Iraq war III...???

by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:22 pm

Iraq is breaking up. The Kurds have taken the northern oil city of Kirkuk that they have long claimed as their capital. Sunni fundamentalist fighters vow to capture Baghdad and the Shia holy cities further south.
Government rule over the Sunni Arab heartlands of north and central Iraq is evaporating as its 900,000-strong army disintegrates. Government aircraft have fired missiles at insurgent targets in Mosul, captured by Isis on Monday, but the Iraqi army has otherwise shown no sign of launching a counter-attack.
The nine-year Shia dominance over Iraq, established after the US, Britain and other allies overthrew Saddam Hussein, may be coming to an end. The Shia may continue to hold the capital and the Shia-majority provinces further south, but they will have great difficulty in re-establishing their authority over Sunni provinces from which their army has fled.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-crisis-islamist-militants-warn-battle-will-rage-after-seizing-mosul-and-tikrit-9530899.html

There have been reports that the army have just stripped off uniform dropped weapons and just run away!!!

In Mosul there were supposed to be about 14,000 soldiers and they have run from a couple of thousand militants.

Another thing that gets me, is that when these rebels were in Syria we kept hearing how we should be supporting them, but now they are in Iraq we should be helping fight against them.....!?

by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:44 pm

Iraq have supposedly got 900,000 troops, so why are they running away from what is maybe 5,000 rag tag militants?

by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:00 pm

Also I heard an Iraqi girl on radio 5 live last night saying that most of these rebels are not even Iraqi, she said they were Afghan Pakistanis and north Africans.

by Guest Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:02 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Iraq have supposedly got 900,000 troops, so why are they running away from what is maybe 5,000 rag tag militants?

I completely agree there Tommy - some of these countries and their people need to stand up for themselves.

They all have their own personal weapons too.

by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:14 pm

Afternoon bigAndy, why were we being told that we should be supporting these rebels when they were causing trouble in Syria but now they are in Iraq we need to help fight against them.....?

by Guest Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:33 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Afternoon bigAndy, why were we being told that we should be supporting these rebels when they were causing trouble in Syria but now they are in Iraq we need to help fight against them.....?

Flamin heck Tommy you come up with some difficult questions!

by Guest Fri Jun 13, 2014 4:11 pm

whoopsy

looks like we fucked the muzzies good and proper over in the ME

as bush said

mission accomplished

by Lone Wolf Fri Jun 13, 2014 8:55 pm

900,000 troops !!!

Someone tell them they're dreaming !

THAT total includes all of their reservists, militias and "police" forces ~ total full-time is more like 300-350,000 since they started rebuilding after Saddam's defeat..

LIKE most conscripts everywhere, many are unhappy, underpaid, overwhelmed and don't feel particularly loyal and conscientious about doing their duty... Volunteer troops are often more involved and "want to be there", but still..

EVEN among those who will do the right thing, many have divided loyalties among their various tribal and ethnic groups, complicated further with various religious sect affiliations.

OTHER countries that run theoretically "big" armies ~ such as Iran, Vietnam and Israel ~ can have similar problems and constraints.. Idea

by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 13, 2014 9:08 pm

Can you confirm those figures with any evidence...???

I said 900,000 troops as this was the figure said by bbc radio 5 live last night.

Specifically said as military personnel only....

by veya_victaous Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:40 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Can you confirm those figures with any evidence...???

I said 900,000 troops as this was the figure said by bbc radio 5 live last night.

Specifically said as military personnel only....

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=iraq

Active Frontline Personnel: 271,500
Active Reserve Personnel: 528,500

by Guest Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:54 am

Iraq conflict: UK offers £3m in emergency aid

The UK will provide an initial £3m in emergency aid to help civilians fleeing the Islamist insurgency in Iraq, the government has said.

International Development Secretary Justine Greening said the package included clean water, medicine and protection for vulnerable women.

Hundreds of thousands of people have fled their homes after insurgents seized the cities of Mosul and Tikrit.

Ms Greening said Iraq faced "serious humanitarian need".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27848460

by Guest Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:56 am

feelthelove wrote:
Iraq conflict: UK offers £3m in emergency aid

The UK will provide an initial £3m in emergency aid to help civilians fleeing the Islamist insurgency in Iraq, the government has said.

International Development Secretary Justine Greening said the package included clean water, medicine and protection for vulnerable women.

Hundreds of thousands of people have fled their homes after insurgents seized the cities of Mosul and Tikrit.

Ms Greening said Iraq faced "serious humanitarian need".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27848460

You couldnt make this shit up could you?

by Guest Sat Jun 14, 2014 12:16 pm

Nems wrote:
feelthelove wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27848460

You couldnt make this shit up could you?

So you grudge our money to help those fleeing idiots and who don't even have access to life's essentials like clean drinking water and medicines?

Pfft.

So many kids will be caught up in that Nems, as long as it's not ours though..our government sent in forces(which the Tories backed at the time) to get rid of a mad and dangerous dictator , who was a threat to the world, and in doing so had to flatten parts of Iraq to push back terrorist organisations further before Saddam was finally caught ...
As well as all the hard work to locate and kill Osama Bin Laden...

It was inevitable Iraq would be at least partly destroyed so surely it's up to the allies to put it right as can be again?...or to at least try to save the victims of insurgency.

by Guest Sat Jun 14, 2014 12:22 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Nems wrote:

You couldnt make this shit up could you?

So you grudge our money to help those fleeing idiots and who don't even have access to life's essentials like clean drinking water and medicines?

Pfft.

So many kids will be caught up in that Nems, as long as it's not ours though..our government sent in forces(which the Tories backed at the time) to get rid of a mad and dangerous dictator , who was a threat to the world, and in doing so had to flatten parts of Iraq to push back terrorist organisations further before Saddam was finally caught ...
As well as all the hard work to locate and kill Osama Bin Laden...

It was inevitable Iraq would be at least partly destroyed so surely it's up to the allies to put it right as can be again?...or to at least try to save the victims of insurgency.

If George Bush senior had had the balls to finish what he started none of this would have happened in Iraq. I think we have interfered enough and made an unstable middle east worse. Time to stop inflicting our will upon them and let them get on with it. Using emotive language to say what about the children is no more than emotional blackmail. There are children in danger and poverty and in fear all over the world, and no matter how much money we fling at it, it never changes.

by Guest Sat Jun 14, 2014 12:33 pm

Nems wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

So you grudge our money to help those fleeing idiots and who don't even have access to life's essentials like clean drinking water and medicines?

Pfft.

So many kids will be caught up in that Nems, as long as it's not ours though..our government sent in forces(which the Tories backed at the time) to get rid of a mad and dangerous dictator , who was a threat to the world, and in doing so had to flatten parts of Iraq to push back terrorist organisations further before Saddam was finally caught ...
As well as all the hard work to locate and kill Osama Bin Laden...

It was inevitable Iraq would be at least partly destroyed so surely it's up to the allies to put it right as can be again?...or to at least try to save the victims of insurgency.

If George Bush senior had had the balls to finish what he started none of this would have happened in Iraq. I think we have interfered enough and made an unstable middle east worse. Time to stop inflicting our will upon them and let them get on with it. Using emotive language to say what about the children is no more than emotional blackmail. There are children in danger and poverty and in fear all over the world, and no matter how much money we fling at it, it never changes.

So tour suggestion is to just leave vulnerable people and children to just get on with it when there are nutters running around?

And you can say very little these days without anything in the Middle East being a guarantee Nems...

And let's even say Saddam had been captured in the gulf war , we would have still been left with the worst out of the two in Bin Laden,,,

And then there is Iran...always a possible and fairly big threat.

Nothing would have been for sure as the mood over there can change with the weather with some of those idiots and Taliban.

The allies done the right thing in taking out Bin Laden and capturing Saddam.

And I'm sure morale amongst the Taliban has taken a huge hit...as well as numbers killed.

by Guest Sat Jun 14, 2014 12:35 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Nems wrote:

If George Bush senior had had the balls to finish what he started none of this would have happened in Iraq. I think we have interfered enough and made an unstable middle east worse. Time to stop inflicting our will upon them and let them get on with it. Using emotive language to say what about the children is no more than emotional blackmail. There are children in danger and poverty and in fear all over the world, and no matter how much money we fling at it, it never changes.

So tour suggestion is to just leave vulnerable people and children to just get on with it when there are nutters running around?

And you can say very little these days without anything in the Middle East being a guarantee Nems...

And let's even say Saddam had been captured in the gulf war , we would have still been left with the worst out of the two in Bin Laden,,,

And then there is Iran...always a possible and fairly big threat.

Nothing would have been for sure as the mood over there can change with the weather with some of those idiots and Taliban.

The allies done the right thing in taking out Bin Laden and capturing Saddam.

And I'm sure morale amongst the Taliban has taken a huge hit...as well as numbers killed.

Nutters running around? that sounds like any UK city ona friday night.

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:09 pm

These 'idiots' as you call them JD are the same supposedly friendly rebels that you lefties wanted to help and support when they were just causing trouble, killing, bombing, beheading in Syria!!!

Now they are doing the same in Iraq, they are the enemy all of a sudden??

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:16 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Can you confirm those figures with any evidence...???
I said 900,000 troops as this was the figure said by bbc radio 5 live last night.
Specifically said as military personnel only....
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=iraq
Active Frontline Personnel: 271,500
Active Reserve Personnel: 528,500

"...Government rule over the Sunni Arab heartlands of north and central Iraq is evaporating as its 900,000-strong army disintegrates.."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-crisis-islamist-militants-warn-battle-will-rage-after-seizing-mosul-and-tikrit-9530899.html

by stardesk Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:13 pm

Obama has the right idea, he said yesterday let Iraq sort out its own problems, he wasn't going to send military forces to help. I shouldn't think so, why endanger our chap's lives, for a cause that will keep rearing its head, as it surely will do in Afghanistan when Western forces pack up and go home. They'll try to take over the country as they are doing in Iraq. I believe Iran has now offered help, probably because they fear the same thig happening in Iran.

by veya_victaous Sun Jun 15, 2014 1:35 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Can you confirm those figures with any evidence...???
I said 900,000 troops as this was the figure said by bbc radio 5 live last night.
Specifically said as military personnel only....
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=iraq
Active Frontline Personnel: 271,500
Active Reserve Personnel: 528,500

"...Government rule over the Sunni Arab heartlands of north and central Iraq is evaporating as its 900,000-strong army disintegrates.."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-crisis-islamist-militants-warn-battle-will-rage-after-seizing-mosul-and-tikrit-9530899.html

Mine was from a comparative site If you go there is say how many tank etc and rates moral and fighting capacity. Iraq is potentially strong but internal division means it may not be able to coordinate the military resources.

The only way you could get close to 900,000 is by including the reservists Neutral

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 15, 2014 3:41 am

I think that is right veya, but not including police and other security people etc as was previously suggested....

And stardesk, maybe you can answer my earlier question, or at least add a view.....

Why was it that when these rebels/terrorists were kicking off in Syria were we being told that they were nice happy clappy Muslims who needed our military help and support etc, but now they are doing the same in Iraq we are being told that they are an enemy who need military help and support fighting against...???

Years ago when it was the Sunni in control, IT was the Shia who were portrayed as the bad guys, now the Shia are in control it is The Sunni who are the bad guys...!?

Or is it just the ultra religious who are the bad guys...???

And only the ISIS in Iraq who are the ultra religious bad guys...???

While all The other ultra religious in Iraq and Iran and everywhere else in mid east are somehow suddenly good guys...????

Also..... we are close allies with Turkey, who are hostile to and warring with the Kurds..... while we are now backing the Kurds against the previously nice happy clappy rebels now they are in Iraq, where we were backing the rebels while they were in Syria, although then they were also attacking the Kurds that we are now saying we support......

WTF????

by stardesk Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:27 pm

Hi Tommy. To be honest, mate, I can't answer your question. All I do know is that the militants and their evilness has to be stopped somehow. They seem to be gathering more supporters and are slowly spreading out. As you no doubt know, several countries are having problems with them, and if not checked and stopped they will spread their evilness even further. This is why many people in the West want migrant numbers curtailed. It isn't fear, xenophobia, (as Didge says), or racism. Islam has brought upon itself a bad name and their archaic agenda isn't wanted in the West and, unforunately for the good Moslems, they are all looked upon as evil and barbaric.

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:39 pm

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

When the Sunnis had control it was The Shia kicking off and being branded terrorists.

Now it is The Shia in control it's the Sunni kicking off and being branded terrorists.

When these militants were kicking off in Syria we were being told how of had to be supporting them, now they are kicking off in Iraq we are told they are the enemy.

This stinks.

by veya_victaous Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:21 pm

@TM
Syria, I can give a little bit more info...

It was not one group of rebels it is a 3 sided civil war

there is the old regime

the Hard-line Islamists (currently calling themselves ISIS)

AND then there is the group that kicked if off but is now looking least likely to win, Sad

which were young secularists, who are more Pro-west largely due to the Internet (similar to Egypt)

All 3 groups are technically Muslims Neutral

while the West doesn't 100% like al-Assad, he is better than ISIS.... but not as good as the secularists..... Potentially.... the secularists are not well enough established to be sure, but they want democracy and separation of church and state ... so that's a good start Smile

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:30 pm

Syria was already quite secular with religious freedom for all and minority groups being protected by the state.

Did you see the Top Gear middle east special when they travelled through the whole region?

Syria was The safest and most relaxed of all of them at the time.

Then the uprising started.......

by veya_victaous Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:38 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Syria was already quite secular with religious freedom for all and minority groups being protected by the state.

Did you see the Top Gear middle east special when they travelled through the whole region?

Syria was The safest and most relaxed of all of them at the time.

Then the uprising started.......

Yeah but it was still undemocratic Neutral

the rebellion originally started to get democracy, but has been over taken but religious fundamentalist that are NOW worse than al-Assad.

I agree it was quite Secular for that part of the world so it is easy to see how the Youth from the cities would have liked to complete the process with democracy... but they underestimated what the uneducated hill shepherds would do when released from al-Assad grip.... pretty similar to Iraq really as soon as there is a power vacuum there is some crazy Imam trying to start a theocratic state. Evil or Very Mad

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:54 pm

I'll tell you what would have happened, they would have voted in Muslim brotherhood types and then the democracy they might claim they were after disappears immediately, and so does religious freedom for all and then the persecution and killing starts.....

by veya_victaous Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:05 am

Tommy Monk wrote:I'll tell you what would have happened, they would have voted in Muslim brotherhood types and then the democracy they might claim they were after disappears immediately, and so does religious freedom for all and then the persecution and killing starts.....

But ISIS and the Secularist Rebels are fighting each other too... there is more than just two options you know and they don't all feel the same. They Wouldn't have voted in the Muslim Brotherhood, Look at Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood only got in because the West pushed for an election Before the secularist could organise a political party (where the Brotherhood has been around for decades so already had candidates ready).

Just like in the West where you have conservatives and progressives, the Islamist movement are just are more extreme version of the conservative parties (uphold traditions and nationalism etc just there traditions are not western) there is still progressive political groups that want secular culture and the freedoms that come with it.

Don't be stupid and suggest that they are all the same because of some racist ignorance Rolling Eyes

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:18 am

Can you show me where any of the So called 'Arab springs' have resulted well?

And where any have resulted in secular democracies?

And where other religious groups have not suffered brutal persecution since they started?

by veya_victaous Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:40 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Can you show me where any of the So called 'Arab springs' have resulted well?

And where any have resulted in secular democracies?

And where other religious groups have not suffered brutal persecution since they started?

Do you understand power vacuums? Egypt got close. if the elections where held off for 6 months then they may have had a chance.
you have Islamic groups that were already ready to take advantage of the power vacuum created by the Arab spring events.
You make is sound like ANY nation has become a secular democracy with out a lot of blood shed, None of them have even got close to the Europe when it was going through this.

You blame the little guy and then Cry when I lump You with the people you supported in your own nation that have been oppressors. Lets take England When Secular Democracy became available did they rejoice and join France in the revolution ohh no they did the EXACT opposite and fought against it so they could keep their rich lords in place. and when England Finally did gain some democracy did the little people get it? no pretty sure they're were groups ready to screw everyone else to try and get there own way... which were the massive "trading companies" that the British oppressed the world with.
So If the British took a century with multiple civil wars and STILL got screwed... why do you expect everything to be rosy in Syria or Egypt after just a couple of years?

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:53 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Can you show me where any of the So called 'Arab springs' have resulted well?

And where any have resulted in secular democracies?

And where other religious groups have not suffered brutal persecution since they started?

So the answer is no.

None have resulted well.

None have achieved any secular democracy.

And all have resulted in brutal persecution of other religious minorities.

Seems to be a common theme running here......

by veya_victaous Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:52 am

None are done yet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War
took you guys 46 years Rolling Eyes

mind you Englishmen are Famous for their Inefficiency Neutral

They all could still achieve it, but it unlikely since the west let the Islamists get the upper hand. largely due to ignorant fools like you self that would prefer so imaginary Racist narrative than actually investigating and looking at the situation.

You are still talking like there is One group there is NOT. If you keep suggesting there is then I will Tell you the STFU when you Cry like a baby about WHAT YOU DID because ALL FUCKING ENGLISH BASTARDS ARE THE SAME DEMOCRACY HATING FUCK WITS, Like YOUR political leaders and EVERY 'great; Englishman whose 'greatness' was achieved FIGHTING AGAINST DEMOCRACY. No difference of opinion you all come form the isle of Misery so you all must think the same and want the same (because according to Tommy that's how people work)

by veya_victaous Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:43 am

http://www.news.com.au/world/iraq-is-a-tangled-web-of-religious-racial-and-political-conflict-heres-where-the-key-players-fit/story-fndir2ev-1226955671616

List 10 major Players in the Iraq Conflict ALL trying to achieve something different.

by nicko Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:09 am

What is wrong with you Veya that you should be so hatefull towards the british? What has some brit done to you that you should keep making these HATE FULL remarks. please don't say you are joking because it's obvious you have a serious problem with us.did some big strong brit take off with your girl?

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:24 pm

Veya seems to get more hateful when you criticise Islam or Muslims........ funny that!!!

by Guest Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:28 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:I'll tell you what would have happened, they would have voted in Muslim brotherhood types and then the democracy they might claim they were after disappears immediately, and so does religious freedom for all and then the persecution and killing starts.....

But ISIS and the Secularist Rebels are fighting each other too... there is more than just two options you know and they don't all feel the same. They Wouldn't have voted in the Muslim Brotherhood, Look at Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood only got in because the West pushed for an election Before the secularist could organise a political party (where the Brotherhood has been around for decades so already had candidates ready).

Just like in the West where you have conservatives and progressives, the Islamist movement are just are more extreme version of the conservative parties (uphold traditions and nationalism etc just there traditions are not western) there is still progressive political groups that want secular culture and the freedoms that come with it.

Don't be stupid and suggest that they are all the same because of some racist ignorance

"there is still progressive political groups that want secular culture and the freedoms that come with it"

its only a few though

by Guest Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:48 pm

veya_victaous wrote:http://www.news.com.au/world/iraq-is-a-tangled-web-of-religious-racial-and-political-conflict-heres-where-the-key-players-fit/story-fndir2ev-1226955671616

List 10 major Players in the Iraq Conflict ALL trying to achieve something different.

Maybe this is the answer:

http://americanthinker.com/2014/06/let_them_kill_each_other.html

by gerber Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:07 pm

Iraq an oil rich country.

IMO our £3million in aid should be balanced against the equivalent cash value of free oil.

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:05 pm

Brilliant article Tess!!!

Only one problem.... in The longer term the Muslims will eventually get bored of killing each other and then unite in their hatred for Jews and target Israel again instead.

And in The mean time, ALL other religious minorities will be artlajjw persecuted along the way.

by Original Quill Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:00 pm

Very good article, Tess. It's what wise strategists in America are saying all along.

Let's put things into perspective. The whole middle east came crashing down as a result of the Republican GWB administration's stupidity. Had we left Hussein in charge, he was vehemently opposed to al Qaeda and so would have kept the balance there that existed for decades. But no...Bush had to fook around and mess it all up.

Next, America never supported Syria. No troops. No tanks. No nothing. Democratic President Obama held that it was Congress' constitutional responsibility to declare war--knowing full well that a Congress that so hated him (Obama) would take no action, with the effect that it would keep us out of the conflict. It was a clever use of political jiu jitsu that Conservatives and Republicans have yet to figure out.

The genius Carl von Clausewitz, who wrote the bible on warfare--On War--emphasized that war is an extension of diplomacy. In other words...YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A FOOKING PLAN, IDIOTS! A part of that plan is to have a well thought out end-game.

From the beginning the West has had no plan for the Middle East. Britain just threw down a string on a map and created a few nation states that bore no relevance in terms of religion and culture. Modernly, it began with GWB, who thought we would just kick a few Muslim butts and take their oil...known as the Bush Doctrine.

That created such a mess, that it made Iran ascendant in the region...and Syria a crippled state, Libya (nothing wrong happened at Benghazi...it's a war idiots, and people get killed!) and Egypt a broken, half-theocratic, half-militaristic mess, with Iraq with no political self-consciousness...just secular internal bullshite.

As we got more and more enmeshed in the Bush Doctrine, we completely lost sight of any fooking mission whatsoever. We came up with concepts like a surge, without any understanding of a purpose. WTF...what could a surge accomplish except more deaths and more destruction. Great! Let's just count the bodies and declare ourselves the winners.

We completely forgot what Von Clausewitz knew all along. Y'gotta have a reason. War is an extension of diplomacy. All we had was mission-creep, with no idea of what the mission was.

Now we have gotten ourselves out. Sure, it has cost us $17-trillion and some 4,500 (American) lives, but we are out of the whole cluster fuck. And the idiot Republicans (Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham) and the Conservatives want us to go back in???

War is an extension of diplomacy. Policy, in other words. Anyone got a policy--any reason--to go back in there? Of course not. If we went into Iraq, we would be fighting for Al Qaeda in Iraq (as it was once called), on the one hand, or Iran on the other. Prithee...WTF cares?

by Guest Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:12 pm

Original Quill wrote:Very good article, Tess. It's what wise strategists in America are saying all along.

Let's put things into perspective. The whole middle east came crashing down as a result of the Republican GWB administration's stupidity. Had we left Hussein in charge, he was vehemently opposed to al Qaeda and so would have kept the balance there that existed for decades. But no...Bush had to fook around and mess it all up.

Next, America never supported Syria. No troops. No tanks. No nothing. Democratic President Obama held that it was Congress' constitutional responsibility to declare war--knowing full well that a Congress that so hated him (Obama) would take no action, with the effect that it would keep us out of the conflict. It was a clever use of political jiu jitsu that Conservatives and Republicans have yet to figure out.

The genius Carl von Clausewitz, who wrote the bible on warfare--On War--emphasized that war is an extension of diplomacy. In other words...YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A FOOKING PLAN, IDIOTS! A part of that plan is to have a well thought out end-game.

From the beginning the West has had no plan for the Middle East. Britain just threw down a string on a map and created a few nation states that bore no relevance in terms of religion and culture. Modernly, it began with GWB, who thought we would just kick a few Muslim butts and take their oil...known as the Bush Doctrine.

That created such a mess, that it made Iran ascendant in the region...and Syria a crippled state, Libya (nothing wrong happened at Benghazi...it's a war idiots!) and Egypt a broken half-theocratic, half-militaristic mess, with Iraq with no political self-consciousness...just secular internal bullshite.

As we got more and more enmeshed in the Bush Doctrine, we completely lost sight of any fooking mission whatsoever. We came up with concepts like a surge, without any understanding of a purpose. WTF...what could a surge accomplish except more deaths and more destruction. Great! Let's just count the bodies and declare ourselves the winners.

We completely forgot what Von Clausewitz knew all along. Y'gotta have a reason. War is an extension of diplomacy. All we had was mission-creep, with no idea of what the mission was.

Now we have gotten ourselves out. Sure, it has cost us $17-trillion and some 4,500 (American) lives, but we are out of the whole cluster fuck. And the idiot Republicans (Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham) and the Conservatives want us to go back in???

War is an extension of diplomacy. Policy, in other words. Anyone got a policy--any reason--to go back in their? Of course not. If we went into Iraq, we would be fighting for Al Qaeda in Iraq (as it was once called), on the one hand, or Iran on the other. Prithee...WTF cares?

when you say:

"Next, America never supported Syria. No troops. No tanks. No nothing. Democratic President Obama held that it was Congress' constitutional responsibility to declare war--knowing full well that a Congress that so hated him (Obama) would take no action, with the effect that it would keep us out of the conflict. It was a clever use of political jiu jitsu that Conservatives and Republicans have yet to figure out."

i assume you are talking about support assad

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:16 pm

Yeah, and It was our nice happy clappy labour party who stood shoulder to shoulder with your idiot bush.....

by Original Quill Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:17 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Very good article, Tess. It's what wise strategists in America are saying all along.

Let's put things into perspective. The whole middle east came crashing down as a result of the Republican GWB administration's stupidity. Had we left Hussein in charge, he was vehemently opposed to al Qaeda and so would have kept the balance there that existed for decades. But no...Bush had to fook around and mess it all up.

Next, America never supported Syria. No troops. No tanks. No nothing. Democratic President Obama held that it was Congress' constitutional responsibility to declare war--knowing full well that a Congress that so hated him (Obama) would take no action, with the effect that it would keep us out of the conflict. It was a clever use of political jiu jitsu that Conservatives and Republicans have yet to figure out.

The genius Carl von Clausewitz, who wrote the bible on warfare--On War--emphasized that war is an extension of diplomacy. In other words...YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A FOOKING PLAN, IDIOTS! A part of that plan is to have a well thought out end-game.

From the beginning the West has had no plan for the Middle East. Britain just threw down a string on a map and created a few nation states that bore no relevance in terms of religion and culture. Modernly, it began with GWB, who thought we would just kick a few Muslim butts and take their oil...known as the Bush Doctrine.

That created such a mess, that it made Iran ascendant in the region...and Syria a crippled state, Libya (nothing wrong happened at Benghazi...it's a war idiots!) and Egypt a broken half-theocratic, half-militaristic mess, with Iraq with no political self-consciousness...just secular internal bullshite.

As we got more and more enmeshed in the Bush Doctrine, we completely lost sight of any fooking mission whatsoever. We came up with concepts like a surge, without any understanding of a purpose. WTF...what could a surge accomplish except more deaths and more destruction. Great! Let's just count the bodies and declare ourselves the winners.

We completely forgot what Von Clausewitz knew all along. Y'gotta have a reason. War is an extension of diplomacy. All we had was mission-creep, with no idea of what the mission was.

Now we have gotten ourselves out. Sure, it has cost us $17-trillion and some 4,500 (American) lives, but we are out of the whole cluster fuck. And the idiot Republicans (Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham) and the Conservatives want us to go back in???

War is an extension of diplomacy. Policy, in other words. Anyone got a policy--any reason--to go back in their? Of course not. If we went into Iraq, we would be fighting for Al Qaeda in Iraq (as it was once called), on the one hand, or Iran on the other. Prithee...WTF cares?

when you say:

"Next, America never supported Syria. No troops. No tanks. No nothing. Democratic President Obama held that it was Congress' constitutional responsibility to declare war--knowing full well that a Congress that so hated him (Obama) would take no action, with the effect that it would keep us out of the conflict. It was a clever use of political jiu jitsu that Conservatives and Republicans have yet to figure out."

i assume you are talking about support assad

No, I mean we never entered that war. We have internal politics, so it was necessary to throw a few beads and trinkets to the natives. But Obama wisely kept us out of Syria's war, a policy that still continues today.

by Guest Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:24 pm

Really Quill?

U.S. ups aid to Syrian rebels, sending them missiles and guns
Supplies include anti-tank missiles and light weapons, not advanced anti-aircraft missiles that could possibly endanger civil aviation in neighboring states.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.598314

by Original Quill Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:25 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Yeah, and It was our nice happy clappy labour party who stood shoulder to shoulder with your idiot bush.....

Yes, I never felt so abandoned in my life. You'll never know how my heart sunk to see Bush and Blair leaning into one another, planning the next strategy, to kill a few thousand more, so the surge could work, so...what???

But, we had Hillary voting in the Senate for the war, as well. Few opposed that war...but we are proud to say that Obama, as a senator, did vote against it.

by Guest Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:25 pm

Hi Quill - you're right, we should all keep out of it - it's getting ridiculous:

"So let me get this straight, we are backing Sunni in Syria, we are backing Shia in Iran, We are backing shia in Iraq while arming sunni to attack..."

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2573301/pg1

by Original Quill Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:30 pm

Sassy wrote:Really Quill?

U.S. ups aid to Syrian rebels, sending them missiles and guns
Supplies include anti-tank missiles and light weapons, not advanced anti-aircraft missiles that could possibly endanger civil aviation in neighboring states.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.598314

Beads and trinkets, to quell the natives. And the idiots over here.

There's a knee-jerk reaction that happens over here in the US. When someone says "War" Republicans and RW'ers get a hard-on. They think they are about to have sex.

So if we toss a few knives, spears and grenades into the pile, we avoid a big press moment from the right, who would scream about it otherwise.

by Guest Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:35 pm

Yea, anti tank missiles are beads and trinkets Rolling Eyes

by Original Quill Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:44 pm

Sassy wrote:Yea, anti tank missiles are beads and trinkets

Yes. You've got to draw the line somewhere. You are describing small arms...small arms seems as good a place as any to stop.

You've gotta remember we faced this Iraq dilemma back in Syria. We didn't know whose side to be on. Sure Assad was/is a bad guy, but on the other side were the guys who brought down the World Trade Center. There's a few ways to look at it, none of them good.

A pox on all of their houses.

by Guest Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:46 pm

Anti tank weapons are NOT small arms, it said anti tank weapons AND light weapons.

by Sponsored content