ISIS Threatens to Invade Jordan, 'Slaughter' King Abdullah
- Thread starter toubab
- Start date
U
unregistered
Guest
U
unregistered
Guest
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
“You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.” -Biden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLteUGkvpOc …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLteUGkvpOc …
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
Another lie.
Iraq wanted us out of THEIR country. Hell, they wanted us out of THEIR country before President Obama ever took office. When President Bush signed the last SOFA there were riots in the streets protesting what the Iraqi people saw as a humiliating occupation.
I understand that you believe that we should be occupying a sovereign nation indefinitely (off the books of course). But short of becoming Imperial Britain, we simply can't stay where we aren't wanted.
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
Well done! You finally managed to figure out that you could use his name for comedic effect.
So who gave you the tip? Limbaugh? Levin? Malkin?
U
unregistered
Guest
DooleyDarter
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts
- 1,510
Iraq did not sign the agreement because the did not want us in their country. Maliki's decision to keep the Sunni's from participating in his government is coming back to bite him in his fat ass.
U
unregistered
Guest
U
unregistered
Guest
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
How does one negotiate with someone who says "Under no circumstances"? Because that was Iraq's position.
DooleyDarter
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts
- 1,510
He was just as happy to have us leave as Maliki was. As usual Obama didn't think past the next fundraiser.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
golf play date
U
unregistered
Guest
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
U
unregistered
Guest
No, he would have invaded Afghanistan -- but not Iraq.
From Salon:
Friday, Jun 13, 2014 11:44 AM EDT
Neocon lunatics are back: Right-wing Wall Street Journal calls for re-invading Iraq
After being disastrously wrong about it the first time, conservative "thought leaders" have their own war plan
Simon Maloy
The eight-years-long bloody disaster that was the Iraq War did nothing – absolutely nothing – to persuade its architects, promoters, and defenders that military intervention in the region is perhaps not the best idea. With Iraq now falling to pieces as it struggles to contain the advance of the Islamic extremist group ISIS, the same public officials who made the spurious case for war in 2003 and the media outlets that aggressively backed it are once again agitating for armed conflict.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board was one of the Iraq War’s most fervent supporters. (“It will be the nasty weapons and the cheering Iraqis the coalition finds when it liberates the country,” they predicted in February 2003, wrongly.) Now they want the U.S. to go back to war, and they’ve even done the courtesy of drawing up their own battle plans.
It’s that simple! Just send in some paratroopers, drop a few bombs, and win. What comes after that? Who cares! Let’s have us a war. YEEE HAW!
The nonchalance with which a collection of newspaper editorialists can commit U.S. lives to intervening in a sectarian civil war is breathtaking. It took 100,000+ U.S. troops several years to make any progress in tamping down Iraq’s last civil war, with tens of thousands killed or wounded. It’s not clear what leads the Wall Street Journal to believe that paratroopers and bombers will be able to have more success this time around. But then, they have the luxury of not having to think any of this through or live with any of the consequences. It’s one of the benefits of being an armchair general.
As for the French model of intervention, let’s leave aside the irony of a gaggle of neocons using the French as a model for military action in Iraq and focus on the results of the Mali campaign. The French sent forces to Mali in January 2013 to beat back the Islamic extremists who had overrun the northern part of the country. They met with initial success, and Francois Hollande declared victory eight months later. Since then, the fighting has continued as extremist forces attempt to reassert themselves.
So, best guess, the Wall Street Journal envisions the U.S. commitment as being open-ended, an ongoing and expensive permanent military adventure. That’s what they wanted in Iraq the first time around, and we ended up with a generation-defining catastrophe that we’ll still be paying for decades from now.
Friday, Jun 13, 2014 11:44 AM EDT
Neocon lunatics are back: Right-wing Wall Street Journal calls for re-invading Iraq
After being disastrously wrong about it the first time, conservative "thought leaders" have their own war plan
Simon Maloy
The eight-years-long bloody disaster that was the Iraq War did nothing – absolutely nothing – to persuade its architects, promoters, and defenders that military intervention in the region is perhaps not the best idea. With Iraq now falling to pieces as it struggles to contain the advance of the Islamic extremist group ISIS, the same public officials who made the spurious case for war in 2003 and the media outlets that aggressively backed it are once again agitating for armed conflict.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board was one of the Iraq War’s most fervent supporters. (“It will be the nasty weapons and the cheering Iraqis the coalition finds when it liberates the country,” they predicted in February 2003, wrongly.) Now they want the U.S. to go back to war, and they’ve even done the courtesy of drawing up their own battle plans.
It’s that simple! Just send in some paratroopers, drop a few bombs, and win. What comes after that? Who cares! Let’s have us a war. YEEE HAW!
The nonchalance with which a collection of newspaper editorialists can commit U.S. lives to intervening in a sectarian civil war is breathtaking. It took 100,000+ U.S. troops several years to make any progress in tamping down Iraq’s last civil war, with tens of thousands killed or wounded. It’s not clear what leads the Wall Street Journal to believe that paratroopers and bombers will be able to have more success this time around. But then, they have the luxury of not having to think any of this through or live with any of the consequences. It’s one of the benefits of being an armchair general.
As for the French model of intervention, let’s leave aside the irony of a gaggle of neocons using the French as a model for military action in Iraq and focus on the results of the Mali campaign. The French sent forces to Mali in January 2013 to beat back the Islamic extremists who had overrun the northern part of the country. They met with initial success, and Francois Hollande declared victory eight months later. Since then, the fighting has continued as extremist forces attempt to reassert themselves.
So, best guess, the Wall Street Journal envisions the U.S. commitment as being open-ended, an ongoing and expensive permanent military adventure. That’s what they wanted in Iraq the first time around, and we ended up with a generation-defining catastrophe that we’ll still be paying for decades from now.
You really are insane, aren't you?
U
unregistered
Guest
No, you idiot, they refuse to recognize his. The Pubs have been trying to delegitimize Obama's presidency since before he took office.
U
unregistered
Guest
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,794
Of course they represent his opposition. They're the opposing party. But he has never talked as nasty about them as they about him and you know it.
Now you're really getting into deep psychological projection, or else you're just a lying sack of shit, or both. Obama has always been willing to work with Pubs and compromise, but it has been their consistent policy since before he even took office to oppose and obstruct anything he supports, even if it was a Pub idea in the first place, like the ACA.
A good source here is It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism, by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein. Mann is with the Brookings Institution, Ornstein is with the conservative Heritage Foundation, and both agree that the present gridlock is almost entirely the fault of no-compromise Pubs.
And Obama is not in any "extreme left wing political environment," more's the pity, he's a fucking neoliberal DINO like Bill Clinton. The 1% have nothing to fear from him!
Pubs nowadays care nothing for the law or the Constitution, you know that if you didn't sleep through the W years. What the Pubs demand is that Obama govern their way or not at all.
Last edited:
Fear in Jordan: Arabs Abandoned Us, We Can Rely Only on Israel
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/194630#.VUCPHvBjAyA
"A Jordanian columnist is extremely concerned that Arab countries have turned their backs on the kingdom, pushing it straight into Israel's lap.
In the April 12 edition of the Jordanian daily Al-Dustour, columnist Maher Abu Tair sheds light on what he calls the "sad" contemporary situation in which the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan finds itself.
He accuses Arab countries of turning their backs on Jordan and abandoning it, pushing Jordan totally into Israel's economic and political lap. Abu Tair calls strongly for a major change that will enable Jordan to find an alternative to relying on Israel.
MEMRI, the Washington, D.C.-based Middle East Media and Research Institute, translated and publicized excerpts of the column, most of which are reproduced here:
"It is very saddening that Jordan has grown so weak that it has completely thrown itself into the lap of Israel, contrary to public sentiment and [at the expense of] its honor... This is the unfortunate reality, and those who follow events can see Jordan's headlong rush towards Israel and the overlap of [their] political and economic interests…
"Jordan has grown weak to the point of total reliance on Israel, as part of which Israel will sell us the Palestinian natural gas [it has] stolen as an alternative to the Egyptian natural gas that is denied [to us] by the mujahideen [i.e. jihadists] of the [Sinai] desert.
"[Also as part of this reliance, Jordan and Israel have agreed on] the massive Two Seas Canal project and [the issue of] the Aqaba Airport [referring to the issue of the Ramon Airport that Israel is building near Eilat]. In the past, Jordan threatened to oppose [the building of the Israeli airport] but now it has withdrawn its objection on the condition that takeoffs and landings be coordinated [with the Aqaba Airport]...
"The naked truth is that Jordan no longer has any Arab allies, and today its only ally against the entire Arab east is Israel. If the Arabs had wanted a strong Jordan that did not throw itself at Israel, they would not have abandoned it economically and besieged it politically to the point that its foreign policy became fickle. [Nowadays] we go to bed supporting Tehran and wake up opposing it in Yemen.""
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/194630#.VUCPHvBjAyA
"A Jordanian columnist is extremely concerned that Arab countries have turned their backs on the kingdom, pushing it straight into Israel's lap.
In the April 12 edition of the Jordanian daily Al-Dustour, columnist Maher Abu Tair sheds light on what he calls the "sad" contemporary situation in which the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan finds itself.
He accuses Arab countries of turning their backs on Jordan and abandoning it, pushing Jordan totally into Israel's economic and political lap. Abu Tair calls strongly for a major change that will enable Jordan to find an alternative to relying on Israel.
MEMRI, the Washington, D.C.-based Middle East Media and Research Institute, translated and publicized excerpts of the column, most of which are reproduced here:
"It is very saddening that Jordan has grown so weak that it has completely thrown itself into the lap of Israel, contrary to public sentiment and [at the expense of] its honor... This is the unfortunate reality, and those who follow events can see Jordan's headlong rush towards Israel and the overlap of [their] political and economic interests…
"Jordan has grown weak to the point of total reliance on Israel, as part of which Israel will sell us the Palestinian natural gas [it has] stolen as an alternative to the Egyptian natural gas that is denied [to us] by the mujahideen [i.e. jihadists] of the [Sinai] desert.
"[Also as part of this reliance, Jordan and Israel have agreed on] the massive Two Seas Canal project and [the issue of] the Aqaba Airport [referring to the issue of the Ramon Airport that Israel is building near Eilat]. In the past, Jordan threatened to oppose [the building of the Israeli airport] but now it has withdrawn its objection on the condition that takeoffs and landings be coordinated [with the Aqaba Airport]...
"The naked truth is that Jordan no longer has any Arab allies, and today its only ally against the entire Arab east is Israel. If the Arabs had wanted a strong Jordan that did not throw itself at Israel, they would not have abandoned it economically and besieged it politically to the point that its foreign policy became fickle. [Nowadays] we go to bed supporting Tehran and wake up opposing it in Yemen.""
Similar threads
