Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No moron. Maliki isn't the US president. You're busted once again.
The debate is over which AMERICAN president's fault it was that all troops were PULLED OUT. Did Maliki PULL THEM OUT, IDIOT. Only US can PULL.
Maliki can not order our troops. Just admit you don't know shit about this subject. Or don't.
Everyone else can see it.
Maliki could not order US troops out of Iraq? Are you serious? So I'm imagining this from Article 24 of the Status of Forces agreement?
4.The United States recognizes the sovereign right of the Government of Iraq to request the departure of the United States Forces from Iraq at any time.
Did I make it big enough for you to read? I can go one more font size level lololol.
Keep digging your hole moron. He can ask. He didn't give the order idiot. Only our CINC gives the order.
Do you even know what that means?? No, you don't. You're incredibly misinformed and small brained.
All you needed to say last night, Mr. President, was this:
I must apologize for allowing this evil to be born and grow. I ran as a president who wanted to end wars. I now realize my campaign promises and personal desires are not of any consideration, because the enemy also has a vote.
The Islamic State represents the most reprehensible evil the world has seen since that of Nazi Germany and the world did nothing then. I shall not allow this on my watch. America will lead and we shall destroy this 7th century barbarism. Tonight, I am committing American military power to kill ISIS, wherever it is. If America sees the black flag we shall kill those who raise it.
First however, we will rescue the Yazidi and Christians trapped in the Sinjar mountains and we shall kill any ISIS forces impeding that objective. Then in concert with our Kurdish allies, we will begin a committed offensive operation to ensure that Islamic totalitarianism and jihadism is defeated. God bless liberty and freedom. God bless America .and God curse ISIS.
Sadly, that was not said, and the situation is even more confused than ever
Read more at ISIS is beheading children, and Obama drops two bombs | Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com
It's God's fault, he started the whole mess with creating humans...
And the far left wanting to control everyone's "free" will.
It doesn't matter what Obama does....even if it were the perfect plan. You know why? Because our enemies, especially ISIS, know he doesn't have the stomach for the long haul.
Why do you think we conservatives want assholes for Presidents and not nice guys?
We're going to be fucked till he leaves office, no matter if I sat down and gave him what I thought was the perfect plan. He doesn't have the credibility to carry it out.
lol, of course. That's not even a good dodge.
Dodge this:
How can Obama commit to a long term military re-intervention in Iraq without the support of the American people? How does that work?
Look I know you can't accept the truth about your hero. I understand.
He makes Jimmy Carter look good by comparison.
Look I know you can't accept the truth about your hero. I understand.
He makes Jimmy Carter look good by comparison.
There was a question there you can't seem to answer:
How can Obama commit to a long term military re-intervention in Iraq without the support of the American people?
The same way the far left did the same thing with Obamacare.
Obama feels that this will give him a bump in the polls as it did help Putin when he sent jets many weeks ago to help out.
But then the far left supports Obama's illegal action in Iraq.
All you needed to say last night, Mr. President, was this:
I must apologize for allowing this evil to be born and grow. I ran as a president who wanted to end wars. I now realize my campaign promises and personal desires are not of any consideration, because the enemy also has a vote.
The Islamic State represents the most reprehensible evil the world has seen since that of Nazi Germany and the world did nothing then. I shall not allow this on my watch. America will lead and we shall destroy this 7th century barbarism. Tonight, I am committing American military power to kill ISIS, wherever it is. If America sees the black flag we shall kill those who raise it.
First however, we will rescue the Yazidi and Christians trapped in the Sinjar mountains and we shall kill any ISIS forces impeding that objective. Then in concert with our Kurdish allies, we will begin a committed offensive operation to ensure that Islamic totalitarianism and jihadism is defeated. God bless liberty and freedom. God bless America .and God curse ISIS.
Sadly, that was not said, and the situation is even more confused than ever
Read more at ISIS is beheading children, and Obama drops two bombs | Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com
Whaaaaa?
Me? A leftist? Do you know what a classical liberal is, Kosh?
My conservative-libertarian credentials are well-established on this board. Just ask any leftist around here about me, and you'll get an earful of obscenities. They despise me.
Now, what part of this thing do you think I wrongfully believe relative to lefty's propaganda?
That the Kurds are a true ally and a solidly Western-leaning people is a fact!
Whether or not the Obama Administration truly cares about the fate of the Kurdish people, and the blood and treasure we invested in their well-deserved liberation is a huge question mark?
I wouldn't trust this Administration to wipe my dog's ass. It has repeatedly demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to defend America's best interests, let alone reliably defend our friends in the region. On the contrary, this administration has all but given the Islamofascists of the world a green light.
What I support is the defense of Israel and Kurdistan. That's what I support.
That is incorrect! I suggest you read up on your history and get away from the far left publications.
Especially since the US encouraged the Kurds in the late sixties to back the Ba'thist regime.
At best the Kurds and the US have had a love/hate relationship. It is like which devil do you back in the elections.
The US relations with the Kurds was like the US relations with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.
Utter hogwash!
While, indeed, America's foreign policy with regard to what was thought to be a necessary evil of stability in Iraq pissed the Kurds off, their displeasure with our government was never one of animus for the American people or for Westerners in general. In fact, they have always generally supported Western foreign policy, particularly touching on the West's struggle with communist regimes during the Cold War Era.
Most Kurds are Sunni Muslims of the Shafi school, a truly religiously moderate tradition that tolerates religious diversity and peaceful coexistence among The People of the Book. Unlike Arab Muslims, especially, Kurdish Muslims live peacefully side-by-side with their blood relations: Kurdish Christians, Kurdish Jews and, also, Kurdish Yazidis, whose religion is rooted in ancient Zoroastrianism.
Kurds are Kurds first! Regardless of religious affiliation, Arabs are their historical mortal enemies. Indeed, most Kurds have always happily supported America and Israel, for example, and a significant of number of them regard themselves to be "Muslim Zionists"!
Anybody who has had any firsthand experience with the Kurdish people of Syria, Turkey and Iraq knows this, and, generally, the Kurdish people have always leaned toward the political and societal motifs of Western culture. While the Arabian Shia and Sunnis in Iraq generally bristled under American occupation, the Kurds embraced U.S. troops, and the semiautonomous Republic of Kurdistan sought to negotiate a separate status forces agreement with the United States.
I am one of those who has had firsthand experience with the Kurdish people, the only reliably civilized Muslims in the world for my money, as a military attaché with the State Department. In that capacity I served in Turkey and in Iraq in 1981. I even considered a career in the State Department at one point. Hence, my study of immigration and nationality law, as well as the pertinent case law.
(Now, I have always suspected that a certain clique of conservatives on this board confound classical liberalism with the "liberalism" of popular culture based on some of the comments that have come my way from self-identified conservatives on this board, particularly when I dispute the overly law-and-order types with regard to the concerns of the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments. Also, I'm well aware of the fact that as an authority on immigration and nationality law, I rub the birthers on this board the wrong way, given my refutations of their nonsense. But that's the first time I've been called a leftist outright, or that a conservative imagined that I could be taken by leftist propaganda. By the way, there's a certain clique of leftists on this board who are enthusiastic supporters of the abuse of civil liberties by law-enforcement agencies too. Clayton Jones and jillian come to mind. The obnoxious excesses of Terry stops, as well as those of DUI, border and TSA checkpoints are just peachy with them. And there's a certain strain of ignorance about nationality law that is prevalent among leftists, what I call the fallacies of soilerism. But I digress.)
To abandon the Kurds and leave them at the mercy of the barbaric cutthroats of ISIS/ISIL would be a betrayal worthy of the name Benedict Arnold. Are you a distant relation?
We must not allow it. Not now, not ever!
It's God's fault, he started the whole mess with creating humans...
And the far left wanting to control everyone's "free" will.
I already have yours and you don't even know it...
There was a question there you can't seem to answer:
How can Obama commit to a long term military re-intervention in Iraq without the support of the American people?
The same way the far left did the same thing with Obamacare.
Obama feels that this will give him a bump in the polls as it did help Putin when he sent jets many weeks ago to help out.
But then the far left supports Obama's illegal action in Iraq.
How many troops should we put back into Iraq?
The same way the far left did the same thing with Obamacare.
Obama feels that this will give him a bump in the polls as it did help Putin when he sent jets many weeks ago to help out.
But then the far left supports Obama's illegal action in Iraq.
How many troops should we put back into Iraq?
I am not Obama, why not ask him?
The U.S. currently has approximately 750 troops in Iraq, the Pentagon says, including 100 that predate the unfolding crisis there and about 650 who have been sent to help protect U.S. personnel and assist the Iraq army on the deteriorating security conditions.
How many U.S. troops are currently in Iraq? - CBS News
Still not going to condemn Obama for his illegal acts in Iraq?
How many troops should we put back into Iraq?
I am not Obama, why not ask him?
The U.S. currently has approximately 750 troops in Iraq, the Pentagon says, including 100 that predate the unfolding crisis there and about 650 who have been sent to help protect U.S. personnel and assist the Iraq army on the deteriorating security conditions.
How many U.S. troops are currently in Iraq? - CBS News
Still not going to condemn Obama for his illegal acts in Iraq?
So you're crticizing Obama without actually having an opinion of your own on the situation,
just like EconChick.
I missed it..out commissary shopping...will check later although I know what I will hear.
D, the guy was caught in so many lies that even 2nd graders can see through. It's called "backing yourself into a corner."
How about "I will end the war in Iraq" is now "I have re-entered the war in Iraq."
Or how about, "I left Iraq as a stable country" is now "what a mess Iraq is now so I have to send airstrikes in."
It was funny watching him try to blame Bush for Obama pulling 100% of the troops out.....Twitter is on fire with people of all political stripes slamming him.
That is incorrect! I suggest you read up on your history and get away from the far left publications.
Especially since the US encouraged the Kurds in the late sixties to back the Ba'thist regime.
At best the Kurds and the US have had a love/hate relationship. It is like which devil do you back in the elections.
The US relations with the Kurds was like the US relations with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.
Utter hogwash!
While, indeed, America's foreign policy with regard to what was thought to be a necessary evil of stability in Iraq pissed the Kurds off, their displeasure with our government was never one of animus for the American people or for Westerners in general. In fact, they have always generally supported Western foreign policy, particularly touching on the West's struggle with communist regimes during the Cold War Era.
Most Kurds are Sunni Muslims of the Shafi school, a truly religiously moderate tradition that tolerates religious diversity and peaceful coexistence among The People of the Book. Unlike Arab Muslims, especially, Kurdish Muslims live peacefully side-by-side with their blood relations: Kurdish Christians, Kurdish Jews and, also, Kurdish Yazidis, whose religion is rooted in ancient Zoroastrianism.
Kurds are Kurds first! Regardless of religious affiliation, Arabs are their historical mortal enemies. Indeed, most Kurds have always happily supported America and Israel, for example, and a significant of number of them regard themselves to be "Muslim Zionists"!
Anybody who has had any firsthand experience with the Kurdish people of Syria, Turkey and Iraq knows this, and, generally, the Kurdish people have always leaned toward the political and societal motifs of Western culture. While the Arabian Shia and Sunnis in Iraq generally bristled under American occupation, the Kurds embraced U.S. troops, and the semiautonomous Republic of Kurdistan sought to negotiate a separate status forces agreement with the United States.
I am one of those who has had firsthand experience with the Kurdish people, the only reliably civilized Muslims in the world for my money, as a military attaché with the State Department. In that capacity I served in Turkey and in Iraq in 1981. I even considered a career in the State Department at one point. Hence, my study of immigration and nationality law, as well as the pertinent case law.
(Now, I have always suspected that a certain clique of conservatives on this board confound classical liberalism with the "liberalism" of popular culture based on some of the comments that have come my way from self-identified conservatives on this board, particularly when I dispute the overly law-and-order types with regard to the concerns of the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments. Also, I'm well aware of the fact that as an authority on immigration and nationality law, I rub the birthers on this board the wrong way, given my refutations of their nonsense. But that's the first time I've been called a leftist outright, or that a conservative imagined that I could be taken by leftist propaganda. By the way, there's a certain clique of leftists on this board who are enthusiastic supporters of the abuse of civil liberties by law-enforcement agencies too. Clayton Jones and jillian come to mind. The obnoxious excesses of Terry stops, as well as those of DUI, border and TSA checkpoints are just peachy with them. And there's a certain strain of ignorance about nationality law that is prevalent among leftists, what I call the fallacies of soilerism. But I digress.)
To abandon the Kurds and leave them at the mercy of the barbaric cutthroats of ISIS/ISIL would be a betrayal worthy of the name Benedict Arnold. Are you a distant relation?
We must not allow it. Not now, not ever!
The Kurds are not in their own state (so comparing the Kurds to the Jews in Israel is very silly and born from reading far left blogs) and belong to collective called Iraq. So to go in to help the Kurds is an illegal act now.
And no the Kurds are not "pro" western. They are "pro" Kurd!
...........
March 1995: The KDP, the largest Kurdish group under Mousoud Barzani (the son of the legendary Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani), breaks with the INC after the U.S. government fails to back a planned attack on Saddam's forces. (See Abdul Rahman on decision to break with the U.S., and Talabani, whose KDP faction stayed loyal to U.S.).
August 1996 KDP troops join the Iraqi Army in an attack on the INC forces based in Irbil, the largest city in Kurdistan. U.S.- backed rebels request American air support but request is denied. Iraqi troops arrest and execute hundreds of rebel leaders. (See Abdul Rahman on KDP decision to back Saddam. Talabani on lack of U.S. response to attack, which he considers another American betrayal. Also Chalabi on Kurdish infighting.)
.........
Summer 1999 U.S. government refuses to give Kurdish leaders security guarantees that would enable them to hold a general meeting of the Iraqi opposition inside Kurdistan. Instead, the meeting is held in New York City in October, 1999.
The Kurds - A Chronology | The Survival Of Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS
As you can see the US and Kurds does not have such a cozy relationship as you would like to paint. It is a love/hate relationship, much like the US backing Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.
Even more recently to defeat all your talking points:
Kurd party leader to ‘Post’: US keeping us from independence
Kurd party leader to ?Post?: US keeping us from independence | JPost | Israel News
Again they are not so "pro" western as you wish everyone to believe and defeats the far left blog sites as they need this as well in order to justify the illegal operations happening in Iraq, that the far left refuses to condemn.
And the far left wanting to control everyone's "free" will.
I already have yours and you don't even know it...
Hardly! But as a member of the far left I firmly believe that you believe you do.
I already have yours and you don't even know it...
Hardly! But as a member of the far left I firmly believe that you believe you do.
It's right here in my grouch bag...
Utter hogwash!
While, indeed, America's foreign policy with regard to what was thought to be a necessary evil of stability in Iraq pissed the Kurds off, their displeasure with our government was never one of animus for the American people or for Westerners in general. In fact, they have always generally supported Western foreign policy, particularly touching on the West's struggle with communist regimes during the Cold War Era.
Most Kurds are Sunni Muslims of the Shafi school, a truly religiously moderate tradition that tolerates religious diversity and peaceful coexistence among The People of the Book. Unlike Arab Muslims, especially, Kurdish Muslims live peacefully side-by-side with their blood relations: Kurdish Christians, Kurdish Jews and, also, Kurdish Yazidis, whose religion is rooted in ancient Zoroastrianism.
Kurds are Kurds first! Regardless of religious affiliation, Arabs are their historical mortal enemies. Indeed, most Kurds have always happily supported America and Israel, for example, and a significant of number of them regard themselves to be "Muslim Zionists"!
Anybody who has had any firsthand experience with the Kurdish people of Syria, Turkey and Iraq knows this, and, generally, the Kurdish people have always leaned toward the political and societal motifs of Western culture. While the Arabian Shia and Sunnis in Iraq generally bristled under American occupation, the Kurds embraced U.S. troops, and the semiautonomous Republic of Kurdistan sought to negotiate a separate status forces agreement with the United States.
I am one of those who has had firsthand experience with the Kurdish people, the only reliably civilized Muslims in the world for my money, as a military attaché with the State Department. In that capacity I served in Turkey and in Iraq in 1981. I even considered a career in the State Department at one point. Hence, my study of immigration and nationality law, as well as the pertinent case law.
(Now, I have always suspected that a certain clique of conservatives on this board confound classical liberalism with the "liberalism" of popular culture based on some of the comments that have come my way from self-identified conservatives on this board, particularly when I dispute the overly law-and-order types with regard to the concerns of the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments. Also, I'm well aware of the fact that as an authority on immigration and nationality law, I rub the birthers on this board the wrong way, given my refutations of their nonsense. But that's the first time I've been called a leftist outright, or that a conservative imagined that I could be taken by leftist propaganda. By the way, there's a certain clique of leftists on this board who are enthusiastic supporters of the abuse of civil liberties by law-enforcement agencies too. Clayton Jones and jillian come to mind. The obnoxious excesses of Terry stops, as well as those of DUI, border and TSA checkpoints are just peachy with them. And there's a certain strain of ignorance about nationality law that is prevalent among leftists, what I call the fallacies of soilerism. But I digress.)
To abandon the Kurds and leave them at the mercy of the barbaric cutthroats of ISIS/ISIL would be a betrayal worthy of the name Benedict Arnold. Are you a distant relation?
We must not allow it. Not now, not ever!
The Kurds are not in their own state (so comparing the Kurds to the Jews in Israel is very silly and born from reading far left blogs) and belong to collective called Iraq. So to go in to help the Kurds is an illegal act now.
And no the Kurds are not "pro" western. They are "pro" Kurd!
...........
March 1995: The KDP, the largest Kurdish group under Mousoud Barzani (the son of the legendary Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani), breaks with the INC after the U.S. government fails to back a planned attack on Saddam's forces. (See Abdul Rahman on decision to break with the U.S., and Talabani, whose KDP faction stayed loyal to U.S.).
August 1996 KDP troops join the Iraqi Army in an attack on the INC forces based in Irbil, the largest city in Kurdistan. U.S.- backed rebels request American air support but request is denied. Iraqi troops arrest and execute hundreds of rebel leaders. (See Abdul Rahman on KDP decision to back Saddam. Talabani on lack of U.S. response to attack, which he considers another American betrayal. Also Chalabi on Kurdish infighting.)
.........
Summer 1999 U.S. government refuses to give Kurdish leaders security guarantees that would enable them to hold a general meeting of the Iraqi opposition inside Kurdistan. Instead, the meeting is held in New York City in October, 1999.
The Kurds - A Chronology | The Survival Of Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS
As you can see the US and Kurds does not have such a cozy relationship as you would like to paint. It is a love/hate relationship, much like the US backing Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.
Even more recently to defeat all your talking points:
Kurd party leader to Post: US keeping us from independence
Kurd party leader to ?Post?: US keeping us from independence | JPost | Israel News
Again they are not so "pro" western as you wish everyone to believe and defeats the far left blog sites as they need this as well in order to justify the illegal operations happening in Iraq, that the far left refuses to condemn.
I didn't say Kurdistan was an independent state like Israel or any other. It's a semiautonomous state, and, once again, it is a fact of history that they embraced American troops and sought a separate status forces agreement with the United States just the same. The comparison being drawn here goes to what should be done. Our posture with regard to Kurdistan's independence is asinine. Notwithstanding, that has nothing to do with the fact that an independent Kurdistan would be a staunch American ally regardless of the fact that the Kurds are rightly pissed at America's posture on that issue. Why shouldn't they be? It's asinine. The Bush doctrine is unsustainable, and now we've got Obama prattling the same thing. It's a relic of the WWII era.
And, yes, of course, they're pro Kurdish in the sense that any sane people would be keen on themselves. What the hell is wrong with you? That doesn't mean they're anti-West.
The history and the culture of the Kurdish people is well-known. Objectively ascertainable by anyone who isn't grinding an ideological axe against the facts. Their dispute with American policy regarding their indepence is not relevant to my observation. Are reading challenge? I know these people. You don't. I don't need any friggin' "Internet biosphere" to tell me who they are, including your obtuse misapprehension of the situation based on your obviously absurd reading of that same biosphere.
You're confounding the pertinent distinction between American policy and the natural affinity between Western culture and that of the Kurds. The nuance here flies right over your head, apparently.
And since you won't honesty address the essence of that distinction, I'm done with you. You talk about my supposed reliance on propaganda is argumentative bullshit. You're arguing just like a leftist loon: misdirection, straw men, red herrings. . . .
Utter hogwash!
While, indeed, America's foreign policy with regard to what was thought to be a necessary evil of stability in Iraq pissed the Kurds off, their displeasure with our government was never one of animus for the American people or for Westerners in general. In fact, they have always generally supported Western foreign policy, particularly touching on the West's struggle with communist regimes during the Cold War Era.
Most Kurds are Sunni Muslims of the Shafi school, a truly religiously moderate tradition that tolerates religious diversity and peaceful coexistence among The People of the Book. Unlike Arab Muslims, especially, Kurdish Muslims live peacefully side-by-side with their blood relations: Kurdish Christians, Kurdish Jews and, also, Kurdish Yazidis, whose religion is rooted in ancient Zoroastrianism.
Kurds are Kurds first! Regardless of religious affiliation, Arabs are their historical mortal enemies. Indeed, most Kurds have always happily supported America and Israel, for example, and a significant of number of them regard themselves to be "Muslim Zionists"!
Anybody who has had any firsthand experience with the Kurdish people of Syria, Turkey and Iraq knows this, and, generally, the Kurdish people have always leaned toward the political and societal motifs of Western culture. While the Arabian Shia and Sunnis in Iraq generally bristled under American occupation, the Kurds embraced U.S. troops, and the semiautonomous Republic of Kurdistan sought to negotiate a separate status forces agreement with the United States.
I am one of those who has had firsthand experience with the Kurdish people, the only reliably civilized Muslims in the world for my money, as a military attaché with the State Department. In that capacity I served in Turkey and in Iraq in 1981. I even considered a career in the State Department at one point. Hence, my study of immigration and nationality law, as well as the pertinent case law.
(Now, I have always suspected that a certain clique of conservatives on this board confound classical liberalism with the "liberalism" of popular culture based on some of the comments that have come my way from self-identified conservatives on this board, particularly when I dispute the overly law-and-order types with regard to the concerns of the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments. Also, I'm well aware of the fact that as an authority on immigration and nationality law, I rub the birthers on this board the wrong way, given my refutations of their nonsense. But that's the first time I've been called a leftist outright, or that a conservative imagined that I could be taken by leftist propaganda. By the way, there's a certain clique of leftists on this board who are enthusiastic supporters of the abuse of civil liberties by law-enforcement agencies too. Clayton Jones and jillian come to mind. The obnoxious excesses of Terry stops, as well as those of DUI, border and TSA checkpoints are just peachy with them. And there's a certain strain of ignorance about nationality law that is prevalent among leftists, what I call the fallacies of soilerism. But I digress.)
To abandon the Kurds and leave them at the mercy of the barbaric cutthroats of ISIS/ISIL would be a betrayal worthy of the name Benedict Arnold. Are you a distant relation?
We must not allow it. Not now, not ever!
The Kurds are not in their own state (so comparing the Kurds to the Jews in Israel is very silly and born from reading far left blogs) and belong to collective called Iraq. So to go in to help the Kurds is an illegal act now.
And no the Kurds are not "pro" western. They are "pro" Kurd!
...........
March 1995: The KDP, the largest Kurdish group under Mousoud Barzani (the son of the legendary Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani), breaks with the INC after the U.S. government fails to back a planned attack on Saddam's forces. (See Abdul Rahman on decision to break with the U.S., and Talabani, whose KDP faction stayed loyal to U.S.).
August 1996 KDP troops join the Iraqi Army in an attack on the INC forces based in Irbil, the largest city in Kurdistan. U.S.- backed rebels request American air support but request is denied. Iraqi troops arrest and execute hundreds of rebel leaders. (See Abdul Rahman on KDP decision to back Saddam. Talabani on lack of U.S. response to attack, which he considers another American betrayal. Also Chalabi on Kurdish infighting.)
.........
Summer 1999 U.S. government refuses to give Kurdish leaders security guarantees that would enable them to hold a general meeting of the Iraqi opposition inside Kurdistan. Instead, the meeting is held in New York City in October, 1999.
The Kurds - A Chronology | The Survival Of Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS
As you can see the US and Kurds does not have such a cozy relationship as you would like to paint. It is a love/hate relationship, much like the US backing Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.
Even more recently to defeat all your talking points:
Kurd party leader to Post: US keeping us from independence
Kurd party leader to ?Post?: US keeping us from independence | JPost | Israel News
Again they are not so "pro" western as you wish everyone to believe and defeats the far left blog sites as they need this as well in order to justify the illegal operations happening in Iraq, that the far left refuses to condemn.
I didn't say Kurdistan was an independent state like Israel or any other. It's a semiautonomous state, and, once again, it is a fact of history that they embraced American troops and sought a separate status forces agreement with the United States just the same. The comparison being drawn here goes to what should be done. Our posture with regard to Kurdistan's independence is asinine. Notwithstanding, that has nothing to do with the fact that an independent Kurdistan would be a staunch American ally regardless of the fact that the Kurds are rightly pissed at America's posture on that issue. Why shouldn't they be? It's asinine. The Bush doctrine is unsustainable, and now we've got Obama prattling the same thing. It's a relic of the WWII era.
And, yes, of course, they're pro Kurdish in the sense that any sane people would be keen on themselves. What the hell is wrong with you? That doesn't mean they're anti-West.
The history and the culture of the Kurdish people is well-known, objectively ascertainable by anyone who isn't grinding an ideological axe against the facts. Their dispute with American policy regarding their indepence is not relevant to my observation. Are reading challenged? I know these people. You don't. I don't need any friggin' "Internet biosphere" to tell me who they are, including your obtuse misapprehension of the situation based on your obviously absurd reading of that same biosphere.
You're confounding the pertinent distinction between American policy and the natural affinity between Western culture and that of the Kurds. The nuance here flies right over your head, apparently.
And since you won't honesty address the essence of that distinction, I'm done with you. You talk about my supposed reliance on propaganda is argumentative bullshit. You're arguing just like a leftist loon: misdirection, straw men, red herrings. . . .
The Kurds are not in their own state (so comparing the Kurds to the Jews in Israel is very silly and born from reading far left blogs) and belong to collective called Iraq. So to go in to help the Kurds is an illegal act now.
And no the Kurds are not "pro" western. They are "pro" Kurd!
...........
March 1995: The KDP, the largest Kurdish group under Mousoud Barzani (the son of the legendary Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani), breaks with the INC after the U.S. government fails to back a planned attack on Saddam's forces. (See Abdul Rahman on decision to break with the U.S., and Talabani, whose KDP faction stayed loyal to U.S.).
August 1996 KDP troops join the Iraqi Army in an attack on the INC forces based in Irbil, the largest city in Kurdistan. U.S.- backed rebels request American air support but request is denied. Iraqi troops arrest and execute hundreds of rebel leaders. (See Abdul Rahman on KDP decision to back Saddam. Talabani on lack of U.S. response to attack, which he considers another American betrayal. Also Chalabi on Kurdish infighting.)
.........
Summer 1999 U.S. government refuses to give Kurdish leaders security guarantees that would enable them to hold a general meeting of the Iraqi opposition inside Kurdistan. Instead, the meeting is held in New York City in October, 1999.
The Kurds - A Chronology | The Survival Of Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS
As you can see the US and Kurds does not have such a cozy relationship as you would like to paint. It is a love/hate relationship, much like the US backing Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.
Even more recently to defeat all your talking points:
Kurd party leader to Post: US keeping us from independence
Kurd party leader to ?Post?: US keeping us from independence | JPost | Israel News
Again they are not so "pro" western as you wish everyone to believe and defeats the far left blog sites as they need this as well in order to justify the illegal operations happening in Iraq, that the far left refuses to condemn.
I didn't say Kurdistan was an independent state like Israel or any other. It's a semiautonomous state, and, once again, it is a fact of history that they embraced American troops and sought a separate status forces agreement with the United States just the same. The comparison being drawn here goes to what should be done. Our posture with regard to Kurdistan's independence is asinine. Notwithstanding, that has nothing to do with the fact that an independent Kurdistan would be a staunch American ally regardless of the fact that the Kurds are rightly pissed at America's posture on that issue. Why shouldn't they be? It's asinine. The Bush doctrine is unsustainable, and now we've got Obama prattling the same thing. It's a relic of the WWII era.
And, yes, of course, they're pro Kurdish in the sense that any sane people would be keen on themselves. What the hell is wrong with you? That doesn't mean they're anti-West.
The history and the culture of the Kurdish people is well-known. Objectively ascertainable by anyone who isn't grinding an ideological axe against the facts. Their dispute with American policy regarding their indepence is not relevant to my observation. Are reading challenge? I know these people. You don't. I don't need any friggin' "Internet biosphere" to tell me who they are, including your obtuse misapprehension of the situation based on your obviously absurd reading of that same biosphere.
You're confounding the pertinent distinction between American policy and the natural affinity between Western culture and that of the Kurds. The nuance here flies right over your head, apparently.
And since you won't honesty address the essence of that distinction, I'm done with you. You talk about my supposed reliance on propaganda is argumentative bullshit. You're arguing just like a leftist loon: misdirection, straw men, red herrings. . . .
The US is NOT doing what the Bush boy did; we are trying to rectify his unspeakable actions; with all our allies, before Bush II, on our side. Germany, France, the UN, all with the USA, and the UK can finally trust us again. Bush refused to accept Iraqi compliance with UN sanctions, his "cover" for his personal war:
In December 2002, a representative of the head of Iraqi Intelligence, the General Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, contacted former Central Intelligence Agency Counterterrorism Department head Vincent Cannistraro stating that Hussein "knew there was a campaign to link him to 11 September and prove he had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)." Cannistraro further added that "the Iraqis were prepared to satisfy these concerns. I reported the conversation to senior levels of the state department and I was told to stand aside and they would handle it." Cannistraro stated that the offers made were all "killed" by the George W. Bush administration because they allowed Hussein to remain in power, an outcome viewed as unacceptable. It has been suggested that Saddam Hussein was prepared to go into exile if allowed to keep $1 billion USD.[68]
The BBC has also noted that, while President Bush "never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington", he "repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September", adding that "Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two." For instance, the BBC report quotes Colin Powell in February 2003, stating that "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America." The same BBC report also noted the results of a recent opinion poll, which suggested that "70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks."[82]
Some in the Pentagon resigned when they learned Bush was going to invade with no cause other than his desire. Now we continue the struggle against what Bush allowed to grow.
2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We owe the Kurds, the Yazidis, and the Iraqi people.
