Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
DeWitz

Islamic State in the Levant Advances

278 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Yamato

A thread about an Arab terrorist group stated in Syria, funded by Saudi Arabia, attacking Iraq results in an Israel debate and claims that the US is behind everything, logic be damned. UM never changes it seems.

Unless Iraq can bring in a new government that actually tries to include all ethnic groups and thinks military talent and training is better than just being a buddy then things will just kept getting worst. ISIS is having their way at the moment due to the Iraqi officers being useless and army morale being in the dumps but they're not going to be able to advance much further. Taking Sunni territory is one thing but moving into Shai land is quite another. Plus seems like the honeymoon with the Sunni might be coming an end soon so they'll need to worry about that too. If this drags on much long the Kurds might throw up their hands and just declare themselves to be an independent nation.

An Arab "terrorist" group subsidized by the US in Syria, funded by Saudi Arabia who is also subsidized by the US, attacking Iraqi forces who've been trained by the US for over 10 years, and being connected with Israel who is subsidized by the US, and you should also be able to see who's p***ing money away here. I want to see a lot more Ottawa tax dollars flowing into Iraq and a lot less US dollars, thanks. Then I'll give responses like yours back to you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Corp

Brother what a point you made.

People accuse Hitler for murdering innocent people and call him evil.Well that is correct technically.But the point is he didn't kill them all.He made policy which did.Now you see US policy has killed many people than Hitler's policy.This is really ironic that US is know as protector of democracy and human rights.There are many examples where we can find that US has sponsored for terrorist,fascist,dictators.Why US shouldn't be call evil?

Provide a source that outlines American government policy to systematically murder millions of civilians. Not deaths due to war time situations, but Americans saying "we're going to go out of our way to specific murder millions of people". Until you can do that the comparison to Hitler (to the point where you seem to be saying Hitler is better than the US) is completely insane.

An Arab "terrorist" group subsidized by the US in Syria, funded by Saudi Arabia who is also subsidized by the US, attacking Iraqi forces who've been trained by the US for over 10 years, and being connected with Israel who is subsidized by the US, and you should also be able to see who's p***ing money away here. I want to see a lot more Ottawa tax dollars flowing into Iraq and a lot less US dollars, thanks. Then I'll give responses like yours back to you.

So because American money is involved this absolves all parties of their actions? Because it's not American dollars that are murdering POWs or are continuing policies that kicked off this mess to begin with. ISIS and the Iraqi government are doing that. So why don't we let them take the share of the blame instead of automatically pinning all the blame on the US every time someone stubs their toe. Yes American policies have been screwing with the region but Arabs aren't mindless drones who sit around waiting for an American to tell them what to do. They're just as capable of making bad decisions as anyone else and should be held accountable for that, not whitewashed by blind hatred for the US.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Brother what a point you made.

People accuse Hitler for murdering innocent people and call him evil.Well that is correct technically.But the point is he didn't kill them all.He made policy which did.Now you see US policy has killed many people than Hitler's policy.This is really ironic that US is know as protector of democracy and human rights.There are many examples where we can find that US has sponsored for terrorist,fascist,dictators.Why US shouldn't be call evil?

Conservative estimates of deaths due to Hitler's little campaign are around 50 million human beings. Care to show the numbers you are using as a source for America's sins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

The issue is that the US seems to have systematically intervened in ways which have had the effect of destabilizing the region and causing numerous causalities. They took over from the British in a seemless transition of carnage.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

The issue is that the US seems to have systematically intervened in ways which have had the effect of destabilizing the region and causing numerous causalities. They took over from the British in a seemless transition of carnage.

Br Cornelius

Agreed - but the hyperbole of implying that the US is responsible for more death than the Nazis is unsupportable.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

This is worth reading to grasp the immense personal cost this meddling has caused to both America and the Middle East;

To: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney

From: Tomas Young

I write this letter on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq. I write this letter on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been wounded and on behalf of those whose wounds, physical and psychological, have destroyed their lives. I am one of those gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City. My life is coming to an end. I am living under hospice care.

I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured and done in Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the some 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all—the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief.

I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

Your positions of authority, your millions of dollars of personal wealth, your public relations consultants, your privilege and your power cannot mask the hollowness of your character. You sent us to fight and die in Iraq after you, Mr. Cheney, dodged the draft in Vietnam, and you, Mr. Bush, went AWOL from your National Guard unit. Your cowardice and selfishness were established decades ago. You were not willing to risk yourselves for our nation but you sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage.

I joined the Army two days after the 9/11 attacks. I joined the Army because our country had been attacked. I wanted to strike back at those who had killed some 3,000 of my fellow citizens. I did not join the Army to go to Iraq, a country that had no part in the September 2001 attacks and did not pose a threat to its neighbors, much less to the United States. I did not join the Army to “liberate” Iraqis or to shut down mythical weapons-of-mass-destruction facilities or to implant what you cynically called “democracy” in Baghdad and the Middle East. I did not join the Army to rebuild Iraq, which at the time you told us could be paid for by Iraq’s oil revenues. Instead, this war has cost the United States over $3 trillion. I especially did not join the Army to carry out pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war is illegal under international law. And as a soldier in Iraq I was, I now know, abetting your idiocy and your crimes. The Iraq War is the largest strategic blunder in U.S. history. It obliterated the balance of power in the Middle East. It installed a corrupt and brutal pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, one cemented in power through the use of torture, death squads and terror. And it has left Iran as the dominant force in the region. On every level—moral, strategic, military and economic—Iraq was a failure. And it was you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started this war. It is you who should pay the consequences.

I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Had I been wounded there I would still be miserable because of my physical deterioration and imminent death, but I would at least have the comfort of knowing that my injuries were a consequence of my own decision to defend the country I love. I would not have to lie in my bed, my body filled with painkillers, my life ebbing away, and deal with the fact that hundreds of thousands of human beings, including children, including myself, were sacrificed by you for little more than the greed of oil companies, for your alliance with the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, and your insane visions of empire.

I have, like many other disabled veterans, suffered from the inadequate and often inept care provided by the Veterans Administration. I have, like many other disabled veterans, come to realize that our mental and physical wounds are of no interest to you, perhaps of no interest to any politician. We were used. We were betrayed. And we have been abandoned. You, Mr. Bush, make much pretense of being a Christian. But isn’t lying a sin? Isn’t murder a sin? Aren’t theft and selfish ambition sins? I am not a Christian. But I believe in the Christian ideal. I believe that what you do to the least of your brothers you finally do to yourself, to your own soul.

My day of reckoning is upon me. Yours will come. I hope you will be put on trial. But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live. I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness.

Tomas Young

Br Cornelius

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Surely neither Britain nor the US deliberately set out to eradicate entire populations, the results of their interventions may sometimes have been regrettable but there's a big difference in intent there surely.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Surely neither Britain nor the US deliberately set out to eradicate entire populations, the results of their interventions may sometimes have been regrettable but there's a big difference in intent there surely.

The intent seems to be to either have client dictators to oppress the masses and pursue policies favourable to the west (Saudi and their cosy oil export arrangement), and if that blows up in their faces to destabilize the country so that they can not control regional policy or their own resources. As shocking as it may sound, these sociopaths don't give a fig for the people who end up dead in order to achieve those aims - they are collateral to the real objective. That is the part which really sickens me - the callous disregard for human life and dignity.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

It was the best solution ??? where do you read this crap ??

The British were facing all sorts of problems especially land ownership. Bogus deeds made it impossible. The British weren’t about to relinquish land to anyone that presented a deed. If they did that, they’d get 4 or 5 claims to the same parcel of land which probably happened anyway.

The land of palestine was populated by 80% of muslims, 10% of christians and 4% of jewish. It's the zionists (not the British nor the UN) who decided to divide that country into pieces and gave the jewish people the great part. Israel wasn't a state even in old history and even in their Old testament, there is no mention of land of Israel.

There were several partition schemes. The UN settled on one. It gave the Jew the worse parts (desert) other than those areas that they had legally purchased from absentee land owners. It might have been *OCCUPIED* by 80% Muslims but the majority never owned the land they squatted on. But it was those evil Zionists that picked the plan, uh? All the Zionists did was to exploit a hole that those that would later be known as Palestinians never addressed. You’re going to tell me that there were no benefactors that would help out a Palestinian in purchasing land so that a Jew could not get it? I guess that the Palestinian holds a fairly low rung in Arab culture. At the time, they weren’t considered a people, just a diversity of tribes on Ottoman land. The Ottomans would rather sell to Jews rather than squatters. Sounds like sour milk to me.

Not mentioned the Bible – Really? Even if we ignore the mounds (pardon the pun) of evidence from the Bible, I believe that there is plenty of archeological evidence of Jewish presence. Who built the Temple Mount in the first place? Such a structure is not constructed by a transient culture (i.e. only established nations build monoliths). The Arabs have been trying to destroy that evidence whenever they can. Even the Quran confirms the existence of the “People of the Book”. There was definitely a Land of Israel composed of several Jewish kingdoms. But you seem to be under the wrong impression. Any ancient claim the Jews have to the land only plays a minor role to the current claims.

The issue is that Palestine was unorganized territory which meant it was up for grabs by whoever could control it. It was a decision that was as wise as Solomon and the British could wash their hands of it. Those that had legal right to the land would stay and fight for it. Those that did not fled and that is what happened in ’48. Those Arabs that had rightful claim stayed and are now part of Israel. Some that could have stayed felt that their religion was more important and followed the Grand Mufti’s direction to flee. The Jews exploited the circumstances as if divinely guided but really just showed how open the territory really was. Such a panic wouldn’t have come about if the Palestinian had any real rights. The Palestinian had their chance to share but they rejected it. They had a chance not to be completely shutout and they walked away because of their dogma.

Any time you see a site that doesn’t mention the atrocities committed on the Jew by the Palestinian, invalidates itself. The Arab had committed atrocities on the Jews from the beginning, especially after the Tanzimat. It wasn’t until the 1880s that the Jew felt that it could fight back. The Ottomans were too frantically trying to keep the Arabs in line; they didn’t do much in the way of enforcing reform. The British would latter exploit this in WWI. But the Ottomans were far more tolerant of the Jews than the Arabs.

Yeah sure, I'm aware of this, it's just because of the US pressure and the british. there are approximately the same number of nations that they do recognize palestine as a nation.

Oh you are uh? Yes, of course, it was US pressure “and the British” too. They twisted everyone’s arm? While the US balked, the Soviet Union was the first to fully recognize Israel. I doubt that the US had much influence over them. The PLO declared independence in the ‘80s in absentia. Somehow, that doesn’t seem official. Independence should be declared in the homeland. But how can a divided homeland exist as a nation? I think I’ll declare statehood for the Kurds right here and now. There – I just established Kurdistan.

In 2012 the UN upgraded Palestine from an entity state to non-member observer state. That’s still not a full-fledged nation with full diplomatic recognition. Plus, when Israel declared statehood, there were fewer nations. There are now a lot more nations whose character is questionable. The whole of the UN today is questionable especially when they appoint nations with records of human rights violations against their own people on human rights councils. The UN has no teeth and if it cannot enforce its laws, its laws are not valid. And they aren’t even laws but resolutions. Resolutions have no enforcing body unless some other nation decides to impose it. What nation is going to do that on its own? Even though Israel has observed UN resolutions to its best abilities, it is really not obligated to follow them. The UN provides no solution to the situation. It only causes more misery for everyone.

One of the very few things I agree with Obama (bites tongue) in his speech to the UN General Assembly. "Genuine peace can only be realized between Israelis and Palestinians themselves" and that "Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians - not us - who must reach an agreement on the issues that divide them". Obama has told Abbas that the U.S. would veto any United Nations Security Council move to recognize Palestinian statehood. But then I don’t think he was serious with that statement as he seeks to destroy Israel and the US with fundamental change.

Israel is only exsiting because of the USA. Palestine is existing without the USA.

Israel exists on her own volition. Israel never really had US support until after the Yom-Kippur War. After the ’67 & ’73 period, Israel had established herself as a self-sustaining nation on her own. Palestinians exist like they always have – squatting on other people’s land and on borrowed time.

To fall more in line with the OP, what do people think will happen if ISIS is able to take and hold, consolidate Syria and Iraq? What are the odds of swallowing Lebanon and Jordan? And once that happens, will that be enough to threaten Israel? And if Israel is threatened, will she try to capture land as a buffer? Or has Saudi Arabia given Israel assurances? And can Israel trust it?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

This is worth reading to grasp the immense personal cost this meddling has caused to both America and the Middle East.

Dear President Obama,

My name is Brian Kolfage, I’m a triple amputee and retired Air Force veteran who was severely wounded on September 11, 2004 in Iraq.

I nearly died in a war that most of your colleagues supported overwhelmingly, including the two presidents who came before you. Many citizens may not agree with waging war in Iraq to free the oppressed Iraqi citizens, but it’s something that warriors like myself have no control over. I joined to serve my country and to better my life. I’ve seen things that you could never imagine, and they have made me the person I am today.

Mr. Obama, even though we have extreme opposite views, we have one thing in common, we both attended school in Hawaii. However, that’s where the similarities end. You see, as you attended your exclusive, private school, I would ride my bike to Kaimuki High School in one of the roughest areas in Hawaii. Every morning I would ride past Punahou, the exclusive private school you attended and I would notice all of the Bentleys, Maseratis, and fancy foreign cars that all the kids were dropped off in; wow it must have been extremely rough in Hawaii living that life, right? I could only imagine what it was like to have that kind of money. Fortunately for you, not many people are aware of the school that you and the upper class citizens of Hawaii attended. The tuition to attend your exclusive, private school was more than it cost me to obtain a Bachelor’s degree in Architecture from the University of Arizona. You talk a big game when it comes to financial inequality, yet I’m quite sure you have no idea what it’s truly like to have to sacrifice. You were one of the elitist children in Hawaii.

After High School, we each chose very different paths. You were able to attend America’s finest Ivy League schools, while I pursued a career in the military, in hopes of earning a degree. What we have in life as children usually helps to set the tone for how we acheive success later in life. I worked to get where I am today, while it was HANDED TO YOU….Mr. Inequality.

I volunteered to go to Iraq on both of my deployments, and the second time I begged to go even after I wasn’t selected. During that second deployment, I was ultimately placed on the team where I would lose both legs and my dominant arm. Even though many Americans were against the war in Iraq, I’ve never asked myself if it was worth it after losing 3 of my limbs.

I am frequently reminded of the many young Iraqi children who would beg me for water, food, and toys while I was stationed in Iraq. Children, who in all aspects made the poorest of poor American children look rich. You have no idea what it really means to be poor. It’s laughable that you, who would have no idea what it means to be poor would so frequently play the inequality card.

While I was in Iraq, our mission was to liberate the Iraqi citizens from a tyrant and that’s what we did. Never forget, it was your people who sent us there, like the Clintons, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi & Carl Levin. However, since the day you busted onto the scene you’ve been talking about ending the war and pulling the troops out, not understanding the blood sweat and tears that so many Americans and Iraqi’s invested. And with complete disregard for every life sacrificed, every limb lost, and every broken family, you bailed on our mission to pursue an agenda that was completely centered on your re-election in 2012. If you didn’t bail on Iraq you were worried that you may not get re-elected and that’s a fact. Just before elections on Oct 11, 2012 you said “Al Qaeda is on the run and Osama bin Laden is dead.” Look at Iraq now, they are in shambles and the Al Qaeda flag is flying freely. Clearly, you’re unfit for duty as a Commander in Chief. You put your own agenda ahead of America’s agenda, and now you have single handedly ruined and destroyed nearly everything we gained in Iraq. It clearly means nothing to you, because the only thing that you’ve personally invested in that country was a promise to bail on them. However, people like me gave limbs, friends have died, and we’ve watched families destroyed by war’s aftermath.

I’m not placing blame on you for the war, I’m placing blame on you for destroying what we’ve worked so hard to build. You’re not a leader, you’re a community organizer. A leader would have stood up regardless of the situation and put America’s agenda first and that is ensuring a secure Iraq even after 10 years of war. But, you placed Barack first, just as Robert Gates confirmed in his new book. I can’t help but think of those poor kids who I gave water and toys to 11 years ago. They’re probably 15 or 16 years old now, and I can only imagine what it’s like for them to have their nation being torn apart yet again; all because of your poor leadership qualities. Regardless of why we went to Iraq, its water under the bridge. We went there, we waged war, and we not only owed it to our KIA’s but we owed it to the citizens of Iraq. We invaded their country and turned it upside down, and you bailed on them. You bailed on our soldiers and you’ve wasted every death and every limb, it’s all for nothing. And to make matters worse you blame others for your failures

You’re just another elitist rich thug who’s pretended to live the rough life growing up in the inner-city. You’re only worried about your own agenda and furthering your party instead of taking care of Americans. Your inability to be a leader at some of the most critical points has caused both of our wars to fail. You’ve been a joke to most of our veteran community and we have no faith in your ability to lead.

Senior Airman Ret Brian Kolfage USAF

Clearly Tomas Young is despondent. War affects everyone differently. My brother was in the thick of it over there too. He lost men and I know that he deals with PTSD today. But he understood the necessity of the mission. He and many more veterans (especially those wounded) rip Obama, not Bush, a new one every chance they get. Obama is derelict of duty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

But why, i still ask, was liberating that particular group of oppressed people from that particular tyrant so overwhelmingly important that it justified expending so many lives? There are people who were oppressed by tyrants when America took it upon itself to liberate these particular people, who are sill oppressed by the same tyrants or their relatives now. And some of these tyrants are the allies that America supported and whose support they relied upon then as they do now. Should America really have kept a commitment there for ever just in order that they could say that they got some kind of victory out of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

But why, i still ask, was liberating that particular group of oppressed people from that particular tyrant so overwhelmingly important that it justified expending so many lives? There are people who were oppressed by tyrants when America took it upon itself to liberate these particular people, who are sill oppressed by the same tyrants or their relatives now. And some of these tyrants are the allies that America supported and whose support they relied upon then as they do now. Should America really have kept a commitment there for ever just in order that they could say that they got some kind of victory out of it?

The short answer is ABSOLUTELY!

Now to go into the details and the misconceptions. The hype and misconceptions dealing with this war has amounted to nothing more than confusion which the Socialists are using to realign the fabric of this nation. First of all, yes it was a war to liberate the people but that was the PR reason, it wasn’t the primary reason. The other PR reason was because it was tied in with 9/11. That was one area that I was disgusted with Bush on. Just be brutally honest but I realize that where individuals are pretty intelligent, people are stupid and you don’t want to give your enemies any ammo politically. Yes, there was a link but not that collusion link. The reason we invaded was that Saddam had transient WMD programs and that he broke the ceasefire on numerous occasions. Just because inept IAEA inspectors didn’t find anything doesn’t mean that nothing was there. That is just a Leftist wet dream because they were able to get a lot of mileage out of it. It was the perfect storm.

The key was that as long as Saddam remained in power, he would have access to the material to build up his WMD programs. 9/11 just happened to coincide with the decision to go after Saddam. The only way to deal with them both was if they were linked. I wanted Bin Laden’s head on a pike and his body dragged through every community in this country and ensure that everyone threw their shoes at the corpse. But at the same time, knowing that he was on the run, he was no longer a threat. So Afghanistan was merely a holding action.

The real threat would be what comes later. At the moment then, Saddam was the serious threat. Chirac wanted to arm Saddam with nukes to hold Iran in check. Really? That was a stupid idea. The link between Saddam and al Qaeda was there and revealed a deeper threat, the one we see now. Our invasion quelled a Sunni/Shiite civil war that Saddam and his sons would have never thwarted. I think we could have, especially with a coalition of nations joining in later. If we couldn’t then one side or the other would have controlled Saddam’s stockpiles, like ISIS does now.

it would not have been a commitment for forever. Perhaps a long time – several generations. The old mindset must be replaced with a new one. The way to do that is to breed it out. If you don’t breed it out, it will only fester and get stronger. The old memories must die out. This is the real reason to have invaded Iraq. American Hegemony would have been strong enough to tackle the initial pangs. We no longer have the initiative and it could easily escalate as forces are only now starting to gather. How hard would it be for eventual Shiite forces to push ISIS back to Megiddo? At this point, whatever can go wrong will.

Egypt and Turkey would jump in. Would Putin get directly involved or would make a play for Europe? Pakistan would have to go on alert from a fear of being invaded by Iran. But as soon as that happens, India will go on alert and then China would send troops to the border. Just one little thing goes south and the dominos will fall. If we had stayed in Iraq, we would have prevented this table from being set.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Again, thank you for taking the time to lay all that out, but just one small question;

The link between Saddam and al Qaeda was there and revealed a deeper threat, the one we see now

Was there? Didn't bin L have little time for Saddam, and in fact thought of him as a backslider and one who didn't live up to the ideals of Islam? (At least, those ideas as bin L saw them)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Again, thank you for taking the time to lay all that out, but just one small question;

You're more than welcome but don't worry about being too polite. *snip* We seem to have different viewpoints and I respect that.

Was there? Didn't bin L have little time for Saddam, and in fact thought of him as a backslider and one who didn't live up to the ideals of Islam? (At least, those ideas as bin L saw them)?

No doubt that the same room could not hold both egos but they were playing to the same crowd. One was going at it from a secular angle and the other, sectarian. They kept contact with each other if just to keep tabs on the other; they probably entertained each other's ambassadors. As far as sharing a common goal, they didn't actively cooperate, however now that they are both gone, both their apparatus have combined. And that was part of the deeper issue which is the reawakening of the Sunnis/Shiite schism. I think many people saw this coming since '79. Most are still not aware of it. Bush didn't create it, he merely stirred the nest. That is why I use my Hornet's nest analogy. If we hadn't invaded Iraq, the same thing would have happened perhaps 20 – 30 years later when Qusay rose to power. But it would have been worse because both Iraq and Iran would have nukes. We are just seeing the early stages. This is something that may not stay continuous. We might see spurts and when one spurt subsides we can't rest not knowing when the next one will pop up. The only way to stop this is long term occupation because if it is not stopped it will engulf more and more. And one of the biggest dangers befalling the West right now is thinking that this is the 21st Century and things like this don't happen anymore and that all we have to do is hit ISIS with drones and airstrikes. That's when they happen. That's when things go bad.

Edited by Saru
Removed personal remark
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Corp

Getting back on topic there have been some new developments:

Some Sunni tribes are still fighting for the government.

http://www.aawsat.net/2014/06/article55333605

Unconfirmed reports of unknown planes have made bombing runs in northern Iraq. It is RT so might not be true. If so the popular theory is that it's Syria.

http://rt.com/news/168176-iraq-isis-planes-bomb/

And it seems the Iraqi Army got to thinking about how much more they could completely screw up the situation and they decided they were going to attack the Kurds. Hey it's not like you desperately need their support or anything.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/kurdish-soldiers-killed-by-friendly-fire-from-iraqi-military-1402841807

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Again, thank you for taking the time to lay all that out, but just one small question;

Was there? Didn't bin L have little time for Saddam, and in fact thought of him as a backslider and one who didn't live up to the ideals of Islam? (At least, those ideas as bin L saw them)?

Yeah, there was a report that an Iraqi military officer was seen in Teheran but nobody ever established why he was there.

It could have been, "Hey, if we get blown up, can we park our jets in your yard"

It sounds funny but that *had* to be pre-arranged or Iran would have shot those crafts out of the sky when they fled Iraq for Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

Provide a source that outlines American government policy to systematically murder millions of civilians. Not deaths due to war time situations, but Americans saying "we're going to go out of our way to specific murder millions of people". Until you can do that the comparison to Hitler (to the point where you seem to be saying Hitler is better than the US) is completely insane.

US support for khmer rogue which has killed 2 millions people.US Defense Intelligence Agency provided the Khmer Rouge with satellite intel and US and British special forces trained them to lay millions of land mines across Western Cambodia.Every year hundred dies due to the land mine

Edited by jeem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

The key was that as long as Saddam remained in power, he would have access to the material to build up his WMD programs. 9/11 just happened to coincide with the decision to go after Saddam.

Nonsense.

The decision to "go after Saddam" had nothing to do with any fictitious WMD's, nor any programs Saddam's regime may have had to rebuild his strategic threat. It was based on the threat Saddam posed to the dollar being the trading currency for ME oil sales. A threat which, if enacted, would have devastated the US economy far more than the cost of the invasion.

