[Samseau]

What exactly are America's choices right now? Let Iraq fall to a brutal Islamic takeover, or invest another trillion into peacekeeping?

Might be cheaper to just drop a nuke.

[samsamsam]

(06-18-2014 05:51 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

The senile warmonger John McCain and his homosexual sidekick Lindsey Graham are beating the drums of war and sowing fears about ISIS planning "another 9/11". Truly an odious pair, those two.

I'd like to see them personally fly over to Baghdad to try and work things out on the ground. With any luck they'd make an appearance in ISIS's next YouTube video.

McCain pressed for attacks in Syria and then chickened the fuck out when it came to a vote. He was such a good patriot until 2000. Then he just lost his mind.

Quote:

Sen. John McCain on Wednesday declined to support a revised Senate resolution authorizing limited strikes in Syria, complicating President Barack Obama’s campaign to get congressional approval for military action in the war-torn country.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/04/reb...-on-syria/

It is all about showing off for the nutjobs in his party. Trust me there are nutjobs in every party.

[All or Nothing]

(06-18-2014 07:44 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Might be cheaper to just drop a nuke.

Except there is a lot of oil in Iraq.

Just looked it up.

Iraq is estimated to have as much as 140 billion barrels worth of crude oil.

One barrel of crude oil goes for around 110 USD right now.

That means that whoever gets control over Iraq, gets to have control over as much as 154 trillion dollars worth of oil.

Money is driving this. A lot of fucking money. Whoever gets to win in the domination of Iraq has the chance to get a huge payday.

[Hotwheels]

(06-18-2014 08:18 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 07:44 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Might be cheaper to just drop a nuke.

Except there is a lot of oil in Iraq.

Just looked it up.

Iraq is estimated to have as much as 140 billion barrels worth of crude oil.

One barrel of crude oil goes for around 110 USD right now.

That means that whoever gets control over Iraq, gets to have control over as much as 154 trillion dollars worth of oil.

Money is driving this. A lot of fucking money. Whoever gets to win in the domination of Iraq has the chance to get a huge payday.

Some countries need to be colonized.

I nominate Iraq.

Get medieval on their ass while we are it. Send a buncha rednecks over with their AR's to keep the peace.

Some nutjobs need a boot on the neck.

[Royale]

(06-18-2014 07:29 PM)MattC Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 05:51 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

The senile warmonger John McCain and his homosexual sidekick Lindsey Graham are beating the drums of war and sowing fears about ISIS planning "another 9/11". Truly an odious pair, those two.

I'd like to see them personally fly over to Baghdad to try and work things out on the ground. With any luck they'd make an appearance in ISIS's next YouTube video.

David Cameron today has been drumming the same tune about how people in the UK are at threat whether we do something or not (ie, intervene in the situation).

I've seen some fucked up videos on the internet, but that one of the shootings from the car is the heaviest I've ever seen.

A lot of the leaders and "elected officials" of the West are very cavalier with the lives of people they'll send off to die for the mess made from previous administrations. I'm not sure if Western intervention would be the best solution in this case. Then again, $154 trillion in oil sitting in that war zone might get the rogue capitalist hamster to plow on full steam ahead. Terrible situation encapsulated in a bone chilling video.

[Samseau]

(06-18-2014 08:22 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 08:18 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 07:44 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Might be cheaper to just drop a nuke.

Except there is a lot of oil in Iraq.

Just looked it up.

Iraq is estimated to have as much as 140 billion barrels worth of crude oil.

One barrel of crude oil goes for around 110 USD right now.

That means that whoever gets control over Iraq, gets to have control over as much as 154 trillion dollars worth of oil.

Money is driving this. A lot of fucking money. Whoever gets to win in the domination of Iraq has the chance to get a huge payday.

Some countries need to be colonized.

I nominate Iraq.

Get medieval on their ass while we are it. Send a buncha rednecks over with their AR's to keep the peace.

Some nutjobs need a boot on the neck.

You raise a good point. Sometimes I wish America would drop the pretenses of being a global force for democracy, and just come out of the closet and admit they are power hungry imperialists. The honestly would be very refreshing.

Then they could move into Iraq, pacify the people, steal the oil, and become a full fledged new-Rome.

[Hotwheels]

Most of the electorate are LGBT loving quiche eaters.

Power hungry imperialists are in the minority.

The thing that most don't seem to realize is that if you let fucksticks like these ISIS guys go they cause bigger problems down the road.

Simply, some groups seemingly do not have the ability to govern themselves and need someone else to do it for them.

[germanico]

(06-18-2014 07:44 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

What exactly are America's choices right now? Let Iraq fall to a brutal Islamic takeover, or invest another trillion into peacekeeping?

Might be cheaper to just drop a nuke.

Same script as in Libya. (and come think of it, WW1, 2, and on and on) Just wait until a clear victor is evident, strike a deal with them, and provide support in exchange of weapons deals and infraestructure contracts.

Peacekeeping? What the fuck for? Theres no money to be made in peace. War drives prices up and lets you set your own terms as non-negotiable.

[Laurifer]

If only Uncle Saddam was still in power. Iraq would have the union and peace that only the iron grip of a powerful ruler can provide.

[Bushido]

The Middle East is radicalizing en masse. Iraq is just one piece of the jigsaw.

In the near future, the whole region will be a no-go area for foreigners. Sad but true. There are many beautiful countries that will soon be off limits to westerners. Might be better to visit sooner rather than later.

If you want to see where all this leads, just check out Pakistan. A total war zone. That is the logical end point.

Western powers should learn their lesson and stay well away. The irony is that Iran is demonized while the Saudis are courted. Historians of the future will be highly amused.

[Foolsgo1d]

(06-18-2014 03:49 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

Problem is what to do. Worse yet the same assholes that pushed for this are back again in the news. They were the morons who gave the idiot Bush bad advice in the first place. Pride is a terrible thing and they will go their graves thinking this was the most genius thing ever.

Sadly, it may be best to just try to contain it without stopping it. Many innocents will die and once settled they will try to exact revenge against those they believe did this to their country. You know who I blame, Bud Selig, Commissioner of Baseball.

Well this is the problem and we see it on these boards sometimes. Those with real knowledge are ignored and those who harp on about their agenda endlessly are listened too.

We should not just allow for a potential bloodbath that will breed the next generation(s) of Jihad fighters.

I remember watching a documentary on Afghanistan before the invasion. How the western alliance was losing ground and they wanted a free Afghanistan to bear the fruits of its land but the people in charge are nothing but barbarians.

When Rom fell the lands it left to barbarians were the scene of how many wars?

We have a duty to help protect Iraq and its people from scavengers whose bloodlust knows no bounds.

"Oh you were listening to a certain song? DEATH TO YOU!" This is how they operate and to think that we should let these people suffer is a true statement as any about western intentions for a country.

Quote:


•the native insurgency, AQI and ISIS in coordination, or not, pose a legitimate threat to taking Baghdad. If they successfully choke off the capital of it's external infrastructure and economic necessities, either unrest or service outages will cause ample conditions for them to mount a formidable, even if protracted, attack. The native insurgency has been waited for this time before NATO left the country.

Baghdad may suffer from insurgency attacks but occupation? They are not prepared under any terms to take on a hornets nest such as Baghdad.

Too many people there are eager to fight them and the terrain is not friendly to vehicles. Urban warfare is brutal and whatever they have gained will be lost on the outskirts.

[Libertas]

I wrote an article about this topic on my website the other day (which Quintus graciously contributed to):

Iraq Crisis: ISIS & The Woefully Misguided Liberal Zeitgeist

The problem with all of this business in Iraq was Dubya thought that Iraqis would be interested in building a modern democratic state after Saddam fell from power instead of trying to one-up their rivals as had always been the case previously.

The problem isn't 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.

[xpatplayer]

(06-18-2014 10:27 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Then they could move into Iraq, pacify the people, steal the oil, and become a full fledged new-Rome.

This is something I've been thinking about for a while. America tries to maintain a holier than thou image that only viewers of Fox and MSNBC believe. If it stopped this hypocrisy and did exactly what it did in the late 1800s - early 1900s (Banana Republics), it could well become an undisputed hyperpower.

Instead, it wants to keep its idiotic pseudo-intellectuals satisfied.

[vinman]

Quote:

Kucinich: Stop Calling Iraq War a “Mistake”


The current state of affairs in Iraq is drawing the attention of many, including politicians like Dennis Kucinich, who served as a member of the United States Congress from 1997 to 2013. Kucinich expressed his frustration with current American sentiments about the Iraq War in an editorial for The Huffington Post.

Kucinich claimed that both media commentators and politicians had settled upon deeming the war a mistake. He said that by calling it a mistake, “it minimizes the Iraq War’s disastrous consequences, removes blame, and deprives Americans of any chance to learn from our generation’s foreign policy disaster.”

According to Kucinich, the American people were lied to, and the truth, although widely available, was ignored. He wrote, ”Millions of people who marched in America in protest of the war knew the truth, but were maligned by members of both parties for opposing the president in a time of war.” Kucinich went on to write that the war was not about liberating the Iraqi people, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, and there were no weapons of mass destruction.

In 2008, when Barack Obama became the President of the United States, he declared that his administration would not investigate the Iraq War. “Essentially, he suspended public debate about the war,” said Kucinich. “That may have felt good in the short term for those who wanted to move on, but when you’re talking about a war initiated through lies, bygones can’t be bygones.”

Kucinich wrote that, in order for the United States to address its true role, President Obama must tell the American people the truth about Iraq and the false scenario that caused the United States to go to war. “President Obama didn’t start the Iraq War, but he has the opportunity now to tell the truth,” said Kucinich. “That we were wrong to go in. That the cause of war was unjust. That more problems were created by military intervention than solved. That the present violence and chaos in Iraq derives from the decision which took America to war in 2003.”

According to Kucinich, journalists and media commentators also needed to address their true role in forming the lie the American public believes about the war in Iraq. He said they should “stop giving inordinate air and print time to people who were either utterly wrong in their support of the war or willful in their calculations to make war.” Kucinich blamed the media for fanning the flames of war, due to the fact that they did not give ”adequate coverage to the arguments against military intervention.”

“The unwillingness to confront the truth about the Iraq War has induced a form of amnesia which is hazardous to our nation’s health,” Kucinich explained. “Willful forgetting doesn’t heal, it opens the door to more lying. As today’s debate ensues about new potential military “solutions” to stem violence in Iraq, let’s remember how and why we intervened in Iraq in 2003.”

http://benswann.com/kucinich-stop-callin...a-mistake/

[TigerMandingo]

^ When the US invades, it's always a "mistake" or a "foreign policy blunder" or "we were wrong"

[Feisbook Control]

[xpatplayer]

^Disagree. WW3 won't be coming soon, everyone has too much to lose and unlike Fox News claims, the rest of the world won't torture everyone around them if there's no American intervention. As a matter of fact, I respect Obama for not invading Iraq. He would make the US military hitmen for the Shias and thereby alienate every Sunni Iraqi by doing so. That would have led to an even bloodier Iraq. Its really Noori al-Maliki's fault - he alienated the Sunnis instead of including them. Like Machiavelli said, A Prince who lives in a fortress will lose goodwill.

The worst that will come to the world will be a Somalia-like situation in Iraq and Syria. Tragic but not surprising. People will hate Bush and the neocons for it, not Obama. Even though I think Obama's been incompetent with much of domestic policy, his benign foreign policy has been better for the States than Bush's aggressive policy.

[samsamsam]

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

I wrote an article about this topic on my website the other day (which Quintus graciously contributed to):

Iraq Crisis: ISIS & The Woefully Misguided Liberal Zeitgeist

The problem with all of this business in Iraq was Dubya thought that Iraqis would be interested in building a modern democratic state after Saddam fell from power instead of trying to one-up their rivals as had always been the case previously.

The problem isn't 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.

I place very little faith in Dubya's ability to think. He went for oil under the premise of WMDs. Everything after that is an attempt male hamster it. But out of respect to Quintus who has tremendous writing skills, I will head over there now to read the article. I'm not trying to be a dick but we went for oil, just been trying to cover our asses ever since. Unless we can accept that we went for oil under the guise of some nonsense then we don't have a common starting point for discussion. Miraculously these alleged WMDs have never been found. I am not saying Obama is perfect but they got OBL, I imagine if they thought WMDs were floating about they would be committed to finding those also. BTW, Bush stopped looking for OBL, or didn't make it a top priority. The guy that planned the most destructive attacks on US soil, not worth the effort to find?

If Dubya was all about Democracy, why didn't he give it to Russia? After all he saw Putin's soul. what a moron (I'm referring to Bush).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Libertas, nice article. Thank you for the book recommendation just got it on my kindle. My above comments are not directed at you personally, just that there was so much damage done by the action to invade Iraq. All that money spent could have been used to do a lot of good for the people in this country.

I like how you end it.

Quote:

That's what I think of war. When you see blasted and ruined cities, and see the effects on people, you realize that the ‘whys’ feel so inadequate. There is no ‘why’. There is no ‘rational reason’. There is just the human capacity for violence.”

Not surprisingly it applied to politicians who did not have to pay the price in blood and ruined lives. No rational reason. Fabricated ones to support an underlying need for blood and oil.

[Hotwheels]

So where's the oil?

[Libertas]

(06-19-2014 08:16 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

Libertas, nice article. Thank you for the book recommendation just got it on my kindle. My above comments are not directed at you personally, just that there was so much damage done by the action to invade Iraq. All that money spent could have been used to do a lot of good for the people in this country.

Thanks. If you're talking about New Glory keep in mind that Peters is a warmonger and American imperialist himself, I just find his analysis about the political culture of the Middle East very apt. That and well, the ineffectiveness of the initial occupation.

[Brian Boru]

[samsamsam]

Ok, I get it MSNBC is considered liberal. Hate that for all you want.

But if you want some info that supports why we went to the war - for oil. I ask you take 33 minutes of your life to watch this documentary (or fluff piece or whatever you want to call it).

[RexImperator]

(06-19-2014 06:54 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

^ When the US invades, it's always a "mistake" or a "foreign policy blunder" or "we were wrong"

"Mistakes were made."

[samsamsam]

(06-19-2014 08:50 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 08:16 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

Libertas, nice article. Thank you for the book recommendation just got it on my kindle. My above comments are not directed at you personally, just that there was so much damage done by the action to invade Iraq. All that money spent could have been used to do a lot of good for the people in this country.

Thanks. If you're talking about New Glory keep in mind that Peters is a warmonger and American imperialist himself, I just find his analysis about the political culture of the Middle East very apt. That and well, the ineffectiveness of the initial occupation.

This book The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World: from Marathon to Waterloo. FREE ON KINDLE!

[Libertas]

Ah, that one.

Yes, good read, if a bit dated. It is nevertheless still a classic in its field.