Looks like weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq after all, and by ISIS no less!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-19...a-facility

I am sorry for ever doubting you, my glorious leader.

Quote: (06-19-2014 09:02 PM)boycottamericanwomen Wrote:  

Looks like weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq after all, and by ISIS no less!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-19...a-facility

Oh no! I guess that leaves us no choice but to invade again.

At first, all this talk of "Isis" had me thinking about ancient Egyptian mythology.

Quote: (06-19-2014 09:11 PM)dreambig Wrote:  

Quote: (06-19-2014 09:02 PM)boycottamericanwomen Wrote:  

Looks like weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq after all, and by ISIS no less!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-19...a-facility

Oh no! I guess that leaves us no choice but to invade again.

Looks like we're gonna have to invade again and take out the puppet terrorists that were created by our own CIA:

Quote:Quote:

It was the CIA which trained ISIS insurgents secretly in Jordan in preparation for their subversive war in Syria. It was an agreement signed by George W. Bush and delegated under Obama's watch that allowed ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, to be set free in 2009. Saudi Arabia has been openly arming the Sunni's for years with the full knowledge of the U.S. government. So then, why is the narrative being created that America and Saudi Arabia are at odds over ISIS?

source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-19...ink-crisis

Would it be presumptuous of me to make the claim that the world's biggest terrorist organization is the American CIA?

Realistically:

Would this not be a good time to start marrying Iraqi women? Their expectations can't be very high. You could offer food, shelter and the good possibility of continued survival. I would think these women would jump at the chance. Maybe Iraq is the next Marriage-Paradise. I know if my kid was living in a nightmare, I'd want to marry her off to a rich westerner.

Quote: (06-19-2014 11:07 PM)BadWolf Wrote:  

Realistically:

Would this not be a good time to start marrying Iraqi women? Their expectations can't be very high. You could offer food, shelter and the good possibility of continued survival. I would think these women would jump at the chance. Maybe Iraq is the next Marriage-Paradise. I know if my kid was living in a nightmare, I'd want to marry her off to a rich westerner.

Iraqi-Iranian women are probably the hottest on earth. I was in a mall in Bangkok and one woman came down the escalator, wearing a burkha but her face was uncovered, and I was blown away by how hot she was.

If you can expat to Bangkok, there's lots of Arabic women there. But I would sure as shit not bring a foreign woman back to America.

Quote: (06-19-2014 07:39 AM)Libertas Wrote:  

ISIS. ISIS wouldn't even exist in Iraq if the Shiite government hadn't been interested in ostracizing Sunnis. However, this simply isn't the case. Even now in its greatest crisis since the US left, the Iraqi government under Maliki seems to be more interested in sending out Shiite militias than in building bridges with the Sunnis who are ISIS' main power base. Not surprising that these problems are posing themselves in such an atmosphere.

But affirmative action and diversity are librul thinking. They can't be good.
Letting the little guy/underdog have a piece of the pie is just Beta weakness.

It would be much better here in America if a stoopid librul quiche gubmint that is at least nominally non-discriminatory was weak, and real men could take their guns and deal with each other. If different ethic groups, instead of buying each others' records, just openly hated each other and waited for a opening to mass-murder each other.

To kill kill kill like a bunch of pre-hominid baboons. That would be really alpha

That would be great.

This thread needs some Sp5.

Quote: (06-20-2014 12:54 AM)Chaos Wrote:  

This thread needs some Sp5.

Thanks, Chaos. I've been reading this but not commenting because the whole thing makes me sick. I could write a book on it. Maybe I'll title it "Thanks, Chaos." A few thoughts:

I watched the whole thing happen over years, often in the inside. The "coalition" was not prepared for the extent of degradation of public infrastructure over the years of wars and sanctions.

Saddam really fucked that country up by starting the wars with Iran and Kuwait, which led to the sanctions. So in 2003, water and sewer was leaking and overflowing, electricity production and distribution was a mess, healthcare was poor, etc.

The rebuilding contracts after 2003 were ridden with corruption, overcharges, attacks by insurgents. So not enough progress was made quickly enough, although things are better in those areas.

Earlier this year, I saw that malls are being built in Baghdad and the quality of public works was much better. There's more electricity, too.

I was kind of optimistic, saw the government starting to get its act together with regard to service delivery, but it was still a very centralized and inefficient system. There were local governments, but Maliki was able to keep them weak and broke through some legal maneuvers. This shut out a lot of people from any power, not just the Sunnis, but local people in places like Basra.

As the Scottish referendum shows, sometimes devolving power leads to more demands for devolving power until independence, so it's hard to say how things would turn out with more local power. Iraqi political history over the last ten years has been a spoils system and I think the country could have stayed together as long as everyone was getting a decent slice of what was a rapidly growing pie - GDP growth has been above 5%, up to 10% or so for a few years. Oil production was steadily increasing. The local political elites, including shaykhs and businessmen, in places like Nineveh and Anbar just didn't think they had enough say. Maliki overplayed his "Commander in Chief" card.

Libertas's article is accurate in the depiction of the current crisis and the sectarian roots of it. But it's not so much that electoral democracy is futile in Iraq - Iraqis seemed to take to it well - it was that the elections did not mean much.

That was because Maliki was able to strip the power from both the parliament and the local government through legal maneuvers from an obedient Supreme Court. It would be like Obama taking the power from Congress to initiate legislation without his approval, and taking almost all of the budgets and lawmaking power of state governments.

So there were a lot of people all around Iraq who felt shut out and powerless.

The other cause of this mess was the utterly stupid and mysterious drive to depose Bashar Assad in Syria. Remember that Syria was a military ally of the USA, UK and France in the 1991 Gulf War, and that they "helped out" after 2001 by providing intelligence and even torturing suspects that the USA sent them.

Assad was just a standard Arab dictator, maybe not even as bad as Mubarak was or the Saudis or the Khalifas in Bahrain. Syria was not that bad a place - as long as you weren't agitating for more political freedom, it was pretty tolerant for everyone otherwise.

But the west and its "allies" the Saudis, Qataris, etc. wanted him out and armed the rebels. This strengthened the ISIS and Al Nusra guys.

Why was it so important to get rid of Assad? I think it was because it is the first step in a campaign to regime-change Iran. Utterly insane. Like in Ukraine - the schemes are blowing up in our faces.

Quote: (06-19-2014 11:07 PM)BadWolf Wrote:  

Realistically:

Would this not be a good time to start marrying Iraqi women? Their expectations can't be very high. You could offer food, shelter and the good possibility of continued survival. I would think these women would jump at the chance. Maybe Iraq is the next Marriage-Paradise. I know if my kid was living in a nightmare, I'd want to marry her off to a rich westerner.

Let us know how this works out.

Quote: (06-19-2014 11:29 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Quote: (06-19-2014 07:39 AM)Libertas Wrote:  

ISIS. ISIS wouldn't even exist in Iraq if the Shiite government hadn't been interested in ostracizing Sunnis. However, this simply isn't the case. Even now in its greatest crisis since the US left, the Iraqi government under Maliki seems to be more interested in sending out Shiite militias than in building bridges with the Sunnis who are ISIS' main power base. Not surprising that these problems are posing themselves in such an atmosphere.

But affirmative action and diversity are librul thinking. They can't be good.
Letting the little guy/underdog have a piece of the pie is just Beta weakness.

It would be much better here in America if a stoopid librul quiche gubmint that is at least nominally non-discriminatory was weak, and real men could take their guns and deal with each other. If different ethic groups, instead of buying each others' records, just openly hated each other and waited for a opening to mass-murder each other.

To kill kill kill like a bunch of pre-hominid baboons. That would be really alpha

That would be great.

But if the different ethnic races openly hated each other, we wouldn't be able to interracially date and that would suck. Even multiculturalism has a positive side.

Quote: (06-20-2014 03:19 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

But the west and its "allies" the Saudis, Qataris, etc. wanted him out and armed the rebels. This strengthened the ISIS and Al Nusra guys.

Why was it so important to get rid of Assad? I think it was because it is the first step in a campaign to regime-change Iran. Utterly insane. Like in Ukraine - the schemes are blowing up in our faces.

This policy of knocking down all the middle east obstacles for Israel is outlined in Project for a New American Century. Iran was always the next on the list after Iraq. I don't want to link arms with the rantings of anti-semitic groups but their is validity in pointing out how Israeli lobbyists direct U.S. policies to a great extent and to the great misfortune for the average American's best interests.

Quote: (06-20-2014 08:06 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

Quote: (06-20-2014 03:19 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

But the west and its "allies" the Saudis, Qataris, etc. wanted him out and armed the rebels. This strengthened the ISIS and Al Nusra guys.

Why was it so important to get rid of Assad? I think it was because it is the first step in a campaign to regime-change Iran. Utterly insane. Like in Ukraine - the schemes are blowing up in our faces.

This policy of knocking down all the middle east obstacles for Israel is outlined in Project for a New American Century. Iran was always the next on the list after Iraq. I don't want to link arms with the rantings of anti-semitic groups but their is validity in pointing out how Israeli lobbyists direct U.S. policies to a great extent and to the great misfortune for the average American's best interests.

It's not "anti-semetic" if even the Prime Minister of Israel admits it:


"EVERY TIME WE DO SOMETHING, YOU TELL ME AMERICANS WILL DO THIS AND WILL DO THAT. I WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING VERY CLEAR: DON'T WORRY ABOUT AMERICAN PRESSURE ON ISRAEL;

WE, THE JEWISH PEOPLE, CONTROL AMERICA. AND THE AMERICANS KNOW IT."

-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
October 3, 2001
(IAP News)

Israel controlling America? I would bet Israel is an american "state" in the Middle East which turned out to be great to cause turmoil and that will exist while the US want it to exist and it is serving it's purpose.

Quote: (06-20-2014 10:16 AM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  

Israel controlling America? I would bet Israel is an american "state" in the Middle East which turned out to be great to cause turmoil and that will exist while the US want it to exist and it is serving it's purpose.

I think you got that backwards.

“Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away.” ~ Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, 2002

Quote: (06-20-2014 08:31 AM)boycottamericanwomen Wrote:  

Quote: (06-20-2014 08:06 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

Quote: (06-20-2014 03:19 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

But the west and its "allies" the Saudis, Qataris, etc. wanted him out and armed the rebels. This strengthened the ISIS and Al Nusra guys.

Why was it so important to get rid of Assad? I think it was because it is the first step in a campaign to regime-change Iran. Utterly insane. Like in Ukraine - the schemes are blowing up in our faces.

This policy of knocking down all the middle east obstacles for Israel is outlined in Project for a New American Century. Iran was always the next on the list after Iraq. I don't want to link arms with the rantings of anti-semitic groups but their is validity in pointing out how Israeli lobbyists direct U.S. policies to a great extent and to the great misfortune for the average American's best interests.

It's not "anti-semetic" if even the Prime Minister of Israel admits it:


"EVERY TIME WE DO SOMETHING, YOU TELL ME AMERICANS WILL DO THIS AND WILL DO THAT. I WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING VERY CLEAR: DON'T WORRY ABOUT AMERICAN PRESSURE ON ISRAEL;

WE, THE JEWISH PEOPLE, CONTROL AMERICA. AND THE AMERICANS KNOW IT."

-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
October 3, 2001
(IAP News)

That quote is likely fabricated, the News source is Islamic Association of Palestine. http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultim...000088;p=0

Please post based on fact, not conspiracy.

America supports Israel and turns a blind eye to its human rights violations because Israel is the only Levantine state that is a stable American ally. It needs Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE to help itself maintain hegemony in an unstable region.

Political Zionism is a scapegoat for American blunders in the Middle East. While Israel would like to see mostly weak Arab nations, America isn't going to destabilize a bunch of countries just because the Jews asked them to. It does it in order to secure geopolitical and economic interests.

While there are many issues surrounding Israel and its foreign policy, its important to remember that Israel isn't an American puppet and that America isn't an Israeli puppet. Both nations are allies for logical reasons - Israel needs American support in order to keep itself from collapsing and America needs Israel to control the situation in oil-rich Middle Eastern countries as much as possible.

Edit: Why the hell do some forum members derail every thread and start blaming Jews and Blacks for all the problems?

Quote: (06-20-2014 06:48 PM)xpatplayer Wrote:  

Quote: (06-20-2014 08:31 AM)boycottamericanwomen Wrote:  

Quote: (06-20-2014 08:06 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

Quote: (06-20-2014 03:19 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

But the west and its "allies" the Saudis, Qataris, etc. wanted him out and armed the rebels. This strengthened the ISIS and Al Nusra guys.

Why was it so important to get rid of Assad? I think it was because it is the first step in a campaign to regime-change Iran. Utterly insane. Like in Ukraine - the schemes are blowing up in our faces.

This policy of knocking down all the middle east obstacles for Israel is outlined in Project for a New American Century. Iran was always the next on the list after Iraq. I don't want to link arms with the rantings of anti-semitic groups but their is validity in pointing out how Israeli lobbyists direct U.S. policies to a great extent and to the great misfortune for the average American's best interests.

It's not "anti-semetic" if even the Prime Minister of Israel admits it:


"EVERY TIME WE DO SOMETHING, YOU TELL ME AMERICANS WILL DO THIS AND WILL DO THAT. I WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING VERY CLEAR: DON'T WORRY ABOUT AMERICAN PRESSURE ON ISRAEL;

WE, THE JEWISH PEOPLE, CONTROL AMERICA. AND THE AMERICANS KNOW IT."

-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
October 3, 2001
(IAP News)

America isn't going to destabilize a bunch of countries just because the Jews asked them to. It does it in order to secure geopolitical and economic interests.

Can you state exactly what geopolitical and economic interests you are referring to?

If you are implying that America invades countries in order to get their oil or other natural resources, please read the following quote from this article:

Quote:Quote:

The multitudes of people, especially Americans, who view U.S. government activity in a negative light often make the mistake of attributing all corruption to some covert battle for global oil fields. In fact, the average leftist seems to believe that everything the establishment does somehow revolves around oil. This is a very simplistic and naïve view.

Modern wars are rarely, if ever, fought over resources, despite what the mainstream gatekeepers might tell you. If a powerful nation wants oil, for instance, it lines the right pocketbooks, intimidates the right individuals, blackmails the right officials or swindles the right politicians. It has no need to go to war when politicians and nations are so easily bought. Modern wars, rather, are fought in order to affect psychological change within a particular country or population. Wars today are fought to cover up corrupt deals and create desperation. Oil is used as an all-encompassing excuse for war, but it is never the true cause of war.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-19...ink-crisis

That's a brand new observation to me, but it does cause further reflection on why the latest wars were so complicated and meticulous

^^ You're just proving my main point. While I don't know enough about ME oil markets to know whether that article is legit or not, it states that the US is helping ISIS for economic reasons. You, on the other hand, blamed the Jews.

I was trying to say that America invaded Iraq in order to gain access to the oil fields at the time. Iraq was underproducing and keeping prices high. Now with ISIS in power, the world will see a spike in oil prices, a net benefit to American oil companies.

As for the quote, it assumes that modern wars are fought to bully the local population. Why would America want to bully the Iraqis? Why would we invade random countries in order to change the culture when we already have the world's best media machine that already does a good job?

There is no doubt that Israel benefitted when America deposed Saddam. But to assume that America deposed Saddam because Israel pressured them to is pure bullshit. America will support Israel whenever it gets involved in an armed conflict because it needs a stable Israel. Its not a big Zionist conspiracy. If there was one, there would be Jews coming out of the woodwork and blowing the whistle.

Man every day Saddam Hussein looks better and better in comparison.

At the time of the invasion I was in High School and actually bought the freedom/democracy justification... Live and learn.

I'm no leftist but the Iraq war was 100% about oil. In a world of increasingly scarce resources and rising BRIC countries, there is a scramble for oil and gas. Look at how Russia and China are demonized in our media. They are our competitors.

The Iraq war was the US/UK play for resource security in what has always been an unstable region. Of course, the war wasn't supposed to pan out the way it has. Usually, installing a crony government friendly to western interests (read: multinational companies) would have been enough, but nobody predicted the prolonged insurgency that has been a constant feature in Iraq.

China buys up Africa. Russia reclaims its historic territories. The US/UK wreak havoc and war all over the Middle East. And yet, it is Russia and China who are deemed the "aggressors"

Interesting development here. ISIS is showing an unexpectedly advanced use of social media and marketing to get its message out there.

For example, they're mocking Michelle Obama with a hashtag campaign on Twitter:

http://rt.com/usa/167436-isis-twitter-mi...a-hashtag/

They are also using YouTube to recruit internationally, and ramping up the propaganda campaign:

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows...ernet.html

They have also managed to become a major force despite being relatively few in number. This article explains how:

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/20...hters.html

They even issue "annual reports" detailing operations, investments, and objectives.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-17...nvestment-

This is not your ordinary gang of rabble. There is major funding going on here from outside donors, a fanatical belief in victory, and a ruthless willingness to do what is necessary. There are lessons to be learned here and pondered.

Even though I loathe this type of organization, their experiences offer many lessons on how small, dedicated groups can influence major events. I think this subject is so important that I thought about making it a separate thread, but decided it might be better in the Iraq thread here.

Students of history and military affairs should take note, and draw their own conclusions. Small, dedicated organizations can accomplish big things with discipline, aggressiveness, militancy.

Quote: (06-21-2014 12:36 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

Small, dedicated organizations can accomplish big things with discipline, aggressiveness, militancy.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

ISIS is a rag tag that would be crushed like a bug with little effort if the U.S. had even the smallest amount of motivation and will.

Unfortunately, the U.S. does not have even the smallest amount of motivation or will.