The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: philw on June 12, 2014, 06:33:00 PM
-
what say you all
I say yep we will be back teach them for pulling out too soon.
-
what say you all
I say yep we will be back teach them for pulling out too soon.
Not likely.
It would screw up BHO's plans for a Muslim World
He could be supplying them with arms....and that is suspected as the reason for the Benghazi Massacre...to cover up arms deals with Muslim Brotherhood...our Ambassador knew to much.
-
if there is a significant loss of control of the oil production or oil transportation areas
-
Nope.
If the oil supply gets messed up BO will use it to push his failed "Green" agenda and further wreck US business. Even though the US gets little if any of it's oil from the region.
If he does intervene in any way it will be to strengthen the anti Western murderous Islamists supported by Iran.
Besides that, from the point of view of our real national interests, who gives a crap what they do to each other ?
It isn't as if they haven't been killing each other for the last 1000 years.
-
They don't want it bad enough, if a few militants can have their way with the powers that be.
Let them stew in their own lack of competence! We don't need to be wasting billions on them for nothing!
They are probably in collusion with the militants, trying to extort $ from us.
-
Why did we go to Iraq in the first place?
-
Why did we go to Iraq in the first place?
Well there was that whole WMD thing....and Bush II said he wanted Saddam because:
"He tried to kill my daddy."
So Saddam is at the end of a rope, no WMDs found, should have said "Later Dudes!" right then and told whoever rose to power that they needed to play nice with the neighbor kids or we'd be back and kick their azzes again.
Instead we tried "nation building" and the .gov screwed that up just like "nation building" HERE. What a freaking waste of lives, blood, time & money.
-
Well there was that whole WMD thing....and Bush II said he wanted Saddam because:
"He tried to kill my daddy."
So Saddam is at the end of a rope, no WMDs found, should have said "Later Dudes!" right then and told whoever rose to power that they needed to play nice with the neighbor kids or we'd be back and kick their azzes again.
Instead we tried "nation building" and the .gov screwed that up just like "nation building" HERE. What a freaking waste of lives, blood, time & money.
Don't know if anyone cares about it any more, but I believe the Geneva Convention requires the conquering nation to provide stability and protection for the conquered nation until they can reestablish a functioning government and military defense.
If there is a next time, we should be considering a kinetic option to neutralize the threat.
No reason to take any gear associated with us either
-
If you plan on building an effective military force for a country you need to figure on 20 years at least.
You can train up buck Sargent's and Captians in 4 or 5 years, but to make it stick you have to have trained, experienced Generals .
It takes a full generation for the trainees to work their way up to where the whole force is working from the same play book.
And before any one starts spouting that liberal crap about "No WMDS" remember this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxLw3YC5MTU
-
sounds like they are gearing up for a fight from the reports i saw today
-
Here's the thing about Iraq.
There are 3 separate "nations", the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds, and they all HATE each other.
even Saddam could not keep them all playing nice all the time, and neither the US or any one we support would have guts enough to go to the extremes Saddam did.
The so called "nation" of Iraq is nothing but lines on a map having no relation to actually ethnic groupings.
And then there is Iran right next door who hates them all and hasn't missed a chance in 35 years to stir up trouble.
-
If you plan on building an effective military force for a country you need to figure on 20 years at least.
You can train up buck Sargent's and Captians in 4 or 5 years, but to make it stick you have to have trained, experienced Generals .
It takes a full generation for the trainees to work their way up to where the whole force is working from the same play book.
And before any one starts spouting that liberal crap about "No WMDS" remember this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxLw3YC5MTU
At the time, I was following this fairly closely and was weighing the news stories for likely truth, looking for multiple independent sources, veracity of contradicting stories and any other means that presented itself and I'd have given it a 90% chance that Iraq had WMDs and was looking for more.
If you look at the type of guy Saddam was, there is no doubt that he would have obtained ANY WMDs he could get his hands on. I mean, it was not in him to lay awake at night considering the risk WMDs would present to his populace and the rest of the world.
The question should be: Who did he hand them off to in the months it took to build a coalition of nations to oppose Saddam so we could feel good about it and have some CYA should the winds of public opinion blow foul.
We learned in Afghanistan that the waring factions, even the one who had our support, tended to look at the conflict as two fronts. One the everlasting fight amongst themselves and, two, the fight of both of them against the US.
-
The question should be: Who did he hand them off to in the months it took to build a coalition of nations to oppose Saddam so we could feel good about it and have some CYA should the winds of public opinion blow foul.
He passed them on to Syria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard
http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/israel-strike-on-syria-also-hit-bioweapons-facility/
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htchem/articles/20060123.aspx
NBC Weapons: Chemical Shells Found in Iraq
NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICALÂ WEAPONS
Â
January 23, 2006: American troops in Iraq have run across chemical artillery shells on quite a number of occasions. There've never been more than a handful found in any particular cache, and all of them have been old, easily dating back to the period of the '90-'91 war. These shells were probably stashed away for "safekeeping" and then forgotten. Apparently none of the shells are usable, and in most cases the chemicals have deteriorated or leaked away. It would be extremely unlikely that any of these shells would be of tactical use. But if someone were to use one in an IED attack, despite the fact that no one would be injured by the chemical component, the PR impact might be serious.
Even the Huffington Post confirmed Iraqi chemical weapons before it became "Bush's fault".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/us-gave-iraq-intel-ignored-chemical-attacks_n_3817868.html
-
Of course Saddam used to have WMDs, (I think we still have the receipts somewhere), but what was brought out in interrogation of him was that he kept saying he still had WMDs to scare Iran.
The shithole landfill dissolving into civil war that is Iraq, is going to be a shithole landfill dissolving into civil war 100 years from now regardless of what the US does.
-
Found a couple of headlines on this topic this morning.
First one was about local resistance forming to the "invaders", but I can't find the link now. Did not read it at that time because the defenders will probably end up fighting with or against the "invaders" depending upon who lives in the city that is next on the list.
Found a link:
http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2014/06/grab-guns-iraqis-baghdad-beyond-reaching-guns-call-arms-isis/
This one, I don't even want to think about...did not read it...head in sand
Obama administration weighs ‘my enemy’s enemy’ foreign policy with Iran
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/16/obama-administration-weighs-my-enemys-enemy-foreign-policy-with-iran/
-
I have heard, though I have not looked into it myself, that the US is asking Iran to handle security for our embassy in Iraq.
That should work out well. ::)
-
I have heard, though I have not looked into it myself, that the US is asking Iran to handle security for our embassy in Iraq.
That should work out well. ::)
Geeze....anything can happen with this admin.
I read that our military would accept certain illegal aliens into the service.
This was about the time of the Gitmo 5 trade...
There happens to be 6 members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I predict another terrorist release soon.
-
The evening news said that some SF troops are going in to "help" the Iraqis. Just f---ing wonderful.
-
There is a claim that nearly 40 former upper level officers in Saddam's regime walked off their posts and let Mosul fall. Lt Gen Ali Ghaidian, General Aboud Qanbar, and General Mahdi al Ghazawi, all old guys from Saddam's army are supposed to be a part of that....and all of these guys are Baathists so that means old insiders.
So...this mixes it up a bit. ISIS may be being used....to reclaim Saddam's old empire...or not. Seems plausible to me if the above information is I heard is true. Let them march through town....get shot up on the way to Baghdad...see what happens maybe go for it now maybe not. Another word is that something like this has been in the plans for 5 or 6 years waiting for us to leave. They should have not left the Baathists in charge I suppose....if anything could help I dunno.
Surely this makes a lot more sense than a bunch of terrorists who flocked in from outside...this initiative clearly has some command and control not to mention military vehicles (also an indication of help from the "inside").
And also this word...the House of Saud is rattling sabres about breaking off relations with the US. They wanted us to go after Syria...seems as though the House of Saud is now raising an army of 40k to 50k to send into Syria to topple it. I'm thinking Assad is better than Saudi financed radicals running Syria.
And old Baathists, if they retain control, may be better than the Iraqi's we support as leaders as opposed to having a terrorist state/nation.
Are we going back? Probably with some SF guys and possibly some air support...though who knows with the loon we have as prez. Through no thought, effort or discernment on his own the right thing may happen....but most likely whatever is chosen will be most likely that which will get us into a larger conflict down the road (who knows what the idiot chooses or even if he has any gumption to make a choice at all).
-
http://www.news.com.au/world/a-week-after-islamic-insurgents-launched-their-attack-on-iraq-the-west-faces-the-prospect-of-the-fall-of-baghdad/story-fndir2ev-1226957314557
interesting look at it.
-
Phil there seems to be a few holes in that reporter's knowledge.
B-2's...wrong mission they would use B-52's which still fly and can fly from US..no mention of B-52. Not all the B-52's are US based either.
No mention of carrier based refueling planes...if we still have them...they referenced hornets refueling hornets....but then we can fly in from Italy with ground based refueling flying over Turkey.
Focus of the article is on hi-tech smart munitions....no mention of cluster bombs which would wax sore on their behinds or fuel-air munitions as well as other anti-personnel type things. Not that this prez would use them.
But...there are a lot of BG's on the ground. If they are moving in a column...as they were a couple of days ago you could chill them pretty quick. That's a conventional movement and remember what happened to the guys fleeing Kuwait in the first Gulf War... Again...not that the traitor we have as prez can or wants to seize an opportunity.
And I really don't want to send more US blood over there either. However...if you could catch a conventional movement of terrorists why wouldn't you? They've been hitting at us for a long time...remember the embassy bombing, the Cole, the Twin Towers (twice), etc., etc....sure we can all get along......
-
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iraq-troops-obama/2014/06/16/id/577428/?ns_mail_uid=94501932&ns_mail_job=1573473_06172014&promo_code=o9c3zth4
Isn't this how we got started in VN ?
Best part is this makes "Obama's war" .
Can't blame Bush for this one.
Nearly 300 armed American forces are being positioned in and around Iraq to help secure U.S. assets as President Barack Obama nears a decision on an array of options for combating fast-moving Islamic insurgents, including airstrikes or a contingent of special forces.
The U.S. and Iran also held an initial discussion on how the longtime foes might cooperate to ease the threat from the al-Qaida-linked militants that have swept through Iraq. Still, the White House ruled out the possibility that Washington and Tehran might coordinate military operations in Iraq.
Obama met with his national security team Monday evening to discuss options for stopping the militants known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Officials said the president has made no final decisions on how aggressively the U.S. might get involved in Iraq, though the White House continued to emphasize that any military engagement remained contingent on the government in Baghdad making political reforms.
Still, there were unmistakable signs of Americans returning to a country from which the U.S. military fully withdrew more than two years ago. Obama notified Congress that up to 275 troops would be sent to Iraq to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the American Embassy in Baghdad. The soldiers - 170 of which have already arrived in Iraq - were armed for combat, though Obama has insisted he does not intend for U.S. forces to be engaged in direct fighting.
"We are hard-wired into their system," the fledgling democracy that America helped institute, said Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad. "We can't walk away from it."
About 100 additional forces are being put on standby, most likely in Kuwait, and could be used for airfield management, security and logistics support, officials said.
Separately, three U.S. officials said the White House was considering sending a contingent of special forces soldiers to Iraq. Their limited mission - which has not yet been approved - would focus on training and advising beleaguered Iraqi troops, many of whom have fled their posts across the nation's north and west as the al-Qaida-inspired insurgency has advanced in the worst threat to the country since American troops left in 2011.
Taken together, the developments suggest a willingness by Obama to send Americans into a collapsing security situation in order to quell the brutal fighting in Iraq before it morphs into outright war.
If the U.S. were to deploy an additional team of special forces, the mission almost certainly would be small. One U.S. official said it could be up to 100 special forces soldiers. It also could be authorized only as an advising and training mission - meaning the soldiers would work closely with Iraqi forces that are fighting the insurgency but would not officially be considered combat troops.
The White House would not confirm that special operations forces were under consideration. But spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said that while Obama would not send troops back into combat, "He has asked his national security team to prepare a range of other options that could help support Iraqi security forces."
It's not clear how quickly the special forces could arrive in Iraq. It's also unknown whether they would remain in Baghdad or be sent to the nation's north, where the Sunni Muslim insurgency has captured large swaths of territory ringing Baghdad, the capital of the Shiite-led government.
The troops would fall under the authority of the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad and would not be authorized to engage in combat, another U.S. official said. Their mission would be "non-operational training" of both regular and counterterrorism units, which the military has in the past interpreted to mean training on military bases, the official said.
However, all U.S. troops are allowed to defend themselves in Iraq if they are under attack.
The three U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the plans by name.
Obama made the end of the war in Iraq one of his signature campaign issues, and has touted the U.S. military withdrawal in December 2011 as one of his top foreign policy successes. But he has been caught over the past week between Iraqi officials pleading for help - as well as Republicans blaming him for the loss of a decade's worth of gains in Iraq - and his anti-war Democratic political base, which is demanding that the U.S. stay out of the fight.
The crisis has sparked a rare alignment of interests between the U.S. and Iran, which wants to preserve Iraq's Shiite-dominated government. The U.S. and Iran are engaged in sensitive nuclear negotiations and used a round of talks Monday in Vienna, Austria, to hold a separate bilateral discussion on Iraq.
While the U.S. and Iran have similar short-term goals in Iraq, they have different long-term aims. The United States would like to see an inclusive, representative democracy take hold in Iraq, while predominantly Shiite Iran is more focused on protecting Iraq's Shiite population and bolstering its own position as a regional power against powerful Sunni Arab states in the Gulf.
Crocker said that Iran should "use all the influence" possible to keep the al-Qaida-style Islamic group from exacerbating the sectarian strife in Iraq.
Appearing Tuesday on "CBS This Morning," Crocker said if he'd have Secretary of State John Kerry "on a plane right now for Baghdad."
"I would have liked to have seen more sustained, high-level diplomatic engagement with the Iraqis," Crocker said. He said that for the country to have any change at survival there must quickly be a show of "Kurdish, Shia and Sunni" solidarity.
Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Washington must move immediately "to disrupt their ability to continue their operations." He said the insurgents are holding sway currently and that "all the ingredients are going into the stew. We see it happening on our watch."
Appearing on CNN, Rogers said he believes there still is time for the United States to make a difference, but that Washington must move now.
While the White House continues to review its options, Iran's military leaders are starting to step into the breach.
The commander of Iran's elite Quds Force, Gen. Ghasem Soleimani, was in Iraq on Monday and consulting with the government there on how to stave off insurgents' gains. Iraqi security officials said the U.S. government was notified in advance of the visit by Soleimani, whose forces are a secretive branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard that in the past has organized Shiite militias to target U.S. troops in Iraq and, more recently, was involved in helping Syria's President Bashar Assad in his fight against Sunni rebels.
-
I have heard, though I have not looked into it myself, that the US is asking Iran to handle security for our embassy in Iraq.
That should work out well. ::)
http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2014/06/weighing-options-us-considers-unlikely-alliance-iran-face-common-foe-boosts-presence-gulf/
Weighing The Options: US Considers an Unlikely Alliance with Iran in the Face of a Common Foe, Boosts Presence in the Gulf
http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2014/06/quit-soon-former-pm-tony-blair-unleashes-obama-iraq-mess/
‘Quit Too Soon’: Former PM Tony Blair Unleashes on Obama for Iraq Mess
Tony Blair last night attacked ‘bizarre’ claims that his decision to go to war with Iraq in 2003 caused the current wave of violence in the country – and blamed everyone but himself for the crisis.
The former Prime Minister insisted he was right to topple Saddam Hussein with the US and said things would have been worse if the dictator had not been ousted from power a decade ago.
Mr Blair ended a week-long silence after mounting claims by diplomats and Labour MPs that his and Mr Bush’s handling of the Iraq War sowed the seeds of the attempt by the Al Qaeda-backed ISIS terror group to conquer Iraq. In a 2,800-word ‘essay’ on the new Middle East conflagration, Mr Blair refused to apologise and argued:
Barack Obama ordered US troops to leave Iraq too soon.
Britain and America must launch renewed military attacks in Iraq and Syria.
Al Qaeda was ‘beaten’ in Iraq thanks to the Blair-Bush war, but the bungling Iraqi government let them back in.
Defiant Mr Blair said he was determined to reply ‘forcefully’ to ‘inevitable’ claims about his record in Iraq following the rapid advance of ISIS.
‘I understand, following Afghanistan and Iraq, why public opinion was so hostile to involvement.
‘But every time we put off action, the action we will be forced to take will ultimately be greater. Instead of re-running the debate over Iraq from 11 years ago, we have to realise that whatever we had done or not done, we would be facing a big challenge today.
‘It is bizarre to claim that, but for the removal of Saddam, we would not have a crisis. We have to re-think our strategy towards Syria and support the Iraqi government in beating back the insurgency.
‘Extremist groups, whether in Syria or Iraq, should be targeted. However unpalatable this may seem, the alternative is worse.’
-
Wait Tom....all of that cannot be true! The Global War on Terror has been over for more than a year now! Hussein, as in Barrack Hussein Obama, said so. Not only that....Obama believers (aka Kool-Aide drinkers) can gloat over the fact that Obama has been protecting the rule of law as he is quoted at the bottom of this article over a year ago.
By the way...if anyone here was under sufficient delusion to have voted for Obama for whatever reason, party preference, racial guilt, lack of discernment, or just plain stupidity....don't vote again. Please. Seriously...don't vote....not again....not even for your local dog catcher as you have proved yourself to be a less than competent voter.
23-MAY-13 Obama
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/23/obama-global-war-on-terror-is-over (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/23/obama-global-war-on-terror-is-over)
Obama: 'Global War on Terror' Is Over
New rhetoric for defeating al-Qaida includes plan for closing Guantanamo Bay.
President Barack Obama
By Paul D. Shinkman
May 23, 2013 | 3:30 p.m. EDT
The "Global War on Terror" is over, President Barack Obama announced Thursday, saying the military and intelligence agencies will not wage war against a tactic but will instead focus on a specific group of networks determined to destroy the U.S.
