up the Baathist regime in order to:
1. Remove the WMDs.
2. Suppress extremist terrorism.
3. Build a stable democracy.
The Baathist regime was broken up quickly. The army was knocked out, the ring-leaders were captured or driven abroad and the party was suppressed which had the effect of breaking up the government. That military task was accomplished smartly and effectively. However it was merely a means to the three ends.
Looking at those we know that 1 and 2 were impossible to be accomplished as they did not exist. (This was known before the war but ignored and glossed over by our leadership.)
Objective 3 -- nation building -- is a political and social task not a military one. The key failure of the CotW was not having a plan in place for that task. The consequences as we have seen were dire.
"We need places to land, we need safe and secure airfields," one source said, noting that the militants are "seizing airfields and they have surface-to-air missiles, which very clearly threatens our pilots and planes if we do go into evacuation mode."
It may surprise a lot people on this site, but technically, the Vietnam war wasn't actually a war. War was never declared.
Sure we had the situation of America saying yeah, we're killing tons of your guys and dropping bombs on your cities, and sure the North is killing tons of ours guys, but nobody is at war with each other
Anyway, I'd just like to say I'm pretty fearful for the future and here's why. A few months ago, I was reading about Ukraine in WW2...at the same time Putin kicked off trouble.
Two weeks ago I started reading a book about the British in Iraq in the 1920s and 1930s...and look what's happened.
The next book on my reading list is a biography of...
Spoiler:
stonewall jackson
I just hope something really bad doesn't happen to America involving certain states!
"We need places to land, we need safe and secure airfields," one source said, noting that the militants are "seizing airfields and they have surface-to-air missiles, which very clearly threatens our pilots and planes if we do go into evacuation mode."
About that air support...
My desire to let Iraq get hoisted by its own petard and thus agree with this is countered by my desire to say, "It's called a flight deck, nimrod."
To the anonymous source, obviously. Not to you, Jihadin.
Jihadin wrote: I bet they're really regretting say no to not extending that SOFA
Wonder if Karzai going to sign off on his or let the incoming one sign off on it who might not actually do it
Both of the perspective new presidents have vowed that they will sign the SOFA. In addition, the country actually supports it being signed in this case.
A few sentences in the CNN article are facepalm-worthy, but that second one is a rather nice summary.
BTW: Wallstreet Journal reports that Iran has deployed 3 battalions of the al Quds Brigades to fight ISIL forces after getting "free hand" from Maliki.
According to an Austrian news source, ISIL forces reached Baquba, 60 km from Baghdad, last night, but were repelled.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: So what will the history books say about the 2nd Gulf War? Will it be simply that America "lost" the war in the same way it lost the Vietnam War?
Well technically when we left everything was hunkey dory. This is just nature finding its new balance. AlQaeda vs. Iran, this is an..interesting development.
Jihadin wrote: Well. Be interesting prosecuting me for my actions during OIF and OEF. Feel free condemning me then for inflecting injuries to Insurgents
Edit
I for one will not throw my medals away. Even ones with the"V" device
No ones condemning you. We're talking Bush and Blair.
Then American service people were lied to the same as everyone else.
The call the Hague and compel Bush/Blair to testify.
Only if we get to nuke the Hague first. Some poncey European tries to mess with an American President and they'll get their heads handed to them.
This reminds me exactly of when I watched South Vietnam go under. Everything is playing out the same way to the point I feel like I can pretty much predict the half assed mission from the U.S. to get one last punch in after Iraq is totaly taken over and we start getting daily photographs of executions for those who believed in us and helped us.
If they have helecopter lifts from the roof of the embassy, I wouldn't be surprised.
Relapse wrote: This reminds me exactly of when I watched South Vietnam go under. Everything is playing out the same way to the point I feel like I can pretty much predict the half assed mission from the U.S. to get one last punch in after Iraq is totaly taken over and we start getting daily photographs of executions for those who believed in us and helped us.
If they have helecopter lifts from the roof of the embassy, I wouldn't be surprised.
We've learned jack gak since Vietnam.
I guess it will rather be a lot like Afghanistan prior to the US invasion. Substitute the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan with the Shia territory in southeastern Iraq and the Taliban with ISIL and it's a great fit.
DxM Scotty MxD wrote: I heard that the ISIS PR group have announced they're 15 kilometres from Baghdad .
Well they've been going through Sunni country. Aren't they about to hit Shiite country which means the crap stops cold? Iran is now sending troops. Do you realize we're on the same side as Iran ?
Are we supporting these jerks in Syria?
WTF is going on?
Is it me or is this an opening for detente between the US and IRan? Then we can like, beat it the out of there and stay out.
Yep. At least in the beginning. They're part of the lovely array of democrats everybody was so eager to cheer because they were against Assad. Who is EVIL. So they had to be good guys, right?
Unrelated PS: I hate how the media renamed "Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (ISIL)" to "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)" because they apparently assume people are too daft to figure out where the "Levant" is. That's like renaming the CSA to the CSD because "Confederate States of Dixieland" rings more of a bell.
DxM Scotty MxD wrote: I heard that the ISIS PR group have announced they're 15 kilometres from Baghdad .
1)Well they've been going through Sunni country. Aren't they about to hit Shiite country which means the crap stops cold? 2)Iran is now sending troops. Do you realize we're on the same side as Iran?
3)Are we supporting these jerks in Syria?
4)WTF is going on?
5)Is it me or is this an opening for detente between the US and IRan? Then we can like, beat it the out of there and stay out.
THANKS OBAMA BUSH CLINTON BUSH HUSSEIN!
I don't know what you're trying to say here so I'm gonna address each point individually.
1) Yes they have been moving through predominately Sunni territory which is a big factor for why the Iraqi army is falling apart like a pack of cards (at one engagement ~1K DAESH/ISIS broke through ~10-20K Iraqi army). Once they reach Shiite territory they are probably going to hit a brick wall.
2) To my knowledge Iran is sending 3 Battalions of core soldiery given a kill order and a free hand. I guess when the militants want to revive the Caliphate and expand it to all of its previous territories even Al-qeada looks like a sane ally.
3) Again to my knowledge the West is funding all sides. We're funding the Iraqis directly, the ISIS through moderate rebels through a tax/being absorbed into the ISIS and Iran to solve this problem so we don't have to.
4)"Hey, hope this will help to make some proper sense of what's going on.
this is the deal:
Until the toppling of Saddam's regime in 2003, Iraq was controlled by a Sunni regime, although a very large portion of its population was and is Shiite. Most Shiites are located in Southern Iraq, while Arab Sunnies are at the West and some of the East (and northern of Baghdad to certain extent). At the North there are the Kurds, who are Sunni, but non-Arab.
