Place is falling to shit almost overnight. Military abandoning their weapons ahead of the insurgents. It's about to be a bloodbath.
Printable View
Place is falling to shit almost overnight. Military abandoning their weapons ahead of the insurgents. It's about to be a bloodbath.
Was only a matter of when...
Obama: Iraq Is Going To Need Help From Us
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...+%28TPMNews%29
Thanks, Repugs (for lying America into Iraq and de-stabilizing the M/E)
Well, let's hope get get their shit together as a nation.
Two years ago:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I'm OK with us helping Iraq as needed, but I'm afraid Obama will help the wrong side besides being incompetent as CiC.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
idiot, stupid idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The military/CIA will decide the strategy and details. It's theirs to fuck up, fuck it up they will, because Iraq is unfuckable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
hope, and prayers, they work GREAT! :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
My only concern is that I know if Iraq falls to these Jihadis, the US will just go back in there with grounds troops eventually (even though they shouldn't).
First, the US will kill a lot of them with drones, combattants and non-combattants, as always.Quote:
Originally Posted by angrydude
BTW, isn't this the same group the US is giving weapons to in Syria? ISIS?
Why, yes it is.
Good job Obama.
helping the clowns that one day will be fighting against you, wasting 16t on these clowns, when ur people are living like shit....
Oh my bad....apparently they hijacked the "good" syrian rebels we were giving stuff to.
lol
keeps getting better and better.
Sorry, its hard to keep track when the US is trying to micro-manage every god damn thing in the middle east.
Would you support the US going back into Iraq under this administration?Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
not at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex
but defend SA, Kuwait, and other friendly gulf states from attacks
Fixed:
Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Why do you think I'm afraid he's on the wrong side...Quote:
Originally Posted by angrydude
Is there really such a thing as a good Middle-eastern rebel?Quote:
Originally Posted by angrydude
:lol you bet your ass we're going back in there... spend a couple years, a few trillions, walk away, rinse, repeat...
It's getting all messed up over there. Iran is helping the Iraq govt. against the insurgents
Not just no but hell no.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex
Is that surprising?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
I dunno. Assuming Obama folds and gives air support the thought of the USA giving air support to an Iranian Regiment operating openly in Iraq is kind of mind bending.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
BEIRUT, Lebanon—Iran deployed Revolutionary Guard forces to fight in Iraq, helping government troops there wrest back control of most of the city of Tikrit from militants, Iranian security sources said.
Two battalions of the Quds Forces, the overseas branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps that has long operated in Iraq, came to the aid of the besieged, Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, they said.
Combined Iraqi-Iranian forces retook control of 85% of Tikrit, the birthplace of former dictator Saddam Hussein, according to Iraqi and Iranian security sources.
They were helping guard the capital Baghdad and the two Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, which have been threatened by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, an al Qaeda offshoot. The Sunni militant group's lightning offensive has thrown Iraq into its worse turmoil since the sectarian fighting that followed the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
Shiite Iran has also positioned troops along its border with Iraq and promised to bomb rebel forces if they come within 100 kilometers, or 62 miles, of Iran's border, according to an Iranian army general.
In addition, Iran was considering the transfer to Iraq of Iranian troops fighting for the regime in Syria if the initial deployments fail to turn the tide of battle in favor of Mr. Maliki's government.
The Iraqi government has signaled to the U.S. it would allow airstrikes against insurgents and asked Washington to speed the delivery of promised weapons.
That raises the prospect of both the U.S. and Iran lending support to Mr. Maliki against ISIS insurgents, who are seeking to create a caliphate encompassing Iraqi and Syrian territory.
Gen. Qasem Sulaimani, the commander of the Quds Forces and one of the region's most powerful military figures, traveled to Baghdad this week to help manage the swelling crisis, said a member of the Revolutionary Guards, or IRGC.
