There Is No al Qaeda In Iraq

[georgephillip]

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia,Sudan and finishing off Iran."

Is Wesley another crazy extremist?

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[U2Edge]

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia,Sudan and finishing off Iran."

Is Wesley another crazy extremist?

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to a lot of US generals who worked with him, yes. His views since leaving the military have been at odds with the majority of the uniformed military that supported the removal of Saddam from power in order to protect US security and interest in the Persian Gulf.

Wesley Clark says he talked to some unnamed person in hallway about this. WOW, what an informed source, and interesting that someone in Wesley Clarks position is dependent on some unnamed random person in hallway talking about some fantasy future! LOL

 

[georgephillip]

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia,Sudan and finishing off Iran."

Is Wesley another crazy extremist?

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to a lot of US generals who worked with him, yes. His views since leaving the military have been at odds with the majority of the uniformed military that supported the removal of Saddam from power in order to protect US security and interest in the Persian Gulf.

Wesley Clark says he talked to some unnamed person in hallway about this. WOW, what an informed source, and interesting that someone in Wesley Clarks position is dependent on some unnamed random person in hallway talking about some fantasy future! LOL

Name some of those US generals who view Clark's views as "crazy" or "extremist." Since Libya and Iraq have already fallen, and Lebanon and Syria are currently being destabilized, there's nothing fantastical about Clark's revelations; in fact, he looks more like a prophet (truth teller) than that nameless "majority of uniformed military..." who spoke in favor of a war that made them much richer than they were before they helped murder, maim, rape, displace, and incarcerate millions of innocent Muslim civilians.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1SP8C9jNE4]General Wesley Clark Reveals 5 Year USA War Agenda From 2007 - 2012 - gps1952. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Desperado]

Will three times be the charm?
We tried to train the South Vietnamese Army to fight, it failed
We tried to train the Iraqi Army to fight, it appears to be a failure.
We are trying the same thing in Afghanistan..... Any bets on what will happen there?
Insanity is defined by doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
So what does that tell you about our foreign policy?

 

[rdean]

Right?

Al-Qaeda Live Tweet Attack On Police Station, Mall In Kirkuk, Iraq, Up To 70 Injured

Al Qaeda had a twitter account live tweeting the attack. We will not be linking to the account to give them any publicity. Despite requests to shut down the account, Twitter has not deleted the account as of this writing. The attack in the area is still ongoing and they are still tweeting. They are apparently holed up in the shopping mall.

There is video of the part of the attack. Warning in advance for graphic nature of violence.The camera crew is on the run with the police officers defending the police station.

(Edge: I'm not going to post it here.)

Via Daily Star:

Insurgents attack police headquarters in Iraq | News , Middle East | THE DAILY STAR

Kurdish anti-terror forces deployed in Kirkuk a few hours ago to eliminate Al Qaeda terrorists who had overrun a mall

BAGHDAD: Iraqi authorities say insurgents have attacked a security headquarters in a northern city, killing four people.

Police officials say the assault on Wednesday took place when a car bomb exploded at the gate of the Police Intelligence Department in the religiously-mixed city of Kirkuk. Later, suicide bomber entered the building and set off his explosive belt among police members.

A gunbattle between attackers and security forces erupted immediately after the bombings, said police. They said another 46 people were wounded.

Hospital officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to media, confirmed the casualty figure.

Wednesday’s attack came only one day after a similar assault on a mayor’s office in the Sunni town of Tarmiyah that left 10 people dead.

Edge:

Yeah, this would belong in another forum except for the fact that libs keep telling us how there's no al Qaeda in Iraq. Now or ever.

Funny. I bet there's some Kurds that might not agree

There was no al Qaeda in Iraq until Republicans threw open the doors and let them in turd on stilts. Liberals have always said that. Because it's true.

 

[Mojo2]

There are two positives to glean from this development.

1) The people of Iraq and Fallujah, in this case, have tasted freedom.

Once people taste freedom and liberty, they will forever think of getting it back.

2) We see that an overwhelming force is not needed to gain control of a large region.

This goes contrary to many Americans who pooh-pooh the idea of Islamic conquest without a D-day sized and equipped invasion force.

Oh, and a third one.

3) We can't assume we are ever safe from re-attack by the forces of Islam. If they are moved back, they must be kept back.

 

[asterism]

Right?

Al-Qaeda Live Tweet Attack On Police Station, Mall In Kirkuk, Iraq, Up To 70 Injured

Al Qaeda had a twitter account live tweeting the attack. We will not be linking to the account to give them any publicity. Despite requests to shut down the account, Twitter has not deleted the account as of this writing. The attack in the area is still ongoing and they are still tweeting. They are apparently holed up in the shopping mall.

There is video of the part of the attack. Warning in advance for graphic nature of violence.The camera crew is on the run with the police officers defending the police station.

(Edge: I'm not going to post it here.)

Via Daily Star:

Insurgents attack police headquarters in Iraq | News , Middle East | THE DAILY STAR

Kurdish anti-terror forces deployed in Kirkuk a few hours ago to eliminate Al Qaeda terrorists who had overrun a mall

BAGHDAD: Iraqi authorities say insurgents have attacked a security headquarters in a northern city, killing four people.

Police officials say the assault on Wednesday took place when a car bomb exploded at the gate of the Police Intelligence Department in the religiously-mixed city of Kirkuk. Later, suicide bomber entered the building and set off his explosive belt among police members.

A gunbattle between attackers and security forces erupted immediately after the bombings, said police. They said another 46 people were wounded.

Hospital officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to media, confirmed the casualty figure.

Wednesday’s attack came only one day after a similar assault on a mayor’s office in the Sunni town of Tarmiyah that left 10 people dead.

Edge:

Yeah, this would belong in another forum except for the fact that libs keep telling us how there's no al Qaeda in Iraq. Now or ever.

Funny. I bet there's some Kurds that might not agree

There was no al Qaeda in Iraq until Republicans threw open the doors and let them in turd on stilts. Liberals have always said that. Because it's true.

Not true.

TIMELINE: Zarqawi's road to perdition. - TIME

 

[georgephillip]

Will three times be the charm?
We tried to train the South Vietnamese Army to fight, it failed
We tried to train the Iraqi Army to fight, it appears to be a failure.
We are trying the same thing in Afghanistan..... Any bets on what will happen there?
Insanity is defined by doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
So what does that tell you about our foreign policy?

Smedley Butler gave the best answer to that question that I've found:

"WAR is a racket.

"It always has been.

"It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope.

"It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

"A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people.

"Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about.

"It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many.

"Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

"In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War.

"That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

"How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle?

"How many of them dug a trench?

"How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets?

"How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy?

"How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?"

About as many as Dick Cheney, George Bush, Bill (and Hill) Clinton, and Barry.

War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935

 

[TooTall]

Christmas in Iraq...

Christmas Day bombings in Iraq's capital kill 37
December 25, 2013 - — Militants in Iraq targeted Christians in three separate Christmas Day bombings in Baghdad, killing at least 37 people, officials said Wednesday.

Thanks for corroborating one more time that the war in Iraq was a total waste of over 4500 lives, 45,000 limbs from IEDs and over $3,000,000,000,000 in taxpayer money.

After all that and Obama threw it away.

 

[U2Edge]

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia,Sudan and finishing off Iran."

Is Wesley another crazy extremist?

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to a lot of US generals who worked with him, yes. His views since leaving the military have been at odds with the majority of the uniformed military that supported the removal of Saddam from power in order to protect US security and interest in the Persian Gulf.

Wesley Clark says he talked to some unnamed person in hallway about this. WOW, what an informed source, and interesting that someone in Wesley Clarks position is dependent on some unnamed random person in hallway talking about some fantasy future! LOL

Name some of those US generals who view Clark's views as "crazy" or "extremist." Since Libya and Iraq have already fallen, and Lebanon and Syria are currently being destabilized, there's nothing fantastical about Clark's revelations; in fact, he looks more like a prophet (truth teller) than that nameless "majority of uniformed military..." who spoke in favor of a war that made them much richer than they were before they helped murder, maim, rape, displace, and incarcerate millions of innocent Muslim civilians.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1SP8C9jNE4]General Wesley Clark Reveals 5 Year USA War Agenda From 2007 - 2012 - gps1952. - YouTube[/ame]

General Hugh Shelton was to put it mildly not very fond of Wesley Clark. Wesley Clark is alone in is more outlandish and unsubstantiated views.

The United States military do not do the things you claim. 120,000 Iraqi civilians have died in Iraq the vast majority at the hands of terrorist! The number of civilians killed in Afghanistan is only 10% of that in Iraq. These rates of death are LOW by all historical standards and pale in comparison to the slaughter Saddam engaged in the 1980s and early 1990s.

The Leadership has changed in Libya and Iraq and that is a good thing. But the maps are not changing, not at all!

 

[U2Edge]

Will three times be the charm?
We tried to train the South Vietnamese Army to fight, it failed
We tried to train the Iraqi Army to fight, it appears to be a failure.
We are trying the same thing in Afghanistan..... Any bets on what will happen there?
Insanity is defined by doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
So what does that tell you about our foreign policy?

The only reason the South Vietnamese Army failed was because the liberal democratic congress cut off funding to that army while the Soviets and Chinese were moving as much aid to the North Vietnamese Army as possible. Because congress cut off the funding, the South Vietnamese military did not have the resources it needed to defend itself in 1975 from the North's massive offensive.

The Iraqi military is doing just fine. Civilian deaths in Iraq are much lower than they were when the United States had 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. The American military has been withdrawing from Afghanistan for over a year now, and will be out by the end of 2014. Despite that, the Taliban has made no significant gains in Afghanistan because the security forces there have proven themselves up to the task of replacing coalition forces.

Karzie is still the leader of Afghanistan and will likely be for many more years. Maliki is the leader of Iraq and will likely be for many more years. The Taliban will never rule Afghanistan again, and those of Saddam's ilk will never rule Iraq again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

U2Edge is indeed a failed neo-con.

We failed in Vietnam because (1) the American population decided after 17 thousand body bags came home in 1968 that we could not win the war; and (2) the Vietnamese leadership was too corrupt.

We failed in Iraq (1) because the Bushies tried to do it on the cheap while enriching their pet corporations and (2) the day we sided with the Sunnis 2005 the Shi'ites realized they could never trust the Americans. (3) The killings in Iraq are increasing and (4) the governments of Iraq and Iran grow closer.

We are failing in Afghanistan because (1) Bush removed the helicopter, mountain, spec op units we needed to keep the bad guys down for the Iraqi invasion, allowing the bad guys to regroup and regrow. (2) We hold Kabul and a few fortress in the hinterlands, nothing more.

Conclusion: the neo-cons bent the American government and people over, stuffed them, and took their billfold. Absolute cock up.

 

[U2Edge]

U2Edge is indeed a failed neo-con.

We failed in Vietnam because (1) the American population decided after 17 thousand body bags came home in 1968 that we could not win the war; and (2) the Vietnamese leadership was too corrupt.

We failed in Iraq (1) because the Bushies tried to do it on the cheap while enriching their pet corporations and (2) the day we sided with the Sunnis 2005 the Shi'ites realized they could never trust the Americans. (3) The killings in Iraq are increasing and (4) the governments of Iraq and Iran grow closer.

We are failing in Afghanistan because (1) Bush removed the helicopter, mountain, spec op units we needed to keep the bad guys down for the Iraqi invasion, allowing the bad guys to regroup and regrow. (2) We hold Kabul and a few fortress in the hinterlands, nothing more.

Conclusion: the neo-cons bent the American government and people over, stuffed them, and took their billfold. Absolute cock up.

During the Vietnam war, United States forces in Vietnam reached the largest size in 1969, a year after the largest casualties of 1968. The Nixon administration adopted the policy of Vietnamization in order to strengthen South Vietnams ability to stand on its own without American troops on the ground. US forces were then withdrawn gradually during Nixon's first administration.

All the politicians who were for ending the war immediately or withdraw immediately without conditions were defeated in 1968. Nixon won the greatest landslide in American history in 1972 as he was loosening restrictions on US bombing raids over the north. But the democrats won a majority in congress and that proved to be the United States undoing in Vietnam.

The South Vietnamese military by the end of 1972 and repelled the Norths Easter Offensive with the aid of American air power. With continued US support for the South Vietnamese military and the aid of US Air Power, the North would NEVER have been able to take over the south.

But in 1973, the democratic led US congress began cutting money and supplies for the South Vietnamese Military. Then in August 1973, the democratic led congress successfully passed the Case Church amendment which cut all funds for any further US military activity in South East Asia, meaning that US Airpower would not be allowed to come to the aid of South Vietnam if there was a problem.

Finally in 1975, with the South Vietnamese starved for two years and the end of support from the US military, the North having been heavily supplied by their Chinese and Soviet Allies, were able to move in and defeat the unsupplied and poorly equipped South Vietnamese military that the United States had been forced to abandon because the Democratic led congress cut off all the funding and as well as any funding for more US military operations in the region!

THATS THE ONLY REASON WHY THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE LOST!



In Iraq, the United States did not fail. It successfully removed Saddam from power, and the government that the United States helped install in 2006, that of Nuri Al Maliki is still 8 years later running the country. The Iraqi military has proven itself capable of handling the security situation on the ground without the aid of American troops on the ground.

There has been a spike in killings in Iraq in 2013, but the numbers are still tiny compared to 2006. Iran and Iraq are closer today because SADDAM is gone, just as Iraq and Kuwait are closer today now that SADDAM is gone. Nearly every country in the world has better relations with Iraq today now that SADDAM is gone. That's not bad thing, that's a good thing.

In Afghanistan, whatever you alleged was removed was later placed back into Afghanistan. The number of US troops in Afghanistan continued to rise while the United States was fighting the war in Iraq. In 2002, there were 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan. In 2008, there were 35,000 troops in Afghanistan. In 2010, there were over 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan. These numbers have been drawn down now to 33,000 because the Afghan military been able to take over more of the fighting.

THE TALIBAN IS NOT IN CONTROL OF ANY MAJOR CITIES IN AFGHANISTAN! The TALIBAN DO NOT CONTROL ANY OF THE PROVINCIAL CAPITALS IN ANY OF THE 26 provinces. Any large concentrations of Taliban will be an are targeted by US combat aircraft and US drones. The Taliban continue to hide in the mountains and run over the border into Pakistan.

 

[georgephillip]

According to a lot of US generals who worked with him, yes. His views since leaving the military have been at odds with the majority of the uniformed military that supported the removal of Saddam from power in order to protect US security and interest in the Persian Gulf.

Wesley Clark says he talked to some unnamed person in hallway about this. WOW, what an informed source, and interesting that someone in Wesley Clarks position is dependent on some unnamed random person in hallway talking about some fantasy future! LOL

Name some of those US generals who view Clark's views as "crazy" or "extremist." Since Libya and Iraq have already fallen, and Lebanon and Syria are currently being destabilized, there's nothing fantastical about Clark's revelations; in fact, he looks more like a prophet (truth teller) than that nameless "majority of uniformed military..." who spoke in favor of a war that made them much richer than they were before they helped murder, maim, rape, displace, and incarcerate millions of innocent Muslim civilians.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1SP8C9jNE4]General Wesley Clark Reveals 5 Year USA War Agenda From 2007 - 2012 - gps1952. - YouTube[/ame]

General Hugh Shelton was to put it mildly not very fond of Wesley Clark. Wesley Clark is alone in is more outlandish and unsubstantiated views.

The United States military do not do the things you claim. 120,000 Iraqi civilians have died in Iraq the vast majority at the hands of terrorist! The number of civilians killed in Afghanistan is only 10% of that in Iraq. These rates of death are LOW by all historical standards and pale in comparison to the slaughter Saddam engaged in the 1980s and early 1990s.

The Leadership has changed in Libya and Iraq and that is a good thing. But the maps are not changing, not at all!

You seem to think 120,000 civilians died in Iraq when others put the figure at multiples of that number. Iraq was a war of choice, i.e., a war of aggression, which is the supreme crime under international law since it contains the seed of all additional acts of terror; like the deliberate mass murder, displacement, and incarceration of millions of innocent civilians.

It's painless for those who didn't see their loved ones die in Afghanistan, Libya, or Iraq to claim regime change was a good thing; however, for those who have to live with an even more brutal government than Saddam or Gaddafi provided, it's not at all clear how good the thing was.

 

[U2Edge]

Name some of those US generals who view Clark's views as "crazy" or "extremist." Since Libya and Iraq have already fallen, and Lebanon and Syria are currently being destabilized, there's nothing fantastical about Clark's revelations; in fact, he looks more like a prophet (truth teller) than that nameless "majority of uniformed military..." who spoke in favor of a war that made them much richer than they were before they helped murder, maim, rape, displace, and incarcerate millions of innocent Muslim civilians.

General Wesley Clark Reveals 5 Year USA War Agenda From 2007 - 2012 - gps1952. - YouTube

General Hugh Shelton was to put it mildly not very fond of Wesley Clark. Wesley Clark is alone in is more outlandish and unsubstantiated views.

The United States military do not do the things you claim. 120,000 Iraqi civilians have died in Iraq the vast majority at the hands of terrorist! The number of civilians killed in Afghanistan is only 10% of that in Iraq. These rates of death are LOW by all historical standards and pale in comparison to the slaughter Saddam engaged in the 1980s and early 1990s.

The Leadership has changed in Libya and Iraq and that is a good thing. But the maps are not changing, not at all!

You seem to think 120,000 civilians died in Iraq when others put the figure at multiples of that number. Iraq was a war of choice, i.e., a war of aggression, which is the supreme crime under international law since it contains the seed of all additional acts of terror; like the deliberate mass murder, displacement, and incarceration of millions of innocent civilians.

It's painless for those who didn't see their loved ones die in Afghanistan, Libya, or Iraq to claim regime change was a good thing; however, for those who have to live with an even more brutal government than Saddam or Gaddafi provided, it's not at all clear how good the thing was.

The UN, Iraqi Government, US government and Iraqbodycount.com all put the figure for civilians killed since 2003 at about 120,000. The figure fits with the other known casualties from the war as well things like refugee flows out of the country and displacements within the country. The figure also fits in with Iraq's current population growth and demographic levels at all ages.

All of the people that randomly claim massive figures are biased people or groups attempting to inflate the death totals in order to build opposition to US policy there. They don't care at all about accurate objective figures, especially when such figures under cut their point of view.

It was a necessity to remove Saddam. The United States has essentially been at war with Saddam since August of 1990, so the idea that there was somehow a choice in 2003 is essentially absurd. In addition, there are multiple UN resolutions approving the use of force in Iraq. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE UN RESOLUTION THAT CONDEMNS THE INVASION, CALLS FOR A WITHDRAWAL, or MENTIONS ANY THANK NEGATIVE IN WAY SHAPE OR FORM ABOUT THE INVASION AND REMOVAL OF SADDAM. WHY? Because it is the UN resolutions which in fact approve of the actions!

Saddam engaged in mass murder for 25 years when he was in power. The United States and its coalition allies prevented more mass murder from happening and put Iraq on the path to peace and prosperity.

There is not one shred of evidence that Maliki is any way brutal like Saddam. I ask you again, how many countries has Maliki invaded? Any? Has Maliki manufactured WMD and used it on the battlefield?

Iraq finally has a leader that is not leading them into wars of conquest against other countries and is actually interested in creating a strong Iraqi state based on stability and a strong economy, rather than military power and foreign conquest which were Saddams goals.

The majority of Iraqi's do not want Saddam back. Saddam ruined Iraq. How anyone could suggest that Iraqi's remain in virtual prison under Saddam is incredible.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Dunce!
Iraq was a stable democracy when Bush left office. Obama fucked up the status of forces agreement and allowed AQ back in, infiltrating from Iran and Syria.
Yeah, everything is Bush's fault. It's like Obama never won election here.

You love spouting those Republican talking points. Iraq was 'stable' whatever that really means. And, yes, Obama did bail out of Iraq. But what do we care at this point? The only thing that was screwed up is that we didn't legally reserve a right to go back any time for the next hundred years. We paid for that right in blood.

 

[georgephillip]

Dunce!
Iraq was a stable democracy when Bush left office. Obama fucked up the status of forces agreement and allowed AQ back in, infiltrating from Iran and Syria.
Yeah, everything is Bush's fault. It's like Obama never won election here.

You love spouting those Republican talking points. Iraq was 'stable' whatever that really means. And, yes, Obama did bail out of Iraq. But what do we care at this point? The only thing that was screwed up is that we didn't legally reserve a right to go back any time for the next hundred years. We paid for that right in blood.

Iraqi blood.
And those who made the most profit from blood shed in Iraq couldn't care less if a Republican OR Democrat occupies the Oval Office.

 

[U2Edge]

Dunce!
Iraq was a stable democracy when Bush left office. Obama fucked up the status of forces agreement and allowed AQ back in, infiltrating from Iran and Syria.
Yeah, everything is Bush's fault. It's like Obama never won election here.

You love spouting those Republican talking points. Iraq was 'stable' whatever that really means. And, yes, Obama did bail out of Iraq. But what do we care at this point? The only thing that was screwed up is that we didn't legally reserve a right to go back any time for the next hundred years. We paid for that right in blood.

Iraqi blood.
And those who made the most profit from blood shed in Iraq couldn't care less if a Republican OR Democrat occupies the Oval Office.

Everyone profits from the free flow of oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf which was made more secure with the removal of Saddam from power.

 

[georgephillip]

You love spouting those Republican talking points. Iraq was 'stable' whatever that really means. And, yes, Obama did bail out of Iraq. But what do we care at this point? The only thing that was screwed up is that we didn't legally reserve a right to go back any time for the next hundred years. We paid for that right in blood.

Iraqi blood.
And those who made the most profit from blood shed in Iraq couldn't care less if a Republican OR Democrat occupies the Oval Office.

Everyone profits from the free flow of oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf which was made more secure with the removal of Saddam from power.

Saddam posed no threat to the free flow of oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf after 1991, and he never posed as much of a threat as Wall Street speculators do today.

 

[U2Edge]

Iraqi blood.
And those who made the most profit from blood shed in Iraq couldn't care less if a Republican OR Democrat occupies the Oval Office.

Everyone profits from the free flow of oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf which was made more secure with the removal of Saddam from power.

Saddam posed no threat to the free flow of oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf after 1991, and he never posed as much of a threat as Wall Street speculators do today.

Wall Street speculators are unlikely to cause global economic depression. Saddam's potential seizure and sabotage of Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian oil fields could in fact cause just that.

Care to explain how Saddam posed no threat to the free flow of oil and natural gas form the Persian Gulf?

Guess what, on the eve of the coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam still had a military force of 400,000, with 2,700 tanks, 2,000 other armored vehicles, 2,000 artillery pieces, dozens of ballistic missiles and 300 combat aircraft. He also had the means to develop and produce chemical and biological weapons, even though he did not appear have them in his arsenal in March 2003. Kuwait is a small country and although Saddam had been weakened, military forces of that size are always a threat to a small country like Kuwait.

When the sanctions and embargo designed to help try and contain Saddam crumbled, the only other viable option was invasion and regime change and that is what happened!