• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS[W:452]

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS



Top Bush Era CIA Official Just Confirmed the Iraq War Was Based On Lies

Twelve years after George W Bush initiated the illegal invasion of Iraq, ostensibly under the premise of preemptive self-defense, a stark majority — as many as 75% in 2014 — feel the so-called war was a mistake. As evidence rapidly accumulates that Bush’s yearning to launch an aggressive attack was likelier due to a personal grudge than anything else, that number will surely swell. This past Tuesday, the former president’s intelligence briefer lent yet more plausibility to that theory in an interview on MSNBC’s Hardball, making an admission that the Bush White House misrepresented intelligence reports to the public on key issues.

http://theantimedia.org/cia-official-just-confirmed-iraq-war-based-on-lies/

George W. Bush’s CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD “intelligence” was a lie
Former CIA Deputy Director and intelligence briefer Michael Morell

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/20/george_w_bushs_cia_briefer_admits_iraq_wmd_intelligence_was_a_lie/
 
Last edited:
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Top Bush Era CIA Official Just Confirmed the Iraq War Was Based On Lies

Twelve years after George W Bush initiated the illegal invasion of Iraq, ostensibly under the premise of preemptive self-defense, a stark majority — as many as 75% in 2014 — feel the so-called war was a mistake. As evidence rapidly accumulates that Bush’s yearning to launch an aggressive attack was likelier due to a personal grudge than anything else, that number will surely swell. This past Tuesday, the former president’s intelligence briefer lent yet more plausibility to that theory in an interview on MSNBC’s Hardball, making an admission that the Bush White House misrepresented intelligence reports to the public on key issues.

Top Bush Era CIA Official Just Confirmed The Iraq War Was Based On Lies

George W. Bush’s CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD “intelligence” was a lie
Former CIA Deputy Director and intelligence briefer Michael Morell

George W. Bush’s CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD “intelligence” was a lie - Salon.com
It's clear that you don't understand the difference between opinion pieces and actual facts.

That you would quote MSNBC while condemning Fox News and Bob Woodward is quite funny.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

It's clear that you don't understand the difference between opinion pieces and actual facts.

That you would quote MSNBC while condemning Fox News and Bob Woodward is quite funny.

Nice try, we're quoting Michael Morell former CIA deputy director TELLING MSNBC that the intelligence was a big fat, BIG FAT, BIG FAT ****ING LIE!!!!!
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Nice try, we're quoting Michael Morell former CIA deputy director TELLING MSNBC that the intelligence was a big fat, BIG FAT, BIG FAT ****ING LIE!!!!!
Please use the quote in the interview where Morell said it was "a big fat, BIG FAT, BIG FAT ****ING LIE!!!!!"
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Please use the quote in the interview where Morell said it was "a big fat, BIG FAT, BIG FAT ****ING LIE!!!!!"


Morell said it was a lie, the bolded emphasis is mine. ;)
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Carter saying Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' sparks more criticism, concern about Obama plan | Fox News

Here we go again with our desperate attempts to train those who will shoot at our backs once they will be left alone.

They say you can take a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink. Bush Jr. invaded the wrong country (as if he could invade the right one). Iraqis understand they will die from ISIS attacks, but many of them got addicted to ISIS propaganda. So both facts are against US there - the fact Iraqis are muslims makes them sympathize isis and they never stopped treating us as invaders so I'm not surprised they don't want to fight.

It seems Pentagon's idea was to create non-US troops to fight ISIS and to oppose terrorists without getting involved to a direct confrontation.

So, does it mean we spend money on training future terrorists?


What else is new? I remember stories during the first Iraq war in the 90s about how whenever the Iraqi troops would see a tank or a bunch of Americans, they would turn around and run away. Even if they outnumbered us.

Sheesh.

The Iraqi army is a joke. There is no way they defeat Isis without international help, bottom line.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

In the Hardball interview, host Chris Matthews asked Morell about Cheney’s notorious statement in 2003: “We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” The following is the conversation that ensued:
MATTHEWS: Was that true?
MORELL: We were saying—
MATTHEWS: Can you answer that question? Was that true?
MORELL: That’s not true.
MATTHEWS: Well, why’d you let them get away with it?
MORELL: Look, my job Chris—
MATTHEWS: You’re the briefer for the president on intelligence, you’re the top person to go in and tell him what’s going on. You see Cheney make this charge he’s got a nuclear bomb and then they make subsequent charges he knew how to deliver it…and nobody raised their hand and said, “No that’s not what we told him.”


The thing is, the Iraq War was not the result of an intelligence goof — rather, the country’s top office systematically misled the public about Iraq’s nonexistent WMD program, as well as Saddam Hussein’s link to Al Qaeda.

On Tuesday night, former CIA Deputy Director and Bush’s intelligence briefer Michael Morell appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” where he, under an amount of good cable news duress, admitted that the administration intentionally misrepresented intelligence.
 
Last edited:
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

In the Hardball interview, host Chris Matthews asked Morell about Cheney’s notorious statement in 2003: “We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” The following is the conversation that ensued:
MATTHEWS: Was that true?
MORELL: We were saying—
MATTHEWS: Can you answer that question? Was that true?
MORELL: That’s not true.
MATTHEWS: Well, why’d you let them get away with it?
MORELL: Look, my job Chris—
MATTHEWS: You’re the briefer for the president on intelligence, you’re the top person to go in and tell him what’s going on. You see Cheney make this charge he’s got a nuclear bomb and then they make subsequent charges he knew how to deliver it…and nobody raised their hand and said, “No that’s not what we told him.”


The thing is, the Iraq War was not the result of an intelligence goof — rather, the country’s top office systematically misled the public about Iraq’s nonexistent WMD program, as well as Saddam Hussein’s link to Al Qaeda.

On Tuesday night, former CIA Deputy Director and Bush’s intelligence briefer Michael Morell appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” where he, under an amount of good cable news duress, admitted that the administration intentionally misrepresented intelligence.
So he didn't say it was a lie???

Why did you say he did?
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Sooooo... in trying to show that my numbers are off by a factor of 10 you post an "About News" article that does quantify many of the atrocities listed and appears to stop in 1991?

Yeah, not thick enough.

Even more telling is that the one quantifiable atrocity in that article credited Saddam with slaughtering 182,000 Kurds during the al-Anfal campaign which is, if my math is correct, more that the "factor of 10" you claim in your post. Talk about exaggeration to sell an argument! :lamo

Interesting! Rather than defend your number of 1 million killed by Saddam, you chose instead to challenge me on the magnitude of the exaggeration. So, thank you for conceding the point that you did grossly exaggerate the number.....

....leaving us to simply argue over the degree of your gross overstatement.

Note that one major atrocity that was cited in the previous posted article, that is the ONE really big atrocity of Hussein's rule, was 1988 Al-Anfal Campaign. The article I posted cited up to 182,000 slaughtered. That number, however, is the number reported by the Kurds (upon whom the atrocity was committed). Historically, those on the receiving end of such things tend to overstate. The number that Human Rights Watch reports is 50-100,000. No question that is a major atrocity, but its back to my point that your 1 million number grossly overstated Hussein's killings by 10 fold.

Again, we appreciate you conceding that you did grossly overstate and now we are just arguing about the magnitude of it.... which is rather pointless.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

What else is new? I remember stories during the first Iraq war in the 90s about how whenever the Iraqi troops would see a tank or a bunch of Americans, they would turn around and run away. Even if they outnumbered us.

Sheesh.

The Iraqi army is a joke. There is no way they defeat Isis without international help, bottom line.

Ever have a dog that wouldn't hunt?

Nothing to do but make him a house pet.

They know they are apostates and hypocrites and they don't put any value in the idea of Democracy and man's laws. They know that ISIS is the JUST CAUSE. (Islamic-ally speaking)

They are hopeless, by and large.

It is better that we realize that this was a fight we had to try as the champions of Democracy but now that the results are conclusive, it is best to cut our losses and learn as much as we can from the experience and let those lessons positively color our future foreign policy.

But, I predict that will not happen until we finally lose our silly idea of the nature of Islam.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

So he didn't say it was a lie???

Why did you say he did?

Wow, you should take your meds, see the doc, or something if you missed that, I even helped by holding it for you, lol.

In fact, according to an interactive database released by the Center for Public Integrity, Bush lied 232 times about weapons of mass destruction and 28 times about Iraq’s ties to Al Qaeda. He’s the winner by the way with those 260 lies. Colin Powell is runner up with a total of 254 lies.

NOT JUST ONE LIE
 
Last edited:
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Wow, you should take your meds, see the doc, or something if you missed that, I even helped by holding it for you, lol.

In fact, according to an interactive database released by the Center for Public Integrity, Bush lied 232 times about weapons of mass destruction and 28 times about Iraq’s ties to Al Qaeda. He’s the winner by the way with those 260 lies. Colin Powell is runner up with a total of 254 lies.

NOT JUST ONE LIE
We're not discussing your other claims regarding ever more lies. Just point out the one lie you claim Morrel made. Just one lie!

I'll save you more dancing around. He did not say it was a lie. In fact it was you who lied about that. Do you appreciate the irony?
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

We're not discussing your other claims regarding ever more lies. Just point out the one lie you claim Morrel made. Just one lie!

I'll save you more dancing around. He did not say it was a lie. In fact it was you who lied about that. Do you appreciate the irony?

