Does Iraq have the political willpower to stand up to ISIS and Al Kooky terrorism?

ISIS (for sure) and Al Dipstick draws most of its vulnerable recruits among the Sunni population.
With a large part of Iraq being Sunni and feeling left out by the govt, is there any hope period for them getting the political thus military willpower to fight back against these demonic biznitches? The US is waiting 30 days for the Iraqis to replace the ousted pussy who just left. Are you kidding me? Even if the new guy wants to reenergize the Army, is the willpower really there?

Saudi. Its been reported that the recruiting by ISIS is getting tons of supportive tweets from Saudi Arabia. With Joe Sixpack, the average teenage Saudi being unemployed and f(*&cked by the filthy rich Saudi overlords, they are ripe for the pickin when ISIS recruiters come spewing their bullshit.

ISIS is sunni (ex bathist Saddam army), SA is sunni, Maliki and his govt were Shiite and pissed off the Iraqi sunnis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

ISIS is sunni (ex bathist Saddam army), SA is sunni, Maliki and his govt were Shiite and pissed off the Iraqi sunnis.

---

Right. So why was not the most minute amount of foresight shown in refusing to let Maliki be elected in the 1st place?
If it was thru a vote (and i dont even remember) then i would say it was a rigged vote.

At any rate, i was told years ago that the whole Iraq issue was over Sunni vs Shiite.
Moving forward, the US is going to *wait* for a new Iraq president and then *hope* he is able to include Shiites enough to where the military gets reenergized?

I'm sure ISIS is going to hold off until they get this done. :rolleyes

they cant do shit when usa is pro isis fight in syria, but against them in iraq

these fkn clowns are looking at the bigger picture while usa isnt...they will want the whole ME to be under them, i lol at the gulf states who are more lenient islam followers...sitting and doing jackshit till shit arrives on its doorsteps will be too late....

they cant do shit when usa is pro isis fight in syria, but against them in iraq

these fkn clowns are looking at the bigger picture while usa isnt...they will want the whole ME to be under them, i lol at the gulf states who are more lenient islam followers...sitting and doing jackshit till shit arrives on its doorsteps will be too late....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiTroll

Right. So why was not the most minute amount of foresight shown in refusing to let Maliki be elected in the 1st place?
If it was thru a vote (and i dont even remember) then i would say it was a rigged vote.

At any rate, i was told years ago that the whole Iraq issue was over Sunni vs Shiite.
Moving forward, the US is going to *wait* for a new Iraq president and then *hope* he is able to include Shiites enough to where the military gets reenergized?

I'm sure ISIS is going to hold off until they get this done. :rolleyes

---

Maliki was elected because shiites are the huge majority, elected in reaction to decades of domination by the Saddam Bathist sunnis.

Isis, AQ, etc can "hold off" until in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, etc until the Western/US troops leave in defeat, as they always do. eg, Viet Nam. the British, Russian in Afghanistan

US MIC is not on a "fool's errand" in trying to extend, maintain the American corporate empire because non-stop imperial war and occupation is a hugely profitable business. As with non-military corps USA, MIC doesn't GAF about democracy, only about their profits, no matter the external costs to others. DoD + State Dept budgets blow about $1.5T/year on American empire.

But i thought the US oil pigs were going to get the Iraq oil, as you had posted a link that their schemery resulted in long awaited contracts being awarded under the guise of "only they had the drilling know how" or some such facade?

With ISIS running a shitstorm, isnt the oil flow in danger?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Maliki was elected because shiites are the huge majority, elected in reaction to decades of domination by the Saddam Bathist sunnis.

---

Okay. And are the core group of the ISIS cunts ex Saddam Bathist Sunnis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabbs

Okay. And are the core group of the ISIS cunts ex Saddam Bathist Sunnis?

---

that's what I've read. ISIS has been succeeding so well because it's run by high-level Saddam Baathist Army officers (fired by Bremer) who are directing a war, not raghead terrorism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

that's what I've read. ISIS has been succeeding so well because it's run by high-level Saddam Baathist Army officers (fired by Bremer) who are directing a war, not raghead terrorism

---

Well Syria was run by the Baath party as well so why are the Baathist in Iraq fighting the Baath Party gov't in Syria?

It's the Middle East and Muslims, aka, it's confusing.

Assad is shiite, an ally of shiite Iran. ISIS/ISIL is Sunni and is trying to take Assad's gas/oil fields. My guess is that Baathism is a political/socialist movement, trumped by sunni vs shiite sectarianism.

Let's not be too quick to form opinions. We have to make sure we're forming opinions on the correct information. There's a lot of BS in the mainstream press.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/bombing...panies/5395527
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-rea...rities/5395722
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-roo...-years/5395778
http://www.globalresearch.ca/underst...ticles/5387764
http://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=lithium

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiTroll

ISIS (for sure) and Al Dipstick draws most of its vulnerable recruits among the Sunni population.
With a large part of Iraq being Sunni and feeling left out by the govt, is there any hope period for them getting the political thus military willpower to fight back against these demonic biznitches? The US is waiting 30 days for the Iraqis to replace the ousted pussy who just left. Are you kidding me? Even if the new guy wants to reenergize the Army, is the willpower really there?

Saudi. Its been reported that the recruiting by ISIS is getting tons of supportive tweets from Saudi Arabia. With Joe Sixpack, the average teenage Saudi being unemployed and f(*&cked by the filthy rich Saudi overlords, they are ripe for the pickin when ISIS recruiters come spewing their bullshit.

---

The answer to the OP appears to be: No.

They still seem to think, and not without reason, that we will come running to the rescue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cosmored

Let's not be too quick to form opinions. We have to make sure we're forming opinions on the correct information. There's a lot of BS in the mainstream press.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/bombing...panies/5395527
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-rea...rities/5395722
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-roo...-years/5395778
http://www.globalresearch.ca/underst...ticles/5387764
http://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=lithium

---

So we should only read from websites approved by Cosmored?

How do you know your information is "correct"?

FWIW:

Quote:

---

Globalresearch.ca (also under the domain name globalresearch.org) may best be described as the moonbat equivalent to WorldNetDaily (albeit not as "succesful" as WND). It is the website of the Montreal-based non-profit The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) founded by Michel Chossudovsky.
The website describes itself as an "independent research and media organization." Globalresearch.ca considers itself to be a reliable "alternative news" source serving as a major repository of a broad range of "news articles, in-depth reports and analysis on issues which are barely covered by the mainstream media" (such as the New World Order). Its politico-economic stance is strongly anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-militarist, "internationalist but anti-globalization." Its view of science, the economy and geopolitics seems to be broadly conspiracist.
While many of Globalresearch.ca's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian or environmental concerns, the site has a strong undercurrent of reality warping and bullshit throughout its pages, especially in relation to taking its news from Russia Today, along with other unreliable and/or open sources.
Despite presenting itself as a source of scholarly analysis, Globalresearch.ca mostly consists of polemics many of which accept (and use) conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and propaganda. The prevalent conspiracist strand relates to global power-elites (primarily governments and corporations) and their New World Order.[1] Specific featured conspiracy theories include those addressing 9/11,[2] vaccines,[3] genetic modification,[4] Zionism,[5][6] HAARP,[7] global warming,[8][9] and David Kelly.[10] Analyses of these issues tend follow the lines of the site's political biases.
Apparently, contributors to Globalresearch.ca consider information sourced from anyone who seems aligned to their ideology as reliable; during the 2011 Libyan civil war the site was an apologist for Muammar al-Gaddafi,[11] reproducing his propaganda and painting him as a paragon of a modern leader. In the 2014 Ukrainian crisis the site is taking the standard "anti-globalisation" stance against the Western side and falling into the ranks of imperial Russian propaganda instead.
It's no surprise then that the site has long become a magnet for radicals, fringe figures and whacko elements from the left in general. And ironically, it has more in common with its writers' enemies and wingnut rivals than they would ever admit.

---

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca

I commend Obama for ordering more air strikes on these fucktards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I commend Obama for ordering more air strikes on these fucktards.

---

Yep.

They need to blow up all the hardware ISIL got from the Iraqi army when they shit their pants and ran.

The IsIs have 2billion dollars and oil fields. They can buy back the hardware from US back.

how about trying to cut the funding by going after the Saudis?? ISIS are Prince Bandars toys why not go after him???

Its funny the Iraqi government is getting all the blame when it was the Iraqi government who were clamoring for the US and Saudi to stop funding the jihadist in Syria because the violence might spill over to Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

they cant do shit when usa is pro isis fight in syria, but against them in iraq

these fkn clowns are looking at the bigger picture while usa isnt...they will want the whole ME to be under them, i lol at the gulf states who are more lenient islam followers...sitting and doing jackshit till shit arrives on its doorsteps will be too late....

---

lol thinking they just "can't see it"

they're turncoats working for globalists interests and ought to be shot and hung

Why Washington’s War on Terror Failed – The Underrated Saudi Connection


There are extraordinary elements in the present U.S. policy in Iraq and Syria that are attracting surprisingly little attention. In Iraq, the U.S. is carrying out air strikes and sending in advisers and trainers to help beat back the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (better known as ISIS) on the Kurdish capital, Erbil. The U.S. would presumably do the same if ISIS surrounds or attacks Baghdad. But in Syria, Washington’s policy is the exact opposite: there the main opponent of ISIS is the Syrian government and the Syrian Kurds in their northern enclaves. Both are under attack from ISIS, which has taken about a third of the country, including most of its oil and gas production facilities.

But U.S., Western European, Saudi, and Arab Gulf policy is to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad, which happens to be the policy of ISIS and other jihadis in Syria. If Assad goes, then ISIS will be the beneficiary, since it is either defeating or absorbing the rest of the Syrian armed opposition. There is a pretense in Washington and elsewhere that there exists a “moderate” Syrian opposition being helped by the U.S., Qatar, Turkey, and the Saudis. It is, however, weak and getting more so by the day. Soon the new caliphate may stretch from the Iranian border to the Mediterranean and the only force that can possibly stop this from happening is the Syrian army.

The reality of U.S. policy is to support the government of Iraq, but not Syria, against ISIS. But one reason that group has been able to grow so strong in Iraq is that it can draw on its resources and fighters in Syria. Not everything that went wrong in Iraq was the fault of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, as has now become the political and media consensus in the West. Iraqi politicians have been telling me for the last two years that foreign backing for the Sunni revolt in Syria would inevitably destabilize their country as well. This has now happened.

By continuing these contradictory policies in two countries, the U.S. has ensured that ISIS can reinforce its fighters in Iraq from Syria and vice versa. So far, Washington has been successful in escaping blame for the rise of ISIS by putting all the blame on the Iraqi government. In fact, it has created a situation in which ISIS can survive and may well flourish.

Ignoring the Roles of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan

The key decisions that enabled al-Qa‘ida to survive, and later to expand, were made in the hours immediately after 9/11. Almost every significant element in the project to crash planes into the Twin Towers and other iconic American buildings led back to Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was a member of the Saudi elite, and his father had been a close associate of the Saudi monarch. Citing a CIA report from 2002, the official 9/11 report says that al-Qa‘ida relied for its financing on “a variety of donors and fundraisers, primarily in the Gulf countries and particularly in Saudi Arabia.”

The report’s investigators repeatedly found their access limited or denied when seeking information in Saudi Arabia. Yet President George W. Bush apparently never even considered holding the Saudis responsible for what happened. An exit of senior Saudis, including bin Laden relatives, from the U.S. was facilitated by the U.S. government in the days after 9/11. Most significant, 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report about the relationship between the attackers and Saudi Arabia were cut and never published, despite a promise by President Obama to do so, on the grounds of national security.

The “war on terror” has failed because it did not target the jihadi movement as a whole and, above all, was not aimed at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the two countries that fostered jihadism as a creed and a movement.

The U.S. did not do so because these countries were important American allies whom it did not want to offend.

Saudi Arabia is an enormous market for American arms, and the Saudis have cultivated, and on occasion purchased, influential members of the American political establishment.

Pakistan is a nuclear power with a population of 180 million and a military with close links to the Pentagon.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/...+capitalism%29

So the "war on terror" is yet another war America has lost because America's policies of economic empire are dictated by the profits of BigOil and MIC.

US's "ally" against ISIL

U.N. Releases Shocking New Estimate Of People Killed In Syria


For the first time in months the United Nations issued an estimate of how many people have been killed in the midst of Syria’s civil war, placing the number at a staggering 191,369.

The number covers from the beginning of the civil war in March 2011 until April of this year. At the outset of the conflict, Syrian protesters marched peacefully on the streets demanding President Bashar al-Assad accede to free elections and other democratic reforms. Since then, the crisis has spiraled ever deeper, with Syria now seen as a breeding ground for extremism and the Assad government more stubbornly dug in than ever.

Navy Pillay, who is finishing her final weeks as the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, announced the new estimate on Friday in a statement from her offices in Geneva. “With additional killings reported from earlier periods, in addition to the new killings that have taken place, the total is more than double the number documented a year ago,” Pillay said. Fourteen months ago, the U.N. provided number of those killed was the much lower — though still extremely high — 93,000.

But the number may actually be far higher than the total the U.N. has now provided. An independent NGO that deals with statistics started with a list of 318,910 reported killings, taken from five sources, including the Syrian government and local NGOS, before whittling it down to only those that have been confirmed. Only those that included a full name of a victim, the date of death, and where it took place made their way into the final version. “After duplicates were merged, the combined dataset was reduced to 191,369 unique records of conflict-related deaths as of 30 April 2014,” the U.N. explained.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/...h-toll-update/

... not that US has ever had any qualms about allying with, supporting some the nastiest, undemocratic regimes.

Saudi's grand mufti denounces ISIS and Al Qaeda as apostates:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...435845901.html

Quote:

---

Egypt’s top cleric has condemned the extremist Islamic State group that has been on a rampage in Iraq and Syria, describing it as a “terrorist” organization that poses a danger to Islam and Muslims. The Islamic State is “violating all the Islamic principles and the intentions of the Shariah (Islamic law),” said Grand Mufti Shawki Allam, Egypt’s highest religious authority.

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...abb_story.html

meanwhile, ISIS denounces Hamas:

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...e-israel.html#

Don't forget to read the alternative press when analyzing these issues.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=ISIS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cosmored

Don't forget to read the alternative press when analyzing these issues.

---

what does globalreasearch.ca tell us to think? can you put it in a nutshell for us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

meanwhile, ISIS denounces Hamas:

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...e-israel.html#

---

wtf is this the 12th century?

Quote:

---

what does globalreasearch.ca tell us to think? can you put it in a nutshell for us?

---

Even the alternative press is second-hand info but it makes a lot more sense than the discredited mainstream press.

One way or another it's probably about oil. Check out this article.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-rea...rities/5395722
(excerpts)
-------------------------------------------
But the architects of the Iraq War (the one which started in 2003) themselves admitted it was about oil.But what about now? Why are the U.S. and France deploying military force in Iraq now?Well, ISIS captured some key oil fields in the Kurdish region of Iraq on August 3rd.

Mere days later, the U.S. started bombing ISIS.
-------------------------------------------
The U.S. and France have never lifted a finger to protect the Kurds. Indeed, the U.S. has actively betrayed the Kurds and let them be slaughtered. For example, during the Gulf War, the U.S. called on the Kurds to rise up against Saddam (implying that he would protect them), but then let Saddam slaughter the Kurds en masse.
So why are the U.S. and France moving now to protect Erbil?
Because Erbil has now become a major oil center. The Kurdish government estimates that the region is the world’s 9th largest oil producer.
------------------------------------------------------------

This post is from a thread about another topic but is shows why we shouldn't base our opinions on what the mainstream press says.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post4731597

poll says Arabs hate ISIS more than they hate us, and broadly support our war against them:

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/14/7216319/poll-arabs-isis

if Al Qaeda and ISIS patch things up:

Quote:

---

The White House never bought the “enemy of my enemy” logic when it came to ISIS and Nusra—it’s been bombing both of them, after all. This merger, along with growing signs that Washington is resigning itself to Bashar al-Assad’s long-term presence, could be an indication that the overlapping and intersecting battle lines in Syria are starting to clarify themselves. At the moment, the U.S., the Kurds, Iraqi Shiites, and—whether the Obama administration will admit it or not—the Syrian government are on one side, and ISIS and al-Qaida are on the other.



The big loser in all of this is likely to be the U.S.-backed rebels. In addition to ISIS and Nusra finding common cause, there are reports this week that the White House is considering revamping a Syria strategy many senior officials have come to see as unworkable. That strategy, which involved focusing primarily on rolling back ISIS in Iraq and didn’t involve strikes against Assad, never sat well with the rebels. A new one, which could involve a new diplomatic push for a cease-fire deal whose terms would likely be very disadvantageous to the Syrian opposition, would be even worse.

---

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world...things_up.html

the foregoing, if in fact it resembles the US strategy in the region, aligns us also with Iran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Reckoning

wtf is this the 12th century?

---

I wasn't 900 years ago that Catholics and Protestants were killing each other for much the same reason. The Irish just stopped in the last 30 or so years.

relates to Iraq and Afghanistan, but worth reflecting on as we wade back into war:

Quote:

---

The US fought two long, brutal wars in its response to the atrocity of September 11, 2001. We lost both of them – revealing the biggest military machine in the history of the planet as essentially useless in advancing American objectives through war and occupation. Attempts to quash Islamist extremism through democracy were complete failures. The Taliban still has enormous sway in Afghanistan and the only way to prevent the entire Potemkin democracy from imploding is a permanent US troop presence. In Iraq, we are now confronting the very same Sunni insurgency the invasion created in 2003 – just even more murderous. The Jihadism there has only become more extreme under a democratic veneer. And in all this, the U.S. didn’t just lose the wars; it lost the moral high-ground as well. The president himself unleashed brutal torture across all theaters of war – effectively ending any moral authority the US has in international human rights.

---

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/...uses-to-admit/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

relates to Iraq and Afghanistan, but worth reflecting on as we wade back into war:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/...uses-to-admit/

---

why do you hate America?

not at all. quite the reverse, actually.

Obama ditches Chuck Hagel:

Quote:

---

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel handed in his resignation on Monday under pressure, the first cabinet-level casualty of the collapse of President Obama’s Democratic majority in the Senate and the struggles of his national security team to respond to an onslaught of global crises.

In announcing Mr. Hagel’s resignation from the State Dining Room on Monday, the president, flanked by Mr. Hagel and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., called Mr. Hagel critical to ushering the military “through a significant period of transition” and lauded “a young Army sergeant from Vietnam who rose to serve as America’s 24th secretary of defense.”


Mr. Obama called Mr. Hagel “no ordinary secretary of defense,” adding that he had “been in the dirt” of combat like no other defense chief. He said that Mr. Hagel would remain in the job until his successor is confirmed by the Senate.


Administration officials said that Mr. Obama made the decision to remove Mr. Hagel, the sole Republican on his national security team, last Friday after a series of meetings between the two men over the past two weeks.

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us...id=tw-bna&_r=1

perhaps his successor will adopt a more muscular posture toward ISIS and Al Kooky terrorism. resignations of this sort often signal a change of course in policy.

at least one Republican Senator is willing to step up to limit the unitary executive:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...cs/24rand.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

at least one Republican Senator is willing to step up to limit the unitary executive:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...cs/24rand.html

---

This is fine, but you have to question wether it's just theatrics... I didn't like this one from Rand:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/1...ns-113042.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Obama ditches Chuck Hagel:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us...id=tw-bna&_r=1

---

Looking forward to the book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

This is fine, but you have to question wether it's just theatrics... I didn't like this one from Rand:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/1...ns-113042.html

---

neither do I.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

perhaps his successor will adopt a more muscular posture toward ISIS and Al Kooky terrorism. resignations of this sort often signal a change of course in policy.

---

Political negotiation tactic, perhaps? The successor will have to be approved by the new Congress, IIRC.

Iran bombs ISIS: http://www.janes.com/article/46514/i...-state-in-iraq

The number of foreigners fighting in Syria and Iraq just hit an alarming new record

As if the Syria and Iraq conflicts weren't bad enough, here's some more alarming news: the influx of foreign fighters, which is to say foreigners volunteering to fight for Sunni militant groups such as ISIS or al-Qaeda, has reached an all-time high: as many as 20,000. According to a new estimate from the International Center for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR), no conflict since 1945 has ever attracted this many foreign fighters.

That's a real problem — and not just for Iraq and Syria. Some of these fighters will likely go on to attempt to plot international terrorist attacks; others to travel from war to war, making each of those bloodier in turn, much as the foreigners who fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s went on to cause trouble for a generation.

According to the ICSR report, up to 20,730 people have gone to fight for Sunni militant groups in Syria and Iraq. Emphasis on "up to:" ICSR's report contains a range, and the 20,730 figure comes from adding all of the high-end estimates together. Using low-end estimate comes out to around 16,700. These estimates come from collating and comparing government figures, media reports, and statements from the militant groups themselves.

Still, that number already matches or even exceeds credible high-end estimates for the number of foreigners who went to fight against the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (about 20,000 foreign fighters). Until now, that conflict had attracted more foreign fighters than any other since 1945. And the wars in Syria and Iraq are very far from over.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/26/7915741...-fighters-isis

Thanks, Repugs! How are those US/UK BigOil Iraq profits coming along?

Bush hasn't been in power for 6 years. What exactly has Obama done to make the situation any better? Hmmm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicans78

Bush hasn't been in power for 6 years. What exactly has Obama done to make the situation any better? Hmmm?

---

I've always said that the damage dubya, dickhead, neocons did in Iraq and Aghanistan is unstoppable, and will last for years, decades, in USA and in Middle East, Afganistan. eg, now the Repugs have given us ISIL, thanks!

You must have missed the Repug OUTRAGE when Obama, "making the situation better", withdrew from Iraq on the Repugs' own agreement with Iraq.

shit just got real. nuke the bastards

ISIS Torches Armenian Church in Mosul

Sobering video.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-m1-abrams-ta/

The Iraqi army's willingness to let Ramadi fall toISIS "surprised all of us," Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq told CNN on Monday.

"It's not clear for us why such a unit, which was supposed to be trained by the Americans for years, and supposed to be one of the best units in the army, would withdraw from Ramadi in such a way."
"This is not the army that we are willing to see or we are expecting to see."
Al-Mutlaq, a Sunni who leads his own party and often criticizes Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, spoke with CNN's Frederik Pleitgen on "Amanpour," a day after scathing criticism of the Iraqi military by U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter.
"They were not outnumbered," Carter told CNN's Barbara Starr in an exclusive interview. "In fact, they vastly outnumbered the opposing force. And yet they failed to fight; they withdrew from the site."
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam...m-plus-169.jpg















Watch the full interview 09:50

PLAY VIDEO

"And that says to me, and I think to most of us,that we have an issue with the will of the Iraqis."








rest of article
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/25/world/...laq/index.html

The weapons left behind is disturbing as well.
http://my.chicagotribune.com/#sectio.../p2p-83623029/

Thanks, repugs!

We'll be thanking repugs for decades

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Thanks, repugs!

We'll be thanking repugs for decades

---

Thanks Obama. We'll be thanking Obama for decades.

If Iraq with $50B+ of US training and equipment can't defend its own "country", I say "fuck 'em", no more dead, maimed, destroyed US military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cantthinkofanything

Thanks Obama. We'll be thanking Obama for decades.

---

yep, Ms of Americans thank Obama now for giving them access to health care. The Repugs and the Repug SCOTUS5 can still fuck it up, and I'm sure they will, sooner or later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

yep, Ms of Americans thank Obama now for giving them access to health care. The Repugs and the Repug SCOTUS5 can still fuck it up, and I'm sure they will, sooner or later.

---

Mmmmm. I hope it's sooner.

Dude, where’s my Humvee? Iraq losing equipment to Islamic State at staggering rate

Iraqi security forces lost 2,300 Humvee armored vehicles when Islamic State overran the northern city of Mosul in June 2014, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said on Sunday in an interview with Iraqiya state television. Coupled with previous losses of American weapons, the conclusion is simple: The United States is effectively supplying Islamic State with tools of war the militant group cannot otherwise hope to acquire from its patrons.

In addition to the Humvees, Iraqi forces previously abandoned significant types and numbers of heavy weapons to Islamic State.

For example, losses to Islamic State include

at least 40 M1A1main battle tanks,

as well as small arms and ammunition,

including 74,000 machine guns, and

as many as 52 M198 howitzer mobile gun systems.

“We lost a lot of weapons,” Abadi admitted. :lol

To help replenish Iraq’s motor pool, the U.S. State Department last year approved a sale to Iraq of 1,000 Humvees, along with their armor upgrades, machine guns and grenade launchers. The United States previously donated 250 Mine Resistant Armored Personnel carriers (MRAPs) to Iraq, plus unaccountable amounts of material left behind when American forces departed in 2011. The United States is currently in the process of moving to Iraq 175 M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks, 55,000 rounds of main tank-gun ammunition, $600 million in howitzers and trucks, $700 million worth of Hellfire missiles and 2,000 AT-4 rockets.

The Hellfires and AT-4′s, anti-tank weapons, are presumably going to be used to help destroy the American armor in the hands of Islamic State. :lol

The United States is also conducting air strikes to destroy weapons seized by Islamic State.

It’s a surreal state of affairs in which American weaponry is being sent into Iraq to destroy American weaponry previously sent into Iraq.

If a new sequel to Catch-22 were to be written, this would be the plot line.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debat...ut-of-control/

Thanks for the insanity, Repugs!

This whole putting up with Iraqs bullshit does not pass the smell test.
It's like either pull out and let ISIS reign or make it the 51st state and blow the f out of ISIS.

It's gonna be Iran controlling 2/3 of Iraq and ISIL getting the rest. Iran will get most of the oil fields.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

It's gonna be Iran controlling 2/3 of Iraq and ISIL getting the rest. Iran will get most of the oil fields.

---

Clairvoyant cowboy :blah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Clairvoyant cowboy :blah

---

If you can't see that end game you are just plain dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

If you can't see that end game you are just plain dumb.

---

Just tell me the last time any single one of your predictions were correct.

:lol

Make your prediction big mouth.

Put that pea brain to work.

Hussein blocked Iran. We broke it and didn't fix it. Iran and ISIL will fill the vacuum.

Why can't (won't) US partner up with Iran to oust ISIS?
Jewbobs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

:lol

Make your prediction big mouth.

Put that pea brain to work.

---

Predicting what's going to happen in the Middle East is a fools errand. The region is wildly complex and your take is overly simplistic. Explain to me how you come to the irrefutable conclusion the Shias get the oilfields?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Predicting what's going to happen in the Middle East is a fools errand. The region is wildly complex and your take is overly simplistic. Explain to me how you come to the irrefutable conclusion the Shias get the oilfields?

---

:lmao

Just quit before you really prove how stupid you are.

Try looking at a map of Iraqi oil fields.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

:lmao

Just quit before you really prove how stupid you are.

Try looking at a map of Iraqi oil fields.

---

So Kurds are irrelevant?

The primary oil fields are south of Baghdad and the Kurds are in the north. Should have quit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

The primary oil fields are south of Baghdad and the Jura are in the north. Should have quit.

---

A fools errand

From the bottom of my heart, THANKS, REPUGS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

The primary oil fields are south of Baghdad and the Kurds are in the north. Should have quit.

---

:lol so there aren't any super giant oilfields in the Kurdish region of Iraq?

You're literally just talking out of your ass.

So what exactly happens to the Kurds in this new Iran/Isis region clairvoyant cowboy?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8820

"up north"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

:lol so there aren't any super giant oilfields in the Kurdish region of Iraq?

You're literally just talking out of your ass.

So what exactly happens to the Kurds in this new Iran/Isis region clairvoyant cowboy?

---

I didn't say there weren't any oil fields in the north but the big ones are in the south. As for the northern iSIL controlled oil fields and facilities (especially in Syria) we are already blowing them up.

As for the Kurds...well, it sucks to be a Kurd. We won't actively support them, Jordan doesn't want them and ISIL will gradually wipe them out.

Why the US can’t fix the Middle East’s problems, in one quote

"In Iraq, the U.S. intervened and occupied, and the result was a costly disaster.

In Libya, the U.S. intervened and did not occupy, and the result was a costly disaster.

In Syria, the U.S. neither intervened nor occupied, and the result is a costly disaster."

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/4/8729085/america-middle-east-quote

NPR had a couple or three that seemed to be in the know ranking types.
It did not turn into a Demon vs Repug partisan time waster.

The one guy commented that corruption in the high ranking Iraqi Army is huge.
Those kuuunts withold pay from soldiers, on and on.
So they said it is no surprise when the Iraqi soldiers turned and ran away from ISIS because the mentality is why should i fight for some corrupt rip off.
Total chaos.

US needs to make it 51st state or turn it over to Iran.
Iraqi Army is never gonna do shit.

The Iraqi Army, esp the Republican Guard, and Iraq were stable, as was the entire middle east, until ....

Thanks, Repugs and Big US/UK Oil!

bouts are we really supposed to believe the Big Oil demons are not sucking oil out of the Mid East left and right?

What is the latest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiTroll

bouts are we really supposed to believe the Big Oil demons are not sucking oil out of the Mid East left and right?

What is the latest?

---

Big US/UK oil are still sucking Iraqi oil, and probably paying millions for murderous Rambo mercenaries to keep the oil flowing.

Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq


http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...134071641.html

great article! Anthing new since then 2012?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

The Iraqi Army, esp the Republican Guard, and Iraq were stable, as was the entire middle east, until ....

Thanks, Repugs and Big US/UK Oil!

---

Yup. Sadam kept his savages in check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

Yup. Sadam kept his savages in check.

---

Much better than what Assad has now and what Saddam had then, than what the Middle East.

Thanks, Repugs!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

Yup. Sadam kept his savages in check.

---

The "savages" running, commanding ISIS so well are apparently the top Sunni/Baathist generals from Saddams' Army that Bremer, "nation builder", so brilliantly disbanded.