After the elections Al-Maliki was chosen to be Prime Minister. Al-Maliki is Shiite, and therefore Iraq actually became a Shiite state, with Shiite administration. The Sunni tribes at the west were paid-off to defend the western border. During the American occupation and presence of Iraq, an Al-Qaeda branch in Iraq, called Al-Qaeda in Iraq has fought against Iraqi and American forces. The have gained much experience and, after the Americans left, support from Sunni tribes in the western part of Iraq (who were left out of Iraqi payroll).
In 2011 there was the Arab 'spring', or moreso, the Islamist spring. The Syrian uprising began, and a Syrian Al-Qaeda branch was formed in the form of Jabhat A-Nusra, also known as Tanzim Al-Qaeda fi Syria (Al-Qaeda organization in Syria). Al-Qaeda in Iraq has decided to join the fighting in Syria, and set itself a goal to make an Islamic state in Iraq and Syria (and the Levant), and renamed itself DAESH (Dawla Islamiyya fi Iraq wa a-Sham), or ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and a-Sham, which is the name of Greater Syria in Arabic). It has entered Syria from the western side and has made some serious gains. They are known for being the most extremist Islamist group that have ever made such achievments (even more than the Taliban).
Eventually the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (obviously a false name, Abu-Bakr was the first Caliph) decide he wants more, and declared Jabhat a-Nusra is now a part of ISIS. That statement was made without Jabhat a-Nusra's leader, al-Jawlani (meaning: from the Golan Heights) agreement, and thus a conflict began between those organizations. Al-Qaeda leadership chose to distance itself from ISIS, and declared that Jabhat a-Nusra is the only legit Al-Qaeda branch in Syria.
And recently, ISIS began fighting in Western Iraq, making very serious gains. That is because the Iraqi army is basically gak. The Americans didn't build an efficient army, and didn't under the sociology behind making a proper army.
Thus, it is not surpring it's collapsing. Now, since Iraq is basically a Shiite state, it's Iran's best interest to aid it. That's why there are many reports of IRGC troops fighting near Baghdad.
Who's behind all this? It's known that Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other states have supported and financed the Syria opposition and especially the Islamist elements in it, like Jabhat a-Nusra and Jabha al-Islamiyya, but are they also supporting ISIS? Someone must be behind them, because much financing, ammunition and weaponry are needed to make such an organization so powerful.
There are also claims that ISIS is an Iranian-Syrian plot to rip the Sunni world apart, and don't forget that so far ISIS has killed much more Sunnies than Shiites - but that still seems very far-fetched."
That's BS. (Not that I would expect high quality journalism from CNN.)
Al Qaeda didn't all of a sudden discover its touchy-feely side, but ISIL ran afoul of al Nusra when Baghdadi decided he'd rather be a competent warlord than a mediocre terrorist. After locking horns with al Qaeda's golden boys of the al Nusra Front over zones of influence, Baghdadi decided he needed neither Zawahiri nor al Nusra, which is being bled dry by Assad's forces.
ISIL now claims authority over Iraq and the Levant, meaning NOT only modern Syria, but also Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine and Israel.
Does anyone else find it strange that the only DAESH units wearing proper combat uniform are the death squads going around and executing Iraqi army leadership?
DxM Scotty MxD wrote: Does anyone else find it strange that the only DAESH units wearing proper combat uniform are the death squads going around and executing Iraqi army leadership?
Not sure which pictures you're referring to. Usually, whenever they are in uniform, it's a press foto or video made by themselves.
DxM Scotty MxD wrote: Does anyone else find it strange that the only DAESH units wearing proper combat uniform are the death squads going around and executing Iraqi army leadership?
Not sure which pictures you're referring to. Usually, whenever they are in uniform, it's a press foto or video made by themselves.
I'd give you the source but I'm not sure it would fit with forum rules as it's a video that shows DAESH killing a LOT of people. Some executions, some fighting and a lot of IEDs destroying Iraqi army vehicles.
Allod wrote: Well, without having seen it, that sounds like their typical fare. If it's one of theirs, it should have their logo.
Aye it's one of their vids. Still find it strange that death squads = combat gear and combatants = sheets with an AK and/or RPG.
For these guys, when they are expecting to die, they want to do so in their best and cleanest clothes. That's while you'll see many suicide bombers in their pearly whites and the like. One of the "flags" they teach us to watch for when over in that part of the world. Just a part of the culture over there I guess.
I think what you identify as "death squads" doesn't exist in this form and the reason they're wearing combat gear is that these executions are staged and meant to look orderly and professional.
Allod wrote: I think what you identify as "death squads" doesn't exist in this form and the reason they're wearing combat gear is that these executions are staged and meant to look orderly and professional.
Politics
Mosul Seized: Jihadis Loot $429m from City's Central Bank to Make Isis World's Richest Terror Force
Jack Moore
By Jack Moore
June 11, 2014 11:12 BST
12183 1251 152 Share on linkedin
Iraq Isis
Civilian children stand next to a burnt vehicle during clashes between Iraqi security forces and al Qaeda-linked Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) in the northern Iraq city of Mosul.Reuters
The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (Isis) has become the richest terror group ever after looting 500 billion Iraqi dinars - the equivalent of $429m (£256m) - from Mosul's central bank, according to the regional governor.
Nineveh governor Atheel al-Nujaifi confirmed Kurdish televison reports that Isis militants had stolen millions from numerous banks across Mosul. A large quantity of gold bullion is also believed to have been stolen.
Following the siege of the country's second city, the bounty collected by the group has left it richer than al-Qaeda itself and as wealthy as small nations such as Tonga, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands and the Falkland Islands.
The financial assets that Isis now possess are likely to worsen the Iraqi governement's struggle to defeat the insurgency, which is aimed at creating an Islamic state across the Syrian-Iraqi border.
The Islamist militants took control of Mosul after hundreds of its fighters overwhelmed government military forces in a lightning attack on Monday, forcing up to 500,000 people to flee the city and Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to call a national state of emergency.
The militants freed up to 1,000 inmates from Mosul's central prison, according to senior police officials. They are also in control of Mosul airport and local television stations.
They also seized considerable amounts of US-supplied military hardware. Photos have already emerged of Isis parading captured Humvees in neighbouring Syria where they are also waging war against President Bashar al-Assad's regime.
Isis Syria Iraq
US-supplied humvees captured by Islamic insurgents in the battle for MosulTwitter / @jenanmoussa
In a televised news conference, Maliki said "Iraq is undergoing a difficult stage" and urged the public and government to unite "to confront this vicious attack, which will spare no Iraqi."
