DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on May 18, 2015, 11:02:22 AM
-
Ramadi's fall opens ISIS road to Baghdad.
Jordan warns US air strikes won't stop the terrorists' advance
DEBKAfile Special Report
May 18, 2015
(http://www.debka.com/dynmedia/photos/2015/05/18/big/Tanks_fled_ramadi_17.5.15.jpg)
Iraqi army tanks flee Ramadi
Jordan's King Abdullah has warned the Obama administration in an urgent message that US air strikes alone won't stop the Islamic State's advances in Iraq and Syria and, what is more, they leave his kingdom next door exposed to the Islamist peril. ISIS would at present have no difficulty in invading southern Jordan, where the army is thin on the ground, and seizing local towns and villages whose inhabitants are already sympathetic to the extremist group. The bulk of the Jordanian army is concentrated in the north on the Syrian border. Even a limited Islamist incursion in the south would also pose a threat to northern Saudi Arabia, the king pointed out.
Abdullah offered the view that the US Delta Special Forces operation in eastern Syria Saturday was designed less to be an effective assault on ISIS's core strength and more as a palliative to minimize the Islamist peril facing Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf emirates.
DEBKAfile's Washington sources report that US officials refused to heed Abdullah's warning and tried to play it down, in the same way as Secretary John Kerry tried Monday, May 18, to de-emphasize to the ISIS conquest of Ramadi, the capital of Iraq's largest province.
At a news conference in Seoul, Kerry dismissed the Islamists' feat as a "target of opportunity" and expressed confidence that, in the coming days, the loss "can be reversed."
The Secretary of State's words were unlikely to scare the Islamists, who had caused more than 500 deaths in the battle for the town and witnessed panicky Iraqi soldiers fleeing Ramadi in Humvees and tanks.
Baghdad, only 110 km southeast of Ramadi, has more reason to be frightened, in the absence of any size-able Iraqi military strength in the area for standing in the enemy's path to the capital.
The Baghdad government tried announcing that substantial military reinforcements had been ordered to set out and halt the Islamists' advance. This was just whistling in the dark. In the last two days, the remnants of the Iraqi army have gone to pieces, just like in the early days of the ISIS offensive, when the troops fled Mosul and Falujah. They are running away from any possible engagement with the Islamist enemy.
The Baghdad-sourced reports that Shiite paramilitaries were preparing to deploy to Iraq's western province of Anbar after Islamic State militants overran Ramadi were likewise no more than an attempt to boost morale. Sending armed Shiites into the Ramadi area of Anbar would make no sense, because its overwhelmingly Sunni population would line up behind fellow-Sunni Islamist State conquerors rather than help the Shiite militias to fight them.
Iran's Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan, who arrived precipitately in Baghdad Monday, shortly after Ramadi's fall, faces this difficulty. Our military sources expect him to focus on a desperate effort to deploy Shiite militias as an obstacle in ISIS?s path to Baghdad, now that the road is clear of defenders all the way from Ramadi.
In Amman, King Abdullah Sunday made a clean sweep of senior security officials, firing the Minister of Interior, the head of internal security (Muhabarat) and a number of high police officers. They were accused officially of using excessive violence to disperse demonstrations in the southern town of Maan.
The real reason for their dismissal, DEBKAfile's counter-terror sources disclose, is the decline of these officials' authority in the Maan district, in the face of the rising influence of extremist groups identified with Al Qaeda and ISIS, in particular.
http://www.debka.com/article/24609/Ramadi%E2%80%99s-fall-opens-ISIS-road-to-Baghdad-Jordan-warns-US-air-strikes-won%E2%80%99t-stop-the-terrorists%E2%80%99-advance
-
Obama never owned Iraq.
Get serious.
The King of Jordan has an army, let him handle it.
-
The US Lost 1,335 Soldiers in Anbar.....ISIS Just Took it Back.....Thanks Obama
-
I really don't think he cares, C. :(
-
The US has already proven that it cannot rule Iraq and the people of this country do not want to send troops back to Iraq.
Remember whose stupid idea it was to invade Iraq.
-
Speaking of stupid, why this insidious effort to once argue something no one is supporting?? :o NO ONE, NOT EVEN BUSH, WANTED TO "RULE IRAQ". Never.......did I mention, never?
