http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/world/middleeast/iraq-asked-us-for-airstrikes-on-militants-officials-say.html?_r=0
bloody fvck, is this sparta?
bloody fvck, is this sparta?
"miss me yet?"
- Thread starter $tinkle
- Start date
Well to be fair, I've written the whitehouse with a similar request regarding alabama.
Thank you George Bush...Iraq was ****ty before, now its ****tier. Can you say power vacuum?
Last edited:
When ever guys in black pajamas show up, it can never be good.
Last edited:
unless it is occupy ___________....then it's fvcking glorious!
My goodness.
We messed around and destroyed a stable society with an admittedly evil government, put a bunch of money in the pockets of dishonest U.S. companies that own U.S. politicians and accomplished nothing in their sham task of rebuilding, installed an ineffective non-government, and the place is continuing to go to hell.
Who woulda guessed?
We messed around and destroyed a stable society with an admittedly evil government, put a bunch of money in the pockets of dishonest U.S. companies that own U.S. politicians and accomplished nothing in their sham task of rebuilding, installed an ineffective non-government, and the place is continuing to go to hell.
Who woulda guessed?
but we gots out oilz!!!!
BENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(And I will just leave this one here...
http://firebrandprogressives.org/report-bush-released-171-gitmo-prisoners-returned-battle-obama-7/ )
(And I will just leave this one here...
http://firebrandprogressives.org/report-bush-released-171-gitmo-prisoners-returned-battle-obama-7/ )
We should invade. We'll be greeted as liberators!
So we invaded a country where Al Qaeda wasn't operating, under the pretense that they WERE operating there, and the result is that we've basically handed over the entire country to them.
Amurrica, fvck yeah!
Amurrica, fvck yeah!
Last edited:
balad air base being evac'd
total collapse of rule
just hope we took the operator manuals with us: http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140605/NEWS08/306050072/Iraqi-F-16s-based-out-Balad
total collapse of rule
just hope we took the operator manuals with us: http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140605/NEWS08/306050072/Iraqi-F-16s-based-out-Balad
free virtual beer for pulling up that photo of sanjuro with a ninja face all fired up acting like he had something to do with occupy oakland.
Last edited:
Dude, Al Qaeda was making nuclear weapons there! They were probably gay too.
never forget
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Lafayette-crosses-pay-tribute-to-war-dead-4365146.php
They seem to rise on the hill forever, from the street alongside the Lafayette BART Station to a thicket of pine trees to some unseen horizon beyond that - cross after cross, white and thick among the wild grasses. Thousands of them.
At first they appear nameless. But a closer look reveals words painted or tacked onto crossbars: Ramon T. Kaipat, Marine Lance Corp., died 4/11/12, Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Sgt. Patrick McCaffrey, Army, died Balad, Iraq, 6/22/04. And on and on.
The crosses have stood on that hill since 2006 as what is believed to be the largest memorial in the U.S. to soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And even though the Iraq War - which began 10 years ago Tuesday - has been over since 2011 and the U.S. intends to pull out of Afghanistan by 2014, there is no plan to pull them down.
I drive by the memorial every day.... the result of effing GWB and Dick Cheney's folly
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Lafayette-crosses-pay-tribute-to-war-dead-4365146.php
They seem to rise on the hill forever, from the street alongside the Lafayette BART Station to a thicket of pine trees to some unseen horizon beyond that - cross after cross, white and thick among the wild grasses. Thousands of them.
At first they appear nameless. But a closer look reveals words painted or tacked onto crossbars: Ramon T. Kaipat, Marine Lance Corp., died 4/11/12, Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Sgt. Patrick McCaffrey, Army, died Balad, Iraq, 6/22/04. And on and on.
The crosses have stood on that hill since 2006 as what is believed to be the largest memorial in the U.S. to soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And even though the Iraq War - which began 10 years ago Tuesday - has been over since 2011 and the U.S. intends to pull out of Afghanistan by 2014, there is no plan to pull them down.
I drive by the memorial every day.... the result of effing GWB and Dick Cheney's folly
Yeah let know when your going to put up one of these for all the Iraqi civilians killed as a result of those two c*nts so I know when to give a sh*t...... I'm not likely to for soldiers who died when sent to someone else's country to kill people.
Maybe some of you might enjoy reading a different take on the situation:
Review & Outlook
The Iraq Debacle
An extended civil war is likely. A terrorist caliphate is possible.
