What's new
By:

Iraq Collapsing

Ms Tree said:
Yet you keep rambling on.  So you are saying that troops sent in to protect the embassy are the same as combat troops?  Lol.  That's freaking hilarious. 
 
So you think the embassy should be closed?
Click to expand...
 
1) I'd gently afforded you the opportunity to advance beyond the level of a sea sponge, yet you are entirely unable, or just refuse to do so. YES...they are combat troops. Do you not even understand the term Marines, and WTF do you fantasize will happen as Iraq collapses? O-boy-mama's just trying to avoid another Benghazi, FOR PURELY POLITICAL REASONS. That sad creature doesn't care how many more die, and you're simply too stupid to understand the tactical considerations, as is "he". Your sad sort merely serves as "useful idiots" and pom, pom flourishing cheerleaders for total scum...and the saddest part is that you're not even aware of that.
 
2) Immediately, and all Americans withdrawn, or more will needlessly die.
 
"Yet you keep rambling on." By no means. You've simply (and I DO mean VERY "simply") haven't the slightest demonstrated ability to comprehend the obvious. Had you acquitted yourself even a bit more "nobly" when mugged and morally tasked with defending your Lady; I'd almost now excuse you as one who's merely playing the conversational dunce for meaningless, internet attention....but...you're not playing. This is as good as it'll ever get for you in..umm..."life", for which you have my honest sympathy.
 
Ok. So you want all the troops out and the embassy closed. I guess if you are defining all the Marines in any embassy or consults as combat then that makes sense. I guess we also have combat troops on US soil as most forgien embassy also have military guarding their embassys.

Not sure what's going to happen in Iraq. I know what ever does happen will not be good for those who are there. The ideal out come would be for it to break apart into Suni, Shia and Kurd. I doubt we will be that lucky.

What do you think will happen?
 
Ms Tree said:
Not sure what's going to happen in Iraq.
Click to expand...
 
Well, golly, gosh!...Who could even imagine!? If the current pictures of mass murder don't begin to afford you any clue...well...If I get out some crayons and color you a blood-soaked, bone-shattered scene on a  scale you can't even imagine...would that help? Hmm..What is the appropriate color for anonymous mass graves? No matter, I suppose. The fact that many, to soon to become hundreds and thousands, are being murdered as we type shouldn't concern any obama-worshipping liberal, after all...it can't be that creature's "fault" in any way....right? Sigh! I wouldn't want to ever burden any touchy-feely liberals with ANY aspect of harsh reality, so let's just go back to talking about "health care", and how obama's punks will prove far more successful there...? 😉
 
No worries, little liberals. What you've mostly been protected from by your betters, for all your pathetic excuses for "lives", is the harsh knowledge that serious slaughter is ALWAYS going on, 24-7/365 on this fine planet of ours. I've no thoughts that any of you pitiful idiots will ever wake up...which, oddly enough, is perhaps a gracious testimony to those that protect you.
 
BTW, "Righteous" liberals: Back when the Rwanda genocide was taking place, even within the first two weeks...we and your then-precious "president" clinton KNEW what was going on, in that even as a squadron level reservist we got briefed on possible deployment...yet you mighty democrats let far more than another half MILLION people be brutally murdered, without us ever acting....
 
EastUS1 said:
BTW, "Righteous" liberals: Back when the Rwanda genocide was taking place, even within the first two weeks...we and your then-precious "president" clinton KNEW what was going on, in that even as a squadron level reservist we got briefed on possible deployment...yet you mighty democrats let far more than another half MILLION people be brutally murdered, without us ever acting....
Click to expand...
 
 
Addendum. "Slick Willie", years afterwards, went to Rwanda, claimed wholesale ignorance..."well...Goll--lee!", and Air Force One was ordered to keep all four engines running the whole time that pathetic little chickenshit-liar was on the ground, in case he needed to escape from surviving people that properly hated "him" (as if he in any way qualified as a man).....Sigh!...Oh yeah...I'm mightily impressed with you "liberals"....Seriously: Do ANY of you people EVER actually THINK?
 
Ending the Rwanda genocide, before it even fully started, would've been little more than a lightweight exercise for us. Nearly 3/4ths of a MILLION people murdered...and the same "president" that "didn't have sex with that woman Lewinsky" didn't supposedly know....yeah. Democrat idiots completely bought all his lying BS..Why would anyone now suggest even the remote possibility that you've gotten any "smarter" since with obama? You clearly haven't.
 
Iraq = No problem, since we'll never even see the death toll from what's to come....and, like Ms. Lerner...the dog will eat all of the homework anyway....
 
The only things that can ever keep the whole "liberal" BS going are pure fantasy and wholesale ignorance.
 
PHXConx said:
And none of this protracted withdrawals pull them out right now. Yup its going to destabilize whole regions of the globe but they have been artificially stabilized for 70 years. In the long run it will work out.
Click to expand...
 
Which is fine if you're ready for another global recession/depression if not outright global war.  Eurasia is a series of potential powder kegs from Ukraine to North Korea, and none of them are truly regionally self-contained.  Causing strong and immediate changes to the balance of power will incur "destabilizations" on a scale that would probably require more U.S. force than was initially required to stabilize them.  If Pakistan and India start exchanging nuclear warheads or if Seoul is overrun you can bet the price of oil will rise a bit and your 401(k) will start looking flimsy.  I'm not arguing against the recalling of American forces, but I am arguing that if you do it with careless bravado it will blow up in your face.
 
EastUS1 said:
 
Indeed they do dear, due to the literally insane rules of engagement. Explain to me how, as a nation, we utterly destroyed the world's 4th largest military in less than 2 months in '91, and ran tanks into B-Dad in no time in 2003, all the while suffering less than many hundreds of casualties....and allowed, yes ALLOWED our precious young to be set up as fodder, to the tune of tragic THOUSANDS KIA? See listings under "politicians"...Your pwecious widdle, murderous o-boy-mama included...?
 
"Be nice"..."embrace diversity"..."respect their culture", and all such infantile, asinine, utter insanity leaves no room for victory...Ever.  On any actual battlefield?...Arabs are a complete joke in this period of history. As fully ALLOWED thugs?...Anyone can kill anyone else, if fully coddled and permitted to do so.
Click to expand...
 
After the Iraqi Army was pushed over in 2003 and was (in hindsight very foolishly) dissolved by the U.S. those soldiers and many of their weapons melted into the greater population, and there were no more armies to fight against on the battlefield proper, though there were plenty of guerrillas, partisans, terrorists, and insurgents who knew full well they could never beat the U.S. in a classic military engagement and thus employed different tactics.  The blundered, scatter-brained occupation of Iraq created the conditions for a prolonged, largely urban insurgency/guerrilla war for which American forces were neither prepared for nor expecting, and by the time they had the intel, experience, know-how and equipment to do it a lot of Americans had already died.  That's my take on it.
 
EastUS1 said:
Well, golly, gosh!...Who could even imagine!? If the current pictures of mass murder don't begin to afford you any clue...well...If I get out some crayons and color you a blood-soaked, bone-shattered scene on a  scale you can't even imagine...would that help? Hmm..What is the appropriate color for anonymous mass graves? No matter, I suppose. The fact that many, to soon to become hundreds and thousands, are being murdered as we type shouldn't concern any obama-worshipping liberal, after all...it can't be that creature's "fault" in any way....right? Sigh! I wouldn't want to ever burden any touchy-feely liberals with ANY aspect of harsh reality, so let's just go back to talking about "health care", and how obama's punks will prove far more successful there...? 😉
 
No worries, little liberals. What you've mostly been protected from by your betters, for all your pathetic excuses for "lives", is the harsh knowledge that serious slaughter is ALWAYS going on, 24-7/365 on this fine planet of ours. I've no thoughts that any of you pitiful idiots will ever wake up...which, oddly enough, is perhaps a gracious testimony to those that protect you.
 
BTW, "Righteous" liberals: Back when the Rwanda genocide was taking place, even within the first two weeks...we and your then-precious "president" clinton KNEW what was going on, in that even as a squadron level reservist we got briefed on possible deployment...yet you mighty democrats let far more than another half MILLION people be brutally murdered, without us ever acting....
Click to expand...
So we should take l troops out but we should also feel guilty for the blood bath the will happen afterward? Are you sure you want the US to leave Iraq? It does not sound.like.you are.
 
ChockJockey said:
Which is fine if you're ready for another global recession/depression if not outright global war.  Eurasia is a series of potential powder kegs from Ukraine to North Korea, and none of them are truly regionally self-contained.  Causing strong and immediate changes to the balance of power will incur "destabilizations" on a scale that would probably require more U.S. force than was initially required to stabilize them.  If Pakistan and India start exchanging nuclear warheads or if Seoul is overrun you can bet the price of oil will rise a bit and your 401(k) will start looking flimsy.  I'm not arguing against the recalling of American forces, but I am arguing that if you do it with careless bravado it will blow up in your face.
 
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with that. The world will go into another global recession /depression anyway. And most likely there will be another world war. We are fighting one now. India Pakistan isn't fixing itself because we tell them no. That's why they both developed the bomb. So they have a voice. They start lobbing nukes at each other it will be over relatively quickly. Sure a billion dead. A billion dead all at once or a billion dead over small skirmishes fir a century? I Dont care.. If and when these regional conflicts affect our shores then we take decisive. Immediate and complete action like it was historically done throughout history. The last 115 years not withstanding.

The reason why most of the world's problems were never allowed to stabilize is because we create vacuums Korea is only an issue. Because of the unconditional surrender of Japan in ww2. Do you know what Korea was called 100 years ago? Japan. See the sino Chinese wars. We created the conditions that forced Japan to spread her influence East by embargoing oil. In 1936 she was totally dependent on foreign oil. Who supplied her? Us.

We created a power vacuum in Europe with the treaty of Versailles. Which gave way to ww2. Ukraine BTW is always a powder keg.. 100 years ago it was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. The assassination of their crown prince. Started ww1.

Do you see. The pattern? Lines on maps are there for a reason. Progressives(Republican and Democrats) had made the mistake that we can usher world peace by fighting little wars. Stop the forest fires in spite of ourselves. Problem is we learned that if we don't let these fires happen in a forest. 50 years of undergrowth and unnatural accumulation of fuel a random lightening strike causes massive fires.

The USA cannot sustain it's economy and unnaturally stop these skirmishes from happening and we should stop trying. Firm up our defenses. Protect our interests. And let the world fix it's own problems.
 
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/18/1307783/-Glenn-Beck-Admits-Liberals-You-Were-Right-On-Iraq?detail=facebook#
 
Glenn Beck Admits "Liberals, You Were Right" On Iraq
 
 
"From the beginning, most people on the left were against going into Iraq. I wasn’t.... Liberals, you were right. We shouldn’t have."
 
Beck made this surprising declaration on his radio show on Tuesday while discussing the widening rift between Republicans and Democrats. He urged both parties to come together to oppose another war in Iraq.
 
"Not one more life. Not one more life. Not one more dollar, not one more airplane, not one more bullet, not one more Marine, not one more arm or leg or eye. Not one more," he said. "This must end now. Now can't we come together on that?"
 
Click to expand...
 
Knotbuyinit said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm
Click to expand...
Based on lies about there being WMDs, there werent any!

 
Q: Were there really weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when the U.S. invaded in 2003?
 
A: No. The Iraq Survey Group determined that Iraq had abandoned its quest to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and that it had already destroyed all of its existing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
 
FULL QUESTION
I have friends in Texas, Seattle and Tennessee who say President Bush was right that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They claim that the weapons were hidden in caves in the mountains, and are still hidden there, but we have not found them yet. Where did they get such ideas, and is there even the slightest chance they are right, and if so why wouldn’t Bush have said this? How did such a belief get started, and is there a way I can dispel them of the idea?
 
FULL ANSWER

As for how you dispel your friends’ notions that Iraq really did have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons when President Bush no longer makes such claims himself, we suggest ridicule. If that doesn’t work, you may be out of luck.
After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration formed the Iraq Survey Group and tasked it with the job of locating WMD stockpiles in Iraq. The ISG was staffed with hundreds of intelligence analysts and military personnel from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. The group scoured Iraq, searching for deposits of weapons. But that was actually only part of the ISG’s focus.
 
According to the ISG final report, the search for WMDs actually began during the invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A military task force was deployed to investigate suspected WMD sites on the theory that the Iraqi military might otherwise employ those weapons against coalition troops. After the invasion, the ISG was established to conduct "a more systematic collection of evidence to build an understanding of Iraqi WMD programs." In other words, the ISG did not simply look for WMDs. The group also looked at Iraq’s WMD capabilities and examined evidence relating to past WMD stockpiles.
 
During its investigation, the ISG reported that "[a] total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components." These isolated discoveries received significant media attention, and it’s likely that these overhyped reports contributed to your friends’ beliefs that Iraq really did possess WMDs. But the finds were rare, and the ISG concluded that they were not part of a significant stockpile of weapons. Indeed, after nearly two years of investigation, the ISG concluded that:
  • "Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
  • "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."
  • "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."
Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons. The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. In his congressional testimony, the head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, admitted, "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq.
 
The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005. If that doesn’t convince your friends, we’re not sure what else might do the trick. Anyone who believes something without any positive evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary is no longer acting on the basis of reason.
-Joe Miller

Sources

CNN. "Official: U.S. Calls off Search for Iraqi WMDs." CNN.com, 12 Jan. 2005.
Iraq Survey Group. "Iraq Survey Group Final Report." 30 Sept. 2004. GlobalSecurity.org, 14 Feb. 2008.
Priest, Dana and Walter Pincus. "U.S. ‘Almost All Wrong’ on Weapons." The Washington Post, 7 Oct. 2004.
 
 
Click to expand...
10478187_10152420048664404_6471655187839026913_n.png
 
Seriously still playing the WMDS BLAME GAME? talk about a ship that sailed..

Yes none were found in Iraq. Though everyone including the Clintons were sure there were. Whether there really never were any or they were on those convoys we watched leave Iraq into Syria no one will ever know..
 
Dear PHXconx,
 
When dealing with 700UW one must realize that if it's not an IAM or DNC talking point it cannot possibly be true. The exception is when it serves their agenda.
 
Also now that he holds the same view as the "Kook" Ron Paul what does that make him? Something like 70% oppose sending combat troops back into Iraq, so does that mean Liberals are just the same as Ron Paul?
 
OR, have people figured out that Ron Paul is not only not a kook but annoyingly right in his predictions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

xUT
  • Locked
ISIS Releases Guide On How To Treat Sex Slaves
Replies
10
Views
2K
southwind
southwind

Latest posts

Back
Top