Qassimm al-Araji, an Iraqi Shiite lawmaker who heads the Badr Brigade bloc in parliament, posted a picture with Mr. Sulaimani holding hands in a room in Baghdad on his social-networking site with the caption, "Haj Qasem is here," Iranian news sites affiliated with the IRGC reported on Wednesday. "Haj Qasem" is Mr. Sulaimani's nom de guerre.
At stake for Iran in the current tumult in Iraq isn't only the survival of an Shiite political ally in Baghdad, but the safety of Karbala and Najaf, which along with Mecca and Medina are considered sacred to Shiites world-wide.
An ISIS spokesman, Abu Mohamad al-Adnani, urged the group's Sunni fighters to march toward the "filth-ridden" Karbala and "the city of polytheism" Najaf, where they would "settle their differences" with Mr. Maliki.
That coarsely worded threat further vindicates Iran's view that the fight unfolding in Iraq is an existential sectarian battle between the two rival sects of Islam-Sunni and Shiite—and by default a proxy battle between their patrons Saudi Arabia and Iran.
"Until now we haven't received any requests for help from Iraq. Iraq's army is certainly capable in handling this," Iran's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afgham said Wednesday.
Despite those assuring comments, measures by the Iranian government in the past day indicated that an air of crisis had enveloped Tehran. Iran's army and border guards have been placed under full alert along the country's long border with Iraq, Iranian media reported.
Iran's President Hasan Rouhani cut short a religious celebration on Thursday and said he had to attend an emergency meeting of the country's National Security Council about events in Iraq.
"We, as the Islamic Republic of Iran, will not tolerate this violence and terrorism….We will fight and battle violence and extremism and terrorism in the region and the world," he said in a speech.
Iran's chief of police, Esmail Ahmadi-Moghaddam, said the National Security Council would consider intervening in Iraq to "protect Shiite shrines and cities."
ISIS's rapid territorial gains in the past few days appeared to have caught Iranian officials by surprise and opened a debate within the regime over whether Iran should publicly enter the battle, citing the country's strategic interest and ideological responsibility. Iranian officials also privately expressed concern about whether Mr. Maliki was capable of handling the turmoil.
"The more insecure and isolated Maliki becomes, the more he will need Iran. The growth of ISIS presents a serious threat to Iran. So it would not be surprising to see the Guards become more involved in Iraq," said Alireza Nader, a senior policy analyst at the Rand Corp.
Quds Forces have been active in Iraq since shortly after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 and have helped create, train and fund Shiite militias that fought U.S. military forces. Their reach and influence extends from Iraq to Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian territories.
The two IRGC battalions moved to Iraq on Wednesday were shifted from the Iranian border provinces of Urumieh and Lorestan. Their task is to help secure the holy Shiite cities of Karbala and Najaf and tighten security around Baghdad, according to IRGC members in Iran.
Revolutionary Guards units that serve in Iran's border provinces are the most experienced fighters in guerrilla warfare because of separatist ethnic uprisings in those regions. IRGC commanders dispatched to Syria also often hail from those provinces.
That's a twist I wouldn't expect.
Gee, Iran might not be the Great Satan it was sold to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
This reminds me of US politics whenever a 3rd party starts making waves.
It is always possible with having a new president and Ali Hosseini Khamenei getting old. He will be 75 in July. Gaddafi mellowed in age, maybe the Ayatollah has as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Maybe they weren't as bad as advertised in the first place.
No, they were very bad. I will never agree with your assertion. Only that things always change, and maybe they did change for the better.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
As bad as what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The worst?
What makes them so bad in your opinoin?
better load up on gas now, tbh...
As you know, I'm not going to play your game. No matter what I say, you will find a reason to troll, as you are a master-baiter.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Just curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
What makes them so bad in your opinion?
Not necessarily. One thing Iran is very good at, is getting rid of dissidence. Look at their capital punishment rate per capita.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Bad argument. Look at the US imprisonment rate per capita.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
US: 707 per 100,000
Iran: 284 per 100,000
Its peaches v pears.
