Iraq and the America Haters

[georgephillip]

"Clashes between Iraqi Security forces and hundreds of Sunni militants aligned with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, an offshoot of al Qaeda) resulted in the capture of Mosul and Tikrit by ISIL earlier today.

"Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city, was overrun -- Iraqi forces reportedly abandoning their posts, shedding their uniforms and dropping their weapons as they fled the ISIL attacks.

"Tikrit, about 135 miles closer to Baghdad, was attacked not long after, with little resistance -- and the AFP is reporting fighting now outside Samarra, only 70 miles north of the capital city.

"The attackers overran a military base, freed hundreds of prisoners, and have seized the Turkish consulate in Mosul, capturing and holding 50 Turkish citizens. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has promised to put a halt to the advances, and called on citizens to take up arms as well."

Iraqi Insurgents Capture Northern Cities, Move Toward Baghdad - In Focus - The Atlantic

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED (AGAIN)

 

[idb]

The invasion of Iraq was pre-ordained from the moment GWB won the Whitehouse.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Remember them and their"think tank" Project for a new American Century? Well that project now seems to be perpetual war in the M.E. Or else to sit back and watch chaos engulf it. Eric Black, a prescient journalist wrote this before shock and awe;

An influential group of foreign policy thinkers sees the possibly imminent overthrow of Saddam Hussein as just one early step in an ambitious blueprint to spread democracy throughout the world and eliminate threats to the United States.

Although they developed their thinking long before the Sept. 11 attacks, the strategists, often called neoconservatives or neocons, have increased their influence over the Bush administration since Sept. 11, many foreign policy analysts say.

Critics argue that the neocon ideas, including "regime change," are a recipe for perpetual war, because they would steer the United States into many confrontations.

There would be a long list of regimes to be changed.

But the neocons themselves and their supporters say that the United States has an unprecedented historical opportunity to reshape the world in ways that will make our country safer and the rest of the world freer. The neocons, who sometimes call themselves neo- Reaganites, say the key concept is not perpetual war but "moral clarity backed by military strength."

And Ron Paul remembers them well;

From his blog Jan. 2014 Ron remembering the neo-cons

One of them, Richard Perle, was interviewed last year on NPR and asked whether the Iraq invasion that he pushed was worth it. He replied:
I've got to say I think that is not a reasonable question. What we did at the time was done in the belief that it was necessary to protect this nation. You can't a decade later go back and say, well, we shouldn't have done that.
Many of us were saying all along that we shouldn’t have done that – before we did it. Unfortunately the Bush Administration took the advice of the neocons pushing for war and promising it would be a “cakewalk.” We continue to see the results of that terrible mistake, and it is only getting worse.

 

[Indofred]

Hopefully Iraq and Iran will return to slaughtering each other so civilization can go on pursuing happiness.

The US were deeply involved in that war, actively assisting Saddam.
Now, because of American messing about in the region, the likely winners of the Iraq war will be an extremist Islamic group.
They'll probably form a regional power bloc with Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan, who'll be back in power shortly.

 

[georgephillip]

Hopefully Iraq and Iran will return to slaughtering each other so civilization can go on pursuing happiness.

The US were deeply involved in that war, actively assisting Saddam.
Now, because of American messing about in the region, the likely winners of the Iraq war will be an extremist Islamic group.
They'll probably form a regional power bloc with Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan, who'll be back in power shortly.

If ISIS continues its advance to Baghdad, look for Iran and Turkey to stabilize the situation.

 

[idb]

Hopefully Iraq and Iran will return to slaughtering each other so civilization can go on pursuing happiness.

The US were deeply involved in that war, actively assisting Saddam.
Now, because of American messing about in the region, the likely winners of the Iraq war will be an extremist Islamic group.
They'll probably form a regional power bloc with Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan, who'll be back in power shortly.

If ISIS continues its advance to Baghdad, look for Iran and Turkey to stabilize the situation.

Maybe an alliance with AQ?

 

[Paperman299]

...But this is total Anti-American bullshit. We deposed Saddam because he was a Bad Actor who was daily taking actions that were destabilizing the region, threatening Israel, either accumulating or pretending to accumulate weapons of mass destruction, and just generally causing trouble. We were assured by Iraqi ex-pats that an overthrow of Saddam's minority government would be welcomed by the People of Iraq, who would quickly establish a democratic or quasi-democratic government with whom we could work productively in the future.

We never wanted or intended to take over the country. We spent scores of billions of dollars in rebuilding their damaged and obsolete infrastructure, poured billions in to try to prop up their fledgeling economy, and sacrificed thousands of American and allied lives FOR NO PERSONAL BENEFIT. We had absolutely NOTHING TO GAIN by this military adventure; it was ENTIRELY for the benefit of the Iraqi people and others in the region who were threatened by Saddam's actions...

Historical revisionism at its finest.

W sold a second war abroad to the American people and a credulous media with his insistence that Hussein was holding WMD's and by erroneously linking Iraq to Al-Quaeda and 9/11.

"Anti-Americanism?" I guess that's progress. Many conservatives used to call criticism of the Iraq War and George W Bush "treason." Something about dissenting with a war-time president making us look weak to our enemies. Strangely, they snapped to a new position on that sometime around January of 2009.

 

[georgephillip]

The US were deeply involved in that war, actively assisting Saddam.
Now, because of American messing about in the region, the likely winners of the Iraq war will be an extremist Islamic group.
They'll probably form a regional power bloc with Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan, who'll be back in power shortly.

If ISIS continues its advance to Baghdad, look for Iran and Turkey to stabilize the situation.

Maybe an alliance with AQ?

I think the Turks want their 50 hostages back first.

 

[eagle1462010]

If ISIS continues its advance to Baghdad, look for Iran and Turkey to stabilize the situation.

Maybe an alliance with AQ?

I think the Turks want their 50 hostages back first.

They will get them back one way or another. Turkey will not play nice. Expect a OR ELSE statement from Turkey very soon. The time table will be short on the reply.

 

[Billo_Really]

But this is total Anti-American bullshit. We deposed Saddam because he was a Bad Actor

If that was true, then why didn't we take him out 20 years before, when we were selling him arms to fight the Iranian's? We knew he was a bad guy back in the 80's, so why didn't we do it then?

who was daily taking actions that were destabilizing the region,

And just what actions were those?

threatening Israel,

Bullshit, he wasn't threatening anyone.

either accumulating or pretending to accumulate weapons of mass destruction, and just generally causing trouble.

You're so full of shit! The only thing he was doing, was catering to all the UN inspectors driving around his country in white vans.

We were assured by Iraqi ex-pats that an overthrow of Saddam's minority government would be welcomed by the People of Iraq, who would quickly establish a democratic or quasi-democratic government with whom we could work productively in the future.

And we were told by the British intelligence service, these fuckers were liars.

We never wanted or intended to take over the country.

Oh, shut-up!

We spent scores of billions of dollars in rebuilding their damaged and obsolete infrastructure, poured billions in to try to prop up their fledgeling economy, and sacrificed thousands of American and allied lives FOR NO PERSONAL BENEFIT. We had absolutely NOTHING TO GAIN by this military adventure; it was ENTIRELY for the benefit of the Iraqi people and others in the region who were threatened by Saddam's actions.

I agree with everything you just said, except the last part. He wasn't threatening anyone.

Americans who claimed that somehow it was "all about oil" have no explanation of EXACTLY how this would work - because it is stupid thing to say or believe. AT BEST, Iraq oil revenues would have gone to partially repay some of the "investment" we made there, but few people with any knowledge of the situation expected this ever to happen.

Care to explain why it would be a "stupid thing to say or believe" in more detail?

From the moment that Saddam was overthrown, the BLOODSHED IS ENTIRELY ON THE HANDS OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE THEMSELVES. WE didn't invite them to kill each other, bomb each other, destroy the neighborhoods of those with whom they had theological differences; that's all on them. We didn't go over there to kill anybody. We would gladly have laid down our arms and spent five years doing nothing but rebuilding roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals - and were prepared to do just that. THEY fucked it up, not us.

What an irresponsible piece of shit you are. None of that violence was occurring before we showed up. It all happened AFTER we showed up. So all that violence, is on us.

And every interview I've heard today about this develpment in Mosul is trying to blame even this latest bit of insanity on the U.S., and particularly on George W. Bush.

Bush was the President who deliberately lied this country into that war, it's all on him.

Anti-Americanism at its finest.

Being an American, means you believe in the rule of law. Attacking Iraq was in violation of international and domestic laws. The Iraqi invasion was illegal and immoral. It is un-American to support it.

 

[Indofred]

Being an American, means you believe in the rule of law. Attacking Iraq was in violation of international and domestic laws. The Iraqi invasion was illegal and immoral. It is un-American to support it.

Being an American should mean putting the lives of your military ahead of oil and arms companies' profits.
Bush killed all the Americans who died in Iraq because he started an illegal war, all based on lies.
I'm amazed he isn't on death row.

 

[tinydancer]

And Saddam was anti Iran...since they would give him what he wanted of Iran..All the US invasion of Iraq created was a power vacuum, same as Afghanistan. I would bet that with in 5 years the Taliban will rule Afghanistan..which tribe? I am not sure....

The Taliban are the strongest military force so, yes, you're probably right.
America's daft invasion was a interruption, nothing more.
Iraq will probably go the same way as, much more worryingly, will Pakistan.
The US invasions have fanned a flame of extremism that might well see Pakistan controlled by an extremist group, giving them control nuclear weapons.
America is supporting the Pakistani government to protect Israel, but that won't hold for ever.

Daft invasion of Afghanistan? All 60 countries signing on to crush AQ? Endorsed by the United Nations? And NATO?

Daft? You sure you want to stick with that assessment?

 

[I.P.Freely]

Being an American, means you believe in the rule of law. Attacking Iraq was in violation of international and domestic laws. The Iraqi invasion was illegal and immoral. It is un-American to support it.

Being an American should mean putting the lives of your military ahead of oil and arms companies' profits.
Bush killed all the Americans who died in Iraq because he started an illegal war, all based on lies.
I'm amazed he isn't on death row.

A must watch Fred.This was recorded about 4 yrs ago
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_7RAuqGP1g]George Galloway debates Iraq on Al Jazeera - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Indofred]

Daft invasion of Afghanistan? All 60 countries signing on to crush AQ? Endorsed by the United Nations? And NATO?

Daft? You sure you want to stick with that assessment?

Absolutely, yes.
America led an invasion that has cost thousands of lives, destroyed much, left thousands with terrible injuries, and cost billions of dollars.

Gain - NOTHING AT ALL.

Yes, it was daft.

 

[tinydancer]

By the way where the hell has the US Intelligence agencies been on Baghdadi? I mean Obama released him in 3009. He heads up this murderous crew that makes AQ look like boy scouts.

Surely they knew he was operating in Syria and that he was knocking off other terrorist organizations.

Surely they knew ISIS was not a rebel group but was affiliated with AQ until AQ severed ties with them earlier this year.

Surely this Administration saw the writing on the wall when they allowed the Ghost to gain power, prestige, and building an army of 12,000.

Interesting. If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd swear that Obama's administration is pro Sunni and anti Shia.

 

[Indofred]

As for the question put to Galloway, Iraq was better off under Saddam, as was America and Americans.
Saddam was a bastard but was no threat to America.
Now we have a country filled with extremists, all wanting Americans dead, many getting their wish.

 

[Indofred]

I should also note - I seriously dislike Galloway.
He's a corrupt bastard with the morals of a dog, and has no clue what truth is when it doesn't suit his needs.
He converted to Islam but hides the fact.
The action of a coward and a bastard.

 

[I.P.Freely]

By the way where the hell has the US Intelligence agencies been on Baghdadi? I mean Obama released him in 3009. He heads up this murderous crew that makes AQ look like boy scouts.

Surely they knew he was operating in Syria and that he was knocking off other terrorist organizations.

Surely they knew ISIS was not a rebel group but was affiliated with AQ until AQ severed ties with them earlier this year.

Surely this Administration saw the writing on the wall when they allowed the Ghostto gain power, prestige, and building an army of 12,000.

Interesting. If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd swear that Obama's administration is pro Sunni and anti Shia.

you win my bloviator of the day prize.
Ps edit your mistake.

 

[tinydancer]

Daft invasion of Afghanistan? All 60 countries signing on to crush AQ? Endorsed by the United Nations? And NATO?

Daft? You sure you want to stick with that assessment?

Absolutely, yes.
America led an invasion that has cost thousands of lives, destroyed much, left thousands with terrible injuries, and cost billions of dollars.

Gain - NOTHING AT ALL.

Yes, it was daft.

It was a multi national effort. More than Americans were killed in those towers that day.

Gains? Well I've been an activist for women's rights in Afghanistan since the mid 90's. Progress has been made. Human Rights have been greatly restored.

The Taliban are monsters who starved many, killed many, suppressed many, ruled by terror.

You're just talking out your ass.

 

[I.P.Freely]

I should also note - I seriously dislike Galloway.
He's a corrupt bastard with the morals of a dog, and has no clue what truth is when it doesn't suit his needs.
He converted to Islam but hides the fact.
The action of a coward and a bastard.

he is a politician, between these two who would you trust more?[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAthjftE4lk]George Galloway vs American Israeli Leader on Iran & Iraq - MUST WATCH - 2013 - YouTube[/ame]