You've never saved yourself in a debate that I've seen as yet, I wouldn't be attempting any heroics. Your tripping over one lie, and I gave you over two hundred of them with a link, which you no doubt ignored. It's been a bitter pill to swallow, and though many have conceded the lies, hard liners hang, if by their fingernails, clinging in such desperation, perhaps to avoid the humiliation of having defended for so long, the lies that produced Americas largest foreign policy disaster in a century, maybe ever. What a position to be in. :sinking:

And there's more. Referring to the claims made by Bush, Cheney, and other administration officials that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda, Morell noted, "What they were saying about the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda publicly was not what the intelligence community" had concluded. He added, "I think they were trying to make a stronger case for the war." That is, stronger than the truth would allow.

Morell's remarks support the basic charge: Bush and Cheney were not misled by flawed intelligence; they used the flawed intelligence to mislead.
 
Last edited:
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

You've never saved yourself in a debate that I've seen as yet, I wouldn't be attempting any heroics. Your tripping over one lie, and I gave you over two hundred of them with a link, which you no doubt ignored. It's been a bitter pill to swallow, and though many have conceded the lies, hard liners hang, if by their fingernails, clinging in such desperation, perhaps to avoid the humiliation of having defended for so long, the lies that produced Americas largest foreign policy disaster in a century, maybe ever. What a position to be in. :sinking:
You said, "Nice try, we're quoting Michael Morell former CIA deputy director TELLING MSNBC that the intelligence was a big fat, BIG FAT, BIG FAT ****ING LIE!!!!!"

Now, when asked to quote where Morell said anyone lied, you cannot do it. I know you just made it up and so do you. Why not just admit it and let it go rather than dancing on to other areas?
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

You said, "Nice try, we're quoting Michael Morell former CIA deputy director TELLING MSNBC that the intelligence was a big fat, BIG FAT, BIG FAT ****ING LIE!!!!!"

Now, when asked to quote where Morell said anyone lied, you cannot do it. I know you just made it up and so do you. Why not just admit it and let it go rather than dancing on to other areas?

Morell said that the administration lied, whereas I already told you the bolded emphasis was mine. Pointing out further lies isn't dancing about to other areas, it's the same exact area of LIES. You remain amongst an infinitesimal minority who have been buried in the documentation of the Bush administration lies and still yet refuses to accept it. I'm sorry for the burden you bear with that.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

That's cool, I wouldn't hold it against you for not being up to speed on American history and politics.

Especially if it would hijack the thread.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Thank you for that.

From the cited source.

"Both said that Iraq had no active WMD. Both were ignored or dismissed."

An analogy.

Why did (do) Liberal Americans ignore or dismiss the advice of Conservatives about Barack Obama?

It's clear (in retrospect) that they were (are) right.

I'd say it's because they had no way of verifying the validity of the advice at the time.

And that right there is the crux of the matter of Saddam's WMD's.

There was no way the reports could be confirmed as true or dismissed as B.S.

And in the absence of believable intel the assumption HAD to be that he DID have them and that Israel WAS possibly at existential risk.

And please remember that Saddam was given two or three weeks to either open up to COMPLETELY UNFETTERED weapons inspections OR to find exile in a welcoming country and with him could go all of his family, wives, mistresses and his ill gotten loot from government coffers.

He refused.

Game on.

There is no doubt that Saddam could have prevented the invasion. This simple fact is lost on those that want to criticize the engagement. This is a pity, as it loses the important questions of how it came that we found ourselves in a situation in which war was a correct response, although, it was expensive and should have been avoided.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Interesting! Rather than defend your number of 1 million killed by Saddam, you chose instead to challenge me on the magnitude of the exaggeration. So, thank you for conceding the point that you did grossly exaggerate the number.....

....leaving us to simply argue over the degree of your gross overstatement.

Note that one major atrocity that was cited in the previous posted article, that is the ONE really big atrocity of Hussein's rule, was 1988 Al-Anfal Campaign. The article I posted cited up to 182,000 slaughtered. That number, however, is the number reported by the Kurds (upon whom the atrocity was committed). Historically, those on the receiving end of such things tend to overstate. The number that Human Rights Watch reports is 50-100,000. No question that is a major atrocity, but its back to my point that your 1 million number grossly overstated Hussein's killings by 10 fold.

Again, we appreciate you conceding that you did grossly overstate and now we are just arguing about the magnitude of it.... which is rather pointless.

Nope, I was pointing out that in your accusation of exaggeration on my part you actually exaggerated.

Al-anfal: 182,000 (from your source)

Systemic starvation under Oil-for-Food abuses: 400,000-500,000

Repression of 1991 uprising: up to 280,000

Total: 962,000

The only gross overstatement was made by you.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

There is no doubt that Saddam could have prevented the invasion. This simple fact is lost on those that want to criticize the engagement. This is a pity, as it loses the important questions of how it came that we found ourselves in a situation in which war was a correct response, although, it was expensive and should have been avoided.