Bush, Blair, etc sacrificed all those lives to protect money. Oh, they made sure they made hay in many other ways, but it was the protection of the US economic hegemony that was foremost in the reasoning for war.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Nonsense.

The decision to "go after Saddam" had nothing to do with any fictitious WMD's, nor any programs Saddam's regime may have had to rebuild his strategic threat. It was based on the threat Saddam posed to the dollar being the trading currency for ME oil sales. A threat which, if enacted, would have devastated the US economy far more than the cost of the invasion.

Bush, Blair, etc sacrificed all those lives to protect money. Oh, they made sure they made hay in many other ways, but it was the protection of the US economic hegemony that was foremost in the reasoning for war.

Since devastating the main engine of growth for the world would lead to serious consequences for everyone else, how can stopping that be a bad thing?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

US support for khmer rogue which has killed 2 millions people.US Defense Intelligence Agency provided the Khmer Rouge with satellite intel and US and British special forces trained them to lay millions of land mines across Western Cambodia.Every year hundred dies due to the land mine

You could stand to document that rather serious accusation from reliable sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Since devastating the main engine of growth for the world would lead to serious consequences for everyone else, how can stopping that be a bad thing?

If you want to believe it, fine.

When OPEC first brought havoc to the US economy (1970's), and of course, to the West in general with ultra high oil prices, how come the US or some coalition of UN forces didn't go over into the ME and shows those Arabs how to do business with us?

I don't agree with that poster's assertion . It *might* be partly true, but I doubt. Still some bigger boogie man out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

You could stand to document that rather serious accusation from reliable sources.

As far as I am concerned Jeem does not have to document the fact that the US backed Pol Pot in the early going, until it got too ridiculous. Sad sad fact of my wonderful CIA and America is that they DID.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Nonsense.

The decision to "go after Saddam" had nothing to do with any fictitious WMD's, nor any programs Saddam's regime may have had to rebuild his strategic threat.

It was based on the fact that Saddam violated the ceasefire on numerous occasions. Constantly modifying the Weapon Declarations, Compromising IAEA inspectors, Violating the No-Fly Zone. The sanctions were not working. Saddam was still defiant.

It was based on the threat Saddam posed to the dollar being the trading currency for ME oil sales. A threat which, if enacted, would have devastated the US economy far more than the cost of the invasion.

Talk about nonsense. If that was the threat, we would have gone in, taken the oil fields and setup shop ourselves with Europe as a partner. We assured that the world’s oil moved freely and that Iraq retained her territory. OPEC is the organizing body that determines how the oil is traded, not Saddam. And OPEC would be just as hurt trading in something else. The Euro would make better sense since most of the oil goes to Europe but the Euro is unstable. But QE is slowing catching the dollar up.

Bush, Blair, etc sacrificed all those lives to protect money. Oh, they made sure they made hay in many other ways, but it was the protection of the US economic hegemony that was foremost in the reasoning for war.

Then why hasn’t someone tried to assassinate Obama then? He’s done more harm to American Hegemony than anything else. Your premise is lame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

It was based on the fact that Saddam violated the ceasefire on numerous occasions. Constantly modifying the Weapon Declarations, Compromising IAEA inspectors, Violating the No-Fly Zone. The sanctions were not working. Saddam was still defiant.

Talk about nonsense. If that was the threat, we would have gone in, taken the oil fields and setup shop ourselves with Europe as a partner. We assured that the world's oil moved freely and that Iraq retained her territory. OPEC is the organizing body that determines how the oil is traded, not Saddam. And OPEC would be just as hurt trading in something else. The Euro would make better sense since most of the oil goes to Europe but the Euro is unstable. But QE is slowing catching the dollar up.

Then why hasn't someone tried to assassinate Obama then? He's done more harm to American Hegemony than anything else. Your premise is lame.

Are you Dick Cheney?

Because all your argument smacks of the neocon rationalisation for the invasion fed to a credulous public following the events of 9/11, and not the harsher truth behind the politicking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

He's the most Neocon member on these boards. Word perfect script on all Neocon policies.

Its a wonder to behold.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.