Handing Iraq back to Al Qaeda: How do our Iraq war vets feel about that?

[Little-Acorn]

How do our Iraq War veterans, who fought and bled to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein and his terrorist training camps, feel about Obama pulling our troops out and handing the country back to Al Qaeda?

According to antiwar.com, 4,489 of them are "not available for comment", having given their lives to free the country in the first place.

Recent headlines:

* BAGHDAD FALLING: Iraq crisis: Baghdad prepares for the worst as Islamist militants vow to capture the capital - Middle East - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-crisis-islamist-militants-warn-battle-will-rage-after-seizing-mosul-and-tikrit-9530899.html)
* MOSUL OVERRUN BY AL QAEDA: Mosul is burning, and Iraq could still get worse. Here are 5 reasons why - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/06/10/mosul-is-burning-and-iraq-could-still-get-worse-here-are-5-reasons-why/)
* AL QAEDA ALLIES SIEZE TIKRIT: TIME - Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews (http://time.com/#2857751/iraq-tikrit-baghdad-isis-mosul/)
* TERRORISTS "FULL-BLOWN ARMY": Iraq?s Terrorists Are Becoming a Full-Blown Army - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/11/iraq-s-terrorists-are-becoming-a-full-blown-army.html#)

Election have consequences. Especially when you elect liberal fanatics to be the Commander in Chief, and give them majorities in Congress... as we did after defeating most terrorists in Iraq.

--------------------------------------

Congress's Iraq Vets Helplessly Watch Their Gains Lost - NationalJournal.com (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/congress-s-iraq-vets-helplessly-watch-their-gains-lost-20140611)

Congress's Iraq Vets Helplessly Watch Their Gains Lost

By Clara Ritger
June 11, 2014

Americans are tired of war. For the 17 members of Congress who served in Iraq, that means watching helplessly as the cities they fought for fall once more to extremists.

Three Republican congressmen who served in Iraq—Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Doug Collins of Georgia, and Brad Wenstrup of Ohio—said it feels like the progress they made has been thrown away.

"Going out across the desert I remember the feelings that you have, wondering if you're going to make it out alive," Perry said. "Right now I wonder what that was all about. What was the point of all of that?"

"We have an enemy today that senses weakness, knows how to find it, and then goes after it," Wenstrup said. "I came home from Iraq feeling that we liberated 25 million people."

"I think at this point the administration made a choice to cut and run," Collins said. "When Fallujah fell again, we knew this foreign policy had consequences."

[CSM]

I hear that our State Department has been hard at work looking for solutions. So far the Honorable Mr. Kerry suggests that the Iraqi government "come together" and be more inclusive. The CinC has been hard at work too and offers that Iraq should solve its own problems BUT he is thinking VERY HARD about what to do.

[Little-Acorn]

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/06/12/war-veterans-watch-in-horror-as-iraqi-towns-they-fought-to-defend-fall-to-isis-terrorists-iraq-islam-jihadists-islamic-state-war-veteran-bay-area-obama/

War Veterans Watch In Horror As Iraqi Towns They Fought For Fall To ISIS Terrorists

by Brandon Mercer
June 12, 2014 8:07 PM

SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX) — “It’s like a punch in the gut,” is how one Bay Area Iraq War veteran describes news today that Mosul, Tikrit, Ninevah, and so many other Iraqi cities fell to the terrorist army known as ISIS.

At a veterans’ event in Fort Mason, Army human resources specialist Starlyn Lara reacted to the insurgents’ success.

“You know it’s really hard, because part of what you learn in the military is mission success, mission accomplishment and never to accept failure,” the two-time Iraq War veteran said. “It can make you feel a lot of loss was in vain.”

[CSM]

The current US administration was more than willing to abandon its own embassy personnel to their fate. Why should we expect anything less when it comes to Iraq? All the soldiers I have talked to (and there are many) view this situation as a very tragic joke. They know darn well that 1) the US will do little 2) the rest of the world will do nothing and 3) everything they did (heroic or not) was for nothing.

[jafar00]

What do you mean handing it "back" to AQ? Are you suggesting Saddam and AQ were linked?
Also, ISIS was disowned by AQ a few months ago because they are even more astray than AQ is.

[Little-Acorn]

What do you mean handing it "back" to AQ? Are you suggesting Saddam and AQ were linked?
Also, ISIS was disowned by AQ a few months ago because they are even more astray than AQ is.

If you've seen one terrorist, you've seen them all.... jafar.

[Jeff]

If you've seen one terrorist, you've seen them all.... jafar.

I couldn't agree more, jafar played this game in another thread and although he is technically right I think most feel a terrorist is a terrorist period.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The current US administration was more than willing to abandon its own embassy personnel to their fate. Why should we expect anything less when it comes to Iraq? All the soldiers I have talked to (and there are many) view this situation as a very tragic joke. They know darn well that 1) the US will do little 2) the rest of the world will do nothing and 3) everything they did (heroic or not) was for nothing.
This was in the cards even before they managed to install their traitor Obama(the muslim in hiding).
What's that sweetest sound he ever heard???? --Tyr

[namvet]

vietnam 2

[Noir]

What is the alternative? A permanent US armed force stationed in the country?

[Drummond]

What is the alternative? A permanent US armed force stationed in the country?

I'm very aware that Americans are weary of war, of sending troops overseas to perticipate in them. I've every sympathy for that.

A wider issue, however, is to ask to what extent compromises should be made with homeland security.

