Iraq- revisited

[jlprk]

You cited articles talking about Obama wanting a limited strike against Syria because they used chemical weapons. He looked like a fool and got schooled by Putin.

I quoted articles saying that Obama is not seeking to go through the UN or NATO. He wanted to form a coalition of the willing to support limited air strikes.

I suggest something entirely different (go through NATO) that shouldn't be going over your head. You're too smart for that.

You said that Obama had foolishly ignored having NATO fight Syria, because Obama either didn't want to fight or just wanted a lightweight little symbolic show of force.

I said that as I recalled, NATO didn't want to fight, it requires unanimity of 28 votes, some countries must get their parliaments' permission, and Britain's Parliament was opposed.

You said balderdash, I was wrong, Obama could have had a nice Bush-size war had he just used NATO, but chickened out.

I verified to myself that my memory was right, then bombed you to pieces in Post #47 with B-52s-full of articles saying that NATO did not have the votes to fight a war in Syria, nor did the British Parliament.

Since you lost all your artillery in that post, you have been forced to use your only remaining weapons, semantic games about how you didn't really say something, and that you were really arguing about something else.

That's always PapaG's strategy. You should be better than him. Actually, a bum on the street should be better than him.

 

[jlprk]

You have no idea what would happen if Saddam were still in power. Based upon past history, he'd have slaughtered his own people by the hundreds of thousands. Based upon what was going on at the time, our "allies" would have resumed relations with Iraq and Saddam would be building WMDs again.

Or if the oil for food program continued, Saddam would have built more palaces while children starved and died of preventable disease.

Those things are all well documented.

The guy who was wrong was Obama, who said the surge wouldn't work (it did)

Surge worked? Then why this thread?

Half a million children died from American sanctions of medicine in the 1990s? Yes, that's on your warmonger side, not ours.

Slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Not true, but even if true, what do you think Bush did? Plus the internecine warfare the U.S. set up so it could leave. The U.S. surpassed Saddam long ago.

 

[Denny Crane]

You said that Obama had foolishly ignored having NATO fight Syria, because Obama either didn't want to fight or just wanted a lightweight little symbolic show of force.

I said that as I recalled, NATO didn't want to fight, it requires unanimity of 28 votes, some countries must get their parliaments' permission, and Britain's Parliament was opposed.

You said balderdash, I was wrong, Obama could have had a nice Bush-size war had he just used NATO, but chickened out.

I verified to myself that my memory was right, then bombed you to pieces in Post #47 with B-52s-full of articles saying that NATO did not have the votes to fight a war in Syria, nor did the British Parliament.

Since you lost all your artillery in that post, you have been forced to use your only remaining weapons, semantic games about how you didn't really say something, and that you were really arguing about something else.

That's always PapaG's strategy. You should be better than him. Actually, a bum on the street should be better than him.

NATO was never asked to consider a peacekeeping mission. The Brits were asked to join a coalition of the willing to attack Syria without NATO or the UN. The brits voted against that.

You still don't get it. Obama had no intention of asking for NATO troops on the ground to keep the peace. He wanted to bomb the place and tuck tail and run like a coward. Your memory fails you, because you got it wrong.

 

[jlprk]

I still see no links proving what is simply your speculation, or disproving my links.

 

[Denny Crane]

Nice history rewrite there.

NATO was fine going into Libya.

Obama chose not to go through NATO to deal with Syria. Instead of trying to broker a peace there, he was fixated on revenge for the use of chemical weapons.

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/...eeking-un-nato-permission-strike-syria/69446/

BANDER SERI BEGAWAN, Brunei — With its military ready to attack Syria on President Obama’s command, the United States is no longer pursuing a United Nations or NATO stamp of approval to respond with force to the purported deployment of chemical weapons.

Instead, the U.S. has focused on building a rapid coalition consisting of the United Kingdom, France and several Arab states, by sharing intelligence evidence that U.S. officials say proves Bashir al Assad’s regime was responsible for last week’s chemical weapons attack.

“Syria used chemical weapons against its own people,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in a BBC interview in Brunei, where he arrived on Tuesday for a two-day meeting of Asian defense ministers.

The U.S. military is “ready to go,” Hagel said. Hagel spoke to his British and French counterparts on Tuesday and told the BBC that most leaders in the international community “have little doubt that the most base, human, international humanitarian standard was violated [by Syria] in using chemical weapons against their own people.”

Now there is little talk anymore within the administration of seeking a U.N. or NATO imprimatur for a retaliatory military strike against Syria.

“If action is taken, it probably won’t be pursued through the U.N. or NATO,” a senior U.S. official told Defense One. “These aren’t the only ways to undertake such action, and any response would be conducted pursuant to the law.”

