Potential US and Allies Failure in Iraq
061614 - Obama has screwed up in Iraq so bad. The only option beside boots back on the ground is to work with Iran? The country that supports terrorism and Syria? The country that supports Hamas and Hezbollah? Iran? The country that Putin the thug supports?
You have got to be kidding!
It's time to impeach the president for being an idiot.
(Edited by davidk14)
June 9th – Administration says ISIS seemingly isn’t gaining much ground.
June 10th – 90K Iraqi troops deserted amid fighting last week
June 11th – Obama says in a speech that the world is less violent than ever before.
ISIS clearly in control of nearly 1/3 of Iraq.
I.S.I.S. - Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
Quote from ISIS - "...those who are spreaders of evil will be subjected to killing, crucifixion or amputation. And women are ordered to stay inside; if they have to go outside they should cover up. People who worked with Iraq's government can repent, but those who don't will be killed."
There are a number of capital offenses, according to the ISIS charter. Gathering under any flag other than that of ISIS is a crime punishable by beheading.
The US Embassy in Bagdad, the largest in the world, is reducing it’s size by 20%. Warships are being positioned to effectively evacuate the remaining Americans if / when needed. Most like when needed.
And now, Obama wants to work with Iran? The country that was supporting the insurgency in Iraq which killed and maimed US military service people?
May God have mercy on Obama.
Millions, 10's of millions of lives are at stake.
The 'screw up' with Iraq has its roots with Blair and Bush and continued on with the US invasion & present time.
Best change your heading to "Iraq" as well. Or more accurately: "The US & its allies failure in Iraq."
lori100: Don't believe the propaganda...real story....-----Cobra------Recently, a jihadist group entered Iraq from Syria and conquered a significant part of its territory:
Their purpose is to create a totalitarian Islamic state in that territory and they call it Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
That group is a joint creation of the Saudis and the US Cabal (with Jesuits and their Blackwater/Academi friends behind the scenes):
The agenda of the US Cabal is to create a pretext for military invasion and thus prolong the life of the petrodollar:
And for the military-industrial complex to pocket some nice profits:
http://www.infowars.com/war-industry-stands-to-make-billions-off-isis-threat/....-----------remember the real agenda is always to promote war , destruction, and chaos and to make huge profits from the violence.....
(Edited by lori100)
chronology: Mr Obama has stated there will be no 'boots on the ground' in Iraq, The United States cannot make further sacrifices of it's peoples lives or wealth in Iraq. Asked if he regretted not leaving a contingent of United States troops in Iraq Mr Obama replied; 'that was not our decision, we offered the Iraqi Government every assistance before we left but they refused all offers of help'.
Mr Obama has called upon all Iraqi's to work together to promote peace in their country. He has pointed out that failure of Iraqi's to secure peace effects not just Iraqi's but all people; 'every day violent groups acquire more wealth, more weapons, and more potential for harming people outside Iraq'.
chronology: dave, with respect, all your comments are 'rear view mirror' perspectives. The Iraqi people right now need assistance such as food and blankets. U.S. Officials are working hard to get food and clothing out to Iraq for them. The air supply route is vital at the moment, and we can only thank the U.S. Airforce staff for their hard work. I was watching one flight by a C5a Galaxy on TV. The Galaxy can now fly none stop from the U.S. using air refuelling. It is exhausting for the flight crew, one Air Force lady was a mom and homemaker back in the U.S. She has a busy time as a mom running her family, and she makes the long distance flights with the C5a loaded with cargo. You have to respect her dedication.
Again dave, no hard feelings, but while American Service moms are working very long hours helping people, you seem to be fixed to the rear view mirror of past opinions.
A little trivia, I have been on a C5 Galaxy visiting the plane. I wondered if it was the plane the hard working mom was assigned to.
SWlNE: That will be interesting, dave. Politicians need to realize that there are consequences to their actions. It is a shame that the citizens don't press for that, instead they'll opt to emotionally pamper the situation under a guise of patriotism or 'thanks', 'look on the bright side'. This means nothing will be learnt from these cases and it will repeat itself.
dave3974: part of the problem here is that politics is a career rather than a vocation , hence the blair creature got to head the labour party and be PM. it is easy to see how someone without an ideology apart from self advancement thought it reasonable to follow bush`s lead [ and pack of lies] and grand stand with the americans---but he was caught out
chronology: Again dave, with respect, this is all rear view mirror opinions, and 'opinions', not facts. Mr Bush used an opportunity to give the Iraqi people a fresh start in 2003 and get America unstuck from the 'Tar Baby' it was glued to on the Iraqi Boarder. Dave, try telling the American Pilots and British Pilots who flew 100,000 missions between 1993 and 2003 that there was no problems in Iraq. Try telling the U.S. troops that Iraq was not a dangerous place, they were under instructions to wear ICBM suites in most of their locations. In one place U.S. Divers refused to go into a sea port to inspect thousands of canisters of nerve gas, 'there was dead fish everywhere, no way were we going to dive there'. Does that sound like a 'normal' country' to you?
The Iraqi people deserve peace and prosperity, a chance to live with dignity like any other people.
Like that U.S. Air Force mom, many U,S, Service folks are trying to ship out much needed essentials to Iraqi families. The 'World moves on' dave, U.S. Service folks are trying to move Iraq to a better situation, no offence, but if we all sat around looking in the rear view mirror people would be without the necessities they need for their daily lives. We now see the biggest mistake Iraq made was asking the U.S. to leave completely, perhaps now they will invite the U.S. send assistance before they are carved up like a Thanksgiving Turkey.
SWlNE: For the life in me, I can't get why persons fall for blind patriotic cliches.
You should be ashamed since you didn't challenge your politicians. You didn't question the invasions, you didn't question how the entire situation was carried out. The Iraqi people are the ones who'll have to face all the shit and oh god forbid they're not 'thankful' for what they're given.
The world isn't moving on as this nonsense will get repeated and there will be a 'patting on the back' instead of a self-criticism and assessment..
chronology: Well Swine, I see dave is not the only person here with his head stuck to a 'rear view mirror'.
''You don't question the invasions' (actually they were 'liberations), Iraq had fought one war of aggression against Iran, one war of aggression against Kuwait, and U.S. Forces were left stuck on Iraq's boarder to prevent another war of aggression. I guess you would consider U.S. soldiers and airmen being stationed in the desert for ever flying endless peace keeping flights over Iraq acceptable? The great and historic nation of Iraq permanently considered an 'outlaw nation' in the UN acceptable? The Iraqi people suffering endless misery and hardship under sanctions 'acceptable'? You seem to have a horrible vision of what is 'acceptable'.
'Moving on' is not about attaining a perfect peace and stability, in such a region as Iraq this is impossible, it is about winning the best possible situation for the Iraqi people, America has offered their help in doing so. The Iraqi people and American people have sacrificed and suffered together, they can move on together.
I'll prefer to have you state that I have my head stuck in the 'rear view mirror' than for it to be in your case, 'in the sand' and I'm being very polite in putting it all mildly.
It was an invasion there is no 'actually' on it.
I'm a bit surprise that you put up this appearance that you're concerned that Iraq was sanctioned but fail to acknowledge that sanctions were imposed by the US. Did you say anything during that period? Did it bothered you that the Iraqi people suffered during those sanctions? Because from the looks of it a person as yourself might consider that 'liberation'.
The invasion of Iraq happened in 2003 with Bush & Blair stating that it was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. -Did you question your politicians then? or now?
The American people have scarified and suffered? Save it. Don't degrade the suffering extent the Iraqi people had to face and are still facing.
A 'rare view mirror' view is assessing on what went wrong and calling a spade a spade.
Your view is that attaining peace and stability in Iraq is impossible and somehow the Iraqi people need the US to do what? -help in moving towards something you deemed impossible? Ridiculous. You should stop and take a rare view and reflect on what has occurred instead of being this gullible.
chronology: Swine, you have come to post here with your mind made up not to consider the facts. 'The U.S. imposed sanctions', please check the facts, the U.N. not the U.S. imposed sanctions on Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. Congress constantly held conferences about the appalling effects these sanctions were having on the Iraqi people, especially Iraqi children.
Mr Bush and Mr Blair chose to focus their reasons for liberating Iraq on 'weapons of mass destruction', this was only one of many serious violations of U.N. Laws that Iraq had broken, the illegal attack on Iran in the 1980s, the illegal invasion and occupation of Kuwait in 1991, the genocidal use of nerve gas against Kurds, and yes, the proven attempts of Mr Hussain to acquire weapons capable of mass destruction. Any nation found guilty of such violations of International Law becomes liable to invasion by other nations.
You seem to have no idea how Americans have sacrificed for Iraq. Try telling that to Lawmakers in Washington who had to find the money to support Liberation Operations in Iraq, try telling that to Iraq Veterans who were injured there, the war may have been a news story for you, they live with the war every day of their lives.
Peace for the time being 'is' impossible to attain as we understand 'peace', but the support of the U.S.A. which Washington has offered Iraq can help at least minimise the violence, unless you think the everyday life in the North of Iraq is 'acceptable'. The Iraqi people deserve better. They deserve the chance to live with the same dignity and safety as you, me and everyone els here on wire.
Perhaps you are misinformed or soaked up all that is said to you instead of questioning and looking for yourself.
1. US' sanctions on Iraq:
"In response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, the United States imposed comprehensive sanctions, including a trade embargo against Iraq and a freeze of the assets of the then-Iraqi government, which were implemented in the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 575. O" 
This is the first line of the document. You are free to read the rest in detail at the below link or better yet take some time and go through other sources.
The US is part of the UN. The UN consists of several countries which includes the US.
2. Bush and Blair stated that there was weapons of mass destruction that would be a detriment to mankind and used that to get the public's support, there was none. There is more that can be said on the invasion of Iraq but I see no point in going through with you since you've not even accepted that it was an invasion and choose to annoyingly label it as 'liberating' when it was not.
3. Do not dare compare your so call sacrifice to what the Iraqi people had to face. When the majority of your citizens were comfortable home and living life as usual. As can be seen a lot wasn't even aware on what was/is happening. Anyone who chooses to go to war know the risk and some go into the army as a job and are paid as such. You can pure your emotion into that I do not care. Nonsense on how much your lawmakers had to spend. I'd not even go there with you.
4. From 2003 - present time, what were the realistic deliverables of that war? The Iraqi people do deserve better and it is clear that it was not given. Your idea on 'what is best for these people' may not be what is best for these people. Save your little speeches. If you can't reflect then there is nothing further to discuss here. History might as well repeat itself.
chronology: Look Swine, you are just pushing anti American slogans and sentiment without any real facts. The facts are pretty clear for any reasonable person to see. Iraq invaded Iran creating a war that killed 500.000 Iraqi's and 750.000 Iranians in 1980. In 1991 Iraq invaded Kuwait leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi's and Kuwaiti's.
Iraq had nerve gassed hundreds of it's own civilians leading to the loss of soveignty of it's own Air Space with the U.S. having to enforce a ten year 'No Fly Zone',
The Iran Iraq war was the most barbaric and longest war of the 20th century with use of child soldiers and toxic nerve gas.
Iraq had placed itself in the position where there could be the lawful removal of it's Government at that time, this happened in 2003.
We agree on one thing, the Iraqi people deserve a better life than having their children used on Iranian battlefields drenched in Mustard Gas. The U.S. has removed the possibility of that happening again.
'What are the delivarables' (whatever that means, but I presume you mean results) of the U.S. liberation of Iraq? well millions of Iraqi mothers and father's do not live in fear their children will be used as cannon fodder in 'No Man's Land' in Iran, and people in Kuwait can live free from fear their streets will not be full of Iraqi tanks when they wake up one morning.
What would you like more sources on? I have provided a reference source to show your statement was incorrect but if you want more then point it out instead of making blank statements.
Iraqis do live in fear, you should take a look at the news. During the invasion till now.
No wonder your government is the way it is, it's because the majority have their head stuck in the sand and become deluded with patriotism instead of being critical. I very much doubt that the entire population share your view, I've met a few who are aware, too bad they are in the minority but it's a good sign nonetheless.
For those to believe that Iraq would be better off under Saddam are nuts. He was a sadistic murderer as was his children, his friends, his secret police and military. That regime has torture and rape rooms. They used weapons of mass destruction on their own people. To defend the idea that Iraq was better off under Saddam is absurd.
I have read individuals who hold the view that Iraq was more stabled and better under Saddam than after the invasion to present. I'm not making this up, I can show you articles of these person's view and the reason for their viewpoint.
An unrelated question: Did you know that Saddam got the key to the city of Detroit at one point?
SWlNE: I think that the strawman you tried creating degraded the issue. Is it that you are satisfied with what has/is taking place in Iraq and hold that in comparison to Saddam's actions?
It is an interesting mindset to have, a very restricted one but it is interesting to see the thought process of some.
chronology: Swine, you are just munching on 'sound bites' not 'sound statistics'. It makes not a scrap of difference what some Guy writes about Saddams Iraq, the point is Saddam violated the main articles of the UN Charter and placed himself in the position where an outside Government could Lawfully remove him from Government, he was removed in 2003.
SWlNE: US Department of the Treasure is sound bites to you? Oh you mean the opinion of persons who were in Iraq. I think that wildly stating that things were better under Saddam is just as unreliable as stating things weren't. A lot of important points were raised as to the state of Iraq before Saddam and after. I'm no Saddam supporter, never was at any point (unlike your own government).
Which law is it that you're making reference to in which an outside country can invade another to remove a government and occupy that country long after? Please state the law. I'm interested.
chronology: Swine. Frankly you amaze me. You come on here denouncing the U.S. Liberation of Iraq and do not even know 'why' Iraq was liable to invasion? absolutely incredible.
Check the Main Articles of the United Nations Charter. Any Nation which carries out acts of Genocide, or acts of Aggression against other Nations may be subject to war and occupation, this is one of the first fundamental laws of the UN, it is why Iraq was liberated by the U.S.A. in 2003.
The Nerve Gassing of Kurds was viewed as 'Genocide' the Aggression against Iran and Kuwait was ruled as such.
The UN Charter did not make it lawful for the US to remove Saddam and invade & occupy Iraq. Do you recall the UN secretary's statement that it was not in keeping with the Charter and it was not sanctioned by the UN? Do you remember that he warned the US that military action will go against the UN Charter? Or you missed that as you missed the US' imposed sanctions.
Or are you joking with me?