This shift in rhetoric accompanies new or updated efforts to defeat al-Qaida and its affiliates, the president said in a speech at the National Defense University within Washington, DC's Fort McNair. Al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan is on a "path to defeat," he said, so the U.S. must focus instead on al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula -- "the most active" in plotting against the U.S. -- homegrown violent extremism and unrest in the Arab world that leads to attacks like the assault on the Benghazi diplomatic post.
Allowing drone strikes, including those against American citizens, and closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay are chief among the first steps in accomplishing this goal, he said.
"We must define our effort not as a boundless 'Global War on Terror,' but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America," Obama said.
Obama Defends Targeted Killing of Anwar al-Awlak
"Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon," he said. "So that's the current threat: Lethal yet less capable al-Qaida affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them."
Part of this effort includes closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, which Obama says has "become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law."
The president plans to reopen an office at the Department of State -- which he closed in January -- to act as a special envoy and work with the Department of Defense to find ways to return each detainee to their home country. Obama has also tasked the Department of Defense to designate a site within the U.S. to hold military commissions, two of which are currently underway in a special court at Guantanamo Bay.
He also announced Thursday he is lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen to allow for a case-by-case analysis on each detainee.
"To the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries," he said. "Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and military justice system. And we will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee."
Obama has consistently railed against the detention facility and how it is viewed throughout the world.
"It is critical for us to understand that Guantanamo is not necessary to keep America safe," he said in a speech at the end of April. "It is expensive, it is inefficient, it hurts us in terms of our international standing, it lessens cooperation with our allies on counterterrorism efforts, it is a recruitment tool for extremists."
Obama's attempts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility during his first term were blocked by Congress. Of the hundreds of detainees brought to the remote base on the southeastern end of Cuba, only 166 remain. A handful are awaiting trial. The rest are either deemed too dangerous to release -- but are precluded from trial due to lack of evidence or evidence tainted by enhanced interrogation techniques -- or their home country will no longer accept them.
The U.S. government is prohibited from releasing detainees to a country where they will likely be killed.
"Once we commit to a process of closing Gitmo, I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law," he said.
See see....in highlighted in color above....Obama's commitment to the rule of law!!! Obama deniers see how wacky you are....this man said he is committed to the rule of law!!!! I feel so much better now having found this 2013 article that confirms there can be nothing going on in Iraq with terrorists and that we are secure in the rule of law over here. Not only that...I feel really good about how we can use drones to take out US citizens because the man making the decisions has such a clear and accurate picture of the world....
-
Obama rules out air strikes because his administration lacks proper intelligence. How fitting.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/18/obama-reportedly-rules-out-iraq-airstrikes-as-prepares-to-meet-with-hill/
-
Obama rules out air strikes because his administration lacks proper intelligence. How fitting.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/18/obama-reportedly-rules-out-iraq-airstrikes-as-prepares-to-meet-with-hill/
If he really cared about that he would not have run for a second term.
-
Every country in the Middle East we try to "help", gets screwed up worse after we leave. Many of these nations need brutal dictators to keep their brutal citizenry in line. Say what you want about Sadam, Iraq was not in the mess it's in now when he ran it. Same with Libya under Gadhafi. These countries will never fight for freedom because they don't want, let alone understand it. They sure as hell aren't willing to die for it. They're hiding under their beds as we speak. Most are either cowards, or else blood thirsty idiots. Let them all kill each other. If they want to send in a few drones to give our people some target practice, fine.
They want to beat their women, grow their dope, and kill each other, like they've been doing for 2,000 years. Let them. They are going to do it regardless. The Taliban will start killing everyone 10 minutes after we leave. How many lives and dollars did we waste there? If I have to pay another $2 bucks a gallon for gas, it's a small price for having these morons exterminate each other off the planet.
-
"Once we commit to a process of closing Gitmo, I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law," he said.
See see....in highlighted in color above....Obama's commitment to the rule of law!!! Obama deniers see how wacky you are....this man said he is committed to the rule of law!!!! I feel so much better now having found this 2013 article that confirms there can be nothing going on in Iraq with terrorists and that we are secure in the rule of law over here. Not only that...I feel really good about how we can use drones to take out US citizens because the man making the decisions has such a clear and accurate picture of the world....
No, he did not say he was commited to the rule of law.
What he said is that the closing of Gitmo would BE CONSISTANT WITH OUR COMMITMENT TO THE RULE OF LAW.
What ever that commitment might be....Nil or less in Obama's case.
-
consistent with our commitment to the rule of law," he said.
Yeah, the Marxist POS consistently ignores the rule of law .