Nah. No links at all.

Here's another, from WaPost.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...51391e-f55b-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html

In 2011, the situation in Iraq was so good that the Obama administration was actually trying to take credit for it, with Vice President Joe Biden declaring that Iraq “could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”

Now in 2014, as Iraq descends into chaos, Democrats are trying to blame the fiasco on — you guessed it — George W. Bush. “I don’t think this is our responsibility,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, declaring that the unfolding disaster in Iraq “represents the failed policies that took us down this path 10 years ago.”

Sorry, but this is a mess of President Obama’s making.

When Obama took office he inherited a pacified Iraq, where the terrorists had been defeated both militarily and ideologically.

Militarily, thanks to Bush’s surge, coupled with the Sunni Awakening, al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI, now the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS) was driven from the strongholds it had established in Anbar and other Iraqi provinces. It controlled no major territory, and its top leader — Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — had been killed by U.S. Special Operations forces.

Ideologically, the terrorists had suffered a popular rejection. Iraq was supposed to be a place where al-Qaeda rallied the Sunni masses to drive America out, but instead, the Sunnis joined with Americans to drive al-Qaeda out — a massive ideological defeat.

Obama took that inheritance and squandered it, with two catastrophic mistakes:

First, he withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq — allowing the defeated terrorists to regroup and reconstitute themselves.

Second, he failed to support the moderate, pro-Western opposition in neighboring Syria — creating room for ISIS to fill the security vacuum. ISIS took over large swaths of Syrian territory, established a safe haven, used it to recruit and train thousands of jihadists, and prepared their current offensive in Iraq.

More reality at the link.

 

[MarAzul]

Nah. No links at all.

Here's another, from WaPost.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...51391e-f55b-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html

In 2011, the situation in Iraq was so good that the Obama administration was actually trying to take credit for it, with Vice President Joe Biden declaring that Iraq “could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”

Now in 2014, as Iraq descends into chaos, Democrats are trying to blame the fiasco on — you guessed it — George W. Bush. “I don’t think this is our responsibility,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, declaring that the unfolding disaster in Iraq “represents the failed policies that took us down this path 10 years ago.”

Sorry, but this is a mess of President Obama’s making.

When Obama took office he inherited a pacified Iraq, where the terrorists had been defeated both militarily and ideologically.

Militarily, thanks to Bush’s surge, coupled with the Sunni Awakening, al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI, now the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS) was driven from the strongholds it had established in Anbar and other Iraqi provinces. It controlled no major territory, and its top leader — Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — had been killed by U.S. Special Operations forces.

Ideologically, the terrorists had suffered a popular rejection. Iraq was supposed to be a place where al-Qaeda rallied the Sunni masses to drive America out, but instead, the Sunnis joined with Americans to drive al-Qaeda out — a massive ideological defeat.

Obama took that inheritance and squandered it, with two catastrophic mistakes:

First, he withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq — allowing the defeated terrorists to regroup and reconstitute themselves.





Second, he failed to support the moderate, pro-Western opposition in neighboring Syria — creating room for ISIS to fill the security vacuum. ISIS took over large swaths of Syrian territory, established a safe haven, used it to recruit and train thousands of jihadists, and prepared their current offensive in Iraq.

More reality at the link.

Denny, I fear you may be in error here. Perhaps Obama is not the great fuckup he appears to be. I sometime get the impression that he is, fundamentally changing America just as he predicted.
Many of us had no idea what that meant. Well now the blank is becoming an image.

 

[MarAzul]

No, I have no idea how I managed to get two post on the board.

 

[barfo]

More reality at the link.

Funny how what you label reality the newspaper labels 'opinion'.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Funny how what you label reality the newspaper labels 'opinion'.

barfo

The "opinion" is reality. It's one thing to try and predict the future, but he's discussing the past. 20-20 hindsight.

 

[PapaG]

Fundamentalist Muslims in Egypt, Iraq, and Libya get US support via weapons and NATO when overthrowing a more sectarian govt. Sectarian opposition in Iran gets zero help against the religious govt.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I feel for the citizens of Iraq . . . I'm guessing a majority of them would rather live under a dictator like Saddam than live in the country the way it is now.

 

[PapaG]

I feel for the citizens of Iraq . . . I'm guessing a majority of them would rather live under a dictator like Saddam than live in the country the way it is now.

As long as they weren't Kurds or Shi'ites of course. What???

I'm guessing any Iraqi with a brain thinks they'd rather still have US troops at bases instead of the ISIS units who occupy them now after Obama had our troops desert them, and then not being smart enough to obliterate them with Tomahawks minutes after the last troop was safe on a plane.

