Jihadists Seize Iraq's Nineveh Province!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I heard a speculation the 275 troops are there to bring back or destroy all sensitive materials if baghdad falls and they cannot protect embassy compound from falling in enemy hands.

Let’s pray baghdad does not fall.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I wouldn’t believe that for a second. The money used by the 9/11 hijackers during their stay here was funneled through the Saudi embassy in Washington DC and some transportation and living arrangements for two of the hijackers were coordinated by the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles. So, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that they are supporting ISIS.
Click to expand...
Why then did George Bush try to link Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks? Even though most of the hijackers were Saudis and given the alleged involvement of Saudi embassies.

Why was Saddam Hussein considered such a threat in the ‘war against terrorism’ while the Saudis were being viewed as ‘allies’. CIA director, George Tenet, later said, “We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period”.

Yet that didn’t stop using the supposed threat from Saddam Hussein (and implying involvement by him in 9/11) from being used as justification to start a war against him (that along with a claim of WMDs that never turned up) leading to his overthrow and the destabilisation of Iraq, leading to what we see today.

You could be forgiven for thinking that the allies we choose, the sides we back, and military, actions we take are not based either on what is morally right, or on issues of national security, but on other considerations.
 
7_Sorrows said:
Let’s pray baghdad does not fall.
Click to expand...
Amen, the Obama administration is exploring options instead of rescuing civilians at the embassy, its despicable. He was too busy with his anti-global warming commencement address and going to play golf in Palm Springs, while leaving civilians as “bait” for terrorists.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Amen, the Obama administration is exploring options instead of rescuing civilians at the embassy, its despicable. He was too busy with his anti-global warming commencement address and going to play golf in Palm Springs, while leaving civilians as “bait” for terrorists.
Click to expand...
Something about an ocean preserve also.

Let’s pray those still at the embassy and the 275 troops going to iraq will be okay and safe.
 
Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many. Too many times to count, Mr. Obama has told us he is “ending” the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—as though wishing made it so. His rhetoric has now come crashing into reality. Watching the black-clad ISIS jihadists take territory once secured by American blood is final proof, if any were needed, that America’s enemies are not “decimated.” They are emboldened and on the march.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fdick-cheney-and-liz-cheney-the-collapsing-obama-doctrine-1403046522&ei=MoOhU6WEPISayASOyIHoAQ&usg=AFQjCNGyXGqTtMAJdCXFAzAKJsZ6TQ0HgA&bvm=bv.69137298,d.aWw

President Obama to meet with “Congress” this afternoon-CNN
 
Brendan_64 said:
Why then did George Bush try to link Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks? Even though most of the hijackers were Saudis and given the alleged involvement of Saudi embassies.

Why was Saddam Hussein considered such a threat in the ‘war against terrorism’ while the Saudis were being viewed as ‘allies’. CIA director, George Tenet, later said, “We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period”.

Yet that didn’t stop using the supposed threat from Saddam Hussein (and implying involvement by him in 9/11) from being used as justification to start a war against him (that along with a claim of WMDs that never turned up) leading to his overthrow and the destabilisation of Iraq, leading to what we see today.

You could be forgiven for thinking that the allies we choose, the sides we back, and military, actions we take are not based either on what is morally right, or on issues of national security, but on other considerations.
Click to expand...
Bush never claimed that Iraq had anything to do with 911. The claim that he did is an American political strawman.

It’s true that WMD on the scale all intelligence agencies in the world (including the Russians, who were no friends of Bush’s) were never found. But that’s not to say that none were found, because they were. The Brits destroyed what is believed to be the last of them last summer, at the request of the Iraqi government. The Canadians took the yellow cake well before that, and converted it to nuclear fuel. While the yellow cake was certainly not weapons-grade material, Saddam’s purpose in having it was to ultimately have nuclear weapons.

Saddam Hussein started two wars, one of them virtually a world war. He also clearly manufactured and used WMD, against Iran and against the Kurds. It would have been naive to discount him as a threat to regional, if not world security. The first part of the war, in which many countries participated, including Arab countries, never ended. There was only a truce, which Saddam repeatedly violated.

Additionally, he did have terrorist training camps in Iraq, and paid suicide bombers’ families to have their deluded children kill Israeli civilians.

It’s not a simple “the WMD weren’t there” thing.
 
Obama and his supporters are responsible for the breakdown in Iraq and the slaughter of innocents.

WMDs probably went to Syria, that’s what Obama’s own nominee said and a lot of people have said WMDS were used in Syria.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Here’s an idea of the embassy, its basically a fortress.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FInternational%2Finside-us-embassy-iraq-threat%2Fstory%3Fid%3D24158942&ei=4ZChU9jaCYmxyAT6voL4Dw&usg=AFQjCNHI7SgakZltRa4ZZ-Bc8sXar3I9tA
Click to expand...
How did General Patton put it? “Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of mankind.” Something like that, anyway.

The U.S. should get every last person out and set remote-controlled bombs all over it, blowing it as soon as either ISIS or Iran’s forces surround it, in order to deprive our successors from using it. We should, of course, put up signs in Arabic and Farsi saying it’s booby-trapped so they don’t go in before it blows…a last departing gesture from the civilized world.

Just ruminating a bit. Before the colonial era, most of the world was ravaged and ruled by wild tribes having little regard for either humanity or objective morality. Colonialism damped that down for a considerable period in many places. But due to the arming of the tribesmen and the unwillingness of colonial powers to stay with the effort, the wild tribes are surging back.

America was not really a colonialist power. We got nothing out of our intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan, but we were able to keep peace and quell the savagery to the extent we were willing to do it. I remember, as a kid, thinking Vietnam to be the “last colonial war”, in effect, if not in the full panoply of objectives. But we didn’t sustain it, and the savages took over. I will never see what the ultimate result will be, but someday my descendants will. Hopefully it will be less savage, but it might not be. I was wrong, though. Vietnam was not the winding up of western civilization’s inroads into the world of savagery. Looks like the Middle East will be.

It appears too that the “dark empires” of the world are in for a resurgence; the Persian Empire, the Caliphate, the Russian Empire, the Chinese Empire, undoubtedly others, who don’t mind, and perhaps even enjoy, decimating the opposition with utter ruthlessness.

Those places were better off under western colonialism. The world was.

The question now is whether western civilization can save itself. The roles played by Sobieski before the gates of Vienna, Polish cavalrymen blocking Tukhachevsky, and that of Don Juan of Austria at Lepanto, are now different. But the basic situation is the same. The west is in full retreat and the enemies of civilization intend to attack.
 
Path_Finder said:
Obama and his supporters are responsible for the breakdown in Iraq and the slaughter of innocents.

WMDs probably went to Syria, that’s what Obama’s own nominee said and a lot of people have said WMDS were used in Syria.
Click to expand...
People can say the same of Bush, moreover, I don’t believe the majority of Obama supporters expected what is now happening in Iraq, i.e., they were not exactly told the truth of the situation regarding the state of unrest (President Obama kept saying that the war on terror was over, that things were fine so to speak).
 
This situation is for the Iraqi government to handle, and they certainly have the weaponry and manpower necessary to do the job. A government spokesman is already claiming that Tal Afar should be recaptured by Thursday morning.
 
Seamus_L said:
This situation is for the Iraqi government to handle, and they certainly have the weaponry and manpower necessary to do the job. A government spokesman is already claiming that Tal Afar should be recaptured by Thursday morning.
Click to expand...
The ISIS forces do look mighty thin, and have all along. Against a real army, I doubt they would stand much chance despite all of their newly-acquired American weaponry.