The US State Department has released a statement saying that it is "deeply concerned" by the Islamist militants' siege of Mosul.
"The situation remains extremely serious. Senior U.S. officials in both Washington and Baghdad are tracking events closely in coordination with the Government of Iraq," the statement read.
"The United States stands with the Iraqi people," it continued.
Mosul
Mosul lies in northern Iraq near the Syrian border.Google Maps
Isis captured the city Falluja, 40 miles west of Baghdad, in January and currently controls large swathes of northern Iraq.
The Iraqi government has launched a number of failed assaults on the city leaving hopes of retaking Mosul slim.
An Iraqi army officer told the Independent: "We can't beat them."
"They're trained in street fighting and we're not. We need a whole army to drive them out of Mosul. They're like ghosts; they appear to hit and disappear within seconds."
It will be interesting if an independent Kurdistan is finally set up as a direct result of this. Possibly even a good thing. Maliki was a total arse towards them.
The attackers on the target. Since I believe quite a few Iraqi's weapons has a laser attach to them it also oblique (think that's the word I am looking for. Mot can confirm ) the vehicle windows. Though you have ones that step out of no where to shoot an RPG at you but forget how close to the wall they are. Or the occasional one walking out in the open looking for something American to shoot an RPG at. Majority of time is they forget to pull the pin. Or fire the RPG thinking their buddy pulled the pin of the round while their buddy finger still in the ring.
Yeah guys, lets have a good laugh about those people blowing themselves into pieces!
I'm just wondering about the number of people commenting here to the effect of 'their fething problem' understand the principles of cause and effect?
That this set of circumstances - of civil infrastructure destroyed, of displaced people, of an economy in ruin and the loss of a stable platform of state control, leading everyone to be at each other's throats - is somehow the fault of the Iraqi people and those left 'in charge' of the wreckage?
I read that the US State Department had commissioned a set of 'Post-invasion scenarios' reports, which included recommended plans of actions as a result of government think-tanks concerning the handling of the government, the army, the economy and numerous other things. It consisted of thousands of pages and had cost millions of dollars to compile. Apparently, when a certain Mr. Rumsfeld was presented with the paper, he picked it up and dropped it straight into the waste paper bin.
That's exactly what the administration at that time cared about what happened to Iraq or the Iraqi people. Once the initial military, industrial and geo-political objectives had been accomplished, Iraq could go to hell for all they cared. And, that's exactly what has happened to it.
The horrendous thing about it is that it will be the common citizens of the west, not them, that will get killed in retaliation now that we are essentially creating a whole new generation (as the Russians did in Afghanistan) of people who actively hate the West.
The whole thing is just so fething disgraceful and sad, and yet people still actively support it as though their own well-being/moral imperatives and best interests, are somehow on the same page as the politicians and power-brokers who lead them into the war. They are quite patently not.
I'm just wondering about the number of people commenting here to the effect of 'their fething problem' understand the principles of cause and effect?
That this set of circumstances - of civil infrastructure destroyed, of displaced people, of an economy in ruin and the loss of a stable platform of state control, leading everyone to be at each other's throats - is somehow the fault of the Iraqi people and those left 'in charge' of the wreckage?
Causation is mostly guesswork and pre-confirmed bias when applied to a socio-political context.
One could argue that the US is responsible for it, but one could also argue that it was Saddam Hussein's fault for having ruled Iraq in the first place, as the US wouldn't have invaded otherwise. Alternatively, we could say that the current scenario was directly caused by Al-Maliki's crass handling of the army and filling it with yes men, otherwise it wouldn't be running away and ISIS would have been thrown back by now. Or it could be the fault of Mohammed himself, because if he didn't exist, neither would Islam, and thus, ISIS?
Trying to say, 'It's all the US's fault that this is happening!' is patently ludicrous. Sure, they had one role/factor to play in the chain of events, but there are plenty of others, from Al-Maliki, to the cultural and social context in which Iraq, and the Greater Middle-East exist.
I'm just wondering about the number of people commenting here to the effect of 'their fething problem' understand the principles of cause and effect?
That this set of circumstances - of civil infrastructure destroyed, of displaced people, of an economy in ruin and the loss of a stable platform of state control, leading everyone to be at each other's throats - is somehow the fault of the Iraqi people and those left 'in charge' of the wreckage?
Causation is mostly guesswork and pre-confirmed bias when applied to a socio-political context.
One could argue that the US is responsible for it, but one could also argue that it was Saddam Hussein's fault for having ruled Iraq in the first place, as the US wouldn't have invaded otherwise.
Strange how that wasn't a problem when he was fighting Iran.
Iraqs oil wasn't a consideration, was it ?
The biggest issue, is now that they have so much money. I would say recovering as much of that as we can, should be our number one priority in this situation.
Having so much money isn't very handy if you have nowhere to spend it. It should be recalled at this point in time, that ISIS has absolutely no friends.
The Iranians despise them (as they're Sunnis), the Syrians are at war with them, the West regards them as terrorists, the Russians support the Syrians, the Israelis see them as a threat, and the Chinese have no plan to rock the boat with so many others against this group. The Turks are generally too secular to fund islamic nutters(and see them as a threat), the Saudia Arabians, Qatarians and smaller nations have no stake in promoting them, and the Egyptians are busy suppressing radical Islam at home with no interest in supporting it abroad. The Libyans have their hands full trying to keep their country together, and ISIS has publically declared it's intent to kill the King of Jordan and invade Lebanon which rules them out.
The only people in the world ISIS can count on as potential allies are Hamas of the West Bank, and possibly a thin grouping of other terrorist organisations. That's it. So having a large pile of cash is somewhat useless in terms of not being able to actually spend it.
Iran is ready to assist the Iraqi government in its battle against extremist Sunni insurgents, President Hassan Rouhani has said.
But he denied Iran had sent troops into Iraq to help bolster Iraqi government forces' defences.
The insurgents - from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) - have seized the cities of Mosul and Tikrit and are moving closer to Baghdad.
They regard Iraq's Shia majority as "infidels".
Iran has close ties with the Shia-dominated Iraqi leadership which came to power after the toppling of President Saddam Hussein, whose powerbase was the country's Sunni minority.
ISIS is a hardline Islamist militant group that grew during the US-led occupation and is one of several jihadist militias fighting the rule of Bashar al-Assad in neighbouring Syria.
"If the Iraqi government asks us for help, we may provide any assistance the Iraqi nation would like us to provide in the fight against terrorism," said President Rouhani at a news conference to mark the first anniversary of his victory in Shia Iran's presidential election.
"However, the engagement of Iranian forces has not been discussed. Providing help and being engaged in operations are different."
Answering a question from the BBC, he said that so far the Iraqi government had not requested help from Iran.
President Rouhani did not rule out co-operating with Iran's traditional foe the United States in combating ISIS: "We can think about if we see America starts confronting the terrorist groups in Iraq or elsewhere."
According to unnamed sources quoted by both the the Wall Street Journal and CNN, Iran has already sent several elite units of its Revolutionary Guard to help Iraq, but Iranian officials have denied this.
WarOne wrote: Do experts have an idea of how many people are actually combat effective within the ISIS organization? Thousands?
The last quote I saw was about 5,000 effectives. Which, to be frank, is pitiful.
The only reason that ISIS even has a chance of maintaining ground in Iraq, is because Al-Maliki's been discriminating against the Sunni minority ever since he came into power, and in short, being doing exactly the same bleeding thing good ol' Hussein did the other way, bar the genocide. So the Sunni and Kurdish factions will be using this opportunity to escape from under the Shia thumb.
The thing is, they didn't want a unity government any of them, to begin with. Whilst the Americans were there, they were at least guaranteed equal treatment, which whilst not ideal, was tolerable. Once the Americans cleared out and Al-Maliki started oppressing the Kurds and Sunni's though, any hope of a true fair unity government and democracy vanished.
Right here and now, I'd wager that if Isis has any sense, they'll take over paying all Government employees in all conquered territories using their newly captured war chest, let commerce and travel resume freely within them, and recruit the Sunni militias to bulk up their forces. If they stop their military push at the edge of Shia majority areas, Al-Maliki will have a hard time rousing his forces to take back what will have in effect become hostile territory. Shia milias will probably fight furiously to defend their own homes, but they won't advance to war in Sunni majority areas.
If you look at where ISIS ran into determined opposition (against the Kurds), they pulled back. They haven't the forces to engage in sustained conflict. So what they'll do (if they have a brain) is consolidate over as much Sunni territory as they can, bolster their forces, and build their own strength until they are a de facto government in effect. The Kurds, not being politically tied to Maliki or 'Iraq', will most likely do the same thing. The result being an Islamic Caliphate ruled by ISIS embroiled in conflict in Syria, an independent Kurdistan with economic links to Turkey, and a much reduced Shia dominated Iraq.
WarOne wrote: Do experts have an idea of how many people are actually combat effective within the ISIS organization? Thousands?
The last quote I saw was about 5,000 effectives. Which, to be frank, is pitiful.
The only reason that ISIS even has a chance of maintaining ground in Iraq, is because Al-Maliki's been discriminating against the Sunni minority ever since he came into power, and in short, being doing exactly the same bleeding thing good ol' Hussein did the other way, bar the genocide. So the Sunni and Kurdish factions will be using this opportunity to escape from under the Shia thumb.
The thing is, they didn't want a unity government any of them, to begin with. Whilst the Americans were there, they were at least guaranteed equal treatment, which whilst not ideal, was tolerable. Once the Americans cleared out and Al-Maliki started oppressing the Kurds and Sunni's though, any hope of a true fair unity government and democracy vanished.
Right here and now, I'd wager that if Isis has any sense, they'll take over paying all Government employees in all conquered territories using their newly captured war chest, let commerce and travel resume freely within them, and recruit the Sunni militias to bulk up their forces. If they stop their military push at the edge of Shia majority areas, Al-Maliki will have a hard time rousing his forces to take back what will have in effect become hostile territory. Shia milias will probably fight furiously to defend their own homes, but they won't advance to war in Sunni majority areas.
If you look at where ISIS ran into determined opposition (against the Kurds), they pulled back. They haven't the forces to engage in sustained conflict. So what they'll do (if they have a brain) is consolidate over as much Sunni territory as they can, bolster their forces, and build their own strength until they are a de facto government in effect. The Kurds, not being politically tied to Maliki or 'Iraq', will most likely do the same thing. The result being an Islamic Caliphate ruled by ISIS embroiled in conflict in Syria, an independent Kurdistan with economic links to Turkey, and a much reduced Shia dominated Iraq.
Between this and the conflict in Ukraine, cartographers should have some pretty good job security.
I'm just wondering about the number of people commenting here to the effect of 'their fething problem' understand the principles of cause and effect?
That this set of circumstances - of civil infrastructure destroyed, of displaced people, of an economy in ruin and the loss of a stable platform of state control, leading everyone to be at each other's throats - is somehow the fault of the Iraqi people and those left 'in charge' of the wreckage?
Causation is mostly guesswork and pre-confirmed bias when applied to a socio-political context.
One could argue that the US is responsible for it, but one could also argue that it was Saddam Hussein's fault for having ruled Iraq in the first place, as the US wouldn't have invaded otherwise. Alternatively, we could say that the current scenario was directly caused by Al-Maliki's crass handling of the army and filling it with yes men, otherwise it wouldn't be running away and ISIS would have been thrown back by now. Or it could be the fault of Mohammed himself, because if he didn't exist, neither would Islam, and thus, ISIS?
Trying to say, 'It's all the US's fault that this is happening!' is patently ludicrous. Sure, they had one role/factor to play in the chain of events, but there are plenty of others, from Al-Maliki, to the cultural and social context in which Iraq, and the Greater Middle-East exist.
I think the important factor to think on is would the area be so destabalised that small organised groups could gain significant power before the US invasion?I doubt it. Only one action destabalised the area so much and created a power vacuum, the invasion by the US. Without the power vacuum, ISIL (yes that's its fething name) that was created then it would have been virtually impossible for ISIL to gain traction. What's the lesson for everybody? feth with some countries internal politics and more than likely you will not get the result you want.
Hopefully this is learned before my country gets dragged into ANOTHER pointless war.
Ketara wrote: Having so much money isn't very handy if you have nowhere to spend it. It should be recalled at this point in time, that ISIS has absolutely no friends.
The Iranians despise them (as they're Sunnis), the Syrians are at war with them, the West regards them as terrorists, the Russians support the Syrians, the Israelis see them as a threat, and the Chinese have no plan to rock the boat with so many others against this group. The Turks are generally too secular to fund islamic nutters(and see them as a threat), the Saudia Arabians, Qatarians and smaller nations have no stake in promoting them, and the Egyptians are busy suppressing radical Islam at home with no interest in supporting it abroad. The Libyans have their hands full trying to keep their country together, and ISIS has publically declared it's intent to kill the King of Jordan and invade Lebanon which rules them out.
The only people in the world ISIS can count on as potential allies are Hamas of the West Bank, and possibly a thin grouping of other terrorist organisations. That's it. So having a large pile of cash is somewhat useless in terms of not being able to actually spend it.
But, money talks man... 'specially that amount of jack.