Imperial USA is VERY GOOD at crushing dissidence at home and abroad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by angrydude
Iran executes the serious crimes them rather than wasting good money jailing them. They have the 2nd highest executions in the world behind China, but being so much smaller in population, their execution rate is the highest in the world.
I'll bet it's a good deterrent keeping many people from committing crimes.
Some presidents add to it with their terrorist style attacks of cruise missiles and drones.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Or all out invasions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Nice work, Bush. Taking out the motherfucker who kept those Muslim cocksuckers in check. Yet another shit sandwich he feeds us.
Repugs will blame Obama for 100% of Repug fuckup of Iraq
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
uh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Jon Stewart: Turmoil-ridden Iraq is finally ready to greet us as liberators
Stewart was also upset to find out that ISIS forces had forced the U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces to not just retreat, but leave behind their uniforms and weapons in the process. Correspondent Jason Jones also said the situation in the country was deteriorating.
“There has been some talk — some lower-level parliamentary talk — of running faster,” Jones explained. “With less clothes.”
Things were getting so bad, Jones said, that people were considering applying the saying, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a truly horrible guy with a gun.” Shortly afterwards, he popped his Hawaiian shirt open to reveal a military-style top, adding a fake mustache and black beret to transform himself into a Saddam Hussein look-alike.
“You’re talking about returning an oppressive, strong-armed dictator to power,” Stewart said.
“Exactly,” Jones confirmed. “Or as they call it here, Iraq Classic.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/1...as-liberators/
"Heckuva job, dubya!"
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/58016/thumbs/s-BUSH-large.jpg
1000s American military and 100ks Iraqis dead, US$3T wasted (pocketed by the MIC), and US/UK oilcos don't get that oil.
As Iraq Implodes, Neocons Still Have No Plan Except ‘Blame Obama’
Divided between neoconservative ultra-hawks and libertarian isolationists, today’s Republican Party is hardly a steady influence on American foreign policy. But there is one thing that can be reliably expected from every right-wing faction in Washington: Whenever disaster threatens, they eagerly cast blame on Barack Obama – and utter any falsehood that may be used to castigate him.
As the failed state of Iraq strains under attack from a jihadist force – the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – all the usual suspects are popping up on the Senate floor to denounce the president. Ignoring more than a decade of miserable history in which most of them played ignominious parts, these politicians now claim that if only the president had listened to them, the current disaster would have been averted somehow.
“Lindsey Graham and John McCain were right,” said the Arizona senator, praising himself and his South Carolina sidekick. “Our failure to leave forces on Iraq is why Sen. Graham and I predicted this would happen.”
Nobody with a functioning memory can take such arguments seriously.
By the time our troops left Iraq at the end of 2011, the war had inflicted such immense damage on our military and our communities that Americans were in no mood for further misadventures. Not since Vietnam had a ruinous policy come so close to breaking America’s armed forces. The fiscal damage was equally serious – trillions of dollars in current and future costs, mostly borrowed from China.
The American people wanted out.
Even had we wanted to stay, however, the Iraqis no longer desired our presence – as they had made absolutely clear in their electoral choices and their subsequent negotiations with both the Bush and Obama administrations over keeping U.S. troops in Iraq.
It was Bush who signed the Status of Forces Agreement in December 2008 that set a deadline of January 1, 2012 for the departure of all U.S. forces – unless the Iraqis negotiated and ratified a new deal to maintain our troops there.
No such deal was ever made, however, because the Iraqis wanted our troops out – even the tiny force of roughly 3,000 advisors that Obama hoped to provide. He was left with no choice because the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki refused to grant legal immunity from prosecution to any U.S. troops.
Imagine what McCain and Graham would have said had Obama decided to leave American officers and troops vulnerable to arrest and imprisonment by local Iraqi warlords – especially when such an incident inevitably occurred.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/iraq-implodes-neocons-still-plan-except-blame-obama/
You are such a tool.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
When Obama was taking credit for the troops leaving Iraq, you and other libtards agreed. He was the hero for getting our troops out, where we conservatives were the only ones mentioning the SOFA that president Bush signed.