-
Next challenge for US after Ramadi defeat:
Iranian ship nears Yemeni shore
DEBKAfile Special Report
May 19, 2015
(http://www.debka.com/dynmedia/photos/2015/05/19/big/Iran_Shahed_21.5.15.jpg)
Iranian aid vessel with "medical relief" personnel
Tuesday, May 19, two days after Ramadi's fall to the Islamic State landed a major blow to Baghdad and US strategy in the region, 10,000 troops, more than half American, ended a large US-led military exercise in Jordan that was designed to practice tactics for countering ISIS. Taking part surprisingly in the two-week exercise was a heavy US nuclear-capable B-52H bomber, which flew in from the United States, crossing through Israeli air space and returning to home base when it was over.
This was the first time in the 12 years since the US invasion of Iraq that a B-52H, which can deliver nuclear weapons and bunker buster bombers, has appeared in Middle East skies for any military mission.
East of Jordan, as some 25,000 refugees from Ramadi slept in the open, the Islamist conquerors began moving on their next target, the Habbaniyah air base some 70 km west of Baghdad. Its fall would cut Baghdad off from northern and eastern Iraq and place it under siege from three directions, north, east and west.
Most Arab members have dropped out of the US-led coalition committed to fighting the Islamist terrorists in Iraq and Syria. This has left the US Air Force to bear the brunt of the aerial campaign. Its average of 19 air strikes a day is far too few to have any real effect on ISIS's battle momentum. It certainly did not stop the long columns of black-clad Islamist fighters swarming on Ramadi from all directions in hundreds of tanks, APCs and minivans armed with heavy machine guns, and taking control of the capital of Iraq's largest province, Anbar.
Western intelligence from the Ramadi region offered disturbing accounts of thousands of fully-armed ISIS fighters springing up apparently from nowhere to descend on the city, with no one able to see where they came from and no air action to scatter them before they entered the city.
After the Ramadi defeat, the Obama administration?s next major test in the region comes from an Iranian cargo vessel heading, accompanied by two warships, for the Yemeni Red Sea port of Hodeida and scheduled to dock Thursday, May 21. According to Tehran, the ship will unload 2,500 tons of humanitarian aid for Yemen, and the hundreds of passengers who disembark are Red Crescent medical relief workers.
The Saudi, US and Egyptian fleets have imposed a sea and air blockade on Yemen to prevent Iran provding the Yemeni Houthi rebels with fresh arms. Saudi and other regional intelligence agencies are convinced that the "paramedics" are in fact Revolutionary Guards officers and instructors in disguise, sent to strengthen the Houthi revolt.
Washington, Riyadh and Cairo have all vowed to stop the Iranian flotilla from putting into port in Yemen and said that its vessels will be forced to submit to inspections to make sure no illicit weapons are aboard and to confirm the passengers' identities.
Tehran, for its part has threatened to treat any such inspections as an act of war.
Deputy Revolutionary Guards Commander Gen. Masoud Jazayeri put it plainly when he said: "I am distinctly stating that the patience of Iran has limits. If the Iranian aid ship is prevented from reaching Yemen then they, Saudi Arabians and United States, should expect action from us."
DEBKAfile's analysts strongly doubt that the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier and strike force, which have been monitoring the Iranian flotilla's movements, will be ordered to intervene against the Iranian ships reaching the Yemeni port. It is not a good moment for President Barack Obama to upset Tehran when he is in dire need of the Iraqi Shiite militias controlled by Iran to stand up to ISIS before its columns reach Baghdad.
Without the US, it is hard to see Saudi and Egyptian warships directly engaging an Iranian naval force and risking a major military conflagration.
Therefore, just as the B-52H came and went without action to impede ISIS's creep closer to Baghdad, the Roosevelt is not likely to halt Iranian warships before they reach Yemen.
http://www.debka.com/article/24611/Next-challenge-for-US-after-Ramadi-defeat-Iranian-ship-nears-Yemeni-shore
-
The US did, in fact, rule Iraq for a while.
They did a terrible job of it, and handed it over to some Iraqis who had a more local sort of incompetence.
The money funding ISIS comes from sources in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrein. individuals in those countries.
ISIS control will affect the governments of each of these countries more than it will even affect the US.
Let the Sunni states send their troops. Americans tried, and failed after wasting billions and billions.
Blaming Obama for this is asinine and monumentally stupid.
Duct-tape Lindsey Graham to a drone and let him liberate Ramadi. I do not actually give a shit.
-
Duct-tape Lindsey Graham to a drone and let him liberate Ramadi. I do not actually give a shit.
Should we "duct-tape to a drone" the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee as well?
https://www.yahoo.com/digest/20150519/iraq-struggles-ramadis-fall-top-democrat-sounds-alarm-strategy-10522054
-
I think that duct taping Graham would be sufficient. I observe that Graham is from South Carolina, where Boeing makes drones. Perhaps that is why he is drone-happy. He says that he wants to kill anyone who THINKS about joining Isis with a drone, US citizen or not. Clearly an insane remark. But the silly nancyboy wants to fund his presidential campaign, so he is all for drones.
Iraq was a mistake, from beginning to end. Sending troops to Iraq again would be no more successful than the last time.
-
The US did, in fact, rule Iraq for a while.
That was never an intention or goal.....NEVER. It was required after the mission was accomplished of taking down Saddam. When Iraqis were ready to take back control, WE PUSHED FOR IT, WE SUPPORTED IT, as in we never wanted to rule Iraq. It was messy, but Iraq was working.....Until Obama of course, when HE pulled all our troops out. We have residual forces all over the globe to help reinforce and train the national forces. But no, Obama couldn't be bothered to do that......and now we reap the repercussions
-
If Iraq can only be stable with US troops deployed there and getting shot every so often, then you have to weigh the dangers of what might happen in the US if Iraq were unstable vs the dead US soldiers and the billions of dollars it costs to keep them there.
The US has proven that it cannot make Iraq stable. The Sunnis want to be in charge because they traditionally have been in charge. The Shias want to be in charge because they are in the majority. Neither side is willing to make nice. American troops cannot force them to be nice.
We have spent a fortune training and equipping the Iraqi Army. There were 3000 of them at Ramadi. When they saw the ISIS troops coming, they wet their pants, screamed like little girls, turned bright yellow and fled, leaving millions of dollars of ammo and weapons behind. We cannot make Iraq independently stable if they behave like that. Even ARVN was more loyal to its government than these sissies.
Money and arms to support ISIS comes from Saudi and other Gulf citizens. The Saudis are far more at risk for ISIS domination than the US. You cannot have a real Islamic State unless you control Mecca and Medina. If the Saudis, Kuwaitis Emiris and others do not want ISIS to win, they can fight them.
The US has proven that it cannot permanently cause Iraq to settle down into a stable country. If you think that the US ought to send troops, you pay for it. Hold a bake sale. Sell cookies or calendars.
-
If Iraq can only be stable with US troops deployed there and getting shot every so often, then you have to weigh the dangers of what might happen in the US if Iraq were unstable vs the dead US soldiers and the billions of dollars it costs to keep them there.
Now that's a reasonable argument to make. Given the region any troops that remained indeed would be more at risk than some batallion still stationed in Germany. Point being that Iraq was working, it was becoming more stable, ISIS was barely a blip before Obama took office. It wasn't perfect, but nothing in the middle east is going to be perfect. It can easily be argued that a remaining force stationed, like we have stationed in many other countries, following conflict, would have been in the best position to take out any growing insurgency, like ISIS, which would have led to even greater stability, and possibly a region wide suppression of Radical Isalmic terrorists.
We'll never know now, will we.
The US has proven that it cannot make Iraq stable.
As even Obama & Biden were spouting, before they pulled the wool out, the U.S. had proven ot could help make Iraq stable
We have spent a fortune training and equipping the Iraqi Army. There were 3000 of them at Ramadi. When they saw the ISIS troops coming, they wet their pants, screamed like little girls, turned bright yellow and fled, leaving millions of dollars of ammo and weapons behind. We cannot make Iraq independently stable if they behave like that.
Which takes us right back to the 1st paragraph, that if an existing U.S. force had still been stationed, not only would they not have run, the ISIS troops would have been beaten to a pulp.
Money and arms to support ISIS comes from Saudi and other Gulf citizens. The Saudis are far more at risk for ISIS domination than the US. You cannot have a real Islamic State unless you control Mecca and Medina. If the Saudis, Kuwaitis Emiris and others do not want ISIS to win, they can fight them.
Irelevent to the events in Iraq, and how Obama has allowed it to be lost
-
There is no way that this country can retain control of Iraq forever. It is not even desirable for us to try.
Iraq is for the Iraqis. If they cannot retain control because their army is a bunch of cowardly incompetents, then screw 'em.
Obama did not "lose" Ramadi, because he never owned it.
-
Nor did we have any intention to "control Iraq forever" ::)
-
Juniorbush set the date for withdrawal and neither Obama nor Congress changed it.
Congress did not want to keep the troops there. Neither did the people of this country.
Iraqis must solve their own problems.
Iraq was the worst mistake since Vietnam. It actually cost us more" one tenth of the national debt.
-
Iraqis must solve their own problems.
Why weren't you saying this when Obama was meddling in
Libya and now Libya is in chaos and in much worse shape?
-
Juniorbush set the date for withdrawal and neither Obama nor Congress changed it.
No, he he never set a formal date. Merely the parameters for our withdrawl
Congress did not want to keep the troops there. Neither did the people of this country.
No one wanted to "keep our troops there". Not Bush nor I. What was expected however was to leave a small residual force, as we have done so many other times, after so many other conflicts. Troops that are still there in fact, decades after wars
Iraqis must solve their own problems.
Absolutely. and they were well on their way to that.......until Obama pulled the military rug out, from under them
Iraq was the worst mistake since Vietnam. It actually cost us more" one tenth of the national debt.
Putting aside the opinion as supposedly worst, As it relates to lives lost, in a war, it was a mere fraction to any other major war we were engaged in. That'd be a fact, vs an opinion. Another fact is that as a % of GDP (http://cironline.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/June2010CRScostofuswars.pdf), Iraq's cost in total, was a whopping 4.3% of the GDP. Vietnam was 9.5%. Korea was 13.2%, and WWII cost us 37.5% of our GDP.
Doncha hate when facts get in the way of a good rant?
-
The war was mongered based on lies.
Cheney and Juniorbush had plans to invade Iraq before 9-11., and then they deliberately asked for information that would justify this stupid invasion.
Ooooh! Iraq tried to buy uranium in AFRICA!!!
5000 dead Americans and an entire country wrecked and its people displaced was NOT a small price.
No matter how bad Saddam was, the mess that resulted is far worse, and was entirely predictable.
-
The war was mongered based on lies.
Lies that you and the left can never seem to back up. EVERY President has plans for various contingiencies. 5000 Americans sacrified their lives to take out, what at the time GLOBAL intel had concluded, a regime that had the means of doing widespread death to the region, and heaven knows how many more beyond that, had he aquired nuclear capability. And following 911, was the right call to make, based on the intel at the time
In order to justify the asanine lie claim, you have to demonstrate proof that Bush KNEW there were no WMD, and took us to war anyways.
And what WAS predicted, and now has come to fruition, is that taking out our troops prematurely would result in exactly what's happending now. But I appreciate how you couldn't refute how little the Iraq war cost us in both lives and cost based on GDP %'s, as compared to other major wars. Deflection effort noted
-
How long ago did President Obama proclaim success?
-
How long ago did President Obama proclaim success?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLteUGkvpOc
-
Juniorbush did not want to know whether there were WMDs or not. He only wanted someone to tell him that there were, because the plan was to invade from the day his sorry ass was elected, oops selected.
-
Juniorbush did not want to know whether there were WMDs or not. He only wanted someone to tell him that there were, because the plan was to invade from the day his sorry ass was elected, oops selected.
This making up crap is really for the birds. You have no fricken clue what Bush wanted or didn't want to know. The reality of the situation dictated his decision making. His intel, and most every other intel agency across the globe, including the UN, concluded he had them. He made the right call, based on the predominance of the intel that was being provided, and set into motion with the events of 911. Is he just supposed to ignore what most everyone was telling him, as it relates to Iraqis' WMD, and the connections Iraq had with terrorists who had just murdered thousands of Americans with mere box cutters?? That's not what a President does. That's not what a leader does
-
I disagree with the whole notion that leaving Saddam Hussein unmolested, in power, and at war with us until the present day would have been a winning idea.
Why would he leave us alone ?
-
Even-though I currently feel the Iraq War was a mistake
(because the Left was never going to allow us to do what it takes to win)
this is an interesting article:
(http://www.solidprinciples.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/breitbart_logo.jpg)
5 REASONS THE IRAQ WAR WAS NOT A MISTAKE
The Associated Press
by JOEL B. POLLAK
19 May 2015
The media have finally extracted from Hillary Clinton the question they have pressing her Republican rivals to answer for several weeks now: knowing what we now know about Iraq that it did not have the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) it was thought to have should we still have invaded Iraq?
The answer journalists wish to hear is "no," because it is a way of excusing President Barack Obama for the predictable (and predicted) mess that transpired when he withdrew from Iraq.
That is a safe answer, because it satisfies the media (for now, until the inevitable follow-up questions about Iran begin). However, the question itself is a trick. The entire point of the debate over the Iraq War at the time was that we did not know whether or not Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, because it would not tell us, or the United Nations. Though the execution of the war was deeply flawed, there are at least five reasons it was justified, even without WMD.
1. In a post-9/11 world, uncertainty about WMD is not an option. The central preoccupation of policymakers after 9/11 was preventing any further mass terror attacks against the United States. The George W. Bush administration would have been blamed and rightly so if Iraq had used WMD or passed WMD to terrorists. It was not a chance the U.S. or the world could afford to take. And given the refusal of Saddam Hussein to cooperate with the UN, there was no alternative.
2. An American force in the Middle East would increase pressure on Iran. Removing Saddam Hussain meant removing a threat to the Iranian regime. But putting hundreds of thousands of American troops on Iran's western border along with those already in Afghanistan to the east meant posing a much more potent threat to the regime. That is why Iran temporarily slowed its nuclear program after 2003 and why the Iranian people found the courage to rise in 2009.
3. Freeing the people of Iraq was, and is, a worthy goal. Just a few years ago, with American and allied troops still in Iraq in significant numbers, the sectarian violence and terrorism that had plagued the country for years had begun to slow down. The Iraqi people began to enjoy some semblance of order, of democracy, and of liberty. Instead of staying in Iraq to guide and protect that process as Obama had promised to do in 2008, Obama abandoned the Iraqi people.
4. International law means nothing unless it is backed up by the will to enforce it. Saddam Hussein defied international law repeatedly: He used WMD against his own people; he invaded his neighbors; he sponsored terrorism. And he did it because he had no fear of facing the consequences. International law, flawed though it is, is a necessary and stabilizing institution?and needs enforcement, even (especially) when global institutions are too corrupt to enforce it.
5. There is potential for freedom in the region with American leadership. The fall of Saddam Hussein inspired the Lebanese people to rise up against Syrian occupation, and planted the seeds of what later became the Arab Spring. If American leadership had remained strong, that process might have been a positive one. (Certainly Syria would not have become a killing field.) The Middle East may never be fertile soil for democracy, but it can certainly be freer than it is today.
There are, of course, excellent arguments against the war. The best is that it was carried out in crisis management mode, without any real attempt to grapple with the strategic challenge of Iran (or extremism in other nations, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan).
That argument still stands. But it has nothing to do with the question of whether Iraq had WMD.
The only critical thing we know now, which we could not know then, is how careless Bush's unlikely successor would be.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/19/5-reasons-the-iraq-war-was-not-a-mistake/
-
The American people did not want to continue the madness in Iraq. The US is incapable of turning Iraq into anything orderly and peaceful. It has proven to be a giant bottomless money pit.
You rightwing assholes care more about people in countries you could not find on a map than you do your own fellow Americans.
Not Obama nor anyone elected after Obama is going to reinvade Iraq.
-
It WAS being turned into something orderly and peaceful. However, with the left and its compliant lapdogs in the MSM, drum beating how "horrible" things were, yes, public opinion polls didn't support the war. Still doesn't refute that it was the right call to make at the time. Nor dos it refute how few lives it cost us, compared to other major wars. Nor does it refute how little it cost us as a % of our GDP compared to other major wars. Nor does it refute that it was entirely predicted, Iraq's falling into the hands of terrorist organizations, if forces were to be prematurely withdrawn
And you really don't want to try arguing about caring for other people in this country Professor Anti-Constitution. You'd snatch away our freedoms, in a heart beat, if you had the power, and not think twice
-
It was never orderly and peaceful. What the fuck planet are you on?
It is interesting that you thing that a mere 4000 of your fellow citizens are a small price to pay for "saving" Iraq. Think of them as unborn babies and maybe you will understand the utter stupidity of this comment. And the hundred thousand or so Iraqis that were killed as the result of Juniorbush's idiocy and the millions forced out of their homes and country, they are of no importance to you either.
The US cannot save Iraq. Just as 50 years occupying the Philippines were not enough to turn it into a prosperous democracy.
-
You rightwing assholes
wow Hooven Cloof you having a bad morning?
-
It was never orderly and peaceful. What the fuck planet are you on?
I NEVER SAID IT HAD REACHED THAT POINT, DR DEFLECTION. I SAID IT WAS ON ITS WAY, IN THAT DIRECTION. WHAT FRICKEN SCHOOL DID YOU ATTEND, THAT YOU CAN'T READ?
Nor did I reference that those lives sacrificed were simply to defend Iraq, especially since Iraq wasn't being invaded like Kuwait. That's your attempted twisting of what I said into something I never did. Those lives sacrificed themselves for OUR country's safety....PERIOD
-
The US could not control Iraq worth a damn. It does not matter whether US is run by Democrats or Republicans, Americans are not competent to re engineer, stabilize or supervise Muslim countries.
I doubt that any country is.
Iraq was never Obama's to lose, so of course, he cannot "lose it".
That is as idiotic as Dulles talking about how Truman "lost China".
-
WHITE HOUSE WANTS "WIGGLE ROOM"
FOR U.S. COMBAT GROUND TROOPS IN IRAQ
REUTERS/LUcAS JACKSON
by CHARLIE SPIERING
22 May 2015
While President Obama still opposes the use of combat ground troops in Iraq, the White House admits that he still wants the option of sending in special forces for combat operations against Islamic State terrorists.
"The president has clearly ruled out the use of U.S. military personnel in a ground combat role in Iraq," Earnest said, before adding a clarification that he was "unwilling" to completely ever rule out the use of combat ground troops.
Earnest admitted that Obama was also firmly against the use of ground troops in Syria, but acknowledged that last weekend's special forces raid that killed an ISIS leader may appear to contradict his statement.
According to the New York Times, two dozen Delta Force commandos entered Syria last week to kill an ISIS leader and about a dozen fighters.
"For exceptions like that I would preserve some wiggle room," he said. "But as a matter of policy, the president has been clear, that we've learned the lessons of the previous Iraqi invasion and that U.S. military cannot be in the situation where we are bearing the load providing for the security of the Iraqi people."
Earnest admitted that during the Iraq war under President George W. Bush, American troops successfully drove out terrorist militants on the "short term" but blamed former Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki for failing to capitalize those gains.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/22/white-house-wants-wiggle-room-for-u-s-combat-ground-troops-in-iraq/
-
The US could not control Iraq worth a damn. It does not matter whether US is run by Democrats or Republicans, Americans are not competent to re engineer, stabilize or supervise Muslim countries.
Iraq was never Obama's to lose, so of course, he cannot "lose it".
We weren't there to "control it", merely set it straight, following the accomplished mission of taking down Saddam's regime. Your own messiah, Herr Obama proclaimed the success Iraq had become. It was being controlled....by the Iraqis. It had free elections. It was sovereign & nearly completely self reliant. With our continued military presence, they were well on the way of greater stability and peace.
The Iraq war had been won. Bush and his actions won the peace, the WMD threat was neutralized, and it was all handed over to Obama......who couldn't wait to pull the military rug out from under it, and set into motion exactly what was predicted if such premature withdraw actions were taken. So of course he can lose it. If my brother gives me a fragile momento, and I go throw it in the trash, of course I lost it. Trashed it, in fact
-
who knows what the Oligarchy is ordering Obama to do and not do in Iraq
it would not be surprising if these latest ISIS takeovers
are working towards an Oligarchy desire to break Iraq into 3 separate countries.
Joe Biden has already called for this in the past.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdxUT4we5RQ
-
The article below is a perfect example of what I think could be the Oligarchy plans....
Muzzies killing Muzzies
keep 'em busy killing each other
and they stay weak....they can't focus on us as much
it's now happening in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen
http://www.aawsat.net/2015/05/article55343559/iraq-sadr-vows-to-protect-shiite-holy-sites-from-isis
-
All this happened because of stupid Juniorbush and scheming Cheney.
And where is Wolfowitz, one of the main fools that Junioirbush got his bad advice from? He is advising Jebbie, of course. 17 of the 21 advisers are ex Juniorbush henchmen.
-
All this happened because of stupid Juniorbush and scheming Cheney.
Naaa.....if Obama had held to the withdrawl parameters that Bush established, likely, none of this would have happened
-
Emma Sky unique perspective on Iraq
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOHYuLui1TM
-
Emma Sky unique perspective on Iraq
That is pretty good, I think she seems insightful.
Take note that our casualties were lower during the surge than the previous months.
This is just how it really works , if we send a bigger team with better supplies, they win more and loose less.
Right now it seems as if we are trying to keep our casualty rate low by sending small forces only.
This is not going to work well the first time that these small sets of "instructors" or commandos gets overrun and there will be nowhere to go.
The Powel doctrine was right, bring enough.