• 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!

Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance [W:246, 565, *656*]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

not true we had tangible victories and rebuilds of hearts and minds and towns and infrastructure in Iraq that is now literally destroyed..


Like that wonderful Iraqi military we trained that are joining the ISIS? They don't support the Maliki gov't because it's a Shiia minority running roughshod over a Sunni majority. Besides they don't want our democracy and never did.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Yeah, okay.

:roll:

its only the biggest scam in planet earths history.. if you dont know about it.. I consider your views 100% moot.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Like that wonderful Iraqi military we trained that are joining the ISIS? They don't support the Maliki gov't because it's a Shiia minority running roughshod over a Sunni majority. Besides they don't want our democracy and never did.

joining by gun point..
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

They are not stupid enough to get involved without a clear goal and an assessment that they will profit. If they do get involved, they WILL take over the oil fields, they WILL subjugate the people remaining and they WILL suck that country dry for everything it has and then leave. At least, that what I believe, if they get involved which I think is a "slim to none" chance.

Yes, that would be the worst case for sure.

I didn't realize there were so many chicken hawks lately, are these the same people who were for the first invasion? or is this because people think Obama should make the same mistakes as Bush?

I don't think it was Bush who left Iraq too soon.

He never imagined staying for decades on end. A little before the war he said this



George W. Bush - Wikiquote

As far as the Arab Spring, that was part of his overall vision too:



Address to the National Endowment for Democracy (November 6, 2003)

Yes, even back then I was saying that we should plan for a decades long occupation, but not a permanent one. I would have hoped that the Bush foreign policy team would recognize the need for continued involvement. Is there anyone who actually believed at the time that pulling out in 2011 wasn't too soon? I just could not imagine that Iraq was able to go it alone at that point. I don't think Iraq did, either, but they got themselves in a pissing contest with our CnC.

I don't know that China has the expeditionary capacity to intervene in any significant way.

At least not in the short run.

Not that it matters.

The Idiot in Chief is going to collude with Iran and this whole thing around Baghdad will be over in a heartbeat.

Then we'll sit idly by as Iran steamrolls the Pech in Kirkuk and keeps right on going into Kurdistan ending even the philosophical notion of a Kurdish state, which sucks because the Kurds are probably the only people in that region who deserve to be cared about.

This could be the absolute best thing that ever came of the War on Terror.

But Obama will find some way to screw it up and ensure we come out of it as the biggest loser.

China would take big losses if they tried it. I was thinking of a scenario in which China was denied a source of oil and they turned to military intervention in desperation. The Chinese seem reluctant to extend much beyond their traditional borders.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Yeah, okay.

:roll:

Ummmduh..yea ok.. this is why your posts are nonsense and ill informed...

The UN's oil-for-food scandal
Rolling up the culprits
America's legal authorities (but not many others) are still clearing debris from the UN programme that an ingenious Saddam Hussein turned to his own advantage
Mar 13th 2008 | From the print edition
CloseSave this articleClick this to add articles to your Timekeeper reading list. Learn more »

..“THE biggest financial scandal ever.” That is what one American senator called the shenanigans over the UN's oil-for-food programme. Designed to soften the impact of UN sanctions on the Iraqi people by allowing the supervised sale of some Iraqi oil, it ended up enabling Saddam Hussein to haul in lots of money and enriching many other shady types. The affair threatened to discredit the whole United Nations system and almost brought down Kofi Annan, its then boss. Even now, the scandal is quietly claiming victims, though in a lot of places it seems to have vanished mysteriously from the radar.

In its final report in October 2005, a committee of inquiry, headed by Paul Volcker, a former chairman of America's Federal Reserve, found that 2,253 firms, many of them household names, had made illegal payments totalling $1.8 billion to the Saddam regime.

That was not quite the world-beating scam claimed by some: the diversion of less than 2% of the value of transactions amounting to nearly $100 billion ($64 billion in oil sales, and humanitarian purchases worth $35 billion) looks almost squeaky-clean by the commercial standards of some energy-rich states. But it was a blot on an arrangement in which every cent was supposed to be monitored. And the Volcker panel's access to ministry files in post-war Iraq threw light on many deals that were meant to stay secret

snip

The UN's oil-for-food scandal: Rolling up the culprits | The Economist
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Moderator's Warning:
Alright folks...

