DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AGREE: IRAQ NEEDS TO BE REINVADED (http://www.infowars.com/democrats-and-republicans-agree-iraq-needs-to-be-reinvaded/)
Military action inside Syria figures into the equation
by KURT NIMMO
Senate Democrats are standing behind Obama and his "limited plan to reengage in Iraq" in a declared effort to prevent the country from falling to ISIS fanatics trained by the U.S. government.
Officials told Politico targeted military strikes against ISIS in Syria are also "on the table."
Democrats consider the former al-Qaeda affiliate a threat to U.S. national security. "We have to think about our national security interests first and foremost and from my perspective ISIS is a national security threat," said New Jersey Democrat Sen. Bob Menendez, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
"I support President Obama's decision to deploy a very limited number of advisers to Iraq for a non-combat training mission. This decision gives America the flexibility to take precise action against threats to our national security and keeps Iraqi authorities accountable for maintaining the security of their own country," said Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Reid I'd be shocked if you didn't support your messiah!
Didn't we initially start in `Nam with a 'limited number of advisers'? Hos is ISIS a security threat to the USA? The entire ME is a threat to the world, should we just nuke it out of existence? Damn stupid politicians! :cursing:
Soooo, I see the Marxists now admit, leaving in the first place was a mistake?
Quote from: Solar on June 20, 2014, 12:02:45 PM
Soooo, I see the Marxists now admit, leaving in the first place was a mistake?
It's that white half that he can not control. :rolleyes:
Funding and training the ISIS in Syria while fighting them Iraq.
Bush overestimated muslims desire for liberty whereas Obama simply doesn't care about their liberty.
Iraq needs to be eliminated.
Quote from: CG6468 on June 21, 2014, 02:54:41 PM
Iraq needs to be eliminated.
Yes it does. It is an artificial country created by the British a century ago.
Give the north to the Kurds, the largest nation without a state in the world. Perhaps that creates some conflict with Turkey.
Give the Shia part independence or to Iran, and divide the Suni parts between Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps the northern Kurdish part would need a link to the sea... don't know how to accomplish this.
The Kruds, the Sunnies and the Shittites - who cares?
Even if the plight of millions of Iraqis being massacred at the hands of foreign invaders and domestic terrorists is not enough to make change your mind with regards to intervention then just out of self interest if you think these terrorists will not dare spread their attacks to the US or Europe when they have consolidated their power in the middle east then you are the one that is naive.
Over 100 of these terrorists already have legal American passports.
America does not hold the burden alone, the United Kingdom and the rest of NATO too all have moral obligation to stop these terrorists. That being said the current political centralized nation state does not work unless they return to Baath-Party aka communist repression against political dissenters, a more decentralized power structure is needed for stability but that is besides the issue.
But to split the country into three parts will create more chaos than the current status quo.
Quote from: Mountainshield on June 23, 2014, 05:28:52 AM
Even if the plight of millions of Iraqis being massacred at the hands of foreign invaders and domestic terrorists is not enough to make change your mind with regards to intervention then just out of self interest if you think these terrorists will not dare spread their attacks to the US or Europe when they have consolidated their power in the middle east then you are the one that is naive.
Over 100 of these terrorists already have legal American passports.
America does not hold the burden alone, the United Kingdom and the rest of NATO too all have moral obligation to stop these terrorists. That being said the current political centralized nation state does not work unless they return to Baath-Party aka communist repression against political dissenters, a more decentralized power structure is needed for stability but that is besides the issue.
But to split the country into three parts will create more chaos than the current status quo.
The British created Iraq and Jordan, so the Hashimites whom they had promised the throne of Arabia would have somewhere to rule after the Saudis kicked them out. They are artificial states. Since most Arab states are tribal anyway, perhaps the best thing to do would be to split both among their indigenous tribes. As for a moral obligation to stop the terrorists, our obligation is to make sure they continue to kill each other
OVER THERE.
Oh, sure! Let's see Obama go to the UN, get a coalition of Western forces committed, and launch a 2nd invasion. Who in their right mind would get in line to fight a war for or with him? He is the weakest laughing stock of a President we've ever had. Not even France would be stupid enough to sign on to that. Maybe he could get the Rainbow Coalition to go do it? Maybe.
LET. THEM. KILL. ONE. ANOTHER. FOREVER.
I hope I was clear on that....
Quote from: mdgiles on June 24, 2014, 07:10:36 AM
The British created Iraq and Jordan, so the Hashimites whom they had promised the throne of Arabia would have somewhere to rule after the Saudis kicked them out. They are artificial states. Since most Arab states are tribal anyway, perhaps the best thing to do would be to split both among their indigenous tribes. As for a moral obligation to stop the terrorists, our obligation is to make sure they continue to kill each other OVER THERE.
Thanks, that was a very entertaining read about the Hashimites and King Faisal, especially since I finished watching Lawrence of Arabia again last week :laugh:
I would agree about the split among the indigenous tribes since the same could be said for Africa and many South-East Asian countries, decentralized autonomy or if not that then Federalism is the best form of government between competing states/regions/tribes.
But regarding Iraq, the Coalition ousted the Baath party and established the current Iraqi government, the security of the citizens depend on this newly founded government to protect them, if not the coalition or it's allies is willing to send troops to protect these people then they the moral obligation to at least give them the arms and logistics to defend themselves against these international jihadists since this is happening as a result of the incompetence of Barack of Obama and Iraqi government.
Quote from: Mountainshield on June 25, 2014, 04:23:46 AM
Thanks, that was a very entertaining read about the Hashimites and King Faisal, especially since I finished watching Lawrence of Arabia again last week :laugh:
I would agree about the split among the indigenous tribes since the same could be said for Africa and many South-East Asian countries, decentralized autonomy or if not that then Federalism is the best form of government between competing states/regions/tribes.
But regarding Iraq, the Coalition ousted the Baath party and established the current Iraqi government, the security of the citizens depend on this newly founded government to protect them, if not the coalition or it's allies is willing to send troops to protect these people then they the moral obligation to at least give them the arms and logistics to defend themselves against these international jihadists since this is happening as a result of the incompetence of Barack of Obama and Iraqi government.
The problem with Maliki is that the Iranians keep whispering in his ear, that they will come to rescue him from the Sunni Islamists. What he doesn't realize is that the Iranians won't move until after he is driven from power, and the country reduced to anarchy. THEN the Iranians will move in to absorb the entire country.