I think the important factor to think on is would the area be so destabalised that small organised groups could gain significant power before the US invasion?I doubt it. Only one action destabalised the area so much and created a power vacuum, the invasion by the US. Without the power vacuum, ISIL (yes that's its fething name) that was created then it would have been virtually impossible for ISIL to gain traction. What's the lesson for everybody? feth with some countries internal politics and more than likely you will not get the result you want.
Hopefully this is learned before my country gets dragged into ANOTHER pointless war.
I'm afraid it's not so simple. You're assuming that the equation is 'America does not invade Iraq = Saddam Hussein is still in power, and everything would have been identical to the way it was before America invaded'. But that's faulty logic. World events aren't an equation, and you can't judge things in perfect isolation like that.
For example, what if Saddam died of a heart attack a year and a half ago, and the country fell into civil war over the succession? Who's to say that Iran might not have had another war with Iraq in the meanwhile, and won? Perhaps Saddam would have tried launching missiles at Israel again, and had the crap bombed out of him in retaliation as a result?
You can sit there and play Guess Who history all day. But causation is not so easily assessed and pinned down. And nobody on this planet that I know of has the ability to truly see what 'might' have been.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - An offensive by insurgents that threatens to dismember Iraq seemed to slow on Saturday after days of lightning advances as government forces regained some territory in counter-attacks, easing pressure on the Shi'ite-led government in Baghdad.
As Iraqi officials spoke of wresting back the initiative against Sunni militants, neighboring Shi'ite Iran held out the prospect of working with its longtime U.S. arch-enemy to help restore security in Iraq.
U.S. President Barack Obama said on Friday he was reviewing military options, short of sending troops, to combat the insurgency. The United States ordered an aircraft carrier moved into the Gulf on Saturday, readying it in case Washington decides to pursue a military option after insurgents overran areas in the north and advanced on Baghdad. (Full Story)
Ships like the USS George H.W. Bush, which are equipped with sophisticated anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles, are often used to launch airstrikes, conduct surveillance flights, do search, rescue, humanitarian and evacuation missions, and conduct seaborne security operations, a U.S. defense official said.
Thousands of Iraqis responded to a call by the country's most influential Shi'ite cleric to take up arms and defend the country against the insurgency, led by the Sunni militant Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL.
In a visit to the city of Samarra, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki vowed to rout the insurgents, whose onslaught has put the future of Iraq as a unitary state in question and raised the specter of sectarian conflict.
The militant gains have alarmed Maliki's Shi'ite supporters in both Iran and the United States, which helped bring him to power after invading the country and toppling former Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003.
...
IRAQI ARMY COUNTER-ATTACKS
Security sources said Iraqi troops attacked an ISIL formation in the town of al-Mutasim, 22 km (14 miles) southeast of Samarra, driving militants into the surrounding desert on Saturday.
The army also reasserted control over the small town of Ishaqi, southeast of Samarra, to secure a road that links the city to Baghdad and the cities of Tikrit and Mosul farther north.
Troops backed by the Shi'ite Asaib Ahl al-Haq militia helped retake the town of Muqdadiya northeast of Baghdad, and ISIL was dislodged from Dhuluiya after three hours of fighting with tribesmen, local police and residents, a tribal leader said.
In Udhaim, 90 km (60 miles) north of Baghdad, Asaib and police fought militants who earlier occupied the local municipal building, an official there told Reuters, and they directed mortar fire at the government protection force of the Baiji oil refinery, Iraq's largest.
Masked jihadists under the black flag of ISIL aim to revive a medieval caliphate that would span a fragmenting Iraq and Syria, redrawing borders set by European colonial powers a century ago and menacing neighbors like Iran and Turkey.
Obama cautioned on Friday that any U.S. intervention must be accompanied by an Iraqi government effort to bridge divisions between Shi'ite and Sunni communities.
whembly wrote: I'm saying, this, for the the blood, sweat and tears we spent in this war, was bugging out like that the smart thing to do? You'd think the commanders on the ground can give the politicians what it would take to gracefully exit Iraq and give the Iraqis a fighting chance to survive on their own. Was the question even asked?
Lets say you go to a casino, and make a bet, and lose. Now you're down $10. You better keep betting, forever, while you still have money, because they more you bet - and the more you lose - the more invested you are in not having all of your time and money having gone to waste if you walk out a loser.
At some point you need to cut your losses. Iraq would be screwed up if we stayed there another 5 or even probably 10 years.
So far as "was the question even asked", of course it was asked and it's a silly partisan move to even pretend it couldn't have been. This President and any other President would prefer a clear victory versus walking away to a huge disaster. However, at some point you have to weigh the lives of the US troops yet to arrive in country against the sacrifices that came before them.
I spent a good portion of my adult life in that shithole, and im not in the least bit suprised that this is happening.
Anyway, best Idea would have been to work out an Agreement with Kuwait to host a rotating combat brigade to handle stuff like this as it happend in Iraq....but nope guess the Administration is content in letting the whole thing fall apart.
I can't but help to be seeing this as similar to the holocaust, German soldiers massacring Jews anyone in their path for world dominance. God have mercy.
If ISIS gets control of the country, they will make Saddam look benevolent. They're one step above cavemen, the main difference being they have more advanced weaponry. It's a perfect storm of dogmatic faith and poverty, where every 20 year old male is given a rifle and told he's special. Those photographs are very disturbing Whembly (but I believe they should be viewed so the world understands the monsters Iraq is confronting), I appreciate you not posting them here--and to anyone else in the thread, please do not hotlink to them. I normally do not advocate violence but I admit after reading over the past few days and viewing the suffering these bastards are dealing out--I'm for sending in the planes/helicopters. It's not Rwanda yet but I have a feeling it could be.
I think it's rather critical, given the demographics of Iraq, that we prevent ISIS from establishing control. Hell, 50% of the country is under the age of 23 IIRC and almost 90% of that age distribution is literate. That's a good sign, provided they do not grow up in a society where the curriculum centers around Islamic fundamentalism.
On one hand it seems like we should help, because Iraq doesn't appear to be able to deal with them.
On the other hand, the fact that Iraq is fethed up enough to let this happen in the first place while also being completely powerless to do anything about it makes me think that there is nothing existing there to prevent the next group from rising up as soon as we are done and it makes me think that helping now would just end in a neverending cycle of "bomb, leave, bomb, leave, bomb, leave".
The question isn't will it burn itself. These guys have made it absolutely clear that their end state is to attack us. They are our enemies. If they take control of that nation, we've got another Afghanistan Pre-9/11 right there, except this time they'll have readily exploitable resources (oil) to fund their war against us.
And we also know that Afghanistan will not be long in following down this road. We left Iraq with a capable military. It's not our fault their President dismantled it after we left. Afghanistan doesn't even have that right now...
djones520 wrote: The question isn't will it burn itself. These guys have made it absolutely clear that their end state is to attack us. They are our enemies. If they take control of that nation, we've got another Afghanistan Pre-9/11 right there, except this time they'll have readily exploitable resources (oil) to fund their war against us.
And we also know that Afghanistan will not be long in following down this road. We left Iraq with a capable military. It's not our fault their President dismantled it after we left. Afghanistan doesn't even have that right now...
But if we intervene, does that make their military more capable, does it make their President more pro-US and less anti-whatever the hell he is now?
I think that's where Obama is coming from when he basically says "Give us any reason to think that the same gak won't happen again if we bail you out now. If you can't then you are on your own."
djones520 wrote: The question isn't will it burn itself. These guys have made it absolutely clear that their end state is to attack us. They are our enemies. If they take control of that nation, we've got another Afghanistan Pre-9/11 right there, except this time they'll have readily exploitable resources (oil) to fund their war against us.
And we also know that Afghanistan will not be long in following down this road. We left Iraq with a capable military. It's not our fault their President dismantled it after we left. Afghanistan doesn't even have that right now...
But if we intervene, does that make their military more capable, does it make their President more pro-US and less anti-whatever the hell he is now?
I think that's where Obama is coming from when he basically says "Give us any reason to think that the same gak won't happen again if we bail you out now. If you can't then you are on your own."
We set conditions to the intervention. "This time, don't remove the only competent people you have running your military." This should not require anything close to what we did before. ISIS hold is tenuous, as Ahtman is pointing out.
In my eyes though, we need to show the world (and Iran) that we WILL support Iraq. While we may have left them to stand on their own two feet, we shouldn't abandon them if they stumble. Not after everything we did to the nation. If we step in, help them stomp ISIS, we show other groups that Iraq won't be an easy ride. We show them that we'll be there to step in Afghanistan as well.
d-usa wrote: Yeah, there should definetly be some serious conditions to make sure this doesn't happen again.
No "thanx , bye, get out" from Iraq if they want our help.
Hey... when it all comes down to it, we just need to blame Joe Biden for it.
What did people expect when he went onto national TV spouting off about how Iraq was going to be the greatest success story of this administration. I mean come on, it's impossible for the guy to be right, so he basically fethed the country right there.
d-usa wrote: Yeah, there should definetly be some serious conditions to make sure this doesn't happen again.
No "thanx , bye, get out" from Iraq if they want our help.
Hey... when it all comes down to it, we just need to blame Joe Biden for it.
What did people expect when he went onto national TV spouting off about how Iraq was going to be the greatest success story of this administration. I mean come on, it's impossible for the guy to be right, so he basically fethed the country right there.
So Biden saying something is the political equivalent of hiring Sean Bean and and thinking that character is going to stay alive?
Surface to Air Missile
Anti-ship Missile
Surface to Air Missile
Anti-Ship Missile
I got this right right?
Sounds like a good list. How many points is it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Taken from BBC web site
Tony Blair: 'We didn't cause Iraq crisis' Tony Blair: "Don't believe washing our hands of it and walking away will solve the problem"
The 2003 invasion of Iraq is not to blame for the violent insurgency now gripping the country, former UK prime minister Tony Blair has said.
Speaking to the BBC's Andrew Marr, he said there would still be a "major problem" in the country even without the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
He insisted the current crisis was a "regional" issue that "affects us all".
Critics have rejected the comments as "bizarre" with one accusing Mr Blair of "washing his hands of responsibility".
"Even if you'd left Saddam in place in 2003, then when 2011 happened - and you had the Arab revolutions going through Tunisia and Libya and Yemen and Bahrain and Egypt and Syria - you would have still had a major problem in Iraq," Mr Blair said.
"Indeed, you can see what happens when you leave the dictator in place, as has happened with Assad now. The problems don't go away.
"So, one of the things I'm trying to say is - you know, we can rerun the debates about 2003 - and there are perfectly legitimate points on either side - but where we are now in 2014, we have to understand this is a regional problem, but it's a problem that will affect us."
Michael Stephens, an expert on Iraq and Syria for the Royal United Services Institute,
said the Iraq War had "a lot to play - a part in this sort of fragmentation of Iraq
Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's ambassador to the US from 1997 to 2003, said the handling of the campaign against Saddam Hussein was "perhaps the most significant reason" for the sectarian violence now gripping Iraq.
"We are reaping what we sowed in 2003. This is not hindsight. We knew in the run-up to war that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would seriously destabilise Iraq after 24 years of his iron rule," he said in the Mail on Sunday.
I've a very strong feeling that the Iraqi Army has probably been infiltrated at this point.
But they, ISIS, are having issues
MOSUL, Iraq — Just days after the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) seized control of Iraq’s northern cities of Mosul and Tikrit, the group’s lightning offensive has reportedly ground to a halt after ISIS unsuccessfully attempted to use dozens of captured U.S. M1114 Humvees.
“We were considerably more mobile with Toyota Technicals,” complained ISIS cell leader Ibrahim ibn Abdullah ibn Sabah Al-Rahman. “But once we captured these unreliable monstrosities, our leadership started worrying about our safety.”
“Now we can’t even leave our base without at least four up-armored Humvees and an RPG team, plus we have to have three ground guides with reflective belts every time we are backing out of our parking spot,” Al-Rahman said as he angrily gestured towards a dilapidated Humvee. “And don’t get me started on all the protective gear we have to wear. Even the suicide bombers were told they wouldn’t be getting into paradise if they were caught in one without a helmet, flak, gloves, and flame retardant clothes!”
During the course of the interview, Al-Rahman was interrupted by at least one angry phone call from ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, demanding to know why none of the Humvees had their drip pans and chock blocks in place.
The M1114 HMMWV, known to the public as the “Humvee” and to the American soldier as “the fething Humvee,” is the U.S. military’s all-purpose mobile field kitchen, capable of cooking up to six soldiers alive in as many minutes. During the Iraq War, the U.S. discovered that they were also extremely effective at uncovering IEDs, leading to the war-winning strategy of driving over them as frequently as possible.
At the end of the Iraq War — in a gesture of revenge — the U.S. abandoned thousands of Humvees in Iraq, an act compared to the Soviets seeding millions of land mines in Afghanistan, and with similar results once the Iraqis began to drive them.