I am heartened by your reply.

Thank you!

I get tired of the same old recitation of LW talking points or RW less than inspired justifications for the war.

You are a thinking man. And I appreciate your post.

But, in light of current events, which has prompted many intellectual excursions into the hazy and as yet unwrit future, I can imagine an unexpected benefit from the invasion which may make the whole thing look like a bargain in the long run.

ISIS.

ISIS has shown us that when push comes to shove Middle Eastern Muslims place a greater
value and importance on Islamic doctrine than on Democracy.

The two are at odds.

And in the face of the TRUEST followers and warriors of Mohammed we see that those who could and initially do sign up to fight for their own freedom and Democracy and man's law (i.e. the Iraqi military) flee Allah's Mujaheddin.

Sometime down the line that knowledge could be priceless.

When the SHTF M.E. Muslims will side with Islam before they would side with Democracy.
 
Last edited:
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

We'll then, I don't know where you found your list at but by points two and four, the US has no sovereignty. Along with quite a few other countries you likely still consider sovereign, lol.

Well, if any country feels they can make that case, then they have the right to invade us.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Let them try. ;)

If I were to try and invade the US, I would probably come thru Canada, and I would come thru with the backing of the entire world. Because that is the only way you could defeat the US on its own soil.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

If I were to try and invade the US, I would probably come thru Canada, and I would come thru with the backing of the entire world. Because that is the only way you could defeat the US on its own soil.

It would take the whole world and it probably still wouldn't work. We are just too big and we are fairly isolated (north America). It woudn't even get through the military. Dont forget how much of our military is deployed outside the US.

And even if an invasion worked, an American insurgency would exhaust any illusions. Countries this big don't collapse from outside, they collapse from within.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

If I were to try and invade the US, I would probably come thru Canada, and I would come thru with the backing of the entire world. Because that is the only way you could defeat the US on its own soil.

You are unfamiliar with how great nations, cultures and civilizations implode or corrode from within, I take it.

That is the method being used by Jihadists.

The Five Stages of Islam

Forget the Five Pillars of Islam. It is the Five Stages of Islam that threaten the fundamental freedoms of Western Democracy. Freedoms which include freedom of thought, expression, and association and the crucial derived right of freedom of the press. We should never forget that "Islam" means submission -- the opposite of self-determination and Enlightenment values.

Six years ago Dr. Peter Hammond published a remarkable book which included a statistical study of the correlation between Muslim to non-Muslim population ratios and the transition from conciliatory Islam to fascist Islam. The stages are the same in 2011 but the demographics have changed to show an alarming progression. Many European nations and the U.S. are on the cusp of moving to a higher bracket. The demographics change but the story is the same. First comes the taqiyya and the kitman; then comes the Sword of Islam. Imam Rauf, the Ground Zero Mosque promoter, is the current master of taqiyya. He has gulled everyone from Bloomberg to Maureen Dowd of the NYT -- who fanaticizes over male Muslims. Expect doppelgangers of Khomeini for stage 5 and Islamic PEACE at last.

Stage 1. Establish a Beachhead

Population density à 2% (US, Australia, Canada).


Muslims are conciliatory, deferential but request harmless special treatment (foot bath facilities, removal/elimination of that which is offensive to delicate Muslim sensibilities - like walking dogs near Mosques).

Stage 2. Establish Outposts

Population density 2% - 5% (UK, Germany, Denmark).


At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. A recent example is that of Sheikh Abdullah el-Faisal who is back in Jamaica after being kicked out of the UK. Sound harmless? Read on:

The dispatch, dated February 2010, warns that that Jamaica could be fertile ground for jihadists because of its underground drug economy, marginalized youth, insufficient security and gang networks in U.S. and British prisons.


Stage 3. Establish Sectional Control of Major Cities.

Population density 5% - 10% (France, Sweden, Netherlands).


First comes the demand for halal food in supermarkets, and the blocking of streets for prayers; then comes the demand for self rule (within their ghettos) under Sharia. When Muslims approach 10% of the population the demands turn to lawlessness. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any criticism of Islam results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam. In France which may be over the 10% range, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrassas. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death.

Stage 4. Establish Regional Control.

Population density 20% - 50% (Europe 2020?).


After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues.

Stage 5. Total Control, Brutal Suppression, and Dhimmitude.

Population density > 50%.


Unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels. As Muslim population levels increase and all infidels cower in submission there will peace at last. Dar al-Islam is achieved and everyone lives under Sharia and the Koran is the only word.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/the_five_stages_of_islam.html#ixzz3bfoDltgW
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom