why was this found by the state department spokes dick to be unreasonable questioning

to me, this was a legitimate line of inquiry: as the leader of the coalition of nations seeking to stymie isis, why is the USA not restraining efforts by turkey to enter iraq without that nation's authority and fight against the kurdish forces the USA is believed to be supporting

and why the hell does the state department not know that the iraqi parliament is considering rescinding its security agreement with the USA to instead invite russia as its security partner

finally, why is it found to be good form to ridicule (bully?) this media correspondent who asks hard, but reasonable questions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMS8tYFk9Bc

Re: why was this found by the state department spokes dick to be unreasonable questio

justabubba said:

to me, this was a legitimate line of inquiry: as the leader of the coalition of nations seeking to stymie isis, why is the USA not restraining efforts by turkey to enter iraq without that nation's authority and fight against the kurdish forces the USA is believed to be supporting

and why the hell does the state department not know that the iraqi parliament is considering rescinding its security agreement with the USA to instead invite russia as its security partner

finally, why is it found to be good form to ridicule (bully?) this media correspondent who asks hard, but reasonable questions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMS8tYFk9Bc

Click to expand...

Well John Kirby and Gayane Chichakyan sure handled that back and forth in the worst possible way, but they both happen to be somewhat right.

We have no real direct evidence that the US is appealing to other nations to ignore Iraq's sovereignty in the fight against ISIS (Syria may be another matter.) Even though that was not quite the question, she was asking about Turkey. But, we do have plenty of question on all the motivations of all the parties involved across the spectrum. The questions on Turkey's involvement and perhaps usage of the conflict with ISIS as a means to hit the Kurds (or a faction of them) is reasonable to bring up. Especially in the context of all the US assets we have in Turkey right now. So is the question related to Iraqi Government question on their existing agreements with the US. Kirby is still correct in saying that the US is working with the current Iraqi government even if he left out that we all do not always see eye-to-eye on every action taken. It would not surprise me to see the Iraqi Government considering talking to Russia given how much more they have accomplished in far less time than the US has. And we still have the matter of US troops, the so called "boots on the ground," argument to have in relation to existing special operations that are already going on.

I still think Putin is again outplaying Obama but this whole video reeks of unprofessionalism. We do need to be exploring these subjects, and RT / the State Department could have handled this better.

Re: why was this found by the state department spokes dick to be unreasonable questio

justabubba said:

to me, this was a legitimate line of inquiry: as the leader of the coalition of nations seeking to stymie isis, why is the USA not restraining efforts by turkey to enter iraq without that nation's authority and fight against the kurdish forces the USA is believed to be supporting

and why the hell does the state department not know that the iraqi parliament is considering rescinding its security agreement with the USA to instead invite russia as its security partner

finally, why is it found to be good form to ridicule (bully?) this media correspondent who asks hard, but reasonable questions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMS8tYFk9Bc

Click to expand...

Go back a year or two and remember that the CIA shipped weapons from Benghazi, Libya arsenals and shipped them to Turkey and Turkey forwarded them to ISIS, allegedly to overthrow Assad and Syria. Irregardless, Turkey was supplying ISIS and the USA had to know that because we shipped the weapons to Turkey for this purpose. That has Turkey and the USA holding hands with ISIS, even if it is indirectly for purposes of deniability. Iraq is positioned to see all actions against ISIS in Iraq and even some of Syria and sees the arrival of USA weapons to ISIS and half-hearted or illusory actions against ISIS in Iraq. Specifically the invasion of Mosul by a miles long convoy of Toyota pickups and no satellite info and no attacks on the convoy and when the convoy reaches Mosul, the USA trained Iraqi army abandons its' weapons and leaves. I would say Iraq is having difficulty telling who's side the USA and Turkey are on. Russia reveals huge volumes of information that certifies that ISIS has good cash flow because it sells all its' stolen OIL through Turkey and Turkish supply lines. Turkey has been ovserved helping ISIS and now Turkey has tanks and troops that might be to help ISIS defend Mosul even though they are a NATO member and alleged ally. Who wouldn't be suspicious of the security agreement? It appears that Iraq is being played to everyone's advantage, except Iraq's. If I were Iraq, I would kick the USA out and ask Russian to help and have Russia state outright that there first helping step would be to kick foreigners out of Iraq and tell Turkey it means them and "get the tanks and troops out by day after tomorrow or you'll be needing body bags."

Re: why was this found by the state department spokes dick to be unreasonable questio

Moderator's Warning:

Closed for moderator review.