PDA

View Full Version : War on terror is not going well..


Pages : [1] 2

John Hill
11th Jun 2014, 20:53
Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, is there any good news anywhere?

Saltie
11th Jun 2014, 21:08
Quite a lot of good news out there John - for the other side.

arcniz
11th Jun 2014, 21:09
War On Terror premise is self-negating, therefore cannot go on well for long.

If Terror is perceived to be increasing, the expensive and intrusive WOT is obviously not working right.... not doing the job.

If Terror is perceived to be decreasing, then the ongoing cost of WOT becomes and issue and economic gravity causes it to shrink budgets thus growing ever less active.

Best way to keep the activity going would be to tax it. A ToT might be difficult to collect, but broadly popular... and everyone knows that taxes almost never stop working, once in place.

tony draper
11th Jun 2014, 21:16
Well they do seem to be more intent on killing each other at the mo rather than us,so that's a plus.

vulcanised
11th Jun 2014, 21:22
Well, there's always Libya........

con-pilot
11th Jun 2014, 21:22
Well they do seem to be more intent on killing each other at the mo rather than us,so that's a plus.

Very true, which means in essence, we, the west, are actually winning.

Sorry John, you're wrong, as usual. :p

Fox3WheresMyBanana
11th Jun 2014, 21:24
Exactly.
The weapons looted from Mosul are already being transported to...Syria.
As long as their primary mission in life (or death, for the suicidal) consists of killing what we in in the West would regard as each other, we should breathe a deep sigh of relief and just let them get on with it.

That's not to say I wish anybody dead, it's just a pragmatic observation that every time we try and get involved, they switch to kicking the crap out of us before going back to killing each other.

BigEndBob
11th Jun 2014, 21:28
Been a success for a former Prime Minister.

paully
11th Jun 2014, 21:28
How these maniacs must really love Tony Blair and George Bush :D......two of the most useless tossers this side of Dunkirk just made the work for murdering fanatics a whole heap easier...The aforementioned duo could`nt lie straight in bed :}.........one dispairs:ugh:

John Hill
11th Jun 2014, 21:29
Very true, which means in essence, we, the west, are actually winning.

Do you really think things are going 'our way' in Pakistan? How will Iraq be better than it was under SH and what return are we to get on our 'investment' in Afghanistan?

Andu
11th Jun 2014, 21:59
John, I'm repeating what I've said before, but all the blood and suffering of our young men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan has bought us is TIME. Their sacrifice (and the treasure we have spent) has delayed the major war between the two ideologies that, unless some game-changer comes into the equation from the proverbial left field, is inevitable.

In short, we 'baby boomers' have managed, with or sons' and grandsons' blood, to foist that major war onto our great grandsons' shoulders.


And the way it's looking at the moment, quite a few among our number - those of the Left and the Politically Correct - seem to be going out of their way to ensure our great grandsons will lose that war.

RatherBeFlying
11th Jun 2014, 22:05
9/11 was the work of folks (mostly Saudis) disenchanted with US policies in Israel.

While the world was largely horrified, the Palestinians danced in the streets. Decades in the world's largest concentration camp has signally failed to cultivate tender feelings among the natives towards their jailer and their jailer's principal supporter.

The Taliban got their comeuppance for sheltering OBL -- an understandable punishment raid that was in keeping with local history.

Had the GWOT declared victory at that point and refused to get sicced on Saddam who had the infuriating habit of bestowing cash to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, we may have continued with a number of nasty dictators keeping a firm lid on even nastier folks.

But Bush II and Bliar did a Pandora:eek:

Until the founding of Israel, local Jewish populations fared much better under Muslim rule than under Christians, even when various Muslim sects were busily wiping out other Muslim sects (lets not forget that the Muslim sectarian toll has a long way to go before it comes anywhere the Christian sectarian toll).

SawMan
12th Jun 2014, 00:33
Yes there is good news somewhere- but it's somewhere else!

There are places in this world where the citizens do not desire to run other nations; only their own. They seek to make friends; not enemies. They are not rich but do not need to be; for them happiness is not measured in cash terms. Terrorism will never target them because there's nothing to gain by doing that. Terrorism will never gain a foothold there because there's not enough there to support it.

It's too late to stop a lot of what has already begun, but it's never too late to try and change the future. Short of eliminating a large part of the human race you can't stop terrorism- even then you will only slow it down but not really stop it. The west can never win the war with the east, nor can the east stop the west. Only time and changed attitudes all round can tone things down to a tolerable level and it seems the players in the game don't want to do that.

At some point both sides will become like those other places- poor and powerless. When that happens the patient one who is not getting directly involved will make the rules which west and east and north and south will follow because they will not have wasted their wealth and power fighting a fight that could not be won. They will not want either of us so then we will both lose as they win without having entered our fight. That's not a good long-term strategy for us to cling to but that's where we are going.

Enjoy the ride as best you can amid the turbulence- or walk away from it and go to one of those nicer places for they are out there!

Dushan
12th Jun 2014, 01:57
Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, is there any good news anywhere?

John, shouldn't we first ask "who started the war?"

onetrack
12th Jun 2014, 02:17
It's all good news. There's large numbers of Islamics killing other Islamics over perceived different interpretations of the Koran and Allah.
We should give them all a whole lot more weapons, so the religion of hatred and murder and easy offence is shown up to be exactly what it is - a religion of hatred, murder, and intolerance.

Boudreaux Bob
12th Jun 2014, 02:48
(lets not forget that the Muslim sectarian toll has a long way to go before it comes anywhere the Christian sectarian toll)

You seemed to have skipped right over the loss of a handful of Jews over the Years.

Was that on purpose?

Cacophonix
12th Jun 2014, 03:20
As somebody has already noted, there is something tautological about the concept of "The War on Terror". One cannot really expect any good to come from an enterprise founded on illogic.

Caco

parabellum
12th Jun 2014, 06:18
The war in Afghanistan has achieved a full education for at least one generation of Afghan women and lesser amounts of education for younger people as well as twelve years of relative peace for the majority of the population. Let us hope that the Afghan military and police are made of stronger stuff than the Iraqis seem to be.

John Hill
12th Jun 2014, 06:27
There is no way anyone can paint a rosy picture of education for girls and women in Afghanistan


Afghanistan is one of the most challenging places in the world to be a woman:

Many women die in pregnancy and childbirth: 460 deaths/100,000 live births (2010)

85% of women have no formal education and are illiterate.

Female 3rd level students as a % of Total: 18.0%

Total live births per woman - average of 6

1 out 10 children die before their fifth birthday.

Life expectancy for women is 51.

Life as an Afghan woman | Trust in Education (http://www.trustineducation.org/resources/life-as-an-afghan-woman/)

Blacksheep
12th Jun 2014, 06:47
Eventually they will succeed in creating their new, unified anti-western state.

Then we will be able to use the nuclear option. :suspect:

Effluent Man
12th Jun 2014, 06:57
It may well come to that.As has been observed not in our lifetime but there are signs that the whole caboodle is running downhill and rapidly gaining pace.

And the seeds of destruction are easy to see.The Islamics stand no chance of any kind of united front as yet because they are hell bent on slaughtering each other because they are not observant enough/too observant or have a different view of the interpretation of the Koran.It's a mess,but a mess that keeps them from our door.

500N
12th Jun 2014, 06:57
I was thinking that exact same thought - the nuclear option.

I see Isis and Isil might be a pain for more than one country
With stated goals.

At least they hate AQ.

Effluent Man
12th Jun 2014, 06:59
The answer is better TV coverage of events and more popcorn.

onetrack
12th Jun 2014, 07:41
Iraq since WW1 has been little more than a loose gathering of approximately 30 tribes, all intent on destroying each other.
Every now and then, a murderously brutal dictator arises from one of those tribes, and rules with a breathtaking degree of brutality and murderousness over the other tribes.
The last one in that mold was Saddam. Now it looks like we have Saddams replacement, in the form of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. This bloke will make Bin Laden look like a kindergarten teacher. :(

BBC News - Profile: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27801676)

John Hill
12th Jun 2014, 08:01
I was thinking that exact same thought - the nuclear option.

Nuclear weapons my be very effective at destroying cities and industrial infrastructure but how effective are they in a sparse population living in a semi-mountainous terrain?

500N
12th Jun 2014, 08:18
One track

Looks like he has learnt from the mistakes of his predecessors.



John
Thats where chemical weapons come in.

LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK
12th Jun 2014, 08:18
Every now and then, a murderously brutal dictator arises from one of those tribes, and rules with a breathtaking degree of brutality and murderousness over the other tribes.

That'll be GWB then......

Cacophonix
12th Jun 2014, 08:28
Nuclear weapons my be very effective at destroying cities and industrial infrastructure but how effective are they in a sparse population living in a semi-mountainous terrain?

Has the lack of ozone down south allowed the sun to singe your cerebrums?

The insurgents are now integral with the broader populations in places like Syria and Iraq. Are you seriously suggesting that any civilized nation would attempt to counter the threat of Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups by waging a genocidal nuclear war against those countries...?

Oh well, this is JB after all where any old nonsense can count as serious strategy. I shall look out for any new strategic options with much amusement. ;)

Caco

John Hill
12th Jun 2014, 08:31
Caco, please refer to post #20.

Cacophonix
12th Jun 2014, 08:41
Caco, please refer to post #20.

Shiites and Sunnis unifying and making common cause against the West? I think not! In fact any hope of "victory" in a military sense relies on those very divisions.

On a serious note I see that the Iraqi authorities are reported as being open to air strikes against their own cities which some might think is a useful strategy. A little careful thought will also show why such thinking might be specious.

Caco

Rwy in Sight
12th Jun 2014, 08:48
How will Iraq be better than it was under SH

Unfortunately it seems the previous situation from Libya and Tunisia to Iraq was much better for all involved (and people had some security).

And also the West needs to prepare for the new waves of (illegal) immigrants leaving these countries for the social welfare states of the West.

Rwy in Sight

Hempy
12th Jun 2014, 08:55
I don't know why they stopped at Terror...theres a whole heap of other negative feelings we should declare war on too imo. Why cant we have a War on Scared, or a War on Misery?

LGW Vulture
12th Jun 2014, 09:01
Here are the potential saviours:

BBC News - Iraqi Kurds 'fully control Kirkuk' as army flees (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27809051)

I would hazard a guess that these guys will slowly start to get support from the West. Weapons flow might have even started already.

Thomas coupling
12th Jun 2014, 09:18
But doesn't it say more about us than them...

The west has:

Brought Iraq to its knees. SH would never have allowed his country to spiral into decay like this.

Brought Libya to its knees. The country is totally fragmented and ungovernable.

Bringing Syria to its knees by pumping weapons and money into the country through the back door.

guaranteed the same future for Afghanistan over the coming years after they leave.

The West has probably accelerated the mass destruction of most of the middle east either directly or indirectly:

Iraq
Libya
Syria
Afghanistan
Palestine
Egypt

EVERY time the collective "WE" get involved - it ALWAYS ends in additional suffering for those peoples we were supposed to have helped.

When will we ever learn that this line of action serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever except to justify keeping our military "honed" and on its toes and supporting our military export markets... PATHETIC. I feel ashamed to be a part of of 'our' foreign affairs'.

Where next......................................................:u gh:

Espada III
12th Jun 2014, 09:36
9/11 was the work of folks (mostly Saudis) disenchanted with US policies in Israel.

While the world was largely horrified, the Palestinians danced in the streets. Decades in the world's largest concentration camp has signally failed to cultivate tender feelings among the natives towards their jailer and their jailer's principal supporter.

Actually, the Palestinian 'problem' is irrelevant to the whole issue we are discussing. The Arabs outside the Palestinian Territories hate the Palestinians. They suck in all this money from Arabia, US and EU and it get hoovered up by those in power and sent to overseas bank accounts. If Israel disappeared overnight and all the Jews (and Christians don't forget) set sail, the Moslems would be celebrating the creation of a totally terrorist state on the shores of the Mediterranean.

When Israel pulled out from Gaza it left behind hundreds of millions of dollars worth of infrastructure in terms of homes, workshops and agriculture. It was all destroyed by the Gazans within weeks. Israel is not the only jailer for Gaza - the Egyptians hate them also, and keep the border even more firmly closed than Israel. At lease Israel permit building supplies and food through and in the other direction, many ill people are allowed though for treatment in Israeli hospitals, free of charge.

Cacophonix
12th Jun 2014, 09:36
Sadly there is a great deal of truth in what Thomas coupling says. For example, the aberration that makes up the morass that is modern Syria and Iraq owes much to English meddling and hegemony at the start of the 20th century. Our historical mistakes come back to haunt us.

Caco

Blacksheep
12th Jun 2014, 09:42
Do you mean you have failed to spot the pattern of deliberate policy, Thomas?

The real objective of the WoT is to divert their attention from the outside world. That's why we haven't seen any major attacks recently - for example, here in UK the nutters are all off to Syria instead of blowing themselves up in our crowded cities. The WoT is achieving its short and medium term objectives.

But one side or the other will inevitably prevail, then the real war will begin. Armaggedon is their long term objective and they believe that the angels will swarm down from heaven to help them.

MagnusP
12th Jun 2014, 09:53
The push for an Islamist Caliphate covering Iraq, Syria and Jordan will possibly see a forceful response from Israel. Whether that will draw in the USA is another matter, but it's getting very messy, very quickly.

coldair
12th Jun 2014, 10:03
Perhaps it's now time to go into Iraq for regime change.

Oh hang on ...

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jun 2014, 10:10
I think it's only going to get messy in Iraq, for a while. The Sunni-Shia punch-up has a long way to go yet before there's the chance of a Caliphate. We haven't even seen the Sauds/Iran get involved directly yet.

MagnusP
12th Jun 2014, 10:15
It certainly won't happen for a while (if it ever gets that far), but it's part of the push. I can see Israel getting twitchy.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jun 2014, 10:17
Looks like Kurdistan will not be long in emerging. That's a fair chunk out of any potential Caliphate.
BBC News - Iraqi Kurds 'fully control Kirkuk' as army flees (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27809051)

Andu
12th Jun 2014, 10:21
Espada III, I think you got one word wrong. Rather than The Arabs outside the Palestinian Territories hate the Palestinians.I'd amend it to "The Arabs outside the Palestinian Territories despise the Palestinians."

The Gulf Arabs (the ones I'm most familiar with, having lived among them for 20 years) are a classic collective example of the old axiom: "The further you are from the battlefield, the more extreme is your patriotism." Otherwise urbane and even-tempered Arab men from the Gulf area quite literally (well, maybe not literally) foam at the mouth when that "Is-rael" word comes into play.

They loathe the Israelis, but they despise the Palestinians even more for losing repeatedly to the Israelis. The fact that it wasn't just just the Palestinians who lost a series of wars to the Israelis is conveniently forgotten. And being Arabs, if they didn't have the Israelis to hate, they'd invent another enemy.

Oh, wait a minute, they already have... the USA.

cavortingcheetah
12th Jun 2014, 11:51
It's quite satisfactory to note the vindication for the belief in the rule of the dictator, either benevolent or not so, as the case may be or the populace deserve.
So many people have benefited from a little autocratic rule down the millennia and many civilisations continue to demonstrate, through the failure of alternative government styles, that there is any more beneficial form of government for a largely peasant society. Why even in Europe, one might be forgiven for assuming that the Brusselian monstrosity, while failing its western subscribers, is eminently suited to its more riffraffian eastern European members far too many of whom have discovered that feet are for walking instead of toasting.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jun 2014, 12:04
To cross post Smash Bugger's link; he's just discovered an Iraqi Army training video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FPELc1wEvk

Blacksheep
12th Jun 2014, 12:06
So many people have benefited from a little autocratic rule down the millennia Oh Yeah? And what have the Romans ever done for us, eh? Answer me that!

cavortingcheetah
12th Jun 2014, 12:18
Someone makes so bold as to ask what the Romans have done for us?
They gave us well regulated gladiatorial contests.

7x7
12th Jun 2014, 12:19
Re the advantages of dictatorships over democracies in less developed nations, I'd recommend Donald Kaplan's 'The Coming Anarchy'.

Kaplan wrote the book just after the fall of the Soviet Union. He misses the emergence of radical Islam, but in many other ways, I believe he nails the future quite disturbingly.

Thomas coupling
12th Jun 2014, 12:30
7 x 7: Hear hear!:ok:

Sallyann1234
12th Jun 2014, 12:34
Eventually they will succeed in creating their new, unified anti-western state.Long before they achieve that unified state they will have captured Pakistan's nuclear stockpile.

Then we will be able to use the nuclear option.They will use it first.

Lonewolf_50
12th Jun 2014, 13:38
... but all the blood and suffering of our young men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan has bought us is TIME.
Their sacrifice (and the treasure we have spent) has delayed the major war between the two ideologies that, unless some game-changer comes into the equation from the proverbial left field, is inevitable.

In short, we 'baby boomers' have managed, with our sons' and grandsons' blood, to foist that major war onto our great grandsons' shoulders.

And the way it's looking at the moment, quite a few among our number - those of the Left and the Politically Correct - seem to be going out of their way to ensure our great grandsons will lose that war.
I've not seen it put that way before, but it makes a lot of sense.

Lonewolf_50
12th Jun 2014, 13:46
Caco: On a serious note I see that the Iraqi authorities are reported as being open to air strikes against their own cities which some might think is a useful strategy. A little careful thought will also show why such thinking might be specious. At which point, we can sing: Meet the new Saddam, Maliki,
same as the old Saddam, Hussein

and the circle will be complete ... and we won't get fooled again.

LGW Vulture/Fox 3:
BBC News - Iraqi Kurds 'fully control Kirkuk' as army flees
I would hazard a guess that these guys will slowly start to get support from the West. Weapons flow might have even started already.
Aye. Operation Kurdish Freedom continues apace ...
7x7
Re the advantages of dictatorships over democracies in less developed nations, I'd recommend Donald Kaplan's 'The Coming Anarchy'.
Robert Kaplan. His more recent "Monsoon" is worth a read.

pigboat
12th Jun 2014, 16:37
A pibroch for the departed.

_f2J4ceCikI

BenThere
12th Jun 2014, 16:47
This is how Iraq would have ended up ten years ago had we simply deposed Hussein and left. Trying to civilize them on our terms was a grave mistake.

I'm quite happy to let the Iraqi sectarians fight it out themselves.

I would point out, however, that when GWB left office, Sunni and Shia were working together to root out Islamic terrorism; free elections were held; Coalition casualties were down to almost nil; and the country was for the most part stabilized.

AtomKraft
12th Jun 2014, 17:08
The US, and the rest of us, would have profited by making no response at all to the 9/11 attacks.

Fact.

rgbrock1
12th Jun 2014, 17:10
The problem now in Iraq has nothing really to do about sectarianism i.e., Sunni vs. Shia but with ISIS. (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria). This little splinter group of Al Qaeda is considered extremely ruthless, even by the parent organization itself and enjoys punishment by crucifixion.

These are the worst among the really bad. And they are gaining ground in Iraq rapidly. Mosul fell yesterday along with Tikrit. Now they're onto Baghdad with Iraq's joke of an army falling before them like flies.

IF there is no Western response to this, and I hope to God there will be, then ISIS establishing themselves as de facto rulers in Iraq will make the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan seem like a church sorority in comparison. And will also further AQ's goals in the ME.

O'Bummer's proven, once again, how inept he and his administration are in dealing with the larger world. The chickens are coming home to roost. But these chickens - ISIS - are an extremely nasty and violent faction. Which must be addressed by the West. ASAP.

500N
12th Jun 2014, 17:14
RGB

I heard that the Iraqi PM has been removing the professional Army leadership - that tended to act evenly and replacing them, effectively making it again into a private army.

Boudreaux Bob
12th Jun 2014, 17:18
Neo-Conservatism eh, RGB?

That "Fundamental Reforming America" thing is turning out to be Change we could live without.

Bowing to Evil never has worked out well, but what the heck the fella has good intentions and all that.

Isn't that how we should judge him? Intentions?

BenThere
12th Jun 2014, 17:34
Where are these new Iraqi insurgents getting their weapons, RGB?

I think you're wrong in thinking this is non-sectarian. I think they are Sunnis, funded and armed by Sunni states in the Gulf (mostly Saudi Arabia). If they gain control of Iraq, they will then fight Syria and Iran.

I've got no problem with that so long as they focus the fight on each other rather than us. Hopefully they'll suck all the world's jihadis there at the birthplace of civilization.

West Coast
12th Jun 2014, 17:37
I think you're wrong in thinking this is non-sectarian.

Agreed. The Kurds are in the mix as well making some land grabs and are fortifying positions.

500N
12th Jun 2014, 17:38
Weapons ?

That who area is awash with weapons.

What is interesting is they seem to be well organised,
heaps of transport etc.

And more disciplined than most - never seem such organised columns of cars in convoy from a non army like this lot.

con-pilot
12th Jun 2014, 17:39
IF there is no Western response to this, and I hope to God there will be

May not be the West this time, but from a country a lot closer.

China.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world/middleeast/china-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

BAGHDAD — Since the American-led invasion of 2003, Iraq has become one of the world’s top oil producers, and China is now its biggest customer. China already buys nearly half the oil that Iraq produces, nearly 1.5 million barrels a day, and is angling for an even bigger share, bidding for a stake now owned by Exxon Mobil in one of Iraq’s largest oil fields.

rgbrock1
12th Jun 2014, 17:42
The Kurds are in the mix at the request of al-Maliki. If this was simply Sunni vs. Shia the Kurds probably wouldn't give a rat's ass. It's ISIS that scare the bejesus out of everyone. Rightfully so.

Even the uber-kook al-Sadr is marshaling militias comprised of both Sunni AND Shia groups to take on ISIS.

ISIS is comprised mostly of Wahhabi elements. And we all know where that comes from.

Lonewolf_50
12th Jun 2014, 17:42
The US, and the rest of us, would have profited by making no response at all to the 9/11 attacks.

Fact.
Not a fact, Atom.
Your opinion.

There were a variety of options, and you (and others) may object to the options chosen, both at the time and in retrospect.

"No reaction" was not an option, politically, at the time.
That is the one fact you can take to the bank.

500N
12th Jun 2014, 17:44
Con

I disagree.

China is not going to get militarily involved.

beaufort1
12th Jun 2014, 17:47
Oil has already risen nearly 2% today and POTUS has said all options including military action are on the table.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jun 2014, 17:47
The Kurds are (relatively) disciplined and organised; that's why ISIS is leaving them alone.

Lonewolf_50
12th Jun 2014, 17:48
Even the uber-kook al-Sadr is marshaling militias comprised of both Sunni AND Shia groups to take on ISIS.

ISIS is comprised mostly of Wahhabi elements. And we all know where that comes from.
The world's a funny old place, is it not?

Ben:
I think they are Sunnis, funded and armed by Sunni states in the Gulf (mostly Saudi Arabia). Well put.
If they gain control of Iraq, they will then fight Syria and Iran. My magic eight-ball does not agree with yours.
I've got no problem with that so long as they focus the fight on each other rather than us. Hopefully they'll suck all the world's jihadis there at the birthplace of civilization. A hope, and that might be a good thing, in terms of a catharsis like the 30 Years War was in Western Europe. For all of the horror, some good came out of that.

But Hope is not a method, and our president and Congress need a policy, a strategy, and some choices of method to dela with such eventualities.

I am not confident in them having the second :mad:, which means that any of the third will likely be ill suited to a given situation. :mad::mad:

West Coast
12th Jun 2014, 17:52
China has its own terrorist issues. Not sure they'll want to adopt more unless its accompanied by some carrot.

Terrorism in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China)

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jun 2014, 17:57
Reports that the Iraqi MPs have done a runner, only 1/3 turned up in Parliament today, so no vote quorate.

Brave Sir Robin - YouTube

con-pilot
12th Jun 2014, 17:58
There was a video on the news today of some very happy men with long beards armed to the teeth with American tanks and Hellfire missiles shouting "Allah Akbar" as they rolled into the city.


I'd love to see that video.

And since when has the US supplied anyone with AK-47s?

BenThere
12th Jun 2014, 18:01
armed to the teeth with American tanks and Hellfire missiles

You lost all credibility with that. They have no American tanks, and no Hellfire missiles. Maybe President Obama and Eric Holder can work that out, but it hasn't happened yet.

rgbrock1
12th Jun 2014, 18:12
No insurgent group could possibly have American armor nor Hellfire missiles. That premise is absurd.

Lonewolf_50
12th Jun 2014, 18:16
con, over a beer I have a few things I might tell you about supply.

Linerider:
Just a pro tip: the ISIS hasn't the logistics backbone to operate American tanks.
How much time did you spend in the military, amigo?

rgbrock1
12th Jun 2014, 18:19
con wrote:

And since when has the US supplied anyone with AK-47s?

Ghost wars. Mujaheddin in Afghanistan during the '80's were armed to the teeth with, among other things, AK-47's. Provided by Uncle Sugar.

Moot point though as I know what you meant Con.

con-pilot
12th Jun 2014, 18:19
Besides that, Hellfire missiles are not MANPADS. They are 'fire and forget' air to ground missiles, fired from aircraft, including drones.

Try again. :rolleyes:



Okay, I take the AK-47 comment back, I knew better, chalk it up to old age. :(

RatherBeFlying
12th Jun 2014, 18:19
It seems the Saudis and perhaps other Gulf rulers have been munificently supporting ISIS. They most definitely do not like the Shi'a ascendancy in Iraq.

The rebellion in Syria against the Alawite (Shi'a sect) regime gave them an opportunity to finance a Sunni uprising without provoking objections from the US. But whoopsie that uprising now encompasses the Sunni regions of Iraq. Who woudda guessed :}

Some may recall that the folks financed and supplied by the CIA and the Saudis to drive out the Russians from Afghanistan became the Taliban regime.

it would be a complement to US foreign and military policy to assert that they shoot themselves in the foot. The wounds are self inflicted much higher up :ugh:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jun 2014, 18:21
They don't need tanks. If your opposition is doing a runner, pooh sticks will do. Unless something surprising happens, Baghdad will be theirs by the end of the weekend.

rgbrock1
12th Jun 2014, 18:22
Ding, ding, ding, ding. And the prize today goes to... Con... for stating the bleeding obvious about the Hellfire.

We're sorry Mr. Linerider but your consolation prize today is a book about clues. The Big Blue Clue Book.

Now please don't let the door slam on yo butt on the way out today, dear sir.

500N
12th Jun 2014, 18:25
rgb

Instead of "The Big Blue Clue Book"

how about

"The Big Blue FACT Book" ?


Or provide a link to google !

con-pilot
12th Jun 2014, 18:26
Just saw a map on the areas controlled by the ISIS, seems that they are leaving the areas controlled by the Kurds alone.

At least that is the way it looked.


Thank you RG. :ok:

500N
12th Jun 2014, 18:28
I sure hope this bloke moves out of the way from the BBDA :O

Syrian Kurds continue to blame Turkey for backing ISIS militants - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/06/zaman-syria-kurds-rojava-ypg-muslim-pyd-pkk-turkey-isis.html#)

rgbrock1
12th Jun 2014, 18:30
ISIS is leaving the Kurish controlled areas alone. For now. They have a bigger prize which lies approx. 200 miles south of Mosul. It goes by the name of Baghdad. I wonder if al-Maliki will be alive by this time next week?

This sucks. The Iraqi government needs help and it needs help yesterday. Where are the f***ing airstrikes?

BenThere
12th Jun 2014, 18:34
Still, though, I'd say arming Afghans fighting the Soviet Union in the interest of winning the Cold War was a good strategy. I'd say the same thing about the war effort in Viet Nam. Ultimately we won.

Islamism is a much less daunting enemy than was Soviet-backed Communism. Once Islam consolidates its Ummah and tries to challenge the civilized world militarily, its fate will be sealed.

We just need to get the conflict out of asymmetry-insurgency and make it open. Once that happens, it's over; assuming, of course, that our civilization survives its attempts to destroy itself.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jun 2014, 18:39
Well, this fits my description of "something surprising"

Iran Deploys Forces to Fight Militants in Iraq - WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-deploys-forces-to-fight-al-qaeda-inspired-militants-in-iraq-iranian-security-sources-1402592470)

rgbrock1
12th Jun 2014, 18:41
Fox3:

Surprising but not shocking.

Kind of puts it into a better light now doesn't it? al-Maliki has been asking the U.S. for assistance with this matter for months. Which, of course, fell on deaf Odumbo ears. So now that Iran has come to his aid, and possibly rescue, we know who he'll be asking for assistance IN ALL MATTERS in the future.

Well done Odumbo, well done.

con-pilot
12th Jun 2014, 18:46
Well, this fits my description of "something surprising"


I'd say it does. I wonder if the Iranian Army, okay the Revolutionary Guard, will throw down their weapons and run?

Somehow I seriously doubt it.

rgbrock1
12th Jun 2014, 18:47
Nope, they won't run. Only the Iraqi Army does that. And they call the French "surrender monkeys"?!!!!

BenThere
12th Jun 2014, 18:56
As I said in post #59, this is a Sunni-Shia fight over control of Iraq, as it has been all along. No need for the West to take sides; they're both evil. The best thing we can do now is stay out of it and let it happen.

Some day, maybe, when the people who support their religious and tribal allegiances to their deaths and truly want our help, I hope we will still have the means and will to do our best to help them.

Helping people who hate you is futile until they stop hating you.

Lonewolf_50
12th Jun 2014, 19:08
Ben, I am not keen to see Iran expand their grip into Eastern Iraq, or any other part of Iraq.

The original mistake W made by going into Iraq was to make Iran's life easier by taking down the biggest regional rival/problem.

The compounding of that mistake by now sitting back and let Iran giftwrap about half of Iraq to itself is significantly worse. The original Bush idea was Iraq emerging from the mess as an entity, and a return to its position as a balance/counter to Iran.

That was plausible, if not brilliantly so. I am not sure President Obama and his national security team have been watching the long game.

We'll see.

It's early yet.

BenThere
12th Jun 2014, 19:32
The original Bush idea was Iraq emerging from the mess as an entity

That was the vision, and it was correct, but it didn't play out. The West bailed on Bush and the objective could not be achieved after that.

President Obama's administration wasn't and isn't equipped to apply strategy. His is an ideological regime, hostile to any sort of policy that might enhance the strategic position of the West.

We're going to have to wait at least two more years for the West to once again act in its own interest. Given the makeup of the US electorate and the trends, I'm not hopeful.

FakePilot
12th Jun 2014, 19:41
And since when has the US supplied anyone with AK-47s?

I think there were some sales coordinated using US money. Remember the shipment of weapons the UK wouldn't allow in their ports because OH NO GUNS!

I also recall hearing someone got into big trouble spending lots of money on old ammunition in poor quality.

7.62x39mm was hard to get for a time there because "it was all being sold to Iraq and Afghan allies" - eh, wouldn't believe that one.

Anyway, corrections welcome.

Lonewolf_50
12th Jun 2014, 19:43
That was the vision, and it was correct, but it didn't play out. The West bailed on Bush and the objective could not be achieved after that.
Ben, to be a fair, there was no small amount of dumbfurkery executed by our "Decider" and his team to where no matter how much help we got, there was rot in the foundation of that plan and its execution. My own experiences in that area left me both bitter and angry at some of the willfully "blinders on" policy formulation that went in to that whole enterprise and put the folks on the ground in a difficult to impossible position.

We're going to have to wait at least two more years for the West to once again act in its own interest. Given the makeup of the US electorate and the trends, I'm not hopeful. The West are too busy doing other things.

500N
12th Jun 2014, 19:46
Fake

All ammunition was hard to get for a while.

But yes, they purchased some ammo ex Europe I think that caused some issue or other.

rgbrock1
12th Jun 2014, 19:51
LW50 wrote:

Ben, to be a fair, there was no small amount of dumbfurkery executed by our "Decider" and his team to where no matter how much help we got, there was rot in the foundation of that plan and its execution. My own experiences in that area left me both bitter and angry at some of the willfully "blinders on" policy formulation that went in to that whole enterprise and put the folks on the ground in a difficult to impossible position.

Paul Bremer comes foremost to mind, and his little dumb ass game of skull-drudgery.

con-pilot
12th Jun 2014, 19:55
Fake

Anyway, corrections welcome.

I already corrected my statement a few posts back. Post 77 to be exact.

Cheers.

BenThere
12th Jun 2014, 19:57
Paul Bremer was a mistake. Sticking around to fix Iraq was a mistake. Of course, that's all clear now.

Should have eliminated Hussein and let the local Iraqis deal with it.

Should have eliminated the Taliban and let the local Afghans deal with it.

Lonewolf_50
12th Jun 2014, 20:11
Yes, RG, Bremer was not our brightest star, but before we ever crossed the line of departure, and after General Shinseki got his invitation to piss off after doing the staff work and telling Rummy what it would take to get the job done (250,000 US troops), the post conflict phase planning for "what to do in areas after 'liberation' and Saddam is gone" was horrific, starting at the top. Rummy and Cheney and Bush, and to another extent JSC, and General Shelton, did a lot of "hope as a method" when an actual fully integrated plan (with State and others) is what was needed. Yes, it's hard work, very very hard, but that is what is needed if you are going to do such things.

I'll stop. It's been ten years since I was actively involved in the various sequels to that OPlan and all the FRAG orders and such ... :mad::mad::mad:

I thought I was over that, but it still frosts my nuts.

Ben, I think you oversimplify. I'll leave it at that.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jun 2014, 20:12
Paul Bremer was a mistake. Sticking around to fix Iraq was a mistake. Of course, that's all clear now.

It was all clear then.

Every man and his dog with half a brain (i.e. Jack Russells and above) wanted to know what the out plan was before we started. Answer came there none - because, as we now know, there was none.

Dushan
12th Jun 2014, 20:12
Fox3:

Which, of course, fell on deaf Odumbo ears.

Hey, hey, hey, didn't you get the memo about "no jokes about his ears"?

Boudreaux Bob
12th Jun 2014, 20:16
Look at the bright side of all this folks. The Shia's have a strong base of experienced combat soldiers to draw from who most gained that experience fighting US Forces.

If they care about their own welfare, which they better considering the murderous SOB's that are coming for them, they will stand up and fight. If they do they might lose their Heads but if they do not they surely will lose their Heads.

There is no shortage of weapons to fight with for either side so perhaps this is an occasion where this might just be sorted out once and for all in Iraq.

The crisis for Obama is choosing which side to support in this. He is already supporting the Opposition to Assad in Syria which alas is the Opposition to the Iraqi Maliki Government. He can help topple both governments and make nice with the Iranians out of the deal as he has shown no support for the Opposition to the Iranian Government in the past has he?

So that means he can make Dubya look like a Small Boy when it comes to toppling Middle East Governments. He can add Syria and Iraq to Libya and Egypt.

Lonewolf_50
12th Jun 2014, 20:18
The Arab Spring has sprung, and the sap is running, currently toward Baghdad.

Maybe this was the plan all along? :confused:

Boudreaux Bob
12th Jun 2014, 20:21
What shall the Saudi's do now?

Call for a second chorus of "Onward Christian Soldiers"?

Lonewolf_50
12th Jun 2014, 20:22
The Saudis will keep sending support to ISIS. It is in their interest to do so. A conservative Sunni presence in Iraq is better for them than a liberal or conservative Shia presence.

That seems to be how they see the world.

500N
12th Jun 2014, 20:23
"He can help topple both governments"


Not going to happen.

con-pilot
12th Jun 2014, 20:34
It doesn't look like the Syrian rebels are going to win in toppling Assad, with Russia and China supporting him, so they are going into Iraq.

Unless Iran sends in enough forces to stop them or Obama sends in massive US air support (very doubtful), they will succeed. Even if Obama does send in massive air support, they know he'll soon withdraw that support and they’ll just start over anyway. So it is really up to Iran.

At least that's my opinion.

500N
12th Jun 2014, 20:36
Agree re it's up to Iran

And Iran has the numbers of troops to do it plus they won't restrict them with stupid ROE's so they can let loose.

If Iran goes in boots and all, then ISIS will lose.

But the US won't be happy.

RatherBeFlying
12th Jun 2014, 20:37
Iran did not have to so much as lift a finger as GWB did them the great favor of toppling Saddam and putting the Shi'as mostly in charge of Iraq.

Right now ISIS looks to be a serious threat to the Shi'as running Baghdad; so no surprise Iran will pitch in to help out its good buddies in Baghdad. I will not be surprised to see more Iranian support routing across Iraq to its buddies in Syria and Lebanon.

Perhaps the best hope will be a redrawing of the botched up lines put down on the map in Versailles in 1919 so that the various local populations have rulers they support.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jun 2014, 20:42
The "botched lines" were put on the map in 1921 in Cairo, mostly by Gertrude Bell
Gertrude Bell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertrude_Bell#Creation_of_Iraq)

Cacophonix
12th Jun 2014, 20:45
Yeah, it is all Odumbo's fault...:)

Have a drink with me and let's wrestle outside...


Caco

con-pilot
12th Jun 2014, 21:02
Yeah, it is all Odumbo's fault...

Ya gots to a lot farther back than Obama to figure out whose fault this mess is old buddy.

Have a drink with me and let's wrestle outside...


The drink ya got, but I don't wrestle anymore, too old and I never did in the first place.

Besides that, I'm like Jack Reacher, "Go outside, nonsense, I'll stop this dead in its tracks right here and now." :p

Cacophonix
12th Jun 2014, 21:11
Besides that, I'm like Jack Reacher, "Go outside, nonsense, I'll stop this dead in its tracks right here and now." :p

"Dogarn honey, he is from Oklahoma! He won't shoot you...!

"He might hun, he might....! :ok:


J.J.CALE - Friday - YouTube


Caco

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jun 2014, 21:20
Besides that, I'm like Jack Reacher
:eek: What? A foot shorter than everyone thought you were, and a Scientology freak?

;)

Boudreaux Bob
12th Jun 2014, 21:24
Now you don't think a Brit will ever admit the British played some small role in all this do you?:=

Them and their European Cousins and their fiddling about in their colonial shenanigans could not possibly have had anything to do with creating future problems by their map drawing exercises.:rolleyes:

Cacophonix
12th Jun 2014, 21:28
Now you don't think a Brit will ever admit the British played some small role in all this do you?:=

Hell no man. We are like women, we don't fart, sweat or stink... you just gotta love us....

:eek:

Battle of New Orleans, In 1814 - YouTube

Caco

con-pilot
12th Jun 2014, 21:37
What? A foot shorter than everyone thought you were, and a Scientology freak?


Good God, what a farce that movie was. I’ve got the 6 foot, 6 inches bit, but I don’t have the 250 pounds of muscles. The last time I was 250 pounds, it wasn’t all muscles, not even close.

But down to 223 now, still not all muscle though. :(

As for religion, the only church I belong to is the Sacred Lady of the Single Malt Scotch. :p

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jun 2014, 21:40
Oh, come on Bob. It was this ex-Brit who just told you it was Gertrude Bell who drew the lines, on this page! post#110

Con - I'll drink to that - Dalwhinnie.

Boudreaux Bob
12th Jun 2014, 22:35
Walter calls it for Obama!

Biden Once Called Iraq One of Obama's 'Great Achievements' | The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-once-called-iraq-one-obamas-great-achievments_794909.html)



Fox,

I think you are far more Canadian than British in your thinking!:ok:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jun 2014, 22:39
Bob - I've always thought so too, and it's why I emigrated. As of 3 weeks ago,I am a Canadian.

Boudreaux Bob
12th Jun 2014, 23:01
Congratulations Sir!

Tis no small decision that!

Things keep going like they are down here and I might just join you oop North!

Cacophonix
12th Jun 2014, 23:10
this ex-Brit

There is no such thing!

As an Afrikaans speaking human being it was my Anglo snob, now dead, SA mom that taught me that!

Caco

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jun 2014, 23:15
Caco - there is now!

Bob - You'll be very welcome, and not the first! Slavery, draft-dodging, same sex marriage, snow fetish, a desire to win an Olympic hockey tournament ;) - there's a million reasons.

RatherBeFlying
13th Jun 2014, 01:32
Well good folks are always welcome in Canada, but US persons need to be aware that getting free of the clutches of the IRS will take some ten plus years.

I believe you need to be legally resident in Canada three years before you can apply for citizenship; add two years for bureaucratic backlog. Then you need to work out with State and IRS that in taking out Canadian citizenship, you intend to relinquish US nationality.

Very convoluted and prolonged process. Remember that you must file with the IRS seven years after US citizenship is terminated.

RatherBeFlying
13th Jun 2014, 03:25
So after the grotesquerie of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 suicide killers of 9/11, meet Saudi Arabia’s latest monstrous contribution to world history: the Islamist Sunni caliphate of Iraq and the Levant, conquerors of Mosul and Tikrit – and Raqqa in Syria – and possibly Baghdad, and the ultimate humiliators of Bush and Obama.Iraq crisis: Sunni caliphate has been bankrolled by Saudi Arabia - Voices - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/iraq-crisis-sunni-caliphate-has-been-bankrolled-by-saudi-arabia-9533396.html)

BenThere
13th Jun 2014, 04:24
We gave the people of Iraq the chance to vote and determine their government. That's about all you can do for a nation.

What is happening now is the application of power. If the people of Iraq don't sustain the power of the ballot vs. the power of the bullet, as they must if they want democracy, they will have to accept the consequences.

I'm seeing a continued future of civil war in Iraq. Sunni vs. Shia for control. The Kurds, if they defend their territory, will come out ahead, maybe even coming out of this with a Kurdish state. I'm all for that.

sitigeltfel
13th Jun 2014, 05:09
We gave the people of Iraq the chance to vote and determine their government.

The notion that democracy was ever going to take hold in an Arab state was a failed premise.

piperboy84
13th Jun 2014, 05:29
Would I be correct in saying that the folks that are beheading their way towards Baghdad right now much to the consternation of the West, are the same folks that Hague in the UK and Sen. McCain and Rep Engle in the US were demanding we arm to the teeth several months back when they were up to the same shit in Syria?

Effluent Man
13th Jun 2014, 06:05
Exactly.I can't help thinking that an airstrike on that column of guys sitting in the back of open Toyota 4x4's would be quite simple.

500N
13th Jun 2014, 06:27
Agree.

A 2000lb bomb in UHF Middle or multiple of those small LG 250 lb bombs on each one.

Maybe an opportunity list ?

piperboy84
13th Jun 2014, 06:29
I was reading an article where an opinion was expressed that Obama will go thru the motions of threatening the ISIS, but in reality, the US/Israeli goals for iraq are aligned with that of the ISIS, specifically a soft partitioned Iraq with Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions and a very weak national government, with neither region having the interest and/or the strength to take over the other.

Who says divide and conquer was dead ? Rule Britannia

chuks
13th Jun 2014, 09:23
There was a recent article on Iraq in the New Yorker, "What we left behind," that details just how we put al-Maliki in power. It was another one of those, "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time!" The legitimate winner of the election, al-Allawi, albeit more of a moderate, was not so well liked by Iran, being a Sunni or something, so that we helped rig things to put al-Malaki in power. Then, of course, al-Malaki set out to persecute all his enemies imagined or real, with the results we are now seeing.

Not to worry, Barack has everything all figured out. A few air strikes and "Bob's your uncle!" Well, something like that anyway .... I bet he's on the Hot Line to Don Rumsfeld, getting some advice, even as I write this.

Solid Rust Twotter
13th Jun 2014, 10:59
Shouldn't have come as a surprise Mr Chuks. After all, the west did exactly the same thing re putting Mugabe in charge of Zim, despite Muzorewa being the preferred candidate.

LGW Vulture
13th Jun 2014, 11:08
Here we go.......

BBC News - Iraq conflict: Sistani 'issues' Shia call to arms against militants (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27834462)

And the last line which is the most interesting ..........

"The US and Iran have promised to help the fight against the insurgency."

Iran is coming in from the cold quicker than you can say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
13th Jun 2014, 11:37
"The US and Iran have promised to help the fight against the insurgency."

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

So much for:
"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States.

Boudreaux Bob
13th Jun 2014, 12:36
the US/Israeli goals for iraq are aligned with that of the ISIS, specifically a soft partitioned Iraq with Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions and a very weak national government, with neither region having the interest and/or the strength to take over the other.

The stumbling block to that concept has always been the sharing of the Oil Revenues as it is not evenly distributed throughout the country. Add in the Turkish reluctance to see anything good happen to the Kurds and it gets a bit awkward yet again.

rh200
13th Jun 2014, 13:05
The Turks and Iranians will never allow a Kurdish state. The Kurds are smart enough to know this, so hence the best they can hope for is a democratic Iraqi with some self rule.

Kefuddle
13th Jun 2014, 13:17
Afghanistan is one of the most challenging places in the world to be a woman:

Many women die in pregnancy and childbirth: 460 deaths/100,000 live births (2010)

85% of women have no formal education and are illiterate.

Female 3rd level students as a % of Total: 18.0%

Total live births per woman - average of 6

1 out 10 children die before their fifth birthday.

Life expectancy for women is 51.

From what I have seen in Kabul, most men are illiterate, look 80 when 50 and are obviously just as likely to die before their fifth birthday. There is no other way to say it, life in Afghanistan is just difficult, harsh and plain medieval. Get through that I and suppose the survivors (male and female) might seccum to violence too.

tony draper
13th Jun 2014, 13:21
You can tell they are taking these events seriously both our news channels are leading it over the earlier lead news story that some arsole film star has broke his ankle.
:rolleyes:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
13th Jun 2014, 13:47
Harrison Ford is not a total arse

HARRISON FORD: Just Another Pilot - YouTube

BenThere
13th Jun 2014, 15:15
Very cool video.

Mr. Ford expresses the tug of flying I think most pilots have felt very well, and with what comes across as sincere humility.

Jackson (Hole), Wyoming is a beautiful spot, and he has the good fortune to live and fly there. I've been told he is also a volunteer fire-fighter locally.

I also liked the DH-2 Beaver footage. I've had one seaplane landing in my life, and it was in a Beaver at Lake Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, not too far from where this video was made.

Thanks for posting it, Fox.:ok:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
13th Jun 2014, 15:29
I thought it made a pleasant break from terror, and a reminder of why we need to avoid it - guess how much general aviation there is in Iraq/Iran, etc?

