- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 10,348
- Reaction score
- 2,426
- Location
- The anals of history
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Fine but my comparison was to islamists, not sectarin, or nationalist, etc.
Since when is having an AK-47 considered 'well equipped'?
Any other weapons that they hold have been gained by capturing Syrian Army outposts and nothing more.
That said, I wish we still had Saddam around to deal with ISIS...
Lol...touchy?
About what? What a bunch of nameless, faceless people on a chat forum think? You could all be bright 10 year olds for all I know. The day I get 'touchy' about what someone says on here is the day I should stop posting here.
AS for the rest...you post is noted.
Though it is still woefully short of details.
Now many planes did the other countries commit? What type of planes (bombers or just support aircraft)? On what targets? How much AA assets were defending these targets (in other words - were they tough targets or easy ones)?
Come on man, surely you know government-speak' by now...make a general statement that sounds rosy but give few details. And when asked for details, vclaim 'national security' or 'military secrecy' does not allow more details to be released.
That report said basically nothing.
And I will say again, ISIS is a very small army with NO air force. I am sure the entire Middle East could take it out in a few weeks if it wanted to.
So why don't they?
The answer is obvious - they do not want to badly enough OR why should they when they know America will just do it for them.
We are done here, for now.
Good day.
If the CIA gave weapons and training to the craziest Americans and set them loose, do you think we'd be talking about radical Christians the same way we talk about radical islamists?
ISIS exists at its present strength and holding territory because of the vacuum created with the US withdrawal. They were able to move into and out of Syria as gains were made by Assad, and they figured out they could go wild with the place.
If the CIA gave weapons and training to the craziest Americans and set them loose, do you think we'd be talking about radical Christians the same way we talk about radical islamists?
All I'm saying is that if Saddam were still in power, we're not having the same discussion as far as ISIS is concerned. At the very least, they wouldn't of rolled through Sunni held territory with little to no resistance as it wouldn't be a Shia government in power.
Seeing that a number of Arab states, including Qatar participated, I have to give a lot of credit to Secretary of State Kerry. None of these states was onboard for military action during the President's speech. UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia are core Arab allies. Jordan is a strategic ally and had recently been threatened by ISIS. The one surprise for a lack of participation is Kuwait.
Seeing that a number of Arab states, including Qatar participated, I have to give a lot of credit to Secretary of State Kerry. None of these states was onboard for military action during the President's speech. UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia are core Arab allies. Jordan is a strategic ally and had recently been threatened by ISIS. The one surprise for a lack of participation is Kuwait.
You know, I think we are both thinking the same answer, but for different reasons, so I'll go first.
9/11, and the reason for the shift was because there was a great concern that Saddam might give over his WMDs to someone who would use it in an American city. We like to pretend that Saddam was the perfect choir boy before the Iraq War, but they also tend to forget about him kicking out the weapon inspectors. Had he of continued to cooperate, we wouldn't of gotten the impression he was hiding something, and we would of known that he didn't have any WMDs.
And you say?
No. Many other nations around the world have confirmed stockpiles of dangerous weapons. So why did the United States specifically target Iraq so soon after the Afghanistan invasion of 2001, when there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda?
Washington had already been preparing for a new invasion of Iraq before 9/11. The Los Angeles Times reported (U.S. Air Bases Forge Double-Edged Sword - Page 2 - Los Angeles Times) that one year prior to the attacks of 9/11, the U.S. began constructing Al Adid, a billion dollar military base in Qatar with a 15,000-foot runway, in April 2000. What was Washington’s stated justification for the new Al Adid base, and other similar ones in the Gulf region? Preparedness for renewed action against Iraq.
Here’s a Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, entitled Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts. It details how Iraq’s oil fields would be carved up and outsourced to Western oil companies two full years before the war. It would later be revealed that an invasion of Iraq was at the top of the Bush administration’s agenda only 10 days after his inauguration, which was a full eight months before 9/11.
http://ftmdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/IraqOilFrgnSuitors.pdf
Toppling Hussein a priority of Bush since early in term - Baltimore Sun
Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq? - CBS News
No. The U.S.-led invasion was inspired predominantly by Iraq’s public defiance of the petrodollar system.
On September 24, 2000, Saddam Hussein allegedly emerged from a meeting of his government and proclaimed that Iraq would soon transition its oil export transactions to the euro currency.
Not long after this meeting, Saddam Hussein began preparing to make the switch from pricing his country’s oil exports in greenbacks to euros. As renegade and newsworthy this action was on the part of Iraq, it was sparsely reported in the corporate-controlled media.
CNN ran a very short article on its website on October 30, 2000, but after this one-day news cycle, the issue of Iraq’s switch to a petroeuro essentially disappeared from all five of the corporate-owned media outlets. CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News
By 2002, Saddam had fully converted to a petroeuro – in essence, dumping the dollar.
On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush announced the commencement of a full scale invasion of Iraq.
That's your reason.
An AK-47 is probably worth a year's salary for your average 20-something rural Syrian/Iraqi.... and that's assuming they can buy one on the open market. And that's hardly the only weapons they had. Use your head. Where did they get those guns? How did they get so organized?
No. Many other nations around the world have confirmed stockpiles of dangerous weapons. So why did the United States specifically target Iraq so soon after the Afghanistan invasion of 2001, when there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda?
Washington had already been preparing for a new invasion of Iraq before 9/11. The Los Angeles Times reported (U.S. Air Bases Forge Double-Edged Sword - Page 2 - Los Angeles Times) that one year prior to the attacks of 9/11, the U.S. began constructing Al Adid, a billion dollar military base in Qatar with a 15,000-foot runway, in April 2000. What was Washington’s stated justification for the new Al Adid base, and other similar ones in the Gulf region? Preparedness for renewed action against Iraq.
Here’s a Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, entitled Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts. It details how Iraq’s oil fields would be carved up and outsourced to Western oil companies two full years before the war. It would later be revealed that an invasion of Iraq was at the top of the Bush administration’s agenda only 10 days after his inauguration, which was a full eight months before 9/11.
http://ftmdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/IraqOilFrgnSuitors.pdf
Toppling Hussein a priority of Bush since early in term - Baltimore Sun
Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq? - CBS News
No. The U.S.-led invasion was inspired predominantly by Iraq’s public defiance of the petrodollar system.
On September 24, 2000, Saddam Hussein allegedly emerged from a meeting of his government and proclaimed that Iraq would soon transition its oil export transactions to the euro currency.
Not long after this meeting, Saddam Hussein began preparing to make the switch from pricing his country’s oil exports in greenbacks to euros. As renegade and newsworthy this action was on the part of Iraq, it was sparsely reported in the corporate-controlled media.
CNN ran a very short article on its website on October 30, 2000, but after this one-day news cycle, the issue of Iraq’s switch to a petroeuro essentially disappeared from all five of the corporate-owned media outlets. CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News
By 2002, Saddam had fully converted to a petroeuro – in essence, dumping the dollar.
On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush announced the commencement of a full scale invasion of Iraq.
That's your reason.
President Obama no longer tells the GOP politicians what he will do BEFORE the fact, public or private.
We've seen all too often when these skunks run to FOX and undercut the President in front of the world--and our enemies .
He's giving us the "Cheney historical narrative" which he got from some rightwing website and Fox News.
Already answered that. But you know it. You just want to indulge your low information narrative. And I just want to point out its absurdities. Carry on.
(By the way, telos -- wrong word)
So you openly admit that Mr. Obama is not worried about his popularity and politics with how he is conducting his strategy.
This is as it should be--too bad your side doesn't see it that way .
So you openly admit that Mr. Obama is not worried about his popularity and politics with how he is conducting his strategy.
This is as it should be--too bad your side doesn't see it that way .
Actually your explanation is too simplistic and partisan. The American people wanted out and it was a campaign promise to get us out and partially why he was elected. The former president already had the timeline set up. We trained the Iraqis and did our best to help them get their act together for over a decade. It's not Obama's fault Al Maliki disenfranchised the sunnies and kurds and some of these people don't have the courage to fight for their country.
Let 'em come. I'm not worried.
And your posts are logical? Seriously?
US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria
Sep 22, 2014, 9:30 PM ET
By MARTHA RADDATZ, LUIS MARTINEZ and LEE FERRAN
American airstrikes against ISIS targets are under way in Syria, according to a Pentagon official.
"I can confirm that U.S. military and partner nation forces are undertaking military action against ISIL [ISIS] terrorists in Syria using a mix of fighter, bomber and Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles," Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby said. "Given that these operations are ongoing, we are not in a position to provide additional details at this time. The decision to conduct theses strikes was made earlier today by the U.S. Central Command commander under authorization granted him by the commander in chief. We will provide more details later as operationally appropriate."
US Airstrikes Against ISIS Targets Under Way in Syria - ABC News
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?