Email
Print
515 Comments
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn
smaller
Larger
June 12, 2014 7:24 p.m. ET
The magnitude of the debacle now unfolding in Iraq is becoming clearer by the day, with the terrorist army of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, marching ever closer to Baghdad. On Tuesday the al Qaeda affiliate captured Mosul, a city with a population greater than Philadelphia's, a day later it took Tikrit in the Sunni heartland, and on Thursday ISIS commanders announced they plan to attack the Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala.
No one should underestimate the danger this presents to the stability of the region and to America's national and economic security. An extended civil war seems to be the best near-term possibility. More dangerous is ISIS's ambition to establish a Muslim caliphate in the heart of the Persian Gulf, which would mean a safe haven for Islamic terrorism that would surely target the U.S. The danger to Iraq's oil exports of three million barrels a day is already sending prices up and global equities down.
***
The threat to Baghdad is real and more imminent than is widely understood. Four Iraqi divisions have melted away before the 3000-5,000 ISIS force, which is gaining deadlier weapons as it advances. One source says Iraqi soldiers who are supposed to protect Baghdad are dressing in civilian clothes beneath their military uniforms in case they have to flee. Iraq's air power, such as it is, could soon be grounded if civilian contractors are endangered.
President Obama finally addressed the spreading chaos during a photo-op with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott on Thursday, noting "a lot of concern" but making no commitments to help. The White House turned down an urgent appeal from Baghdad to intervene with air strikes, leaving Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki little choice but to turn to Iran to fill the breach—and extend its influence. Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden is said to be on top of things from the Situation Room. Inshallah.
The prospect of Iraq's disintegration is already being spun by the Administration and its media friends as the fault of George W. Bush and Mr. Maliki. So it's worth understanding how we got here.
Iraq was largely at peace when Mr. Obama came to office in 2009. Reporters who had known Baghdad during the worst days of the insurgency in 2006 marveled at how peaceful the city had become thanks to the U.S. military surge and counterinsurgency. In 2012 Anthony Blinken, then Mr. Biden's top security adviser, boasted that, "What's beyond debate" is that "Iraq today is less violent, more democratic, and more prosperous. And the United States is more deeply engaged there than at any time in recent history."
Mr. Obama employed the same breezy confidence in a speech last year at the National Defense University, saying that "the core of al Qaeda" was on a "path to defeat," and that the "future of terrorism" came from "less capable" terrorist groups that mainly threatened "diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad." Mr. Obama concluded his remarks by calling on Congress to repeal its 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force against al Qaeda.
If the war on terror was over, ISIS didn't get the message. The group, known as Tawhid al-Jihad when it was led a decade ago by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was all but defeated by 2009 but revived as U.S. troops withdrew and especially after the uprising in Syria spiraled into chaos. It now controls territory from the outskirts of Aleppo in northwestern Syria to Fallujah in central Iraq.
The possibility that a long civil war in Syria would become an incubator for terrorism and destabilize the region was predictable, and we predicted it. "Now the jihadists have descended by the thousands on Syria," we noted last May. "They are also moving men and weapons to and from Iraq, which is increasingly sinking back into Sunni-Shiite civil war. . . . If Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki feels threatened by al Qaeda and a Sunni rebellion, he will increasingly look to Iran to help him stay in power."
We don't quote ourselves to boast of prescience but to wonder why the Administration did nothing to avert the clearly looming disaster. Contrary to what Mr. Blinken claimed in 2012, the "diplomatic surge" the Administration promised for Iraq never arrived, nor did U.S. weapons. "The Americans have really deeply disappointed us by not supplying the Iraqi army with the weapons and support it needs to fight terrorism," the Journal quoted one Iraqi general based in Kirkuk.
That might strike some readers as rich coming from the commander of a collapsing army, but it's a reminder of the price Iraqis and Americans are now paying for Mr. Obama's failure to successfully negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with Baghdad that would have maintained a meaningful U.S. military presence. A squadron of Apache attack helicopters, Predator drones and A-10 attack planes based in Iraq might be able to turn back ISIS's march on Baghdad.
***
Mr. Obama now faces the choice of intervening anew with U.S. military force or doing nothing. The second option means risking the fall of Baghdad or a full-scale Iranian intervention to save Mr. Maliki's government, either of which would be terrible strategic defeats.
The alternative is to stage an intervention similar to what the French did in Mali in early 2013, using a combination of air power and paratroops to defeat or at least contain ISIS. But that would be an admission that Mr. Obama's policy in Iraq has failed, that his claims of retreat without risk from the Middle East were false and naive, and that his premature withdrawal now demands an emergency intervention.
We would support such an effort if we felt this Administration would do the heavy diplomatic and military lifting needed to succeed. This would mean working with or around Mr. Maliki to organize a unity government of Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites to rally the public, convincing the Kurds and Turks to counter ISIS in the north, and rallying Iraqi forces to defend Baghdad until a counterattack can be planned and mobilized.
After more than five years, we've come to know we should expect no such leadership or strategic ambition from this President. Meantime, somebody needs to start thinking about evacuating U.S. personnel from our Embassy in Baghdad. Maybe the helicopter is already on the roof.
Review & Outlook
The Iraq Debacle
An extended civil war is likely. A terrorist caliphate is possible.
515 Comments
Google+
smaller
Larger
June 12, 2014 7:24 p.m. ET
The magnitude of the debacle now unfolding in Iraq is becoming clearer by the day, with the terrorist army of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, marching ever closer to Baghdad. On Tuesday the al Qaeda affiliate captured Mosul, a city with a population greater than Philadelphia's, a day later it took Tikrit in the Sunni heartland, and on Thursday ISIS commanders announced they plan to attack the Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala.
No one should underestimate the danger this presents to the stability of the region and to America's national and economic security. An extended civil war seems to be the best near-term possibility. More dangerous is ISIS's ambition to establish a Muslim caliphate in the heart of the Persian Gulf, which would mean a safe haven for Islamic terrorism that would surely target the U.S. The danger to Iraq's oil exports of three million barrels a day is already sending prices up and global equities down.
***
The threat to Baghdad is real and more imminent than is widely understood. Four Iraqi divisions have melted away before the 3000-5,000 ISIS force, which is gaining deadlier weapons as it advances. One source says Iraqi soldiers who are supposed to protect Baghdad are dressing in civilian clothes beneath their military uniforms in case they have to flee. Iraq's air power, such as it is, could soon be grounded if civilian contractors are endangered.
President Obama finally addressed the spreading chaos during a photo-op with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott on Thursday, noting "a lot of concern" but making no commitments to help. The White House turned down an urgent appeal from Baghdad to intervene with air strikes, leaving Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki little choice but to turn to Iran to fill the breach—and extend its influence. Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden is said to be on top of things from the Situation Room. Inshallah.
The prospect of Iraq's disintegration is already being spun by the Administration and its media friends as the fault of George W. Bush and Mr. Maliki. So it's worth understanding how we got here.
Iraq was largely at peace when Mr. Obama came to office in 2009. Reporters who had known Baghdad during the worst days of the insurgency in 2006 marveled at how peaceful the city had become thanks to the U.S. military surge and counterinsurgency. In 2012 Anthony Blinken, then Mr. Biden's top security adviser, boasted that, "What's beyond debate" is that "Iraq today is less violent, more democratic, and more prosperous. And the United States is more deeply engaged there than at any time in recent history."
Mr. Obama employed the same breezy confidence in a speech last year at the National Defense University, saying that "the core of al Qaeda" was on a "path to defeat," and that the "future of terrorism" came from "less capable" terrorist groups that mainly threatened "diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad." Mr. Obama concluded his remarks by calling on Congress to repeal its 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force against al Qaeda.
If the war on terror was over, ISIS didn't get the message. The group, known as Tawhid al-Jihad when it was led a decade ago by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was all but defeated by 2009 but revived as U.S. troops withdrew and especially after the uprising in Syria spiraled into chaos. It now controls territory from the outskirts of Aleppo in northwestern Syria to Fallujah in central Iraq.
The possibility that a long civil war in Syria would become an incubator for terrorism and destabilize the region was predictable, and we predicted it. "Now the jihadists have descended by the thousands on Syria," we noted last May. "They are also moving men and weapons to and from Iraq, which is increasingly sinking back into Sunni-Shiite civil war. . . . If Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki feels threatened by al Qaeda and a Sunni rebellion, he will increasingly look to Iran to help him stay in power."
We don't quote ourselves to boast of prescience but to wonder why the Administration did nothing to avert the clearly looming disaster. Contrary to what Mr. Blinken claimed in 2012, the "diplomatic surge" the Administration promised for Iraq never arrived, nor did U.S. weapons. "The Americans have really deeply disappointed us by not supplying the Iraqi army with the weapons and support it needs to fight terrorism," the Journal quoted one Iraqi general based in Kirkuk.