Hoping to build a kit seaplane in the next 18 months & renew my ASES.


Now, back to mass killings & religious nutters.

rgbrock1
13th Jun 2014, 15:37
What is all this talk about ISIS and the Sunni sect? ISIS is not Sunni or Shia influenced but Wahhabi. That is what makes the current situation even more ominous than it is.

Lonewolf_50
13th Jun 2014, 15:40
Too bad the Iraqi Air Force has not gotten airborne to engage in a few airstrikes against those columns of baddies heading towards Baghdad.

Wait a sec, the Iraqi Air Force seems to be a work in progress ... :ugh:

piperboy84
13th Jun 2014, 17:13
Sounds like what Iraq really needs, is someone to rule it like a dictator, perhaps someone with a bit of military background who seen a bit action in his youth,who has proved that hes not afraid to come down on people like a hammer when need be, the kind of guy that is a fierce nationalist that insists on the territorial integrity and unity of Iraq without sectarian breakaway regions, someone the masses can rally round who when giving boisterous speeches fires of a few rounds in the air, someone who when faced with the hangman does not shit himself but starts calling them a bunch of c**ts

But where, just where could we possibly found such a guy?

con-pilot
13th Jun 2014, 17:30
President Obama, remember him, the guy that promised to pull all US troops out of harms way in Iraq, well he just said, in a round about way, that he is considering using US airpower to assist the Iraqi government.

Which bring up a situation that perhaps our President may not have thought of. As Iran has decided to come to the aid of the Iraqi government by sending in its Revolutionary Guard to fight the ISIS, if we send in air power, we will actually be helping Iran.

Something to think about. I wonder if Obama has. :p

RatherBeFlying
13th Jun 2014, 18:57
if we send in air power, we will actually be helping IranThe biggest favor done to Iran was toppling Saddam.

If I were ISIS I would be seriously concerned about being the turkeys in a reenactment of the Highway of Death at the end of GWI.

ISIS has acquired a lot of weaponry and vehicles that Central Command may advise need destroying.

piperboy84
13th Jun 2014, 19:20
RBF
I think that is exactly what is going to happen but will it be Centcom or the Iranians doing the shoot up

West Coast
13th Jun 2014, 20:59
No matter what you like or dislike, the past can't be undone.

It's Obama's now to do something with.

con-pilot
13th Jun 2014, 21:11
President Bush, remember him?

President Johnson, remember him? His lie only caused the deaths of 59,000 US Military Servicemen and women.

The ball is in Obama's court now and he can't find it.

And to switch metaphors, if he does find the ball, he's sure to fumble it given his track record.

RatherBeFlying
13th Jun 2014, 21:13
“Sykes-Picot is dead,” Walid Jumblatt roared at me last night – and he may well be right.

The Lebanese Druze leader – who fought in a 15-year civil war that redrew the map of Lebanon – believes that the new battles for Sunni Muslim jihadi control of northern and eastern Syria and western Iraq have finally destroyed the post-World War Anglo-French conspiracy, hatched by Mark Sykes and François Picot, which divided up the old Ottoman Middle East into Arab statelets controlled by the West.

The Islamic Caliphate of Iraq and Syria has been fought into existence – however temporarily – by al-Qa’ida-affiliated Sunni fighters who pay no attention to the artificial borders of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon or Jordan, or even mandate Palestine, created by the British and French. Their capture of the city of Mosul only emphasises the collapse of the secret partition plan which the Allies drew up in the First World War – for Mosul was sought after for its oil wealth by both Britain and France...Robert Fisk: The old partition of the Middle East is dead. I dread to think what will follow - Middle East - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/robert-fisk-the-old-partition-of-the-middle-east-is-dead-i-dread-to-think-what-will-follow-9536467.html)

garp
13th Jun 2014, 21:57
The following link shows what is going on there, it's beyond comprehension and the really scary thing is that part of those young men actually grew up in our Western society. Absolutely NSFW
LiveLeak.com - Horror in Iraqi Roads - Isis Death Squads Killing without mercy. Video not for all (18+)

Fox3WheresMyBanana
13th Jun 2014, 22:01
"Islam is a religion of Peace"

500N
13th Jun 2014, 22:07
Seeing how they went around systematically killing the police at home and implanting sharia law, yep, those in the west who support these people need their head read.

rh200
13th Jun 2014, 22:50
What is all this talk about ISIS and the Sunni sect? ISIS is not Sunni or Shia influenced but Wahhabi. That is what makes the current situation even more ominous than it is.

Thats because its generally regarded as an extremist offshoot of Sunni. There is no mystery in that, the Christian side of things has the same issue with Catholics, Protestants and extreme offshoots.

For those who moan and groan about these people hating each other, shall I point west of pommy land. If its that hard to keep a group of so called "civilized white" people from descending into chaos, should we be pointing fingers.

airship
13th Jun 2014, 23:02
Before we discuss the issue any further, I think it's important to decide whether the enemy is ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) or ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant). FWIW, most of the western news agencies (eg. CNN, Sk, BBC etc.) call it ISIS, but Al Jazeera call it ISIL.

Whatever they're really called, ISIS / ISIL seem to be very close to being able to declare a state, with admittedly constantly varying borders at the present time. Not that any country (apart from perhaps North Korea) is prepared to recognise them.

But what should we call this new (if merely temporal) state?

ISISIA?
ISISTAN?
ISILIA?
ISILSTAN?
SYRIRAQ?

My own favourites would also include:

MISSIONACCOMPLISHEDISTAN, HALLIBURTONIA, CHENEYSTAN or KBRISTANIA.

If we're going to be sending in (whatever Obama has said) a few squadrons of A-10s, cruise missiles, Predator drones etc., the least we should do is to call the enemy and their intended new nation by their real and proper names before removing their presence from the planet's surface...?! :(

Fox3WheresMyBanana
13th Jun 2014, 23:05
Airship
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is also commonly referred to as The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The acronym's last letter is open to interpretation because the last word in Arabic, "al-Sham," can mean the Levant, Syria or even Damascus in some instances.
Courtesy of CBC

RatherBeFlying
13th Jun 2014, 23:30
Jinsastan
Pnacistan
Aipacistan
These folks all pushed for regime change in Iraq and rightfully their brainchild deserves to bear their name:E

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and Project for the New American Century employed the eminent folks who authored the agenda to oust Saddam before they moved on to high places in the Bush II regime.

America Israel Political Action Committee commands the obedience of the US Congress. Those who don't don't get reelected:uhoh:

mini
13th Jun 2014, 23:47
Bush Senior was no fool, he knew when to stop. GW1 was needed and done. The fallout contained Saddam et al.

Bush Junior (and more so his corrupt cabinet) was a f*ckwit operation par excellence, they succeeded in opening Pandora's box, for local gains.

Short term commercial gain at the expense of a geo-political time bomb that needed to be unwound gently.

Greed f*cks the man in the street yet again...

The "man in the street" is not only the average Iraqi, doing his best for his family etc, but also the thousands of American soldiers who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

Lebanese history would be a good starting point for the uninitiated.

airship
13th Jun 2014, 23:48
RatherBeFlying and Fox3WheresMyBanana, Wikipedia describes the Levant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant) as: The Levant today consists of the island of Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and part of southern Turkey (the former Aleppo Vilayet).

So if ISIS are ISIS, they're only concerned with Syria and Iraq, and not bothered about the other countries.
But if ISIS are ISIL, they're also after Cyprus, Israel, Lebanon and even parts of Turkey...?!

That's a major difference. Maybe that's why the West has done little if nothing to support anti-Syrian President al-Assad Bashar's regime for the past 3 years or so? Our Western leaders have perhaps finally come round to the idea that "getting rid" of Iraq's Sadaam Hussein so precipitously a decade ago was a bad mistake, not to be repeated...?!

Fox3WheresMyBanana
13th Jun 2014, 23:57
Doesn't matter what we think al-Sham means, just what they think it means.
If it's their usual blah, then it's a Sunni Caliphate now, covering basically whatever they can get, and tomorrow the World.
I don't think clarifying their objectives is a major concern for them right now, nor perhaps is it even in their interests to do so.

airship
14th Jun 2014, 00:07
Well, it's usually Sunni thereabouts. But the situation is increasingly turning to Shite. I wouldn't mind so much, except the reporters employed by western news agencies have problems even making a difference between the 2. They're all Arabs, Islamists and especially terrorists, and that's all most Westerners need to know about it all...?! :}

BenThere
14th Jun 2014, 00:21
I'm surprised you have such a myopic view, airship. I had thought better of you once upon a time.

Wahhabis are Sunni, by the way; like Methodists are Protestants.

airship
14th Jun 2014, 01:00
Well, BenThere, the average daily temp. there currently is in the high 30°s (C). So really quite hot. Even here in the south of France it's quite warm (at or around 30°C) in the afternoons. But rain is expected here later this weekend which should result in airship better conforming to your opinions of him later...?! :ok:

PS. Pity the Muslims in Northern Ireland then - should they raise their voice in protestation? Or keep a low profile, methodically increasing their ultimate voice by grace of a higher reproductive rate? Whatever, at least we're a long way away from the bad ole days when the IRA prisoners covered the walls of their prison cells with their own Shite, and you (the USA) supported them with US$ bills...?!

BenThere
14th Jun 2014, 01:08
They're all Arabs, Islamists and especially terrorists, and that's all most Westerners need to know about it all...?!

With the extra qualifier that they're cutting off heads and executing thousands as we post.

airship
14th Jun 2014, 01:35
With the extra qualifier that they're cutting off heads and executing thousands as we post. Is that just what you've heard and read in the media? Any substance to any of it? Simply put, if these ISIS / ISIL are just a few thousands in number, I find it hard to believe that they're really so productive, so as to be able to so efficiently decapitate and kill foes literally in their thousands. Or have they been taking lessons from the Germans or Japanese factories or production methods? Otherwise, it all sounds more like simple propoganda (disappointingly, there is some evidence that even our Western governments and media are increasingly amenable to cooperate on some subjects).

Looks like everyone is willing to give the Iranians the "green light" to intervene on the ground. Let their combat troops on the ground take the brunt why not. When are we going to put sanctions in place against Saudi support in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere for a change...?! :uhoh:

BenThere
14th Jun 2014, 01:54
OK, airship. How many beheadings does it take to rise to the level you would call an atrocity? If you must you can differentiate how many if committed by the West vs. Islamic head cutters.

You want sanctions on the Saudis? Go for it! I'm in.

Boudreaux Bob
14th Jun 2014, 02:01
Screw the Middle East Head Loppers.....lets just look south of our Border into Mexico. The Drug Cartels are doing a fair old job of that themselves! Yet the American Media is blind, deaf, and dumb over those stories. Well over a Hundred Thousand dead in the Drug violence down there is it now and not a damn peep out of our Government or Media.

Yet our Border is secure they tell us yet we are being over run by Kids as young as three years old.

Somehow I just do not believe my government or the Liberal Media.

AtomKraft
14th Jun 2014, 02:11
garp.
That's a dreadful series of events in that clip.

Are these folk just picked at random?

Terrible.:sad:

BenThere
14th Jun 2014, 02:39
Life is cheap in Iraq, Pakistan, wherever militant Islam brushes against people simply trying to survive, make a living, raise their children, etc.

The drive-by murder depicted on garp's video is gut wrenching. Were the cars they attacked enemies or was it random murder?

Boudreaux Bob
14th Jun 2014, 03:38
Several Months ago this video surfaced and shows just how easy it is to get killed by failing to know your Religion 101 when quizzed.

Al Qaeda Jihadis on Iraqi Border Execute Syrian Truck Drivers | Clarion Project (http://www.clarionproject.org/news/al-qaeda-iraqi-border-execute-syrian-truck-drivers)

Hempy
14th Jun 2014, 04:35
I don't know why people 'blame' GWB for this mess, he was too stupid to think anything like this up.

No. This is your man. "Under Secretary of Defense for Policy" under GHWB 1989-1993, "Deputy Secretary of Defense" under GWB 2001-2005. President, World Bank, 2005-2007.

Paul Wolfowitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Wolfowitz)

In his position responsible for policy under Bush Snr he came up with the Wolfowitz Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolfowitz_Doctrine), which essentially made preemptive invasion of Sovereign States official US policy (as opposed to a Presidential mandate..)

In his position as Rumsfeld's right hand man under Bush Jnr he was the creative talent and driving force behind the Iraq invasion.

Wolfowitz's idea was initially rejected, at the behest of Secretary of State Colin Powell, but, according to Kampfner, "Undeterred Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz held secret meetings about opening up a 'second front'—against Saddam. Powell was excluded." In such meetings they created a policy that would later be dubbed the Bush Doctrine, centering on "pre-emption" and a war on Iraq

The Brits have a right to blame Blair, he made his own decisions. GWB just signed the paperwork...

jolihokistix
14th Jun 2014, 04:54
Sometime after we were married, my wife shouted at me in frustration one day, "Stop being logical all the time!"

Perhaps the West's greatest sin was to attempt to apply logic to the Middle East, a more emotive world.

In that sense we all bear some blame.

The questions now are surely what the think-tanks on each side are planning long-term.

What is Israel thinking in its advice to the US? To set Iran against ISIL/ISIS and hope for sustainable fission? What are the Iranian strategists planning, to annex southern Iraq into a Greater Iran?

jolihokistix
14th Jun 2014, 05:10
In this sense, "The War on Terror" is a tragic misnomer, since the fighters/terrorists take it as a declaration of war against Islam, and a perfect rallying cry for gullible new recruits.

Although it is not in reality a war against Islam, and there is no pattern of attacks on Islam per se in most of the world, the recruiters are able to use it to point out Mohammed's justification of taking up and usage of arms to repel attack on the followers of his beliefs.

So, what should it be called?

garp
14th Jun 2014, 07:18
garp.
That's a dreadful series of events in that clip.

Are these folk just picked at random?

Terrible.:sad:

Life is cheap in Iraq, Pakistan, wherever militant Islam brushes against people simply trying to survive, make a living, raise their children, etc.

The drive-by murder depicted on garp's video is gut wrenching. Were the cars they attacked enemies or was it random murder?

I came across that clip by pure coincidence and am as shocked as anyone else.

parabellum
14th Jun 2014, 11:01
Right now it wouldn't surprise me if the Western 'heads' were together and working out how they can best insert people to motivate the Iraqis to take out the rebel leaders, (or do it themselves even), once the rebels become leaderless they will just become a rabble that even the Iraqis should be able to mop up. Arabs must have leaders, they can't function without, democracy is a word none of them understand and few, if any, want democracy.

Ethel the Aardvark
14th Jun 2014, 12:45
What's the difference between a terrorist training camp and a primary school?
"I don't know, I just fly the drones"
How too win over the locals 101 :ugh:

uffington sb
14th Jun 2014, 17:14
BB and garp.

What horrific videos. Poor truckers shot to death on the roadside because of not knowing how many times to kneel during prayers.

Still, according to CMD, "Islam is the religion of peace"

modtinbasher
14th Jun 2014, 18:22
What is the difference between an ordinary animal and a human animal? ordinary animals only kill to live. This load of animal excrement kill for amusement, or religion, whichever is the most pressing at the time, and they have been invited to come to a town near you! Thanks Thaggie, B Grown, T B Liar, Camerooon, DibLem no-hopers and the rest of you expensive load of ****S.

con-pilot
14th Jun 2014, 22:21
President Obama has ordered the USS George HW Bush Aircraft Carrier and its carrier Task Force to move closer to Iraq.


AOL.com Article - Hagel orders US aircraft carrier to Persian Gulf (http://www.aol.com/article/2014/06/14/hagel-orders-us-aircraft-carrier-to-persian-gulf/20912607/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D488689)

I wonder if they will be looking for a red line?

Cacophonix
14th Jun 2014, 22:29
Guys, what did we expect when started this stuff years ago?

The US could send in the Nimitz, I could hold my breath till I go blue and cold. Obomber will send in some drones and kill people and nothing will change. What kind of schmucks are we?

Caco

radeng
14th Jun 2014, 22:30
20 years ago, a lot of us were saying George Bush senior was mistaken in stopping when he did, rather than have US forces press on to Baghdad and get rid of Saddam.

I am now moving to think that Bush Senior (or his advisors) were wiser than we thought, in that having Saddam, repulsive as he was, at least brought stability, and in many ways, the majority of Iraquis were better off under a repressive but stable regime than what they have now - and what they are likely to get. To what extent is the Joe Public better off in Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya than they were? It is sad that the wisdom didn't rub off on his son....

Thus the cartoon showing the two of them talking, and Bush senior saying to Bush junior "You made the same mistake that I did with your mother - I didn't pull out in time".

I see Bush Senior has just made a parachute jump. I hope he lives well into his next century, and when he does die, he dies peacefully and painlessly in his sleep, not having lost any mental or physical abilities in the meantime.

But I'd like to see that for every American President, whether or not I agree with their policies....

Cacophonix
14th Jun 2014, 22:36
The Bush family and Blair are the biggest bunch of idiots we have had to deal with since Hitler. Add Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and all the other idiots (both American and English) who have gotten us into this corner and we should string up multiple gallows...

Caco

500N
14th Jun 2014, 22:40
radeng

Re pushing on, they had no authority to do that then - and it would have fractured the coalition if they did, plus kicking someone in the butt and out of an area is a whole different ball game to attacking and holding a huge area of ground against what was still an active although diminished army.

The sheer planning for the second part would have been huge and the logistics even larger, neither of which I think the US or coalition was set up for.

And as you say, maybe they were smarter than everyone thought !

Cacophonix
14th Jun 2014, 22:44
You know until I saw the utter baloney that Radeng has just posted I took him seriously. I am sure he knows his electronics but now I know that it is it!

Caco

Effluent Man
14th Jun 2014, 23:07
I agree with everything he said. The "Arab Spring" has been an unmitigated disaster.

Cacophonix
14th Jun 2014, 23:20
I agree with everything he said. The "Arab Spring" has been an unmitigated disaster.

There is no spring or hope in "Arabia" at the moment.

If Radeng really thinks that Sadaam should have be been left in power then so do I. America panicked when he, Sadaam, talked of using gold or the euro to replace the $ as the oil currency. They came, they saw, they killed and they have lost the plot.

That's why the Chinese will replace the dollar with the renminbi in the oilfoelds and with their growing interest in the Iraqi oilfields they will be the true arbiters of what happens there.

What a god damned **** up!

Radeng, sorry if I came on so strong. I agree with your primary thesis perhaps but less with your conclusions.

Caco

500N
14th Jun 2014, 23:24
Caco

"That's why the Chinese will replace the dollar with the renminbi in the oilfoelds and with their growing interest in the Iraqi oilfields they will be the true arbiters of what happens there.":


China can't destabilize the US $ too much, they have too much of it themselves and as such, all it will do is lower the value of what they have.

Plus, why devalue the currency of one of China's biggest trading partners ????

Boudreaux Bob
14th Jun 2014, 23:50
20 years ago, a lot of us were saying George Bush senior was mistaken in stopping when he did, rather than have US forces press on to Baghdad and get rid of Saddam.

No, not all of us were saying that at all.

I and some others said after we cleaned out Baghdad we should have cleaned out Syria on our way to the Med to load up our equipment and take it home.

We should have practiced modern mobile warfare and done the job right the first time.

Cacophonix
14th Jun 2014, 23:54
500, I will try once more (my last post seems to have been lost by this fine, unbiased forum).

Look who is running the big oil fields out there. Mostly the Chinese with some big Yankee dollars.

Go figure!

Caco

500N
15th Jun 2014, 00:03
Caco

I don't dispute that, in fact China was the big beneficiary of the War.

You said
"America panicked when he, Sadaam, talked of using gold or the euro to replace the $ as the oil currency. They came, they saw, they killed and they have lost the plot.

That's why the Chinese will replace the dollar with the renminbi in the oilfoelds and with their growing interest in the Iraqi oilfields they will be the true arbiters of what happens there."


Which I read as Saddam wanted to replace the US$ and got sh#t canned for it and now China was doing the same but with the renminb.

My comment was they can't do too much to the US$ as it will hurt them big time and frankly, in the big picture view, what does China gain from destabilizing or devaluing the US$, IMHO, not much. It has bigger fish to fry at this point in time.

Wholigan
15th Jun 2014, 00:14
(my last post seems to have been lost by this fine, unbiased forum)

With due respect Caco --- bolleaux!

No posts have been removed in the last 2 pages of this thread. At least one of yours should have been though as it is a personal insult!

Perhaps you are "confused" enough tonight to think you had posted it but maybe didn't!

Signed --- this fine, unbiased forum.

500N
15th Jun 2014, 00:22
Caco

I often wondered with some of your postings (or non postings ;)) if you were on drugs and hallucinated, Wholigan has just confirmed it :O :p

RatherBeFlying
15th Jun 2014, 01:17
The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314)

When you can't pay your $300,000 mortgage, you have a problem. When you can't pay a $300,000,000 mortgage, your bank has a problem;)

So What If China Has $1.32 Trillion In U.S. Treasuries? It Still Can't Crash America's Economy - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/cedricmuhammad/2014/01/16/so-what-if-china-has-1-32-trillion-in-u-s-treasuries-it-still-cant-crash-americas-economy/)

More accurately one could say China has too many eggs in one basket:uhoh:

One of the factors bringing an end to US involvement was the Europeans putting a halt to T-bill purchases in the '70s. The US dollar was added to the casualty list.

galaxy flyer
15th Jun 2014, 01:33
While I agree with Boudeaux Bob, mostly, I can't help but wonder if the ME isn't a good argument for preventative nuclear war.

Caco would one Brit here admit it was the colonial powers (read: French and British) that caused all this, not the US, the Bush family or the Blairites--the Foreign Office did it. Mr. Sykes and M. Picot, to be exact.

GF

500N
15th Jun 2014, 02:03
GF

Yes, I will. The whole carve up / arbitary lines drawn on a map
were a British / French creation.

Boudreaux Bob
15th Jun 2014, 02:50
No posts have been removed in the last 2 pages of this thread. At least one of yours should have been though as it is a personal insult!

We should be comforted by that should we?

parabellum
15th Jun 2014, 03:55
I often wondered with some of your postings (or non postings ;)) if you were on drugs and hallucinated, Wholigan has just confirmed itNaaah. Caco has yet to learn the golden rule that one can't post when pissed.


You can either drink or you can post but, as most of us have discovered, you can't drink AND post! :ok:


Who runs what in Iraq, (not a whole lot of Chinese, it would seem?)


http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2011/12/28/20111228132834721734_20.png

parabellum
15th Jun 2014, 04:06
If the Iranians do come into Iraq, when they have completed the pacification programme, you can expect them to stay in the South East corner, where major oil fields are and where there is territory that has been disputed for decades.

AtomKraft
15th Jun 2014, 04:09
I've only ever been on one protest march, but me, wife kids and dog all went on the 'don't attack Iraq' March in Glasgow before GW2.

Now, I don't consider myself to be the sharpest tool in the box, but I knew it was a crap idea to do GW2. It was a viewpoint that a surprisingly huge number of participants in other marches seemed to have little trouble reaching too.

So, I have no intention of expending any effort in pointless musings about how to fix the situation.

To those who advocated GW2, and you folk know who you are, I say only this.

Gullible.

Hempy
15th Jun 2014, 04:11
Caco would one Brit here admit it was the colonial powers (read: French and British) that caused all this, not the US, the Bush family or the Blairites--the Foreign Office did it. Mr. Sykes and M. Picot, to be exact.

GF

Whilst I can't claim to be a Brit, I will say that if you want to go down that line you may as well blame the Kaiser, the Tzar, and general European sabre rattling in the late 19th/early 20th century. Or Gavrilo Princip if you want to take it that far. After all, if WW1 hadn't happened, and the Ottoman Empire hadn't been defeated REQUIRING some form of settlement between victors, would this be happening now? Why not look all the way back to the Battle of Karbala in 680 AD? It's just as relevant.

This is to say that I think you are being a little limited in your thinking regarding Sykes-Picot...going down that line you'd have to say that the Balfour Declaration was what set the fly in the ointment. That and 1900's Imperial arrogance.

There is a historical trail that defines the current situation. Sykes and Pincot are long dead.

The creation of Israel and the Millennia old argument over Hadith - these are the two separate but connected issues that define the situation in the 'Middle East' in 2014. Same as they have since 1945. It's only the names that change.

To place blame on a specific time, event or policy since then fails to consider the full historical picture. Imo.

Hempy
15th Jun 2014, 04:14
Who runs what in Iraq, (not a whole lot of Chinese, it would seem?)


http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2011/12/28/20111228132834721734_20.png

Take another look at that picture and do some basic maths...

parabellum
15th Jun 2014, 04:44
Picture looked at, Maths done.


So, Halfaya and Rumaila, the local oil companies, ( South Oil Company), will almost certainly have 51%, the 'norm', which leaves the China oil company a share of the remaining 49%, assuming the foreigners take equal shares then China runs about 8% of Iraq's oil output. China are possibly the biggest customer, but that is a whole different ball game.

BOING
15th Jun 2014, 05:57
All the while the US has being playing the outdated game of "taking the enemies capital".
Basra is the key to Iraq, not Baghdad.

Effluent Man
15th Jun 2014, 09:09
Is there in fact an Iraqi air force? I cannot but help thinking that a couple of ground attack aircraft would have solved this ISIS problem.Do they not have any,or did they decide not to use them.and if not,why not?

Boudreaux Bob
15th Jun 2014, 12:07
Atom, I would think those who embraced Obama and his policies are the Gullible among us. That GW2 went fine until the Occupation began is unquestioned despite the Turks refusing to allow US Troops to stage there and enter Iraq from that direction.

Did the Government in the person of Paul Bremer and by default all those senior to him absolutely screw it up is also not in doubt.

When the US Forces left without an adequate SOFA in place and Obama wiping his hands of the place is when the current situation started down the Rat Hole.

Compound all that by the "Lead from Behind" and "Pivot to Asia" policies of Obama and his failure to comprehend what those would do to the Middle East and you have an environment ripe to create what we see happening.

The Iraqi government did its very best to foster such a movement as well by its corruption and actions.

I would suggest the going to War in Iraq the second time was not the big mistake but how it was done was a huge mistake, and how the Obama Administration dealt with the situation was the ultimate and final mistake that set us on the course to where we find ourselves today.

So do be fair when you point your finger identifying who you think is the architect of this failure as it is far more complex than you seem to consider.

Bush haters seem to have that very problem as they cannot see beyond Bush and ignore everything that has happened after Bush. He has been gone from the scene for Six Years now. At which point do the Bush Haters accept that Obama has been the US President for a full Term and half of a second Term.

If Bush is to be held accountable then so should Obama.

onetrack
15th Jun 2014, 13:03
Boudreaux Bob - As aways, the problem with Iraq is the guy selected by the Bush team to run Iraq.
Nouri al-Maliki was the wrong guy. He set about purging his administration of all Sunnis, because he was a Shiite, and he has the knife out with a vengeance for any Sunnis.
If the Bush team had selected a strong, even-handed leader, it might have been a little different story right about now - although the hatreds simmer eternally.

You also seem to conveniently forget the number of GI's who came home from Iraq convinced it was a lost cause, from early on in the piece.

You cannot subdue 1400 yr old bitter, murderous hatreds amongst the most murderous people in the world for very long - despite Bush's claim to have installed democracy in Iraq.
All that's happening now is a settling of scores for the vicious treatment of the Sunnis under al-Maliki.

A wake-up call for the architects of the new Iraq (http://www.watoday.com.au/world/a-wakeup-call-for-the-architects-of-the-new-iraq-20140613-zs6sq.html)

Boudreaux Bob
15th Jun 2014, 14:46
Mass Murders under Maliki?

I do recall Mass Murders under Saddam who was a Sunni.

But as you say, it is just a game of Tit for Tat and a Double Lick on You too as well or so it would appear as it is Sunni's whacking Shia's right now. Once the Shia get their act together it will be Shia's whacking Sunni's and the "beat goes on"!

AtomKraft
15th Jun 2014, 20:17
Boudreaux.

Please!

You can't blame Obama for Bushs' war! I agree Obama's a pussy, but GW2 was a Bush screw up, aided by our own asshole of course.

Just remind me why we attacked Iraq again? I'll wait for your response before posting....

West Coast
15th Jun 2014, 22:31
How simplistic. Blame Bush, blame Bush, no matter what is said, blame Bush.

How were Obama's decisions made regarding the drawdown Bush's fault?

Make an argument beyond "well if Bush had never gone into Iraq".

wdew
15th Jun 2014, 23:04
And once again the ARAB league is dead silent and waiting for the USA and OZ and UK to do their dirty work.

500N
15th Jun 2014, 23:15
Haven't heard much from Saudi Arabia ?

Which I suppose isn't surprising !

RatherBeFlying
16th Jun 2014, 00:25
Haven't heard much from Saudi Arabia ?

Which I suppose isn't surprising !ISIS is doing their talking for them.

Who pays the piper calls the tune;)

AtomKraft
16th Jun 2014, 03:32
Westie.

Really. When it comes to 'simple', your simplistic, right wing view takes some beating.
You've been a consistent supporter of the US policy in Iraq right from the start. You've never wavered in your support for everything that Bush and the neocons did.
Now that it's all turned to shit, as it was predicted to do by lots of us, all you can do is try to deflect some of the blame to another mug, Obama.
Drawdown mistakes? Big deal.
For sure, he gets some of the blame, but frankly he was left such a giant mess to deal with that I'm not sure anything he tried would definitely have worked.

The Iraq war should never have happened. Agree?

Millions, literally millions marched in protest BEFORE it happened. Everyone could see a shitstorm coming. What could ordinary people all over the world see, that was hidden from your beloved instigator of carnage and murder Mr Bush, and you?

Look, you stood up for the war. You backed it, you supported it. So did your pals on here.

Now man up, and admit you were wrong.

sitigeltfel
16th Jun 2014, 05:24
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01808/blair-in-iraq_1808401b.jpg

OK, guys........all sing along now......

"It's been fun but the time has come
To bring down the final curtain move along
Time to face what you know in your heart
That the world keeps on turning, you've lost your part
It is never ending
Take a look if you're not sure at the millions gone before

It's been hard when the going is rough
Or you're many thousand miles away from home
To believe that it's all worthwhile
That it makes the slightest difference in the end
And it gets harder

Will you stay until you're pushed
Or will the day dawn when you're on your own?
You look around
There's only empty rows of chairs
Where once your fair weather friends
Hung on every word that you said

It's been fun but the moment is near
To write down the final chapter turn the page
To be free from the power and the lure
That has pushed from behind and led you on
It is never ending
Take a look if you're not sure at the millions gone before

It's been fun but the time has come
To bring down the final curtain move along
Time to face what you know in your heart
That the world keeps on turning, you've lost your part

It's been hard when the going is rough
Or you're many thousand miles away from home
To believe that it's all worthwhile
That it makes the slightest difference in the end"

500N
16th Jun 2014, 05:27
I see that General Sir Michael Rose has given Tony Blair's letter a severe critique and absolutely shyt canned him.

Always was one for speaking his mind :ok:

Effluent Man
16th Jun 2014, 07:28
My view is that Saddam remaining in place was a bad option.The only problem being that getting rid of him was a worse one.And for me that pretty much sums up the whole ME situation.

The old joke around these parts is the tourist stopping to ask the country yokel directions.The old boy thinks a while then says "Well I wouldn't start from here"

That is pretty much the ME situation all round.I am seriously wondering if Islam,which is clearly at the root of the problem,is a viable religion to exist side by side with any other creed or culture because of it's need to impose it's terms and conditions universally.I know it's a minority but that minority is so aggressive and uncompromising that I am rapidly coming to think that the only solution is some sort of global apartheid.

500N
16th Jun 2014, 07:33
"My view is that Saddam remaining in place was a bad option.The only problem being that getting rid of him was a worse one.And for me that pretty much sums up the whole ME situation."


For years you had Iran tying him up. Then he made a blunder and took Kuwait but was put firmly back in his box, but not firmly enough for some.

However, with Iran on one side and the West on the other, he could have been contained, albeit with having to put up with a fair bit of Loud bellyaching.

But since Iraq II, everywhere has gone to pot.

rh200
16th Jun 2014, 11:26
But since Iraq II, everywhere has gone to pot.

No, since the moron we know have in the white house started encouraging half the middle east to rise up its turned to sh!t.

Iraqi was going along very nicely considering, what do you people think, every one just gets together after a few years and sings lets all live together in a perfect place:ugh: Again, think N.I, all Iraqi needed was a competent military force in the Sunni areas for a couple of decades to act as back stop for the Iraqi forces.

Boudreaux Bob
16th Jun 2014, 11:33
Air Strikes not an answer? Ask Zarkawi if Air Strikes don't sometimes ring the exact right Bell!

pigboat
16th Jun 2014, 12:09
Attackers spared muslims and Somali speakers in Kenya attack. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kenya-attack-extremists-spared-muslims-somali-speakers-in-deadly-attack-1.2676654)

lomapaseo
16th Jun 2014, 12:41
No, since the moron we know have in the white house started encouraging half the middle east to rise up its turned to sh!t.

He couldn't encourage an erection let alone half the middle east

Fliegenmong
16th Jun 2014, 12:53
Hmm, have never, and would likely never 'March' for anything...but like 100's of thousands of marchers the world over, diverting resources from destroying Al Qaeda, and Osama the bin liner in Afghanistan, and using those resources against Iraq was an astronomical strategic error.

Saddam once may have had weapons of mass destruction, the US almost certainly held the sales records...

But Saddam hated religious wackos like Osama, and he had a nasty bunch of feckers to make sure they never gained the foothold they now seem to be gaining....Saddams hatred of the likes of Al Qaeda was well known back then

Post September 11, the only known link between Iraq & Al Qaeda was the letter 'Q' :rolleyes:

'Shit would not be going down' today if Saddam was left where he was, simply ISIS members would have been fed through a tree branch mulching machine, and be done with...:ok:

I once posted about what things would have been like had Iraq been left alone, and all the effort went into Afghanistan.....surprisingly I was derided for suggesting we could have 'won' in Afghanistan, surprising because those that supported so fervently, suddenly changed their tune to 'No one can ever win in Afghanistan'

What is very upsetting / disturbing, is how gleefully Iran would be watching the unfolding scene in Iraq, and in somewhat of a curious paradox Iran's joy is a direct result of GWB's poor decision making skills, or those of his advisors...

Still and all it's now Obama's fault, even though Obama nailed Osama....as they say to me whenever I'm 'Stateside' .... "Go Figure"

Still can't help but think that if Saddam or his Sons were in power, Iraq would be free of Islamic terrorists.....and if the resources used in Iraq, had 'Stayed the course' in Afghanistan....the region would be a different place, and probably the world a different place......

...but what would I know?.......... :rolleyes::ugh:

500N
16th Jun 2014, 13:00
"Still and all it's now Obama's fault, even though Obama nailed Osama....as they say to me whenever I'm 'Stateside' .... "Go Figure""

Osama would have been nailed even if the Muppet was in the White House.

McCrystal and the CIA only needed the OK to cross the border, armed and they could have done that anyway.

onetrack
16th Jun 2014, 13:51
Fliegs - Saddam was a Sunni - the same ISIS bunch that are now taking revenge on the Shiites (who currently hold power via the U.S.-installed al-Maliki PM.
Sunnis only make up about 20% of Iraq's population, but they are virtually the most brutal and ruthless of all the Iraqi tribes ...

Oh .. but of course, then there's the equally-brutal Kurds .... :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

It's been noted that some of Saddams Generals that escaped the downfall of Saddams regime are now the ones driving the ISIS takeover .. and they're keen to reinstall the style of the Ottoman Suleyman I, Sunni regime, of the 16th century ... :ugh:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/iraq-crisis-saddam-husseins-generals-fighting-jihadist-isis-insurgency-1452365

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/293631/Iraq/22893/Ottoman-Iraq-1534-1918

Boudreaux Bob
16th Jun 2014, 15:50
The "War on Terror" was declared ended about thirteen Months ago by none other than "The One".



Obama: 'Global War on Terror' Is Over - US News (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/23/obama-global-war-on-terror-is-over)

rgbrock1
16th Jun 2014, 19:58
The global war on terror is over? Too bad no one bothered to tell radical Islam.

con-pilot
16th Jun 2014, 21:42
Remember "I'll never go back on my word..." Obama, well he said last week 'no US troops back to Iraq."

Seems he may be changing his mind;

AOL.com Article - Obama considers special forces to help in Iraq (http://www.aol.com/article/2014/06/16/obama-considers-special-forces-to-help-in-iraq/20913665/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D489358)

The White House is considering sending a small number of American special forces soldiers to Iraq

White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said no combat troops would be sent to Iraq

I wonder if our Special Forces know that they are non-combat troops? :p

I just hope that if fired on, they can fire back according to the ROEs they will operating under.

West Coast
16th Jun 2014, 23:24
Given the US mil history, your question about ROE isn't beyond the bounds of reality.

Somalia, we had to wait till a weapon was actually shouldered before we could assume ill intent. A rifle pointed at you from a non shouldered position wasn't a threat so said the dept of defense.

500N
16th Jun 2014, 23:45
West Coast

No wonder it turned out the way it did with ROE's like that.

The current head of the Aussie Defence Force was the CO of the Bn that went to Somalia - with a few extras like SAS etc. One of the Company 2IC's in the Bn was the Chief Instructor on my Infantry Course and gave us a good run down of what went on - Civvies back in Canberra sticking their nose in being one.

Anyway, he did say - and I checked up on this later - that one of the best things that happened very early on was the agressive, "don't fck with us" stance they took, particularly the SAS - I think they had a brief firefight very early on that put the rebels on their arse - and from them on, they let the SAS through, mostly without any trouble.

BenThere
17th Jun 2014, 00:47
The Iranians seem keen to fight to protect Iraq's Shia regime. I think we should allow them to do so, and not send another single soldier in harm's way on behalf of Iraq.

The purpose of going into Iraq was to defeat Hussein as he was a threat. Iraq is no longer a threat and should be left to its own devices. If the aftermath results in another threat, we can deal with it then. Saving the Shia sectarian regime, to the advantage of Iran, is a fool's errand.

Besides, we have a dilettante in charge, an utter embarrassment as Sec of State, and a totally non-credible National Security advisor. What could go wrong?

And for those still inhaling the 'Bush/Blair lied' meme, the war was won and Iraq was largely stabilized by 2008, after much pain and sacrifice. All that seems to have been squandered.

500N
17th Jun 2014, 01:06
You forgot the VP, currently watching the World Cup in Brazil ? :O

onetrack
17th Jun 2014, 01:11
BenThere:the war was won and Iraq was largely stabilized by 2008And by what yardstick or social measure was that conclusion reached at? :confused:
By the number of car bombings and IED's being reduced to an acceptable level of just a few every week?? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Boudreaux Bob
17th Jun 2014, 01:22
500N,

The Aussie SAS Lads were very impressive. I had occasion to call upon them to help secure a Helicopter Crew that was in a very bad way. A RAAF Officer very much earned my respect when he was the first and only armed assistance to arrive at that very tense location.

The SAS arrived very quickly after him and the crew was retrieved unhurt.

I saw some very quick decision making done with not much information to go on and absolutely no hesitation by any of them to put themselves at risk for others.

Simply stated they (SAS and the RAAF Officer) earned my great respect and genuine admiration that day. It reminded me of why I always enjoyed working with the Aussies out of Nui Dat all those years ago.

West Coast
17th Jun 2014, 01:35
I worked with the Aussie SAS in Hawaii. Impressive and easy going at the same time, a unique type A personality trait. Didn't know they were in Somalia. The Marines abided with the ROE in many unique ways that I'm sure the staff types wouldn't appreciate, thus we didn't have much issue in our time. When the leading asshole Les Aspin started misusing folks in roles not intended did the problems start that were magnified by lousy ROE.

7x7
17th Jun 2014, 02:42
Re post #231: most will be familiar withy the opening scenes in 'Black Hawk Down' where the Somali militia, knowing the hopelessly restrictive RoE the Americans operated under, were literally thumbing their noses at the US helicopters. I was told by a friend who was there that the militias tried something similar with the first Australian convoy incountry. That convoy was guarded/escorted by a small SAS contingent, which, shall we say, did not on that occasion follow the same RoE that the hapless US forces were forced to operate under.

The Australians had very few problems with the militias after that one very direct 'exchange of views'. I am reminded of the well-known incident in Beirut when a Russian was kidnapped by one of the Muslim militias. If the Western forces were allowed to operate under more sensible RoE, far, far fewer people would die - and far, far fewer people would be forced to leave their homes to become long term refugees.

500N
17th Jun 2014, 03:20
7x7

That was the incident I was referring to. I read a great write up years ago about it but can't find it.

AtomKraft
17th Jun 2014, 04:15
Ten out of ten to the Aussies! But this thread is about strategy, not tactics.

Westie, no probs if you saw my post on the previous page and declined my invite to respond.

West Coast
17th Jun 2014, 04:52
Atom

Apologies, I missed whatever you directed my way.

West Coast
17th Jun 2014, 05:04
Atom

Have you gone through the evolution of the likely hundreds of posts out of the roughly 2500 posts I've made regarding the initiation of the war?

You're a reletive new comer here so the only way one could intelligently arrive at a conclusion is to have researched. Knowing my somewhat nuanced position and your misrepresentation of it, I know you haven't.

AtomKraft
17th Jun 2014, 05:04
Westie
Post 214. ;)

West Coast
17th Jun 2014, 05:06
See 241....

AtomKraft
17th Jun 2014, 05:07
Oh well.
My own fault for hoping for too much.

West Coast
17th Jun 2014, 05:14
You misrepresent my position then act dejected that I call you out on it.

I'm happy to joust with you, just make sure you know your opponents position if you...claim to know your opponents position.

500N
17th Jun 2014, 05:32
Atom

It was both. Strategy of using sf troops who sent a clear message which made the tactical situation all the better for the rest of the Aussie contingent - plus others who were there.

Iraq is a different gall game, these guys don't mind dying.

500N
17th Jun 2014, 05:46
This is one of the incidences where they learnt very quickly his to play with the big boys.

"There was a similar incident when the two SASR APCs were escorting Australian vehicles through Mogadishu. Two locals were standing off to the side and with big smiles brought their AK-47s to bear at the vehicles in which were seated the Aussie contingent. An SASR Sergeant on the rear APC dealt* with them both, before they could open fire. *Note, “dealt” is an SASR euphemism for “shot”."

Fliegenmong
17th Jun 2014, 10:15
Fliegs - Saddam was a Sunni - the same ISIS bunch that are now taking revenge on the Shiites (who currently hold power via the U.S.-installed al-Maliki PM.
Sunnis only make up about 20% of Iraq's population, but they are virtually the most brutal and ruthless of all the Iraqi tribes ...

Thanks for that Onetrack, and I am aware of that as well..........And I further note that 85-90% of Saudia Arabia are Sunni, and purchase an awful lot of American (and British) Aircraft for their Air Force.....also note that almost all 9/11 feckers were Saudi, and therefore likely Sunni....

The purpose of going into Iraq was to defeat Hussein as he was a threat. ......Want some more ice in your Cool-Aid Ben?? :ok: How was he a threat Ben? Even the Leftie tree hugging street marching loonies knew he had no 'WMD', he may have once......as I said, the US probably had sales receipts....but he didn't have WMD come invasion day, he did however exercise an uncompromising rule over any dissidents, in particular religious fanatics such as Osama's mob, and other like minded groups. Saddam was certainly distasteful, but it seems he largely kept a lid on things.....

What is replacing Saddam is most certainly a far greater threat....and that threat was envisaged a decade ago by those that are apparently "inhaling the 'Bush/Blair lied' meme"......"Told ya so!" springs to mind, and to be proven correct is frankly cold comfort given the situation now unfolding........:ugh::hmm:

I remember now back to when the then head of the AFP (Australian Federal Police) said that our involvement in Iraq would increase the likelyhood of terror attacks on our shores, and then PM 'JWH' made him retract the statement the very next day......there are benefits to being the 51st state.....it's just that we don't get to realise them.... :{

parabellum
17th Jun 2014, 12:10
Fliegs - Agree that after the attack of 2003 they didn't find any WMD. From the conditional cease fire in 1992 until the resumption of hostilities in 2003 Saddam went out of his way to hinder all UN inspections of likely sites, he actually refused admission to some sites, all contrary to the T & C of the cease fire. Saddam was deliberately trying to create the impression that he did still have something to hide. Instead of accepting defeat he tried to play the 'hard man', it cost him his life.

Boudreaux Bob
17th Jun 2014, 12:42
Any rational review of the methodology used to collect, analyze, and evaluate the Intelligence Data that led to the decision to invade Iraq raises very serious questions about how the Bush Administration did that.

Too few sources, too little confirming what the Sources were saying, and far too much Cherry Picking to make the Case.

At some point Saddam would have fallen but how many deaths would it take before that happened and what would have been the result?

As Obama got into the thrill of being able to knock off Dictators....Mubarak, Qadaffi, then the attempt on Assad seemed easy peasy to him.

At least Bush and Company tried to set up some sort of Democratic form of government when they did it.

Obama and Company merely want to see the Dictator toppled and walk off whistling while the turmoil takes place and people die by the Thousands.

Ask yourself why Obama has refused to do the same with Iran?

Why did he not even utter a serious objection to what was going on during the time the Iranian Regime so violently put down the Opposition during the Elections?

There are serious questions that must be asked of this Regime that are not being asked by the American or World Media much less our own Congress.

radeng
17th Jun 2014, 13:21
Some military guy here postulated that Saddam ducked and weaved over the WMD question because he figured that if he might be thought have them, the Iranians wouldn't try taking advantage and invade. The Iranians could be pretty certain that in such an eventuality, the West wouldn't come to Saddam's aid.

Sounds valid.

fitliker
17th Jun 2014, 13:31
Will the Embassy in Baghdad suffer the same fate as Benghazi ?


The enemy is at the gates of the city and it does not look like they will stop or can be stopped when they are so close to Victory.


Any guess's as to when the final surge for Baghdad will happen ?


My guess is it will happen at 3 am Thursday in time for morning prayers in Baghdad.


BTW Saddam was taken out after he threatened Israel openly.


Although I have been wrong so many times ,all I know is, I know nothing :)