PDA

View Full Version : Back to Iraq?



Absinthe Anecdote
06-11-2014, 12:32 PM
How far will this go before we get dragged back over there?

Just wait until ISIS starts attacking Iraqi Kurdish held regions.

Worst case scenario is that it gets so unstable in Iraq, that it sparks a Pan-Kurdish revolution that engulfs Iran, Turkey, and Syria in a regional conflict.

That isn't as far-fetched as some might think, the Kurds want independence, and if the al-Maliki government in Iraq falls, the Iraqi Kurds will fight for independence.




Insurgents seize Iraqi city of Mosul as security forces flee

BEIRUT — Insurgents seized control of most of the northern Iraqi city of Mosul on Tuesday in a powerful demonstration of the threat posed by a rapidly expanding extremist army to the fragile stability of Iraq and the wider region.

Fighters with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an al-Qaeda offshoot, overran the western bank of the city overnight after U.S.-trained Iraqi soldiers and police officers abandoned their posts, in some instances discarding their uniforms as they sought to escape the advance of the militants.

Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians also fled the surprise onslaught, which exposed the inadequacies of Iraq’s security forces, risked aggravating the country’s already fraught sectarian divide and enabled the extremists to capture large quantities of weaponry, much of it American.

The speed with which the security forces lost control of one of Iraq’s biggest cities was striking, and it was a major humiliation for the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The city of Fallujah was captured in January by ISIS and other insurgents, but Mosul is a bigger and more important prize, located at a strategically vital intersection on routes linking Iraq to Turkey and Syria.

In Baghdad, Maliki announced a “general mobilization” of the country’s security forces and asked parliament to declare a state of emergency, saying that the government would not allow Mosul to fall “under the shadow of terror and terrorists.”

But the Iraqi security forces have not succeeded in winning back Fallujah, suggesting that it may be even tougher to reclaim Mosul, a city of 1.5 million that was once held out as a success story for the U.S. counterinsurgency effort in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/insurgents-seize-iraqi-city-of-mosul-as-troops-flee/2014/06/10/21061e87-8fcd-4ed3-bc94-0e309af0a674_story.html

GeoDude
06-11-2014, 02:38 PM
You mean toppling governments can cause anarchy? Who would have thought?

If Invasion fails to bring stability to a region, we just haven't invaded them enough, and need to invade them some more. ;)

Absinthe Anecdote
06-11-2014, 03:41 PM
You mean toppling governments can cause anarchy? Who would have thought?

If Invasion fails to bring stability to a region, we just haven't invaded them enough, and need to invade them some more. ;)

I certainly don't want us going back over there, but we probably will at be back in Iraq at some point.

Plus, if al-Malaki gets desperate enough, and he isn't far from it, you can expect him to turn to Iran for help. If he hasn't already.

What is happening in Iraq right now is very dangerous, it has the potential to ignite a very large conflict. Much larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

sandsjames
06-11-2014, 03:55 PM
IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY, DATING BACK TO THE 70'S. THE LATEST STEP WAS FOR US TO DESTABALIZE THE REGION. THE 2003 INVASION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH A BUSH VENDETTA OR WMD'S...IT WAS JUST ANOTHER STEP. WTIH THE POWER VACUUM CREATED, THE ONLY THING LEFT IS FOR IRAN TO GET INVOLVED. THIS WILL GIVE US THE EXCUSE WE'VE BEEN WAITING 40 YEARS FOR TO DESTROY IRAN!!!

(I wanted to do it in red text and increase the font but I'm just too lazy for that.)

Absinthe Anecdote
06-11-2014, 05:43 PM
I joke and make light of about 99 percent of the stuff that I post in here.

I wish I could find a humorous aspect to how much of a threat ISIS has just become. It won't be that long before ISIS is the top story on the news every night.

This has a lot of potential to spill outside Iraq and Syria, I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

Expect us to start providing air support soon, let's hope that's enough, but I don't think it will be.

GeoDude
06-11-2014, 05:53 PM
I certainly don't want us going back over there, but we probably will at be back in Iraq at some point.

Plus, if al-Malaki gets desperate enough, and he isn't far from it, you can expect him to turn to Iran for help. If he hasn't already.

What is happening in Iraq right now is very dangerous, it has the potential to ignite a very large conflict. Much larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

It is interesting how the failures of our previous military ventures are used to justify more military ventures.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-11-2014, 06:18 PM
It is interesting how the failures of our previous military ventures are used to justify more military ventures.

Replace the word interesting with the word obvious and delete the word our, and you have a very accurate statement.

If a conflict wasn't fully resolved, it isn't very surprising that it will flair up again. That transcends any political party, or nation on the planet. It points to human nature.

You can use it as a barb to hurl at your political opponents all you want and it won't stop conflicts from occurring.

I am not advocating an American deployment to Iraq again, but unfortunately I think it will happen.

Even if we had left Saddam in power back in 2003, his regime would have ended some other way, and the sectarian violence would have erupted sooner or later.

One can trace what is happening in Syria and Iraq now, back to the shitty way territorial disputes were resolved following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

Use your witty little quips to jab at Bush, or Obama, or whatever it is you've got the beef with.

I care not to squabble about if America is a greedy imperialist power or not.

Just stating that we most likely have another war coming our way, and possibly a pretty big one.

I'm pretty fucking sad about it too.

BENDER56
06-11-2014, 07:47 PM
I wish I could find a humorous aspect to how much of a threat ISIS has just become. It won't be that long before ISIS is the top story on the news every night.

To quote from a Los Angeles Times article today, "... Al-Qaida has criticized ISIS for being too brutal ..."

Well isn't that just peachy.

BENDER56
06-11-2014, 07:51 PM
One can trace what is happening in Syria and Iraq now, back to the shitty way territorial disputes were resolved following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

One can trace what is happening in Syria and Iraq now, back to the ... way territorial disputes were ignored following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

I think that says it more accurately.

sandsjames
06-11-2014, 08:15 PM
Replace the word interesting with the word obvious and delete the word our, and you have a very accurate statement.

If a conflict wasn't fully resolved, it isn't very surprising that it will flair up again. That transcends any political party, or nation on the planet. It points to human nature.

You can use it as a barb to hurl at your political opponents all you want and it won't stop conflicts from occurring.

I am not advocating an American deployment to Iraq again, but unfortunately I think it will happen.

Even if we had left Saddam in power back in 2003, his regime would have ended some other way, and the sectarian violence would have erupted sooner or later.

One can trace what is happening in Syria and Iraq now, back to the shitty way territorial disputes were resolved following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

Use your witty little quips to jab at Bush, or Obama, or whatever it is you've got the beef with.

I care not to squabble about if America is a greedy imperialist power or not.

Just stating that we most likely have another war coming our way, and possibly a pretty big one.

I'm pretty fucking sad about it too.

Pretty shitty...and what's even more sad is that I think most of us saw it coming. The other sad thing is that it will again be a no win situation, whether we get involved or not.

Measure Man
06-11-2014, 08:32 PM
We're not going back to Iraq any time soon.

Someone will win out over there...and we'll deal with them however we can, either by isolating them or not...but no way do we have the political will to go back in full scale.

To do what?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-11-2014, 08:40 PM
One can trace what is happening in Syria and Iraq now, back to the ... way territorial disputes were ignored following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

I think that says it more accurately.

Unfortunately we are at the beginning of the long and bloody process of those disputes being reconciled.

I really wish Turkey wasn't a member of NATO because they are likely to get pulled into this because of the Kurds.

Another scary aspect is Iran, who not only has a Kurdish problem, but an Azeri problem, as well as a stake in the Shi'a regions of Iraq.

Actually, I think Iran might be smart enough to stay out of it, because they know it could cause their regime to implode, but, if Iran starts to crumble, it could cause Azerbaijan to get pulled into it, which would mean the Russians would be lurking.

The Saudis don't have their house in order either, and it isn't far fetched to think their kingdom could split apart.

I don't think this will happen all at once, or at least I hope not.

CYBERFX1024
06-11-2014, 08:43 PM
I firmly agree with all of you and I said as much to the Militarytimes reporter that I emailed earlier. I have been watching and following the Middle East for awhile now but mainly through the ME news sites such as Alarabiya and Aljazeera. Which believe it or not actually offer some good reporting about issues in the ME and around the world.
But ISIL has been the only group in Syria actually gaining ground recently, and gaining ground in Iraq as well.
Since Al-Maliki failed to pay for the Sunnis Council fighters and promptly disbanded them once we left it was only a matter of time before something like this happened. Now they have pretty much the whole western half of the country under there control, while the Kurds hold the North, and the only thing that Baghdad holds is the Eastern and Southern parts of the country.
Now with this mess going on I have been reading some news on Kurdish news sites and they have stated that if it gets any worse they WILL declare independence from Iraq. They have also stated that they had fighters on the outskirts of Mosul and were strictly told "Not to go in Mosul" by the central government. Now they are fighting in the countryside and the YPK have offered their support and fighters to their fellow Kurds in Iraq.

I just stated to a fellow coworker here that I see us back in Iraq before the year is out in order to help out. It won't be with Al-Maliki doing it willingly if it does it at all, but I believe he will be forced to do it by his fellow leaders. I personally think that he will ask Iran to come in and help honestly.

http://www.valuewalk.com/2014/06/jihadists-and-kurds-fight-in-iraq/

http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2014/6/syriakurd1232.htm

http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2014/6/kirkuk817.htm

Absinthe Anecdote
06-11-2014, 08:55 PM
We're not going back to Iraq any time soon.

Someone will win out over there...and we'll deal with them however we can, either by isolating them or not...but no way do we have the political will to go back in full scale.

To do what?

Maybe you are right about that; however, that can change over night with another attack on the homeland.

We wanted to keep out of WWI, but how quickly did that change after the Lusitania and the Zimmerman telegram?

Pearl Harbor got us into WWII, and do I really need to bring up what we did after 9/11?

I haven't even mentioned how Israel could factor into this.

There are plenty of ways our national will could turn on a dime, and put us in a regional conflict in the Middle East.

CYBERFX1024
06-11-2014, 08:57 PM
Maybe you are right about that; however, that can change over night with another attack on the homeland.
We wanted to keep out of WWI, but how quickly did that change after the Lusitania and the Zimmerman telegram?
Pearl Harbor got us into WWII, and do I really need to bring up what we did after 9/11?
I haven't even mentioned how Israel could factor into this.
There are plenty of ways our national will could turn on a dime, and put us in a regional conflict in the Middle East.

I have been reading on the Kurdish sites and they have some pretty good ties with Israel it seems. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if Israel decides to help some.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-11-2014, 09:11 PM
I have been reading on the Kurdish sites and they have some pretty good ties with Israel it seems. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if Israel decides to help some.

As do the Iraqi Kurds with the US, which is a extreme source of tension between the US and Turkey.

Usually Turkey gets it's way over Kurdish matters, and no way do they want an independent Kurdistan popping up next door to them, but I've got a feeling it might happen.

If so, the danger is that it sparks Kurdish revolts in Turkey again and Iran.

CYBERFX1024
06-11-2014, 09:15 PM
As do the Iraqi Kurds with the US, which is a extreme source of tension between the US and Turkey.
Usually Turkey gets it's way over Kurdish matters, and no way do they want an independent Kurdistan popping up next door to them, but I've got a feeling it might happen.
If so, the danger is that it sparks Kurdish revolts in Turkey again and Iran.

I have been reading that the PKK are starting to get a little frustrated with Turkey right now. Because they both signed an agreement and the PKK adhered to it and it's fighters left Turkey and in to Syria and Iraq. Now the PKK/Kurds are wanting Turkey to own up to their side of the bargain and they have yet to do that. So that is something to keep a look at.

The Kurds want a good relationship with the USA, but they are frustrated because they wanted the USA to leave some troops in Iraqi Kurdistan, and we didn't. Also the State Dept. has been giving the Kurds a cold shoulder in regards to a independence movement.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-11-2014, 09:39 PM
I have been reading that the PKK are starting to get a little frustrated with Turkey right now. Because they both signed an agreement and the PKK adhered to it and it's fighters left Turkey and in to Syria and Iraq. Now the PKK/Kurds are wanting Turkey to own up to their side of the bargain and they have yet to do that. So that is something to keep a look at.

The Kurds want a good relationship with the USA, but they are frustrated because they wanted the USA to leave some troops in Iraqi Kurdistan, and we didn't. Also the State Dept. has been giving the Kurds a cold shoulder in regards to a independence movement.

Exactly, that is because of our relationship with Turkey, we can't openly support an independent Kurdistan because we are unwilling to sacrifice our relationship with Turkey.

Actually, by not leaving US troops in Kurdistan, it actually makes the likelihood of them splitting with Iraq, all the more a real possibility.

And there is all that oil around Kirkuk, that will cause a nasty fight with the Sunni and Shi'a factions.

waveshaper2
06-11-2014, 10:47 PM
Has all of Mosul been overrun/captured by the Sunni Insurgents? I could see them taking the western side of Mosul (on the west side of the Tigris river) without to much trouble. The east side of Mosul (on the east side of the Tigris river) was dominated by the Kurds and they would definitely put up a serious fight before losing ground. I also agree that a potential major battle may be in the works to the North of Mosul along the traditional Sunni/Kurd fault line, in and around Kirkuk.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-12-2014, 12:19 AM
Has all of Mosul been overrun/captured by the Sunni Insurgents? I could see them taking the western side of Mosul (on the west side of the Tigris river) without to much trouble. The east side of Mosul (on the east side of the Tigris river) was dominated by the Kurds and they would definitely put up a serious fight before losing ground. I also agree that a potential major battle may be in the works to the North of Mosul along the traditional Sunni/Kurd fault line, in and around Kirkuk.

The stuff I've read today didn't get to that level of detail, but I don't think there were Peshmerga in Mosul proper. Maybe there are some Kurdish affiliated militia are inside the city, but I can't say for sure.

It's been a while, but from what I remember the Peshmerga controlled the road between Mosul and Arbil.

I just saw that the ISIS got as far south as Tikrit and even captured the big oil refinery at Baiji, not good.

CNN just reported that there are only 8 or 9 thousand ISIS fighters in Iraq, but seems the Sunni troops in the Iraq Army and police units are defecting, so their ranks are likely swelling.

waveshaper2
06-12-2014, 12:30 AM
The stuff I've read today didn't get to that level of detail, but I don't think there were Peshmerga in Mosul proper. Maybe there are some Kurdish affiliated militia are inside the city, but I can't say for sure.

It's been a while, but from what I remember the Peshmerga controlled the road between Mosul and Arbil.

I just saw that the ISIS got as far south as Tikrit and even captured the big oil refinery at Baiji, not good.

CNN just reported that there are only 8 or 9 thousand ISIS fighters in Iraq, but seems the Sunni troops in the Iraq Army and police units are defecting, so their ranks are likely swelling.

It seems you are very up to speed on this stuff. My affiliation with the Kurds goes way back but I have been out of the loop for a long time/not paying attention lately and that's fixing to change, thanks for the heads-up.

Gonzo432
06-12-2014, 12:57 AM
Lets see, Operation Linebacker II was 18-29 Dec 72, we pulled ground forces early 73, POWs released. Saigon fell 30 Apr 75. When did we pull out of Iraq? 18 Dec 11? This timeline is a little longer.

waveshaper2
06-12-2014, 01:37 AM
The stuff I've read today didn't get to that level of detail, but I don't think there were Peshmerga in Mosul proper. Maybe there are some Kurdish affiliated militia are inside the city, but I can't say for sure.

It's been a while, but from what I remember the Peshmerga controlled the road between Mosul and Arbil.

I just saw that the ISIS got as far south as Tikrit and even captured the big oil refinery at Baiji, not good.

CNN just reported that there are only 8 or 9 thousand ISIS fighters in Iraq, but seems the Sunni troops in the Iraq Army and police units are defecting, so their ranks are likely swelling.


I found this BBC article and if true it sounds like only the western portion/half of Mosul fell to the Sunni Insurgents and the Kurds do control eastern Mosul.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27789770

Some excerpts from the article.

In Mosul, the militant group experienced far greater success, winning all-important psychological dominance over the security forces in three days of progressively heavy fighting in western Mosul.

Peshmerga forces have recently moved forwards along the line of disputed territories claimed by both the federal government and the KRG, including securing the areas of Mosul city east of the Tigris River.

Gaining the KRG's active support to take part in the clearance of western Mosul may only be possible if Baghdad is willing to make concessions to the Kurds on issues such as the international marketing of KRG oil and revenue-sharing between Baghdad and Iraqi Kurdistan.

Taking an optimistic view, these overlapping interests could create the potential for political dialogue and speedier government formation, potentially lessening tensions between Baghdad and the KRG.

Alternatively, ongoing discord between the Maliki government and its Kurdish and Arab opponents could disrupt the government's counter-offensive, allowing ISIS to consolidate its hold on western Mosul.

In fact, a consolidated ISIS caliphate in western Mosul - with a population of over a million people - would be a far greater success than anything the movement has achieved in Syria and would send shock waves throughout the region.

GeoDude
06-12-2014, 02:03 AM
Lets see, Operation Linebacker II was 18-29 Dec 72, we pulled ground forces early 73, POWs released. Saigon fell 30 Apr 75. When did we pull out of Iraq? 18 Dec 11? This timeline is a little longer.

Obviously before my time - but I would guess the key difference is North Vietnam had a massive mechanized army to roll over the border as soon as we left - which didn't happen with Iraq.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-12-2014, 02:12 AM
I found this BBC article and if true it sounds like only the western portion/half of Mosul fell to the Sunni Insurgents and the Kurds do control eastern Mosul.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27789770

Some excerpts from the article.

In Mosul, the militant group experienced far greater success, winning all-important psychological dominance over the security forces in three days of progressively heavy fighting in western Mosul.

Peshmerga forces have recently moved forwards along the line of disputed territories claimed by both the federal government and the KRG, including securing the areas of Mosul city east of the Tigris River.

Gaining the KRG's active support to take part in the clearance of western Mosul may only be possible if Baghdad is willing to make concessions to the Kurds on issues such as the international marketing of KRG oil and revenue-sharing between Baghdad and Iraqi Kurdistan.

Taking an optimistic view, these overlapping interests could create the potential for political dialogue and speedier government formation, potentially lessening tensions between Baghdad and the KRG.

Alternatively, ongoing discord between the Maliki government and its Kurdish and Arab opponents could disrupt the government's counter-offensive, allowing ISIS to consolidate its hold on western Mosul.

In fact, a consolidated ISIS caliphate in western Mosul - with a population of over a million people - would be a far greater success than anything the movement has achieved in Syria and would send shock waves throughout the region.

I'm sure that the Kurds will squeeze as many concessions out of al-Maliki as they can. That article sounds encouraging, but I'm not so sure the Kurds will commit too many of their troops outside of areas that don't have pockets ethnic Kurds living in them.

CYBERFX1024
06-12-2014, 03:52 AM
I'm sure that the Kurds will squeeze as many concessions out of al-Maliki as they can. That article sounds encouraging, but I'm not so sure the Kurds will commit too many of their troops outside of areas that don't have pockets ethnic Kurds living in them.

I have no doubt that will squeeze every drop they can get, and they deserve it. I would do the same thing if my fighters were going to go in there and get killed. I believe that they only have the western part as well, because people were saying that went to cross the Tigris in order to be safe. I guess the Peshmerga have control over the east side of the river and keep a tight grip on discipline in their area.

GeoDude
06-12-2014, 06:23 AM
I suppose it is completely futile for me to ask what the heck is the point of intervening in all this?

Gonzo432
06-12-2014, 10:16 AM
Obviously before my time - but I would guess the key difference is North Vietnam had a massive mechanized army to roll over the border as soon as we left - which didn't happen with Iraq.
I was 10 when Saigon fell, what I know I've learned since then. I was comparing timeframe, not T-60s to Toyota pickups. If you can accomplish the same thing with a pickup, use a pickup.

On that subject, what is up with the white Toyotas?? Everywhere, bad guys ride around in white Toyotas!

Absinthe Anecdote
06-12-2014, 11:23 AM
I suppose it is completely futile for me to ask what the heck is the point of intervening in all this?

I have more than a few libertarian leanings, so the notion of staying out of it, and letting them slug it out is attractive to me.

However, those are just my personal feelings and they don't translate well in the reality of how the US factors into geopolitical conflicts.

I don't know if we will be able to keep out of it, clearly most Americans don't want us going back over there, and I hope we can stay out of it.

Hopefully the situation isn't as dire or as threatening to the entire region as I was making it out to be in previous posts.

Unfortunately, we aren't done fighting in the Middle East, we'll get pulled into another conflict.

ISIS controlling large swaths of Iraq and Syria has the potential to spark a lot of dangerous conflicts throughout the region.

You can shout all the shrill anti-imperialist slogans you want, but it won't keep us out of another war if the conflict spreads.

Chief_KO
06-12-2014, 12:04 PM
Germany & Japan were defeated in 1945...did we pull out in 1948?
Where did we once have a strong military presence but now we have terrorism, unfriendly US relations, etc? Phillipines, Libya, the list goes on.
I'm not an imperialist, but what is cheaper (human cost & money) maintaining bases at strategic locations around the globe or the alternative??

sandsjames
06-12-2014, 12:39 PM
I suppose it is completely futile for me to ask what the heck is the point of intervening in all this?

Well, CNN is already asking if it's because we left too soon. The irony is entertaining.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-12-2014, 12:54 PM
Baghdad is going to be overrun and we will evacuate our embassy. It will be just like the good 'ole days in Saigon!

Now, can we please stop invading and occupying countries? It doesn't usually work out well, especially after we pull out (so to speak).

SomeRandomGuy
06-12-2014, 01:23 PM
Well, CNN is already asking if it's because we left too soon. The irony is entertaining.

Earlier I was reading through CNN comments. Caught in all the drivel you can sometimes find usefel nuggets of information. It isn't uncommon for people to claim that we invaded Iraq for oil. A logical person should ask theirself who actually controls the price of oil? The truth is that the price of oil is riven more by commodoties traders than actual supply. Also if we wanted oil so bad that we would start a war why has it been so hard to get the Keystone pipeline approved? Is it really logical to claim that we would let the oil companies talk us into spending billions to invade a country yet somehow they can't even convince us to let them put a pipeline in our country?

The truth is Iraq was never about oil. If you want a "conspiracy theory" on why we attacked Iraq it actually has much more to do with the Military Industrial Complex. The sooner people understand that the better off we all will be.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-12-2014, 01:23 PM
Baghdad is going to be overrun and we will evacuate our embassy. It will be just like the good 'ole days in Saigon!

Now, can we please stop invading and occupying countries? It doesn't usually work out well, especially after we pull out (so to speak).

Let's see how many themes from MT threads I can cross reference in one post, here goes:

Well if there weren't so many welfare cheats, we might be able to build a droid army to occupy all these shit holes for us. But that would require us to stop having stupid gay pride 5Ks and quit raising the minimum wage.

Even if we did that, we'd need to rebuild our factories because we let the unions drive all of our factories overseas.

With all the gun violence and George Zimmermans running around what CEO would want to bring a factory back to the US, especially with the high corporate tax rate.

It's a failure of both leadership and follower-ship of epic proportions!

Sigh! How it all makes me lament for the 1950's when clean cut teenagers spent their time at malt shops and sock hops. Everything was perfect back in the good old days!

I'm just glad I'm retired and drawing a fat disability check because of my sleep apnea and gingivitis.

I could go on, but what's the point?

SomeRandomGuy
06-12-2014, 01:32 PM
Let's see how many themes from MT threads I can cross reference in one post, here goes:

Well if there weren't so many welfare cheats, we might be able to build a droid army to occupy all these shit holes for us. But that would require us to stop having stupid gay pride 5Ks and quit raising the minimum wage.

Even if we did that, we'd need to rebuild our factories because we let the unions drive all of our factories overseas.

With all the gun violence and George Zimmermans running around what CEO would want to bring a factory back to the US, especially with the high corporate tax rate.

It's a failure of both leadership and follower-ship of epic proportions!

Sigh! How it all makes me lament for the 1950's when clean cut teenagers spent their time at malt shops and sock hops. Everything was perfect back in the good old days!

I'm just glad I'm retired and drawing a fat disability check because of my sleep apnea and gingivitis.

I could go on, but what's the point?

Sadly, we could fix all of these problems with the push of a red button. The problem is we have no idea if that red button even works anymore because our Nuclear Force is in shambles. Also, my stupid renter neighbors have been painting cars in their driveway again. As a GWOT veteran I often sit back and wonder what happened to this once great country. Just push the button already and let's see what happens.

CYBERFX1024
06-12-2014, 02:04 PM
So it looks like we were right guys. The Kurds have taken full control of Kirkuk and have got concessions from Baghdad in order to fight the ISIL. But it also looks like according to reports by Aljazeera that Iran has sent in Special Ops troops to help out as well, in which I called that they would do that yesterday.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/06/fall-mosul-what-at-stake-kurds-20146126958946438.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/06/iran-vows-combat-terrorism-iraq-2014612113247864941.html

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/2014/06/12/ISIS-militants-plan-to-march-on-Baghdad.html

CYBERFX1024
06-12-2014, 02:10 PM
It also looks like what I said yesterday as well. That the Iraqis have already asked for US troops in Iraq and Odumba denied it. I swear he is an idiot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/world/middleeast/iraq-asked-us-for-airstrikes-on-militants-officials-say.html?hp&_r=1

waveshaper2
06-12-2014, 02:33 PM
Baghdad is going to be overrun and we will evacuate our embassy. It will be just like the good 'ole days in Saigon!

Now, can we please stop invading and occupying countries? It doesn't usually work out well, especially after we pull out (so to speak).

DoD needs an emergency appropriation of about 2 billion dollars. They can use these funds to buy loads of popcorn for all the troops to eat while they sit on the sidelines and watch our enemies (Sunni versus Shiite) kill each other. This will be cheap entertainment and also good for morale. At this point the only folks I would help in that AO are the Kurds.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-12-2014, 02:53 PM
It also looks like what I said yesterday as well. That the Iraqis have already asked for US troops in Iraq and Odumba denied it. I swear he is an idiot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/world/middleeast/iraq-asked-us-for-airstrikes-on-militants-officials-say.html?hp&_r=1

In regards to the NYT article, the way it explained the rationale behind the denial was conditional on al-Maliki being more inclusive with the Sunni and Kurd factions of the Iraqi government.

While that does need to happen, I agree it was probably a mistake to let ISIS gain that much momentum.

Now we possibly have Iranian special forces moving into Iraq, and the real possibility of a Turkish intervention.

The relationship of Turkey with the Barzani faction of the KRG is complex. The Iraqi Kurds have never been truly united. The PUK faction of the KRG hates the Turks and the Barzanis, the PUK has loose ties with Iran because of Iranian Kurds.

It is enough to make my head spin.

One thing I read in the Al Jazeera article you linked was that the ISIS is holding members of the Turkish consulate in Mosul hostage.

If true, that's a big blunder for the ISIS because the Turks will respond with force.

Turkey is a member of NATO and this could very well lead to NATO action in Syria and Iraq.

You know what that means as far as the US staying out of the conflict, right?

GeoDude
06-12-2014, 03:43 PM
Earlier I was reading through CNN comments. Caught in all the drivel you can sometimes find usefel nuggets of information. It isn't uncommon for people to claim that we invaded Iraq for oil. A logical person should ask theirself who actually controls the price of oil? The truth is that the price of oil is riven more by commodoties traders than actual supply. Also if we wanted oil so bad that we would start a war why has it been so hard to get the Keystone pipeline approved? Is it really logical to claim that we would let the oil companies talk us into spending billions to invade a country yet somehow they can't even convince us to let them put a pipeline in our country?

The truth is Iraq was never about oil. If you want a "conspiracy theory" on why we attacked Iraq it actually has much more to do with the Military Industrial Complex. The sooner people understand that the better off we all will be.

Controlling suppliers isn't new behavior for imperial powers... however I agree, that was probably at best a secondary objective for Iraq.

It also looks like what I said yesterday as well. That the Iraqis have already asked for US troops in Iraq and Odumba denied it. I swear he is an idiot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/world/middleeast/iraq-asked-us-for-airstrikes-on-militants-officials-say.html?hp&_r=1

Right. When Obama goes to war, he's "too aggressive", when he doesn't go to war he's "weak". Got it.


I have more than a few libertarian leanings, so the notion of staying out of it, and letting them slug it out is attractive to me.

However, those are just my personal feelings and they don't translate well in the reality of how the US factors into geopolitical conflicts.

I don't know if we will be able to keep out of it, clearly most Americans don't want us going back over there, and I hope we can stay out of it.

Hopefully the situation isn't as dire or as threatening to the entire region as I was making it out to be in previous posts.

Unfortunately, we aren't done fighting in the Middle East, we'll get pulled into another conflict.

ISIS controlling large swaths of Iraq and Syria has the potential to spark a lot of dangerous conflicts throughout the region.

You can shout all the shrill anti-imperialist slogans you want, but it won't keep us out of another war if the conflict spreads.

I'm not so much condemning the USA's imperialist ambitions - I'm calling out your hyperbole. The world isn't going to end if we just chose not to get involved. In fact, I think this rhetoric is dangerous and short sighted. Our actions so far have resulted in the deaths of millions of people - if we continue to blindly meddle we will continue to kill millions of people. It needs to stop.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-12-2014, 04:20 PM
I'm not so much condemning the USA's imperialist ambitions - I'm calling out your hyperbole. The world isn't going to end if we just chose not to get involved. In fact, I think this rhetoric is dangerous and short sighted. Our actions so far have resulted in the deaths of millions of people - if we continue to blindly meddle we will continue to kill millions of people. It needs to stop.

Where did I advocate another deployment?

Your analysis of my posts on this are out of touch. Most of my comments have been directed at how volatile the situation is. I haven't been trying to use that to justify anything.

As far as blindly meddling in other countries affairs, it is too late, we are already too involved in too many places and have been for a long time. I don't see us as a nation turning that off like a light switch.

It doesn't matter if I like it or not, the US will get pulled into to another conflict in this region.

I don't feel like getting into a left wing/right wing back and forth with you on this.

Besides, I'm probably closer to your position than you realize. If anyone is tossing shallow rhetoric around it is you.

BENDER56
06-12-2014, 04:29 PM
... watch our enemies (Sunni versus Shiite) kill each other. This will be cheap entertainment and also good for morale.

I hear variations of this often enough to cause me to wonder if perhaps some people actually believe it. If you let two factions fight long enough, eventually one of them prevails and becomes stronger. They don't wipe each other out.

Also, Sunni and Shia Muslims are each others enemies, not ours.

waveshaper2
06-12-2014, 05:07 PM
I hear variations of this often enough to cause me to wonder if perhaps some people actually believe it. If you let two factions fight long enough, eventually one of them prevails and becomes stronger. They don't wipe each other out.

Also, Sunni and Shia Muslims are each others enemies, not ours.

How did you get your hands on Susan Rice's talking points for her upcoming appearances on this Sundays (15 June) news talk shows?

CYBERFX1024
06-12-2014, 06:33 PM
Right. When Obama goes to war, he's "too aggressive", when he doesn't go to war he's "weak". Got it.

My question to you since you seem to be so in the know on things. When has Obama ever gone to war, and when has he been called "too aggressive?" I have called him weak a long time now and it's true. Why don't you actually look at the news OUTSIDE of the USA and not just MSNBC or CNN. He is the laughing stock of the world.

CYBERFX1024
06-12-2014, 06:37 PM
I'm not so much condemning the USA's imperialist ambitions - I'm calling out your hyperbole. The world isn't going to end if we just chose not to get involved. In fact, I think this rhetoric is dangerous and short sighted. Our actions so far have resulted in the deaths of millions of people - if we continue to blindly meddle we will continue to kill millions of people. It needs to stop.

Actually if we don't get involved then more than likely ISIS will invade and take over Baghdad (worse case scenario). They (ISIS) will set up an Islamic Caliphate and kill those that don't agree with their ideologies. What actions have resulted in the deaths of millions? If we don't go in then millions of people will more than likely die. Stop being so isolationist.

CYBERFX1024
06-12-2014, 06:53 PM
In regards to the NYT article, the way it explained the rationale behind the denial was conditional on al-Maliki being more inclusive with the Sunni and Kurd factions of the Iraqi government.
While that does need to happen, I agree it was probably a mistake to let ISIS gain that much momentum.
Now we possibly have Iranian special forces moving into Iraq, and the real possibility of a Turkish intervention.
The relationship of Turkey with the Barzani faction of the KRG is complex. The Iraqi Kurds have never been truly united. The PUK faction of the KRG hates the Turks and the Barzanis, the PUK has loose ties with Iran because of Iranian Kurds. It is enough to make my head spin.
One thing I read in the Al Jazeera article you linked was that the ISIS is holding members of the Turkish consulate in Mosul hostage.
If true, that's a big blunder for the ISIS because the Turks will respond with force.
Turkey is a member of NATO and this could very well lead to NATO action in Syria and Iraq.
You know what that means as far as the US staying out of the conflict, right?

Al-Maliki is one of the key reasons why this debacle happened. He has totally left out the Sunnis and made sure to promote those in the Army that were Shiite with no mention of performance.

It was a BIG mistake for them to let ISIS to gain that much momentum. It was also reported today that they (ISIS) have stolen more than $425m in money and gold from Mosul's central bank. So now they can recruit even more people and buy even more equipment.

Aljazeera has stated that it's not a possibility but a certainty that Iranian Special Forces have moved into Iraq.

You are right the whole alliance structure in the region is enough to make everybody's heads spin.

My best guess is that Turkey will ask the Kurds to help them out and find the consulate personnel instead of paying a ransom.

My best guess is that we will go in because Obama will be forced to send troops in. Does anybody else remember that we have a huge RRF (Rapid Reaction Force) stationed right next door in Kuwait?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/12/isis-just-stole-425-million-and-became-the-worlds-richest-terrorist-group/

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/06/19/u-s-to-station-13500-troops-in-kuwait-as-rapid-reaction-force-for-middle-east/

CYBERFX1024
06-12-2014, 07:12 PM
Here is an article showing that Iran is helping.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-deploys-forces-to-fight-al-qaeda-inspired-militants-in-iraq-iranian-security-sources-1402592470?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

LogDog
06-13-2014, 12:37 AM
If we're to go back to Iraq, then where is the money going to come from to pay for it?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-13-2014, 12:42 AM
Obama: Iraq needs U.S., international help as ISIS threatens to seize more cities

(CNN) -- As radical Islamist militants surged through Iraq -- and threatened its capital -- U.S. President Barack Obama conceded the turbulent situation demanded significant assistance immediately and over the long-term for the Baghdad-based central government.

"It's going to need more help from us, and it's going to need more help from the international community," Obama said Thursday. "... I don't rule out anything because we do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothoold in either Iraq or Syria."

As to what Washington may do to combat the Islamists, U.S. officials discussed bolstering ongoing efforts to send arms, equipment and intelligence information to help Iraq and its military.

Air strikes are among the options being considered, White House spokesman Jay Carney said. But there won't be a repeat of a large U.S. troop presence on Iraqi soil.

"We are not contemplating ground troops," Carney said. "I want to be clear about that."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/iraq-violence/

WTF?

Does Carney even talk to the President before he gives a briefing? I really wish Obama would get a new press secretary, he even contradicts himself.


We will have troops over there at some point, and I'm guessing air strikes within the next 48 hours.

TJMAC77SP
06-13-2014, 12:44 AM
Obama: Iraq needs U.S., international help as ISIS threatens to seize more cities

(CNN) -- As radical Islamist militants surged through Iraq -- and threatened its capital -- U.S. President Barack Obama conceded the turbulent situation demanded significant assistance immediately and over the long-term for the Baghdad-based central government.

"It's going to need more help from us, and it's going to need more help from the international community," Obama said Thursday. "... I don't rule out anything because we do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothoold in either Iraq or Syria."

As to what Washington may do to combat the Islamists, U.S. officials discussed bolstering ongoing efforts to send arms, equipment and intelligence information to help Iraq and its military.

Air strikes are among the options being considered, White House spokesman Jay Carney said. But there won't be a repeat of a large U.S. troop presence on Iraqi soil.

"We are not contemplating ground troops," Carney said. "I want to be clear about that."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/iraq-violence/

WTF?

Does Carney even talk to the President before he gives a briefing? I really wish Obama would get a new press secretary, he even contradicts himself.


We will have troops over there at some point, and I'm guessing air strikes within the next 48 hours.

Carney leaves at the end of June I think.

CYBERFX1024
06-13-2014, 02:33 AM
If we're to go back to Iraq, then where is the money going to come from to pay for it?

Easy we cut back from the amount that we are giving to the illegal immigrants that are here.

grimreaper
06-13-2014, 06:47 AM
LOL, turns out we had this guy too and this Admin released him...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10891700/Iraq-crisis-the-jihadist-behind-the-takeover-of-Mosul-and-how-America-let-him-go.html

This is one bad dude.

Kinda blows up the Admin's argument that we really don't have anything to worry about from the Taliban 5, don't ya think?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-13-2014, 12:47 PM
Iraq crisis: ISIS militants push towards Baghdad - live

Senior Tehran official says leadership discussing cooperation with United States in face of insurgent threat in region, as militants battle Iraqi security forces 50 miles from Baghdad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10892299/Iraq-crisis-ISIS-militants-push-towards-Baghdad-live.html

Can't wait to see how Iran cooperates with the US, not to mention how the rest of the Sunni nations in the region react.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-13-2014, 12:59 PM
Here is a pretty good set of graphics from the NYT on the the areas that ISIS has taken.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/12/world/middleeast/the-iraq-isis-conflict-in-maps-photos-and-video.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=2

Grease Monkey
06-13-2014, 01:23 PM
Here's a way to solve the Iraq problem: The Air Force recently had a minor scandal in which over 90 nuclear missile officers were under investigation for drug use and cheating on their exams. So, "maybe" a few of those officers avoided getting caught and "maybe" they get stupid one night on post, and "maybe" they "jokingly" try to launch a missile at Iraq, but it really "manages" to launch and blows that place to hell. There will be some backlash, but nothing that can't easily be fixed. The officers will be scrutinized via an inquiry that will take months to complete and by the time it does no one will remember who they are and they will quietly walk out of the Air Force. Hagel will be canned, which I'm sure he won't mind, a few more Commanders will be tossed, and the Air Force will have justification for adding the 4-star position they want to oversee the nuke program. And Obama will get lots of media attention and more chances to apologize for America's actions. We can work together with China to "Clean up and rebuild Iraq" while we secretly split a deal for China to take Iraq's oil which they will sell to us at a heavily discounted price, while also providing Russia a heavy dose of oil to appease them. The Taliban waiting in the wings to retake Afghanistan when we leave might have second thoughts. Putin will challenge Vitali Klitschko to a fight for control of the Ukraine. Meanwhile, Kim will sit on his peninsula feeling, "So ronery".

Absinthe Anecdote
06-13-2014, 04:32 PM
The President just gave a brief statement on Iraq, he basically said that he is still considering options, and that we'd have a better idea by Monday. He did reiterate, no ground troops though.

Reading the tea leaves, I think he is trying to make al-Maliki sweat it out, and concede to making major concessions to the Sunnis.

At this point, it doesn't matter if al-Maliki promises the moon to the Sunnis, he has zero credibility. I have to wonder if he is trying to convince al-Maliki to step down.

I predict that Iraq is headed for a "Three State Solution" and that will be a bloody road, plus it runs the risk of causing a regional conflict with all of the neighboring states.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Jordan, and what's left of Syria all oppose a "Three State Solution" and it is uncertain how they will react.

I can only hope that if al-Maliki stepped down is would calm the situation, but that's a big if.

Rusty Jones
06-13-2014, 05:10 PM
Obama says he won't send troops to Iraq? Don't worry, we're two and half years away from a Republican being in office! So if troops don't go now, they will be going then!

sandsjames
06-13-2014, 05:33 PM
Obama says he won't send troops to Iraq? Don't worry, we're two and half years away from a Republican being in office! So if troops don't go now, they will be going then!

Right, because a Democrat would never send troops into another country.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-13-2014, 05:53 PM
Obama says he won't send troops to Iraq? Don't worry, we're two and half years away from a Republican being in office! So if troops don't go now, they will be going then!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disappointed that Obama wants to keep ground troops out. I just think we will get sucked back in there at some point as part of a NATO or UN response.

Republican vs Democrat ideology aside, I think that the conflict will get so bad that whoever is in office will think there is no other choice, but to deploy troops.

You might be right about the timeline though, it might take about that long for Turkey or Saudi Arabia to get dragged into the conflict.

I hate to be such a doomsayer, but what started in 2007 with the "Arab Spring" is still smoldering in the region.

All of Iraq's neighbors have insurgencies of some type festering. Back in 2003, most every intelligence expert on the Middle East warned that toppling Saddam could result in the entire region unraveling.

That might be good in the long term, but the scary part is we have no idea what type of new governments will form to take their place.

I could care less at taking a bunch of cheap shots at Obama or anyone else over this, I'm glad the President is keeping ground troops out right now.

I just think at some point, we'll be back in there.

Rusty Jones
06-13-2014, 06:11 PM
Right, because a Democrat would never send troops into another country.

Not Iraq. Republicans have a hard-on for Iraq.

What I also find funny is that Republicans will call a Democrat president a "pussy" for NOT sending troops to another country. Now THIS? So which is it?

sandsjames
06-13-2014, 06:11 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disappointed that Obama wants to keep ground troops out. I just think we will get sucked back in there at some point as part of a NATO or UN response.

Republican vs Democrat ideology aside, I think that the conflict will get so bad that whoever is in office will think there is no other choice, but to deploy troops.

You might be right about the timeline though, it might take about that long for Turkey or Saudi Arabia to get dragged into the conflict.

I hate to be such a doomsayer, but what started in 2007 with the "Arab Spring" is still smoldering in the region.

All of Iraq's neighbors have insurgencies of some type festering. Back in 2003, most every intelligence expert on the Middle East warned that toppling Saddam could result in the entire region unraveling.

That might be good in the long term, but the scary part is we have no idea what type of new governments will form to take their place.

I could care less at taking a bunch of cheap shots at Obama or anyone else over this, I'm glad the President is keeping ground troops out right now.

I just think at some point, we'll be back in there.

And it's such a no win situation. At some point we'll have to do something yet we know that at some point we will have to leave which will result in a return to the status quo.

sandsjames
06-13-2014, 06:15 PM
Not Iraq. Republicans have a hard-on for Iraq.

What I also find funny is that Republicans will call a Democrat president a "pussy" for NOT sending troops to another country. Now THIS? So which is it?

I haven't called him a pussy, so don't ask me. I wish all administrations would be a little more hesitant to get involved as he has been. Democrat, Republican, whatever, our country needs to stop being the world police.

The problem is that they aren't exactly in an easy situation. You send troops and thousands end up dying and it's the wrong move. You don't send troops and thousands end up dying and it's the wrong move. You keep guys there or pull them out and it's the wrong move.

I'm just of the opinion, no matter how it sounds, that I'd rather have it be their people dying than ours.

Rainmaker
06-14-2014, 04:58 PM
How far will this go before we get dragged back over there?

Just wait until ISIS starts attacking Iraqi Kurdish held regions.

Worst case scenario is that it gets so unstable in Iraq, that it sparks a Pan-Kurdish revolution that engulfs Iran, Turkey, and Syria in a regional conflict.

That isn't as far-fetched as some might think, the Kurds want independence, and if the al-Maliki government in Iraq falls, the Iraqi Kurds will fight for independence.




Insurgents seize Iraqi city of Mosul as security forces flee

BEIRUT — Insurgents seized control of most of the northern Iraqi city of Mosul on Tuesday in a powerful demonstration of the threat posed by a rapidly expanding extremist army to the fragile stability of Iraq and the wider region.

Fighters with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an al-Qaeda offshoot, overran the western bank of the city overnight after U.S.-trained Iraqi soldiers and police officers abandoned their posts, in some instances discarding their uniforms as they sought to escape the advance of the militants.

Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians also fled the surprise onslaught, which exposed the inadequacies of Iraq’s security forces, risked aggravating the country’s already fraught sectarian divide and enabled the extremists to capture large quantities of weaponry, much of it American.

The speed with which the security forces lost control of one of Iraq’s biggest cities was striking, and it was a major humiliation for the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The city of Fallujah was captured in January by ISIS and other insurgents, but Mosul is a bigger and more important prize, located at a strategically vital intersection on routes linking Iraq to Turkey and Syria.

In Baghdad, Maliki announced a “general mobilization” of the country’s security forces and asked parliament to declare a state of emergency, saying that the government would not allow Mosul to fall “under the shadow of terror and terrorists.”

But the Iraqi security forces have not succeeded in winning back Fallujah, suggesting that it may be even tougher to reclaim Mosul, a city of 1.5 million that was once held out as a success story for the U.S. counterinsurgency effort in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/insurgents-seize-iraqi-city-of-mosul-as-troops-flee/2014/06/10/21061e87-8fcd-4ed3-bc94-0e309af0a674_story.html

what are you talking about Abs? Something bad's happening in Iraq? Can't be. The Chocolate King already won the Nobel Prize for getting us out of there. all this criticism is just those racist crackers holding on to their guns and religion.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-14-2014, 05:34 PM
what are you talking about Abs? Something bad's happening in Iraq? Can't be. The Chocolate King already won the Nobel Prize for getting us out of there. all this criticism is just those racist crackers holding on to their guns and religion.

I hope you consider revising that post, in the mean time, let me refer you to this thread.

http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php/8661-Political-Correctness-is-Good

TJMAC77SP
06-14-2014, 07:32 PM
I hope you consider revising that post, in the mean time, let me refer you to this thread.

http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php/8661-Political-Correctness-is-Good

Yeah, Rainmaker that was unabashedly offensive. Seriously when you insert monikers like that it just muddies any point you are trying to make.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-14-2014, 10:52 PM
I have always thought that a unified Iraq, post Saddam, wasn't possible. The reason the US did not allow a "Three State Solution" was because what it would mean for Iraq's neighbors.

A truly independent Kurdistan is a no-go for Turkey, and a another Shi'a republic right next to Saudi Arabia, poses problems for the royal family in keeping their own Shi'a minority inline.

An independent Sunni Arab republic forming in Western Iraq is less problematic, until one factors in the possibility of a Sunni extremist republic forming.

Then there is the question of Iraq's oil, and who gets it.

I don't think there is any stopping Iraq from breaking into three countries now.

I also think that Syria will split into two or three different countries as we are already seeing elements of the Ba'ath Party in both countries unite, not to mention ISIS.

This conflict has the potential to last for decades and result in the displacement and deaths of millions.

I honestly don't think there is too much we can do about it. Keeping our ground troops out for now, is probably the best move.

However, there are dire consequences to staying out of it completely and watching it explode.

Ultimately, I think that is what we need to do, stay out, and use our diplomatic influence as much as possible, and military force sparingly.

However, when I analyze how the US, NATO and the UN will respond to most of the Middle East falling into an extended period of conflict, I know that we will deploy ground troops again at some point.

I understand that a lot of you are political junkies, and that this is a very tempting issue to whack your political rivals over the head with.

The truth of the matter is, this conflict is way bigger than American politics. There are serious consequences for American interests, at home and abroad with the conflict that is brewing in the Middle East.

I urge Americans on all segments of the political spectrum to educate yourself on what is happening now, and the history of the region, before you support your party of choice.

This means educating yourself from sources beyond TV and radio, or books written by politicians. Make yourself smart from academic sources as well.

Study as much as you can, because both sides of the political aisle are going to be wrong about different aspects of this.

Try not to fall under the spell of any one ideology if possible, because our country is going to need as many educated and level heads as possible in the coming years.

waveshaper2
06-15-2014, 01:17 AM
Latest on the Kurds, particularly interesting is they are grabbing land west of Mosul.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/13/kurdish-forces-are-pushing-back-against-isis-gaining-ground-around-mosul.html


Balad AFB; Iraqi C-130s evacuating US contractors/others + it sounds like the Iraqi Security Forces bugged out and the contractors picked up the abandoned arms to help fight the ISIS attackers, plus the local villagers also helped out. As of about six hours ago there may still be 50 to 75 US contractors still on Balad.

http://ac360.blogs.c...?iref=allsearch

http://www.wnd.com/2...adists-in-iraq/

Absinthe Anecdote
06-15-2014, 02:57 AM
Latest on the Kurds, particularly interesting is they are grabbing land west of Mosul.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/13/kurdish-forces-are-pushing-back-against-isis-gaining-ground-around-mosul.html


Balad AFB; Iraqi C-130s evacuating US contractors/others + it sounds like the Iraqi Security Forces bugged out and the contractors picked up the abandoned arms to help fight the ISIS attackers, plus the local villagers also helped out. As of about six hours ago there may still be 50 to 75 US contractors still on Balad.

http://ac360.blogs.c...?iref=allsearch

http://www.wnd.com/2...adists-in-iraq/

There are pockets of Kurds that live west of Mosul and they extend all the way into Syria, so I'm not really surprised to see the Kurds doing this.

Here is a map of the distribution of the different ethnic populations that helps shed some light on that.

http://usiraq.procon.org/files/USIraq/iraqi.ethnic.gif


There are a few other ethnic groups in those areas that look to the Kurds for protection not listed on that map to include the Yezidis, and what's left of the Chaldean Christians.

The Turcoman in the region also have a complex relationship with the Kurds because of rivalries over Kirkuk. However, if they have to choose sides between the Kurds and ISIS, they'll side with the Kurds.

The Sunni Arab tribal allegiances in northwest Iraq are extremely complex and they shift depending what topic is discussed.

All these ethno-religious and tribal ties run across the boundaries of several countries making this a powder keg.

garhkal
06-15-2014, 03:30 AM
CNN just reported that there are only 8 or 9 thousand ISIS fighters in Iraq, but seems the Sunni troops in the Iraq Army and police units are defecting, so their ranks are likely swelling.

Which makes me wonder why the heck did we spend so many millions of dollars training them?


Well, CNN is already asking if it's because we left too soon. The irony is entertaining.

Exactly. It is Ironic that almost as soon as we get "done" and pulled out, it all goes to hell in a handbasket. Almost as if those in the White house knew this was going to happen.

Though i really love a comment i saw elsewhere in relation to all the beheadings the insurgents are doing and leaving along the road side.
The Muslims really need to change their 'Tag line', that Islam is a religion of peace, to "we are a religion of pieces, body parts that is!"

BENDER56
06-15-2014, 06:39 PM
I just can't understand all this recent turmoil in the historically peaceful Middle East. It's like the world has suddenly gone crazy.






But seriously, what else can you expect from that region?
How could anyone have thought that anything other than a brutal tyrant can maintain any semblance of peace there?
Is everyone actually that willfully blind to reality?

BENDER56
06-15-2014, 06:42 PM
I'm just of the opinion, no matter how it sounds, that I'd rather have it be their people dying than ours.

I can't argue with that.

There's oppression and war and genocide happening in dozens of places around the globe. We just can't save everyone from themselves.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-15-2014, 07:25 PM
How could anyone have thought that anything other than a brutal tyrant can maintain any semblance of peace there?

Is everyone actually that willfully blind to reality?

Even under Saddam there were brutal killings, tribal feuds, and sectarian violence. However, the tyrants do keep a semblance of order, I wouldn't call it peace though.


Why is it like that? I would point to a number of things, starting with tribal customs and the sense of justice that derives from them.

Islam does play a role, as the different sects of that religion are caught between a modern sense of values and those of the Bronze Age.

I think Islam is going through something akin to the reformation or schism that Christianity went through in the Middle Ages.

It took centuries of bloodshed for Europe to come out of this, and I don't see the Middle East calming down until the Sunni Extremists are marginalized.

I don't really know what we can do to hasten that process, it appears to be a long, slow, and bloody one. There are no quick fixes to something like this, the solutions are generational.

The dictatorships of the 20th century kept it on a slow boil, but they weren't really keeping the peace.

TJMAC77SP
06-15-2014, 07:41 PM
Even under Saddam there were brutal killings, tribal feuds, and sectarian violence. However, the tyrants do keep a semblance of order, I wouldn't call it peace though.


Why is it like that? I would point to a number of things, starting with tribal customs and the sense of justice that derives from them.

Islam does play a role, as the different sects of that religion are caught between a modern sense of values and those of the Bronze Age.

I think Islam is going through something akin to the reformation or schism that Christianity went through in the Middle Ages.

It took centuries of bloodshed for Europe to come out of this, and I don't see the Middle East calming down until the Sunni Extremists are marginalized.

I don't really know what we can do to hasten that process, it appears to be a long, slow, and bloody one. There are no quick fixes to something like this, the solutions are generational.

The dictatorships of the 20th century kept it on a slow boil, but they weren't really keeping the peace.

I see your point as to the parallels between the divisions in the Christian (Catholic) Church of hundreds of years ago and the current state of Islam and have heard this before.

The major sticking point for me in that comparison is that Islam (it's followers) have not lived in a vacuum for the last 700-1000 years. While there are pockets of isolation by and large it's not like the practitioners of Islam are some Amazon tribe just discovered who have had zero contact with society as it has evolved over the centuries. I am not willing to give them a total pass.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-15-2014, 07:59 PM
I see your point as to the parallels between the divisions in the Christian (Catholic) Church of hundreds of years ago and the current state of Islam and have heard this before.

The major sticking point for me in that comparison is that Islam (it's followers) have not lived in a vacuum for the last 700-1000 years. While there are pockets of isolation by and large it's not like the practitioners of Islam are some Amazon tribe just discovered who have had zero contact with society as it has evolved over the centuries. I am not willing to give them a total pass.

If you are implying that I am giving them a total pass, I'm not.

Plus, I'm sure you are aware of the numerous sects and divisions in Islam, some are modern, and some stick to an old version of the religion.

You came up with the Amazon analogy, and I think it is invalid because people are perfectly capable of isolating themselves within the confines of their minds. They don't need a deep dark jungle to do it.

We still have small sects of Christian fundamentalists and extremists; fortunately, the have little influence and no power in our society. In the Middle East, these fundamentalist and extreme groups do wield power and influence, and that is the difference.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-15-2014, 11:21 PM
TJMAC77SP

Here is an excerpt from a National Review article that partially illustrates how the Arabic world has isolated itself from the modern world.

• There was a burst of intellectual and scientific creativity in the Muslim world for a few hundred years, but then the opponents of reason came to dominate Islam, and with that development came a loss of scientific and intellectual curiosity. How could it have been otherwise? The dominant Muslim view was that the natural world had no laws. Everything that occurred did so solely because Allah willed it. If an arrow hit its target, it was not because of the archer’s ability or wind patterns or laws of physics; it was because Allah willed it. According to a United Nations report written by Arab scholars, the Arab world’s lack of interest in the non-Arab and non-Muslim worlds is so great that in any given year, comparatively tiny Greece translates more books into Greek than all the Arab countries combined translate into Arabic.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/273388/can-islam-be-reformed-dennis-prager

There are reform movements in Islam but they are few, believe it or not, there is a large segment of the Iranian population that could lead the way in getting a bigger reform movement, for the Shi'a moving, but they are being held in check by the current regime.

I think American Muslims could also play a large roll, and those voices are out there, but they aren't being heard.

Ultimately, a reform of Islam must come from within, it can't be foisted upon them from the outside. I do think it is happening, but like I said before, it is a generational process.

TJMAC77SP
06-16-2014, 12:33 AM
If you are implying that I am giving them a total pass, I'm not.

Plus, I'm sure you are aware of the numerous sects and divisions in Islam, some are modern, and some stick to an old version of the religion.

You came up with the Amazon analogy, and I think it is invalid because people are perfectly capable of isolating themselves within the confines of their minds. They don't need a deep dark jungle to do it.

We still have small sects of Christian fundamentalists and extremists; fortunately, the have little influence and no power in our society. In the Middle East, these fundamentalist and extreme groups do wield power and influence, and that is the difference.

I wasn't asserting that you are giving anyone a free pass. I have simply heard the comparison between Christian and Muslim sects and the relative timeline before and find it flawed.

Regardless of how you close your own mind the world around you is seeping in. In fact the seepage is exactly what drives these fundamentalists to act in the way they do. An inane attempt to stop progress and cultural evolution.

TJMAC77SP
06-16-2014, 12:39 AM
TJMAC77SP

Here is an excerpt from a National Review article that partially illustrates how the Arabic world has isolated itself from the modern world.

• There was a burst of intellectual and scientific creativity in the Muslim world for a few hundred years, but then the opponents of reason came to dominate Islam, and with that development came a loss of scientific and intellectual curiosity. How could it have been otherwise? The dominant Muslim view was that the natural world had no laws. Everything that occurred did so solely because Allah willed it. If an arrow hit its target, it was not because of the archer’s ability or wind patterns or laws of physics; it was because Allah willed it. According to a United Nations report written by Arab scholars, the Arab world’s lack of interest in the non-Arab and non-Muslim worlds is so great that in any given year, comparatively tiny Greece translates more books into Greek than all the Arab countries combined translate into Arabic.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/273388/can-islam-be-reformed-dennis-prager

There are reform movements in Islam but they are few, believe it or not, there is a large segment of the Iranian population that could lead the way in getting a bigger reform movement, for the Shi'a moving, but they are being held in check by the current regime.

I think American Muslims could also play a large roll, and those voices are out there, but they aren't being heard.

Ultimately, a reform of Islam must come from within, it can't be foisted upon them from the outside. I do think it is happening, but like I said before, it is a generational process.

My point is that the isolation if far from complete. A visit to any Muslim country will prove that.

You do raise a very valid point about the reform of Islam must come from within but I would paint with a larger brush those that are not vocal enough. It isn't just CAIRN and other groups in the US. It is the Muslim world in general. They must speak up against this violence. The absurd notion that Muslim doesn't act against Muslim is just that.......absurd.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 01:50 AM
My point is that the isolation if far from complete. A visit to any Muslim country will prove that.

You do raise a very valid point about the reform of Islam must come from within but I would paint with a larger brush those that are not vocal enough. It isn't just CAIRN and other groups in the US. It is the Muslim world in general. They must speak up against this violence. The absurd notion that Muslim doesn't act against Muslim is just that.......absurd.

Obviously, we are not talking about complete physical isolation, but about being close minded.

garhkal
06-16-2014, 07:19 PM
I can't argue with that.

There's oppression and war and genocide happening in dozens of places around the globe. We just can't save everyone from themselves.

More to the point, SHOULD we be required to save everyone else?

sandsjames
06-16-2014, 08:09 PM
More to the point, SHOULD we be required to save everyone else?

No, we shouldn't be required to. But how many people do we let die? That's always the question.

Hopefully we will someday realize that no matter how many times we try to change things over there it's just going to revert back, unless we stay forever...and nobody wants that (I hope).

garhkal
06-17-2014, 12:33 AM
No, we shouldn't be required to. But how many people do we let die? That's always the question.

Hopefully we will someday realize that no matter how many times we try to change things over there it's just going to revert back, unless we stay forever...and nobody wants that (I hope).

Exactly. Take a look at Rhwanda, or Sudan, or any of a multitude of other spots in the middle of Africa where we have just looked the other way or, asked the UN to send "Peace keepers" who are about as meaningless as having a voiceless chiwawa as a guard dog. Or Somalia where we DID go in, but it is now as lawless as before we went in. For many of these places, violence is all they know. it is as ingrained in their culture as watching football/baseball is to us on a sunday. We ain't going to change it.

Rainmaker
06-17-2014, 01:59 AM
Yeah, Rainmaker that was unabashedly offensive. Seriously when you insert monikers like that it just muddies any point you are trying to make.

This Political Correctness is getting out of control. It's getting so you can't even axst a question around here.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-17-2014, 12:57 PM
Last Friday Obama said that we'd have a better idea of what our options in Iraq are, after the weekend. Since today is Tuesday, and all that has been announced is that 275 more troops are being sent to bolster security at the embassy, that tells me, that whatever he was trying to put together with the Iraqi government and neighboring countries has gone nowhere.

Let's face it, none of Obama's options are good. The US doesn't have the ability to play power broker and mediate between the Sunni's and al-Malaki like we did a few years ago.

Air strikes can only do so much, they can thwart a major advance of concentrated ISIS fighters, but when these guys disperse, air strikes aren't going to do much.

As far as Iraq's Sunni's are concerned, al-Maliki has to step down if the central government has any chance of surviving.

Although I don't think Baghdad is in any danger of falling right now, I doubt that the Shi'a troops can push ISIS out of Anbar and Ninevah provinces, they can probably take back Diyala, but that is about it.

It is pretty obvious that Iraq is headed for an extended civil war just like what has been happening in Syria.

How long the US and the other countries in the region can stay out of it remains to be seen.

TJMAC77SP
06-17-2014, 01:13 PM
Last Friday Obama said that we'd have a better idea of what our options in Iraq are, after the weekend. Since today is Tuesday, and all that has been announced is that 275 more troops are being sent to bolster security at the embassy, that tells me, that whatever he was trying to put together with the Iraqi government and neighboring countries has gone nowhere.

Let's face it, none of Obama's options are good. The US doesn't have the ability to play power broker and mediate between the Sunni's and al-Malaki like we did a few years ago.

Air strikes can only do so much, they can thwart a major advance of concentrated ISIS fighters, but when these guys disperse, air strikes aren't going to do much.

As far as Iraq's Sunni's are concerned, al-Maliki has to step down if the central government has any chance of surviving.

Although I don't think Baghdad is in any danger of falling right now, I doubt that the Shi'a troops can push ISIS out of Anbar and Ninevah provinces, they can probably take back Diyala, but that is about it.

It is pretty obvious that Iraq is headed for an extended civil war just like what has been happening in Syria.

How long the US and the other countries in the region can stay out of it remains to be seen.

Watching CNN yesterday it sounded like Fox News.

The part that intrigues me is all the faux surprise at any of this (well I hope it's faux surprise and not genuine). From the news outlets, from politicians, everyone (well almost everyone).

Every time the news comes on with 'breaking news' all I can hear is...........

"This just in..........it is the morning and the sun has come out"

Absinthe Anecdote
06-17-2014, 01:36 PM
Watching CNN yesterday it sounded like Fox News.

The part that intrigues me is all the faux surprise at any of this (well I hope it's faux surprise and not genuine). From the news outlets, from politicians, everyone (well almost everyone).

Every time the news comes on with 'breaking news' all I can hear is...........

"This just in..........it is the morning and the sun has come out"

I think CNN does a pretty good job of covering stories when they focus an a particular story.

The surprise from some commentators is probably genuine, and from a few government officials also.

I think most who had been involved with studying Iraq for any length of time aren't surprised.

What I find amusing about CNN is not their coverage of Iraq, but of Hillary Clinton. They really need to stop putting up airbrushed photos of her, because when they show a video clip of her, or a live shot, it makes them look ridiculous.

If CNN wants to officially endorse Hillary, fine endorse her, but lay off the airbrushed photos that make her look 20 years younger.

Sperry1989
06-17-2014, 01:40 PM
I think CNN does a pretty good job of covering stories when they focus an a particular story.

The surprise from some commentators is probably genuine, and from a few government officials also.

I think most who had been involved with studying Iraq for any length of time aren't surprised.

What I find amusing about CNN is not their coverage of Iraq, but of Hillary Clinton. They really need to stop putting up airbrushed photos of her, because when they show a video clip of her, or a live shot, it makes them look ridiculous.

If CNN wants to officially endorse Hillary, fine endorse her, but lay off the airbrushed photos that make her look 20 years younger.

Stop hating on Hilary. She was hot 20 yrs ago and she is still attractive. Anyway, CNN has been providing great coverage of the tornado outbreaks in the Midwest. They have the best bipartisan weather coverage I have seen to date.

Rainmaker
06-17-2014, 01:42 PM
Watching CNN yesterday it sounded like Fox News.

The part that intrigues me is all the faux surprise at any of this (well I hope it's faux surprise and not genuine). From the news outlets, from politicians, everyone (well almost everyone).

Every time the news comes on with 'breaking news' all I can hear is...........

"This just in..........it is the morning and the sun has come out"

Rainmaker would lay odds that former AIPAC lobbyist Wolf Blitzer will be announced as part of the Fox lineup any time now.
So, if Rainmaker understand this correctly the "rebels" we (through Qatar and Saudi Arabia) armed to to take down the secular regime in Syria have come home to roost in Iraq. Sounds about right. Meet the new boss...same as the old boss... FORWARD to the Project for a New American NeoCON Century Bitchez!!

Rainmaker
06-17-2014, 01:47 PM
I think CNN does a pretty good job of covering stories when they focus an a particular story.

The surprise from some commentators is probably genuine, and from a few government officials also.

I think most who had been involved with studying Iraq for any length of time aren't surprised.

What I find amusing about CNN is not their coverage of Iraq, but of Hillary Clinton. They really need to stop putting up airbrushed photos of her, because when they show a video clip of her, or a live shot, it makes them look ridiculous.

If CNN wants to officially endorse Hillary, fine endorse her, but lay off the airbrushed photos that make her look 20 years younger.

How do you airbrush a cankle?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-17-2014, 02:28 PM
I just heard Major General Tom Wilkerson, USMC (ret) give his opinion on Iraq, and I think he put what is going on in perspective in a succinct and clear manner.

I'm paraphrasing here, he said it much better.

We have no good options.

Our military options are inconsequential unless we are willing to stay there for the long haul, we aren't, so we should stay out.

A diplomatic solution isn't possible without Sunni and Shi'a reconciliation, that isn't very likely.

Iraq is headed for a "Three State Solution."

He didn't speak about the consequences of a "Three State Solution" because he was only on CNN for a short segment. I'd love to hear more of General Wilkerson's views on this.

TJMAC77SP
06-17-2014, 02:37 PM
I think CNN does a pretty good job of covering stories when they focus an a particular story.

The surprise from some commentators is probably genuine, and from a few government officials also.

I think most who had been involved with studying Iraq for any length of time aren't surprised.

What I find amusing about CNN is not their coverage of Iraq, but of Hillary Clinton. They really need to stop putting up airbrushed photos of her, because when they show a video clip of her, or a live shot, it makes them look ridiculous.

If CNN wants to officially endorse Hillary, fine endorse her, but lay off the airbrushed photos that make her look 20 years younger.

What I meant in my reference to CNN is that they were pretty harsh in their critiques yesterday. It was fair coverage (which is why it is my main TV news source).

I agree about the Hillary coverage and would add ABC to that. An hour long special promoting a book...hard questions but no challenge to bullshit answers........GMA appearance the next morning....complete softball (although I like Robin Roberts she isn't known for hard hitting interviews). It is a love fest over there. Actually ABC's love affair with everything Clinton goes back to the 90's.

At the height of the Lewinsky debacle, I believe it was within days of Clinton admitting to the affair (if you can call that double talk an admission) but after his initial denial; ABC airs an hour long special, hosted by Peter Jennings about the women in the Kennedy Whitehouse.............Really ?!?!??!

Sorry to ramble. Your mention of Hillary got me thinking about all this.

TJMAC77SP
06-17-2014, 02:41 PM
I just heard Major General Tom Wilkerson, USMC (ret) give his opinion on Iraq, and I think he put what is going on in perspective in a succinct and clear manner.

I'm paraphrasing here, he said it much better.

We have no good options.

Our military options are inconsequential unless we are willing to stay there for the long haul, we aren't, so we should stay out.

A diplomatic solution isn't possible without Sunni and Shi'a reconciliation, that isn't very likely.

Iraq is headed for a "Three State Solution."

He didn't speak about the consequences of a "Three State Solution" because he was only on CNN for a short segment. I'd love to hear more of General Wilkerson's views on this.

I also liked his reference to Paul Harvey's quote, "In times like these, it helps to recall that there have always been times like these." I guess that is why the surprised reactions we see coming out of DC and elsewhere baffle me.

Rainmaker
06-17-2014, 02:50 PM
I just heard Major General Tom Wilkerson, USMC (ret) give his opinion on Iraq, and I think he put what is going on in perspective in a succinct and clear manner.

I'm paraphrasing here, he said it much better.

We have no good options.

Our military options are inconsequential unless we are willing to stay there for the long haul, we aren't, so we should stay out.

A diplomatic solution isn't possible without Sunni and Shi'a reconciliation, that isn't very likely.

Iraq is headed for a "Three State Solution."

He didn't speak about the consequences of a "Three State Solution" because he was only on CNN for a short segment. I'd love to hear more of General Wilkerson's views on this.

Of course it is. this is exactly what Joe Biden(among others) were pushing for all along. I wonder if ol' Joe's lawyer son will get hired on with any energy companies like he did in Ukraine. Geeze. It's almost like it's happening by design.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-17-2014, 04:01 PM
Of course it is. this is exactly what Joe Biden(among others) were pushing for all along. I wonder if ol' Joe's lawyer son will get hired on with any energy companies like he did in Ukraine. Geeze. It's almost like it's happening by design.

The problem with a "Three State Solution" is that it has the potential to widen the conflict to neighboring states.

The Kurds want total independence very badly, but even they know the risks of pushing for it too overtly.

They have been hedging their bets on all possible outcomes, very wisely. The two most powerful families in the KRG are the Talibani's (completely unrelated to the Taliban) and the Barzani's.

Even during the Saddam era, they were sending their children to the US and the UK to go to university and learn to speak like Americans and Brits. They have well funded lobbyists and are impressive and persuasive speakers.

When Joe Biden was speaking that stuff about a "Three State Solution" when he was a Senator, I have no doubt that he had been charmed by one of Masaud Barzani's or Jalal Talibani's children.

I heard one of Barzani's kids speak at the Heritage Foundation and the guy can sweep an audience off their feet. British accent, handsome and charming, plus well versed in facts and a true diplomat.

I wouldn't give old Joe Biden too much credit for predicting the future, the credit should probably go to one of the Barzani kids.

BENDER56
06-17-2014, 05:38 PM
More to the point, SHOULD we be required to save everyone else?
Hell no.

I thought that was implicit in my, "... can't save everyone ...," statement. If you can't do something, why would you even bother trying?

But now that I think of it, the mere fact that we can't do something -- that it's simply not possible -- doesn't deter the But-we-have-to-do-SOMETHING crowd.

I mean, isn't that the American way? You'd never see John Wayne or John Rambo or John McClane merely stand on the sidelines and spectate, would you? Hell no! "Don't just stand there, DO SOMETHING!!!," is the American way. (And what's the deal with people named John?)

Sorry folks; doing nothing is sometimes the best option.

sandsjames
06-17-2014, 05:43 PM
Hell no.

I thought that was implicit in my, "... can't save everyone ...," statement. If you can't do something, why would you even bother trying?

But now that I think of it, the mere fact that we can't do something -- that it's simply not possible -- doesn't deter the But-we-have-to-do-SOMETHING crowd.

I mean, isn't that the American way? You'd never see John Wayne or John Rambo or John McClane merely stand on the sidelines and spectate, would you? Hell no! "Don't just stand there, DO SOMETHING!!!," is the American way. (And what's the deal with people named John?)

Sorry folks; doing nothing is sometimes the best option.

Yep...if a guy is going to beat the shit out of his wife and you know she's not going to press charges and will end up going back to him then there's no reason to stop him if you see it happening.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-17-2014, 06:29 PM
Yep...if a guy is going to beat the shit out of his wife and you know she's not going to press charges and will end up going back to him then there's no reason to stop him if you see it happening.

So let him beat her, even if you know that there is a distinct possibility that he might kill her?

I think talking in analogies when it comes to Iraq is mostly a silly exercise because there are dire consequences of doing nothing.

Like it or not, our nation is a superpower. That much is a plain and simple reality. Other nations, non-states actors, terrorists groups all plan their next move on what the US may or may not do.

Totally withdrawing from the scene creates a power vacuum that could have disastrous results for US in the future.

I'm not advocating that we go back in with a shitload of troops, but we clearly shouldn't just stand by and watch WWIII develop.

Here is another analogy used by General Colin Powell, he likened Iraq to the Pottery Barn, "You break it, you buy it."

Well, we broke it a long fucking time ago, and we still aren't finished paying for it.

Unfortunately, our next payment is coming due and it going to be a big one.

I don't want us going back in there either, but we will, sooner or later, we will.

sandsjames
06-17-2014, 06:34 PM
So let him beat her, even if you know that there is a distinct possibility that he might kill her?

I think talking in analogies when it comes to Iraq is mostly a silly exercise because there are dire consequences of doing nothing.

Like it or not, our nation is a superpower. That much is a plain and simple reality. Other nations, non-states actors, terrorists groups all plan their next move on what the US may or may not do.

Totally withdrawing from the scene creates a power vacuum that could have disastrous results for US in the future.

I'm not advocating that we go back in with a shitload of troops, but we clearly shouldn't just stand by and watch WWIII develop.

Here is another analogy used by General Colin Powell, he likened Iraq to the Pottery Barn, "You break it, you buy it."

Well, we broke it a long fucking time ago, and we still aren't finished paying for it.

Unfortunately, our next payment is coming due and it going to be a big one.

I don't want us going back in there either, but we will, sooner or later, we will.My comment was pure sarcasm.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-17-2014, 06:42 PM
My comment was pure sarcasm.

I know, I really should have replied to Bender.

To continue with your analogy though...

Now, not only do we have the first wife beater kicking the shit out of her, but another guy from the house next door came running over there and is kicking her too. Wait! Here comes even more from down the block and they are grabbing women at random from all over the block and killing them.

Holy fuck! Now is is a full blown riot and we can't get to the gas station!

Shit! Maybe we should have done something?

sandsjames
06-17-2014, 06:48 PM
I know, I really should have replied to Bender.

To continue with your analogy though...

Now, not only do we have the first wife beater kicking the shit out of her, but another guy from the house next door came running over there and is kicking her too. Wait! Here comes even more from down the block and they are grabbing women at random from all over the block and killing them.

Holy fuck! Now is is a full blown riot and we can't get to the gas station!

Shit! Maybe we should have done something?

We won't, until there are so many guys beating her that by the time we try to intervene it will be way more dangerous for us to do so and many of us trying to help will end up injured/killed by the mob of drunk wife beaters. If only we had stopped the one guy when it would have been much easier.

garhkal
06-17-2014, 08:57 PM
Although I don't think Baghdad is in any danger of falling right now, I doubt that the Shi'a troops can push ISIS out of Anbar and Ninevah provinces, they can probably take back Diyala, but that is about it.


With how quickly other cities and towns fell, and the ease it seems the Iraq army people seem to just flee, i wouldn't put a quick capitulation past them.
BUT what i'd love to know is how can any of the Iraq milita/army people think their surrendering to the ISIS troops will get them any better of a treatment than has already been shown to be happening (beheadings, mass executions etc)?

Capt Alfredo
06-17-2014, 09:41 PM
I'd like to thank AA for actually applying some intellectual rigor to the boards on this subject. You represent the intel community well here. Now stop trolling the fatties!

waveshaper2
06-17-2014, 09:55 PM
With how quickly other cities and towns fell, and the ease it seems the Iraq army people seem to just flee, i wouldn't put a quick capitulation past them.
BUT what i'd love to know is how can any of the Iraq milita/army people think their surrendering to the ISIS troops will get them any better of a treatment than has already been shown to be happening (beheadings, mass executions etc)?

The only reason a small number of ISIS headhunters are taking so much land/so many cities is because the local Sunni tribes (the same folks we were fighting) are allowing it to happen by actively assisting them. Trillions of US dollars, 4,500 KIA/32,000 WIA, and 8 years of effort/combat can only buy you so much time/loyalty with these crazy folks. The US is way upside down on Iraq in terms of lives lost/wounded and money wasted with no positive results/outcome. It's time to let this place go into permanent foreclosure and start defining/preparing a US long term (25/50 year) strategic plan for this region.

Flash back, rinse and repeat-I don't think so.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4045471

TomTom093
06-18-2014, 03:43 AM
I'll just leave this here- http://www.stonekettle.com/2014/06/absolutely-nothing.html?spref=fb

BENDER56
06-18-2014, 06:21 PM
Yep...if a guy is going to beat the shit out of his wife and you know she's not going to press charges and will end up going back to him then there's no reason to stop him if you see it happening.

I realize further down the thread you said this was sarcastic, but I'm still not sure of your point.

There are situations that require action. Your scenario might be one of them. Maybe not.

My point was that there are also situations in which no action needs to be taken, and it seems many people can't understand that, and furthermore, can't even tolerate inaction.

This drive to always "DO SOMETHING" can be counterproductive. Like, say, going into Iraq in the first place.

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 06:59 PM
I realize further down the thread you said this was sarcastic, but I'm still not sure of your point.

There are situations that require action. Your scenario might be one of them. Maybe not.

My point was that there are also situations in which no action needs to be taken, and it seems many people can't understand that, and furthermore, can't even tolerate inaction.

This drive to always "DO SOMETHING" can be counterproductive. Like, say, going into Iraq in the first place.

Of course it can be counterproductive, but let's be honest...if it keeps up, we will be going in at some point. Not that we should, but we will. That's what we do. So how much harder do we make it on ourselves by waiting?

TJMAC77SP
06-18-2014, 07:42 PM
It is important to remember the both acting and purposely not acting both have consequences and effects. Those must be equally considered in both cases. Most are willing to point out possible negative consequences of whatever position they don't support but are usually unwilling to acknowledge the possible consequences of doing the opposite of what they support (or not doing........well, that is clear as mud).

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 07:52 PM
It is important to remember the both acting and purposely not acting both have consequences and effects. Those must be equally considered in both cases. Most are willing to point out possible negative consequences of whatever position they don't support but are usually unwilling to acknowledge the possible consequences of doing the opposite of what they support (or not doing........well, that is clear as mud).

Yep...as has been said, it's really a no win situation. We've seen what happens when we go and we've seen what happens when we don't go. We've also seen the reaction of the international community in both of those situations. I'm glad I'm not the one making the call, either way.

Rainmaker
06-18-2014, 08:05 PM
The only reason a small number of ISIS headhunters are taking so much land/so many cities is because the local Sunni tribes (the same folks we were fighting) are allowing it to happen by actively assisting them. Trillions of US dollars, 4,500 KIA/32,000 WIA, and 8 years of effort/combat can only buy you so much time/loyalty with these crazy folks. The US is way upside down on Iraq in terms of lives lost/wounded and money wasted with no positive results/outcome. It's time to let this place go into permanent foreclosure and start defining/preparing a US long term (25/50 year) strategic plan for this region.
Flash back, rinse and repeat-I don't think so.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4045471

See PNAC i.e Greater Israel. The Shiite's gonna hit the fan.

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 08:12 PM
The only reason a small number of ISIS headhunters are taking so much land/so many cities is because the local Sunni tribes (the same folks we were fighting) are allowing it to happen by actively assisting them. Trillions of US dollars, 4,500 KIA/32,000 WIA, and 8 years of effort/combat can only buy you so much time/loyalty with these crazy folks. The US is way upside down on Iraq in terms of lives lost/wounded and money wasted with no positive results/outcome. It's time to let this place go into permanent foreclosure and start defining/preparing a US long term (25/50 year) strategic plan for this region.

Flash back, rinse and repeat-I don't think so.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4045471

That is one very valid viewpoint. Now, we know that hindsight is 20/20, so let's say we sit this one out and in a few years there is a terrorist attack that is based out of the region we let go to the dogs. Then, everyone will be saying "See, I told you so!"

Again, it's a no win situation. Only future history will tell us whether what we are doing is the right move or not. Past history shows that it sucks when we help and it sucks when we don't.

Maybe we could just set up a "No fly zone" in the north and the south of the country. That hasn't been tried before.

garhkal
06-18-2014, 10:36 PM
Yep...as has been said, it's really a no win situation. We've seen what happens when we go and we've seen what happens when we don't go. We've also seen the reaction of the international community in both of those situations. I'm glad I'm not the one making the call, either way.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place. Personally i say Don't go in. Don't waste any more tax payer dollars.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-19-2014, 03:54 PM
The president is speaking at 12:30 today on Iraq, and from what the news networks are chattering about it sounds like he is sending in "advisors."

That can be translated as special forces teams to go after ISIS leaders and ground controllers to direct air strikes. Not really that surprising when you consider what is going on over there.

I heard a clip from Kerry this morning and it sounded like he was laying the ground work for a deployment of advisors, just how many we are sending is hard to figure.

I sure as hell want any teams we send to have enough security to protect themselves, it has to be just the right amount.

The bigger question is how much pressure will he put on al-Malki to step down.

I would be extremely surprised if he announces anything about working with Iran, don't expect that at all.

It will be interesting to see if he takes any questions, and who gets to ask them.

waveshaper2
06-19-2014, 03:58 PM
That is one very valid viewpoint. Now, we know that hindsight is 20/20, so let's say we sit this one out and in a few years there is a terrorist attack that is based out of the region we let go to the dogs. Then, everyone will be saying "See, I told you so!"

Again, it's a no win situation. Only future history will tell us whether what we are doing is the right move or not. Past history shows that it sucks when we help and it sucks when we don't.



Maybe we could just set up a "No fly zone" in the north and the south of the country. That hasn't been tried before.

I don't believe anyone really has an answer for what will/may work.
Unfortunately America's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan may go on forever! Iraq and Afghanistan are America's version of "Hotel California": "Relax, " said the night man, "We are programmed to receive. You can check-out any time you like, But you can never leave! "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=S7T--uLRRiQ#t=48

Absinthe Anecdote
06-19-2014, 05:55 PM
Well, he is still speaking and what I heard was 300 troops and setting up two Joint Operations Intel Centers, one in Baghdad and one up North. The one up North has to be in Kurdistan, because that's the only place with enough security to set one up.

I'm guessing the JOICs are not included in the 300 personnel.

I haven't checked the job listings yet, but I'm sure there will be a shit load of contractor jobs advertised real soon.

BENDER56
06-19-2014, 06:25 PM
Of course it can be counterproductive, but let's be honest...if it keeps up, we will be going in at some point. Not that we should, but we will. That's what we do. So how much harder do we make it on ourselves by waiting?

Perhaps we will.

It's significant that you wrote, "Not that we should, but we will." So you see this as inevitable, but you agree that we shouldn't get involved?

As for any advantage incurred by waiting (assuming we go at all), I'd say it would be all the lives of American troops that aren't lost while we wait.

BENDER56
06-19-2014, 06:52 PM
It is important to remember the both acting and purposely not acting both have consequences and effects. Those must be equally considered in both cases. Most are willing to point out possible negative consequences of whatever position they don't support but are usually unwilling to acknowledge the possible consequences of doing the opposite of what they support (or not doing........well, that is clear as mud).

No, that was well stated.

But there is also a third group who recognize the possible negative consequences of all the different actions and opt for the action (or inaction) that results in the least damaging consequences.

Which gets me wondering if perhaps I'm being shortsighted because I don't know for sure what, if any, will be the consequences of inaction in Iraq. Sure, there are lots of people insisting that if we don't intervene now the sky will fall, rivers will run with blood, and Chevy truck owners will lie down together with Ford truck owners. But people, experts included, are notoriously inaccurate when attempting to predict the future.

So I guess my view is this; If we go back into Iraq we'll lose hundreds more American service members and billions of dollars, and we don't know for certain if we'll accomplish any long-term good.

And if we stand back and watch, we'll save all of those lives and dollars and ... I don't really know what else. But I know we'll have saved American lives and money.

Y'know, I suppose there's also a fourth group who looks at the negative consequences of all possible actions, but selects the option with the best potential POSITIVE outcome, regardless of how bad the negative consequences might be. I get that sometimes situations are dire enough to use that calculus, but I don't think we're there regarding Iraq.


(How come options to use text effects such as bold, italic, and font color are sometimes available while composing posts and other times are not available?)

WILDJOKER5
06-19-2014, 06:58 PM
Even Glenn Beck now agrees with the left anti-war movement of 2004-2008 that said we shouldnt be in Iraq, who all agree with Ron Paul that said interventionalism is going to bring down out country back in the 80's. Man, times change huh?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-19-2014, 07:07 PM
(How come options to use text effects such as bold, italic, and font color are sometimes available while composing posts and other times are not available?)

Hit the "Go Advanced" button, if that doesn't work, try updating your browser and OS.

WILDJOKER5
06-19-2014, 07:12 PM
So, here's a question. If the left says Bush lied when he said we were going because Saddam had WMDs and we never found them, what is this place with "stock piles of Mustard, Serin and VX gasses" that ISIS has taken over?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/06/breaking-isis-terrorists-seize-saddam-husseins-chemical-weapons/

Absinthe Anecdote
06-19-2014, 07:50 PM
No, that was well stated.

But there is also a third group who recognize the possible negative consequences of all the different actions and opt for the action (or inaction) that results in the least damaging consequences.

Which gets me wondering if perhaps I'm being shortsighted because I don't know for sure what, if any, will be the consequences of inaction in Iraq. Sure, there are lots of people insisting that if we don't intervene now the sky will fall, rivers will run with blood, and Chevy truck owners will lie down together with Ford truck owners. But people, experts included, are notoriously inaccurate when attempting to predict the future.

So I guess my view is this; If we go back into Iraq we'll lose hundreds more American service members and billions of dollars, and we don't know for certain if we'll accomplish any long-term good.

And if we stand back and watch, we'll save all of those lives and dollars and ... I don't really know what else. But I know we'll have saved American lives and money.

Y'know, I suppose there's also a fourth group who looks at the negative consequences of all possible actions, but selects the option with the best potential POSITIVE outcome, regardless of how bad the negative consequences might be. I get that sometimes situations are dire enough to use that calculus, but I don't think we're there regarding Iraq.


(How come options to use text effects such as bold, italic, and font color are sometimes available while composing posts and other times are not available?)

The biggest risk of inaction is the entire Middle East being embroiled in a regional conflict. None of the countries in that region have stable governments and all have sectarian conflicts simmering, just like the ones currently boiling over in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Libya.

Should the worst happen and civil wars break out in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, and Libya, do you really think we could stay out of that?

I'm not sure we could, even if we tried.

Not to mention what would happen to the global economy with that much of the world's oil supply disrupted.

I do think we can avoid the worst case scenario through a mix of diplomacy and using military force sparingly. At least I hope so.

I often hear people say, "We shouldn't be the world's police force."

I agree with that sentiment, but unfortunately "shouldn't" is largely irrelevant.

The fact is, we are stuck with that role, and have been since we emerged as a superpower.

We might be seeing the beginning of the US leaving the world stage as a superpower, right now.

By the year 2050, will China be at center stage? I don't know, but a lot of people who study that sort of thing think so.

Who knows?

One thing for certain now, what the US does, or doesn't do, has a lasting impact on the rest of the world.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-19-2014, 08:12 PM
So, here's a question. If the left says Bush lied when he said we were going because Saddam had WMDs and we never found them, what is this place with "stock piles of Mustard, Serin and VX gasses" that ISIS has taken over?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/06/breaking-isis-terrorists-seize-saddam-husseins-chemical-weapons/

Before you go posting not even half the story from some dipshit's blog, why not check out the full story first.

Also, it came out back in 2003 that we seized small amounts of chemical weapons.

Lay off the silly bullshit about "Bush lied", we are 11 years past that.

16.32 Isis jihadists have seized a chemical weapons facility built by Saddam Hussein which contains a stockpile of old weapons, State Department officials have told the Wall Street Journal:

U.S. officials don't believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said.

Nonetheless, the capture of the chemical-weapon stockpile by the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, known as ISIS or ISIL, the militant group that is seizing territory in the country, has grabbed the attention of the U.S.

"We remain concerned about the seizure of any military site by the ISIL," Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said in a written statement. "We do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to safely move the materials."

I do think that those weapons had been destroyed or rendered inert.

Rainmaker
06-19-2014, 08:14 PM
The biggest risk of inaction is the entire Middle East being embroiled in a regional conflict. None of the countries in that region have stable governments and all have sectarian conflicts simmering, just like the ones currently boiling over in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Libya.

Should the worst happen and civil wars break out in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, and Libya, do you really think we could stay out of that?

I'm not sure we could, even if we tried.

Not to mention what would happen to the global economy with that much of the world's oil supply disrupted.
I do think we can avoid the worst case scenario through a mix of diplomacy and using military force sparingly. At least I hope so.

I often hear people say, "We shouldn't be the world's police force."

I agree with that sentiment, but unfortunately "shouldn't" is largely irrelevant.

The fact is, we are stuck with that role, and have been since we emerged as a superpower.

We might be seeing the beginning of the US leaving the world stage as a superpower, right now.

By the year 2050, will China be at center stage? I don't know, but a lot of people who study that sort of thing think so.

Who knows?

One thing for certain now, what the US does, or doesn't do, has a lasting impact on the rest of the world.

Basically the US- Russian Proxy war's lining up along these lines: Syria, Southern Iraq, Iran vs. the Sunni states GCC states, Paskistan, Saudi Arabia, Northern Iraq, Lybia and Egypt? Not sure...Abs? but...know this... the Russian pipeline through iran, Iraq, Syria. Ain't happenin. IMF will bailout Iraq (w interest)in exchange for Special Drawing rights, so long as they don't do anything crazy (nationalize the oil). Good thing for the NEOCONS is they forget about Palestine. Oh well on to more important things Like eliminating the history of the Native American Peoples by getting rid of any trace of them on sports logos and looking at Miley's flat ass. oUT

BENDER56
06-19-2014, 08:51 PM
The biggest risk of inaction is the entire Middle East being embroiled in a regional conflict. None of the countries in that region have stable governments and all have sectarian conflicts simmering, just like the ones currently boiling over in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Libya.

Should the worst happen and civil wars break out in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, and Libya, do you really think we could stay out of that?

I'm not sure we could, even if we tried.

Not to mention what would happen to the global economy with that much of the world's oil supply disrupted.

I do think we can avoid the worst case scenario through a mix of diplomacy and using military force sparingly. At least I hope so.

I often hear people say, "We shouldn't be the world's police force."

I agree with that sentiment, but unfortunately "shouldn't" is largely irrelevant.

The fact is, we are stuck with that role, and have been since we emerged as a superpower.

We might be seeing the beginning of the US leaving the world stage as a superpower, right now.

By the year 2050, will China be at center stage? I don't know, but a lot of people who study that sort of thing think so.

Who knows?

One thing for certain now, what the US does, or doesn't do, has a lasting impact on the rest of the world.

Again, speculation on the future of this conflict (or anything, for that matter) is just that -- speculation. Maybe it'll degrade into a full blown international crisis requiring our intervention down the road. Maybe not. My point is that nobody knows.

What the outcome will be if we do intervene is also just speculation. In 2003 we were going to be in and out of Iraq in, "... six months, tops," and would be greeted as liberators.

Who's to say we won't expend lives and resources again and find ourselves no better off in ten years than we are now?

So, yeah; diplomacy with perhaps the least amount of military support is our best option right now.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-19-2014, 09:09 PM
Again, speculation on the future of this conflict (or anything, for that matter) is just that -- speculation. Maybe it'll degrade into a full blown international crisis requiring our intervention down the road. Maybe not. My point is that nobody knows.

What the outcome will be if we do intervene is also just speculation. In 2003 we were going to be in and out of Iraq in, "... six months, tops," and would be greeted as liberators.

Who's to say we won't expend lives and resources again and find ourselves no better off in ten years than we are now?

So, yeah; diplomacy with perhaps the least amount of military support is our best option right now.

I think speculation isn't the best word to describe what we know about this region. Speculation means without evidence, that's hardly the case with what we know about about the tensions and underlying conflicts in the Middle East.

Ultimately, the future is unknown and you won't get an argument from me on that point.

What is known, is that allowing a Sunni extremist organization to form a nation in the Middle East, will be a much bigger problem than what we are facing now.

WILDJOKER5
06-20-2014, 12:26 AM
Before you go posting not even half the story from some dipshit's blog, why not check out the full story first.

Also, it came out back in 2003 that we seized small amounts of chemical weapons.

Lay off the silly bullshit about "Bush lied", we are 11 years past that.

16.32 Isis jihadists have seized a chemical weapons facility built by Saddam Hussein which contains a stockpile of old weapons, State Department officials have told the Wall Street Journal:

U.S. officials don't believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said.

Nonetheless, the capture of the chemical-weapon stockpile by the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, known as ISIS or ISIL, the militant group that is seizing territory in the country, has grabbed the attention of the U.S.

"We remain concerned about the seizure of any military site by the ISIL," Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said in a written statement. "We do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to safely move the materials."

I do think that those weapons had been destroyed or rendered inert.
Honestly, I didn't hear about that and was asking a serious question. Thanks for explaining it. I really wasn't paying much attention to the news back then. And you will see that I am a Paul supporter, that should have been your first clue that I am against the 2nd Iraq war just as much as I am against this potential one.

TJMAC77SP
06-20-2014, 01:20 PM
Hit the "Go Advanced" button, if that doesn't work, try updating your browser and OS.

None of that worked for me.

TJMAC77SP
06-20-2014, 01:24 PM
Before you go posting not even half the story from some dipshit's blog, why not check out the full story first.

Also, it came out back in 2003 that we seized small amounts of chemical weapons.

Lay off the silly bullshit about "Bush lied", we are 11 years past that.

16.32 Isis jihadists have seized a chemical weapons facility built by Saddam Hussein which contains a stockpile of old weapons, State Department officials have told the Wall Street Journal:

U.S. officials don't believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said.

Nonetheless, the capture of the chemical-weapon stockpile by the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, known as ISIS or ISIL, the militant group that is seizing territory in the country, has grabbed the attention of the U.S.

"We remain concerned about the seizure of any military site by the ISIL," Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said in a written statement. "We do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to safely move the materials."

I do think that those weapons had been destroyed or rendered inert.


Unfortunately the news media still reports the situation in 2003 as Bush Lied....CNN the other day had one of their regular contributors stating that several time speaking over the other speaker who was trying to state that they were intelligence reports later proved false. Of course the same 'journalist' referred to Paul Bremer as the "Former Viceroy of Iraq" .

In any case, the article you quoted refers to them as being sealed in bunkers and that attempts to move them would most likely only harm the ISIS but it is not a definitive statement. There is something in the bunkers. Something that must be dangerous (I didn't see anything in the article about them being rendered inert chemical weapons are just that...inert, why store them in bunkers?). The ISIS is not exactly poster children for rationale behavior so who believes they give a shit if they lose some people getting into the bunkers.

This is not good news any way you look at it.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-20-2014, 01:32 PM
None of that worked for me.

Maybe your computer is thirsty?

Sometimes the motherboard gets a little dried out with the high operating temperatures during the summer months.

Try pouring a tall glass of cool water into the vents on the back of your CPU.

TJMAC77SP
06-20-2014, 01:34 PM
Maybe your computer is thirsty?

Sometimes the motherboard gets a little dried out with the high operating temperatures during the summer months.

Try pouring a tall glass of cool water into the vents on the back of your CPU.

I'll just use the water I have in the cup holder on my computer.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-20-2014, 02:01 PM
Unfortunately the news media still reports the situation in 2003 as Bush Lied....CNN the other day had one of their regular contributors stating that several time speaking over the other speaker who was trying to state that they were intelligence reports later proved false. Of course the same 'journalist' referred to Paul Bremer as the "Former Viceroy of Iraq" .

In any case, the article you quoted refers to them as being sealed in bunkers and that attempts to move them would most likely only harm the ISIS but it is not a definitive statement. There is something in the bunkers. Something that must be dangerous (I didn't see anything in the article about them being rendered inert chemical weapons are just that...inert, why store them in bunkers?). The ISIS is not exactly poster children for rationale behavior so who believes they give a shit if they lose some people getting into the bunkers.

This is not good news any way you look at it.

I vaguely remember when US troops first took that facility back in 2003 and I do know that we tried to destroy some of the stockpile on site a couple of years later, but it proved too dangerous.

There was a recommendation to build an incinerator in the compound to get rid of what remained, but it looks like that never happened.

The ISIS guys could probably build a IED with some of that stuff and while it would be a hazardous, it wouldn't be an effective chemical weapon.

The chemical agent has to be dispersed in such a way that the explosion doesn't burn up the agent. I am going to guess that our guys removed the dispersal components of those artillery shells from al-Muthanna.

At least I fucking hope so.

Separate issue, but related to remnants of Saddam's chemical weapons stockpile getting in the hands of insurgents.

Back in 2007, we did have some EOD guys get burns from mustard gas when dismantling an IED made from 155mm artillery shells.

We were never sure what stockpile site they came from.

CYBERFX1024
06-20-2014, 02:03 PM
Before you go posting not even half the story from some dipshit's blog, why not check out the full story first.
Also, it came out back in 2003 that we seized small amounts of chemical weapons.
Lay off the silly bullshit about "Bush lied", we are 11 years past that.
I do think that those weapons had been destroyed or rendered inert.

It's sad honestly but the majority of Americans believe that we did not find ANY WMD in Iraq. When I have met people who were on the ground during the invasion who did find them in bunkers. Also not to mention the convoys going from Iraq to Syria in the weeks preceding the invasion. But the vast majority of people think that Bush lied and we didn't find anything.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-20-2014, 02:16 PM
It's sad honestly but the majority of Americans believe that we did not find ANY WMD in Iraq. When I have met people who were on the ground during the invasion who did find them in bunkers. Also not to mention the convoys going from Iraq to Syria in the weeks preceding the invasion. But the vast majority of people think that Bush lied and we didn't find anything.

I hear ya, it was more of an issue of segments of the Intel community being wrong about his nuclear program.

I think his nuclear program was basically non-existent, and just a foolish ruse he used against us and Iran.

Ultimately, he bluffed us into thinking he had some type of program in development.

The chemical weapons part of Saddam's WMD program was well documented and he had actually used chemical weapons on the Kurds before.

Measure Man
06-20-2014, 02:23 PM
Maybe your computer is thirsty?

Sometimes the motherboard gets a little dried out with the high operating temperatures during the summer months.

Try pouring a tall glass of cool water into the vents on the back of your CPU.


I'll just use the water I have in the cup holder on my computer.

LOL...this made me laugh. I was reading on of the consolidations of idiots' status updates the other day...you know those things on Viral Nova or whatever.

One them read, "Whowever it was that said ugrading to iOS7 made your phone waterproof...F YOU"

ha ha ha ha...really did laugh out loud at that one.

BENDER56
06-20-2014, 06:55 PM
... What is known, is that allowing a Sunni extremist organization to form a nation in the Middle East, will be a much bigger problem than what we are facing now.

No, that isn't "known." If they accomplish that, no doubt it will be seen as a "problem" for many players in the Middle East, and, I suppose, others around the globe -- certainly a "much bigger problem" for the Shiites. But for us? Maybe, maybe not. Predictably, many Americans will insist it's an apocalyptic problem, but that doesn't mean it is.

I don't know what will happen there any more than you or anyone else does, but I have a hard time seeing ISIS succeeding without some opposing response by other players in the area. I wonder if Iran will sit idly by while a Suni stronghold arises on its western border. I mean, for cripe's sake, they can't just sit there, they'll have to DO SOMETHING! Great. Let them fight it out. I don't remember the last Iran-Iraq war having much effect on us.

It's entirely possible that some sort of self-correcting measures will occur without any action by us.

sandsjames
06-20-2014, 07:58 PM
I don't remember the last Iran-Iraq war having much effect on us.



Other than us aiding one side and having it come back to bite us in the ass, as is the trend since the late 70s.

garhkal
06-20-2014, 08:03 PM
Yup. We aided the taliban against the russians and are now fighting them. We aided many others back then who are now are enemies now.
We seem to never learn from our mistakes.

sandsjames
06-20-2014, 09:24 PM
Yup. We aided the taliban against the russians and are now fighting them. We aided many others back then who are now are enemies now.
We seem to never learn from our mistakes.

And we weren't exactly hands off with Iran/Iraq.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-20-2014, 09:41 PM
And we weren't exactly hands off with Iran/Iraq.

Alliances shift over time as new conflicts and disputes arise. This isn't anything unique to American foreign policy.

I would be more concerned if we refused to make adjustments to who we partner with based solely upon what was done in the past.

I don't think that alone is a valid criticism of any foreign policy. Situations change, and so do partnerships.

If one wants to criticize American foreign policy, they can find better examples of failures than the fact that we supported a group or a dictator in one decade, and then fought them 20 years later.

sandsjames
06-20-2014, 09:43 PM
Alliances shift over time as new conflicts and disputes arise. This isn't anything unique to American foreign policy.

I would be more concerned if we refused to make adjustments to who we partner with based solely upon what was done in the past.

I don't think that alone is a valid criticism of any foreign policy. Situations change, and so do partnerships.

If one wants to criticize American foreign policy, they can find better examples of failures than the fact that we supported a group or a dictator in one decade, and then fought them 20 years later.

Don't disagree at all. Was just reiterating the 20/20 hindsight.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-20-2014, 10:02 PM
No, that isn't "known." If they accomplish that, no doubt it will be seen as a "problem" for many players in the Middle East, and, I suppose, others around the globe -- certainly a "much bigger problem" for the Shiites. But for us? Maybe, maybe not. Predictably, many Americans will insist it's an apocalyptic problem, but that doesn't mean it is.

I don't know what will happen there any more than you or anyone else does, but I have a hard time seeing ISIS succeeding without some opposing response by other players in the area. I wonder if Iran will sit idly by while a Suni stronghold arises on its western border. I mean, for cripe's sake, they can't just sit there, they'll have to DO SOMETHING! Great. Let them fight it out. I don't remember the last Iran-Iraq war having much effect on us.

It's entirely possible that some sort of self-correcting measures will occur without any action by us.

I disagree, I would say we know that the world economy is tied to the flow of oil coming out of the Middle East and that by standing back and watching a group like ISIS grow in power would result in an obvious outcome of instability and future conflicts.

Your "let Iran fight ISIS scenario", could easily result in an Iran -vs- Saudi Arabia conflict, or worse, a nuclear arms race between the two.

Sunni extremists groups like ISIS have a stated goal of instituting their particular brand of Sharia law from Morocco to Indonesia.

I have no trouble predicting that allowing them to carve out a section of Iraq and Syria would be a huge mistake.

waveshaper2
06-20-2014, 11:53 PM
No Danger Pay for SF Headed to Iraq. WTF?

http://www.military....01075741&rank=1

BENDER56
06-20-2014, 11:57 PM
Other than us aiding one side and having it come back to bite us in the ass, as is the trend since the late 70s.

See? If we had kept our nose out of it we'd be fine.

BENDER56
06-21-2014, 12:49 AM
I disagree, I would say we know that the world economy is tied to the flow of oil coming out of the Middle East and that by standing back and watching a group like ISIS grow in power would result in an obvious outcome of instability and future conflicts.

Yeah, it seem our limited response right now is geared toward containing ISIS to the north and away from the major oil-producing regions of southern Iraq. But if they do take over the oil-producing regions and the world economy is affected, then we'll have lots of allies in the fight to overtake them.


Your "let Iran fight ISIS scenario", could easily result in an Iran -vs- Saudi Arabia conflict, or worse, a nuclear arms race between the two.

Could. Maybe not. Other than the nuclear aspect, I like this scenario. Let 'em all duke it out without us. Then we'll decide if and how to deal with the one left standing. Saudi Arabia isn't any better than any of the others. Nominally they're our ally -- when it suits them.


Sunni extremists groups like ISIS have a stated goal of instituting their particular brand of Sharia law from Morocco to Indonesia.

So let 'em. As much as I find Sharia law abhorrent, that's their business, not ours. Hell, Uganda has a death penalty for homosexuality. Should we invade Uganda?


I have no trouble predicting that allowing them to carve out a section of Iraq and Syria would be a huge mistake.

First of all, we aren't allowing anything -- we might not be able to stop it if we tried. Not to mention, they already HAVE carved out a section of Iraq and Syria. What about it is a "mistake"? It's nothing more than a new arrangement of power in the Middle East by a new player who likes us as much as all the other players. At least they're fighting among each other now and putting us on the back burner.

Look, nobody over their is our friend. They have an entirely different worldview than we do. They want a Muslim Caliphate. We have few, if any, mutual interests. Let's watch from the stands and do the least we must to contain the damage.

We have the world's most powerful military. If the time comes, we can unleash its full potential and destroy an enemy in days. I just don't think never-ending changes in the power structure of the Middle East require an intervention every time.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-21-2014, 01:48 AM
Yeah, it seem our limited response right now is geared toward containing ISIS to the north and away from the major oil-producing regions of southern Iraq. But if they do take over the oil-producing regions and the world economy is affected, then we'll have lots of allies in the fight to overtake them.



Could. Maybe not. Other than the nuclear aspect, I like this scenario. Let 'em all duke it out without us. Then we'll decide if and how to deal with the one left standing. Saudi Arabia isn't any better than any of the others. Nominally they're our ally -- when it suits them.



So let 'em. As much as I find Sharia law abhorrent, that's their business, not ours. Hell, Uganda has a death penalty for homosexuality. Should we invade Uganda?



First of all, we aren't allowing anything -- we might not be able to stop it if we tried. Not to mention, they already HAVE carved out a section of Iraq and Syria. What about it is a "mistake"? It's nothing more than a new arrangement of power in the Middle East by a new player who likes us as much as all the other players. At least they're fighting among each other now and putting us on the back burner.

Look, nobody over their is our friend. They have an entirely different worldview than we do. They want a Muslim Caliphate. We have few, if any, mutual interests. Let's watch from the stands and do the least we must to contain the damage.

We have the world's most powerful military. If the time comes, we can unleash its full potential and destroy an enemy in days. I just don't think never-ending changes in the power structure of the Middle East require an intervention every time.

I'm actually not that far apart with you on this, but I was getting the impression from some of your earlier statements that there isn't anything thing to worry about and that we can go totally hands-off.

For the record, I'm not in favor of a full scale deployment to Iraq because of what is happening right now.

However, I do think that what is happening in Iraq has serious consequences for US interests both abroad and at home.

Although it would be nice if we could be a country like France, and rarely engage militarily; that isn't possible for us anytime soon.

TJMAC77SP
06-21-2014, 02:53 AM
See? If we had kept our nose out of it we'd be fine.

Kept our nose out of what, Iraq? Paint me the picture you think the region would look like had we not gone into Iraq.

garhkal
06-21-2014, 05:05 AM
No Danger Pay for SF Headed to Iraq. WTF?

http://www.military....01075741&rank=1

I'd like to know what dumb head decided THAT?!?!

Absinthe Anecdote
06-21-2014, 05:59 AM
Kept our nose out of what, Iraq? Paint me the picture you think the region would look like had we not gone into Iraq.

Which time?

I am of the opinion (in retrospect) that if we had toppled Saddam back in 1991, we could have leveraged the outcome far more to our advantage.

Like it or not, there is a phenomena known as globalization currently underway. The United States' position as the dominate power, is far from guaranteed as the economies and cultures of the East and West merge.

I'm talking two or three decades out, but make no mistake, our days as the strongest military power are coming to an end.

Our economy can easily slip behind China's within five years; chances are in 20 years, we will be a major power like France.

This is largely unrelated to the Middle East in 2014, but when I calculate what happens in Iraq and Iran today, it becomes extremely relevant to the US of 2034 and beyond.

Yes, I know that I will probably lose any credibility that I might have in this thread, by stating my opinions of 2034 and beyond. However, I'm not just a lone veteran thinking this way, many others who study the future of civilization think the same way.

sandsjames
06-21-2014, 11:19 AM
Which time?

I am of the opinion (in retrospect) that if we had toppled Saddam back in 1991, we could have leveraged the outcome far more to our advantage.



Very possible but, as you mentioned, it's retrospect. '91 was the last time we actually showed restraint by not imposing ourselves, not trying to create a new government, pretty much doing everything people said we should have responded with the WoT. It's easy now to say we shouldn't have showed that restraint.

I imagine if we hadn't done what we'd done in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11, we would now have people (13 years later) saying we should have toppled whoever our "restraint" in these wars would have left in power.

Again, not an easy decision without the hindsight and probably neither option leaves us with an outcome that works out in our best interest.

waveshaper2
06-21-2014, 02:33 PM
I'd like to know what dumb head decided THAT?!?!
I assume that these troops will also not be eligible for the Combat Zone Tax Exclusion.

The pay is much better if you deploy to one of the AFGSC missile fields here in the CONUS, failure can be profitable for some.

garhkal
06-21-2014, 06:17 PM
Since ISIS is using twitter, instagram etc, i am wondering why we can't go after those orgs allowing the use, like we can for internet bullying, child porn etc?

BENDER56
06-21-2014, 08:45 PM
Kept our nose out of what, Iraq? Paint me the picture you think the region would look like had we not gone into Iraq.

That was a partially facetious response to one of sandjames' comments.

If you go back and re-read it, you'll notice I said, "... we'd be fine." I didn't say Iraq or the Middle East would be fine.

So I guess my answer to you is I don't care right now what that region looks like. Maybe someday in the future they'll be worth caring about and worth our intervention. I don't think that time is now.

Right now their infighting is a higher priority to them than what they care about us. Let 'em have at it. We'll still be here when the dust settles.

BENDER56
06-21-2014, 10:01 PM
Since ISIS is using twitter, instagram etc, i am wondering why we can't go after those orgs allowing the use, like we can for internet bullying, child porn etc?

Child porn: bad.

Internet bullying: we don't even have an agreed upon definition for this, let alone if it's even criminal behavior. The teens accused of cyber-bullying Rebecca Sedwick until she committed suicide were all acquitted -- even though they did exactly what they were accused of.

Using public social media sites to spread a message of hate and intolerance: isn't this what we used to call free speech?

By your logic, if ISIS takes out a full page ad in the NY Times, we should "go after" the NY Times. (Hmmmm. Now that I think about it ...)

Max Power
06-22-2014, 02:33 AM
Finally, Cheney has done some good in that region.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/06/in-rare-consensus-sunnis-shiites-tell-cheney-to-shut-up.html

garhkal
06-22-2014, 05:46 AM
Using public social media sites to spread a message of hate and intolerance: isn't this what we used to call free speech?

By your logic, if ISIS takes out a full page ad in the NY Times, we should "go after" the NY Times. (Hmmmm. Now that I think about it ...)

If it's ok to go after sites such as backpage and craigslist for hosting 'adult entertainers', or ISPs for hosting child porn, why is it considered free speech when someone's using it to recruit for their terror org?

BENDER56
06-23-2014, 04:28 PM
If it's ok to go after sites such as backpage and craigslist for hosting 'adult entertainers', or ISPs for hosting child porn, why is it considered free speech when someone's using it to recruit for their terror org?

Child porn is illegal, and if the "adult entertainers" are actually prostitutes, that's illegal, too. And I don't believe anyone goes "after the sites" per se. They just have them remove the illegal posts. I suppose if a site exists solely to post such illegal material, then, yes, they'll shut the site down.

But Twitter and Instagram are public forums. They aren't terrorists' personal websites. Would you really have our government try to pull the plug on those sites because someone's using them in a way we don't approve of? Not sure they (legally) could if they wanted to.

So is it free speech for ISIS to promote themselves? Yeah, I suppose it is. In its purest form, free speech means anyone can say whatever they want without any repercussions -- even if that speech causes harm.

That's why in America, we have some restrictions on free speech. Sure, you can still say whatever you want, but if your speech can be shown to have directly caused harm, you might face penalties for that. This is why we have slander and libel laws. (And why, apparently, it's perfectly okay to falsely shout "FIRE!" anyplace we want -- except in a crowded theater.)

So here we are in this nebulously defined War on Terror where we can justify doing pretty much anything as long as we can claim it will Keep Americans Safe™. Will our government do something about terrorists' messages on social media sites? Yes, I bet they will -- either by petitioning those sites to remove the dangerous messages or through covert cyber-counterwarfare (counter-cyberwarfare?). We'll use the justification that these activities are "illegal" IAW the War on Terror.

That said, I guess I'm with you on this one. It might hinder terrorists' capabilities and probably won't (I hope) cause any erosion of our free speech rights here in America.

garhkal
06-23-2014, 07:36 PM
Child porn is illegal, and if the "adult entertainers" are actually prostitutes, that's illegal, too. And I don't believe anyone goes "after the sites" per se. They just have them remove the illegal posts. I suppose if a site exists solely to post such illegal material, then, yes, they'll shut the site down.

But Twitter and Instagram are public forums. They aren't terrorists' personal websites. Would you really have our government try to pull the plug on those sites because someone's using them in a way we don't approve of? Not sure they (legally) could if they wanted to.


So why not do the same for those sites then. Push the site owners to remove the posts. Since terror orgs ARE illegal, them posting vids etc trying to recruit should also be illegal.

BENDER56
06-23-2014, 08:49 PM
So why not do the same for those sites then. Push the site owners to remove the posts. Since terror orgs ARE illegal, them posting vids etc trying to recruit should also be illegal.

Exactly. I think that's what I said in the last two paragraphs of my previous comment. We're in agreement.

garhkal
06-24-2014, 04:43 AM
Glad to see it!

Now if we can just get the buttheads running those sites to act.

BENDER56
06-25-2014, 03:22 PM
This:

BAGHDAD (The Borowitz Report)—In a meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry stressed the importance of forming a unity government in Iraq but refused to commit to a timetable for creating one in the United States.

The sensitive topic of a unity government for the United States came at the end of a thirty-minute meeting, during which Secretary Kerry lectured the Iraqi Prime Minister about the value of a government “where people of different parties put aside their differences, make meaningful compromises, and work together for the good of the nation.”


Taking this in, al-Maliki agreed that it was an excellent idea and politely asked Secretary Kerry if the United States had ever considered forming such a government.

According to observers, Kerry appeared to be caught off guard by this question and blurted out,”You first.”

Despite that awkward moment, after the meeting Kerry said that he had not “totally slammed the door” on the idea of a unity government in the United States.

“Let’s just get one formed in Iraq,” he said. “If it works out for them, maybe someday we’ll give it a try.”





No, this isn't real ... it's satire. Which isn't to say it's not true.

garhkal
06-25-2014, 07:50 PM
While watching the Nigeria-Argentina game, there was a news report of YET more bombings by Boko haram, ISIS and now a group in Lebanon targeting more civilians. I am wondering how much more we will allow to happen, before we take the battle TO Islam and start targetting their holy sites!

BENDER56
06-26-2014, 12:45 AM
While watching the Nigeria-Argentina game, there was a news report of YET more bombings by Boko haram, ISIS and now a group in Lebanon targeting more civilians. I am wondering how much more we will allow to happen, before we take the battle TO Islam and start targetting their holy sites!

What a great idea! Holy sites have no military value and bombing them will intensify their hatred of us even more! Win-win!

Seriously, can't we all just let them not get along©? What's the harm to us in doing so?

garhkal
06-26-2014, 04:59 AM
The reasoning i give for targeting those sites is it seems that THEY are the ones trying to turn this into a holy war.

BENDER56
06-26-2014, 06:03 PM
The reasoning i give for targeting those sites is it seems that THEY are the ones trying to turn this into a holy war.

Holy sites are inanimate objects. There's no "they" there. All I see this accomplishing is turning the whole world against us.

So what ... bomb Mecca? Bomb Medina? Oh yeah, our "friends" the Saudis won't have any problem with that. Bomb Jerusalem? Sure. Why stop at having the Muslims hating us when we can have a globeful of Jews and Christians hating us too? Fun for everyone!

garhkal
06-26-2014, 06:56 PM
So bender. What do you suggest we do to reign in the islamic extremists?

BENDER56
06-26-2014, 10:11 PM
So bender. What do you suggest we do to reign in the islamic extremists?

For now, let them do what they're doing -- fighting amongst themselves and not against us. If whoever is left standing wants to mess with us, we'll figure out how to crush them then.

garhkal
06-27-2014, 06:55 AM
So you have no problem with civilians dying?

sandsjames
06-27-2014, 11:21 AM
So you have no problem with civilians dying?

Guess it depends on what you think the purpose of our military is. Pretty sure it's supposed to be national defense. Of course it's become about national interests, but that's not the intent. So unless those civilians dying is somehow threatening U.S. then we should leave it alone, militarily.

BENDER56
06-27-2014, 06:19 PM
So you have no problem with civilians dying?

I will say I'm disturbed with myself to see the inhumane lack of empathy in the comments I've posted about this.

Yes, I realize human beings are being killed by the thousands over there, but people have been slaughtering each other for as long as we have written history. Will it ever end? Can we actually make it stop if we intervene? If so, at what cost? Surely our intervention itself will result in more deaths -- including those of Americans. Do we do like we did in Viet Nam, when we burned hamlets to the ground "in order to save them"?

And why are Iraqi/Syrian civilian deaths more tragic than all the people being killed in the Central African Republic, Darfur, Congo, Burma, Chad, Somalia, Sri Lanka, etc., etc.? Why aren't we talking about US military action in all those places?

It's unthinkably horrible what humans are doing to each other all over the world, but I doubt we have the capabilities to put a dent in it, let alone stop it.

And how far does our capacity to truly care really extend? We only truly care about those close to us -- our immediate family and closest friends. If tragedy were to befall those people it would have a serious emotional impact on us. We still care, but a little less so, about more distant family relatives and other acquaintances. And then there are the other people who flit in and out of our lives -- the store cashiers, waiters, neighbors we only say "hi" to. We only peripherally know these people and if one of them were to die it would elicit no more than a, "Oh, that's a shame," out of us. And then there are the billions of nameless, faceless people living all around the globe. On some abstract level, we care about these people, but what happens to them has no effect on us whatsoever. It's like the old Onion headline, "15,000 Brown People Dead Somewhere." We just can't seem to dredge up enough humanity to care about every single person on the planet. Or at least I can't.

garhkal
06-27-2014, 07:08 PM
I will say I'm disturbed with myself to see the inhumane lack of empathy in the comments I've posted about this.

Yes, I realize human beings are being killed by the thousands over there, but people have been slaughtering each other for as long as we have written history. Will it ever end? Can we actually make it stop if we intervene? If so, at what cost? Surely our intervention itself will result in more deaths -- including those of Americans. Do we do like we did in Viet Nam, when we burned hamlets to the ground "in order to save them"?

And why are Iraqi/Syrian civilian deaths more tragic than all the people being killed in the Central African Republic, Darfur, Congo, Burma, Chad, Somalia, Sri Lanka, etc., etc.? Why aren't we talking about US military action in all those places?

It's unthinkably horrible what humans are doing to each other all over the world, but I doubt we have the capabilities to put a dent in it, let alone stop it.

Very valid counter Bender. It IS happening all over the place, and often we don't go in there to do anything cause it has noting of 'value' to the US interest (like oil and Iraq).
But i do feel we need to do something in Iraq, as at least this is a mess we made somewhat.

BENDER56
06-27-2014, 07:32 PM
... But i do feel we need to do something in Iraq, as at least this is a mess we made somewhat.

I'm sure we will eventually have a compelling reason to intervene. I just think we need to wait until the dust settles and we know who we're dealing with. Right now too many players are involved and there seems no point yet in trying to decide who to side with.

SomeRandomGuy
06-27-2014, 07:50 PM
Very valid counter Bender. It IS happening all over the place, and often we don't go in there to do anything cause it has noting of 'value' to the US interest (like oil and Iraq).
But i do feel we need to do something in Iraq, as at least this is a mess we made somewhat.

How did we create the problems in Iraq? I wasn't aware that the U.S. was around in 632 A.D. when Muhammed died a dispute erupted over his sucessor. This created two divisions of Islam who have been fighting every since. They are known as Sunni and Shia. Surely, you don't think we started this right?

So you must be referring to the Gulf War of 1991 when the U.S. joined a coalition to invade Iraq. That war was mostly started when Iraq argued with Kuwait about "slant drilling" for oil and finally decided to just take part of Kuwait. The U.S. helped drive Iraq back and stuck around to monitor a no fly zone. The U.N also maintained a force which was in charge of inspecting for nuclear weapons. Now whether or not you agree with our reasons for invading Iraq I assume you at least agree Saddam was playing games with the inspectors.

Finally, when we had enough, we invaded Iraq and knocked Saddam out of power. Some say this was for oil but that simply isn't true. It had much more to do with the military industrial compex than it ever had to do with oil.

Now keep in mind we pulled our troops out of Iraq a few years ago and left a government they elected in charge. The person they elected (who we approved of) made a power play and basically divided the government. This caused a Sunni/Shia civil war which we didn't start.


Why should we get involved in their civil war? Surely you don't blame the U.S for not naming a successor to Muhammed in 632.

TJMAC77SP
06-27-2014, 09:58 PM
That was a partially facetious response to one of sandjames' comments.

If you go back and re-read it, you'll notice I said, "... we'd be fine." I didn't say Iraq or the Middle East would be fine.

So I guess my answer to you is I don't care right now what that region looks like. Maybe someday in the future they'll be worth caring about and worth our intervention. I don't think that time is now.

Right now their infighting is a higher priority to them than what they care about us. Let 'em have at it. We'll still be here when the dust settles.

The region is of national interest to the US. Some may not like that but it is the simple truth. If it descends into a hell on earth (which seems the path it is on now), WE will pay a price.

TJMAC77SP
06-27-2014, 10:00 PM
Which time?

I am of the opinion (in retrospect) that if we had toppled Saddam back in 1991, we could have leveraged the outcome far more to our advantage.

Like it or not, there is a phenomena known as globalization currently underway. The United States' position as the dominate power, is far from guaranteed as the economies and cultures of the East and West merge.

I'm talking two or three decades out, but make no mistake, our days as the strongest military power are coming to an end.

Our economy can easily slip behind China's within five years; chances are in 20 years, we will be a major power like France.

This is largely unrelated to the Middle East in 2014, but when I calculate what happens in Iraq and Iran today, it becomes extremely relevant to the US of 2034 and beyond.

Yes, I know that I will probably lose any credibility that I might have in this thread, by stating my opinions of 2034 and beyond. However, I'm not just a lone veteran thinking this way, many others who study the future of civilization think the same way.

I wouldn't argue your long term vision but would argue that we have a lot more immediate concerns about what goes on in the region than in 2034.

BENDER56
06-28-2014, 06:07 AM
The region is of national interest to the US. Some may not like that but it is the simple truth. If it descends into a hell on earth (which seems the path it is on now), WE will pay a price.

Don't be so melodramatic. It already is hell on Earth over there and we aren't paying any price. Why should we give a flying crap if some distasteful groups are trying to wrest power from the distasteful group currently in power over there?

If, in however many years it takes, one group comes out on top, we'll deal with them. Intervening now just to ensure continuation of the current status quo is idiotic -- the current status quo sucks and it won't survive on its own, anyway. Let natural selection take its course.

garhkal
06-28-2014, 06:23 AM
How did we create the problems in Iraq? I wasn't aware that the U.S. was around in 632 A.D. when Muhammed died a dispute erupted over his sucessor. This created two divisions of Islam who have been fighting every since. They are known as Sunni and Shia. Surely, you don't think we started this right?

Not that part. But the whole aspect of us pushing saddamn out and installing a pupped mouth piece who had about as much control over his people as Denis rodman has dress sense.

sandsjames
06-28-2014, 11:12 AM
The region is of national interest to the US. Some may not like that but it is the simple truth. If it descends into a hell on earth (which seems the path it is on now), WE will pay a price.


The purpose of our military is national defense, not national interests. That's where we have continued to go wrong since 1950.

Greg
06-28-2014, 11:31 AM
Don't be so melodramatic. It already is hell on Earth over there and we aren't paying any price. Why should we give a flying crap if some distasteful groups are trying to wrest power from the distasteful group currently in power over there?

If, in however many years it takes, one group comes out on top, we'll deal with them. Intervening now just to ensure continuation of the current status quo is idiotic -- the current status quo sucks and it won't survive on its own, anyway. Let natural selection take its course.

The argument against non-intervention/isolation is that groups of ISIS will splinter off and use their refined terror skills in Europe and eventually CONUS. And that is the underlying reasoning behind having USArmy SF observers, not the (re)training of IA and IP, but positively eyeing ISIS movement.

TJMAC77SP
06-28-2014, 01:11 PM
Don't be so melodramatic. It already is hell on Earth over there and we aren't paying any price. Why should we give a flying crap if some distasteful groups are trying to wrest power from the distasteful group currently in power over there?

If, in however many years it takes, one group comes out on top, we'll deal with them. Intervening now just to ensure continuation of the current status quo is idiotic -- the current status quo sucks and it won't survive on its own, anyway. Let natural selection take its course.

If it is already hell on earth how am I being melodramatic?

As to price we will pay......watch the price of oil over the next year.

BTW: I didn't suggest intervening (if by that you mean reinvading).....stop putting words in my mouth. My point is that letting 'natural selection' rule in the region is naive and myopic

TJMAC77SP
06-28-2014, 01:14 PM
The purpose of our military is national defense, not national interests. That's where we have continued to go wrong since 1950.

That is simply wrong. It is a little broader than that.

"The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country."

sandsjames
06-28-2014, 03:20 PM
That is simply wrong. It is a little broader than that.

"The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country."

Right...to deter war means to keep people from attacking us. It doesn't mean to deter war around the world.

TJMAC77SP
06-28-2014, 06:17 PM
Right...to deter war means to keep people from attacking us. It doesn't mean to deter war around the world.

The salient portion of the mission statement I was referring to was the very last part.........

BENDER56
06-28-2014, 08:50 PM
If it is already hell on earth how am I being melodramatic?

As to price we will pay......watch the price of oil over the next year.

BTW: I didn't suggest intervening (if by that you mean reinvading).....stop putting words in my mouth. My point is that letting 'natural selection' rule in the region is naive and myopic

The melodramatic line was uncalled for on my part -- posting comments at 0200 after perhaps one too many bourbons seems less than a good idea.

Not sure we're "letting" natural selection take place -- I think it's going to happen whether we intervene or not. There are things happening over there right now which, outside of an all-out invasion, probably aren't going to be changed by sanctions (on who?), diplomacy or limited military assistance.

And, yeah, instability in the Middle East usually results in a spike in oil prices but I guess I interpreted your reference to us paying the price as a degradation of our safety and security here at home -- as in, increased threat of terror attacks. Right now their infighting doesn't involve us. Will we have to get involved later? Yeah, likely.

So if you're not suggesting we intervene -- which is about the same as letting natural selection happen -- what do you think should be done?

sandsjames
06-28-2014, 09:12 PM
The salient portion of the mission statement I was referring to was the very last part.........

I would agree with that part, too. Unfortunately we assume that any conflict affects our security. Our security is just fine. We do not have the foresight to know that unrest in the Middle East will ever threaten our security. The last time our country was attacked by a foreign power was in 1941. One can even venture to say that the reason we were attacked by terrorists (not a foreign power) in 2001 was because of us "protecting" our national interests, not our national security.

It's funny (not haha) that the only region we get involved with that we claim is a threat to us are a bunch of countries that have absolutely no way to threaten our security while the countries that ACTUALLY could be a threat we leave alone.

Will there always be the threat of terrorism? Absolutely. Is terrorism a threat to our freedom, our society, our way of life, with anything more than pot shot attacks every 10-20 years? No.

We talk about terrorism as if it threatens us because it has us looking over our shoulders and takes away our sense of safety. I personally feel much more threatened and unsafe walking through the majority of our cities. Not from terrorists, but from citizens living in communities that have zero infrastructure, zero education, and zero employment.

How 'bout we take care of us. If we do that, it will do two things. One, it will give those terrorist organizations less of a reason to hate us. Two, it will give us the ability to take care of our own problems for a little while.

The closest thing I can relate it to is rape. When a woman gets raped, it's not her fault. However, she probably could have avoided it by not putting herself in the situation.

Stalwart
06-28-2014, 10:57 PM
Not sure we're "letting" natural selection take place -- I think it's going to happen whether we intervene or not. There are things happening over there right now which, outside of an all-out invasion, probably aren't going to be changed by sanctions (on who?), diplomacy or limited military assistance.

Concur ... +1

Stalwart
06-28-2014, 11:42 PM
Right...to deter war means to keep people from attacking us. It doesn't mean to deter war around the world.

Some people would argue that instability in country X (way far away from here) allows a base of support and operations to those in that country that would attack us (Afghanistan pre-2001 for example.)

It may be semantics, but many would ask how far to the left of an actual attack do you preemptively neutralize a threat -- what is the "Red Line" at which point we (the U.S.) reserves the right to take action against a target (nation-state or not) that is planning to harm America or Americans abroad?

I don't have the next great answer but the two topics do intertwine.

sandsjames
06-29-2014, 01:55 AM
Some people would argue that instability in country X (way far away from here) allows a base of support and operations to those in that country that would attack us (Afghanistan pre-2001 for example.)

It may be semantics, but many would ask how far to the left of an actual attack do you preemptively neutralize a threat -- what is the "Red Line" at which point we (the U.S.) reserves the right to take action against a target (nation-state or not) that is planning to harm America or Americans abroad?

I don't have the next great answer but the two topics do intertwine.

Well then, we should have nuked N. Korea, Iran, and China by now. They have much more of a capability to actually do us harm.

Stalwart
06-29-2014, 02:14 AM
Well then, we should have nuked N. Korea, Iran, and China by now. They have much more of a capability to actually do us harm.

Good point, do you think the reason we haven't is they have a much better capability to respond than the Taliban (Afghanistan), Iraq circa 2003 or ISIS?

I am not saying I outright advocate preemptive war (but can see a time and a place for it i.e. I don't think you should wait until rounds have impacted in your immediate area to deal with a threat), just trying to converse a bit.

TJMAC77SP
06-29-2014, 02:40 AM
The melodramatic line was uncalled for on my part -- posting comments at 0200 after perhaps one too many bourbons seems less than a good idea.

Not sure we're "letting" natural selection take place -- I think it's going to happen whether we intervene or not. There are things happening over there right now which, outside of an all-out invasion, probably aren't going to be changed by sanctions (on who?), diplomacy or limited military assistance.

And, yeah, instability in the Middle East usually results in a spike in oil prices but I guess I interpreted your reference to us paying the price as a degradation of our safety and security here at home -- as in, increased threat of terror attacks. Right now their infighting doesn't involve us. Will we have to get involved later? Yeah, likely.

So if you're not suggesting we intervene -- which is about the same as letting natural selection happen -- what do you think should be done?

I believe that at some point we will be involved (on the ground) again. We need to be sure we do it right next time. Have a clearly defined mission and the moral stamina to commit what needs to be committed. Sound bites just aren't going to cut it. If we aren't willing to do that then we should stay home and prepare for the consequences.

TJMAC77SP
06-29-2014, 02:44 AM
There is a lot of absolutes being thrown around here. We Should or Shouldn't do this or that. All as if it is always just a simple thing. I wish it were, I really do.

Peace in Israel .......simple, give the Palestinians there own country and give back the occupied territories. Oh, but wait then there is the question of Jerusalem..........shit....back to square one.

sandsjames
06-29-2014, 02:52 AM
Good point, do you think the reason we haven't is they have a much better capability to respond than the Taliban (Afghanistan), Iraq circa 2003 or ISIS?

I am not saying I outright advocate preemptive war (but can see a time and a place for it i.e. I don't think you should wait until rounds have impacted in your immediate area to deal with a threat), just trying to converse a bit.

Yes, they do have a much better capability, which means that the capabilities of those we are currently involved with are not very good. It would make more sense to attack a country that has a better capability in order to preemptively remove some of those capabilities.

I have a very hard time believing that anyone actually thinks that ISIS, AQ, Taliban, etc are any sort of threat. They will throw rocks through your window. N. Korea, China, etc, will burn down your house.

BENDER56
06-29-2014, 04:02 AM
The argument against non-intervention/isolation is that groups of ISIS will splinter off and use their refined terror skills in Europe and eventually CONUS. And that is the underlying reasoning behind having USArmy SF observers, not the (re)training of IA and IP, but positively eyeing ISIS movement.

Okay. That's an argument. That doesn't mean it's inevitable.

Look, I've chastised people for insisting they "know" what's going to happen over there. 'Cause they don't. Nobody does.

So now I'm going to jump feet-first into the clairvoyance pool. ISIS is going to have their hands full trying to govern the areas they've acquired. Let's just ignore the fact that they're hated by all the Shi'ites and Kurds and will likely face continuing guerilla attacks against them, they still have to ensure the people have water and electricity and cell phone service. That's their immediate future. There won't be a lot of "Death to America" rallies when people can't watch the World Cup.

BENDER56
06-29-2014, 04:12 AM
I believe that at some point we will be involved (on the ground) again. We need to be sure we do it right next time. Have a clearly defined mission and the moral stamina to commit what needs to be committed. Sound bites just aren't going to cut it. If we aren't willing to do that then we should stay home and prepare for the consequences.

'Zactly.

I suspect we're mostly in agreement.

From Wikipedia:

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:
1.Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2.Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3.Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4.Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5.Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6.Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7.Is the action supported by the American people?
8.Do we have genuine broad international support?

BENDER56
06-29-2014, 04:28 AM
I would agree with that part, too. Unfortunately we assume that any conflict affects our security. Our security is just fine. We do not have the foresight to know that unrest in the Middle East will ever threaten our security. The last time our country was attacked by a foreign power was in 1941. One can even venture to say that the reason we were attacked by terrorists (not a foreign power) in 2001 was because of us "protecting" our national interests, not our national security.

It's funny (not haha) that the only region we get involved with that we claim is a threat to us are a bunch of countries that have absolutely no way to threaten our security while the countries that ACTUALLY could be a threat we leave alone.

Will there always be the threat of terrorism? Absolutely. Is terrorism a threat to our freedom, our society, our way of life, with anything more than pot shot attacks every 10-20 years? No.

We talk about terrorism as if it threatens us because it has us looking over our shoulders and takes away our sense of safety. I personally feel much more threatened and unsafe walking through the majority of our cities. Not from terrorists, but from citizens living in communities that have zero infrastructure, zero education, and zero employment.

How 'bout we take care of us. If we do that, it will do two things. One, it will give those terrorist organizations less of a reason to hate us. Two, it will give us the ability to take care of our own problems for a little while.

The closest thing I can relate it to is rape. When a woman gets raped, it's not her fault. However, she probably could have avoided it by not putting herself in the situation.

I could pick a few nits about this comment, but overall: thank you; agreed; nicely stated.

(Dude. Seriously? A rape metaphor?)

sandsjames
06-29-2014, 11:07 AM
(Dude. Seriously? A rape metaphor?)

Rape...3000 unsuspecting people getting killed while at work in the trade center...you're right...I should have used gang rape.

BENDER56
06-29-2014, 04:17 PM
Rape...3000 unsuspecting people getting killed while at work in the trade center...you're right...I should have used gang rape.

So, back to your original rape metaphor ... if those 3000 people hadn't stupidly put themselves in their place of employment, they'd have been fine?

C'mon man, you need to let go of this one.

waveshaper2
06-29-2014, 10:34 PM
Rape...3000 unsuspecting people getting killed while at work in the trade center...you're right...I should have used gang rape.

Speaking of Gang Rape; Jihad-Ul-Nikka!

ISIL/ISIS militants, deed holders of the new Islamic State/Caliphate, are seeking sex slaves.
Jihad GO# 1; Jihad-Ul-Nikka (SAPR Translation = Jihad-Ul-Nooki/Poontang).

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/06/19/367652/isil-seeking-sex-slaves-in-mosul/

Interpretation of "Jihad-Ul-Nikka" by an Infidel (me); All Muslim woman/girls and farm animals (goats preferred) that participate in Jihad-Ul-Nikka rape events will also legally be subject to honor killings by family members/farm animal owners. It must relay suck to be a female and/or farm animal in the Islamic world.





Article excerpt; ISIL militants in Iraq have called on the residents of the country's major northern city of Mosul to offer their women to the militants for sex. The idea of offering sex to militants under the pretext of a holy war, referred to in Arabic as “Jihad-ul-Nikka,” first surfaced back in 2013.

sandsjames
06-30-2014, 12:03 AM
So, back to your original rape metaphor ... if those 3000 people hadn't stupidly put themselves in their place of employment, they'd have been fine?

C'mon man, you need to let go of this one.

You're not serious, are you? If we, as a country, hadn't put ourselves in the Middle East, the Middle East wouldn't have raped us.

BENDER56
06-30-2014, 03:01 AM
You're not serious, are you? If we, as a country, hadn't put ourselves in the Middle East, the Middle East wouldn't have raped us.

Ahhh ... okay, now I see where you're going with this.

Perhaps not the most apt analogy, but at least I get it now.

TJMAC77SP
10-16-2014, 09:54 PM
Since finding really old threads is nearly impossible or actually impossible since the transition I figured I would post this here.

Interesting development. Not really a new development but seems it is now ok for outlets like the NY Times to talk about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region

So...........did Bush lie?

Capt Alfredo
10-16-2014, 10:36 PM
Since finding really old threads is nearly impossible or actually impossible since the transition I figured I would post this here.

Interesting development. Not really a new development but seems it is now ok for outlets like the NY Times to talk about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&module=inside-nyt-region®ion=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region

So...........did Bush lie?

These were NOT the WMD the Bush administration were warning about. I seem to remember nukes being invoked. Also, WE helped him get the chems they're talking about in this article, the old, decaying vestiges of the Iran-Iraq war, not some new invigorated program that was a looming threat necessitating our misguided invasion that is still having negative reverberations.

TJMAC77SP
10-16-2014, 10:53 PM
These were NOT the WMD the Bush administration were warning about. I seem to remember nukes being invoked. Also, WE helped him get the chems they're talking about in this article, the old, decaying vestiges of the Iran-Iraq war, not some new invigorated program that was a looming threat necessitating our misguided invasion that is still having negative reverberations.

Oh, so these are not the droids we were looking for ?


I knew this would result in some amusing responses. Congrats for being first on board.

CYBERFX1024
10-16-2014, 10:54 PM
These were NOT the WMD the Bush administration were warning about. I seem to remember nukes being invoked. Also, WE helped him get the chems they're talking about in this article, the old, decaying vestiges of the Iran-Iraq war, not some new invigorated program that was a looming threat necessitating our misguided invasion that is still having negative reverberations.

As I recall there was never an issue between what kind of WMD was found just that we found any at all. Which I have been saying for years now on here that we did find chemical weapons, but no one wanted to hear me out. Some people actually called me a liar. But my buddies and me knew the truth.

Old, and decaying? The insurgents still used them on us and IS is still using them today on people in Iraq and Syria. So why don't you go around and be around them if they are so old and decaying.

Capt Alfredo
10-16-2014, 10:57 PM
Oh, so these are not the droids we were looking for ?


I knew this would result in some amusing responses. Congrats for being first on board.

The difference being that those WERE the droids the Storm Troopers were looking for.

Capt Alfredo
10-16-2014, 10:59 PM
As I recall there was never an issue between what kind of WMD was found just that we found any at all. Which I have been saying for years now on here that we did find chemical weapons, but no one wanted to hear me out. Some people actually called me a liar. But my buddies and me knew the truth.

Old, and decaying? The insurgents still used them on us and IS is still using them today on people in Iraq and Syria. So why don't you go around and be around them if they are so old and decaying.

Never called you a liar, but the fact is, the stuff being "discovered" now is not the material the country was warned about and was used as a pretext for war. I never said old and decaying chems aren't or weren't dangerous, either. These sites were known.

TJMAC77SP
10-16-2014, 11:10 PM
Never called you a liar, but the fact is, the stuff being "discovered" now is not the material the country was warned about and was used as a pretext for war. I never said old and decaying chems aren't or weren't dangerous, either. These sites were known.

But where was the reporting of them? I imagine there were some obscure reports as the old caches were discovered but certainly not the widespread reporting that there were NO WMDs in Iraq. If you conducted a poll that would be the most likely answer because THAT is what people heard.

Then of course there is the leap to 'Bush lied'.

TJMAC77SP
10-16-2014, 11:11 PM
The difference being that those WERE the droids the Storm Troopers were looking for.

I think you mistyped there Fredo...............old munitions were what the search was for?

But ..."These sites were known".

Capt Alfredo
10-16-2014, 11:14 PM
I think you mistyped there Fredo...............old munitions were what the search was for?

But ..."These sites were known".

What I'm saying is people always say "these aren't the droids you're looking for" and mistakenly mean it literally, unlike Obi Wan, who was using a Jedi Mind Trick! These (chems) are NOT the WMDs we were looking for, literally, not JMT-ishly.

Capt Alfredo
10-16-2014, 11:18 PM
But where was the reporting of them? I imagine there were some obscure reports as the old caches were discovered but certainly not the widespread reporting that there were NO WMDs in Iraq. If you conducted a poll that would be the most likely answer because THAT is what people heard.

Then of course there is the leap to 'Bush lied'.

I'm pretty sure I read pretty widely about old chem sites, but maybe I'm thinking of "other" reporting...and I don't think I would stretch to the point where I'd say Bush lied. I think he had a case of wishful thinking. His intentions were not really misguided, though his implementation certainly was. He attributed 100% confidence to reporting that was not written that way. Having been an intel dude for 20+ years, it is extremely rare that we definitively, uncategorically state ANYTHING as fact without proof. You can assess, estimate, and throw out a good old-fashioned guess, but never wrote x IS going to happen. It might, it could, it most likely will, but not without validity wording. This ain't Miss Cleo.

sandsjames
10-16-2014, 11:20 PM
What I'm saying is people always say "these aren't the droids you're looking for" and mistakenly mean it literally, unlike Obi Wan, who was using a Jedi Mind Trick! These (chems) are NOT the WMDs we were looking for, literally, not JMT-ishly.

Milly gets kidnapped. The cops know for a fact that it was Billy who kidnapped her. They go into Billy's house and are unable to find Milly, but they do find Joanie, who has been missing for years. I guess they were wrong for going into Billy's house because Milly had already been moved.

Capt Alfredo
10-16-2014, 11:27 PM
Milly gets kidnapped. The cops know for a fact that it was Billy who kidnapped her. They go into Billy's house and are unable to find Milly, but they do find Joanie, who has been missing for years. I guess they were wrong for going into Billy's house because Milly had already been moved.

Do you think finding some old chems we already knew about (from Iran-Iraq war and from the "gassing the Kurds" incident post Gulf War 1) were worth the national treasure, lives, limbs, and blood of our servicemen? My standard for going to war is a bit higher than that.

TJMAC77SP
10-16-2014, 11:52 PM
What I'm saying is people always say "these aren't the droids you're looking for" and mistakenly mean it literally, unlike Obi Wan, who was using a Jedi Mind Trick! These (chems) are NOT the WMDs we were looking for, literally, not JMT-ishly.

Ahhh, I see said the blind man.

TJMAC77SP
10-17-2014, 12:00 AM
I'm pretty sure I read pretty widely about old chem sites, but maybe I'm thinking of "other" reporting...and I don't think I would stretch to the point where I'd say Bush lied. I think he had a case of wishful thinking. His intentions were not really misguided, though his implementation certainly was. He attributed 100% confidence to reporting that was not written that way. Having been an intel dude for 20+ years, it is extremely rare that we definitively, uncategorically state ANYTHING as fact without proof. You can assess, estimate, and throw out a good old-fashioned guess, but never wrote x IS going to happen. It might, it could, it most likely will, but not without validity wording. This ain't Miss Cleo.

I am pretty sure I never read anything about old stockpiles. It is something that has always bothered me because it is a known fact (both openly and otherwise) that Iraq did indeed at one time have every program we talk about.

You are correct in the final intel estimates rarely if ever give definitive conclusions. It is frustrating to say the least if you are using those products. Especially frustrating if you are a collector and you see intel watered down and slanted in the final products.

I am always truly amazed at the number of people who now say the war was ill conceived and say it in a manner which leads you to believe they have always held this opinion. I readily admit my belief at the time that is was the right thing to do if not at the perfect moment. What I have always believed is that we royally screwed the pooch with regard to post war planning (or lack thereof).

I truly wished some of those old threads were still around. It would have made my grenade over the transom fun..

Capt Alfredo
10-17-2014, 12:03 AM
I am pretty sure I never read anything about old stockpiles. It is something that has always bothered me because it is a known fact (both openly and otherwise) that Iraq did indeed at one time have every program we talk about.

You are correct in the final intel estimates rarely if ever give definitive conclusions. It is frustrating to say the least if you are using those products. Especially frustrating if you are a collector and you see intel watered down and slanted in the final products.

I am always truly amazed at the number of people who now say the war was ill conceived and say it in a manner which leads you to believe they have always held this opinion. I readily admit my belief at the time that is was the right thing to do if not at the perfect moment. What I have always believed is that we royally screwed the pooch with regard to post war planning (or lack thereof).

I truly wished some of those old threads were still around. It would have made my grenade over the transom fun..

It's certainly easier to look back in hindsight. My main issue is more the willingness to double down on the error and change the mission from CWMD to nation-building, led by political hacks. Read "Fiasco" sometime. Or "Imperial Life in the Emerald City."

TJMAC77SP
10-17-2014, 12:16 AM
It's certainly easier to look back in hindsight. My main issue is more the willingness to double down on the error and change the mission from CWMD to nation-building, led by political hacks. Read "Fiasco" sometime. Or "Imperial Life in the Emerald City."

Its the statements with no admission of hindsight that frosts my coin purse.

You rarely see where someone posts....."I initially supported (or kept silent) the war in 2003 but it turns out...................."

It is always some definitive condemnation. I find that disingenuous at the least.

Rainmaker
10-17-2014, 03:15 AM
Since finding really old threads is nearly impossible or actually impossible since the transition I figured I would post this here.

Interesting development. Not really a new development but seems it is now ok for outlets like the NY Times to talk about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region

So...........did Bush lie?

This isn't getting the coverage it deserves. reading the way those guys were treated (lack of care, official acknowledgement of their injuries, denial of purple hearts etc.) made me sick. Can you imagine a Platoon Sgt having to call DC just to get one of his guys appropriate medical care after he was exposed to Blister agent? Seems like every day there's a new story about how we're being lied to or some other example of government incompetence or malfeasance. Every Goddamn, Morally Bankrupt, Dishonorable, Son of a Bitch that had knowledge of this bullshit these guys have been made to endure should be courts martial-ed. What a disgrace.

P.S.Moderator: please excuse my language.

sandsjames
10-17-2014, 10:20 AM
Do you think finding some old chems we already knew about (from Iran-Iraq war and from the "gassing the Kurds" incident post Gulf War 1) were worth the national treasure, lives, limbs, and blood of our servicemen? My standard for going to war is a bit higher than that.

No...finding old chems was not our goal initially. My issue with the whole thing is this. A very high percentage of people in Congress voted to go. If anyone is responsible for us going in it was the Intel community. I find it hard to believe that either the President or Congress made the decision to invade Iraq without believing that the Intel they were given was true. I might feel different if Bush had made the choice to invade without the high level of approval he had to do so. But with everyone agreeing at the time it just makes no sense to me that they would make the decisions to do what we did without believing the information they had was valid.

Absinthe Anecdote
10-17-2014, 12:35 PM
From what I remember, the intel community was only convinced that Saddam was hidding something from the UN arms inspectors. We didn't exactly know what it was.

If you'll remember, there was a very long period of his regime denying access to certain sites to the UN inspectors. When he did allow them into Iraq to inspect these sites, they were typically held at the gates of these compounds while convoys of Iraqi Army trucks would stream out of another gate.

The intel community never had "slam dunk" evidence if Saddam had a nuke program or not, and they never wrote a report that characterized what evidence they did have as being solid proof of Saddam restarting his nuke program.

We just knew he wasn't fully cooperating with the UN inspection teams.

The is also the matter of "Curveball" the code name for an Iraqi informant that German Intel had working for them. He is the one who claimed Iraqi agents were trying to purchase yellowcake uranium on the black market, and components for centrifuges.

The CIA never fully trusted the claims Curveball was making, and the reporting from those interviews reflected that doubt.

I do not think it is fair to lay the blame for the Iraq war on the steps of the intel community.

I put it more on Rumsfeld and Cheney; of course, the buck stops at Bush for listening to them.

However, from what I've studied about it, those two are primarily the ones who took validity worded intelligence reports out of context.

Rusty Jones
10-17-2014, 12:43 PM
Personally, I think that the "I told you so" attitude that came about as soon as ISIS discovered the WMDs comes from the failure to realize that one can still talk out of their ass and be right. How many people in the military get promoted all the time, because they correctly answered questions about things that they know nothing about?

Kind of reminds of an episode of the Simpsons, during its first season, where Homer Simpson was celebrated as a hero for saving the nuclear power plant from a meltdown. Indeed he did, but it was due a careless goof-up on his part that led to him unwittingly saving the power plant.

Stalwart
10-17-2014, 02:44 PM
A large complicating factor in the intelligence that came out of Iraq prior to 2003 that has been reported openly is that Saddam Hussein thought he had stores of chemical weapons ready for use.

Several of his commanders / program managers for these programs owed their lifestyle and their (and possibly their family's) lives on the success of those programs. So ... they fudge the reports and tell him that all is going well with that specific WMD program. This confused various aspects of the intelligence community who had reports from people inside Iraq that the programs were operational (didn't know the commanders were fudging the reports), as well as Saddam issuing orders to field commanders to use the weapons if advancing forces crossed [X] 'line' in the sand; the field commanders acknowledged the orders, knowing they did not have that capability -- again ... no one wanted to tell the emperor he had no clothes.

A large part of intelligence is analysis of the information and making a recommendation based on the best information available. Many of the sources didn't know the programs were paper tigers either, they were reporting what they thought was true but turned out to be be overstated. All of this was very confusing at the time for those people trying to figure out what the situation actually was.

Absinthe Anecdote
10-17-2014, 04:48 PM
A large complicating factor in the intelligence that came out of Iraq prior to 2003 that has been reported openly is that Saddam Hussein thought he had stores of chemical weapons ready for use.

Several of his commanders / program managers for these programs owed their lifestyle and their (and possibly their family's) lives on the success of those programs. So ... they fudge the reports and tell him that all is going well with that specific WMD program. This confused various aspects of the intelligence community who had reports from people inside Iraq that the programs were operational (didn't know the commanders were fudging the reports), as well as Saddam issuing orders to field commanders to use the weapons if advancing forces crossed [X] 'line' in the sand; the field commanders acknowledged the orders, knowing they did not have that capability -- again ... no one wanted to tell the emperor he had no clothes.

A large part of intelligence is analysis of the information and making a recommendation based on the best information available. Many of the sources didn't know the programs were paper tigers either, they were reporting what they thought was true but turned out to be be overstated. All of this was very confusing at the time for those people trying to figure out what the situation actually was.

There is the factor of Saddam's generals lying to him about their weapons programs. Plus, there is Saddam actually sanctioning a deception program. Making his enemies at home and abroad think that his military had capabilities it did not.

But I agree, Saddam's generals and engineers were under intense pressure to deliver even a small victory throughout the 1990s.

Some of his engineers were doing goofy experiments in their efforts to shoot down US planes during the days of the No-Fly Zones.

They modified BM-21 multiple rocket launcher, a ground-to-ground system, to be used in a ground-to-air role. Sent a piece of flak through an F-18, as I recall.

They had a number of crazy projects trying to improvise ground-to-air weapons. They came close a couple of times.

I'm sure a big factor driving those "science experiments" was various generals trying to win favor with Saddam.

TJMAC77SP
10-17-2014, 05:03 PM
A large complicating factor in the intelligence that came out of Iraq prior to 2003 that has been reported openly is that Saddam Hussein thought he had stores of chemical weapons ready for use.

Several of his commanders / program managers for these programs owed their lifestyle and their (and possibly their family's) lives on the success of those programs. So ... they fudge the reports and tell him that all is going well with that specific WMD program. This confused various aspects of the intelligence community who had reports from people inside Iraq that the programs were operational (didn't know the commanders were fudging the reports), as well as Saddam issuing orders to field commanders to use the weapons if advancing forces crossed [X] 'line' in the sand; the field commanders acknowledged the orders, knowing they did not have that capability -- again ... no one wanted to tell the emperor he had no clothes.

A large part of intelligence is analysis of the information and making a recommendation based on the best information available. Many of the sources didn't know the programs were paper tigers either, they were reporting what they thought was true but turned out to be be overstated. All of this was very confusing at the time for those people trying to figure out what the situation actually was.

Interesting possibility (Saddam's general lying). He certainly didn't accept failures very well so as weird as it might sound to us it is completely plausible in that world.