Iraq / Saddam Hussein / and the gotcha question

Catatonic

Nine Lives
That he was winning.

And that President Odumbo lost.

By the time Obama leaves office ISIS will have all of Iraq, all of Syria, all of Yemen and part of Saudi Arabia.

Face it, Obama is sitting this war out.

No matter what the future consequences are.
And that may the smartest thing he has done while in office.
 

realbrown1

Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
And that may the smartest thing he has done while in office.
Oh, I don't"t know.

Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, Egypt, are all lining up in ISIS'S sights.

And they won't stop there.

They say they want to whole world under Islamic rules.

I believe them.

That's a declaration of war.

We will have to fight this war eventually.

They will not stop on their own.

I think we could wipe them out easier now than later.
 

realbrown1

Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Oh, I don't"t know.

Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, Egypt, are all lining up in ISIS'S sights.

And they won't stop there.

They say they want to whole world under Islamic rules.

I believe them.

That's a declaration of war.

We will have to fight this war eventually.

They will not stop on their own.

I think we could wipe them out easier now than later.
The TROLL PATROL can say my post is "funny", but ISIS'S goals have been repeated many times.

When someone threatens you, you should ALWAYS take it seriously.
 

Sportello

Well-Known Member
That he was winning.

And that President Odumbo lost.

By the time Obama leaves office ISIS will have all of Iraq, all of Syria, all of Yemen and part of Saudi Arabia.

Face it, Obama is sitting this war out.

No matter what the future consequences are.
What would you have 'Odumbo' do?

I think we should sit out all the tribal wars in the Mid East. Not worth our blood.

If you feel differently, a tough guy like you could always get mercenary work.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Isn't that a little problematic though? The reason the US wouldn't back the rebels in Syria was because they are what we now call ISIS, no?

Maybe no and yes but the reason our gov't pulled back in Syria was because of public pushback against the whole idea. In fact, there was global reaction and the Military Complex blinked and backed down.

And it wasn't a full pullback as our gov't stepped aside as direct aid supplier and used Saudi and Turkish go betweens to achieve the same thing. Even the Israelis got in some action. Benghazi became a key weapons depot shifting captured Libyan weapons into the hands of the rebels, Al Nursa the biggest beneficiary. The big question being if Ambassador Stevens was there to stop weapons transfers or there to enable them? If to enable I celebrate his getting greased along with his guard dogs.

Regardless if Stevens was there to stop or enable I suspect the real truth of Benghazi is the fact it was a weapons market we ran and neither side of the political isle wants this made known because either way of Stevens situation would be eye opening to the American public.

I also think Darrell Issa was the side show of look here, not there. Issa was dragging the red herring across the trail and everyone is in on the shell game. And lets be honest, Issa isn't smart enough, he just acts when instructed by others and like a good soldier takes the heat.
 

MAKAVELI

Well-Known Member
Oh, I don't"t know.

Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, Egypt, are all lining up in ISIS'S sights.

And they won't stop there.

They say they want to whole world under Islamic rules.

I believe them.

That's a declaration of war.

We will have to fight this war eventually.

They will not stop on their own.

I think we could wipe them out easier now than later.
If this is the case, maybe we need a WWIII.;)I mean we shouldn't have to fight the world's problems on our own.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
Maybe no and yes but the reason our gov't pulled back in Syria was because of public pushback against the whole idea. In fact, there was global reaction and the Military Complex blinked and backed down.

And it wasn't a full pullback as our gov't stepped aside as direct aid supplier and used Saudi and Turkish go betweens to achieve the same thing. Even the Israelis got in some action. Benghazi became a key weapons depot shifting captured Libyan weapons into the hands of the rebels, Al Nursa the biggest beneficiary. The big question being if Ambassador Stevens was there to stop weapons transfers or there to enable them? If to enable I celebrate his getting greased along with his guard dogs.

Regardless if Stevens was there to stop or enable I suspect the real truth of Benghazi is the fact it was a weapons market we ran and neither side of the political isle wants this made known because either way of Stevens situation would be eye opening to the American public.

I also think Darrell Issa was the side show of look here, not there. Issa was dragging the red herring across the trail and everyone is in on the shell game. And lets be honest, Issa isn't smart enough, he just acts when instructed by others and like a good soldier takes the heat.


Excellent interpretation. I support this argument.

TOS.
 

Morsi

Active Member
The pentagon, specifically the DIA predicted the rise of IS before it even happened in lieu of the fact that much of the Syrian rebels are salafists or radical islamists. The knew these factions would eventually lead to IS's creation yet felt it was nessesary in order to deter Iranian influence.

When you consider the difference between U.S military strategy in Iraq as opposed to Syria this would appear to make sense. Air strikes against IS are being conducted with much more fequency in Iraq then they are in Syria. I dont think this is because our military commanders consider IS in Iraq to be more of a threat, rather they are operating from a proxy war mentality. Strikes against IS will also help Assad, quite clearly they have no intention of doing that, even if it means sacrificing thousands if not millions of innocent people.

You can read the DIA report here;
https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-co...12-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Was it Lindsay Graham and John McCain who wanted to arm the Syrian rebels against Assad? The same Syrian rebels who now call themselves ISIS? Nice read of intelligence senators.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
Dont tell realbrown that his political heroes are the cause of ISIS... he still thinks we won in iraq...

As Gomer Pyle would say: "Surprise, Surprise Surprise..."
suprise-jim-nabors.jpg


Speaking of ISIS, Gee, look at the players in this room in Syria....

Why its old John McCain in a room full of terrorists discussing arms deals and strategy.....

You just cant make this shi-stuff up.



TOS.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
Was it Lindsay Graham and John McCain who wanted to arm the Syrian rebels against Assad? The same Syrian rebels who now call themselves ISIS? Nice read of intelligence senators.

NOT WANTED, BB, DID SO.

The carnage from ISIS lays at the feet of both men. It started with BUSH letting Al baghdadi go unconditionally in the first place.

TOS.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member

wkmac

Well-Known Member
You also have to understand the events in the Middle East as it relates to Sunni and Shai. For example the Saudi's would even ally with the Israelis if it meant taking down the Shai govts in Syria and Iran. Fact is, Israelis, Turks, Pakistani ISI and factions of the House of Saud have a hidden relationship. Like wrestling, they rarely break kayfabe so it's hard to spot but they do slip from time to time.

The Iraq govt is dominated by the Shai and being that ISIS and Al Qaeda are a Sunni movement, understanding this underlying religious conflict also helps to understand the deeper issues at play and how the west and the Israelis foment internal strife without getting blood and dirt on their hands. Israelis are new comers but the west have been masters at this for 100 years if not longer.
 

Morsi

Active Member
I'd agree that some journo's have spun the article to fit in line with their agenda. A misrepresentation of what the report is saying for sure. I don't think the U.S created IS, they were however complicit in allowing its creation which is just as bad.

They are masters of the game yet they continue to repeat the same mistakes of the past. I believe this is where the CIA phrase "blowback" comes from and it's potential is increasing exponentially by the day.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Being complicit will still get you a guilty conviction, well unless you are gov't and its "well connected" that is. Even get you a bailout at the expense of others.

War is nothing more than income redistribution by other means.

Carl Von Clausewitz once said "war is politics by other means" and being politics is the force behind income redistribution, I just reached my own conclusion.
;)
 

ImWaitingForTheDay

Annoy a conservative....Think for yourself
That he was winning.

And that President Odumbo lost.

By the time Obama leaves office ISIS will have all of Iraq, all of Syria, all of Yemen and part of Saudi Arabia.

Face it, Obama is sitting this war out.

No matter what the future consequences are.
The republicons trend in taking responsibility for the havoc that they cause. Rewrite the circumstances and actions that they take and put it on someone else...
 
Top