| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Iraq Troops flee Al Qaeda
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Iraq Troops flee Al Qaeda

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2014 at 06:24
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


You are giving the impression here of an administration that didn't really know what was going on, but decided to blunder ahead anyway, killing 100,000 people, and later saying, hey look at the bright side, we did get ride of one heinous dictator.


Well, hell.... you almost hit the target. The administration was still new, understaffed and unfocused  on what it was going to do in the next 3 and half years til the next election when we we're attacked on September 11. What i find strange & continuously, if we not accused of supporting them, then we're accused in overthrowing them. A damnable situation no matter what course we took. If Saddam remained in power it would've been our fault. We remove him and it is still our fault. A no win situation for us. So what the hell!
Quote That's bad enough in itself, but there are those close to the administration at the time, and also reputable historians that have looked into this, that make credible claims that WMDs were just an excuse for an otherwise unsalable geopolitical initiative, ie: strengthening America's hand in a strategic part of the world, by rather crude means. Richard Clarke, security adviser to the president, in his book Against all Enemies, says the Bush team was making invasion plans on Sept 12, 2001. When told that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, based on the best evidence of US security agencies, the administration rejected this evidence, and continued with the Iraq plan. Paul O'Neill, Treasury Secretary at the time also backed this view.
Historian Gywnne Dyer has also written about the time, in a couple of books and in a number of articles.


No doubt, the Bush administration  likely ended up being  the most divided one in living memory after the events of 9-11. Equally without a doubt, Saddam would creep up in conversation after the towers fell. What i do find doubtful, as well as my sincere questioning the objectivity of any ex-administration members who felt slighted or ignored after an administration makes a choice they don't agree with. Gives me an impression of axes to grind and likely only a quarter (If even that) of the more truer picture than the one that has been painted into the public consciences. And some of these people who made their opinions known i do admire them still, but do find fault with their embarrassing choices in exposing the differences that had played their part in making the past decade and a half that much more difficult not only for us, but for our allies across the globe. Make no mistake, it is not a partisan issue with me. It is equally unflattering when ex-staff members do the same to the current administration as well. A lack of professionalism and common sense in the middle of a period of crisis.

Quote
There was no crystal ball gazing, and no evidence. It would have been politically unacceptable to tell Americans that they were going on a military adventure, in order to achieve the goals of some rather right wing principles in Washington, and too bad if your son in the army has to pay the price.


War is unacceptable without a cause. The twin towers and Pentagon attack had left a unique impression on plenty of Americans that the past realpolitik mixed with some altruistic policies towards the middle east had failed spectacularly. I imagine the Bush administration felt the same. But because Canada hasn't been called the great Satan for decades from within a cesspit of hissing vipers, i don't honestly believe you could begin too relate to what i am trying to convey to you? Plus, we don't keep an army around just because it looks good. They're are there for our defense. Whatever my relatives think about being in the US military, i am not about to dishonor them or any other military families by questioning or taking away from them the reason for their choice in  serving.
Quote
If the US invaded every country that "flirted" with a criminal organization, the streets would be deserted, as every man and woman would be needed in the military for the massive operation spanning every continent. Low level, and didn't go anywhere- exactly. There was nothing foggy about this, it was understood.


This is ludicrously irrelevant to the thread.



Quote
We are here to discuss history- the good, bad, and the ugly. I don't think we can get an accurate picture of past events, and hopefully learn something from them, by hoping that one's home team is not capable of less than honorable behavior. What has happened has happened, and those responsible-whomever- should either receive blame, or credit- but not whitewash.


If we are truly going to discuss history, then why just center it on one player and not the others at the table? Seriously, think about it. That is all i am saying. You want to understand a little bit as to why the US does what it does, then look at the other players at the table. If you want to continue thinking the US is still getting their across the globe, than i will continue calling you out on it.

Quote My point here is that the US has been engaging in Realpolitik, just as many nations before, and currently. In other words, what is best for the perceived interests of those in power, regardless of how unpalatable they would seem to the general public. Iraq was not a crusade to promote democracy. It was not to stamp out terrorism. Saddam Hussein himself was mere collateral damage. It was not about WMDs.


I am not saying you should ignore the US, but i do feel that the problem here is your fixation only for the US and not the other global players.

 What the hell are you saying? Saddam was not collateral damage. That we accidentally took him out because he was standing to damn close to Baghdad bob? Geezus man! Go study up on US-Iraq relations from 1990 to 2003. Taking him out of power was no accident.

Quote If the fear of nuclear weapons was paramount, then why not invade N Korea? Here there was no question that they had them. They do. And they are under the control of a murderous crazy.


Their in the Chinese sphere of influence.

Quote
 Why not Pakistan? Here is one of the most unstable countries on the globe, with at least a few dozen nuclear weapons, that could come under the control of some Islamic  nutter quite easily.


I reckon because Washington still foolishly believes an incredibly hostile and hopelessly delusional nationalistic population and a unethical government to be our allies in the fight against international terrorism and a peaceful partner. However, i further reckon that Washington possibly thinks that if the nation of Pakistan were to fall, there would be no guarantee that a more responsible force would get a hold of their nukes in time. I've heard some chatter that it is believed that were Pakistan to fall, it is thought what was left of national governance would rather see the nuke stockpile in the hands of crazy Islamic nutters than see it go into the hands of some other responsible force, not necessarily the US either.  So we keep throwing money at them hoping that they will start believing that we mean well. for their country. But no matter what we do, Pakistan still sees us as a regional threat to their alleged sphere of influence.

Quote
The facts do not add up, and indeed have been refuted by key players there at the time.


Of course it doesn't make sense. War isn't rational, but it is organized chaos.
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


The job was not done, or did you not notice the UN food for oil fiasco and vote buying corruption was undermining the very raison d'être for what we even bothered involving ourselves in the first place. Another year or two and Saddam would have had the votes and enough corrupted officials to see the sanctions lifted off of him. What was the point in the US and it's few remaining allies to enforce UN resolutions other than to take the fall for the corruption of others and the continuing blame in further propping up Saddam's regime?

Quote
It was done in relation to looking for WMDs, according to the experts on the ground at the time. As for Iraq getting around sanctions, perhaps, but at that point Iraq was in a shambles, with little to no military capability. And if your response is going to be, well we couldn't let that heinous regime rise back up, not under any circumstances, then, what about all the others in the world, as bad or worse? What about the Congo, where millions were being killed, raped, and mutilated? There were (and are) no end of horrible events and just causes, so the question remains- why here and now? What made Iraq tower above all other causes, including ones more pressing, such as chasing down terrorists, dealing with (real) nuclear proliferation, mass murder and mayhem in Africa, or other items?


Indeed. Why only Iraq. In no certain order.... I have always reckoned it was because we had been continuously  engaged in dealing with Iraq on a military footing since the end of the first war in 91 as per the UN resolutions, Saddam's history in having a clear indication of using WMD against civilian or military targets, we already had bases there and access to further facilities if required, it seemed obvious to everybody else that he was in numerous noncompliance with the weapons inspectors (Which we now know why, his fear of Iran), the belief that he had abandoned his WMD capabilities wasn't as rock solid as you like to believe or have been told, his corruption of the UN had become proliferate over the years which led to his abuse of the sanctions and denial of Iraqi's the care they needed because it suited his geopolitical agenda. In short, out of the countries that were or are considered rogue, almost all of our attention was focused squarely on Saddam's Iraq and the Persian Gulf; And not say, the Congo, North Korea or even apparently Iran.

One other thing., Africa. Our media has thoroughly and most sensationally scared the bejeebus out of the American populace after the events in Somalia in October of 1993. Limiting the options of what any administration can do without the media dong the same damn irresponsible thing again.

Quote
It's a rhetorical question of course, because the why has been rather studied and documented. It was low hanging fruit, the geopolitical gains from a takeover seen as much greater than any risk or downside. Unfortunately, it didn't work out like that.


I think whatever studies and documentation that has been done is of dubious quality if they do not fully understand what is and has been transpiring. We don't know is the best objective answer that can be given in such a short time span. And we will not understand for a couple more decades at least. So i expect a lot of revisions to the works and studies already needlessly conducted. They should have waited another decade before trying to put the 100 piece puzzle together with only a dozen pieces so far.

Quote
The US is not going back into Vietnam under any circumstances. There are no ground troops going back into Iraq. Afghanistan? Maybe a few CIA and special forces.


You could possibly turn out to be in right in time. But i wouldn't say never. We we're never meant to be imperialist at the turn of the last century. We swore we would never fight in another world war after 1918. We thought the US government would never grow as big as it was in the 1920's and the FDR came along. We thought we would never have to fight another land in Asia following the Korean war. We thought we would never give up our rights to privacy. We thought we would never... Ah, well.

Quote
Why not? Ironically, because the US has proved to the world that these sort of interventions do not work, after several spectacular failures. Given voter fatigue with such missions, and the rising demands of social and infrastructure needs over military spending, it is extremely unlikely any similar missions will take place.


Wars and geopolitics can't be deemed a spectacular failure while we're still in the middle of the crisis. The effort paid in blood and sweat doesn't mean it has failed as of yet, which doesn't mean it won't, because of course it can eventually all turn out to be a failure. But... what it does mean is  that the Islamic guerrillas and their terrorists allies have succeeded in their propaganda narrative. But i  think you are right about civilian American fatigue. It also goes much further than that. I mean people can only handle so much negative, sensational and irresponsibly reported news for so long until they get sick enough of the world and all the hypocrisy in it.

Who knows, we might go back to the failed status quo of the pre 9-11 world? Hiding our heads in the sand, pretending we are at peace with Islamic terrorists, singing kumbyah around the campfire and... until the next attack is tried or succeeds and then we'll wonder in a clueless manner all over again why this all came to be? Finger pointing will begin again, blame will be assigned to the usual scapegoats, mass confusion will reign supreme again in the media, hundreds of thousands of people will die all over again because we are what? Easily distracted gutless selfish cowards afraid of the life's  continuously demanding and unrelenting risks!? Or because the US is a bunch of racist war mongering imperialists hell bent on bombing the world to oblivion!?

Some cliches never get old.



Edited by Panther - 16 Jun 2014 at 09:03
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2014 at 07:20
Panther wrote:[QUOTE]Whatever my relatives think about being in the US military, I am not about to dishonour them or any other military families by questioning or taking away from them the reason for their choice in  serving.[/QUOTE]
 
What's the American Army (or is it Marines) expression? HOO RAH!!
 
I totally agree with your comment. As long as there is conflict, somewhere in the world some mothers son(or daughter) will be placed in the path of danger, on orders from his/her government.
 
That those men and women are prepared to place their lives on the line, whether or not they actually face combat, is to their great credit, and regardless of the cause or the conflict zone, we should never give up supporting our troops.

(Disclaimer: The above text is that of a father of a man who served many tours to Afghanistan and Iraq-and not that of Editorial Staff).
 
Biased? Too bloody right I am.Smile
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2014 at 08:59
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:



Yes, they can alienate folks pretty fast, because it is really their own dysfunction they are acting out, not religious ideas as the vast majority see them today. We must look though to underlying social and political problems, because that is a big part of the picture, whether such extremists can comprehend it or not.


Great! Try telling the middle eastern populace that a lot of their problems are self inflicted. That will go over well.


Quote

I'm not saying the west is evil, just that there has been considerable interventions in that region in recent history, and that goes a long way to explaining why many things are as they are there today. Just think what the popular sentiment in America would be if the situation was reversed. If Arab states had either established protectorates, sent in troops, played off one US state against another, in order to get a grip on US resources, and also injected a Muslim community onto a choice bit of land they insist is theirs historically, how would the man in the street in the US react?


How would we react. Well... We're an open market, open immigration state. Seems like this happens every generation anyways. Who dare says this isn't just a part of the American experience.

Quote
One of the problems in Iraq today is that it is a country drawn up by Europeans at the 1919 Paris peace conference. It includes several disparate ethnic groups, thrown together whether they like it or not.


If comes to that and they decide to split up, preferably peaceably (But i wouldn't bet on it) then that is the course that may be needed if it does bring peace and stability to the area. Something they could not resolve themselves with a brutal autocratic authority figure in power.

Quote


The only land that could be considered morally and legally Israeli is perhaps the land bought and occupied in Palestine before 1948, and in some cases not even that. After that, Israel engaged in what is called today ethnic cleansing, and invasion of sovereign countries, both illegal in mainstream world view.


Personally, i feel something for the Palestinian refugees. But rather than just blame Israel for the much cliched alleged ethnic cleansing, i'd rather focus on their settlement expansion acerbating the problems between them and the Palestinians; And for the surrounding Arab countries, their long use of the Palestinian refugees as idiotic dupes being used as a political moral cudgel to hammer at Israel in the media sphere. However, where the Palestinians  had gone wrong in the past, or more correctly their leadership having misled them or they have long willed themselves to be misled.. is in taking over several districts in a sovereign state, such as Lebanon and turning their areas into a state within a state, then  launching attacks on Israel from within the territory of a sovereign state, having prepared the field by posting Palestinian paramilitary units near civilian housing which was daring Israel to attack them and thereby cause an international crisis. But basically. their leadership had done basically  nothing of real substance to alleviate the long crisis that has faced them for decades except war and more war and constantly feeding them one false media narrative after another.  Now, as you pointed out, with new leadership and if the play their cards right in a sincerely honest manner, they "might" actually have a chance at having their state and eventual recognition from the other hold out states in the UN and go on to be the more successful generation of Palestinians compared to those who came prior?

Quote
Given this rationale then, US support for Israel should have slackened off after 1991, yes?


Obviously not. The USSR had fallen around this time, sure. But the Arabic regimes were still armed to the teeth with Soviet weaponry and training and would have looked for an excuse to attack the little Jewish state, regardless of the then successfully concluded coalition states against Iraq.

However, those times have indeed changed, captain. Arafat is no longer around, the Palestinians have new leadership, they have a state, the Israelis are cautious and somewhat willing to play ball and if they play their cards smoothly with nothing up their sleeves, then it's only a question of when the US gets around to recognizing them, rather than if.

Quote
The focus is on Israel because it tops the list- by far- yet is a small and relatively well off country that in reality has no strategic interests for the US to speak of.


I imagine because US physical power is finite that our resources and support to whomever, may seem imbalanced. And no, i will not entertain the idea of the Israeli lobby being that influential. Hell, as far as i am concerned, they are just one amongst an army of thousands and thousands vying for the scraps off of capitol hill.

I still think that it comes down to th alliance and the importance of the region, which means oil for the world.  Having a stable and also much less moody partner in a chaotic region helps, which is just one of many a lesson the US learned during the oil crisis in the 70's.

Quote
There are endless examples of other states that have massive problems, or that have vast utility for US geopolitical interests, or both, yet receive very  much less. India, for example, has struggled to remain a democracy, but has huge problems with poverty, and if built up could become an essential counterweight to a new and aggressive China. Yet India is far, far down the list from Israel. Delving into answers for this will lead us into unsavory territory I suspect.


Well then.... (Don't have a heart attack) this makes you a Bushie! Because that is exactly what George Bush was trying to do. Get past the old imperial cliches and the old cold war ambiguous relationship the two countries still have for one another (probably more so with India) and focus on the future and it's problems.


Quote
Nonsense. The US has supported whoever has helped meet their foreign policy goals. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are two major partners in that region, and recipients of foreign aid. Neither are stable, nor examples of democracy.


That is such a narrow minded view, dear Captain. If the US were in fact a purely selfish nation only concerned with it's own ends without giving anything in return, than why in the hell hasn't the governments of the globe declared war on us decades ago? Screw our perceived power back then. Every nation could have sided with the USSR and blown us to smithereens before we even knew what the hell happened! Why would other nations put up with a country that takes  and takes and takes and never gives?
Unless... all of those countries are benefiting from us in what they so sorely need. Be it a security umbrella, a favorable trade status, access to resources under our control, access to better education (If we can provide what they need compared too, lets say... the some of the more prestigious universities in the UK?), an open economy via open markets; ergo... by letting our businesses come to their countries at the expense of our locals who are sorely  in need of jobs (this one is a rather touchy subject in my oh-self- nation), immigration and welfare of new immigrants are looked after (another touchy subject in my oh-so-selfish nation.), Industries and other techniques that the other country lacks and may i add, we only have a trade surplus with a handful of nations around the globe. The rest leaves us with a huge deficit for us, beginning with China. Geezus, if my memory was better, i could go on and list more!

Hell, sometimes i wonder where the benefit is for us from what others take? Oh... hold on a second....  It's a mutual trade off that each country receives from the other. Hmmm there is a word for that, i guess bilateral would have to do (sarc/). And no, i am not saying the US is the best country to do busniess with. That is solely left up to the specific needs of another country. A lot of times, other countries can get a better deal from another country than they can from us. That is just the way it goes, bilaterally.  It's a two way street. And the governments of the world like it like that. But you won't catch a lot of them admitting it because it gives them little wiggle room in case something goes wrong and the public is pissed.  Who better to blame than your partner, who can be claimed, and with little proof needed, to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

This seems to me to be where half of our relationship headaches come from. And the other half, well... we do f*ck up quite a bit and are deserving of blame.


Quote

No, you brought up the cold war as a rationale for US policy in this region. I stated that it ended in 1991, and so today we must consider other factors.


Did I? I thought you did? If i did, than i do apologize. But i do not recall doing so.

Anyways.... Am i the only one here who knows any country's foreign policy doesn't turn on a dime? Surely not! Don't be naive Captain. You just can't turn off a long established national policy, much less human emotions, like we can with a light switch. The cold war ended then, yes. But, arguably... not the reasons that gave rise to it. And please don't give me that, "well studies and documentation say..." crap. I can read. And i will tell you that they are just beginning to be able to explore this era with a bit more objectivity. But that is only scratching the surface. More time and more revised knowledge  and countless rewrites of this era of history will be on order before future generations have much better grasp of what you and I had lived through. We won't be here to see it, though. We'll be long gone.

Quote

The original intent in Iraq was the destruction of WMDs, not the installation of democracy. I'll concede that a belated attempt was made in this direction, but clearly it is not working. Iraq is fracturing along ethnic and tribal lines. The conflict going on there today has little to do with democracy, but lots to do with sectarian animosity.


Well, if memory serves, they didn't call it installing democracy. I believe the word most often used was nation building. A nit pick, i know. But it still meant the same thing to me. Also, in my memory, i recall George Bush using this term in 2003 shortly after the fall of Baghdad as a national policy for the US to build up Afghanistan and Iraq and at the  same time, woof. But i wouldn't swear to him having said it in 2003. I am just basing this on my memory of him saying this before the WMD issues was resolved. So, knowing how my memory can be, there is ample room for my being wrong.

You know Captain, sometimes i do wonder if our many disagreements is only caused by a simple matter of semantics?
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2014 at 09:10
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

 
What's the American Army (or is it Marines) expression? HOO RAH!!
 


That would be the Marines.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2014 at 10:47
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


Well, hell.... you almost hit the target. The administration was still new, understaffed and unfocused  on what it was going to do in the next 3 and half years til the next election when we we're attacked on September 11. What i find strange & continuously, if we not accused of supporting them, then we're accused in overthrowing them. A damnable situation no matter what course we took. If Saddam remained in power it would've been our fault. We remove him and it is still our fault. A no win situation for us. So what the hell!

Unfocused on what it might do at the apex of the largest economy in the world a year and a half down the road? That's a heck of a way to run a railroad. And again, the 9/11 attack had nothing to do with Iraq. And I'm not aware of any commentary blaming the US for the regime in Iraq.
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

No doubt, the Bush administration  likely ended up being  the most divided one in living memory after the events of 9-11. Equally without a doubt, Saddam would creep up in conversation after the towers fell.
There you go again. Al Qaeda folks are religious crazies and thugs, Saddam Hussein was a secular crazy and thug, therefore not compatible with the former. You were attacked by Al Qaeda, not Baghdad.
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

What i do find doubtful, as well as my sincere questioning the objectivity of any ex-administration members who felt slighted or ignored after an administration makes a choice they don't agree with. Gives me an impression of axes to grind and likely only a quarter (If even that) of the more truer picture than the one that has been painted into the public consciences. And some of these people who made their opinions known i do admire them still, but do find fault with their embarrassing choices in exposing the differences that had played their part in making the past decade and a half that much more difficult not only for us, but for our allies across the globe. Make no mistake, it is not a partisan issue with me. It is equally unflattering when ex-staff members do the same to the current administration as well. A lack of professionalism and common sense in the middle of a period of crisis.
Yes, big egos fall hard. But any sort of essay requires critical thought and evaluation, and in the case of Clarke's book, there is a surplus of documented evidence. Did he lie and fabricate the entire work? Possible, but highly unlikely. Also highly unlikely he managed to obtain the collusion of numerous reputable historians and journalists around the world. It is not sufficient, IMO, to write this whole thing off as the ranting of dissenters.
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


War is unacceptable without a cause. The twin towers and Pentagon attack had left a unique impression on plenty of Americans that the past realpolitik mixed with some altruistic policies towards the middle east had failed spectacularly. I imagine the Bush administration felt the same. But because Canada hasn't been called the great Satan for decades from within a cesspit of hissing vipers, i don't honestly believe you could begin too relate to what i am trying to convey to you? Plus, we don't keep an army around just because it looks good. They're are there for our defense. Whatever my relatives think about being in the US military, i am not about to dishonor them or any other military families by questioning or taking away from them the reason for their choice in  serving.


The key point here is that it was realpolitik that was failing, not the altruistic portion. Whether Americans want to accept it or not, there is great animosity in the Arab world due to US support of Israel, and other interventions that have aided US interests, but not Arab ones. Yes, there are crazies in that part of the world that will never be content, and will have to be stamped out. But a more even handed approach to the region by the US go a long way to circumventing the sort of terrorism we have seen in recent years.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


This is ludicrously irrelevant to the thread.


Again, you want to link Iraq and Al Qaeda. Yes, there may have been tentative feelers put out to several Muslim countries by Al Qaeda (or other such organizations) but the fact is, there was no link between 9/11 and AQ.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


If we are truly going to discuss history, then why just center it on one player and not the others at the table? Seriously, think about it. That is all i am saying. You want to understand a little bit as to why the US does what it does, then look at the other players at the table. If you want to continue thinking the US is still getting their across the globe, than i will continue calling you out on it.

A flip through the back pages will tell you that I have had a lot to say about other countries, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia being two recent examples that come to mind. I'm not focused on the US, nor anti American. I'd be glad to discuss any other region you'd like. This thread is about the Iraq war, so clearly the US is involved. Frankly, I think the reason controversy often arises in the case of the US is because denial of negative aspects of society there is as common as it is.

 
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:




I am not saying you should ignore the US, but i do feel that the problem here is your fixation only for the US and not the other global players.

 What the hell are you saying? Saddam was not collateral damage. That we accidentally took him out because he was standing to damn close to Baghdad bob? Geezus man! Go study up on US-Iraq relations from 1990 to 2003. Taking him out of power was no accident.


What I am saying is that there was a plan for taking down Iraq for strategic purposes, and it was packaged and sold to the public as a necessity to take out WMDs. When this purpose became clearly untenable, other motives were needed, and found. Taking out terrorists (absurd, as already discussed), and/or getting rid of Hussein and bringing the light of democracy to the Mid-East. Curious, as at the time the US was supporting the most non-democratic countries in the world in that area, such as Saudi Arabia, with proven links to terrorist outfits. S Hussein, by comparison was by then without effective military, without money, hunkering down as jets enforced the no fly zone.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:



Their in the Chinese sphere of influence.
Yes, and.....?
They did not represent the potential advantages of Iraq to policy makers. N Korea has nothing whatsoever that the US needs or wants, and an invasion would be terribly costly and bloody. Lots to loose, and nothing to gain. Iraq on the other hand, given their situation in 2003, was seen as a military walkover, and then the US would be established in a most critical part of the world. Sound like realpolitik to you?

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:




I reckon because Washington still foolishly believes an incredibly hostile and hopelessly delusional nationalistic population and a unethical government to be our allies in the fight against international terrorism and a peaceful partner. However, i further reckon that Washington possibly thinks that if the nation of Pakistan were to fall, there would be no guarantee that a more responsible force would get a hold of their nukes in time. I've heard some chatter that it is believed that were Pakistan to fall, it is thought what was left of national governance would rather see the nuke stockpile in the hands of crazy Islamic nutters than see it go into the hands of some other responsible force, not necessarily the US either.  So we keep throwing money at them hoping that they will start believing that we mean well. for their country. But no matter what we do, Pakistan still sees us as a regional threat to their alleged sphere of influence.
Yes, good answer. But we are still talking about realpolitik, not altruism.
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:



Of course it doesn't make sense. War isn't rational, but it is organized chaos.

Check out Clarke's book. Or one of Dyer's columns. See what you think. There is some sense there.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:



Indeed. Why only Iraq. In no certain order.... I have always reckoned it was because we had been continuously  engaged in dealing with Iraq on a military footing since the end of the first war in 91 as per the UN resolutions, Saddam's history in having a clear indication of using WMD against civilian or military targets, we already had bases there and access to further facilities if required, it seemed obvious to everybody else that he was in numerous noncompliance with the weapons inspectors (Which we now know why, his fear of Iran), the belief that he had abandoned his WMD capabilities wasn't as rock solid as you like to believe or have been told, his corruption of the UN had become proliferate over the years which led to his abuse of the sanctions and denial of Iraqi's the care they needed because it suited his geopolitical agenda. In short, out of the countries that were or are considered rogue, almost all of our attention was focused squarely on Saddam's Iraq and the Persian Gulf; And not say, the Congo, North Korea or even apparently Iran.
Yes, and one more thing- they sat on the second largest deposit of conventional oil in the world. Hmmm, coincidence?

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:




I think whatever studies and documentation that has been done is of dubious quality if they do not fully understand what is and has been transpiring. We don't know is the best objective answer that can be given in such a short time span. And we will not understand for a couple more decades at least. So i expect a lot of revisions to the works and studies already needlessly conducted. They should have waited another decade before trying to put the 100 piece puzzle together with only a dozen pieces so far.


You could possibly turn out to be in right in time. But i wouldn't say never. We we're never meant to be imperialist at the turn of the last century. We swore we would never fight in another world war after 1918. We thought the US government would never grow as big as it was in the 1920's and the FDR came along. We thought we would never have to fight another land in Asia following the Korean war. We thought we would never give up our rights to privacy. We thought we would never... Ah, well.

I can see other threads spinning off from the above paragraph.


Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


Wars and geopolitics can't be deemed a spectacular failure while we're still in the middle of the crisis. The effort paid in blood and sweat doesn't mean it has failed as of yet, which doesn't mean it won't, because of course it can eventually all turn out to be a failure. But... what it does mean is  that the Islamic guerrillas and their terrorists allies have succeeded in their propaganda narrative. But i  think you are right about civilian American fatigue. It also goes much further than that. I mean people can only handle so much negative, sensational and irresponsibly reported news for so long until they get sick enough of the world and all the hypocrisy in it.

Who knows, we might go back to the failed status quo of the pre 9-11 world? Hiding our heads in the sand, pretending we are at peace with Islamic terrorists, singing kumbyah around the campfire and... until the next attack is tried or succeeds and then we'll wonder in a clueless manner all over again why this all came to be? Finger pointing will begin again, blame will be assigned to the usual scapegoats, mass confusion will reign supreme again in the media, hundreds of thousands of people will die all over again because we are what? Easily distracted gutless selfish cowards afraid of the life's  continuously demanding and unrelenting risks!? Or because the US is a bunch of racist war mongering imperialists hell bent on bombing the world to oblivion!?

Some cliches never get old.


The US is no more in the middle of a crisis with terrorism than it ever has been. There have always been crazies and extremists in the world who have killed people and planted bombs. Today, they are a little more effective due to technology. But if you consider to be in a war against terrorism, then that is a war that will never end.

What will possibly bring about a more peaceful world would be a more sincere effort at seeing other's points of view, and taking a more even hand in world affairs. The most extreme will never be won over, but the majority tends to be OK with policies that at least try to be fair to all.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2014 at 12:16
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

 


Great! Try telling the middle eastern populace that a lot of their problems are self inflicted. That will go over well.

Really? I think most thinking people there understand their own problems. There are unfortunately a lot of non-thinking people there too, but this is not exclusive to the Middle East, although a regression to magical beliefs also is a factor there currently.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


How would we react. Well... We're an open market, open immigration state. Seems like this happens every generation anyways. Who dare says this isn't just a part of the American experience.

Your ducking and weaving panther.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


If comes to that and they decide to split up, preferably peaceably (But i wouldn't bet on it) then that is the course that may be needed if it does bring peace and stability to the area. Something they could not resolve themselves with a brutal autocratic authority figure in power.

Or today it would seem.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


Personally, i feel something for the Palestinian refugees. But rather than just blame Israel for the much cliched alleged ethnic cleansing, i'd rather focus on their settlement expansion acerbating the problems between them and the Palestinians; And for the surrounding Arab countries, their long use of the Palestinian refugees as idiotic dupes being used as a political moral cudgel to hammer at Israel in the media sphere. However, where the Palestinians  had gone wrong in the past, or more correctly their leadership having misled them or they have long willed themselves to be misled.. is in taking over several districts in a sovereign state, such as Lebanon and turning their areas into a state within a state, then  launching attacks on Israel from within the territory of a sovereign state, having prepared the field by posting Palestinian paramilitary units near civilian housing which was daring Israel to attack them and thereby cause an international crisis. But basically. their leadership had done basically  nothing of real substance to alleviate the long crisis that has faced them for decades except war and more war and constantly feeding them one false media narrative after another.  Now, as you pointed out, with new leadership and if the play their cards right in a sincerely honest manner, they "might" actually have a chance at having their state and eventual recognition from the other hold out states in the UN and go on to be the more successful generation of Palestinians compared to those who came prior?

When we unravel the tit for tat violence of the last half century or so, we come to one inescapable fact. A group of people wanted a country that wasn't theirs, and they took it. No amount of religious or sentimental claptrap will obscure this. This has never been accepted by the people in the region, which is why it is still festering today. As for playing their cards right and being more sincere, look at it this way. If Mexico seized Texas, claiming a sentimental and historical right (actually, the latter at least has some merit), and you found yourself a second class citizen in what you had considered to be your home, would card playing and sincerity be on your mind, or conflict?

I'm not interested in being a cheerleader for Arabs, they have a lot to answer for too. But the roots of this conflict are a basic injustice done, and it has cost the US untold trouble over the years by refusing to acknowledge it.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


Obviously not. The USSR had fallen around this time, sure. But the Arabic regimes were still armed to the teeth with Soviet weaponry and training and would have looked for an excuse to attack the little Jewish state, regardless of the then successfully concluded coalition states against Iraq.

However, those times have indeed changed, captain. Arafat is no longer around, the Palestinians have new leadership, they have a state, the Israelis are cautious and somewhat willing to play ball and if they play their cards smoothly with nothing up their sleeves, then it's only a question of when the US gets around to recognizing them, rather than if.


Israel is not willing to play ball, and is in fact gradually seizing ever more Arab land for settlement, while refusing to negotiate in any meaningful way. Why should they? They have a monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, and the unquestioned backing of the US, no matter what action they take.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:



I imagine because US physical power is finite that our resources and support to whomever, may seem imbalanced. And no, i will not entertain the idea of the Israeli lobby being that influential. Hell, as far as i am concerned, they are just one amongst an army of thousands and thousands vying for the scraps off of capitol hill.

I still think that it comes down to th alliance and the importance of the region, which means oil for the world.  Having a stable and also much less moody partner in a chaotic region helps, which is just one of many a lesson the US learned during the oil crisis in the 70's.

If it is all about oil and stability, then the best course for the US would be to sidle up to the big producers, support the Palestinian cause, tell Israel get a grip, and try and nudge a few towards more civilized behavior. Moody is a human emotion, and not much use in describing strategic interest. 

Instead, the US has done almost the opposite, backing unstable dictators, enraging millions by unquestioning support of Israel, and announcing a crusade in the Mid-East. The "alliance" I'd say, is more about corruption, and a muddled understanding of history and geography.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:



Well then.... (Don't have a heart attack) this makes you a Bushie! Because that is exactly what George Bush was trying to do. Get past the old imperial cliches and the old cold war ambiguous relationship the two countries still have for one another (probably more so with India) and focus on the future and it's problems.

A bit of levity on your part, I am guessing panther. Major players in the Bush administration were closely linked with neo-con ideologues, and organizations like the Project for a New American Century, which espoused old style imperial gamesmanship.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:




That is such a narrow minded view, dear Captain. If the US were in fact a purely selfish nation only concerned with it's own ends without giving anything in return, than why in the hell hasn't the governments of the globe declared war on us decades ago? Screw our perceived power back then. Every nation could have sided with the USSR and blown us to smithereens before we even knew what the hell happened! Why would other nations put up with a country that takes  and takes and takes and never gives?
Unless... all of those countries are benefiting from us in what they so sorely need. Be it a security umbrella, a favorable trade status, access to resources under our control, access to better education (If we can provide what they need compared too, lets say... the some of the more prestigious universities in the UK?), an open economy via open markets; ergo... by letting our businesses come to their countries at the expense of our locals who are sorely  in need of jobs (this one is a rather touchy subject in my oh-self- nation), immigration and welfare of new immigrants are looked after (another touchy subject in my oh-so-selfish nation.), Industries and other techniques that the other country lacks and may i add, we only have a trade surplus with a handful of nations around the globe. The rest leaves us with a huge deficit for us, beginning with China. Geezus, if my memory was better, i could go on and list more!

Hell, sometimes i wonder where the benefit is for us from what others take? Oh... hold on a second....  It's a mutual trade off that each country receives from the other. Hmmm there is a word for that, i guess bilateral would have to do (sarc/). And no, i am not saying the US is the best country to do busniess with. That is solely left up to the specific needs of another country. A lot of times, other countries can get a better deal from another country than they can from us. That is just the way it goes, bilaterally.  It's a two way street. And the governments of the world like it like that. But you won't catch a lot of them admitting it because it gives them little wiggle room in case something goes wrong and the public is pissed.  Who better to blame than your partner, who can be claimed, and with little proof needed, to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

This seems to me to be where half of our relationship headaches come from. And the other half, well... we do f*ck up quite a bit and are deserving of blame.


Your spinning out of control here panther. All major states engage in defense pacts, trade, technology transfer, allow for immigration, have student exchanges, and generally engage in activities that range from the mutually beneficial, to the somewhat less so. No one is saying the US does not.

My original point was that the US, just as all other previous major players, has, and still does, play hard ball in the international sphere, and engages in practices that cannot be presented to the voter without a spin doctors attention. In some cases, this has been extreme, such as the ill advised adventure in Iraq, and the reckless alignment with Israel.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


Did I? I thought you did? If i did, than i do apologize. But i do not recall doing so.

Anyways.... Am i the only one here who knows any country's foreign policy doesn't turn on a dime? Surely not! Don't be naive Captain. You just can't turn off a long established national policy, much less human emotions, like we can with a light switch. The cold war ended then, yes. But, arguably... not the reasons that gave rise to it. And please don't give me that, "well studies and documentation say..." crap. I can read. And i will tell you that they are just beginning to be able to explore this era with a bit more objectivity. But that is only scratching the surface. More time and more revised knowledge  and countless rewrites of this era of history will be on order before future generations have much better grasp of what you and I had lived through. We won't be here to see it, though. We'll be long gone.

There are already quite a few scratches in the surface of the Iraq II episode, and although you don't like the word, it has been "documented" to a considerable degree. There is no need to wait a generation. You can read about it now.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


Well, if memory serves, they didn't call it installing democracy. I believe the word most often used was nation building. A nit pick, i know. But it still meant the same thing to me. Also, in my memory, i recall George Bush using this term in 2003 shortly after the fall of Baghdad as a national policy for the US to build up Afghanistan and Iraq and at the  same time, woof. But i wouldn't swear to him having said it in 2003. I am just basing this on my memory of him saying this before the WMD issues was resolved. So, knowing how my memory can be, there is ample room for my being wrong.

You know Captain, sometimes i do wonder if our many disagreements is only caused by a simple matter of semantics?

Yes, language can be a slippery thing. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say though...just stick with the facts man...
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2014 at 11:23
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


Unfocused on what it might do at the apex of the largest economy in the world a year and a half down the road? That's a heck of a way to run a railroad. And again, the 9/11 attack had nothing to do with Iraq.


I can't comment how chaotic the transitional period is in Canada, but here in the US it can be a pain in the butt, especially during a divisive time or when a new POTUS is already greatly despised by the opposition.

And again, i am not saying Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. To put it differently, Sadddam's Iraq was part of the disease that had been afflicting the middle east. What the cure was is anybody's guess. Bush made his decision, time will tell if it was the right or wrong thing to do. But i already know your answer.  I get the impression your mind was already made up by the time of December 2000.


Quote
And I'm not aware of any commentary blaming the US for the regime in Iraq.


I find that hard too believe? You have been making so many similar comments as what the conspiracy theorists have.

Quote
There you go again.


There i go again, what?

Quote Al Qaeda folks are religious crazies and thugs, Saddam Hussein was a secular crazy and thug, therefore not compatible with the former. You were attacked by Al Qaeda, not Baghdad.


The enemy of my enemy is my friend, i am sure you know that proverb. There was always a possibility that they could work together, otherwise why did they have a feeling-each-other-out meeting?
Quote
Yes, big egos fall hard. But any sort of essay requires critical thought and evaluation, and in the case of Clarke's book, there is a surplus of documented evidence. Did he lie and fabricate the entire work? Possible, but highly unlikely. Also highly unlikely he managed to obtain the collusion of numerous reputable historians and journalists around the world. It is not sufficient, IMO, to write this whole thing off as the ranting of dissenters.


Okay, i will respect this views of yours. Yes, these are their opinions. But i do not and will not accept it as factual  history for another decade or two, at the very least.

Quote The key point here is that it was realpolitik that was failing, not the altruistic portion.


Realpolitik? Do you have any idea who the real losers would have been here? Sure, you'll say the US. Because why not? That is what everybody not underneath a rock is saying. The real losers in this policy is the UN, in my humble opinion. How many groups up to no good will now take them and the sanctimonious sanctions seriously? And those that do, have a nice little blue print on how to skirt the UN sanctions thanks to Saddam.

Quote
Whether Americans want to accept it or not, there is great animosity in the Arab world due to US support of Israel, and other interventions that have aided US interests, but not Arab ones. Yes, there are crazies in that part of the world that will never be content, and will have to be stamped out. But a more even handed approach to the region by the US go a long way to circumventing the sort of terrorism we have seen in recent years.


It been pretty obvious to me since the early eighties, that the Arabic world, the ummah, have had great animosity towards the US because of our assumed favoritism towards Israel, a conspiratorial belief in our Imperial ambitions, our extreme cultural differences or a misunderstanding of our interest. The last in no way is limited to the Arab world, i've come to learn over the last 20+ years. This belief affect a large swath of people in nearly every country, including my own. In fact, i do sometimes wonder that foreigners and citizens alike, that by studying the US so intensely under the microscope, seemingly looking for flaws only, they consistently miss or choose to ignore the other qualities inherent in US society or politics because of whatever the reason; I've heard way too many criticisms to be able to put them down in print.
For instance, your comment on the need of the US in taking an even handed approach with Arabic countries, is indicative of my point. The USG efforts in a conciliatory to the Arabic world isn't as well understood and discussed as it is when we do and will screw up.

Everybody knows this dance, but the words of comfort in the song have no meaning when emotions takeover. It just gets lost in the noise. Just go with the beat so it seems.





Quote
Again, you want to link Iraq and Al Qaeda. Yes, there may have been tentative feelers put out to several Muslim countries by Al Qaeda (or other such organizations) but the fact is, there was no link between 9/11 and AQ.


This is why i do not take a lot of your posts on this issue seriously, you previously said:


Quote Al Qaeda folks are religious crazies and thugs, Saddam Hussein was a secular crazy and thug, therefore not compatible with the former. You were attacked by Al Qaeda, not Baghdad.


Respectfully, i do not think you have a clue what you are saying sometimes.

Quote A flip through the back pages will tell you that I have had a lot to say about other countries, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia being two recent examples that come to mind. I'm not focused on the US, nor anti American. I'd be glad to discuss any other region you'd like.


I certainly do not and never have thought you are anti-American. But i do think you are grossly informed on the United States of America. Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, as important as they are in the international community, especially Saudi Arabia's importance to Muslims around the globe. Their significance is however trivial when it comes to the major power relation in the world. Specifically thinking of these major powers and rising powers: The UK and the commonwealth countries, The US, France, Russia, China, Germany, Japan, Italy and Brazil, India or South Africa,
 
Quote
This thread is about the Iraq war, so clearly the US is involved. Frankly, I think the reason controversy often arises in the case of the US is because denial of negative aspects of society there is as common as it is.


Indeed we are and i am not arguing that the US was never involved in the first place. The controversy, as you think it is... is not that the US is in denial of the more negative aspects of... take your pick of whatever; But my unclear impression of whatever the hell is actually going on at the moment isn't, as you say, matching up with the facts or analysis of the much less politically biased reports i do rely on.

That is not saying i don't have a clue as to what is going on in the region, it is just unclear. But i will say that i don't want to be a pompous a$$ and blame any one country willy-nilly because everybody else is.

Quote
What I am saying is that there was a plan for taking down Iraq for strategic purposes, and it was packaged and sold to the public as a necessity to take out WMDs. When this purpose became clearly untenable, other motives were needed, and found. Taking out terrorists (absurd, as already discussed), and/or getting rid of Hussein and bringing the light of democracy to the Mid-East. Curious, as at the time the US was supporting the most non-democratic countries in the world in that area, such as Saudi Arabia, with proven links to terrorist outfits. S Hussein, by comparison was by then without effective military, without money, hunkering down as jets enforced the no fly zone.


Of course their was a plan in place
or do you only read your favored Canadian/US newspapers when the evil republicans are acting up again? Geesh! Sometimes i do wonder?


Quote
Yes, and.....?
They did not represent the potential advantages of Iraq to policy makers. N Korea has nothing whatsoever that the US needs or wants, and an invasion would be terribly costly and bloody. Lots to loose, and nothing to gain. Iraq on the other hand, given their situation in 2003, was seen as a military walkover, and then the US would be established in a most critical part of the world. Sound like realpolitik to you?


Nothing to gain for the US? We have no needs or want on the peninsula? Why do we give in to the nuclear blackmail and feed their population? Why do we keep our guys and gals over there in the South, when most Americans would have preferred them home back in the fifties? Why do we bother in working with the Chinese too make this peninsula stable if we have no needs or wants. Just what the hell do we actually gain b remaining involved in this armistice that could turn into  a potentially bloody war in a instant if the North Koreans chose to do so again? What do you really know about the Korean ssituation in the first place?

Iraq, was a military walkover, just like the first time when the coalition kicked them out of Kuwait. And why in the hell would we need too establish ourselves in the most critical part of the world when were already established there in the first place prior to 2003 (Thanks to Saddam, but no doubt you'll see a US ulterior motive here as well anyways!) with bases and access to the facilities of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Turkey, Egypt or Israel? Oh yeah, our access to their oil, pffft! Our oil companies often lose the contracts to other underbidding oil companies from other  countries of China, Russia, The UK, Germany, France, Italy, South Africa, Canada and ect... Yeah, osme contrl we established! sarc/
Quote
Yes, good answer. But we are still talking about realpolitik, not altruism.


What's purely altruistic about it? Keeping nukes off the black market or in the hands of religious nut cakes is in any country's national interest.

Quote
Check out Clarke's book. Or one of Dyer's columns. See what you think. There is some sense there.


From the way you described it early, i don't think i am that interested in it.  But as a favor to you and my own curiosity, i will check out the reviews for Clarke's book. What is the name of it again?. Anyways, money is tight, so i will not make any promises to you about buying the book if i change my mind.

Dyer's column's, you'll just have to share the links with me, if it isn't too much trouble for you?
Quote
Yes, and one more thing- they sat on the second largest deposit of conventional oil in the world. Hmmm, coincidence?


Sure they do. But we have better access or control to oil in our own hemisphere, especially over Canadian oil (BwhahahahEvil Smile), that is if we don't pass up the good business opportunities to the Chinese. Wink

Nope, like i said earlier, the importance of Iraqi oil is for world consumption. Our interests are multiple and deeper than that, and yes, there is some altruism in there as well, as much as that must pain you.

But since our oil shock of the 70's and the Iraq and Iran war of the 80's, our military interests lays in working with allied governments in the region for security and stability of the regions most valuable resource to sell to a expanding thirsty industrial world, "whose proceeds are suppose to go to the inhabitants of the middle eastern region" and not just in the pockets of local or foreign government officials, which is often the case, unfortunately. The payoff for us is that we don't go into a major global economic crisis with the rest of the world when the globe is denied middle eastern oil out of a pique of insecurity, pride or fickleness.


Quote
I can see other threads spinning off from the above paragraph.


Maybe here, but they've already been done to death in most other internet forums.


Quote
The US is no more in the middle of a crisis with terrorism than it ever has been. There have always been crazies and extremists in the world who have killed people and planted bombs.


At this point, i expect no less such a statement coming from you.

Quote
Today, they are a little more effective due to technology. But if you consider to be in a war against terrorism, then that is a war that will never end.


It's not just our war that's been limited by definition to a ambiguous noun. But i do see a nice big beach with soft sand for people to stick theirs into.

Quote
What will possibly bring about a more peaceful world would be a more sincere effort at seeing other's points of view, and taking a more even hand in world affairs. The most extreme will never be won over, but the majority tends to be OK with policies that at least try to be fair to all.


You keep coming back to the US having a even hand and being fair, but then telling me not to be altruistic. Mixed messages Captain.

I don't want to think this, but something tells me that your reading selection is very limited, perhaps even favored only to narrow confines of cynical works?




Edited by Panther - 19 Jun 2014 at 11:27
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2014 at 12:53
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


Really? I think most thinking people there understand their own problems. There are unfortunately a lot of non-thinking people there too, but this is not exclusive to the Middle East, although a regression to magical beliefs also is a factor there currently.


I often come across the comment that reflection isn't  particularly a strong suit in the middle east, especially when honor and shame are closely connected to the rise and fall of individual lives. Otherwise, it is best to ignore a problem and deny it's  existence. But you are right, it's not exclusive to the middle east.


Quote
Your ducking and weaving panther.


Am I? Most of what you listed has already been well discussed in this country. Would it please you if i were to say that every American were to be sh!tt!ng their britches at the very prospect? Well, yes.... i figure quite a few American britches would be soiled by such a thought. Otherwise, it is just a strength and weakness of being a country made up mostly of immigrants from all across the globe.




Quote
When we unravel the tit for tat violence of the last half century or so, we come to one inescapable fact. A group of people wanted a country that wasn't theirs, and they took it. No amount of religious or sentimental claptrap will obscure this. This has never been accepted by the people in the region, which is why it is still festering today. As for playing their cards right and being more sincere, look at it this way. If Mexico seized Texas, claiming a sentimental and historical right (actually, the latter at least has some merit), and you found yourself a second class citizen in what you had considered to be your home, would card playing and sincerity be on your mind, or conflict?


I've been well aware of this long before you pointed this out. Where on earth do think some of my sympathy for them had come from?

As to your question, i'd take my cue from our immigrants from the south of the border and be sincere and play my cards as honestly as they have so far done. Conflict would only be a means of defense as my last option, rather than just fight for the sake of violence, riches, reclamation/reconquista and the pursuit of power.

Quote
I'm not interested in being a cheerleader for Arabs, they have a lot to answer for too. But the roots of this conflict are a basic injustice done, and it has cost the US untold trouble over the years by refusing to acknowledge it.


Why should anyone involved in this mess have to answer for anything and more importantly.... to whom? Where would you start out of the billion people involved from around the globe? Basically, how do you apply justice to a region that hasn't ever had a balanced justice system before?

And again, it is not that the US fails to acknowledge the trouble, but that the justice so desired isn't the justice that is actually be demanded. You want me too listen, well i am and that is the impression i get.


Quote
Israel is not willing to play ball, and is in fact gradually seizing ever more Arab land for settlement, while refusing to negotiate in any meaningful way. Why should they? They have a monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, and the unquestioned backing of the US, no matter what action they take.


Hmmmm....


Quote

If it is all about oil and stability, then the best course for the US would be to sidle up to the big producers, support the Palestinian cause, tell Israel get a grip, and try and nudge a few towards more civilized behavior. Moody is a human emotion, and not much use in describing strategic interest. 


It wouldn't help this conversation one bit too mention that we've been there and done that and it just does not seem to sell newspapers or capture the public imagination of how people think the US-Israeli relationship should work. That even handedness and fairness you talk about, doesn't get the coverage it deserves.

 
Quote
Instead, the US has done almost the opposite, backing unstable dictators, enraging millions by unquestioning support of Israel, and announcing a crusade in the Mid-East. The "alliance" I'd say, is more about corruption, and a muddled understanding of history and geography.


It's all about who controls the narrative and certainly in hell ain't us!


Quote Your spinning out of control here panther.


I think that has been your master plan all along, because you sure ain't helping.

Quote
My original point was that the US, just as all other previous major players, has, and still does, play hard ball in the international sphere, and engages in practices that cannot be presented to the voter without a spin doctors attention. In some cases, this has been extreme, such as the ill advised adventure in Iraq, and the reckless alignment with Israel.


I see the trouble here. You think of the major global players in the past tense while i do not. I see them as never having left.

Quote
There are already quite a few scratches in the surface of the Iraq II episode, and although you don't like the word, it has been "documented" to a considerable degree. There is no need to wait a generation. You can read about it now.


I don't doubt the bold, but you should doubt my dislike for the word "documented". My problem has always been with the first shallow interpretation being done when it is fresh off of the printing presses. As if revised editions and new interpretations are words yet to be invented. And then to be able to disseminate the ideas of what they convey to the general public in a politically charged atmosphere does not do much in increasing my confidence that the writer and the reader, really and truly understands events the happened literally yesterday and to their full extent.

That is why i say that in a hundred years time, that generation will have a much better appreciative grasp of events that are still slapping us across the face.

Captain, i am just cautious when it comes to evaluating the worth and merit of any historical moment we are still living through and pass my judgement into stone.

Even with myself,  i'm like this. If i wrote a book, my first caution to any hypothetical readers, is to always doubt my partiality because i am a politically fallible human who strives to be objective with history and often falls short.

I wish i could've said the above in a idiom, but i can't for the life of me think of one that would be relevant to the point. All my posts are starting to sound long winded now.

Quote
Yes, language can be a slippery thing. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say though...just stick with the facts man...


Facts? Heh! A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2014 at 14:22
Ahem!!!
 
Sorry to interrupt your friendly conversation gents, but the USA  is now sending in a small force of troops to help protect the US Embassy in Bagdad.
 
As I understand it, strong consideration is also being given to the possibility of US air strikes on the ISIS.
 
Regardless of the rhetoric coming out of Washington, I can easily visualise US troops being sent to Iraq en masse, perhaps to the same number as committed by Iran, if they indeed do commit troops.
 
I've got that deja vu feeling again.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2014 at 14:41
Geezus! Sorry about that Toyomotor. How embarrassing.


Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2014 at 19:11
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

 

I can't comment how chaotic the transitional period is in Canada, but here in the US it can be a pain in the butt, especially during a divisive time or when a new POTUS is already greatly despised by the opposition.


And again, i am not saying Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. To put it differently, Sadddam's Iraq was part of the disease that had been afflicting the middle east. What the cure was is anybody's guess. Bush made his decision, time will tell if it was the right or wrong thing to do. But i already know your answer.  I get the impression your mind was already made up by the time of December 2000.

These are folks who can afford to pay for the best expertise available. I good part of a politicians time is taken up with being briefed by experts. It is absurd to say that a president- any president- would be in chaos a  year and a half into his term, in regard to having accurate political and military intelligence.


Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:




I find that hard too believe? You have been making so many similar comments as what the conspiracy theorists have.

In a round about way perhaps the scramble for oil over the years has increased instability and authoritarian government in the region, but specifically regarding the Hussein regime, no I don't think there are direct links.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


The enemy of my enemy is my friend, i am sure you know that proverb. There was always a possibility that they could work together, otherwise why did they have a feeling-each-other-out meeting?


"Always the possibility"...this was reason enough for a war and 100,000 dead? How tenuous can you get?

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


Okay, i will respect this views of yours. Yes, these are their opinions. But i do not and will not accept it as factual  history for another decade or two, at the very least.

Why the long wait? You accept that Arab extremists perpetrated 9/11, do you not? That Russia grabbed the Crimea by force? That the World Cup is being played in Rio? It sounds to me that it is the uncomfortable facts that you find take a long time to digest.
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:




Realpolitik? Do you have any idea who the real losers would have been here? Sure, you'll say the US. Because why not? That is what everybody not underneath a rock is saying. The real losers in this policy is the UN, in my humble opinion. How many groups up to no good will now take them and the sanctimonious sanctions seriously? And those that do, have a nice little blue print on how to skirt the UN sanctions thanks to Saddam.

The UN has always been a weak organization, due to the fact that no one wants to concede any national sovereignty, or go against their own narrow national interests, to any significant degree. There have been examples of UN failure before. Iraq changes nothing in this regard.
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:




It been pretty obvious to me since the early eighties, that the Arabic world, the ummah, have had great animosity towards the US because of our assumed favoritism towards Israel, a conspiratorial belief in our Imperial ambitions, our extreme cultural differences or a misunderstanding of our interest. The last in no way is limited to the Arab world, i've come to learn over the last 20+ years. This belief affect a large swath of people in nearly every country, including my own. In fact, i do sometimes wonder that foreigners and citizens alike, that by studying the US so intensely under the microscope, seemingly looking for flaws only, they consistently miss or choose to ignore the other qualities inherent in US society or politics because of whatever the reason; I've heard way too many criticisms to be able to put them down in print.
For instance, your comment on the need of the US in taking an even handed approach with Arabic countries, is indicative of my point. The USG efforts in a conciliatory to the Arabic world isn't as well understood and discussed as it is when we do and will screw up.

Everybody knows this dance, but the words of comfort in the song have no meaning when emotions takeover. It just gets lost in the noise. Just go with the beat so it seems.

Look Mr P, if the US was even handed, the Israel/Palestine conflict would wind up in a few months. Israel is emboldened by their nuclear monopoly (winked at by the US), the 3 billion a year in aid from the US, and particularly by the complete, unquestioning support of the US, no matter their actions. They have seized a country by force, and are in a long term process of evicting the remaining residents, or at best pushing them onto tiny reserves, which are more or less open air prisons. If any other country did this they would be roundly condemned, and actions taken against them. With Israel, the US is mute. Israel even feels invulnerable enough to kick sand in the face of your top politicians. They announced another round of land grabs and settlements during a recent visit by your vice-president. How's that for chutzpah?
Without US support, Israel would be forced to negotiate in good faith with the Arab world. The status quo is a long running, festering source of angst in that part of the world, and a recruiting tool for terrorists and extremists. It is absurd to say that US policy is even handed, when people like President Obama, or Hillary Clinton, come out of meetings with AIPAC, and dutifully announce that US support for Israel is unquestioning, unbreakable, and eternal.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:



Quote
Again, you want to link Iraq and Al Qaeda. Yes, there may have been tentative feelers put out to several Muslim countries by Al Qaeda (or other such organizations) but the fact is, there was no link between 9/11 and AQ.


This is why i do not take a lot of your posts on this issue seriously, you previously said:


Quote Al Qaeda folks are religious crazies and thugs, Saddam Hussein was a secular crazy and thug, therefore not compatible with the former. You were attacked by Al Qaeda, not Baghdad.


Respectfully, i do not think you have a clue what you are saying sometimes.


Sorry, my mistake. I made a typo error. In future, I will only answer these posts after morning coffee.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


I certainly do not and never have thought you are anti-American. But i do think you are grossly informed on the United States of America. Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, as important as they are in the international community, especially Saudi Arabia's importance to Muslims around the globe. Their significance is however trivial when it comes to the major power relation in the world. Specifically thinking of these major powers and rising powers: The UK and the commonwealth countries, The US, France, Russia, China, Germany, Japan, Italy and Brazil, India or South Africa,


Not quite sure what you are saying here, but if you are suggesting my information is lacking or incomplete, then I'll give you the old English saying: The proof is in the pudding. Meaning, do your work, and examine what you have at the end. The events in question have ended. We have proof.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


Indeed we are and i am not arguing that the US was never involved in the first place. The controversy, as you think it is... is not that the US is in denial of the more negative aspects of... take your pick of whatever; But my unclear impression of whatever the hell is actually going on at the moment isn't, as you say, matching up with the facts or analysis of the much less politically biased reports i do rely on.

That is not saying i don't have a clue as to what is going on in the region, it is just unclear. But i will say that i don't want to be a pompous a$$ and blame any one country willy-nilly because everybody else is.

Perhaps you would like to give an example of your sources. We'll separate the willy from the nilly.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:



Of course their was a plan in place
or do you only read your favored Canadian/US newspapers when the evil republicans are acting up again? Geesh! Sometimes i do wonder?
You're doing your duck and weave routine again (did you play football in college?). Of course, the world's military come up with all sorts of contingency plans, just in case. That's their job. The point here is that it was planned for some nutty neo-con, imperial/uber-nationalist nonsense, and then it was actually carried out, against the wishes and advice of millions, including some of your own generals.


Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


Nothing to gain for the US? We have no needs or want on the peninsula? Why do we give in to the nuclear blackmail and feed their population? Why do we keep our guys and gals over there in the South, when most Americans would have preferred them home back in the fifties? Why do we bother in working with the Chinese too make this peninsula stable if we have no needs or wants. Just what the hell do we actually gain b remaining involved in this armistice that could turn into  a potentially bloody war in a instant if the North Koreans chose to do so again? What do you really know about the Korean ssituation in the first place?

Iraq, was a military walkover, just like the first time when the coalition kicked them out of Kuwait. And why in the hell would we need too establish ourselves in the most critical part of the world when were already established there in the first place prior to 2003 (Thanks to Saddam, but no doubt you'll see a US ulterior motive here as well anyways!) with bases and access to the facilities of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Turkey, Egypt or Israel? Oh yeah, our access to their oil, pffft! Our oil companies often lose the contracts to other underbidding oil companies from other  countries of China, Russia, The UK, Germany, France, Italy, South Africa, Canada and ect... Yeah, osme contrl we established! sarc/


I'm not saying it was logical. I'm saying it was done. These mandarins that sit around playing geopolitical poker can get somewhat detached from reality.
What we can say safely about the region is: 1) It is volatile, can could change drastically at short notice.2) It is still the largest and most accessible source of oil, which still powers the world. For far right punters who are trying to plan for their nations most dominant posture in the world, what would come up as priority 1 or perhaps 2? You've got it. Stay on top of that area. In 2001, Iran had gone rouge, Iraq was run by a psycho, Saudi run by extremists (who would soon suggest the US left), Syria belligerent, Egypt a morass of problems, Libya (see description for Iraq). Yes, there were some micro states in the Gulf that welcomed the US. Enough? Looks pretty tenuous on the  map. Especially considering life as we know it could change if the region fell to anti-western interests.
Yes oil flows today, but will it in the future? Some of the folks there are pretty extreme in their views. Shutting down the taps and going back to a medieval society might not be outside the range of their thinking. Much better, so the poker players speculate, to have maximum firepower already there, and influencing events.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


What's purely altruistic about it? Keeping nukes off the black market or in the hands of religious nut cakes is in any country's national interest.
Iraq had no nuclear weapons. This wasn't about terrorism or WMDs.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:




From the way you described it early, i don't think i am that interested in it.  But as a favor to you and my own curiosity, i will check out the reviews for Clarke's book. What is the name of it again?. Anyways, money is tight, so i will not make any promises to you about buying the book if i change my mind.

Dyer's column's, you'll just have to share the links with me, if it isn't too much trouble for you?

Sure they do. But we have better access or control to oil in our own hemisphere, especially over Canadian oil (BwhahahahEvil Smile), that is if we don't pass up the good business opportunities to the Chinese. Wink

Nope, like i said earlier, the importance of Iraqi oil is for world consumption. Our interests are multiple and deeper than that, and yes, there is some altruism in there as well, as much as that must pain you.

But since our oil shock of the 70's and the Iraq and Iran war of the 80's, our military interests lays in working with allied governments in the region for security and stability of the regions most valuable resource to sell to a expanding thirsty industrial world, "whose proceeds are suppose to go to the inhabitants of the middle eastern region" and not just in the pockets of local or foreign government officials, which is often the case, unfortunately. The payoff for us is that we don't go into a major global economic crisis with the rest of the world when the globe is denied middle eastern oil out of a pique of insecurity, pride or fickleness.


Another example of political levity I guess panther. The US has, and does support some of the most corrupt leaders in the world, who line their pockets with untold billions, such as the Saudi royal family for example. This does not produce stability, but just the opposite. It produces animosity within these societies, and cynicism towards the US.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:



It's not just our war that's been limited by definition to a ambiguous noun. But i do see a nice big beach with soft sand for people to stick theirs into.


Far from it. All countries have had their agonies- the IRA in Britain, Red Brigades in Europe, the FLQ in Canada, the Red Army Faction in Japan, the Shinning Path in Peru...the list is long. The fact that the US has now been hit on home turf doesn't mean that suddenly the world is at war.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


You keep coming back to the US having a even hand and being fair, but then telling me not to be altruistic. Mixed messages Captain.

I don't want to think this, but something tells me that your reading selection is very limited, perhaps even favored only to narrow confines of cynical works?



Not really Mr P. I once even read a book on geopolitics by Richard Nixon. That was unique, to say the least.

http://gwynnedyer.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Against-All-Enemies-Inside-Americas/dp/0743260457/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403200788&sr=1-3&keywords=against+all+enemies

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/opinion/krugman-marches-of-folly.html
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2014 at 20:50
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

 

Why should anyone involved in this mess have to answer for anything and more importantly.... to whom? Where would you start out of the billion people involved from around the globe? Basically, how do you apply justice to a region that hasn't ever had a balanced justice system before?

And again, it is not that the US fails to acknowledge the trouble, but that the justice so desired isn't the justice that is actually be demanded. You want me too listen, well i am and that is the impression i get.

You are merely diffusing the issue. If justice has never been done, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done now. And it doesn't involve a billion people, just Israel, Palestine, the mandarins in Washington, and a few other interested parties. Justice is understood in the region, but it isn't being implemented due to a power imbalance. As I said earlier, the Arab League and the Palestinian Authority have proposed a settlement that is more than just, in fact it's pretty generous towards Israel. Israel has rejected it out of hand, and the US has backed the decision, no questions asked. It's not hard to see where justice needs to start flowing from.



Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2014 at 20:53
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Ahem!!!
 
Sorry to interrupt your friendly conversation gents, but the USA  is now sending in a small force of troops to help protect the US Embassy in Bagdad.
 
As I understand it, strong consideration is also being given to the possibility of US air strikes on the ISIS.
 
Regardless of the rhetoric coming out of Washington, I can easily visualise US troops being sent to Iraq en masse, perhaps to the same number as committed by Iran, if they indeed do commit troops.
 
I've got that deja vu feeling again.

Not a chance. It would be political suicide for any president to start shipping kids back into harm's way, after being bloodied twice in the same decade.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2014 at 21:33
Mr P- Another item for  your leisure time reading:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0613-05.htm
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2014 at 04:03
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Geezus! Sorry about that Toyomotor. How embarrassing.


Thumbs Up
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2014 at 04:10
Captain wrote:
Quote
Not a chance. It would be political suicide for any president to start shipping kids back into harm's way, after being bloodied twice in the same decade.
 
Mr. O is in his last term as POTUS. Politically, to him, I don't think it would mean a great deal.
 
There are currently about 300 US "advisors" in Iraq-remember Viet Nam?
 
And if he can strike the right deal with Iran, who knows?
 
Stranger things have happened.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2014 at 05:17
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Captain wrote:
Quote
Not a chance. It would be political suicide for any president to start shipping kids back into harm's way, after being bloodied twice in the same decade.
 
Mr. O is in his last term as POTUS. Politically, to him, I don't think it would mean a great deal.
 
There are currently about 300 US "advisors" in Iraq-remember Viet Nam?
 
And if he can strike the right deal with Iran, who knows?
 
Stranger things have happened.

Obama still has to think about his fellow democrats, and he would be torpedoing Hillary's campaign.

Anyway, ISIS won't last. Even Al Qaeda thinks these guys are too extreme, and Assad, just a little close to the edge of the envelop himself, is willing to bomb them. They'll cause some mayhem, and then be reduced to ranting on their website.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2014 at 08:01
Hilary, Schmilary!
 
I hope the American people will never be so stupid as to seriously consider her for POTUS.
 
ISIS may not survive. I think we believed this of other terrorist organisations over the years, but they lasted long enough to cause suffering to the people.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2014 at 08:06
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

 

I can't comment how chaotic the transitional period is in Canada, but here in the US it can be a pain in the butt, especially during a divisive time or when a new POTUS is already greatly despised by the opposition.


And again, i am not saying Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. To put it differently, Sadddam's Iraq was part of the disease that had been afflicting the middle east. What the cure was is anybody's guess. Bush made his decision, time will tell if it was the right or wrong thing to do. But i already know your answer.  I get the impression your mind was already made up by the time of December 2000.

These are folks who can afford to pay for the best expertise available. I good part of a politicians time is taken up with being briefed by experts. It is absurd to say that a president- any president- would be in chaos a  year and a half into his term, in regard to having accurate political and military intelligence.


Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:




I find that hard too believe? You have been making so many similar comments as what the conspiracy theorists have.

In a round about way perhaps the scramble for oil over the years has increased instability and authoritarian government in the region, but specifically regarding the Hussein regime, no I don't think there are direct links.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


The enemy of my enemy is my friend, i am sure you know that proverb. There was always a possibility that they could work together, otherwise why did they have a feeling-each-other-out meeting?


"Always the possibility"...this was reason enough for a war and 100,000 dead? How tenuous can you get?

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


Okay, i will respect this views of yours. Yes, these are their opinions. But i do not and will not accept it as factual  history for another decade or two, at the very least.

Why the long wait? You accept that Arab extremists perpetrated 9/11, do you not? That Russia grabbed the Crimea by force? That the World Cup is being played in Rio? It sounds to me that it is the uncomfortable facts that you find take a long time to digest.
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:




Realpolitik? Do you have any idea who the real losers would have been here? Sure, you'll say the US. Because why not? That is what everybody not underneath a rock is saying. The real losers in this policy is the UN, in my humble opinion. How many groups up to no good will now take them and the sanctimonious sanctions seriously? And those that do, have a nice little blue print on how to skirt the UN sanctions thanks to Saddam.

The UN has always been a weak organization, due to the fact that no one wants to concede any national sovereignty, or go against their own narrow national interests, to any significant degree. There have been examples of UN failure before. Iraq changes nothing in this regard.
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:




It been pretty obvious to me since the early eighties, that the Arabic world, the ummah, have had great animosity towards the US because of our assumed favoritism towards Israel, a conspiratorial belief in our Imperial ambitions, our extreme cultural differences or a misunderstanding of our interest. The last in no way is limited to the Arab world, i've come to learn over the last 20+ years. This belief affect a large swath of people in nearly every country, including my own. In fact, i do sometimes wonder that foreigners and citizens alike, that by studying the US so intensely under the microscope, seemingly looking for flaws only, they consistently miss or choose to ignore the other qualities inherent in US society or politics because of whatever the reason; I've heard way too many criticisms to be able to put them down in print.
For instance, your comment on the need of the US in taking an even handed approach with Arabic countries, is indicative of my point. The USG efforts in a conciliatory to the Arabic world isn't as well understood and discussed as it is when we do and will screw up.

Everybody knows this dance, but the words of comfort in the song have no meaning when emotions takeover. It just gets lost in the noise. Just go with the beat so it seems.

Look Mr P, if the US was even handed, the Israel/Palestine conflict would wind up in a few months. Israel is emboldened by their nuclear monopoly (winked at by the US), the 3 billion a year in aid from the US, and particularly by the complete, unquestioning support of the US, no matter their actions. They have seized a country by force, and are in a long term process of evicting the remaining residents, or at best pushing them onto tiny reserves, which are more or less open air prisons. If any other country did this they would be roundly condemned, and actions taken against them. With Israel, the US is mute. Israel even feels invulnerable enough to kick sand in the face of your top politicians. They announced another round of land grabs and settlements during a recent visit by your vice-president. How's that for chutzpah?
Without US support, Israel would be forced to negotiate in good faith with the Arab world. The status quo is a long running, festering source of angst in that part of the world, and a recruiting tool for terrorists and extremists. It is absurd to say that US policy is even handed, when people like President Obama, or Hillary Clinton, come out of meetings with AIPAC, and dutifully announce that US support for Israel is unquestioning, unbreakable, and eternal.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:



Quote
Again, you want to link Iraq and Al Qaeda. Yes, there may have been tentative feelers put out to several Muslim countries by Al Qaeda (or other such organizations) but the fact is, there was no link between 9/11 and AQ.


This is why i do not take a lot of your posts on this issue seriously, you previously said:


Quote Al Qaeda folks are religious crazies and thugs, Saddam Hussein was a secular crazy and thug, therefore not compatible with the former. You were attacked by Al Qaeda, not Baghdad.


Respectfully, i do not think you have a clue what you are saying sometimes.


Sorry, my mistake. I made a typo error. In future, I will only answer these posts after morning coffee.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


I certainly do not and never have thought you are anti-American. But i do think you are grossly informed on the United States of America. Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, as important as they are in the international community, especially Saudi Arabia's importance to Muslims around the globe. Their significance is however trivial when it comes to the major power relation in the world. Specifically thinking of these major powers and rising powers: The UK and the commonwealth countries, The US, France, Russia, China, Germany, Japan, Italy and Brazil, India or South Africa,


Not quite sure what you are saying here, but if you are suggesting my information is lacking or incomplete, then I'll give you the old English saying: The proof is in the pudding. Meaning, do your work, and examine what you have at the end. The events in question have ended. We have proof.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


Indeed we are and i am not arguing that the US was never involved in the first place. The controversy, as you think it is... is not that the US is in denial of the more negative aspects of... take your pick of whatever; But my unclear impression of whatever the hell is actually going on at the moment isn't, as you say, matching up with the facts or analysis of the much less politically biased reports i do rely on.

That is not saying i don't have a clue as to what is going on in the region, it is just unclear. But i will say that i don't want to be a pompous a$$ and blame any one country willy-nilly because everybody else is.

Perhaps you would like to give an example of your sources. We'll separate the willy from the nilly.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:



Of course their was a plan in place
or do you only read your favored Canadian/US newspapers when the evil republicans are acting up again? Geesh! Sometimes i do wonder?
You're doing your duck and weave routine again (did you play football in college?). Of course, the world's military come up with all sorts of contingency plans, just in case. That's their job. The point here is that it was planned for some nutty neo-con, imperial/uber-nationalist nonsense, and then it was actually carried out, against the wishes and advice of millions, including some of your own generals.


Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


Nothing to gain for the US? We have no needs or want on the peninsula? Why do we give in to the nuclear blackmail and feed their population? Why do we keep our guys and gals over there in the South, when most Americans would have preferred them home back in the fifties? Why do we bother in working with the Chinese too make this peninsula stable if we have no needs or wants. Just what the hell do we actually gain b remaining involved in this armistice that could turn into  a potentially bloody war in a instant if the North Koreans chose to do so again? What do you really know about the Korean ssituation in the first place?

Iraq, was a military walkover, just like the first time when the coalition kicked them out of Kuwait. And why in the hell would we need too establish ourselves in the most critical part of the world when were already established there in the first place prior to 2003 (Thanks to Saddam, but no doubt you'll see a US ulterior motive here as well anyways!) with bases and access to the facilities of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Turkey, Egypt or Israel? Oh yeah, our access to their oil, pffft! Our oil companies often lose the contracts to other underbidding oil companies from other  countries of China, Russia, The UK, Germany, France, Italy, South Africa, Canada and ect... Yeah, osme contrl we established! sarc/


I'm not saying it was logical. I'm saying it was done. These mandarins that sit around playing geopolitical poker can get somewhat detached from reality.
What we can say safely about the region is: 1) It is volatile, can could change drastically at short notice.2) It is still the largest and most accessible source of oil, which still powers the world. For far right punters who are trying to plan for their nations most dominant posture in the world, what would come up as priority 1 or perhaps 2? You've got it. Stay on top of that area. In 2001, Iran had gone rouge, Iraq was run by a psycho, Saudi run by extremists (who would soon suggest the US left), Syria belligerent, Egypt a morass of problems, Libya (see description for Iraq). Yes, there were some micro states in the Gulf that welcomed the US. Enough? Looks pretty tenuous on the  map. Especially considering life as we know it could change if the region fell to anti-western interests.
Yes oil flows today, but will it in the future? Some of the folks there are pretty extreme in their views. Shutting down the taps and going back to a medieval society might not be outside the range of their thinking. Much better, so the poker players speculate, to have maximum firepower already there, and influencing events.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


What's purely altruistic about it? Keeping nukes off the black market or in the hands of religious nut cakes is in any country's national interest.
Iraq had no nuclear weapons. This wasn't about terrorism or WMDs.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:




From the way you described it early, i don't think i am that interested in it.  But as a favor to you and my own curiosity, i will check out the reviews for Clarke's book. What is the name of it again?. Anyways, money is tight, so i will not make any promises to you about buying the book if i change my mind.

Dyer's column's, you'll just have to share the links with me, if it isn't too much trouble for you?

Sure they do. But we have better access or control to oil in our own hemisphere, especially over Canadian oil (BwhahahahEvil Smile), that is if we don't pass up the good business opportunities to the Chinese. Wink

Nope, like i said earlier, the importance of Iraqi oil is for world consumption. Our interests are multiple and deeper than that, and yes, there is some altruism in there as well, as much as that must pain you.

But since our oil shock of the 70's and the Iraq and Iran war of the 80's, our military interests lays in working with allied governments in the region for security and stability of the regions most valuable resource to sell to a expanding thirsty industrial world, "whose proceeds are suppose to go to the inhabitants of the middle eastern region" and not just in the pockets of local or foreign government officials, which is often the case, unfortunately. The payoff for us is that we don't go into a major global economic crisis with the rest of the world when the globe is denied middle eastern oil out of a pique of insecurity, pride or fickleness.


Another example of political levity I guess panther. The US has, and does support some of the most corrupt leaders in the world, who line their pockets with untold billions, such as the Saudi royal family for example. This does not produce stability, but just the opposite. It produces animosity within these societies, and cynicism towards the US.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:



It's not just our war that's been limited by definition to a ambiguous noun. But i do see a nice big beach with soft sand for people to stick theirs into.


Far from it. All countries have had their agonies- the IRA in Britain, Red Brigades in Europe, the FLQ in Canada, the Red Army Faction in Japan, the Shinning Path in Peru...the list is long. The fact that the US has now been hit on home turf doesn't mean that suddenly the world is at war.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


You keep coming back to the US having a even hand and being fair, but then telling me not to be altruistic. Mixed messages Captain.

I don't want to think this, but something tells me that your reading selection is very limited, perhaps even favored only to narrow confines of cynical works?



Not really Mr P. I once even read a book on geopolitics by Richard Nixon. That was unique, to say the least.

http://gwynnedyer.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Against-All-Enemies-Inside-Americas/dp/0743260457/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403200788&sr=1-3&keywords=against+all+enemies

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/opinion/krugman-marches-of-folly.html


Captain, we can take this up by pm or a new thread if you want to go through the trouble of starting one. A word of caution though: I do admit, i am losing interest in this merry go round conversation really quick and am not sure if it is my fault or yours?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2014 at 12:48
Captain, Panther:
Does it all really matter?
Many Iraqi troops took off their uniforms, dropped their weapons and abandoned their vehicles on hearing that the ISIS, AlQaeda inspired rebels were on the way. That's the point!
 
I don't see how the US can be held responsible for that, and I think the same thing will basically happen in Afghanistan when the troops pull out.
 
It seems to me that the Iraqi troops, in common with others who were trained or advised by the US, don't have the stomach for war when the opportunity arises. And I don't blame the US for that either.
 
What could happen in the near future is merely supposition.
 
Sorry Captain, I can't agree with your anti-US stand on this thread.


Edited by toyomotor - 20 Jun 2014 at 12:53
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2014 at 19:06
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

 

Captain, we can take this up by pm or a new thread if you want to go through the trouble of starting one. A word of caution though: I do admit, i am losing interest in this merry go round conversation really quick and am not sure if it is my fault or yours?

I do believe I see a white flag out there on the southern horizon. And just as I was getting warmed up. No matter. It's all history now, and the Iraqis will have to work things out for themselves, hopefully without too big a body  count. I doubt very much that any more young Americans will be asked to throw themselves in front of the cannons, in that particular part of the world anyway, which is not a bad thing.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2014 at 19:09
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Captain, Panther:
Does it all really matter?
Many Iraqi troops took off their uniforms, dropped their weapons and abandoned their vehicles on hearing that the ISIS, AlQaeda inspired rebels were on the way. That's the point!
 
I don't see how the US can be held responsible for that, and I think the same thing will basically happen in Afghanistan when the troops pull out.
 
It seems to me that the Iraqi troops, in common with others who were trained or advised by the US, don't have the stomach for war when the opportunity arises. And I don't blame the US for that either.
 
What could happen in the near future is merely supposition.
 
Sorry Captain, I can't agree with your anti-US stand on this thread.

It's not anti American toyomotor, but I will finish up by saying that we all, in the US, Canada, Australia, or wherever, need to strongly consider what we are doing when marking that ballot, and dropping it into the box. There are consequences.
Back to Top
Arlington View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 13 Feb 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Arlington Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2014 at 20:32
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:






Captain, Panther:
Does it all really matter?
Many Iraqi troops took off their uniforms, dropped their weapons and abandoned their vehicles on hearing that the ISIS, AlQaeda inspired rebels were on the way. That's the point!
 
I don't see how the US can be held responsible for that, and I think the same thing will basically happen in Afghanistan when the troops pull out.
 
It seems to me that the Iraqi troops, in common with others who were trained or advised by the US, don't have the stomach for war when the opportunity arises. And I don't blame the US for that either.
 
What could happen in the near future is merely supposition.
 
Sorry Captain, I can't agree with your anti-US stand on this thread.




All apt Toyo. But irrelevant to the garden variety grown Anti-American bashers. It took the US and it's allies nearly 50 years to reduce the threat of the heathen communists in western europe.

Those same aforementioned still bemoan that as well.

A liberal or socialist American hater in Europe or Canada is no different from his bedfellow in Russia the PRC or Venezuela. Or his partners from northern California.

They pee and moan when nothing is done in a preemptive fashion other than 'appeasement' tactics, based on self interest; while denying it out of the other side of their mouths. And they pee and moan when after intervention problems remained. This current situation is an Iraqi problem and caused by an unwillingness to root out the terrorists. Which in turn was exacerbated by an untimely pullout by the current socialist American administration and President.

In summation, Disregard them..

ie. the former; as political scientists and international relationship/geo-political specialists they would have you believe of them.


They remain a sham.

Hacks.

And nothing more.

And no matter how their verbiage is couched, feigned or dissimulated; it's 'always' anti-American; deep down in their psyche's.



Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2014 at 00:47
M. Arlington- I must say, you have outdone yourself. Almost every line here has some entertainment value. I particularly enjoyed your oblique reference to aging hippies in N California, a location not far from your captain's physical and sentimental homeland.

I am tempted to also say, rumination on what goes in the ballot box, and how it is conceived, and by whom, might be a subject of popular debate.

Perhaps we could debate it here.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2014 at 04:24
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


I do believe I see a white flag out there on the southern horizon. And just as I was getting warmed up.


Don't get your hopes up. More like a armistice rather than a surrender. Unless you have something new to offer other than the fourteen year talking points still being put forward, I just get bored going around and around in circles when there is no obvious benefit. Besides, i think you & I have unfairly hijacked toyomotor's thread long enough.

Quote
No matter. It's all history now, and the Iraqis will have to work things out for themselves, hopefully without too big a body  count. I doubt very much that any more young Americans will be asked to throw themselves in front of the cannons, in that particular part of the world anyway, which is not a bad thing.


That was the entire point of the US staying in Iraq. Retraining the Iraqi forces to deal with this particular situation themselves so Americans wouldn't have too keep coming back to deal with the situation every time. Of course, if we had a SOFA in place with the Iraqi government we would have been better able to have provided them with support. Like you said, this is history.

The Iraqi's either stand now or fall. I particularly hope they stand and retake cities from ISIS. But that is my preference.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2014 at 06:57
The quandry, as I see it, is this.
 
The US, and probably Australia, provide personnel as advisors to the Iraqi military, as well as additional troops to defend the embassies.
 
If ISIS, which now has control of the oil fields, overwhelms the Iraqi Armed forces to the extent that the Iraqi government looks like falling, will the "Coalition of the Willing" step in to assist or not?
 
If they don't, the scene is set for even greater instability in the Middle East and the creation of the wished for Islamic Caliphate encompassing even more countries.
 
Would the US stand by and watch a radical Islamic group take over two or three countries?
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2014 at 13:49
Since my last post, there has been a Media Release by someone representing ISIS.
 
They have confirmed that their goal is to take Iraq, then Lebanon and Jordon-Syria is a fait accompli.
 
ISIS is currently within 40Km of Bagdad.
 
Quote While the aim of ISIS is to establish an Islamic state that stretches from Iraq to northern Syria, where it has had significant success in battling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces, it has made al-Maliki's removal from power part of its campaign.http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/20/world/meast/iraq-recruiting-station/
 
Oh to be a fly on the wall in the Pentagon.


Edited by toyomotor - 22 Jun 2014 at 02:43
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2014 at 16:53
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

 

That was the entire point of the US staying in Iraq. Retraining the Iraqi forces to deal with this particular situation themselves so Americans wouldn't have too keep coming back to deal with the situation every time. Of course, if we had a SOFA in place with the Iraqi government we would have been better able to have provided them with support. Like you said, this is history.

The Iraqi's either stand now or fall. I particularly hope they stand and retake cities from ISIS. But that is my preference.

Panther....please....Iraq had an army brutally efficient enough to suppress its own people, battle Iran for eight years, and invade Kuwait. Aside from some technical specialties, training is not an issue with Iraq. We are talking about 3-5 thousand crazies with guns here, and Iraq either is or isn't going to take them on, probably based on motivation, moral, tribal loyalties, and the sway of corruption. All American bases would do is inflame the situation more.

The US intent was not to re-train a combat hardened army, but to maintain  a presence in the Mid-East, in a vital region, under a plan hatched by, as I mentioned before, not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2014 at 02:48
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

 

That was the entire point of the US staying in Iraq. Retraining the Iraqi forces to deal with this particular situation themselves so Americans wouldn't have too keep coming back to deal with the situation every time. Of course, if we had a SOFA in place with the Iraqi government we would have been better able to have provided them with support. Like you said, this is history.

The Iraqi's either stand now or fall. I particularly hope they stand and retake cities from ISIS. But that is my preference.

Panther....please....Iraq had an army brutally efficient enough to suppress its own people, battle Iran for eight years, and invade Kuwait. Aside from some technical specialties, training is not an issue with Iraq. We are talking about 3-5 thousand crazies with guns here, and Iraq either is or isn't going to take them on, probably based on motivation, moral, tribal loyalties, and the sway of corruption. All American bases would do is inflame the situation more.

The US intent was not to re-train a combat hardened army, but to maintain  a presence in the Mid-East, in a vital region, under a plan hatched by, as I mentioned before, not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
 
Another culture where possession of firearms is unrestricted.
 
I also hope that Iraq can withstand the attacks from ISIS, but the indications so far aren't that great.
 
ISIS is another religeous based terrorist inspired organisation, so far to the right that it will never see sunset, and will undoubtedly have supporters in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.
 
My question remains, will the USA allow Iraq to fall, especially knowing that there are more targets in mind?
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2014 at 08:44
[QUOTE]
Sunni fighters have seized a border post on the Iraq-Syria frontier, security sources said, smashing a line drawn by colonial powers a century ago in a campaign to create an Islamic Caliphate from the Mediterranean Sea to Iran.
 
The militants, led by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), first moved into the nearby town of al-Qaim on Friday, pushing out security forces, the sources said on Saturday.
Once border guards heard that al-Qaim had fallen, they left their posts and militants moved in, the sources said.
Sameer al-Shwiali, media adviser to the commander of Iraq's anti-terrorist squad, told Reuters the Iraqi army was still in control of al-Qaim.
[/QUOTE]




Edited by toyomotor - 23 Jun 2014 at 04:14
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.202 seconds.