 

[jlprk]

Nah. No links at all. Here's another, from WaPost.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...51391e-f55b-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html

You said that Obama should have attacked Syria using NATO. I proved with many links (I got more if you want more) that NATO didn't have the 28 votes to do it. You continue to say, through your irrelevant links (you're now up to 2 links, congrats), that Obama then said that if he did attack, he wouldn't use NATO.

You keep repeating yourself. You still have no link to back up your blog-inspired tale that NATO was willing to go to war. Just admit you're wrong so you can stop getting pounded in this thread.

 

[Denny Crane]

You said that Obama should have attacked Syria using NATO. I proved with many links (I got more if you want more) that NATO didn't have the 28 votes to do it. You continue to say, through your irrelevant links (you're now up to 2 links, congrats), that Obama then said that if he did attack, he wouldn't use NATO.

You keep repeating yourself. You still have no link to back up your blog-inspired tale that NATO was willing to go to war. Just admit you're wrong so you can stop getting pounded in this thread.

You're confusing "attack syria" with a peacekeeping mission for syria.

So Obama blows of NATO and asks the Brits to vote on attacking Syria. Of course the Brits voted against that. They weren't given the chance to vote on peacekeeping.

And I posted a link saying Obama was not interested in going the NATO route.

I don't need to repeat it, you need to read it and comprehend it.

 

[jlprk]

You keep talking as if Britain was the only vote against war out of 28. As my links said, there were many. One of those links:

http://en.alalam.ir/news/1511451

All those articles say that NATO had "no intention of intervening," "of military action," "no action should be taken." If NATO opposed intervention after a supposed gas attack, they sure opposed replacing the existing UN peacekeeping force with a NATO force, which everyone knew was a lie, a cover for military attack, as it had been in Libya.

By the way...you got any articles tallying the NATO votes to start a NATO "peacekeeping" force? Got anything to show 28 NATO votes other than an editorial from the usual American general? I sure hate to keep asking...

And even if he could have bribed NATO into unanimity, Obama didn't even have the votes in Congress, not even among Republicans, to do that. Everyone sane, plus warmongers, spoke strongly against any involvement about Syria.

 

[Denny Crane]

You keep talking as if Britain was the only vote against war out of 28. As my links said, there were many. One of those links:

http://en.alalam.ir/news/1511451

All those articles say that NATO had "no intention of intervening," "of military action," "no action should be taken." If NATO opposed intervention after a supposed gas attack, they sure opposed replacing the existing UN peacekeeping force with a NATO force, which everyone knew was a lie, a cover for military attack, as it had been in Libya.

By the way...you got any articles tallying the NATO votes to start a NATO "peacekeeping" force? Got anything to show 28 NATO votes other than an editorial from the usual American general? I sure hate to keep asking...

And even if he could have bribed NATO into unanimity, Obama didn't even have the votes in Congress, not even among Republicans, to do that. Everyone sane, plus warmongers, spoke strongly against any involvement about Syria.

OK, one more time.

Those articles talk about retaliation for use of chemical weapons. Obama's line in the sand.

Not the same thing as a peacekeeping mission.

Earlier the British Parliament had rejected the UK government's resolution on Syria. Britain will not join any military action against Syria after a stunning parliamentary defeat on Thursday of a government motion on the issue, dealing a setback to US-led efforts to attack Syria over the alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians. - See more at: http://en.alalam.ir/news/1511451#sthash.S7bFT4se.dpuf

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/intervention-lessons-from_b_3858228.html

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama should have done something similar to what he did in Libya.

"There's genocide going on, let's put an end to that and keep the two sides from killing each other."

 

[Denny Crane]

The link between Syria and Iraq by the UN.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...q-syria_n_5502650.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

GENEVA, June 17 (Reuters) - The Middle East appears on the brink of wider sectarian war engulfing Iraq and Syria with radical Islamist insurgents wantonly kidnapping, torturing and killing civilians, U.N. human rights investigators said in a report on Tuesday.

Militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)group have routed Baghdad's army and seized the north of Iraq in the past week, linking it with a major swathe of territory previously taken in eastern Syria during the civil war there.

"We predicted a long time ago the dangers of spillover both ways, which is now becoming a regional spillover," said Vitit Muntarbhorn, an international law expert who took part in the inquiry. "We are possibly on the cusp of a regional war and that is something we're very concerned about."

U.N. human rights Navi Pillay said on Monday forces allied with ISIL in northern Iraq had almost certainly committed war crimes by executing hundreds of non-combatant men over the past five days.

A report presented on Tuesday to the U.N. Human Rights Council said foreign Sunni jihadi militants and funds had poured into Syria where rebel factions including ISIL were wantonly abusing civilians in zones they controlled.

"A regional war in the Middle East draws ever closer. Events in neighboring Iraq will have violent repercussions for Syria," the investigators' report said.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Looks like the Jihadists have found Saddam's WMDs. :MARIS61:

Chemical weapons produced at the Al Muthanna facility, which Isis today seized, are believed to have included mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX.
Here is the CIA's file on the complex.
Quote Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.
Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed.
These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.
Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quantitiesof unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals.
17.05 The Chemical Weapons Convention, which Iraq joined in 2009, requires it to dispose of the material at Al Muthanna, even though it was declared unusable and "does not pose a significant security risk"
However, the UK goverment has acknowledgeded that the nature of the material contained in the two bunkers would make the destruction process difficult and technically challenging.
Under an agreement signed in Baghdad in July 2012, experts from the MOD’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) were due to provide training to Iraqi personnel in order to help them to dispose of the chemical munitions and agents.
The Al Mutannah chemical weapons complex (CIA)
16.52 The remaining chemical weapons from Saddam Hussein's regime are stored in two sealed bunkers, both located at the Al Muthanna Chemicals Weapons Complex, a large site in the western desert some 80km north west of Baghdad.
This was the principal manufacturing plant for both chemical agents and munitions during Saddam Hussein’s rule.
Thousands of tonnes of chemical weapons were produced, stored and deployed by the Saddam Hussein regime. Iraq used these weapons during the Iran - Iraq War (1980 to 1988) and against the Kurds in Halabja in 1988.
16.32 Isis jihadists have seized a chemical weapons facility built by Saddam Hussein which contains a stockpile of old weapons, State Department officials have told the Wall Street Journal:
Quote U.S. officials don't believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said.
Nonetheless, the capture of the chemical-weapon stockpile by the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, known as ISIS or ISIL, the militant group that is seizing territory in the country, has grabbed the attention of the U.S.
"We remain concerned about the seizure of any military site by the ISIL," Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said in a written statement. "We do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to safely move the materials

 

[Denny Crane]

How about a link to your article?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ongress-amid-calls-for-Maliki-to-go-live.html

 

[jlprk]

All they found was the factory Reagan sold them. It was dismantled soon after War #I. All it has now is some chemicals all nations have, like sarin, but no delivery methods.

Here is James Fallows homage to the 3-4 remaining defenders, which includes Denny, of Iraq War #2.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ll-faulkner-said-but-what-did-he-know/372887/

 

[Denny Crane]

You'd think Obama would at least send in the drones. He's good at that.

 

[Denny Crane]

Thanks for the biased media article, by the way.

 

[jlprk]

It's now the bias of the 99%. Let's count the legs left under your stool...Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz...sorry, Humpty.

 

[Denny Crane]

Your article is about "blame Bush."

He hasn't been president for 6 years, and Obama's had TWO Secretaries of state serve at his pleasure.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-critics-on-iraq-violence-bush-doctrine-was-right/

Ten years after the invasion, another CBS News poll found that number was unchanged: 54 percent of Americans still believe the U.S. shouldn't have gone into Iraq. Thirty-eight percent said taking military action was the right thing to do.

36 percent of 310 million legs to that stool you think I stand on. Though you got my position wrong. I was in favor of taking out Saddam and nothing more. Like we did with Noriega.

 

[jlprk]

I didn't include bloody-mouth warmonger Southerners as Americans, so you're still a dog with 3 legs.

As for taking out Saddam and leaving, you have said that a few times before. But many more times, you have defended the long, long war.

 

[jlprk]

Can someone offer an explanation why the media still solicit advice about the crisis in Iraq from Senator John McCain (R-AZ)? Or Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)? Is this just a case of lazy journalism?

How many times does the Beltway hawk caucus get to be wrong before we recognize that maybe, just maybe, its members don’t know what they’re talking about?

Certainly Politico could have found someone with more credibility than Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy in the George W. Bush administration and one of the architects of the Iraq War, to comment on how the White House might react to the rapidly deteriorating political situation in Iraq today. Certainly New York Times columnist David Brooks knows what folly it is to equate President Obama’s 2011 troop removal with Bush’s 2003 invasion, as he did during a discussion with me last Friday on NPR?

Just a reminder of what that 2003 invasion led to: Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes authoritatively priced Bush’s war at more than $3 trillion. About 320,000 US veterans suffer from brain injury as a result of their service. Between 500,000 and 655,000 Iraqis died, as well as more than 4,000 US military members.

 

[Denny Crane]

I didn't include bloody-mouth warmonger Southerners as Americans, so you're still a dog with 3 legs.

As for taking out Saddam and leaving, you have said that a few times before. But many more times, you have defended the long, long war.

Nope. I voted for Mike Badnarik, who would have brought the troops home in 2004. If you voted for Kerry, you voted to extend the war.