Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
The REGIME CHANGE BILL for Iraq was signed under B Clinton, all DUMZ, including Cliton and Kerry etc were fro the war
Can the revisionist shit
ISIS Threatens to Invade Jordan, 'Slaughter' King Abdullah
- Thread starter toubab
- Start date
The REGIME CHANGE BILL for Iraq was signed under B Clinton, all DUMZ, including Cliton and Kerry etc were fro the war
Can the revisionist shit
Bob Dreyfuss writes in The Nation:
The Iraq-Syria Civil War Challenges Both the US and Iran
Bob Dreyfuss on June 11, 2014 - 12:16 PM ET
By now it’s clear that the civil wars in Syria and Iraq are one. Both battles are complex, but as they have intensified over the past several years both have taken on an increasingly sectarian character, pitting rebel Sunni forces against entrenched Shiite and Alawite governments in Baghdad and Damascus. And because no compromise solution seems in sight in either case, radicals and extremists have gained the upper hand, with a network of Sunni Islamists either allied with Al Qaeda or representing Al Qaeda spinoffs, perhaps even more radical than Al Qaeda itself. Indeed, the group leading the battle in Iraq—which actually began in Iraq, first as Al Qaeda in Iraq and then as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)—is more militant than the Pakistan/Afghanistan-based organization, which criticized ISIS for refusing to cooperate more smoothly with other parts of the Sunni-led opposition fighting against President Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria.
In the United States, President Obama is being blamed by the Republicans and various hawks and neoconservatives for the crises in both Iraq—see, for instance, the editorial in The Wall Street Journal today—and Syria, though in neither case do the charges hold water. In Iraq, they say, Obama pulled American forces out too quickly, having not worked hard enough to arrange a long-term security partnership with the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, creating a security vacuum that allowed the insurgency to regain its footing. And in Syria, they say, the Obama administration didn’t support the anti-Assad forces strongly enough, thus weakening the moderate, nationalist forces there, so that radical Islamists such as ISIS, the Al-Nusra Front and many, many others could emerge as the leading fighting force.
Neither one of these charges makes much sense. In Iraq, the White House did indeed try to extend the American presence, but Iraq’s nationalists and its independent-minded prime minister, facing a rebellious, anti-American parliament—and, of course, strongly influenced by Iran—wouldn’t allow the US role to continue under the conditions that the American armed forces demanded. And in Syria, the United States rightly stayed out of the fight, except for some weak political support for the moderate opposition, because there was no way to affect the outcome of the civil war in that country, in which Assad’s troops are making major gains, without empowering the very radical Islamist forces that the United States opposes. That’s especially true for the idea that Washington might have supplied the Syrian rebels with ground-based and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, since those arms would have likely gone straight into the hands of Al Qaeda, ISIS and others.
Still, the twin crises in Iraq and Syria are extremely dangerous. In Iraq, ISIS has taken control of most of Anbar province, including Falluja, which it has held for six months, and now it controls Mosul, Iraq’s second- or third-largest city, and its forces are driving south and east toward Salahuddin province, including its capital, Samarra, and toward the oil-rich region around Kirkuk. Already, they’ve surrounded Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s hometown, and reportedly taken control of Iraq’s most important power-generating station at Baiji. In Baghdad, the capital, there’s nervousness, and obviously sectarian anxieties are rising there.
The lesson for the battle in Syria is that high-tech weaponry, up-armored Humvees and other battle equipment that the United States has sent to Iraq over the past several years has fallen en masse into the hands of ISIS, and the Iraqi security forces have dissolved in chaos and fled. Yesterday, in the State Department daily briefing, Jen Psaki tried to defend the Obama administration’s support for Maliki by listing the weapons that Iraq has gotten lately from the United States. She said:
And she noted that Iraq is now starting to receive US-supplied F-16s. ISIS, which probably won’t manage to seize any F-16s, is grateful for the rest.
It’s safe to say that Iran, which is already the strongest backer of Assad in Syria—along with Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed, Shiite militia from Lebanon—won’t look too kindly on the Sunni offensive in Iraq. Therefore, it seems very likely that Iran will enter the fray in Iraq more intensively, with political and military support for Maliki, and that Iran will support Iraq’s majority Shiite population, and probably the Kurds too, in a Shiite-Kurdish assault to retake Mosul. That, in turn, is guaranteed to make the civil war in Iraq look more like the one in Syria, with massive government attacks on civilian strongholds controlled by ISIS, and ever greater resistance against the government and its Iranian allies by Sunni civilians already predisposed to oppose Maliki. So, greater polarization, vastly greater casualties (à la Syria), and more intense sectarianism. (Already, Maliki is reportedly using dog-whistle, Shiite religious-war rhetoric in calling Iraqis to arms.)
If there’s any solution at all, it’s in the hope that quite without American interference Iran and Saudi Arabia will find common purpose in fighting back against Al Qaeda, ISIS and their allies. Recently, the government of President Hassan Rouhani of Iran has sought better relations with Saudi Arabia, and Iran’s foreign minister has been invited to Saudi Arabia. At the same time, Rouhani has been visiting Turkey, where he signed important accords, and since Saudi Arabia and Turkey are the two most important Sunni-led powers in the region, it could be that Iran and Saudi Arabia can work out an arrangement to stabilize the crisis. It’s a long shot, but it could work. Above all, it would require Maliki to seek a political reconciliation with the non-ISIS-supporting Sunnis, including the remnants of the anti–Al Qaeda Awakening movement of Iraq (2006–08). And it would require Assad, who’s just been re-elected to another term as president, to support a political deal that could eventually create space for another set of elections in which moderate opposition, Sunni-led parties might run.
None of this has stopped some in the United States from calling for war. Ken Pollack, the Brookings Institution scholar who supported the war against Iraq in 2003, says:
And Robert Ford, the former US ambassador to Syria who so badly bungled his job back when the civil war was just starting in 2011–12, is speaking out to demand that the White House get more deeply involved in Syria’s war, too, by arming the rebels. (Last week, Ford wrote an op-ed for The New York Times whose title was “Arm Syria’s Opposition.”)
Recently, Obama delivered a major speech in which he criticized the too-easy reach for a military solution, and here’s to hoping that he sticks to that path. But even if the United States doesn’t become directly engaged in the Syria-Iraq civil war, the sentiments expressed by Pollack and Ford are widespread in the State Department and elsewhere in the administration. And Obama himself did seem to fall back, in his speech, on using proxies to fight “terrorism” overseas. To be sure, Al Qaeda and ISIS are terrorists. But fighting them, especially long distance, seems guaranteed to strengthen, not weaken them. Ironically, America’s best ally in the Syria-Iraq civil war is an unlikely one: Iran.
The Iraq-Syria Civil War Challenges Both the US and Iran
Bob Dreyfuss on June 11, 2014 - 12:16 PM ET
By now it’s clear that the civil wars in Syria and Iraq are one. Both battles are complex, but as they have intensified over the past several years both have taken on an increasingly sectarian character, pitting rebel Sunni forces against entrenched Shiite and Alawite governments in Baghdad and Damascus. And because no compromise solution seems in sight in either case, radicals and extremists have gained the upper hand, with a network of Sunni Islamists either allied with Al Qaeda or representing Al Qaeda spinoffs, perhaps even more radical than Al Qaeda itself. Indeed, the group leading the battle in Iraq—which actually began in Iraq, first as Al Qaeda in Iraq and then as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)—is more militant than the Pakistan/Afghanistan-based organization, which criticized ISIS for refusing to cooperate more smoothly with other parts of the Sunni-led opposition fighting against President Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria.
In the United States, President Obama is being blamed by the Republicans and various hawks and neoconservatives for the crises in both Iraq—see, for instance, the editorial in The Wall Street Journal today—and Syria, though in neither case do the charges hold water. In Iraq, they say, Obama pulled American forces out too quickly, having not worked hard enough to arrange a long-term security partnership with the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, creating a security vacuum that allowed the insurgency to regain its footing. And in Syria, they say, the Obama administration didn’t support the anti-Assad forces strongly enough, thus weakening the moderate, nationalist forces there, so that radical Islamists such as ISIS, the Al-Nusra Front and many, many others could emerge as the leading fighting force.
Neither one of these charges makes much sense. In Iraq, the White House did indeed try to extend the American presence, but Iraq’s nationalists and its independent-minded prime minister, facing a rebellious, anti-American parliament—and, of course, strongly influenced by Iran—wouldn’t allow the US role to continue under the conditions that the American armed forces demanded. And in Syria, the United States rightly stayed out of the fight, except for some weak political support for the moderate opposition, because there was no way to affect the outcome of the civil war in that country, in which Assad’s troops are making major gains, without empowering the very radical Islamist forces that the United States opposes. That’s especially true for the idea that Washington might have supplied the Syrian rebels with ground-based and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, since those arms would have likely gone straight into the hands of Al Qaeda, ISIS and others.
Still, the twin crises in Iraq and Syria are extremely dangerous. In Iraq, ISIS has taken control of most of Anbar province, including Falluja, which it has held for six months, and now it controls Mosul, Iraq’s second- or third-largest city, and its forces are driving south and east toward Salahuddin province, including its capital, Samarra, and toward the oil-rich region around Kirkuk. Already, they’ve surrounded Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s hometown, and reportedly taken control of Iraq’s most important power-generating station at Baiji. In Baghdad, the capital, there’s nervousness, and obviously sectarian anxieties are rising there.
The lesson for the battle in Syria is that high-tech weaponry, up-armored Humvees and other battle equipment that the United States has sent to Iraq over the past several years has fallen en masse into the hands of ISIS, and the Iraqi security forces have dissolved in chaos and fled. Yesterday, in the State Department daily briefing, Jen Psaki tried to defend the Obama administration’s support for Maliki by listing the weapons that Iraq has gotten lately from the United States. She said:
And she noted that Iraq is now starting to receive US-supplied F-16s. ISIS, which probably won’t manage to seize any F-16s, is grateful for the rest.
It’s safe to say that Iran, which is already the strongest backer of Assad in Syria—along with Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed, Shiite militia from Lebanon—won’t look too kindly on the Sunni offensive in Iraq. Therefore, it seems very likely that Iran will enter the fray in Iraq more intensively, with political and military support for Maliki, and that Iran will support Iraq’s majority Shiite population, and probably the Kurds too, in a Shiite-Kurdish assault to retake Mosul. That, in turn, is guaranteed to make the civil war in Iraq look more like the one in Syria, with massive government attacks on civilian strongholds controlled by ISIS, and ever greater resistance against the government and its Iranian allies by Sunni civilians already predisposed to oppose Maliki. So, greater polarization, vastly greater casualties (à la Syria), and more intense sectarianism. (Already, Maliki is reportedly using dog-whistle, Shiite religious-war rhetoric in calling Iraqis to arms.)
If there’s any solution at all, it’s in the hope that quite without American interference Iran and Saudi Arabia will find common purpose in fighting back against Al Qaeda, ISIS and their allies. Recently, the government of President Hassan Rouhani of Iran has sought better relations with Saudi Arabia, and Iran’s foreign minister has been invited to Saudi Arabia. At the same time, Rouhani has been visiting Turkey, where he signed important accords, and since Saudi Arabia and Turkey are the two most important Sunni-led powers in the region, it could be that Iran and Saudi Arabia can work out an arrangement to stabilize the crisis. It’s a long shot, but it could work. Above all, it would require Maliki to seek a political reconciliation with the non-ISIS-supporting Sunnis, including the remnants of the anti–Al Qaeda Awakening movement of Iraq (2006–08). And it would require Assad, who’s just been re-elected to another term as president, to support a political deal that could eventually create space for another set of elections in which moderate opposition, Sunni-led parties might run.
None of this has stopped some in the United States from calling for war. Ken Pollack, the Brookings Institution scholar who supported the war against Iraq in 2003, says:
And Robert Ford, the former US ambassador to Syria who so badly bungled his job back when the civil war was just starting in 2011–12, is speaking out to demand that the White House get more deeply involved in Syria’s war, too, by arming the rebels. (Last week, Ford wrote an op-ed for The New York Times whose title was “Arm Syria’s Opposition.”)
Recently, Obama delivered a major speech in which he criticized the too-easy reach for a military solution, and here’s to hoping that he sticks to that path. But even if the United States doesn’t become directly engaged in the Syria-Iraq civil war, the sentiments expressed by Pollack and Ford are widespread in the State Department and elsewhere in the administration. And Obama himself did seem to fall back, in his speech, on using proxies to fight “terrorism” overseas. To be sure, Al Qaeda and ISIS are terrorists. But fighting them, especially long distance, seems guaranteed to strengthen, not weaken them. Ironically, America’s best ally in the Syria-Iraq civil war is an unlikely one: Iran.
U
unregistered
Guest
U
unregistered
Guest
M
miles
Guest
There's nothing revisionist about anything I've said. I simply don't think Obama would have invaded Iraq if he had been president in 2003. Period.
U
unregistered
Guest
Iraq is a lot like Yugoslavia: A multinational state cobbled together out of former Ottoman provinces after WWI, with a lot of ethnic and religious hatreds that only a strongman government could hold down. When the lid was ripped off, the pot boiled over.
U
unregistered
Guest
As I said, Obama has plenty of shortcomings.
M
miles
Guest
I'll bet he has this picture of himself in the bedroom.
http://static.infowars.com/2012/03/i/general/obamadoche.jpg
U
unregistered
Guest
Good analogy.
M
miles
Guest
Maybe Iran will invade Iraq and they'll wipe each other out. 
Irrelevant regarding Obama.
But Obama would not even have asked for that backing, nor for the war itself; that is the difference that makes all the difference.
So what? Killing them is not the point of anything.
U
unregistered
Guest
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
The epitome of "conservative" thinking: Lets you and him fight!
U
unregistered
Guest
DooleyDarter
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts
- 1,510
I know it might be a bit deep for cartoon man, but that old saying, The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Is Iran an ally of the US or an enemy would you say? Do you not think that if Iran was as busy as a two peckered billy goat fending off Iraq on their boarders, they would have less time and fortune to spend fucking up the rest of the world? Or maybe you appreciate the type of terrorism that Iran spreads around the world.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Obama Admin: ISIS Not As Dangerous As “Core Al-Qaeda”…
In reality you could make the opposite argument, ISIS fields a small army, has hundreds of millions of dollars and is in control of an area the size of a small country.
Via CNS News:
A White House spokesman on Wednesday said the attempt by al-Qaeda affiliates to establish their own nation in the Middle East is a “serious” threat, but different than the threat posed by “core al-Qaida.”
“At this point, it appears to pose a different kind of threat to the United States’ interests, but a serious threat and one we continue to be concerned about,” spokesman Josh Earnest said.
“Different in what way?” a reporter asked.
“Well, different in that core al-Qaida had repeatedly and publicly vowed to attack the United States homeland. The threat in the region that we’re talking about now appears to be somewhat different, but it’s one that we are watching very carefully for a variety of reasons — because they’ve proven to be very violent, because they’ve demonstrated a willingness to consider targeting American interests and American allies.”
In reality you could make the opposite argument, ISIS fields a small army, has hundreds of millions of dollars and is in control of an area the size of a small country.
Via CNS News:
A White House spokesman on Wednesday said the attempt by al-Qaeda affiliates to establish their own nation in the Middle East is a “serious” threat, but different than the threat posed by “core al-Qaida.”
“At this point, it appears to pose a different kind of threat to the United States’ interests, but a serious threat and one we continue to be concerned about,” spokesman Josh Earnest said.
“Different in what way?” a reporter asked.
“Well, different in that core al-Qaida had repeatedly and publicly vowed to attack the United States homeland. The threat in the region that we’re talking about now appears to be somewhat different, but it’s one that we are watching very carefully for a variety of reasons — because they’ve proven to be very violent, because they’ve demonstrated a willingness to consider targeting American interests and American allies.”
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
fucking LUNATIC
As Iraq, Syria, Ukraine Burn Obama Declares “The World Is Less Violent Than It Has Ever Been”…
What parallel universe does this guy live in?
OBAMA: ut this country has always been built both through an individual initiative, but also a sense of some common purpose. And if there’s one message I want to deliver to young people like a Tumblr audience is, don’t get cynical. Guard against cynicism. I mean, the truth of the matter is that for all the challenges we face, all the problems that we have, if you had to be — if you had to choose any moment to be born in human history, not knowing what your position was going to be, who you were going to be, you’d choose this time. The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed then it’s ever been. It is more educated than it’s ever been.
As Iraq, Syria, Ukraine Burn Obama Declares “The World Is Less Violent Than It Has Ever Been”…
What parallel universe does this guy live in?
OBAMA: ut this country has always been built both through an individual initiative, but also a sense of some common purpose. And if there’s one message I want to deliver to young people like a Tumblr audience is, don’t get cynical. Guard against cynicism. I mean, the truth of the matter is that for all the challenges we face, all the problems that we have, if you had to be — if you had to choose any moment to be born in human history, not knowing what your position was going to be, who you were going to be, you’d choose this time. The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed then it’s ever been. It is more educated than it’s ever been.
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
That's the ticket, ascription always gives you a good straw man to battle for the approval of the pack.
C'mon, tell me what I really think Mr. Deep Thinker.
When you're finished there you can explain exactly how encouraging war in the middle east is in our, or anyone's, best interests.
Similar threads