There is an ENTIRE forum dedicated to the military where you can prattle on to your hearts content debating about whose fault Iraq is or what your opinions of Clintons actions were or anything else like that.

This thread however is SPECIFICLY for the discussion of the Breaking News regarding the insurgent advance in Iraq.

If your post doesn't DIRECTLY and clearly relate to that going forward then understand you may be met with thread bans. This is the breaking news section. It's here to discuss the breaking news stories. It's not here to be the catch all "everything related to iraq in any way shape or form" thread.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Obama has declared the war on terror over and that AQ "is on the run"....Egypt and Syria are doing great..

but go back to your out of context liberal bashing of GWB

Don't you just love irony.... people who, in the process of admonishing you, do the exact thing they are being critical of....

You should re-read my text. My criticism was of US policy regarding Iraq over a 10-20 year period... that includes several presidents. The fact that Bush Jr. made the most bold strides toward a policy makes him the worst offender of the lot; but I did throw him into lot. I also credit George HW Bush for good policy on Iraq.....

It was you that introuced out-of-context CON bashing of Obama. He was not on topic of my point at all......
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

no doubt of it.. its who Obama is... people never did the correct due dilligence on him and his other name Barry Soetero..

look at Obamas mentors? not one that was not an anti USA loon

Many of us warned about this back in 2007. Now, here we are reaping the lack of interest in anything other than appearance the voters so adamantly insisted on. Sucks, but the voting public asked for it - demanded it even.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Many of us warned about this back in 2007. Now, here we are reaping the lack of interest in anything other than appearance the voters so adamantly insisted on. Sucks, but the voting public asked for it - demanded it even.

I agree 100%
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Would you support the US losing, if it meant Obama looked bad and got removed or would you support a US victory, even if it made Obama look good?

We have already lost the Middle East and North Africa because of Obama's failed foreign affairs policies.

Name those with in the Obama White House who have any military or intelligence community experience ? There are none. Obama and those he surrounded themself with "Don't trust the military" (per Robert Gates) and ignore the military advisor's. (per Robert Gates and Leon Panetta)
They (Obama administration) despise the military. They believe that the military purpose is for liberal social engineering.

We defiantly can't put troops on the ground because of the 33 Army combat brigades, only 3 are rated as combat ready. Troops attending mandatory sensitivity classes trumps combat training in todays Obama's PC military.

Obama is incompetent as CnC and his entire administration are incompetent and are liars.
 
Back To Iraq. General Swarzcoff (sp)said "We or our children will be back."
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Moderator's Warning:
Alright folks...

There is an ENTIRE forum dedicated to the military where you can prattle on to your hearts content debating about whose fault Iraq is or what your opinions of Clintons actions were or anything else like that.

This thread however is SPECIFICLY for the discussion of the Breaking News regarding the insurgent advance in Iraq.

If your post doesn't DIRECTLY and clearly relate to that going forward then understand you may be met with thread bans. This is the breaking news section. It's here to discuss the breaking news stories. It's not here to be the catch all "everything related to iraq in any way shape or form" thread.

Well, damn. The soap box looked so big it's just very tempting. I even found Iraq on the map just to be prepared. For example, I was completely unaware that Iraq borders Texas. Okay, maybe I had the map folded the wrong way, but it made for interesting speculation, all the same.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Probably the mystery of what happened to Saddam's WMD will never be fully known. He had plenty of time to move out a lot of stuff during the 12 long weeks that we negotiated with the U.N. that was reluctant to enforce its own resolutions re Iraq. But to put that into perspective, 60 million people were killed to put down tyranny in World War II. Most of the Iraqis killed were killed by other tyrants who did not want there to be democracy or freedom in the Middle East. But the decade of sanctions were also taking their toll on the Iraqi people with some 50,000, many of those children, believed to have died from malnutrition and other deprivation as a direct result of those sanctions that were severely hurting the people and greatly enriching Saddam and his cronies.

But in World War II, the tyrants were overcome with overwhelming force and brought to complete, unconditional surrender. Then we could help them rebuild under our terms alone. The 'evil' nations were completely transformed into peaceful allies, good neighbors to the world.

We didn't have the will to do that in Iraq. As we have done in every military conflict since, however, we didn't have the will to use overwhelming force and bring the nation to complete submission in Iraq. We just stopped fighting the war. And every time we have done that, we left an enemy, not an ally, when we left.

I don't know why anybody thought Iraq would be any different.

Much of why "we just stop fighting the war" over the years is because the people grow weary of the situation and propaganda is a major factor in accomplishing that. Take the Iraq war. First the Democrats were all on board for the invasion. Two years later they started changing their tune heading up to the 2004 elections. It was at that point the media was pivotal in the constant drum beat of an anti-Iraq message. The Democrats took every opportunity to depict our soldiers as heartless murderers. Remember Haditha? Where the two "Johns" Murtha and Kerry were constantly accusing our soldiers of autrocities? Ironically after almost destroying these soldier's lives every one of them was proved innocent. The rules in which our military operates changes with every administration. In the past six years this administration has pretty much tied the hands of our soldiers keeping them from doing what they were trained to do. Take Benghazi as an example. According to recently declassified testimony of Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, before the House Armed Services Committee in October, the U.S. military regards itself as legally barred from going after the perpetrators of the Benghazi attacks (and, presumably, others who attack Americans) unless they are affiliated with al-Qaeda. The Obama administration’s parsing of words to deny al-Qaeda’s direct involvement effectively precludes a military response in these types of situations. There are consequences for elections and we sure as hell are paying dearly for the last two when it comes to our defense and military.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Like that wonderful Iraqi military we trained that are joining the ISIS? They don't support the Maliki gov't because it's a Shiia minority running roughshod over a Sunni majority. Besides they don't want our democracy and never did.

For clarification Iraq is 60-70% Shia with a Sunni minority. What evidence do you have that Iraqi's do not want democracy? Numerous polls in tandem with electoral participation seem to indicate otherwise. They simply want an equitable and working democracy instead of what they've been presented with.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Yes, that would be the worst case for sure.



I don't think it was Bush who left Iraq too soon.



Yes, even back then I was saying that we should plan for a decades long occupation, but not a permanent one. I would have hoped that the Bush foreign policy team would recognize the need for continued involvement. Is there anyone who actually believed at the time that pulling out in 2011 wasn't too soon? I just could not imagine that Iraq was able to go it alone at that point. I don't think Iraq did, either, but they got themselves in a pissing contest with our CnC.



China would take big losses if they tried it. I was thinking of a scenario in which China was denied a source of oil and they turned to military intervention in desperation. The Chinese seem reluctant to extend much beyond their traditional borders.

Oh, so we left too early, got it. How long was America supposed to stay and hold Malaki's hand? 10 years? 15? 20? remember, he didn't want us there under our conditions.

I read on USA today that Obama isn't going to send troops, whew, I'm glad. And the secretary said we'll have limited air engagement with this ISIS group.
 
Last edited:
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Like that wonderful Iraqi military we trained that are joining the ISIS? They don't support the Maliki gov't because it's a Shiia minority running roughshod over a Sunni majority. Besides they don't want our democracy and never did.

Except that the Shi'a sect is the majority there by a wide margin--roughly 2/3rds Shi'a to 1/3rd Sunni. Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath party and his elite Republican Army were Sunni Muslims and reigned with an iron hand over the majority Shiites. The new government promoted by the USA and U.N. was largely controlled by Shi'a Muslims and the minority Sunnis have deeply resented losing power and being relegated to minority status. The new insurgency is almost certainly all Sunnis infiltrated by al-Qaida and other terrorist/pro Islamic state/anti-liberty forces.

In the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion, Donald Rumsfield commented that one of their worst mistakes was not disarming the Republican Army before disbanding it and sending those people home. They then became the core of the insurgency that wrecked so much havoc on Iraq in the years following the invasion. In retrospect I don't think it made much difference. There are plenty of anti-liberty forces in the Middle East more than anxious to arm anybody willing to fight for the glory of Allah.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Let's take a walk down memory lane shall we? There were several chemical weapon factories discovered where intelligence believed they were destined to be used against our troops. The threat of chemical weapons being used on our guys in the region through terrorist organizations Saddam was funding was real. It is why all the troops were equipped with special outerwear. Some of the intelligence was faulty ......some of it wasn't.

IF you read the article it is pretty clear the chemical weapon factory was set-up AFTER the fall of Saddam. It NEVER produced any chem weapons, so it isn't proof Saddam's regime made post GWI chem weapons for use against American troops.

No smoking gun and the terrorist group responsible was most likely the same al-queera crowd Saddam hated and called Saddam a heretic.... :peace
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Would you support the US losing, if it meant Obama looked bad and got removed or would you support a US victory, even if it made Obama look good?

I for one would welcome an Obama victory that made him look good. I just know by now that that is not ever going to happen.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

I for one would welcome an Obama victory that made him look good. I just know by now that that is not ever going to happen.

Well, if ISIS is on the march to Baghdad, this might work.

 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Oh, so we left too early, got it. How long was America supposed to stay and hold Malaki's hand? 10 years? 15? 20? remember, he didn't want us there under our conditions.

As long as it took.

I read on USA today that Obama isn't going to send troops, whew, I'm glad. And the secretary said we'll have limited air engagement with this ISIS group.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the next election. I suspect a lot of Democrats will be distancing themselves from the President on this issue also.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

As long as it took.



It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the next election. I suspect a lot of Democrats will be distancing themselves from the President on this issue also.

Obama isn't up for reelection.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

If the current Administration thinks it can just watch Iraq fall into chaos and not be negatively impacted they are fooling themselves. Since the day he took office he hasn't lifted a finger to try and stabilize the situation there, and his indifference has played a HUGE part in what is happening in Iraq RIGHT NOW. You don't have to agree with me, but I promise you history will. buh-bye
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Much of why "we just stop fighting the war" over the years is because the people grow weary of the situation and propaganda is a major factor in accomplishing that. Take the Iraq war. First the Democrats were all on board for the invasion. Two years later they started changing their tune heading up to the 2004 elections. It was at that point the media was pivotal in the constant drum beat of an anti-Iraq message. The Democrats took every opportunity to depict our soldiers as heartless murderers. Remember Haditha? Where the two "Johns" Murtha and Kerry were constantly accusing our soldiers of autrocities? Ironically after almost destroying these soldier's lives every one of them was proved innocent. The rules in which our military operates changes with every administration. In the past six years this administration has pretty much tied the hands of our soldiers keeping them from doing what they were trained to do. Take Benghazi as an example. According to recently declassified testimony of Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, before the House Armed Services Committee in October, the U.S. military regards itself as legally barred from going after the perpetrators of the Benghazi attacks (and, presumably, others who attack Americans) unless they are affiliated with al-Qaeda. The Obama administration’s parsing of words to deny al-Qaeda’s direct involvement effectively precludes a military response in these types of situations. There are consequences for elections and we sure as hell are paying dearly for the last two when it comes to our defense and military.

Part of it is what you say--political correctness has wormed its way into attitudes about war and is just as much of a liar there as it is everywhere else it raises its ugly head.

But mostly I think it is a reluctance or lack of will to use overwhelming force when we fight wars any more. Maybe that's a politically correct thing too--a demand that we pull our punches and minimize collateral damage and that inevitably prolongs things and forces us to drag them out which, over the long run, increases injuries and deaths. And then the war weariness soon kicks in and whatever support the effort had in the beginning will wane and/or disappear.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

IF you read the article it is pretty clear the chemical weapon factory was set-up AFTER the fall of Saddam. It NEVER produced any chem weapons, so it isn't proof Saddam's regime made post GWI chem weapons for use against American troops.

No smoking gun and the terrorist group responsible was most likely the same al-queera crowd Saddam hated and called Saddam a heretic.... :peace

I know there is sworn testimony from former weapon inspectors Duelfer and Kay that would disagree with your assessment. I'll see if I can find their testimony on the web and get back with you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom