A Hard Truth On Iraq

Iraq army manned by ghost soldiers...

Iraqi PM: Baghdad govt. paying salaries of 50,000 non-existent Iraqi soldiers
Nov. 30, 2014 | Around 50,000 fictitious names were found on Iraq's Ministry of Defense payrolls. Experts say the money is collected by corrupt officers who inflate personnel figures.
The prime minister of Iraq Sunday said at least 50,000 non-existent soldiers have been collecting salaries from the country's military, revealing corruption in Iraqi ranks that some say led to the army's collapse against extremists over the summer. In a speech to parliament, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi noted an investigation that revealed the existence of 50,000 "ghost soldiers," or names that are on Ministry of Defense payrolls but are not real soldiers who muster for duty. Experts say the practice is perpetrated by corrupt Iraqi army officers who inflate personnel numbers and pocket the extra money. As well, some commanders collect the pay of soldiers who go missing or are killed but are not reported as such.

In other cases, ghost soldiers are on call for inspections to prove personnel numbers, but are sent home a majority of the time. Officers and soldiers with this arrangement split the salary. "The salary of a ghost soldier is around 1 million dinars a month [about $800], and about $400 goes into the pockets of the officers," Arkan Hussein, an accountant for a military base south of Baghdad, told Al-Monitor. "If an officer has at least 10 of these ghosts, he would get about $5,000 per month, not to mention other officers who hide dozens of ghost soldiers, in addition to other salaries and privileges that the leaders benefit from."

Iraqi-PM-Baghdad-govt-paying-salaries-of-50000-non-existent-Iraqi-soldiers.jpg

An Iraqi army non-commissioned officer inspects soldiers from Commando Battalion, 10th Iraqi Army Division in Dhi Qar, Iraq on October 26, 2009. A recent investigation by the Iraqi government revealed 50,000 "ghost soldiers" -- false names in Iraqi military payrolls.

The number of ghost soldiers found in the recent investigation is almost equal to the strength of four divisions. Aside from sectarian complexities, corruption in Iraqi military ranks has been blamed for the collapse of four of the Iraqi army's 14 divisions when Islamic State militants went on the offensive in June. Al-Abadi said future inspections would uncover even more ghost soldiers. The successor to former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Al-Abadi has been under pressure from the U.S. to build a lighter, more efficient military force.

The Pentagon proposed a $1.6 billion budget to train and equip Kurdish peshmerga, Sunni tribal forces against the Islamic State, and the Iraqi military, which would receive the largest allotment at $1.2 billion. Between 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, and 2011, when it withdrew from the country, the U.S. spent $20 billion training and equipping Iraqi security forces.

Read more: Iraqi army paying salaries of 50 000 nonexistent soldiers - UPI.com
 
An excellent piece by someone who's been there. I totally agree that we simply cannot put troops into active operations – the locals must defend themselves and build their own governments.


Read more @ A Hard Truth on Iraq Marine Vet For Freedom
We heard for years that the world as we know it would end if we "allowed" Vietnam to reunify.

Now we hear the world as we know it will end if ISIS erases all the lines drawn by dead Brits, and restores a caliphate, a form of government that worked well for the region for over 1,000 years.

I think we should pull out, and let these people sort out their own probems.

We have no place in a Sunni/Shia Muslim schism, and we should have no say in the struggle over who will rule the Arabs, Persians or Turks.
 
we simply cannot put troops into active operations
Honestly, this new policy sounds suspicious to me.
Remember, only 300 advisors are going to Iraq.

advice is nice
Vice is more fun.

"fun"-------there is an Arabic word-----we can ask roudy----
I think it is "kef" or "kif" not sure-----but it is considered
"not nice" -----fun seeking is very bad.-----in Iran they have
"FUN POLICE" something like party poopers---------who
ROOT OUT FUN.
 
As bad as he was, Saddam was secular. He had Christians in his government and in his officer corps.
 
As bad as he was, Saddam was secular. He had Christians in his government and in his officer corps.

nice of you to parrot the filth of islamo Nazi propaganda-----Saddam was a murdering pig-----the only people who
were relatively safe from that disgusting monster were
SUNNI NON-KURD MUSLIMS---------he murdered hundreds
of thousands of "others" with gleeful abandon and funded
terrorism --(slit baby throats) thruout the world--------a fact
he decorated with a few idiot pawns. You have interesting
friends------Adolf Hitler was secular too------and Stalin was even more secular. ----so was pol pot
 
I am a Christian and Christians in Iraq were far better off under Saddam. Over 250,000 Christians have left Iraq and 1000s have been killed since Saddam was deposed.

More people are being killed violently on an annual basis in Iraq now than under Saddam. So there you go. By the way, Islamonazis (as you call them) hated Saddam you moron.
 
I am a Christian and Christians in Iraq were far better off under Saddam. Over 250,000 Christians have left Iraq and 1000s have been killed since Saddam was deposed.

More people are being killed violently on an annual basis in Iraq now than under Saddam. So there you go. By the way, Islamonazis (as you call them) hated Saddam you moron.

"better off" is a very loaded concept when considering the
issue of oppressed minorities I am a jew----I was born in the USA----but I carry a huge family legacy of people moving
from there to there in order to be "better off"-------jews moved to Germany------very early on be be BETTER off from two
sources of oppression-------one of them was Catholic France----and later on ----even muslims invaded southern France.
The RHINE VALLEY was a terrific alternative for a time.
Some of my ancestors moved to Austria to be "better off"----
large numbers of those relatives ended in Auschwitz---but for a time they were better off Better off for Iraq-----for Christians-----saddam vs isis--------yes ---Christians were better off under sadaam than under isis-------you actually believe you made a point---your point being islamo Nazi Baathists are better than islamo Nazi ISIS------yes---that
may be true. They hate each other---yes---dozens of tribes
in the country of my hubby's birth---a shariah cesspit----
are muslims killing muslims--today. I had a teacher in my childhood who spent world war II in Siberia-----in a kind of labor camp. His family
ran from Poland to Russia where they would be better off----
most of his group died in Siberia but better off than Auschwitz
 
I am a Christian and Christians in Iraq were far better off under Saddam. Over 250,000 Christians have left Iraq and 1000s have been killed since Saddam was deposed.

More people are being killed violently on an annual basis in Iraq now than under Saddam. So there you go. By the way, Islamonazis (as you call them) hated Saddam you moron.

"better off" is a very loaded concept when considering the
issue of oppressed minorities I am a jew----I was born in the USA----but I carry a huge family legacy of people moving
from there to there in order to be "better off"-------jews moved to Germany------very early on be be BETTER off from two
sources of oppression-------one of them was Catholic France----and later on ----even muslims invaded southern France.
The RHINE VALLEY was a terrific alternative for a time.
Some of my ancestors moved to Austria to be "better off"----
large numbers of those relatives ended in Auschwitz---but for a time they were better off Better off for Iraq-----for Christians-----saddam vs isis--------yes ---Christians were better off under sadaam than under isis-------you actually believe you made a point---your point being islamo Nazi Baathists are better than islamo Nazi ISIS------yes---that
may be true. They hate each other---yes---dozens of tribes
in the country of my hubby's birth---a shariah cesspit----
are muslims killing muslims--today. I had a teacher in my childhood who spent world war II in Siberia-----in a kind of labor camp. His family
ran from Poland to Russia where they would be better off----
most of his group died in Siberia but better off than Auschwitz

1. Given the choice, I prefer secular Nazis to religious Nazis.

2. I prefer government/leaderships that keep Christian minorities safe and allow Christians into the power structure.
 
I am a Christian and Christians in Iraq were far better off under Saddam. Over 250,000 Christians have left Iraq and 1000s have been killed since Saddam was deposed.

More people are being killed violently on an annual basis in Iraq now than under Saddam. So there you go. By the way, Islamonazis (as you call them) hated Saddam you moron.

"better off" is a very loaded concept when considering the
issue of oppressed minorities I am a jew----I was born in the USA----but I carry a huge family legacy of people moving
from there to there in order to be "better off"-------jews moved to Germany------very early on be be BETTER off from two
sources of oppression-------one of them was Catholic France----and later on ----even muslims invaded southern France.
The RHINE VALLEY was a terrific alternative for a time.
Some of my ancestors moved to Austria to be "better off"----
large numbers of those relatives ended in Auschwitz---but for a time they were better off Better off for Iraq-----for Christians-----saddam vs isis--------yes ---Christians were better off under sadaam than under isis-------you actually believe you made a point---your point being islamo Nazi Baathists are better than islamo Nazi ISIS------yes---that
may be true. They hate each other---yes---dozens of tribes
in the country of my hubby's birth---a shariah cesspit----
are muslims killing muslims--today. I had a teacher in my childhood who spent world war II in Siberia-----in a kind of labor camp. His family
ran from Poland to Russia where they would be better off----
most of his group died in Siberia but better off than Auschwitz

1. Given the choice, I prefer secular Nazis to religious Nazis.

2. I prefer government/leaderships that keep Christian minorities safe and allow Christians into the power structure.


right ----a choice between bad and worse
 
I am a Christian and Christians in Iraq were far better off under Saddam. Over 250,000 Christians have left Iraq and 1000s have been killed since Saddam was deposed.

More people are being killed violently on an annual basis in Iraq now than under Saddam. So there you go. By the way, Islamonazis (as you call them) hated Saddam you moron.

"better off" is a very loaded concept when considering the
issue of oppressed minorities I am a jew----I was born in the USA----but I carry a huge family legacy of people moving
from there to there in order to be "better off"-------jews moved to Germany------very early on be be BETTER off from two
sources of oppression-------one of them was Catholic France----and later on ----even muslims invaded southern France.
The RHINE VALLEY was a terrific alternative for a time.
Some of my ancestors moved to Austria to be "better off"----
large numbers of those relatives ended in Auschwitz---but for a time they were better off Better off for Iraq-----for Christians-----saddam vs isis--------yes ---Christians were better off under sadaam than under isis-------you actually believe you made a point---your point being islamo Nazi Baathists are better than islamo Nazi ISIS------yes---that
may be true. They hate each other---yes---dozens of tribes
in the country of my hubby's birth---a shariah cesspit----
are muslims killing muslims--today. I had a teacher in my childhood who spent world war II in Siberia-----in a kind of labor camp. His family
ran from Poland to Russia where they would be better off----
most of his group died in Siberia but better off than Auschwitz

1. Given the choice, I prefer secular Nazis to religious Nazis.

2. I prefer government/leaderships that keep Christian minorities safe and allow Christians into the power structure.


right ----a choice between bad and worse


So, there you go, that's why I prefer Saddam to this current lot.
 
I am a Christian and Christians in Iraq were far better off under Saddam. Over 250,000 Christians have left Iraq and 1000s have been killed since Saddam was deposed.

More people are being killed violently on an annual basis in Iraq now than under Saddam. So there you go. By the way, Islamonazis (as you call them) hated Saddam you moron.

"better off" is a very loaded concept when considering the
issue of oppressed minorities I am a jew----I was born in the USA----but I carry a huge family legacy of people moving
from there to there in order to be "better off"-------jews moved to Germany------very early on be be BETTER off from two
sources of oppression-------one of them was Catholic France----and later on ----even muslims invaded southern France.
The RHINE VALLEY was a terrific alternative for a time.
Some of my ancestors moved to Austria to be "better off"----
large numbers of those relatives ended in Auschwitz---but for a time they were better off Better off for Iraq-----for Christians-----saddam vs isis--------yes ---Christians were better off under sadaam than under isis-------you actually believe you made a point---your point being islamo Nazi Baathists are better than islamo Nazi ISIS------yes---that
may be true. They hate each other---yes---dozens of tribes
in the country of my hubby's birth---a shariah cesspit----
are muslims killing muslims--today. I had a teacher in my childhood who spent world war II in Siberia-----in a kind of labor camp. His family
ran from Poland to Russia where they would be better off----
most of his group died in Siberia but better off than Auschwitz

1. Given the choice, I prefer secular Nazis to religious Nazis.

2. I prefer government/leaderships that keep Christian minorities safe and allow Christians into the power structure.


right ----a choice between bad and worse


So, there you go, that's why I prefer Saddam to this current lot.


Ok----I prefer Saddam to the present ISIS too. both consist of islamo Nazi pigs------lots of islamo Nazi pig groups hate other islamo Nazi pig groups. Iranians were Nazis even before Pakistanis were. Both are now islamo Nazi pigs
and Iranians hate Pakistanis-------interestingly----at least as far as I have observed-----Pakistanis do not hate Iranians as
much as Iranians hate them -----URDU---the main language of west Pakistan----includes lots FARSI elements. Italians were never the Nazis that germans were. How they managed to become allies------mystifies me
 
I am a Christian and Christians in Iraq were far better off under Saddam. Over 250,000 Christians have left Iraq and 1000s have been killed since Saddam was deposed.

More people are being killed violently on an annual basis in Iraq now than under Saddam. So there you go. By the way, Islamonazis (as you call them) hated Saddam you moron.

"better off" is a very loaded concept when considering the
issue of oppressed minorities I am a jew----I was born in the USA----but I carry a huge family legacy of people moving
from there to there in order to be "better off"-------jews moved to Germany------very early on be be BETTER off from two
sources of oppression-------one of them was Catholic France----and later on ----even muslims invaded southern France.
The RHINE VALLEY was a terrific alternative for a time.
Some of my ancestors moved to Austria to be "better off"----
large numbers of those relatives ended in Auschwitz---but for a time they were better off Better off for Iraq-----for Christians-----saddam vs isis--------yes ---Christians were better off under sadaam than under isis-------you actually believe you made a point---your point being islamo Nazi Baathists are better than islamo Nazi ISIS------yes---that
may be true. They hate each other---yes---dozens of tribes
in the country of my hubby's birth---a shariah cesspit----
are muslims killing muslims--today. I had a teacher in my childhood who spent world war II in Siberia-----in a kind of labor camp. His family
ran from Poland to Russia where they would be better off----
most of his group died in Siberia but better off than Auschwitz

1. Given the choice, I prefer secular Nazis to religious Nazis.

2. I prefer government/leaderships that keep Christian minorities safe and allow Christians into the power structure.


right ----a choice between bad and worse


So, there you go, that's why I prefer Saddam to this current lot.


Ok----I prefer Saddam to the present ISIS too. both consist of islamo Nazi pigs------lots of islamo Nazi pig groups hate other islamo Nazi pig groups. Iranians were Nazis even before Pakistanis were. Both are now islamo Nazi pigs
and Iranians hate Pakistanis-------interestingly----at least as far as I have observed-----Pakistanis do not hate Iranians as
much as Iranians hate them -----URDU---the main language of west Pakistan----includes lots FARSI elements. Italians were never the Nazis that germans were. How they managed to become allies------mystifies me

Saddam and his people were far from "Islamo". Many were Christian, they all drank alcohol and were womanizers. They would have been beheaded by ISIS.
 

Forum List

Back
Top