Not just any oli refinery, but the Baiji oil refinery, the largest oil refinery in Iraq.I read on drudge they had captured an oil refinery.
Where is Maliki?
I read where ISIS has been joined by tribal leaders of the “Awakening Council” and a Sunni military organization that has a lot of former army officers in it. The latter claim to have more strength within the conflict than ISIS itself.Not just any oli refinery, but the Baiji oil refinery, the largest oil refinery in Iraq.
I was listening to the radio today and a senior British military intelligence officer has described ISIS, not just as a terrorist organisation, but as a “functioning, operational, military”. I didn’t catch who exactly it was who said this and I can’t find the transcript online, but viewing ISIS as a weak, poorly trained, purely terrorist organisation is folly.
I don’t think ISIS will take Baghdad. Some Sunni suburbs, maybe. But there is a reason the iranian Quds force general is there. He isn’t alone.In post #432 Coatimundi shows a map of Iraq and the salmon colored area is the area where ISIS moves freely. So if they capture Baghdad will they continue to move south?
Are there American news crews over there now covering this like when we unvaded or is it too dangerous?
I agree, Baghdad isn’t at risk.I don’t think ISIS will take Baghdad. Some Sunni suburbs, maybe.
They have taken Sunni provinces where they have allies. A lot of the area in the West of Iraq is sparsely populated so while it is a lot of area, it is mostly uninhabited desert. They aren’t strong enough to take Shiite provinces.In post #432 Coatimundi shows a map of Iraq and the salmon colored area is the area where ISIS moves freely. So if they capture Baghdad will they continue to move south?
Are there American news crews over there now covering this like when we unvaded or is it too dangerous?
Ok. So do you think we should know by the end of the week?I don’t think ISIS will take Baghdad. Some Sunni suburbs, maybe. But there is a reason the iranian Quds force general is there. He isn’t alone.
In the unlikely event they completely take Baghdad, they will be unsuccessful in moving into the concentrated Shiite areas. That’s very open country, and even if the locals don’t fight (which they almost certainly will) they will be vulnerable to the real Iranian air force.
Maybe today, Congress is meeting on this now, also military budget cuts and Sergeant Bergdahl.Ok. So do you think we should know by the end of the week?
If baghdad is not at risk why did they send the 275 troops to guard the embassy and send the aircraft carrier over there?I agree, Baghdad isn’t at risk.
Whereas the city is not at risk, there could be a terrorist attack aimed at just selected targets, including the embassy. After Benghazi, the State Dept. isn’t about to risk it.If baghdad is not at risk why did they send the 275 troops to guard the embassy and send the aircraft carrier over there?
Which is why Obama is pausing on the order to start air raids. From the actions of the Pentagon, my guess is they are trying to get more accurate targets so as to avoid striking these ex-allies just yet. We have added manned surveillance flights today.I read where ISIS has been joined by tribal leaders of the “Awakening Council” …
POTUS needs to stop and think. Jumping back into Iraq, if he does it, could prove to be his life’s greatest regret.Which is why Obama is pausing on the order to start air raids. From the actions of the Pentagon, my guess is they are trying to get more accurate targets so as to avoid striking these ex-allies just yet. We have added manned surveillance flights today.
I support him staying out of Iraq and take no responsibility for what people do to their own countrymen. Where are the tears for Syria? Where were the tears for Sudan? Where are the tears for the victims of atrocities the world over?Obama and his supporters are responsible for the breakdown in Iraq and the slaughter of innocents.
Then why not go to Syria and look for them instead of remaining in Iraq and disrupting its stability? No, let me guess, that was Obama’s fault too - that Bush couldn’t find WMDs.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.
US civilians? That is who he is responsible for isn’t it?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.
On the other hand, he can’t abandon Iraq to terrorists. That will come back to haunt the US and the West in only a few years.POTUS needs to stop and think. Jumping back into Iraq, if he does it, could prove to be his life’s greatest regret.
Which terrorists? The ones on the government side or the ones fighting the government? Sorry, but when I open my eyes I can see no difference: dead is dead, no matter what your killers are called.On the other hand, he can’t abandon Iraq to terrorists. That will come back to haunt the US and the West in only a few years.
So we throw more lives after those already expended there in vain?we want the lives of the soldiers killed in Iraq to be in vain as well as all the good we tried to do?