The Humvees were captured by ISIS on Tuesday after being abandoned by Iraqi soldiers unable to locate the vehicles’ keys, which they claimed the U.S. advisers who alerted them to this feature had never provided. Although ISIS attempted to use the vehicles immediately, they were unable to properly employ them because of the Humvee’s incredibly poor fuel consumption, as well as unsuccessful attempts to obtain spare parts from manufacturer A.M. General in Indiana.
To make matters worse, in an almost-kharmic act of retribution, retreating Iraqi soldiers have begun emplacing landmines and other ordnance along the roads, easily blowing up the few ISIS Humvees that have ventured south of Mosul.
“In the name of the Blessed Prophet, these things are death traps!” exclaimed one of Al-Rahman’s fighters. “How the hell could anyone drive these things around a parking lot, let alone into a combat zone?”
Al-Rahman then reminded him that you go to jihad with the mujahideen you have, not the mujahideen you wish you had.
Following a 35% increase in casualties caused by repeated Humvee rollovers, Al-Baghdadi called a halt to offensive operations, pending a series of mandatory safety classes for ISIS fighters. ISIS sources have vowed that the offensive would resume as soon as the classes had achieved 100% attendance, which would also give them time to capture some wreckers so they could at least tow the Humvees into battle.
ISIS has also apparently captured a dozen U.S.-made MRAPs from the Iraqi Army, but after two days had still not figured out how to drive them out of the motor pool.
Duffel Blog correspondents John Mittle, Dark Laughter, Dick Scuttlebutt, Jay-B, Frederick Taub, and Smelly Infidel contributed to this article.
Jihadin wrote: I've a very strong feeling that the Iraqi Army has probably been infiltrated at this point.
But they, ISIS, are having issues
Spoiler:
MOSUL, Iraq — Just days after the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) seized control of Iraq’s northern cities of Mosul and Tikrit, the group’s lightning offensive has reportedly ground to a halt after ISIS unsuccessfully attempted to use dozens of captured U.S. M1114 Humvees.
“We were considerably more mobile with Toyota Technicals,” complained ISIS cell leader Ibrahim ibn Abdullah ibn Sabah Al-Rahman. “But once we captured these unreliable monstrosities, our leadership started worrying about our safety.”
“Now we can’t even leave our base without at least four up-armored Humvees and an RPG team, plus we have to have three ground guides with reflective belts every time we are backing out of our parking spot,” Al-Rahman said as he angrily gestured towards a dilapidated Humvee. “And don’t get me started on all the protective gear we have to wear. Even the suicide bombers were told they wouldn’t be getting into paradise if they were caught in one without a helmet, flak, gloves, and flame retardant clothes!”
During the course of the interview, Al-Rahman was interrupted by at least one angry phone call from ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, demanding to know why none of the Humvees had their drip pans and chock blocks in place.
The M1114 HMMWV, known to the public as the “Humvee” and to the American soldier as “the fething Humvee,” is the U.S. military’s all-purpose mobile field kitchen, capable of cooking up to six soldiers alive in as many minutes. During the Iraq War, the U.S. discovered that they were also extremely effective at uncovering IEDs, leading to the war-winning strategy of driving over them as frequently as possible.
At the end of the Iraq War — in a gesture of revenge — the U.S. abandoned thousands of Humvees in Iraq, an act compared to the Soviets seeding millions of land mines in Afghanistan, and with similar results once the Iraqis began to drive them.
The Humvees were captured by ISIS on Tuesday after being abandoned by Iraqi soldiers unable to locate the vehicles’ keys, which they claimed the U.S. advisers who alerted them to this feature had never provided. Although ISIS attempted to use the vehicles immediately, they were unable to properly employ them because of the Humvee’s incredibly poor fuel consumption, as well as unsuccessful attempts to obtain spare parts from manufacturer A.M. General in Indiana.
To make matters worse, in an almost-kharmic act of retribution, retreating Iraqi soldiers have begun emplacing landmines and other ordnance along the roads, easily blowing up the few ISIS Humvees that have ventured south of Mosul.
“In the name of the Blessed Prophet, these things are death traps!” exclaimed one of Al-Rahman’s fighters. “How the hell could anyone drive these things around a parking lot, let alone into a combat zone?”
Al-Rahman then reminded him that you go to jihad with the mujahideen you have, not the mujahideen you wish you had.
Following a 35% increase in casualties caused by repeated Humvee rollovers, Al-Baghdadi called a halt to offensive operations, pending a series of mandatory safety classes for ISIS fighters. ISIS sources have vowed that the offensive would resume as soon as the classes had achieved 100% attendance, which would also give them time to capture some wreckers so they could at least tow the Humvees into battle.
ISIS has also apparently captured a dozen U.S.-made MRAPs from the Iraqi Army, but after two days had still not figured out how to drive them out of the motor pool.
Duffel Blog correspondents John Mittle, Dark Laughter, Dick Scuttlebutt, Jay-B, Frederick Taub, and Smelly Infidel contributed to this article.
Jihadin wrote: I've a very strong feeling that the Iraqi Army has probably been infiltrated at this point.
But they, ISIS, are having issues
MOSUL, Iraq — Just days after the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) seized control of Iraq’s northern cities of Mosul and Tikrit, the group’s lightning offensive has reportedly ground to a halt after ISIS unsuccessfully attempted to use dozens of captured U.S. M1114 Humvees.
“We were considerably more mobile with Toyota Technicals,” complained ISIS cell leader Ibrahim ibn Abdullah ibn Sabah Al-Rahman. “But once we captured these unreliable monstrosities, our leadership started worrying about our safety.”
“Now we can’t even leave our base without at least four up-armored Humvees and an RPG team, plus we have to have three ground guides with reflective belts every time we are backing out of our parking spot,” Al-Rahman said as he angrily gestured towards a dilapidated Humvee. “And don’t get me started on all the protective gear we have to wear. Even the suicide bombers were told they wouldn’t be getting into paradise if they were caught in one without a helmet, flak, gloves, and flame retardant clothes!”
During the course of the interview, Al-Rahman was interrupted by at least one angry phone call from ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, demanding to know why none of the Humvees had their drip pans and chock blocks in place.
The M1114 HMMWV, known to the public as the “Humvee” and to the American soldier as “the fething Humvee,” is the U.S. military’s all-purpose mobile field kitchen, capable of cooking up to six soldiers alive in as many minutes. During the Iraq War, the U.S. discovered that they were also extremely effective at uncovering IEDs, leading to the war-winning strategy of driving over them as frequently as possible.
At the end of the Iraq War — in a gesture of revenge — the U.S. abandoned thousands of Humvees in Iraq, an act compared to the Soviets seeding millions of land mines in Afghanistan, and with similar results once the Iraqis began to drive them.
The Humvees were captured by ISIS on Tuesday after being abandoned by Iraqi soldiers unable to locate the vehicles’ keys, which they claimed the U.S. advisers who alerted them to this feature had never provided. Although ISIS attempted to use the vehicles immediately, they were unable to properly employ them because of the Humvee’s incredibly poor fuel consumption, as well as unsuccessful attempts to obtain spare parts from manufacturer A.M. General in Indiana.
To make matters worse, in an almost-kharmic act of retribution, retreating Iraqi soldiers have begun emplacing landmines and other ordnance along the roads, easily blowing up the few ISIS Humvees that have ventured south of Mosul.
“In the name of the Blessed Prophet, these things are death traps!” exclaimed one of Al-Rahman’s fighters. “How the hell could anyone drive these things around a parking lot, let alone into a combat zone?”
Al-Rahman then reminded him that you go to jihad with the mujahideen you have, not the mujahideen you wish you had.
Following a 35% increase in casualties caused by repeated Humvee rollovers, Al-Baghdadi called a halt to offensive operations, pending a series of mandatory safety classes for ISIS fighters. ISIS sources have vowed that the offensive would resume as soon as the classes had achieved 100% attendance, which would also give them time to capture some wreckers so they could at least tow the Humvees into battle.
ISIS has also apparently captured a dozen U.S.-made MRAPs from the Iraqi Army, but after two days had still not figured out how to drive them out of the motor pool.
Duffel Blog correspondents John Mittle, Dark Laughter, Dick Scuttlebutt, Jay-B, Frederick Taub, and Smelly Infidel contributed to this article.
Bullockist wrote: I never heard of duffle blog before. I love it! thanks for the heads up.
The comments sections are hilarious.
I don't know what's funnier, the articles, or the people in the comments that take them for actual news articles. Then again, some of the commentors may be Duffle writers getting that last shot in!
At this point I'm mostly just finding some very black humour in both the left and right shouting "I told you so" and trying to use the whole thing as a political beat stick. The fighting is only just started and already people are angling to write a political narrative that will win their side some political points.
The withdrawal of all US troops can't be blamed on Bush or Obama because it's completely the fault of Democracy in Iraq. There is the fact that Nouri al-Maliki and the Iraqi parliament are elected officials and the people voting him into office wanted US troops gone. Nouri al-Maliki and the Iraqi parliament refused to give Bush a SOFA which resulted in the 2011 withdrawal timeline being set when Bush was in office, then when Obama took over Nouri al-Maliki and the Iraqi parliament refused to give Obama a SOFA which left no option but to stick with the 2011 timeline.
Also this is more like the first battle of bull run than the fall of Saigon. ISIS is hated by the Shia majority of Iraq, Iran, Assad's government, and Russia because they pose a threat to Assad. The won a battle, but they can't win the war especially after executing all of their prisoners. Now they will have to fight every armed soldier and armed shia citizen to the death in order to capture Baghdad because it's pointless to surrender if they are just going to execute you, and there is no place to run away to. ISIS won some tactical victories, but achieved no strategic goals while inuring multiple strategic losses.
The 3 big winners here are Assad, Putin, and the Kurds. Remember back when the world couldn't decide if they wanted Assad or Isis or win the Syrian civil war? That ambiguity is over which will free up Assad and Putin to crush Isis within Syrian borders. It hasn't happened yet but when Russia launches airstrikes against Isis within Syria the only voice of objection will come from Fox news as they criticize Obama for not getting involved and blame him for the milk in their fridge going sour. OBAMA!!!!! In the meantime the technically unofficial state of Kurdistan has expanded it's boarders. Maybe they Kurds will find some way to work things out with Assad.
This is going to end poorly for ISIS with Russian assisted Assad forces moving in from the West in Syria and Iranian backed Shia units moving in from the East. It's also going to be a bloodbath for the Shia Iraqis when they go in to retake Mosul.
BlaxicanX wrote: It's almost as if the entire war was a waste of money, effort and lives and we never should have had our asses over there in the first place.
Dont say that Bush got reelected and he fixed the. economy.. aswell... Money well spent.
BlaxicanX wrote: It's almost as if the entire war was a waste of money, effort and lives and we never should have had our asses over there in the first place.
Dont say that Bush got reelected and he fixed the. economy.. aswell... Money well spent.
No, we need to elect ANOTHER Bush in order to get the economy back on track.
BlaxicanX wrote: It's almost as if the entire war was a waste of money, effort and lives and we never should have had our asses over there in the first place.
Dont say that Bush got reelected and he fixed the. economy.. aswell... Money well spent.
No, we need to elect ANOTHER Bush in order to get the economy back on track.
Or maybe a spawn of Reagan.
We need to elect a spawn of Reagan as President, and he needs to have a Bush as Vice-President.
Then, in our time of greatest need, they can combine to form Reagush - the savior our great nation deserves.
1) pass an act of congress to make me General of the Armies for 90 days
2) Give me 100,000 marines (do you guys still have 100,000 marines on the roster )
Then I shall bring the Iraq situation back under control!
I always get these delusions whenever I watch Waterloo
Anyway, back OT. I switched the TV today and heard the very surprising news that the USA and Iran are discussing supporting each other in Iraq. My initial reaction was to
djones520 wrote: Hey... when it all comes down to it, we just need to blame Joe Biden for it.
What did people expect when he went onto national TV spouting off about how Iraq was going to be the greatest success story of this administration. I mean come on, it's impossible for the guy to be right, so he basically fethed the country right there.
Remember when Joe Biden wanted to partition the country, in 2006, and was roundly mocked for it?
Also, what he actually said was ""I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration." Emphasis mine.
If we were smart we'd let the Gulf states support the sunnis, Iran support the shiites, and we stay out of it (other then selling to everyone who has coin, maybe a discount for the Kurds).
I'm not sure we should stay out of it. I didn't want us to intervene in Syria because I didn't see a national security interest there... but the Wahhabists are dangerous to the United States. I think Lindsay Graham is right - this is a potential 9/11 in the making.
And do what? Air strikes will hit non ISIL people who have a legitimate beef, and will make them hate America.
Why pick sides when we can stay the hell out and sell them cool dumbified gear? They only get mad when you pick a side. They haven't done anything to us.
so, to clarify, your argument is you/we/whomever cannot/should not use airstrikes/similar as this will kill innocent people and their friends/families/rest of the Middle East will develop a grudge or somesuch against America...
.. whilst at the same time suggesting that these same people should be nuked.
Which presumably, will have no repercussions whatsoever.
I forget...
. The NW, I assume would be somewhere near Broome and Darwin. Big area, but it would have to be near one of those cities (towns?)
Apparently, there were a few problems revealing US related things. 
out of there and stay out. 