SURELY, Iraq today is illustrating the permanent nature of threats to such security pose from this region of the world. ISIS, if they achieved all they'd hope for, could turn Iraq (.. and Syria, since there's a link there) into bases for future world terrorism.

America does maintain overseas bases to enhance her own, and Western, security issues. I think that Iraq must be regarded in that light. So, YES, I agree that a US military presence must continue there on a permanent basis.

NOTE ... I'd add to this that overseas assistance should increase. More military participation from other Western powers should work in tandem with this initiative. It's wrong that the US is stuck with such a lion's share of such a burden.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What is the alternative? A permanent US armed force stationed in the country?

The alternative was to fight the damn war to win and once it was won to establish a government there that would not just hand it back as soon as we withdrew or a few shots were fired at them . We occupied Germany and Japan after winning WW2 because we had learned that very-very-very necessary lesson after WW1!
We have NOT fought a war with 100% ALL OUT TO WIN strategy since WW2.
We don't do the long haul anymore and if it was ever necessary it would be over there with those barbaric and sick ffing muslim scum!!!
The Dem party of this nation are liars, cowards unprincipled pieces of pure shit that themselves need to be taught a damn good lesson!!!
They are a blight upon this nation and they represent a very , very dangerous threat to it's security and survival.
We have a great divide in this nation that has grown into a huge chasm and it is the dems/= unprincipled/evil vs.
the conservatives=good/principled...
Just that simple and I see civil war being the coming solution and a very poor one but likely the only one.
For the so-called enlightened geniuses(dem/libs/leftists/atheists) are actually just a herd of ignorant, arrogant fools that smoke pipe dreams and act upon strategies that have zero chance of ever improving mankind in any meaningful way.. Fact.--Tyr

[aboutime]

What is the alternative? A permanent US armed force stationed in the country?


Noir. You want an alternative? Tell the leadership of your nation to NEVER, EVER call America for any kind of help when all of you feel the coming wrath of what is taking place in Iraq if NOBODY does anything but...talk, and pretend that TIME HEALS ALL WOUNDS.

[Drummond]

Noir. You want an alternative? Tell the leadership of your nation to NEVER, EVER call America for any kind of help when all of you feel the coming wrath of what is taking place in Iraq if NOBODY does anything but...talk, and pretend that TIME HEALS ALL WOUNDS.

And I agree ... even though I'm British.

Expecting America to carry the burden of military actions when precious little (if any) actual SUPPORT is going to be offered, to help out ... is unacceptable.

.... And this is maddening .. get a load of this, comments from Tony Blair (GW Bush's biggest overseas supporter, post- 9/11) ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658303/Intervene-Iraq-Syria-face-terror-attacks-Britain-warns-Blair-defends-decision-topple-Saddam.html


Tony Blair this morning said Britain needed to take action in Iraq and Syria - or face terror attacks in at home.

The former Prime Minister said the UK needed to intervene to stop a 'total disaster'. He insisted that he was not calling for troops on the ground - but suggested the 'selective use of air power' was one option on the table.

His comments came before continuing violence today as a string of explosions in Baghdad killed at least 15 people and it was reported insurgents had overran the north-western Iraqi town of Tal Afar.

Mr Blair said: 'If we don't deal with the Syria issue then the problems are not just going to be for Syria and for the region, the problems are actually going to come back and they are going to hit us very directly even in our own country.'

He added: 'If you talk to security services in France and Germany and the UK, they will tell you their biggest single worry today returning jihadists fighters - our own citizens by the way - from Syria.

'We have to look at Syria, and Iraq and the region in context. We have to understand what's going on there and engage.'

He said that didn't mean 'ground troops' but it we shouldn't 'wash our hands of it and walk away'.

Mr Blair's remarks this morning come as extremist fighters from the al-Qaida-inspired 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' bear down on Baghdad.

Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr show Mr Blair said an ISIS victory would be a 'total disaster and it mustn't be allowed to happen'.

He said: 'We are going to have to engage with it and if we don't then the consequences will come back on us.'

Speaking to the Murnaghan show on Sky later, he added: 'The people who are dealing with are going to pull us into this whether we like it or not.

'We are going to have to take an active role in Syria or Iraq in shaping events.'

He said Britain should 'support' the United States if they take military action in Iraq. 'It's in our interest to stop these jihadists.'
'They are prepared to fight us and they will if they are not stopped,' he added.

But Mr Blair's intervention was slammed by critics of his 2003 decision to take Britain to war against Iraq.

The former Deputy Prime Minister Lord Prescott said: 'He says he’s disappointed with what has happened in Iraq, it wasn't as he thought it might happen, but he wants to invade somewhere else now.'

He accused Mr Blair of wanting to force western democracy on to Arab countries.

'When you want to go and do these regime changes, you’re back to what Bush called a crusade.

'And I said, actually, in a manner of form, put on a white sheet and a red cross, and we’re back to the crusades.

'It’s all about religion; in these countries it’s gone on for a thousand years.'

The former Labour minister Clare Short said Mr Blair had been 'absolutely, consistently wrong, wrong, wrong' on the issue, and branded him a 'complete American neocon'.

'More bombing will not solve it, it will just exacerbate it,' she said.

Ukip leader Nigel Farage dismissed Mr Blair as an 'embarrassment' who should hold his tongue.

'The lesson is not, as Mr Blair implies, that the West should intervene in Syria, let alone once more in Iraq.

'The lesson is that the West should declare an end to the era of military intervention abroad.'

Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond added his voice to the chorus accusing Mr Blair of 'breathtaking amnesia' over his reasons for invading Iraq.

He said: 'Tony Blair has now claimed that the invasion of Iraq was about whether or not Saddam Hussein remained in power. Eleven years ago he said it was about weapons of mass destruction.

'No reinterpretation of history will absolve the former prime minister of a direct line of responsibility for this sequence of disasters.'

And Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's ambassador to the US from 1997 to 2003, said the decision to topple Saddam was 'perhaps the most significant reason' for the sectarian violence now ripping through Iraq.

'There are many reasons for this disastrous state of affairs. Perhaps the most significant is the decision taken more than 10 years ago by President George W Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair to unseat Saddam Hussein without thinking through the consequences for Iraq of the dictator's removal.'

The decision to bar members of Saddam's Ba'ath party from top jobs and disbanding the army - one former member of which now leads the Isis surge, were among the most serious errors, he said.

'We are reaping what we sowed in 2003. This is not hindsight. We knew in the run-up to war that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would seriously destabilise Iraq after 24 years of his iron rule.

... and so it continues on, Aboutime.

Normally I'd have little time for Blair, as after all, he WAS a fairly typical Leftie in most respects. But where the War on Terror was concerned, his own stand, and the support he gave to America, post-9/11, was highly creditable.

His own Party went some way to turning against him, even when he was Leader of it. Since those days, Left wing figures have done their best to not only demonise him, but to turn the tide completely against future interventionist policies or intentions. Today, a 'Blair Mark II' is barely imaginable in the current UK political climate.

So, I can hardly say, Aboutime, that your answer is a less than deserved one !!!

[aboutime]

And I agree ... even though I'm British.

Expecting America to carry the burden of military actions when precious little (if any) actual SUPPORT is going to be offered, to help out ... is unacceptable.

.... And this is maddening .. get a load of this, comments from Tony Blair (GW Bush's biggest overseas supporter, post- 9/11) ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658303/Intervene-Iraq-Syria-face-terror-attacks-Britain-warns-Blair-defends-decision-topple-Saddam.html



... and so it continues on, Aboutime.

Normally I'd have little time for Blair, as after all, he WAS a fairly typical Leftie in most respects. But where the War on Terror was concerned, his own stand, and the support he gave to America, post-9/11, was highly creditable.

His own Party went some way to turning against him, even when he was Leader of it. Since those days, Left wing figures have done their best to not only demonise him, but to turn the tide completely against future interventionist policies or intentions. Today, a 'Blair Mark II' is barely imaginable in the current UK political climate.

So, I can hardly say, Aboutime, that your answer is a less than deserved one !!!



Sir Drummond: Thank you for posting this. As for Blair and Bush. I have come to expect the likely culprits who always belittle Both Men as hatred, for the sake of hatred.
Bush, and Blair are terribly guilty of exposing their hate-filled enemies with FACTUAL TRUTH.

Whenever ANYONE, even here on this Unknown (Internet) forum feels a need to espouse their hatred for one of us, or Bush, and Blair. I feel confident WE are guilty of exposing the hatred filled members, or people to TRUTH...as Jack Nicholson so famously said "They can't Handle..."

Nothing seems to regurgitate more hatred, and anger than someone telling the truth without fabrication that cannot be disputed, or proven wrong...without false lies...taken as truth.

So. We all know. If Bush, or Blair said anything. According to the brainwashed, easily-led, non-thinkers...They are liars.

[aboutime]

Word has it, in the MSM that some kind of deal might be in the making between Obama/Kerry and the Iranian's to fight against ISIS in Iraq.

Listen to this and tell me you agree with OBAMA?

http://youtu.be/XNUc8nuo7HI

[Drummond]

Word has it, in the MSM that some kind of deal might be in the making between Obama/Kerry and the Iranian's to fight against ISIS in Iraq.

Listen to this and tell me you agree with OBAMA?

http://youtu.be/XNUc8nuo7HI

Well, as 'racist anti-Norwegians' go, I like his pro-American patriotism. He clearly has a concept of what America stands for, and fights for its survival, in a sea of internationalist, globalist hogwash propagated by the Left. Propagated to make you as weak a country as you can be, to dilute your identity in the world.

Such sentiment - much less the detail underpinning it - would be lost on people from my side of the Atlantic. Indeed, I feel like inviting Noir to offer his comments.

As for Iran-US cooperation, it'll happen. The Obama Administration will be shameless about it.

And in practical terms, as the lie is force-fed down everyone's throat that 'Iran can be worked with and trusted', Israel will be slowly sold down the river.

[aboutime]

Well, as 'racist anti-Norwegians' go, I like his pro-American patriotism. He clearly has a concept of what America stands for, and fights for its survival, in a sea of internationalist, globalist hogwash propagated by the Left. Propagated to make you as weak a country as you can be, to dilute your identity in the world.

Such sentiment - much less the detail underpinning it - would be lost on people from my side of the Atlantic. Indeed, I feel like inviting Noir to offer his comments.

As for Iran-US cooperation, it'll happen. The Obama Administration will be shameless about it.

And in practical terms, as the lie is force-fed down everyone's throat that 'Iran can be worked with and trusted', Israel will be slowly sold down the river.


What I find even more disturbing, or rather, stomach churning is. We have millions of Americans here who have HONESTLY...no idea what is happening to them, or the nation as a whole.
Truth is. Those Uninformed, Unconcerned Americans probably will nominate Obama for another NOBEL prize when he manages to PULL IT OFF...pretending the Iranian's have suddenly become our friends...fighting the ISIS under the guise of Saving Iraq. When the WOOL being pulled over their BLIND EYES becomes. Obama's PRESENT to Iran. Handing Iraq over...at the cost of AMERICAN Treasure in American Troops who died, and for those who still serve a GELDING President who is so INEPT, and UNQUALIFIED to be part of the HUMAN RACE.

[differentDemocrat]

it was gonna happen. There was a glimmer of hope with Gen. Jay Garner's post occupation plan but, once he was scrapped and Bremmer was brought in to rule... it became pretty apparent what we were there for...

USMC Infantry/Intel '05 to '09 NAS Atlanta

[DragonStryk72]

How do our Iraq War veterans, who fought and bled to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein and his terrorist training camps, feel about Obama pulling our troops out and handing the country back to Al Qaeda?

According to antiwar.com, 4,489 of them are "not available for comment", having given their lives to free the country in the first place.

Recent headlines:

* BAGHDAD FALLING: Iraq crisis: Baghdad prepares for the worst as Islamist militants vow to capture the capital - Middle East - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-crisis-islamist-militants-warn-battle-will-rage-after-seizing-mosul-and-tikrit-9530899.html)
* MOSUL OVERRUN BY AL QAEDA: Mosul is burning, and Iraq could still get worse. Here are 5 reasons why - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/06/10/mosul-is-burning-and-iraq-could-still-get-worse-here-are-5-reasons-why/)
* AL QAEDA ALLIES SIEZE TIKRIT: TIME - Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews (http://time.com/#2857751/iraq-tikrit-baghdad-isis-mosul/)
* TERRORISTS "FULL-BLOWN ARMY": Iraq?s Terrorists Are Becoming a Full-Blown Army - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/11/iraq-s-terrorists-are-becoming-a-full-blown-army.html#)

Election have consequences. Especially when you elect liberal fanatics to be the Commander in Chief, and give them majorities in Congress... as we did after defeating most terrorists in Iraq.

--------------------------------------

Congress's Iraq Vets Helplessly Watch Their Gains Lost - NationalJournal.com (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/congress-s-iraq-vets-helplessly-watch-their-gains-lost-20140611)

Congress's Iraq Vets Helplessly Watch Their Gains Lost

By Clara Ritger
June 11, 2014

Americans are tired of war. For the 17 members of Congress who served in Iraq, that means watching helplessly as the cities they fought for fall once more to extremists.

Three Republican congressmen who served in Iraq—Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Doug Collins of Georgia, and Brad Wenstrup of Ohio—said it feels like the progress they made has been thrown away.

"Going out across the desert I remember the feelings that you have, wondering if you're going to make it out alive," Perry said. "Right now I wonder what that was all about. What was the point of all of that?"

"We have an enemy today that senses weakness, knows how to find it, and then goes after it," Wenstrup said. "I came home from Iraq feeling that we liberated 25 million people."

"I think at this point the administration made a choice to cut and run," Collins said. "When Fallujah fell again, we knew this foreign policy had consequences."

Um, handing over our first run of democratic rule in ME to AQ is basically putting the death knell on any attempts to foment a good reputation over there, but uh, AQ never was in Iraq, as Saddam hated them. Not that he had any issue with them killing Americans, or nothing, but more that he knew that if he alllowed them within in his country, they'd take over. I mean, really, you don't see the piranha eating each other, do you?

[Drummond]

Um, handing over our first run of democratic rule in ME to AQ is basically putting the death knell on any attempts to foment a good reputation over there, but uh, AQ never was in Iraq, as Saddam hated them. Not that he had any issue with them killing Americans, or nothing, but more that he knew that if he alllowed them within in his country, they'd take over. I mean, really, you don't see the piranha eating each other, do you?

Perhaps Saddam's association with Al Qaeda was not a particularly close one. But ... you claim he HATED Al Qaeda ?

Why ? Surely we know otherwise ?

Saddam was a FRIEND to terrorists .. he bankrolled Hamas, don't forget.

And there's also the issue of Saddam basically 'looking the other way' when Zarqawi fled to Iraq .. allowing him shelter in Iraq, and denying Jordan its requests to return Zarqawi to them.

But there's more - a lot more, suggesting this 'hatred' of which you speak is fiction.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=8221


the Exempt Media completely missed important corroboration from Iraq's new government that Saddam sheltered and even encouraged al-Qaeda terrorists during his reign of terror. CQ reader Jason Smith at Generation Why? notes this revelation from the Italian news portal AKI which confirms that Saddam's regime sponsored an Islamist conference and specifically invited AQ's #2 man and Zarqawi to attend:

The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network.

He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period.

"Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri – then deputy head of the council of the leadership of the revolution - to take part in the congress, along with some 150 other Islamic figures from 50 Muslim countries," Allawi said.

According to Allawi, important information has been gathered regarding the presence of another key terrorist figure operating in Iraq - the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq secretly in the same period," Allawi affirmed, "and began to form a terrorist cell, even though the Iraqi services do not have precise information on his entry into the country," he said.

Last week, King Abdullah told a Saudi newspaper that the Jordanians knew Saddam to be sheltering Zarqawi in the last years of the Ba'athist reign of terror and demanded his extradition. Saddam refused to turn Zarqawi over to the Jordanians. Abdullah had been clear on that point; the Ba'athists had not claimed they could not reach him, but that they flatly refused to hand him over.

Last year, Stephen Hayes wrote about the Islamist conference in his book The Connection, which outlined a number of such ties between the Saddam regime and the AQ network, as well as other terrorists. Now that the new Iraqi government has possession of Saddam's old files, they have begun to corroborate Hayes' work. Far from being an enemy to the Islamists, Saddam reached out to the fanatics as an ally in order to covertly support attacks on Western nations, either directly or indirectly.

[DragonStryk72]

Perhaps Saddam's association with Al Qaeda was not a particularly close one. But ... you claim he HATED Al Qaeda ?

Why ? Surely we know otherwise ?

Saddam was a FRIEND to terrorists .. he bankrolled Hamas, don't forget.

And there's also the issue of Saddam basically 'looking the other way' when Zarqawi fled to Iraq .. allowing him shelter in Iraq, and denying Jordan its requests to return Zarqawi to them.

But there's more - a lot more, suggesting this 'hatred' of which you speak is fiction.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=8221



Hamas and AQ are different animals, though. Hamas didn't want power in Iraq, it wanted to crush Israel, a feat that would reduced the US's power in the region, so basically, they were no threat to him, and could help accomplish a goal he himself wanted. AQ would've tried to take power, either deposing Saddam outright, or making him a puppet, neither of which he'd ever be willing to countenance.

And yeah, he played a huge power game, that was a constant thing, including against us, so he could thump his chest, and hold onto his power in Iraq. Think about it: If he bowed to Jordan's demands, what would that have signaled? Hell, the man barely tolerated the US & UN telling him what to do, and we had the numbers to take out his entire country without breaking a sweat. You think another little country was gonna make him tap? That shit just wasn't going to happen.

Sure, he might use AQ if needed, but no way he allowed them any capacity inside Iraq, and like I said, not out of any problem with their views and aims, but because AQ would've taken his power.

[Drummond]

Hamas and AQ are different animals, though. Hamas didn't want power in Iraq, it wanted to crush Israel, a feat that would reduced the US's power in the region, so basically, they were no threat to him, and could help accomplish a goal he himself wanted. AQ would've tried to take power, either deposing Saddam outright, or making him a puppet, neither of which he'd ever be willing to countenance.

Accepted .. fair points.


And yeah, he played a huge power game, that was a constant thing, including against us, so he could thump his chest, and hold onto his power in Iraq. Think about it: If he bowed to Jordan's demands, what would that have signaled?

H'm. Well, it would have signaled his willingness to be a good neighbour. Which, OK, it has to be said was never high on his priorities, when you take Iran and Kuwait into account !! More seriously, though, it would have also shown that he wasn't any great (or reliable) friend to terrorists, either, which in fact, he WAS.


Hell, the man barely tolerated the US & UN telling him what to do, and we had the numbers to take out his entire country without breaking a sweat. You think another little country was gonna make him tap? That shit just wasn't going to happen.

Again, fair enough. Although .. this also absolutely proves that removing Saddam and his regime from power was the correct thing to do. He'd shown the world what an arrogant, warmongering maverick he was .. and he refused to give free, unfettered cooperation to the UN (though sometimes he liked to pretend he was).


Sure, he might use AQ if needed,

... yet MORE reason to remove him !! ...


.. but no way he allowed them any capacity inside Iraq, and like I said, not out of any problem with their views and aims, but because AQ would've taken his power.

Accepted, I suppose (although Zarqawi wasn't hindered in his activities by Saddam, surely ?). Nonetheless, none of this shows that Saddam couldn't have worked with Al Qaeda, or, that Al Qaeda couldn't have thought it to be in their interests to try it. And when Saddam WAS deposed, they moved their people in to take revenge on the 'invading' US forces. As an ally might do ...

[DragonStryk72]

Accepted .. fair points.



H'm. Well, it would have signaled his willingness to be a good neighbour. Which, OK, it has to be said was never high on his priorities, when you take Iran and Kuwait into account !! More seriously, though, it would have also shown that he wasn't any great (or reliable) friend to terrorists, either, which in fact, he WAS.

Like a bad neighbor, Hussein ain't there!

Again, fair enough. Although .. this also absolutely proves that removing Saddam and his regime from power was the correct thing to do. He'd shown the world what an arrogant, warmongering maverick he was .. and he refused to give free, unfettered cooperation to the UN (though sometimes he liked to pretend he was).



... yet MORE reason to remove him !! ...

Actually, I never had issue with Saddam getting taken out. He's our mistake, along with OBL, who we helped into power. He was our responsibility to remove, but by removing him, we've also claimed responsibility to follow through on our promises with the Iraqi people, something we didn't do. Now, yeah, we built stuff for them, but we didn't build the infrastructure that would've been needed for real long-term improvement. Basically, Iraq could have been a second Japan, but we kept continually standing halfway in the door.

Accepted, I suppose (although Zarqawi wasn't hindered in his activities by Saddam, surely ?). Nonetheless, none of this shows that Saddam couldn't have worked with Al Qaeda, or, that Al Qaeda couldn't have thought it to be in their interests to try it. And when Saddam WAS deposed, they moved their people in to take revenge on the 'invading' US forces. As an ally might do ...

Not really. AQ wants to kill Americans, it's core to their whole presence these days, and we were already present in an area that didn't have another ruling body. I mean, seriously, it was like a buffet line for them. Had nothing to do with them wanting revenge for Saddam, though I'm guessing us blowing Afghanistan was a lot closer to the whole vengeance run.

Now, they smell the weakness in Iraq, and we've got war-fatigue, so now, AQ sees their chance to gain some territory, while making us look weak.

[namvet]

Iraq is lost. IMO. Iran and ISIS will divide it up. Obama as usual is undecided what to do. clueless

Glenn Beck: Liberals Were Right (http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/06/19/glenn-beck-liberals-were-right)

saw this last night

[Drummond]

Not really. AQ wants to kill Americans, it's core to their whole presence these days, and we were already present in an area that didn't have another ruling body. I mean, seriously, it was like a buffet line for them. Had nothing to do with them wanting revenge for Saddam, though I'm guessing us blowing Afghanistan was a lot closer to the whole vengeance run.

Now, they smell the weakness in Iraq, and we've got war-fatigue, so now, AQ sees their chance to gain some territory, while making us look weak.

We're agreeing a lot more than is usual, DragonStryk !

I think I pretty much accept all you say. Except, possibly, on the 'revenge' aspect. I think you are right. I also think I am right. I believe that 'revenge', and the 'buffet line' aspects, both apply.

Remember - Saddam DID assist Zarqawi, their chief representative in the area. And .. whether or not solid agreements or arrangements existed between Saddam and Al Qaeda, remember, Al Qaeda couldn't have seen Saddam as less than helpful potential. Perhaps directly so. Perhaps very indirectly so, with intermediaries being involved.

Consider the WMD issue. Regardless of whether or not Saddam had some (I see no point in diverting into what I believe to be true on that, at least, not now) ... Al Qaeda surely couldn't have been positive in their own minds that he did not. So that alone, with Saddam KNOWN to be willing to aid terrorist causes, must've given them reason to think that Saddam could have done them a lot of good as a potential supplier of them.

So, Al Qaeda would definitely have been annoyed at losing all of that potential. Little wonder that they wanted to take on those responsible for ousting Saddam !

The war-weariness now felt by Americans is, to put it mildly, very unfortunate, as Al Qaeda WILL exploit it. In exploiting it, sooner or later they'll make America pay a price for it. If Americans are weary of all this, Al Qaeda and their ilk definitely are NOT. The edge this'll give America's enemies surely must be obvious.

[aboutime]

I dread hearing Obama use the words "Advisors", that remind me of another time..in my lifetime when we all heard those SAD, PHONY excuses before.

I am convinced Obama has destined 300 Americans to their demise at the hands of our own IDIOT who plays politics with Human Lives.

We know the ISIS gang is waiting for the confrontation with Americans.

Sadly. This president has not given them any ROE's (Rules of Engagement) to defend themselves.

If anyone has heard the ROE announced. Please share it.

I do hope the rest of the World is smart enough to see, and understand how Obama is intentionally destroying Freedom, Rights, and The Liberty of Millions with his Selfishness, and Narrowmindedness.

[DragonStryk72]

We're agreeing a lot more than is usual, DragonStryk !

I think I pretty much accept all you say. Except, possibly, on the 'revenge' aspect. I think you are right. I also think I am right. I believe that 'revenge', and the 'buffet line' aspects, both apply.

Remember - Saddam DID assist Zarqawi, their chief representative in the area. And .. whether or not solid agreements or arrangements existed between Saddam and Al Qaeda, remember, Al Qaeda couldn't have seen Saddam as less than helpful potential. Perhaps directly so. Perhaps very indirectly so, with intermediaries being involved.

Consider the WMD issue. Regardless of whether or not Saddam had some (I see no point in diverting into what I believe to be true on that, at least, not now) ... Al Qaeda surely couldn't have been positive in their own minds that he did not. So that alone, with Saddam KNOWN to be willing to aid terrorist causes, must've given them reason to think that Saddam could have done them a lot of good as a potential supplier of them.

So, Al Qaeda would definitely have been annoyed at losing all of that potential. Little wonder that they wanted to take on those responsible for ousting Saddam !

Actually, not really, because remember, this was part of the plan for AQ, as put forth by OBL. He wanted us to get so pissed we couldn't see straight, and keep miring ourselves deeper and deeper, until we over-extended. Iraq under Saddam would never have let them get any degree of power in Iraq, nor would have given them anything that could've been used to give them a possible upper-hand when they turned on him. So him having WMDs wouldn't have been advantageous to AQ. Now, on the other hand, Iraq becoming a scapegoat, and turning into a huge morass, that helped them plenty.

The war-weariness now felt by Americans is, to put it mildly, very unfortunate, as Al Qaeda WILL exploit it. In exploiting it, sooner or later they'll make America pay a price for it. If Americans are weary of all this, Al Qaeda and their ilk definitely are NOT. The edge this'll give America's enemies surely must be obvious.

True. The war-weariness is the fault of all side on our side of the pond. The Republicans used the wrong argument walking into Iraq, and were too quick to try and claim victory. The Dems basically just kept driving the wedge, and both sides refused to fully commit to creating a new Iraq.

Initially, the Iraqi people were quite happy for us to take away Saddam, but we made so many missteps. For one, we dissolved the Iraqi army with no plan for what to do with the now-unemployed soldiers. That right there, cost us. Many of the insurgents that we fought were former Iraqi soldiers who had been snatched up by various groups. We instead should have kept the army, retraining them, and re-equipping them. That would've left Iraq with a much stronger force in case of someone trying to take over.

Second was our failure to secure anything as we went. We basically ended up fighting a seven-front war, and had to keep shifting directions, notoriously a horrible way to fight a war.

Third, we refused to let them set up a three states system, which would have allowed the different factions each have their own state and reps. Going to a federalist system (You know, like the one the US uses), would have been far more efficient, and it was backed by the people themselves. It would've given them the time they needed to get themselves together, and slowly re-integrate over time. They oculd also have had each state with its own military force, further making sure that everyone felt secure.

I mean, the list really does go on quite a bit.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

True. The war-weariness is the fault of all side on our side of the pond. The Republicans used the wrong argument walking into Iraq, and were too quick to try and claim victory. The Dems basically just kept driving the wedge, and both sides refused to fully commit to creating a new Iraq.

Initially, the Iraqi people were quite happy for us to take away Saddam, but we made so many missteps. For one, we dissolved the Iraqi army with no plan for what to do with the now-unemployed soldiers. That right there, cost us. Many of the insurgents that we fought were former Iraqi soldiers who had been snatched up by various groups. We instead should have kept the army, retraining them, and re-equipping them. That would've left Iraq with a much stronger force in case of someone trying to take over.

Second was our failure to secure anything as we went. We basically ended up fighting a seven-front war, and had to keep shifting directions, notoriously a horrible way to fight a war.

Third, we refused to let them set up a three states system, which would have allowed the different factions each have their own state and reps. Going to a federalist system (You know, like the one the US uses), would have been far more efficient, and it was backed by the people themselves. It would've given them the time they needed to get themselves together, and slowly re-integrate over time. They oculd also have had each state with its own military force, further making sure that everyone felt secure.

I mean, the list really does go on quite a bit.
I agree with much of what you stated but and there is this massive but to deal with.
As long as Islam reigns in those nations every damn one of them is a festering sore that can never be healed and a punishing trap for us to ever try to reform unless we do so by massively reducing each population down to manageable and re-educating levels. Otherwise we are just damn fools on a fool's errand and wasting our lives and treasure on a damn pipe dream.
One does not try to train a festering pit full of poisonous vipers.
One should just destroy it's contents for the safety of all others!!!
That is exactly what this nation must face up to or else it will be conquered IMHO!
And it is exactly what they spend billions worldwide to make damn sure is
hidden, suppressed and never ever faced up to. For they wage wars on many fronts away from just the terrible scenes where they murder like mad raving dogs! Where they execute prisoners as if they were not humans but rather insignificant little insects.
Such insane and brutally evil things themselves must be eliminated if mankind is to survive, prosper and not be enslaved!
When Western civilization falls the world will plunge into the savage murdering darkness these ffing savages so very dearly love and happily murder to install!
As always truth hurts but it still stands against every attack every launched by mankind. -TYR

[DragonStryk72]

I agree with much of what you stated but and there is this massive but to deal with.
As long as Islam reigns in those nations every damn one of them is a festering sore that can never be healed and a punishing trap for us to ever try to reform unless we do so by massively reducing each population down to manageable and re-educating levels. Otherwise we are just damn fools on a fool's errand and wasting our lives and treasure on a damn pipe dream.

Not entirely true. See, the main problem we had is that we never bothered trying to work with the Iraqi people, and never fully committed to what we were doing there. We certainly managed to take out more than enough of the old guard to start fresh, and again, the Iraqis themselves were in favor of our help initially, until we kept stepping on them, and fucking it up.

One does not try to train a festering pit full of poisonous vipers.
One should just destroy it's contents for the safety of all others!!!

Except that it wasn't a pit, until we fucked it up, and made it one. Releasing the Iraqi Army with no jobs was just the most base kind of idiocy. Had we harnessed them, we had a much larger force than we otherwise would have, and could've forestalled the entire insurgency before it got rolling.

That is exactly what this nation must face up to or else it will be conquered IMHO!

And it won't be conquered. Much like Rome or the USSR, we are the only thing that can do us in, which is why OBL took the tactic it did in going after us. They know they can't take us out, just as they knew it with the USSR.

And it is exactly what they spend billions worldwide to make damn sure is
hidden, suppressed and never ever faced up to. For they wage wars on many fronts away from just the terrible scenes where they murder like mad raving dogs! Where they execute prisoners as if they were not humans but rather insignificant little insects.



Such insane and brutally evil things themselves must be eliminated if mankind is to survive, prosper and not be enslaved!
When Western civilization falls the world will plunge into the savage murdering darkness these ffing savages so very dearly love and happily murder to install!
As always truth hurts but it still stands against every attack every launched by mankind. -TYR

Please stop claiming what you say is truth. It's, for one, really arrogant, and second, generally not actually accurate, and therefore, not truth.

Again, we could've made Iraq a civilized hub for the region, but we didn't actually want to do the long work involved in that, which realistically, would've taken at least 20 years to bear fruit. That's one generation raised outside of the Iraq that existed before Saddam's fall. One full generation raised with proper education, and peace. Sadly, we're too instant gratification for that to be the way things went down.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Please stop claiming what you say is truth. It's, for one, really arrogant, and second, generally not actually accurate, and therefore, not truth.

Request that I must deny. First it is not arrogance on my part-----it is instead confidence.
Next , you are welcomed to your opinion but your advice that I should change mine or conform to guidelines you suggest seems too me to be arrogant on your part
And surely I will not post and never have post what I think not true, so that accusation is in error as well.-Tyr



Again, we could've made Iraq a civilized hub for the region, but we didn't actually want to do the long work involved in that, which realistically, would've taken at least 20 years to bear fruit. That's one generation raised outside of the Iraq that existed before Saddam's fall. One full generation raised with proper education, and peace. Sadly, we're too instant gratification for that to be the way things went down.

Actually, it will never work because Islam THERE will always attack it as long as Islam is there and able to do so. That is what America missed in its previous foray there. It is what you miss now!
Islam seeks to forever and always rule and Islam and democracy are mortal enemies!!! The two can not exist together where Islam is allowed to operate its rule the world agenda.--Tyr



Nice try amigo. ;)

[Drummond]

I'm not at all sure, DragonStryk, that a full generation divorced from the Saddam era would've been needed for a proper civilisation to take root in the area.

How familiar were Iraqis with true democracy, before Saddam fell ? Yet ... people took, enthusiastically so, to the whole process of voting in their own people in a remarkably short time.

Remember that those voters voted in a climate of considerable intimidation .. terrorists issued death threats against them. But, democratic process continued regardless.

I think the real problem isn't adaptability, but getting rid of the scum who want to get in the way of progress. So, to ...


Actually, it will never work because Islam THERE will always attack it as long as Islam is there and able to do so. That is what America missed in its previous foray there. It is what you miss now!
Islam seeks to forever and always rule and Islam and democracy are mortal enemies!!! The two can not exist together where Islam is allowed to operate its rule the world agenda.--Tyr

... and the obvious truth in those words. The only 'dragging down' factor that really matters is the Islamic terrorism that persists.

It needs to be destroyed, and so decisively that nobody will be keen to try it again. THIS is what makes Obama's enthusiasm for getting out of Iraq truly criminal ... and we see, now, where that betrayal has led. A country sold down the river, and your own with an enhanced chance of longer-term harm done to it, which SHOULD HAVE BEEN AVERTED.

[jafar00]

Again, we could've made Iraq a civilized hub for the region, but we didn't actually want to do the long work involved in that, which realistically, would've taken at least 20 years to bear fruit. That's one generation raised outside of the Iraq that existed before Saddam's fall. One full generation raised with proper education, and peace. Sadly, we're too instant gratification for that to be the way things went down.

I half agree with you. A better educated generation that hasn't known war would go a long way in Iraq. Iraq was fairly peaceful under Saddam's iron fisted rule. There wasn't any sectarian violence. Sunni married Shia and vice versa. They were neighbours and family. Ignoring the fact that much of the current trouble in the ME is due to the place being carved up by colonialists who ignored ancient tribal and ethnic lines, A new and properly educated generation would go a long way towards healing the deep wounds that have been carved into Iraqi society over the last century or so.

[Drummond]

I half agree with you. A better educated generation that hasn't known war would go a long way in Iraq. Iraq was fairly peaceful under Saddam's iron fisted rule. There wasn't any sectarian violence. Sunni married Shia and vice versa. They were neighbours and family. Ignoring the fact that much of the current trouble in the ME is due to the place being carved up by colonialists who ignored ancient tribal and ethnic lines, A new and properly educated generation would go a long way towards healing the deep wounds that have been carved into Iraqi society over the last century or so.

Iraq was 'fairly peaceful', eh ?

Iraq knew a different level of barbarity under Saddam's rule. But let's not kid ourselves that Saddam ran a remotely 'civilised' regime. He was a despot. A tyrant. He waged war against his neighbours, he used a WMD against the Kurds, he even bankrolled a terrorist organisation (.. guess who, Jafar ?). And, of course, he ultimately refused to become accountable for WMD stocks, refusing to freely supply the information UN Resolution 1441 demanded of him.

See ...

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Saddam's+family+stands+accused%3b+%60Murder%2c+tor ture+and+rape'.-a094806288


BRITAIN yesterday accused Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and his family of wide-scale and systematic human rights abuses.

In a new dossier on life under Saddam, the Foreign Office claimed the Baghdad regime used rape as an instrument of torture, along with methods ranging from acid baths and eye-gouging to mass executions.

The document, accompanied by a graphic video, painted a dreadful picture of Iraq as a country in which torture is ``systematic'' and "fear is Saddam's chosen method for staying in power''.

WHO, TODAY, WOULD DENY THE TRUTH OF THAT ?

Sadly .. many of our LEFTIES, tried to. The link goes on ...


... the document prompted a sceptical response from some Labour backbenchers who questioned the motivations behind its publication and from Amnesty International, who warned the Government against using human rights issues for political ends.

Officials denied that the 23page document - published six days before the deadline for Saddam to hand over details of his alleged weapons of mass destruction - was part of an exercise to prepare the public for a possible military attack on Iraq.

But Father of the Commons Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP for Linlithgow, said: ``I think that this highly unusual, indeed, unprecedented publication is cranking up for war.''

That's Lefties for you, Jafar.

[Gaffer]

A major factor to remember, islam cannot exist with democracy. They are exact opposites. Which is why there can never be peace in the ME as log as islam is the major source of laws in a country. Because islam does not allow freedom.

Also, you can't have elections and govt of the people while you have tribes and clans making up the society. There's no national recognition among the people, only tribal loyalties.

As for hussein, he had to be stopped from bombing both the kurds and the shea by establishing no fly zones. This crap of him keeping order in his country and the region is just crap.

What went wrong was that during the war we didn't fully crack down on the shea as we should have. We let sadr slip away to iran and left his army alone. iraq should have been treated like Japan after WW2, writing their Constitution for them and placing people friendly to us in power until they were able to stand on their own.