But it appears to me, at this point, that there’s really no such thing as “the Iraqi government”. There’s ISIS, the Kurds, and Iran, with perhaps a bit part to be played by the U.S. Air Force as a “loaner” to Iran. The notion of being unpaid mercenaries of Iran is repugnant to me, but that might be where we end up. I am not privy to whatever Valerie Jarrett or whoever actually runs the government is thinking.
 
Ridgerunner said:
The ISIS forces do look mighty thin, and have all along. Against a real army, I doubt they would stand much chance despite all of their newly-acquired American weaponry.

But it appears to me, at this point, that there’s really no such thing as “the Iraqi government”. There’s ISIS, the Kurds, and Iran, with perhaps a bit part to be played by the U.S. Air Force as a “loaner” to Iran. The notion of being unpaid mercenaries of Iran is repugnant to me, but that might be where we end up. I am not privy to whatever Valerie Jarrett or whoever actually runs the government is thinking.
Click to expand...
I read on drudge they had captured an oil refinery.
Where is Maliki?
 
7_Sorrows said:
I read on drudge they had captured an oil refinery.
Click to expand...
I think you are referring to the refinery at Baiji, which is Iraq’s largest. Here is a bit about the news:

Sunni fighters were in control of three quarters of the territory of the Baiji refinery north of Baghdad, an official said there, after a morning of heavy fighting at gates defended by elite troops who have been under siege for a week.
reuters.com/article/2014/06/18/us-iraq-security-idUSKBN0ET11320140618

The government is disputing that the refinery has been taken over, so there is some uncertainty as for the situation.

Iraq’s biggest oil refinery fell to Islamic extremists Wednesday morning, after army helicopter gunships failed to beat back an attack on the facility 130 miles north of Baghdad, according to refinery workers, eyewitnesses and an Iraqi army officer who fled the scene.

Other Iraqi officials, including the commander of the garrison defending the refinery, asserted that fighting was still going on, and that the facility had been shut down.
nytimes.com/2014/06/19/world/middleeast/iraqi-oil-refinery-ablaze-as-army-and-militants-clash.html

If control of the refinery has been lost, the government will lose an important source of revenue. If the refinery is taken by ISIS or its allies, and the refinery is operational, it could provide a significant stream of income.
7_Sorrows said:
Where is Maliki?
Click to expand...
From what I have read, he has committed himself pretty much full-time to the military side of his office. However, there are only so many places he can safely travel. Here is a map of Iraq, posted yesterday by the Daily Mail. I believe the salmon-colored area is were ISIS operates with some degree of freedom.
 
Ridgerunner said:
The ISIS forces do look mighty thin, and have all along. Against a real army, I doubt they would stand much chance despite all of their newly-acquired American weaponry.

But it appears to me, at this point, that there’s really no such thing as “the Iraqi government”. There’s ISIS, the Kurds, and Iran, with perhaps a bit part to be played by the U.S. Air Force as a “loaner” to Iran. The notion of being unpaid mercenaries of Iran is repugnant to me, but that might be where we end up. I am not privy to whatever Valerie Jarrett or whoever actually runs the government is thinking.
Click to expand...
Is this what Obama refers to as leading from behind, or his leaving behind? It surely isn’t smart diplomacy. This administration doesn’t do smart. At any rate with the latest government motors recall, it looks like Al-Qaida is alive and GM may be dead.
 
Seamus_L said:
This situation is for the Iraqi government to handle, and they certainly have the weaponry and manpower necessary to do the job. A government spokesman is already claiming that Tal Afar should be recaptured by Thursday morning.
Click to expand...
Was that spokesman Bagdad Bob?
 
Maliki, I can’t see how this ends with him staying. Baghdad should be OK, but thats a heck of situation to intentionally place civilians in. The rest of the country remains to be seen if they could hold. Irans troops are probably in the city outside the green area. The city is mostly Shiite, so Isis will have issues in Baghdad. Outside the city is another issue.

Should have never spun this far out of control.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top