Al Qaeda takes control in Iraqi city
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best way to prevent the spread of terrorist groups in the region would be to have left Saddam in power in Iraq and Gaddafi in Libya. The west could have helped Assad in Syria. The result would have been three stable dictatorships with minimal chance of terrorist groups being able to operate within said countries easily. But as usual the west had to ruin things totally. Western leaders really are fools.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cynic in me says that actually, a load of wahabbis wiping each other out in the sand pit keeps em distracted and therefore stops problems on our doorstep. Absolutely tragic for the civilians caught up in it all, but its not our problem a 1400 year old spat over accession is manifesting itself today.
Hopefully, the large number of Brit born wannabe wahabbis will end up in a similar unmarked sandy hole in the near future too, preferably with a hole in the head, rather than blowing themselves up on a bus or a tube.
Looks as if Iran are going to be distracted for a while now too.
Hopefully, the large number of Brit born wannabe wahabbis will end up in a similar unmarked sandy hole in the near future too, preferably with a hole in the head, rather than blowing themselves up on a bus or a tube.
Looks as if Iran are going to be distracted for a while now too.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: KGRB, but on the road about 1/2 the time.
Age: 61
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is The West still uses oil as its main transportation fuel.
Total world excess output: 2.5m barrels/day.
Total Iraqi output: 2.5m barrels/day.
If the Iraqi oil output declines significantly, oil prices will skyrocket.
Total world excess output: 2.5m barrels/day.
Total Iraqi output: 2.5m barrels/day.
If the Iraqi oil output declines significantly, oil prices will skyrocket.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Hopefully, the large number of Brit born wannabe wahabbis will end up in a similar unmarked sandy hole in the near future too, preferably with a hole in the head,"
If they try to get too pushy in the UK, they might not even need to go to a sand pit to get one of those after the masses rise up and take action.
But it would be good if they all went off to the sand pit to "do their bit" !
If they try to get too pushy in the UK, they might not even need to go to a sand pit to get one of those after the masses rise up and take action.
But it would be good if they all went off to the sand pit to "do their bit" !
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RR
You can't prevent something in the present by altering something in the past.
You're as bad as that frightful woman on question time last week.
Best way to prevent the spread of terrorist groups...
...to have left Saddam in power in Iraq and Gaddafi in Libya.
...to have left Saddam in power in Iraq and Gaddafi in Libya.
You're as bad as that frightful woman on question time last week.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You can't prevent something in the present by altering something in the past"
On the contrary Willard you can't prevent anything by offering a wilfully false view of the past then using it to justify present day actions.
Are you honestly backing Tony Blair's deranged claim that Iraq's ability to resist extremism was not affected by us smashing and disbanding their armed forces, most of their police and dismantling almost every vestige of government?
On the contrary Willard you can't prevent anything by offering a wilfully false view of the past then using it to justify present day actions.
Are you honestly backing Tony Blair's deranged claim that Iraq's ability to resist extremism was not affected by us smashing and disbanding their armed forces, most of their police and dismantling almost every vestige of government?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Washington Post: Obama’s Iraq disaster
In 2011, the situation in Iraq was so good that the Obama administration was actually trying to take credit for it, with Vice President Joe Biden declaring that Iraq “could be one of the great achievements of this administration.” Now in 2014, as Iraq descends into chaos, Democrats are trying to blame the fiasco on — you guessed it — George W. Bush. “I don’t think this is our responsibility,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, declaring that the unfolding disaster in Iraq “represents the failed policies that took us down this path 10 years ago.”
Sorry, but this is a mess of President Obama’s making.
When Obama took office he inherited a pacified Iraq, where the terrorists had been defeated both militarily and ideologically. Militarily, thanks to Bush’s surge, coupled with the Sunni Awakening, al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI, now the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS) was driven from the strongholds it had established in Anbar and other Iraqi provinces. It controlled no major territory, and its top leader — Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — had been killed by U.S. Special Operations forces. Ideologically, the terrorists had suffered a popular rejection. Iraq was supposed to be a place where al-Qaeda rallied the Sunni masses to drive America out, but instead, the Sunnis joined with Americans to drive al-Qaeda out — a massive ideological defeat.
Obama took that inheritance and squandered it, with two catastrophic mistakes:
First, he withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq — allowing the defeated terrorists to regroup and reconstitute themselves. Second, he failed to support the moderate, pro-Western opposition in neighboring Syria — creating room for ISIS to fill the security vacuum. ISIS took over large swaths of Syrian territory, established a safe haven, used it to recruit and train thousands of jihadists, and prepared their current offensive in Iraq. The result: When Obama took office, the terrorists had been driven from their safe havens; now they are on threatening to take control of a nation. Iraq is on the cusp of turning into what Afghanistan was in the 1990s — a safe haven from which to plan attacks on America and its allies.
It did not have to be this way. In 2011, the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, recommended keeping between 14,000 and 18,000 troops in Iraq (down from 45,000). The White House rejected Austin’s recommendation, worried about “the cost and the political optics.” So our commanders reduced their request to 10,000 — a number commanders said might be able to work “in extremis.” But the White House rejected this as well, insisting the number be cut to between 3,000 to 4,000 troops — a level insufficient to provide force protection and train Iraqis, much less to counterbalance Iran.
Iraqi leaders saw that the United States has headed for the exits — and decided that the tiny U.S. force Obama was willing to leave behind was not worth the political costs of giving Americans immunity from prosecution in the Iraqi judicial system. So Iraq rejected Obama’s offer, and the United States withdrew all its forces. And now ISIS is taking back cities that were liberated with American blood. It has taken control of Mosul, Tikrit and Tal Afar and is nearing the outskirts of Baghdad.
ISIS is not the only U.S. enemy taking advantage of the power vacuum Obama left in the region. So is Iran.
A month ago, Iraqi leaders asked the United States to carry out air strikes against ISIS positions but were rebuffed by Obama. So the Iraqis have turned to Iran for help. This weekend, the brutal commander of Iran’s notorious Quds Force, Gen. Quasim Suleiman, flew to Baghdad to advise the Iraqis on the defense of Baghdad. This is the man who organized and funded the Shia militias in Iraq, and armed them with EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) — sophisticated armor-piercing roadside bombs that killed hundreds of U.S. troops.
And, if you thought matters could not get any worse, the Wall Street Journal reports that Obama “is preparing to open direct talks with Iran on how the two longtime foes can counter the insurgents.” Yes, you read that right. Obama is planning to work with Iran to counter ISIS in Iraq. In other words, our troops may soon be providing air cover for the very Iranians who were killing them.
If Obama had listened to the advice of his commanders on the ground, ISIS would probably not be marching on Baghdad today, and Iran would not be stepping in to fill the void left by the U.S. withdrawal. Thanks to Obama, we may soon have a situation where we are helping our Shia extremist enemies (Iran) fight our Sunni extremist enemies (ISIS) for control of Iraq.
That’s quite an “achievement.”
In 2011, the situation in Iraq was so good that the Obama administration was actually trying to take credit for it, with Vice President Joe Biden declaring that Iraq “could be one of the great achievements of this administration.” Now in 2014, as Iraq descends into chaos, Democrats are trying to blame the fiasco on — you guessed it — George W. Bush. “I don’t think this is our responsibility,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, declaring that the unfolding disaster in Iraq “represents the failed policies that took us down this path 10 years ago.”
Sorry, but this is a mess of President Obama’s making.
When Obama took office he inherited a pacified Iraq, where the terrorists had been defeated both militarily and ideologically. Militarily, thanks to Bush’s surge, coupled with the Sunni Awakening, al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI, now the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS) was driven from the strongholds it had established in Anbar and other Iraqi provinces. It controlled no major territory, and its top leader — Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — had been killed by U.S. Special Operations forces. Ideologically, the terrorists had suffered a popular rejection. Iraq was supposed to be a place where al-Qaeda rallied the Sunni masses to drive America out, but instead, the Sunnis joined with Americans to drive al-Qaeda out — a massive ideological defeat.
Obama took that inheritance and squandered it, with two catastrophic mistakes:
First, he withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq — allowing the defeated terrorists to regroup and reconstitute themselves. Second, he failed to support the moderate, pro-Western opposition in neighboring Syria — creating room for ISIS to fill the security vacuum. ISIS took over large swaths of Syrian territory, established a safe haven, used it to recruit and train thousands of jihadists, and prepared their current offensive in Iraq. The result: When Obama took office, the terrorists had been driven from their safe havens; now they are on threatening to take control of a nation. Iraq is on the cusp of turning into what Afghanistan was in the 1990s — a safe haven from which to plan attacks on America and its allies.
It did not have to be this way. In 2011, the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, recommended keeping between 14,000 and 18,000 troops in Iraq (down from 45,000). The White House rejected Austin’s recommendation, worried about “the cost and the political optics.” So our commanders reduced their request to 10,000 — a number commanders said might be able to work “in extremis.” But the White House rejected this as well, insisting the number be cut to between 3,000 to 4,000 troops — a level insufficient to provide force protection and train Iraqis, much less to counterbalance Iran.
Iraqi leaders saw that the United States has headed for the exits — and decided that the tiny U.S. force Obama was willing to leave behind was not worth the political costs of giving Americans immunity from prosecution in the Iraqi judicial system. So Iraq rejected Obama’s offer, and the United States withdrew all its forces. And now ISIS is taking back cities that were liberated with American blood. It has taken control of Mosul, Tikrit and Tal Afar and is nearing the outskirts of Baghdad.
ISIS is not the only U.S. enemy taking advantage of the power vacuum Obama left in the region. So is Iran.
A month ago, Iraqi leaders asked the United States to carry out air strikes against ISIS positions but were rebuffed by Obama. So the Iraqis have turned to Iran for help. This weekend, the brutal commander of Iran’s notorious Quds Force, Gen. Quasim Suleiman, flew to Baghdad to advise the Iraqis on the defense of Baghdad. This is the man who organized and funded the Shia militias in Iraq, and armed them with EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) — sophisticated armor-piercing roadside bombs that killed hundreds of U.S. troops.
And, if you thought matters could not get any worse, the Wall Street Journal reports that Obama “is preparing to open direct talks with Iran on how the two longtime foes can counter the insurgents.” Yes, you read that right. Obama is planning to work with Iran to counter ISIS in Iraq. In other words, our troops may soon be providing air cover for the very Iranians who were killing them.
If Obama had listened to the advice of his commanders on the ground, ISIS would probably not be marching on Baghdad today, and Iran would not be stepping in to fill the void left by the U.S. withdrawal. Thanks to Obama, we may soon have a situation where we are helping our Shia extremist enemies (Iran) fight our Sunni extremist enemies (ISIS) for control of Iraq.
That’s quite an “achievement.”
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How on Earth could the Iraqi military be defeated so easily. It has had so much money spent on it and it has some amazing kit. All they have to do is to stand and fight. Their air force controls the skies! Lets be honest, if your a soldier in this situation, allowing yourself to be taken prisoner is a non option. They should have been able to wipe out such a small amount of terrorists. Its almost like the ARVN all over again, BUT this time there are apparently so few terrorists. It does at least seem that Assad's military is up to the job, good job they still exist! (if up to Cameron, Hollande and Obama they would likely not still exist)
RR
First Saddam should have been left alone. As to Qdaffy Pan Am 103 is the only thing needed to eliminate him. Reagan was too weak, Condi and McCain sucked (up to?) him, but the President got us a great video of QD being sodomized. Victory!
Second, the Iraqi forces collapse rivals the Brits in Singapore and MacArthur's loss of the Philippines to far numerically inferior forces.
The Sultan
First Saddam should have been left alone. As to Qdaffy Pan Am 103 is the only thing needed to eliminate him. Reagan was too weak, Condi and McCain sucked (up to?) him, but the President got us a great video of QD being sodomized. Victory!
Second, the Iraqi forces collapse rivals the Brits in Singapore and MacArthur's loss of the Philippines to far numerically inferior forces.
The Sultan
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,094
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Iran enters this fray they will come in via the South West corner of Iraq, do what is required of them to support their fellow Shi'as and they will then move back to the South West corner but remain in control of that part of Iraq, much of which they have claimed as theirs for a very long time, just happens that corner also has several oil producing areas.
Iran aren't coming in to support any American effort, they are putting right what they perceive as a long standing wrong.
Sultan - The British in Singapore were running out of ammunition, food and water. Suggest you read a book or two on the fall of Singapore.
Iran aren't coming in to support any American effort, they are putting right what they perceive as a long standing wrong.
Sultan - The British in Singapore were running out of ammunition, food and water. Suggest you read a book or two on the fall of Singapore.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sultan the reason we lost Singapore is that Britain was engaged in a desperate battle for national survival against an all-conquering Nazi war machine. The defences were never designed to withstand a land assault. Even then we should have made a better show, but it would have been a show; the most determined defence wouldn't have changed the end result and would have caused massive civilian casualties.
Let's not forget the Iraqis HAD an army that would easily have crushed ISIS. The one being criticised here is the one we left them with!
Let's not forget the Iraqis HAD an army that would easily have crushed ISIS. The one being criticised here is the one we left them with!
Last edited by ShotOne; 17th Jun 2014 at 08:14.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Sorry, but this is a mess of President Obama’s making.
When Obama took office he inherited a pacified Iraq, where the terrorists had been defeated both militarily and ideologically."
so well defeated that they're back as soon as the Yanks leave eh?
Bush & Bliar are responsible for turning Iraq into a madhouse where hundreds of thousands of people have been killed for no apparent gain to anyone
When Obama took office he inherited a pacified Iraq, where the terrorists had been defeated both militarily and ideologically."
so well defeated that they're back as soon as the Yanks leave eh?
Bush & Bliar are responsible for turning Iraq into a madhouse where hundreds of thousands of people have been killed for no apparent gain to anyone
Im not sure why so many people are so intent on telling us whos fault it is? Surely what we actually need is people who can tell us how best to retrieve the situation. Perhaps if all the armchair experts and those with exceptional hindsight could get together they could, between them sort this issue out easily by tomorrow morning.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
o well defeated that they're back as soon as the Yanks leave eh?