You guys gave Obama full credit for getting us out, therefore, you and Obama own the mess it's in today.
You can't just change this on a whim, and change your argument when you dislike the results.
You repeatedly argued Obama got us out. Therefor you should be blaming him.
"When Obama was taking credit for the troops leaving Iraq"
you're such a rectal tool
... Repugs said/LIED that Barry implementing Repugs withdrawal plan was "cut and run".
I don't remember Barry doing any bravado chest thumping about withdrawing. Pretty much just matter of fact business.
I never ARGUED Obama got US out.
I say/always said he did EXACTLY what dubya/Repugs plans said USA should do.
We should be out.
Never should have been there in the first place.
X2Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
... but but but
your buddies and TX made so much money on BigOil's War Windfall profits.
You sure are a stupid motherfucker.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
:lol that is right. the Satanic oil companies will spin this into an increase per usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Fucking savages
http://m.worldstarhiphop.com/apple/v...V9nx0gXB0091IC
damn
Looks like targeted hitsQuote:
Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex
https://ia601509.us.archive.org/18/i...eelSawarim.mp4
What did they do, bring over American gangs who want to practice their drive bys?Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Damn. Those IED's are brutal.
Iran is predominately Shia and that is what Iraq's gov't is. It's like Catholics/protestants in 1600s germany or 1900s irelandQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Which was the crux of the problem in the first place, Shiite v. Sunni, Saddam squashed that problem. We thought we would just prance in there and they would be full of love for each other, allegedly...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aztecfan03
these fckn clowns shouldve learn their lesson from ww1 octomon empire, if the white westerners want to stop they will stop it...
,
Saddam just killed whoever he wanted but mainly the kurdsQuote:
Originally Posted by pgardn
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...s#.U5xklCifC7SQuote:
It is not clear at the time of writing whether ISIS will launch a military attack on Baghdad, or even if it could take the heavily armed city in a pitched battle.
But it may not need to. Iraq is ancient Mesopotamia, the once-fertile floodplain of the Tigris and Euphrates that cradled the first human civilisation. The rivers remain crucial to the farming on which most Iraqis depend, according to a report by the International Centre for Agricultural Research on the Dry Areas, which was once based in Aleppo, Syria, but has now decamped to Amman in Jordan to avoid fighting.
ISIS now controls several major dams on the rivers, for instance at Haditha and Samarra. It also holds one 30 kilometres north of Mosul that was built on fragile rock and poses a risk of collapse. It holds at least 8 billion cubic metres of water. In 2003, there were fears Iraqi troops might destroy the dam to wipe out invading forces. US military engineers calculated that the resulting wave would obliterate Mosul and even hit Baghdad.
Iraq civil war as Saudi proxy against Iran?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...i_arabia_syriaQuote:
Be careful what you wish for" could have been, and perhaps should have been, Washington's advice to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that have been supporting Sunni jihadists against Bashar al-Assad's regime in Damascus. The warning is even more appropriate today as the bloodthirsty fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) sweep through northwest Iraq, prompting hundreds of thousands of their Sunni coreligionists to flee and creating panic in Iraq's Shiite heartland around Baghdad, whose population senses, correctly, that it will be shown no mercy if the ISIS motorcades are not stopped.
Such a setback for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been the dream of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah for years. He has regarded Maliki as little more than an Iranian stooge, refusing to send an ambassador to Baghdad and instead encouraging his fellow rulers of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) -- Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman -- to take a similar standoff-ish approach. Although vulnerable to al Qaeda-types at home, these countries (particularly Kuwait and Qatar) have often turned a blind eye to their citizens funding radical groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, one of the most active Islamist groups opposed to Assad in Syria.
Currently on vacation in Morocco, King Abdullah has so far been silent on these developments. At 90-plus years old, he has shown no wish to join the Twitter generation, but the developments on the ground could well prompt him to cut short his stay and return home. He has no doubt realized that -- with his policy of delivering a strategic setback to Iran by orchestrating the overthrow of Assad in Damascus showing little sign of any imminent success -- events in Iraq offer a new opportunity.
Iraq should have been broken up into 3 different states after Saddam was toppled. This infighting was inevitable, and it will not end anytime soon. The schism in Islam has existed since Muhammad's death, its not going to magically solve itself now.
X2Quote:
Originally Posted by mercos
Only problem was the oil isn't divided equally. One of the states would be rolling in cash and the other two states would be dirt poor.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...-deserved.htmlQuote:
Senator John McCain, whom the President telephoned on Friday, has called on Obama to fire his entire national-security team, claiming, “Could all of this have been avoided? The answer is absolutely yes.” McCain is right; it could have been avoided. If, in the aftermath of 9/11, President George W. Bush had treated the arguments of Feith, McCain, and other advocates of the Iraq War with the disdain they deserved, we (and the Iraqis) wouldn’t be where we are today.
If, in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion, Paul Bremer, the American proconsul in Baghdad, and his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, had not decided to disband Saddam’s army, the one institution that somewhat unified the country, the Iraqi state would be stronger. If, in addition, Bremer and Rumsfeld had ordered enough U.S. troops onto the streets to preserve order, then Iraq might (and it’s only a might) have held together peacefully instead of degenerating into sectarianism, anarchy, and violence.
If Prime Minister Maliki, whom the United States eventually settled on as its favored Iraqi leader, had made a serious effort to reach out to the Sunnis and the Kurds, rather than acting like a sectarian ward heeler, the departure of U.S. forces might not have created the political stalemate and institutional power vacuum that the jihadis, first in Anbar Province and now in Nineveh and Saladin, have exploited.
None of these things happened, but the greatest mistake was the initial one. In invading Iraq and toppling Saddam, the Bush Administration opened Pandora’s Box. Given what has happened since 2003, it is almost comical to read the prewar prognostications of the neocons and paleocons for what would happen after Saddam was gone. There was talk of turning Iraq into a democratic model for other Middle Eastern countries—making it another Turkey, or even a Jordan, with a Hashemite restoration. Today it is faced with the prospect of a bloody dismemberment into three sectarian mini-states: the Sunnis in the west and northwest; the Kurds in the northeast; and the Shiites in the center and the oil-rich south. (It’s unclear where Baghdad, a city divided along religious lines, fits into this picture.)
The irony is painfully acute. Eleven years ago, in response to a terrorist attack by a group of anti-American religious fanatics, the United States invaded an Arab country with hardly any jihadis, or very few of them, to overthrow a secular dictator. Today, with much blood and money having been spent, northern and western Iraq is full of jihadis, and the U.S. government is figuring out how to prevent them from overrunning the rest of the country.
Yep. The three sides still likely would have fought each other, but at least if they were divided it would have been nation against nation, and there would be less threat of a total failed state like there is now. Best case scenario would be something similar to the India-Pakistan situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
how to shut up the right-wingers about Iraq:
What SPECIFICALLY would you do to stop the Iraq civil war AND how many $10Bs are you willing to waste trying?
^your boy barry is currently plotting how he can get involved without too much public backlash
the backlash was well earned. GWB and Paul Bremer fucked it up royally. The decision to invade was colossally fucked up too.
Part 1:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.htmlQuote:
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.
Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.
Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.
When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.
I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.
Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.
In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.
Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.
It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.
So Iraq has abused its final chance.
As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.
"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."
In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.
Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
And so we had to act and act now.
Part 2:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.htmlQuote:
Let me explain why.
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.
They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.
If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.
Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.
That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.
Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.
So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.
The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.
We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.
We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.
But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.
In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.
Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.
Iraq crisis: Tony Blair rejects 'bizarre' claims 2003 invasion caused current situation
Source: ABC.AU
Read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-1...vasion/5524750Quote:
Former British prime minister Tony Blair has hit out at critics linking the 2003 invasion of Iraq with the current violence in the country, blaming instead the West's failure to act in Syria.
Mr Blair, who led Britain into the US-led war to remove Saddam Hussein and is now a diplomatic envoy in the Middle East, also criticised the sectarianism of the government in Baghdad.
In a long article published on his website, he said arguments that there would be no crisis in the region if the Iraqi dictator had remained in power were "bizarre".
"It is a bizarre reading of the cauldron that is the Middle East today, to claim that but for the removal of Saddam, we would not have a crisis," he wrote.
The US former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the United States should not intervene in Iraq as PM Nouri al-Maliki's administration was unable to function for all Iraqis despite US support, Anadolu agency reported.
Referring to the Iraqi government, Clinton said on Friday: "You'd be fighting for a dysfunctional, unrepresentative, authoritarian government."
"There's no reason on earth that I know of that we would ever sacrifice a single American life for that."
Fuck Blair, he lied as much as dubya and dickhead to get UK BigOil back into UK former colony.
WC unmasks himself as GWB's sock puppet
He prevented sectarian violence through domination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aztecfan03
The reason he went after the Kurds, and kept it up, is he never solved that problem.
The Kurds were never fully under the boot.
Which is why The Kurdish part of Iraq is relatively safe and autonomous for now.
By presenting the truth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I wonder what that makes you for wanting to hide the truth, and calling people names who bring up the truth...
Fox News: Iraq violence proves Bush was right about ‘pretty much everything’
A Monday segment on Fox News asserted that President George W. Bush — who invaded Iraq under false pretenses, and then signed the agreement to withdraw all U.S. troops by 2012 — had been right all along because ISIS, an al Qaeda splinter group, was threatening to take over the country.
“Some say the Islamic militant group that is violently overtaking large parts of Syria and now Iraq could have been stopped if the situation there had not been neglected,” Fox News host Martha MacCallum reported during her Monday broadcast. “In fact, in 2007, President George W. Bush pretty much laid this out as it is happening.”
As London School of Economics and Political Science professor Fawaz Gerges recently pointed out, “hundreds, if not thousands, of skilled officers of Saddam Hussein’s … joined ISIS” after the Bush administration decided to break up Iraq’s military.
And at no time during the segment did MacCallum or Card mention that it was President Bush who signed the status of forces agreement in 2008 that said all U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by 2012.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/16/fox-news-iraq-violence-proves-bush-was-right-about-pretty-much-everything/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
The mass executions... even more so.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
What a fucking sectarian swamp.
No way should we be going back in there with troops, though. If they can't work it out, let 'em kill each other until it is sorted out.
p.s. start developing alternative energy.
Eyup.Quote:
Originally Posted by mercos
That is how the country would have shaken out if the British and other colonial powers hadn't fucked it up with their stupid border drawing.
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Didn't look at the URL did you?
1998-12-16
Clinton wasn't talking about the invasion of Iraq, he was talking about his own decision to hit him with airstrikes.
Sorry Clinton didn't invade Iraq.
#stillblamingclinton LOL
So, you don't think the collateral damage from those airstrikes didn't add fuel to terrorism?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
OK...
No, I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Until shown some evidence that actually happened.
Do you have evidence that the airstrikes carried out by Clinton in the 1990's in Iraq contributed to international terrorism?
Wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
They really don't teach common sense these days.
Why did 9/11 happen? Do you think they attacked for no reason?
Did you know that Osama Bin Laden issued two Fatwas in the 90's describing his intended war against the USA for Clinton's attacks?
Which do you think created more terra-ists -- Desert Fox or the disbanding of the whole Iraqi military?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The Iraqi Army wasn't exactly disbanded. However, even the Bush administration agrees they made a mistake not to include senior officers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
It was disbanded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulat...th_Annex_A.pdf
And you didn't answer my question.
Disbanding the Iraqi military put 250,000 armed men out of a job. I think this created more terrorists than Desert Fox.
If you think Desert Fox created more, explain why and find some numbers to back it up.
Look at the definitions of both dissolved and disbanded. Most of the military was reincorporated into other units.
I think the flagrant bombing by Clinton, and the excess of collateral damage he cause, helped create the tourists.
If Clinton had killed OBL, maybe no 9/11.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
If dubya/dickhead had taken Clinton's people's warnings about OBL as seriously as Clinton did and later heeded FBI's August 2001 warnings about "planes into buildings", then maybe no 9/11.
What would you do to stop it?Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Why Take the Neocons Seriously?
Exclusive: The Sunni extremist offensive into central Iraq appears to have stalled, but the political battle rages in Washington where neocons see an opening to pressure President Obama into recommitting the U.S. military in support of neocon goals in the Middle East, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
As President Barack Obama ponders whether the United States should respond militarily to advances into Iraq by Sunni extremists, the more pertinent question may be why does the mainstream U.S. news media give so much attention and credence to the neocons who laid the foundations for this disaster a decade ago.
It seems that the go-to guys for commentary continue to be the likes of Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, two of the horsemen of this apocalypse, while many of the same editorial writers at the Washington Post and elsewhere who paved the way to this Iraqi hell still chastise Obama for pulling out the U.S. troops in 2011 and demand that he reinsert the U.S. military now.
Overall, Official Washington’s commentary on the advance by several thousand fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has bordered on the hysterical, with the panic being used to push Obama to commit U.S. air assets to Iraq and to expand U.S. intervention into Syria.
That’s the case although the ISIS offensive could be explained as more the result of the group facing pressure inside Syria from President Bashar al-Assad’s rejuvenated military and from al-Qaeda-backed militants of the rival Nusra Front than some “breakout” of the ISIS goal of carving a fundamentalist caliphate out of Syria and Iraq.
ISIS may simply have concluded that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s poorly led army was an easier target. Still, ISIS appears to have been surprised by how quickly several divisions of the Iraqi army fled the northern city of Mosul and other positions on the road to Baghdad.
Nevertheless, the result is that we are back to the neocon agenda of “regime change” across the Middle East, ousting governments that Israel finds objectionable, a strategy that evolved in the 1990s and led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. If the Iraq War had not gone so badly, it was expected to set the stage for additional interventions in Syria and Iran.
To burnish their tarnished reputations, the neocons now promote a narrative that treats the Iraq invasion as a stunning success though they acknowledge that the ensuing occupation was poorly managed. But this narrative insists that those mistakes were rectified by President George W. Bush heeding neocon advice to “surge” U.S. troops in 2007, achieving “victory at last” by 2008.
According to the neocons, President Obama then squandered this “victory” by not extending the U.S. military occupation of Iraq indefinitely – and they assert that he also failed by not intervening more directly in Syria to overthrow President Assad.
A common refrain – even among liberal war hawks, like the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristofand former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – is that Obama should have done much more to arm and train “moderate” rebels in Syria, although it’s never entirely clear who these “moderates” are and whether they have any significant base of support inside Syria.
But the useful myth is that somehow these muscled-up Syrian “moderates” would have prevailed in a two-front war against Assad’s army and the Islamic militants who have
been strongly supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Sunni oil sheikdoms.
The more likely outcome would have been that the “moderate” fighters would have only contributed to the violent chaos that has engulfed Syria and thus made an outright victory by the Sunni extremists more likely, not less.
A Sunni extremist victory in Syria also could have been aided by the U.S. hawks’ desire last summer to have Obama launch a massive bombing campaign against Assad’s forces after a disputed Sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013.
Though pro-war advocates, including Secretary of State John Kerry, rushed to pin the blame on Assad – despite his denials and indications that the rebels may have released the Sarin as a “false-flag” provocation – Obama veered away from the Syrian bombing at the last minute. Then, with help from Russian President Vladimir Putin, Assad was convinced to surrender all his chemical weapons.
But that deal only fed the neocon narrative that Obama was weak and indecisive, while the liberal hawks kept embracing the dreamy alternative of the “moderate” rebels somehow winning their two-front war. Having never been fully tested and thus never fully disproved, this hypothetical outcome has remained an easy way to bash Obama.
Extrapolating from the “moderate rebel” myth, the U.S. hardliners argue that Obama is now responsible for the recent successes of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria in its drive into central Iraq because – if it weren’t for Obama’s unwillingness to plunge into the Syrian civil war – Syria would not have become a staging base for ISIS, the argument goes.
The ISIS Offensive
But there is another way to view the ISIS offensive into Iraq – that it is more a sign of weakness in Syria than strength in Iraq. Inside Syria, these and other rebels have been on the defensive against the Syrian army. ISIS also appears to have lost some financial support from Saudi Arabia as the monarchy has retrenched from its regional proxy wars against Shiite-ruled Iran and Iranian allies, such as Assad.
It appears the waning enthusiasm of the Saudi government for the Syrian adventure has left some of the Sunni militants there in disarray, although the rebels may continue to get significant support from some Saudi princes and other Persian Gulf oil sheiks.
Still, official Saudi adventurism appears to have reached its peak in 2013 under the guidance of then-intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the longtime ambassador to the United States who has been a savvy and ruthless player on the global stage.
Bandar, who worked so closely with President George W. Bush and the Bush Family that he was called “Bandar Bush,” had a geopolitical vision that was complementary to the neocon strategy in Washington. It included an odd-couple alliance between Saudi Arabia and Israel in pursuit of their common goals of undermining Shiite-ruled Iran and removing the elected Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Israeli-Saudi Alliance Slips into View.”]
However, Bandar may have overplayed his hand. In a face-to-face meeting with Russia’s Putin last July, Bandar is reported to have implied that Russia’s continued support of Assad might lead Saudi-backed extremists to target the Sochi Winter Olympics with terrorist attacks. That warning prompted a return threat from Putin to hold Saudi Arabia accountable if the Olympics were attacked. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Russian-Saudi Showdown at Sochi.”]
Then, Saudi hopes that Obama would plunge into the Syrian civil war after the Aug. 21 Sarin attack were dashed as Putin helped steer Obama away from that abyss. Putin next assisted in negotiating an interim deal with Iran for restraining its nuclear program, undermining the prospects of a U.S. attack on Iran and solidifying Putin as the new bete noire of the neocons.
With those gambits for reengaging the U.S. military in the Middle East thwarted – and the Saudi hand more exposed than the Saudi monarchy likes – Bandar was sidelined in late 2013 and formally removed from his post on April 15, 2014.
However, I’m told that Bandar’s departure does not mean Saudi money has stopped flowing to the roving bands of Sunni extremists fighting in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere; the financial burden has simply shifted from the Saudi government to individual Saudi princes who have long financed militants with the quiet blessing of the monarchy.
The erstwhile Israel-Saudi alliance also appears to have tumbled along with Bandar’s fall. The cosmopolitan Bandar with his long experience in Washington did not share the hatred of Israeli Jews that is common among the Saudi hierarchy. Thus, Bandar was able to see the value of teaming up with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in areas of mutual interest, particularly antipathy toward Iran.
Yet, while that informal Saudi-Israeli collaboration may be in eclipse, the shared interests remain, underscoring why American neocons are so eager to blame Obama for this past week’s offensive by ISIS fighters as they captured Mosul and struck southward toward Baghdad. The offensive revives hope for resuming the neocon strategy of “regime change” in Syria and Iran.
Though now stalled, the ISIS offensive has become the latest rationale for arguing that Obama must recommit the U.S. military behind the neocon agenda.
But the bigger question is why any American still takes the neocons seriously.
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/15...ons-seriously/
I see you found more spoon feed propaganda to eat...
excellent retort, as always.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
can you identify any specific propaganda points?
Only that I went through a list of their material and reports. It's almost all leftist points against those on the right. They are clearly a biased site. How have they established their credibility?Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux