Iraq changes its mind, seeks help from U.S. again

[Little-Acorn]

The article describes how much of the violence (more than 1,000 Iraqis killed in ONE MONTH) is caused by Al Qaeda.

But didn't our President tell us Al Qaeda was decimated and on the run?

--------------------------------------

Iraq Seeks Help From US Amid Growing Violence | Military.com

Iraq Seeks Help From US Amid Growing Violence

Aug 19, 2013
Associated Press| by Lara Jakes

WASHINGTON -- A resurgence of violence and a renewed threat from al-Qaida have recently revived flagging U.S. interest in Iraq, officials said as Baghdad asked for new help to fight extremists less than two years after it forced American troops to withdraw.

Faced with security crises across the Mideast, North Africa and Asia, the White House largely has turned its attention away from Iraq since U.S. forces left in 2011. But the country has been hit with deadly bombings at a rate reminiscent of Iraq's darkest days, stoking new fears of a civil war. More than 1,000 Iraqis were killed in terror-related attacks in July, the deadliest month since 2008.

The violence has spurred Baghdad to seek new U.S. aid to curb the threat, said Iraqi Foreign Minister Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. He said a U.S. assistance package could include a limited number of advisers, intelligence analysis and surveillance assets - including lethal drones.

"There is greater realization in the Iraq government that we should not shy away from coming and asking for some help and assistance," Zebari told reporters Friday in Washington.

Nearly 4,500 U.S. troops were killed, and American taxpayers spent at least $767 billion during the nearly nine years of war in Iraq.

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says he saw dat comin' when we pulled out...

Bombings and shootings across Iraq kill at least 36 people - police
Mon Sep 16, 2013 - A wave of car bombs and shootings across Iraq killed at least 36 people on Sunday, police sources said.

No group immediately claimed responsibility for the attacks, which appeared coordinated, but Sunni Islamist insurgents, including an al Qaeda affiliate, have been regaining momentum in recent months. The civil war in neighbouring Syria has aggravated sectarian divisions in Iraq, fraying an uneasy government coalition of Shi'ite, Sunni and ethnic Kurdish factions. The deadliest attacks were in the city of Hilla, where two parked car bombs exploded simultaneously near a busy market and a third blew up near vehicle repair workshops, killing nine people in total, police said. "I was about to get my breakfast in a nearby restaurant when a huge explosion happened and smoke and dust filled the place. Before I had taken a step forward another explosion happened," said Abu Ahmed, who runs a grocery store. "I ran to check on my son who was covering for me in my shop and found him covered with blood among many other bodies. There is no trace left of my shop."

In Baghdad's Shi'ite eastern district, a parked car bomb exploded in a commercial street killing at least five people and wounding 17, police said. Another explosion took place in the oil-exporting southern city of Basra, where a car bomb blew up near another vehicle repair workshop killing five people. A car bomb in the city of Kerbala killed two others, police said. In the capital, three security personnel were killed when a car bomb exploded near the convoy of the head of Baghdad provincial council, and two more people were killed when a roadside bomb blew up in a western outskirt. A further two car bombs exploded inside a market killing two people and wounding another 16 in the town of Dibis, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

In a separate incident, gunmen riding a car shot dead two Shi'ite farmers who had recently returned to their homes in a town east of Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) northeast of Baghdad. In the same area, militants engaged in clashes with policemen at a checkpoint, killing two of them. On the southern outskirts of Baghdad, police said they found the bodies of four Sunnis who were kidnapped from their homes last night by unidentified gunmen. The corpses had gunshot wounds and were handcuffed. About 800 Iraqis were killed in August, according to the United Nations, with more than a third of the deadly attacks happening in Baghdad. The bloodshed, 18 months after U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq, has stirred concerns about a return to the sectarian slaughter of 2006-7, when the monthly death toll sometimes topped 3,000.

Bombings and shootings across Iraq kill at least 36 people - police | Reuters

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Sunnis, not AQ, are doing the heavy killing in the Shi'ite areas.

We need to stay out of this. If chemical weapons are used, let Russia handle it.

 

[francoHFW]

It's going to take years to clean up W's messes, especially in his Great World Recession....

 

[georgephillip]

Uncle Ferd says he saw dat comin' when we pulled out...

Bombings and shootings across Iraq kill at least 36 people - police
Mon Sep 16, 2013 - A wave of car bombs and shootings across Iraq killed at least 36 people on Sunday, police sources said.

No group immediately claimed responsibility for the attacks, which appeared coordinated, but Sunni Islamist insurgents, including an al Qaeda affiliate, have been regaining momentum in recent months. The civil war in neighbouring Syria has aggravated sectarian divisions in Iraq, fraying an uneasy government coalition of Shi'ite, Sunni and ethnic Kurdish factions. The deadliest attacks were in the city of Hilla, where two parked car bombs exploded simultaneously near a busy market and a third blew up near vehicle repair workshops, killing nine people in total, police said. "I was about to get my breakfast in a nearby restaurant when a huge explosion happened and smoke and dust filled the place. Before I had taken a step forward another explosion happened," said Abu Ahmed, who runs a grocery store. "I ran to check on my son who was covering for me in my shop and found him covered with blood among many other bodies. There is no trace left of my shop."

In Baghdad's Shi'ite eastern district, a parked car bomb exploded in a commercial street killing at least five people and wounding 17, police said. Another explosion took place in the oil-exporting southern city of Basra, where a car bomb blew up near another vehicle repair workshop killing five people. A car bomb in the city of Kerbala killed two others, police said. In the capital, three security personnel were killed when a car bomb exploded near the convoy of the head of Baghdad provincial council, and two more people were killed when a roadside bomb blew up in a western outskirt. A further two car bombs exploded inside a market killing two people and wounding another 16 in the town of Dibis, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

In a separate incident, gunmen riding a car shot dead two Shi'ite farmers who had recently returned to their homes in a town east of Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) northeast of Baghdad. In the same area, militants engaged in clashes with policemen at a checkpoint, killing two of them. On the southern outskirts of Baghdad, police said they found the bodies of four Sunnis who were kidnapped from their homes last night by unidentified gunmen. The corpses had gunshot wounds and were handcuffed. About 800 Iraqis were killed in August, according to the United Nations, with more than a third of the deadly attacks happening in Baghdad. The bloodshed, 18 months after U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq, has stirred concerns about a return to the sectarian slaughter of 2006-7, when the monthly death toll sometimes topped 3,000.

Bombings and shootings across Iraq kill at least 36 people - police | Reuters

"The battlefields are merging': Surge in violence raises fears of new war in Iraq and beyond..."

"A major uptick in sectarian violence which has killed about 2,000 people since April 1 has sparked fears that Iraq is heading for a full-scale civil war that could draw in powerful regional rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia.

"There are already signs that the current conflict is starting to merge with the bitter fighting in Syria, creating a war zone from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf.

"The United Nations envoy in Iraq, Martin Kobler, has issued repeated warnings in the last few weeks, pleading with Iraq’s leaders to take urgent action.

“'Small children are burned alive in cars. Worshippers are cut down outside their own mosques. This is beyond unacceptable,” he said on May 17; “Systemic violence is ready to explode at any moment,” was his message on May 30; and on June 16, he complained of 'another round of deadly and remorseless acts of terrorism.'”

'The battlefields are merging': Surge in violence raises fears of new war in Iraq and beyond - World News

 

[Edgetho]

I tried to explain this the other day, but evidently some of our members missed school that day.

Most International Agreements today are done through what s known in this Country as "Executive Agreements".

Treaties and the Ratification Process are still sometimes used to solidify big agreements but usually, the Executive (aka: President) just signs an Executive Agreement and that's the end of that. Executive Agreements in this Country outnumber Treaties by a margin of over 10 to 1

That is a very simple and incomplete explanation, but it will do for what I want to talk about.

At the end of the Iraq War, we had won. It was over. The Insurgency was crushed. Including the Ba'ath faction, the Sunni faction and the Shi'a faction.... Crushed.

The War was over and President of The United States of America, George Walker Bush, handed the Stuttering Clusterfuck Of A Miserable Failure a victory in Iraq.

The only job left to the SCOAMF was to finish renegotiating a "Status of Forces Agreement" that Bush had signed in 2008.

The leaders of Iraq were more than willing to sign a SFA that gave us exactly what we wanted. But the people of Iran were very divided on what to do. Many of them were against it for one reason or another and for that reason, so were many of their elected Representatives.

Propaganda was running hot and heavy in Iraq. Tribal hatreds, memories of fresh blood, dead family members, etc.

Like I said, the Executives, the Leaders of Iraq were more than willing to sign the SFA we wanted in order to keep troops in there. But the SCOAMF and Hitlery INSISTED that the SFA be approved by Iraq's Parliament where they KNEW it would fail.

Those scumbags knew it would fail if it went to Iraq's Parliament and that's why they insisted on it when an Executive Agreement was all we needed..

They sabotaged the Iraq War on purpose. They couldn't let GW have a victory.

To be honest, some fault has to be laid at the feet of Bush. He shouldn't have signed the original agreement in 2008.... But he did.

Every time this POS, the SCOAMF, can let something go bad but has an 'out' has 'plausible deniability' or any tenuous claim to it being somebody else's fault...... He'll take it.

This is what happens when you elect a community organizer who only knows how to vote 'present'.

You can read more about the duplicity and dishonesty of the Stuttering Clusterfuck regime re; Iraq here.....

From FIVE (5) years ago --



OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS? IRAQ WITHDRAWAL | New York Post

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari,

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as “a man of the Left” – who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq’s liberation. Indeed, say Talabani’s advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki’s advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win – but the prime minister worries about the senator’s “political debt to the anti-war lobby” – which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was “the biggest strategic blunder in US history.”

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show “a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues.”

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn’t want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of “pre-emptive” war – that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

dimocraps are the scum of the Earth

 

[JakeStarkey]

Edgetho is creating fictional history, and when one like that is engaged in such, the best course is to say "no, that's wrong", make sure others understand that it is wrong, then not argue but move on.

 

[Edgetho]

Edgetho is creating fictional history, and when one like that is engaged in such, the best course is to say "no, that's wrong", make sure others understand that it is wrong, then not argue but move on.

Everything I posted is Historical Fact.

Refute it or continue to be considered a lying sack of shit.

Better to be thought to be stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.... Stupid.

obama threw the Iraq War. He was campaigning saying one thing and working behind the scenes to accomplish another.

Everybody knows it. Except you.

If this is news to you (and I suspect it is) do a little research before I send you home crying again.

FACTS would help.

Biden reveals why the Obama administration abandoned Iraq | The Daily Caller

President Obama’s decision was irresponsible, and motivated largely by politics. Obama opposed the Iraq war from day one, and wanted a political victory to bandy about on the campaign trail. By withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq, he could boast, as he did repeatedly, that he had ended the war. Vice President Biden recently gave a telling interview to the New York Times Magazine, where he gushed about telling the president, “Thank you for giving me the chance to end this goddamn war.”

This quote is the epitome of the Obama administration’s policy: passion and politics over careful and strategic thinking.

Obama?s Abandonment of Iraq « Commentary Magazine

Obama?s Abandoning Iraq Roadshow | FrontPage Magazine

Imagine If Obama Hadn't Abandoned Iraq | The Weekly Standard

How Obama Betrayed America | National Review Online

The Great Betrayal: Obama?s Wars and the War in Iraq | FrontPage Magazine

The war on terror began as an admirable bipartisan commitment soon after the tragedy of 9/11 not only to punish those who attacked our country but also to interrupt planning for further attacks and try to stop the international spread of the Islamist violence. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party soon turned its back on a war it had authorized and did so at time when American troops were facing hostile enemy fire. The ultimate result of that betrayal was Barack Obama’s foreign policy. His abandonment of Iraq, Daniel Greenfield argues in The Great Betrayal, is an abandonment of all the Americans and Iraqis who gave their lives to establish freedom in that country. In Afghanistan, meanwhile, Obama presented his rationale for the pursuing the war as the pursuit of al Qaeda. Yet, after a “surge” causing two thirds of all American casualties there and the resurgence of the Taliban allies of al-Qaeda, he prepared for withdrawal as if national objectives had been met. In Libya he waged a “war of choice” such as he had opposed in Iraq as a senator, while ignoring the spread of evil in Syria and Iran. As Daniel Greenfield shows in this important work, the Obama Democrats have empowered jihadists while falsely claiming that the war on terror is over.

How Obama Betrayed America | FrontPage Magazine

Republican Candidates Vigorously Oppose Obama Abandoning Iraq | Lubbock Online | Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

One of many reasons why I despise dimocrap scum.....

Instead of conceding that I'm right (I usually am) and defending the Stuttering Clusterfuck's decision to abandon Iraq....

You lie about it. You claim that I'm making shit up when it's you that has your head up your ass. As usual.

the Stuttering Clusterfuck abandoned Iraq.

If you don't believe that, then you choose to REMAIN stupid.

I suspect it's easier for you. Low expectations and all that. At least nobody ever expects to do any heavy mental lifting.

idiot

 

[AceRothstein]

The only job left to the SCOAMF was to finish renegotiating a "Status of Forces Agreement" that Bush had signed in 2008.

The leaders of Iraq were more than willing to sign a SFA that gave us exactly what we wanted. But the people of Iran were very divided on what to do. Many of them were against it for one reason or another and for that reason, so were many of their elected Representatives.

Propaganda was running hot and heavy in Iraq. Tribal hatreds, memories of fresh blood, dead family members, etc.

Like I said, the Executives, the Leaders of Iraq were more than willing to sign the SFA we wanted in order to keep troops in there. But the SCOAMF and Hitlery INSISTED that the SFA be approved by Iraq's Parliament where they KNEW it would fail.

Those scumbags knew it would fail if it went to Iraq's Parliament and that's why they insisted on it when an Executive Agreement was all we needed..

You mean the Obama Administration wanted the Iraqi government to do the same thing in 2011 that they did in 2008, have the Iraqi Parliament ratify the agreement? Shocking!

 

[Edgetho]

The only job left to the SCOAMF was to finish renegotiating a "Status of Forces Agreement" that Bush had signed in 2008.

The leaders of Iraq were more than willing to sign a SFA that gave us exactly what we wanted. But the people of Iran were very divided on what to do. Many of them were against it for one reason or another and for that reason, so were many of their elected Representatives.

Propaganda was running hot and heavy in Iraq. Tribal hatreds, memories of fresh blood, dead family members, etc.

Like I said, the Executives, the Leaders of Iraq were more than willing to sign the SFA we wanted in order to keep troops in there. But the SCOAMF and Hitlery INSISTED that the SFA be approved by Iraq's Parliament where they KNEW it would fail.

Those scumbags knew it would fail if it went to Iraq's Parliament and that's why they insisted on it when an Executive Agreement was all we needed..

You mean the Obama Administration wanted the Iraqi government to do the same thing in 2011 that they did in 2008, have the Iraqi Parliament ratify the agreement? Shocking!

Context helps a little bit. So I'll help you get up to speed.

Iraq was in the middle of Election Campaigning. the piece of fucking shit in our White House and his guppy-mouthed toady, Hitlery knew this.

An Executive Agreement was what EVERYBODY on the Iraqi side wanted. Even the honest politicians who publicly decried further American Military presence.

A Vote in Iraq's Parliament would have become a political football and would have been defeated. Even though everybody not aligned with Iran or al Qaeda wanted an American Military presence.

Which includes the Stuttering Clusterfukk, BTW.

Your conclusion is childish, uninformed and imbecilic.

92% of our International Agreements, including Treaties, don't go before the Senate and the House seldom sees them. Even many of the Treaties that go before the Senate languish in committee for years, sometimes for Decades while they're being fully enforced by the Executive Branch.

I suspected this would be over the heads of most of you.

I was right.

the Stuttering Clusterfuck back-stabbed Iraq. Everybody knows it except the ignorant and uninformed.

How do you think a Congressional Vote to give Viet Nam MFN (most favored nation) status would have faired in the Congress?

If you're interested (you're not) here's an article for you to read

The American Society of International Law ASIL Insights - International Agreements and U.S. Law

Not all international agreements negotiated by the United States are submitted to the Senate for its consent. Sometimes the Executive Branch negotiates an agreement that is intended to be binding only if sent to the Senate, but the President for political reasons decides not to seek its consent. Often, however, the Executive Branch negotiates agreements that are intended to be binding without the consent of two-thirds of the Senate. Sometimes these agreements are entered into with the concurrence of a simple majority of both houses of Congress ("Congressional-Executive agreements"); in these cases the concurrence may be given either before or after the Executive Branch negotiates the agreement. On other occasions the President simply enters into an agreement without the intended or actual participation of either house of Congress (a "Presidential," or "Sole Executive" agreement).

If you want to get even more pedantic.....

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

 

[JakeStarkey]

Everthing Edgetho has posted is a fictional interpretation of historical fact.

Why do you think neo-conservatism is losing power in American politics: folks figured it out.

 

[dilloduck]

Everthing Edgetho has posted is a fictional interpretation of historical fact.

Why do you think neo-conservatism is losing power in American politics: folks figured it out.

I assume you don't want to try to refute the facts ?

 

[BlindBoo]

I tried to explain this the other day, but evidently some of our members missed school that day.

scum of the Earth

Iraq?s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, ”Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.


Read more: Iraq?s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

 

[rdean]

Bush: One of the major theaters against al-Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al-Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al-Qaeda was hoping to take—
Raddatz: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

Bush: Yeah, that’s right. So what? The point is that al-Qaeda said they’re going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al-Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Bush to ABC News: "So What?"

Bush Admits Al Qaeda Wasn't In Iraq Before Invasion: "So What?"

Bush telling America, Fuck you assholes. I do what I want. You idiots mean nothing to me and meaning it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBx5QH3CqvQ]Bush On Iraq & Al Qaida - "So What" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[rdean]

That's what I should say when USMB Republicans get mad at the truth.

So what?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's going to take years to clean up W's messes, especially in his Great World Recession....

Lol its already been 5 years

 

[Steven_R]

It's going to take years to clean up W's messes, especially in his Great World Recession....

Lol its already been 5 years

Obama's going to finally earn that Nobel Peace Prize...someday...just you wait and see...sure it looks like he hasn't fixed Iraq, but that's just because Obama is pacing himself.

 

[Darkwind]

That train left the station long ago.

 

[Desperado]

At this point in time............ Fuck Iraq!
Bush did not want to leave, Obama did not want to leave.
Iraq basically told us they did not want any more help from the United States.
So lets give them what they wanted. We should have learned our lesson by now.

 

[deltex1]

Maybe the Stuttering Clusterfuck can arrange to ship Syrians CW to Iraq so the Shiites can gas the Sunnis...