Iraq Is Not A Harmful Fantasy

[Flanders]

Americans should be wary of non-existent International law:

International law is not law but politics, ... there is no such law, and the pretense that it exists is a harmful fantasy. Robert Bork in his book "Coercing Virtue"

Clearly, Iraq can be harmful in very real terms if the US military goes back in for the wrong reason. Fighting for the United Nations is the ultimate wrong reason. To be precise, fighting for International law is the same thing as fighting for the United Nations:

United Nations Calls on ISIS to Respect International Law – Relocates Staff to Jordan
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, June 16, 2014, 1:19 PM

United Nations Calls on ISIS to Respect International Law ? Relocates Staff to Jordan | The Gateway Pundit

Had Barack Taqiyya not snatched defeat from the jaws of victory there was a better than even chance Iraq would have worked out as America’s ally. Sad to say, that chance is gone along with all of the lives of our military people who sacrificed so much. Even Bill O’Reilly gets most of it right.

O’Reilly racks up big points for making the connection between Korea and Vietnam. Maybe someday somebody will ask Jane Fonda the question I’ve been posing to Democrats for years:

Do you oppose the Korean War in hindsight?

If the answer is “Yes” it is an admission that fighting Communism is what they oppose.

If the answer is “No” ask “Why not” since both wars were fought for the same reason?​

The Jane Fonda clip comes toward the end of the video:

The O'Reilly Factor | Bill O'Reilly | Fox News

This stood out for me in O’Reilly’s talking points:

Let me ask all the bleeding hearts this question: what’s wrong with destroying an Al-Qaeda army anywhere on earth?

There is one thing wrong with the question. Defeating a terrorist army does not end the war. Allow me to elaborate.

The war started by Islamic fundamentalists has always been funded and protected by Muslim governments. Defeat one terrorist army and Muslim governments will grow another. Bottom line: There are no Muslim government(s) that can be defeated thus ending the war.

Now that Taqiyya’s policies lost Iraq the obvious way out of the mess in Iraq, and Afghanistan, is to stand down until the enemy has a country that can be destroyed. By destroy, I mean level every commercial building, every dam, every bridge, every power plant, every airport, every railroad. Every time they rebuild something knock it down again until they curse the reason they started their war.

In addition, every country should be notified that accepting refugees would be considered an act of war.

Let me point out that my war strategy does not require an occupying force. Indeed, Muslim terrorists count on using the same tactics against an occupying army they’ve been employing in their method of war all along.

I suspect that many Americans already agree with what can easily be interpreted as the first step toward implementing my strategy:

Retired U.S. Navy Capt. Chuck Nash says Iraq is simply turning into “a big mess,” and predicts a civil war between radical Sunni and Shiites will be very bad news for the U.S. no matter who wins, so the best-case scenario is for the two sides to kill as many of the other as possible.

Captain Nash reminds us of then-Senator Harry Truman in 1941—— months before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Substitute Sunni and Shiite for Germany and Russia.

If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word.

Captain Nash goes on to say:

“Essentially, Iraq is turning into a religious civil war,” said Nash, noting that Sunni and Shiite hatred for each other is nothing new given centuries of dispute over who should have been the rightful heir to Muhammad.

Ex-Navy captain: Avoid Iraq at all costs
'I'd be happy if they just all killed each other'
Published: 13 hours ago
by Greg Corombos

Ex-Navy captain: Avoid Iraq at all costs​

Finally, Americans NOT fighting for the United Nations is non-negotiable. Equally firm is that Islam’s civil war should not be used as an excuse to advance Christianity. Aside from self-defense, Americans should only fight for limited government when they see a favorable opportunity. Fighting for a specific religion does not offer such an opportunity, nor does fighting for the United Nations/International Law.

p.s. To date, not one war or revolution was ever fought for the sole purpose of limiting a government’s powers over the people.

 

[Bleipriester]

* United Nations Calls on ISIS to Respect International Law

Why didn´t the United Nations call on ISIS to respect international law in Syria but in Iraq only?

 

[aris2chat]

It is only law if the parties involved respect the moral code and want to present their case by those standards.

It is a long way from laws that states or countries pass and try to enforce.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Flanders, an archconservative, can easily be dismissed.

We have no business in Iraq except to keep the Iraqi/Iranian coalition fighting against ISIS for a long, long time.

 

[Flanders]

* United Nations Calls on ISIS to Respect International Law

Why didn´t the United Nations call on ISIS to respect international law in Syria but in Iraq only?

To Bleipriester: Secretary General Ban, and the General Assembly, condemned violence in Syria. As hard as John Kerry tried, there was not a chance the US military was going to get in the middle of Syria’s civil war.

Iraq is much different than Syria in that the UN —— the organization not the member states —— benefits the most if the US military goes back in. Only this time around the UN would support a war in Iraq when the US military is fighting for International law. Every UN-loving Socialist/Communist in the world would support that reason for war with every fiber of their beings.

It is only law if the parties involved respect the moral code and want to present their case by those standards.

To aris2chat: That is not law by any stretch of the imagination.

It is a long way from laws that states or countries pass and try to enforce.

To aris2chat: That’s why the UN works so hard at having its judges in The Hague (ICJ & ICC) universally accepted as the arbiters of non-existent International law.

 

[Flanders]

Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction is a red herring the size of a whale:

The British newspaper, The Telegraph reported this stunning little nugget yesterday, on June 19th:

Chemical weapons produced at the Al Muthanna facility, which Isis today seized, are believed to have included mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX.​

June 20, 2014
Saddam era WMDs captured in Iraq by ISIS
By Dale T. Armstrong

Blog: Saddam era WMDs captured in Iraq by ISIS​

Whether or not Saddam Hussein had WMD matters not at all. Taking the war to enemy ground was the right thing to do. It just so happens that Iraq was first in line. Anybody refusing to face that reality will repeatedly bring defeat to this country in battle after battle until Muslim fundamentalists win the war.

Socialists/Communists began justifying treason and defeat in Vietnam by calling that war a mistake. One of the worst characters in America’s history is a leading proponent of killing Americans then claiming “I did nothing wrong because the war was wrong.” That man is now secretary of state. John Kerry and his kind are doing it again in Iraq.

Question: Isn’t it time Americans stop falling for the Left’s justification for treason? Answer: The best way to do it is to show that taking the fight to the enemy in their countries is never wrong. Agreeing on a way to defeat the enemy and end the war is the only matter that is open for discussion.

Now that Taqiyya’s policies lost Iraq the obvious way out of the mess in Iraq, and Afghanistan, is to stand down until the enemy has a country that can be destroyed. By destroy, I mean level every commercial building, every dam, every bridge, every power plant, every airport, every railroad. Every time they rebuild something knock it down again until they curse the reason they started their war.

In addition, every country should be notified that accepting refugees would be considered an act of war.

Let me point out that my war strategy does not require an occupying force. Indeed, Muslim terrorists count on using the same tactics against an occupying army they’ve been employing in their method of war all along.

Finally, Joe Biden who has never been right about anything is looking for his first win:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Iraq edges toward chaos, Joe Biden is having a quiet I-told-you-so moment.

In 2006, Biden was a senator from Delaware gearing up for a presidential campaign when he proposed that Iraq be divided into three semi-independent regions for Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Follow his plan, he said, and U.S. troops could be out by early 2008. Ignore it, he warned, and Iraq would devolve into sectarian conflict that could destabilize the whole region.

The Bush administration chose to ignore Biden. Now, eight years later, the vice president's doom-and-gloom prediction seems more than a little prescient.

Jun 21, 3:33 AM EDT
For Biden, Iraq crisis offers timely vindication
By JOSH LEDERMAN
Associated Press

News from The Associated Press​

America won in Iraq. If Biden’s prediction comes true America will end up with three Muslim entities instead of a unified Iraq had the Administration not thrown away the victory. The only way Biden is ever right is when America loses.

 

[tinydancer]

ISIS makes Al Qaeda look like Girl Scouts delivering cookies. They are beheading their way to Baghdad. After they took Mosul they also took over all the banks and are now the richest and most powerful terrorist organization on the planet. They grabbed over 400 million.

If we do not stop them now and they reach Baghdad and drain her of her cash and take over all the wealth in Baghdad oh and take over all the oil fields and weaponry we gave the Iraqis, we have several options available.

Get ready for a massive global war or convert to Islam. Sunni of course.

Choose wisely.

 

[Flanders]

Choose wisely.

To tinydancer: What do you choose?

 

[tinydancer]

Choose wisely.

To tinydancer: What do you choose?

I fear we have no option but to blow ISIS off the face of the planet. But I'm being hard core honest here.

I don't think we can.

The head of ISIS was released from American custody in 2009. He and his band of merry beheaders have been allowed to flourish in Syria with the support of Saudi Arabia and Qatar and with no intervention from the west because our insane whacked out leaders wanted Assad gone at any cost.

Well then whoopsies. ISIS has grown in power and stature and it was a no brainer that their war with Assad would spill over to Iraq.

They are recruiting young jihadists from around the globe. Jihad cool. Daily Mail has solid data on ISIS recruiting tools. And they have support from Sunnis world wide.

I think we are too late. I hope not. But I fear we are. Baghdadi hates the west more than bin Laden.

Our foolish leaders in their quest to take out Assad have put us truly in jeopardy.

 

[irosie91]

* United Nations Calls on ISIS to Respect International Law

Why didn´t the United Nations call on ISIS to respect international law in Syria but in Iraq only?

Try to cope, priester. Pay attention to reality----the term
"international law"-------is meaningless. There are some
"principles" of human rights-----which have been expounded
upon in the UN (and elsewhere)----but they are inconsistent
with some belief systems and, therefore----not enforceable.
A good example is "religious freedom" There is absolutely
nothing that the UN can do about Saudi Arabia's policy of executing
apostates or denying religious freedom to the 20% of the population
over there who are not muslims. In fact I always laugh when
people on this messageboard cite "international law". It seems
to me that nations and people will just continue to CHOOSE their
battles

 

[Flanders]

I fear we have no option but to blow ISIS off the face of the planet. But I'm being hard core honest here.

I don't think we can.

To tinydancer: The Iraqi army does not encourage optimism at this point.

Assuming ISIS is defeated before they establish their own government in Iraq radical Islam will not be defeated. Should they succeed in setting up a government there is ample reason to believe Democrats will support them. Compare it to Communism. America never defeated a Communist country because it never fought to win although our military never lost a battle in Vietnam. Korea was fought to a deliberate draw even though our guys had their hands tied behind backs. Vietnam was an outright defeat thanks to the same people who have more political power now than they had back then. Those who said fighting Communism militarily was wrong are now calling the shots in the war against Muslim fundamentalism.

In the same vein, the Soviet Union fell apart but Communism was not defeated. A few years from now somebody might notice that “ISIS fell apart but radical Islam was not defeated.”

Here’s a cold, hard, fact Democrat traitors from the Vietnam War era will never accept. Islam would be easier to defeat today had Communism been decisively defeated yesterday.

The head of ISIS was released from American custody in 2009. He and his band of merry beheaders have been allowed to flourish in Syria with the support of Saudi Arabia and Qatar and with no intervention from the west because our insane whacked out leaders wanted Assad gone at any cost.

To tinydancer: Exactly.

Assad was seen as the bigger threat to the Administration’s foreign policy agenda (The Arab Spring) because he was NOT a Muslim fundamentalist. In short: The Administration prefers the Muslim Brotherhood over strongman dictators.

Well then whoopsies. ISIS has grown in power and stature and it was a no brainer that their war with Assad would spill over to Iraq.

To tinydancer: I agree.

Unforeseen consequence: America now has to dig out from under the worst of all worlds thanks to Putin AND RUSSIA’S MILITARY backing Assad.

They are recruiting young jihadists from around the globe. Jihad cool. Daily Mail has solid data on ISIS recruiting tools. And they have support from Sunnis world wide.

To tinydancer: It will only get worse until jihadists have a country that can be defeated along the lines I laid out previously. Whether or not the next Administration has the will for it remains to be seen.

I think we are too late. I hope not. But I fear we are. Baghdadi hates the west more than bin Laden.

To tinydancer: I believe that it would be manageable had the victory in Iraq held.

Our foolish leaders in their quest to take out Assad have put us truly in jeopardy.

To tinydancer: Based on their track record I can only see them going from bad to worse.

 

[irosie91]

from Flanders>>>>

Here’s a cold, hard, fact Democrat traitors from the Vietnam War era will never accept. Islam would be easier to defeat today had Communism been decisively defeated yesterday.


Flanders----you make an interesting point. Vietnam was sorta ---at least tricked out to be a
moral fight against totalitarian communism by the USA. Today---the moral fight is against
totalitarian islamicism. It is not working for the same reason that a fight against
communism did not work-----lack of resolution on the part of "the west". The situation
has not quite reached that which totalitarian Nazism reached by 1940 and communism
as an EMPIRE ----kinda self destructed. Its a toss-up as to whether the west vs islamicism---
will go west vs Nazi route or the west vs Communism route. I am guessing
it will snowball into the west vs Nazism route-------it will just take a lot longer than
the German model. ------the Germans are so QUICK AND EFFICIENT----

 

[aris2chat]

* United Nations Calls on ISIS to Respect International Law

Why didn´t the United Nations call on ISIS to respect international law in Syria but in Iraq only?

To Bleipriester: Secretary General Ban, and the General Assembly, condemned violence in Syria. As hard as John Kerry tried, there was not a chance the US military was going to get in the middle of Syria’s civil war.

Iraq is much different than Syria in that the UN —— the organization not the member states —— benefits the most if the US military goes back in. Only this time around the UN would support a war in Iraq when the US military is fighting for International law. Every UN-loving Socialist/Communist in the world would support that reason for war with every fiber of their beings.

It is only law if the parties involved respect the moral code and want to present their case by those standards.

To aris2chat: That is not law by any stretch of the imagination.

It is a long way from laws that states or countries pass and try to enforce.

To aris2chat: That’s why the UN works so hard at having its judges in The Hague (ICJ & ICC) universally accepted as the arbiters of non-existent International law.

>>as the arbiters of non-existent International law. <<
You just proved my point. Bringing a country in to court is far different than bring an individual to company to court. A president or PM have immunity while in office, yet they are the representative of the country. Nor can not arrest them and transport them out of their own country and drag them to court. If if they volunteer, any judgement can be ignored by them.

It has taken 9 year to create a court to investigate and bring to trial those guilty of Hariri's assassination. the accused don't show up and others being questioned walk out

STL Resumes Trial of Accused in Hariri Assassination ? Naharnet

 

[Flanders]

Flanders----you make an interesting point.

To irosie91: I think my point can be reduced to America fighting two enemies with the same goal ——WORLDWIDE DOMINATION —— instead of fighting one without worrying about the other.

Vietnam was sorta ---at least tricked out to be a
moral fight against totalitarian communism by the USA.

To irosie91: Vietnam was a war of self-defense. American Communists turned Vietnam into a morally wrong war in order to justify their treason.

Today---the moral fight is against
totalitarian islamicism.

To irosie91: Self-defense is more than enough reason for a free people to FIGHT BACK against Islam.

In any event, never fight wars for moral reasons. Such wars always are always fought for philosophical horse manure.

There is no easier way for a ruling class to trick a nation into a war than to convince young men and women they should go off and die for strangers by fighting a noble touchy-feely war. The hard part is in knowing when leaders are conning everybody into fighting for something other than self-defense. Example: Fighting Islam is self-defense, but it can be twisted into fighting for Christianity, or Socialism, or the United Nations under the guise of self-defense.

To me, self-defense, and profit, are the only acceptable reasons for going to war. Neither reason applied to WWI. Self-defense obviously applied in WWII. Modern weaponry, nuclear submarines, intercontinental missiles, long-range bombers, and so on make peremptory wars like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan necessary. Simply put: It’s better to fight a war on enemy territory than it is to fight the enemy’s war in New York or California.

It is not working for the same reason that a fight against
communism did not work-----lack of resolution on the part of "the west".

To irosie91: I believe that the majority had the will throughout the Cold War. A minority, and the media, made it look like the opposite was true.

NOTE: Pearl Harbor gave Americans all of the resolution they needed. It gets murky when there is no direct attack by a traditional military; nevertheless, self-defense is not that difficult to identify.

It has taken 9 year to create a court to investigate and bring to trial those guilty of Hariri's assassination. the accused don't show up and others being questioned walk out

To aris2chat: As they should in any United Nations court.

Just to be clear. I do not condone political assassination because they are the dumbest of all murders. They accomplish nothing. No matter who is killed everybody else moves up one step.

 

[Flanders]

Let me point out that my war strategy does not require an occupying force. Indeed, Muslim terrorists count on using the same tactics against an occupying army they’ve been employing in their method of war all along.

He proves my case:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_kzAVmDUPc&feature=player_detailpage]Shiite cleric issues threat to US military advisers | BREAKING NEWS - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Flanders]

There is no easier way for a ruling class to trick a nation into a war than to convince young men and women they should go off and die for strangers by fighting a noble touchy-feely war. The hard part is in knowing when leaders are conning everybody into fighting for something other than self-defense. Example: Fighting Islam is self-defense, but it can be twisted into fighting for Christianity, or Socialism, or the United Nations under the guise of self-defense.

Were I of military age, I would be getting nervous right about now:

Broad hints and actual calls from pontiffs and archbishops promoting military action are very rare.

XXXXX​

In fact, such calls are virtually unprecedented in modern times. But it appears the carnage unleashed by Islamic militants has at long last revived the Christian concept of just warfare. It has taken shocking barbarity to awaken religious leaders from the penchant for pacifism that characterizes nearly all Christian churches, including the Catholic Church. At last some are realizing that rescuing the perishing might mean fighting for the actual physical lives of innocents as well as fighting for the salvation of their souls. The salvation and protection of innocents is once again being seen as just cause for armed conflict.

August 14, 2014
The Fifth Crusade?
By Fay Voshell

Articles: The Fifth Crusade?​