That might strike some readers as rich coming from the commander of a collapsing army, but it's a reminder of the price Iraqis and Americans are now paying for Mr. Obama's failure to successfully negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with Baghdad that would have maintained a meaningful U.S. military presence. A squadron of Apache attack helicopters, Predator drones and A-10 attack planes based in Iraq might be able to turn back ISIS's march on Baghdad.
***
Mr. Obama now faces the choice of intervening anew with U.S. military force or doing nothing. The second option means risking the fall of Baghdad or a full-scale Iranian intervention to save Mr. Maliki's government, either of which would be terrible strategic defeats.
The alternative is to stage an intervention similar to what the French did in Mali in early 2013, using a combination of air power and paratroops to defeat or at least contain ISIS. But that would be an admission that Mr. Obama's policy in Iraq has failed, that his claims of retreat without risk from the Middle East were false and naive, and that his premature withdrawal now demands an emergency intervention.
We would support such an effort if we felt this Administration would do the heavy diplomatic and military lifting needed to succeed. This would mean working with or around Mr. Maliki to organize a unity government of Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites to rally the public, convincing the Kurds and Turks to counter ISIS in the north, and rallying Iraqi forces to defend Baghdad until a counterattack can be planned and mobilized.
After more than five years, we've come to know we should expect no such leadership or strategic ambition from this President. Meantime, somebody needs to start thinking about evacuating U.S. personnel from our Embassy in Baghdad. Maybe the helicopter is already on the roof.
Yeah I can only have so much disdain for someone in their early 20s who thought they were signing up for something else because they were blatantly misled. I certainly save the vitriol for management.
I joined the Navy at 19 because I wanted to and it was good. But I left the Army when we decided to go into Iraq. But I was lucky enough to both have a choice AND know better.
Iraq has been quite a bit worse than I thought it would be, but I knew it wasn't going down the way it was sold.
If you're just going to Copy/Paste from the WSJ's Opinion page, you might as well just post a link instead.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-iraq-debacle-1402615473
As it is, there's nothing in there beyond the usual attacks and how "Iraq was so peaceful" when Obama took office. Noticeably absent, of course, is any culpability in our going into Iraq in the first place.
...and yet another who avoids the simple fact that had we not gone into Iraq in the first place, it would still be a stable place with an a$$hole and his family in charge.
And yes, it is ****ing George Bushes fault. Him and the rest of his stupid little chicken hawk war mongering profiteering idiots. 42 posts in 5 years...go away tool. Really useful around here you are.
And yes, it is ****ing George Bushes fault. Him and the rest of his stupid little chicken hawk war mongering profiteering idiots. 42 posts in 5 years...go away tool. Really useful around here you are.
Last edited:
So, anyone know what FOX news' spin on this is ? Or are they still blathering away about Obama Care and Benghazi ?
I think we should just strap M16s on to GWB, Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol, etc and drop them off in Tikrit. Let those d-bags clean up their mess.
I have always found it sickeningly amusing that the draft dodging son of the man who declared an "end to the Vietnam syndrome" has begat his own little syndrome....
A trip down Memory Lane.
Last edited:
^^^^ what's old is old again
and i'm surprised no one here has called this "obama's vietnam". has all the earmarks of vietnam: one administration started it, the next (and party opposite) pulled out...power vacuum...ensuing humanitarian crisis...
#obviousTrollIsObvious
and i'm surprised no one here has called this "obama's vietnam". has all the earmarks of vietnam: one administration started it, the next (and party opposite) pulled out...power vacuum...ensuing humanitarian crisis...
#obviousTrollIsObvious
Last edited:
****ing horrible.
Well, there's something I wish I hadn't seen.
I couldn't do the whole thing, just skipped through it, just enough to wanna hurl...
And this gets people psyched up to go and fight?
Should be a test, if it gets you psyched up, then you get to go though the door marked "Bullet Tester"
And this gets people psyched up to go and fight?
Should be a test, if it gets you psyched up, then you get to go though the door marked "Bullet Tester"
war is hell ?
if you're non-muslim, smoke 'em if you got 'em: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/the-conflict-in-the-middle-east-is-far-bigger-than-isis-and-al-qaeda/
i'm not saying we caused this latest system-of-conflicts, but it seems more evident that we hastened this day.
related:
i'm not saying we caused this latest system-of-conflicts, but it seems more evident that we hastened this day.
related: