• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

Let's Play War in Iraq Again!

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
What a joke. If Obama and our dipshit congress had any brains they'd let these fucks destroy themselves in the manner that they so richly deserve. I don't give a flying fuck about Iraq....it isn't worth a single American (or any other nationality) life. Oil and money continue to be the most important concerns....not human lives. Always has, always will.

Irbil, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's leader directed his troops to make their stand against advancing Sunni militants in a flashpoint city home to a revered Shiite mosque, an order that highlights the sectarian fighting tearing the country apart.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's order came as he sought to put new fire in the belly of his troops in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria -- an al Qaeda splinter group known as ISIS -- that has seized a large swath of land in the north of the country and threatened to advance on the capital.

"Samarra will be the starting point, the gathering station of our troops to cleanse every inch that was desecrated by footsteps of those traitors," al-Maliki said in remarks broadcast Saturday.

Iraq's military claimed Saturday it had regained key northern territories, including most of Salaheddin province, which includes Samarra, from ISIS, a claim that conflicted with reports from security officials in Baghdad and Samarra, who told CNN that 60% to 70% of the province remains in the hands of ISIS.

The news came the same day U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush into the Persian Gulf from the North Arabian Sea.

The order gives U.S. President Barack Obama "additional flexibility should military options be required to protect American lives, citizens and interests in Iraq," Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said in a statement Saturday.

Battle in the north

The militants from ISIS want to establish a caliphate, or Islamic state, in the region -- stretching from Iraq into northern Syria, where it has had significant success battling the forces of President Bashar al-Assad.

Their lightning advance in Iraq has been aided by support from many Sunnis who feel that the Shiite-dominated government has marginalized them.

ISIS seized Iraq's second-largest city, Mosul, earlier this week and have threatened to march on Baghdad.

Although they have not yet delivered on that threat, the militants' rapid advance -- and the total collapse of Iraq's security forces in the face of their assault on Mosul -- have rocked the government and alarmed its international allies, including the United States.

In Samarra, the Iraqi Prime Minister said thousands of Iraqis volunteers had stepped forward to fight against the militants.

"They (ISIS) believed that this is the beginning of the end, but we say, this is the beginning of their end, their defeat, because it sparked the passion and determination in all soldiers and officers, and in all Iraqi people," al-Maliki said.

The Prime Minister blamed the collapse of Iraqi security forces in the northern city of Mosul and elsewhere on confusion resulting from conspiracy and collusion, but also warned that all deserters would be held accountable.

Footage from Baghdad on Saturday showed volunteers climbing into buses outside an Iraqi army recruiting center in the city.

"The security situation in Baghdad is completely stable." Iraq's military spokesman Maj. Gen. Qassim Atta said the capital was safe. "The situation in Samarra is completely stable, and the troops are prepared for any terrorist plans."

Atta accused the media of false reporting, saying Iraqi troops along with volunteer fighters now control several town and cities north of Baghdad.

But conflicting reports emerged concerning security in the town of al-Dhuluiya, outside of Samarra, about 100 kilometers (62 miles) north of the Iraqi capital.

Government officials and state TV said Saturday that Iraqi security forces had taken control of the town, but security officials in Samarra and witnesses there told CNN the town is still under ISIS control.

If the witness accounts are true, it puts ISIS within striking distance of Samarra. The city is significant to Iraq's Shiites for its al-Askari mosque, and the Sunnis of ISIS have threatened to destroy any shrine they deem un-Islamic.

An attack on the mosque in 2006 was ground zero for the sectarian fighting that pushed the country to verge of civil war, and many fear another such attack would push Iraq to the breaking point.

Samarra authorities on Saturday found the bodies of 12 police officers dumped in an orchard in nearby Ishaqi. The bodies were shot and burned in al-Basateen area in Ishaqi, a predominantly Sunni town about 62 miles north of Baghdad, police officials said.

Police believe that ISIS fighters killed the police officers, but an investigation is ongoing.

Obama continues to mull his options in light of the militants' quick advance -- but has ruled out putting U.S. troops on the ground.

A senior security official in Baghdad told CNN on Friday that in recent days, Iran has sent about 500 Revolutionary Guard troops to fight alongside Iraqi government security forces in Diyala province.

However, Iranian officials, including President Hassan Rouhani, have denied reports that some of its elite forces are in Iraq to help bolster al-Maliki, a fellow Shiite.

"If the Iraqi government wants us to help, we will consider it," Rouhani said, according to an English translation of his remarks Saturday in Farsi by state-run Press TV.

But, he said, "so far they have not asked specifically for help," and added that Iran could give strategic guidance if requested.

Amid the conflicting reports, a U.S. official told CNN that the head of Iran's elite Quds force, Gen. Qassim Suleimani, was in Iraq this week.

While the details of what he was doing are unclear, he was believed to have been offering advice about how to stop the march of ISIS militants, the official said, on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the latest U.S. intelligence.

While leaders from Iran and the United States both want to see the militants thwarted, the U.S. State Department said Friday there were no discussions between the two countries about the situation in Iraq. The Suleimani visit was first reported by the New York Times.

The siege of Mosul: What's happening? Why is it significant?


Commander tells of abandoning post

An Iraqi army commander who was in charge of a battalion of about 600 men told CNN how he had abandoned his post in northern Iraq after being alerted that ISIS fighters were pushing through.

The commander, who asked for the location where he was based not to be disclosed, said his soldiers had been instructed by brigade headquarters immediately to abandon their positions, grab what weapons they could and move toward the headquarters.

They did so, he said, leaving behind heavy weaponry and vehicles, including Humvees -- and with the ISIS militants hot on their heels. When they reached the headquarters, it was already overrun by ISIS.

The commander said his unit was predominantly Sunni, as is the population in that part of the country, and they had no desire to fight for the predominantly Shiite government of al-Maliki. ISIS has the support of the people, he said.

He predicted that if ISIS were to enter Baghdad, any Sunni soldiers there would defect, leaving only troops of Shiite origin to fight alongside Shiite militia groups, some of which were involved in the bloody sectarian strife that followed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

5 predictions revisited: Iraq's troubles are years in the making

Obama: Won't happen overnight

Pressure for the United States to provide military support to Iraq's struggling government has increased, with conservative Republicans blaming Obama for creating a security vacuum in 2011 by pulling out U.S. troops.

At the time of the U.S. drawdown, Iraq's leadership had agreed that a residual U.S. military presence was desirable, but the talks broke down over the prickly issue of legal immunity for U.S. troops in Iraq.

The Obama administration had said any deal to keep U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the withdrawal deadline would require a guarantee of legal protection for American soldiers. But the Iraqis refused to agree to that, opening up the prospect of American troops being tried in Iraqi courts and subjected to Iraqi punishment.

Critics also say that Obama's unwillingness to provide significant military backing to opposition forces in Syria's civil war has contributed to the ability of ISIS to attack in Iraq.

Obama has blamed Iraq's political dysfunction for the failure of its troops to fight off the ISIS advance from the north to within about 60 miles of Baghdad on Friday, noting that there has been no shortage of U.S. help in terms of equipment and training.

Read it here if you want to:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/14/world/meast/iraq-violence/
 

Mayhem

Banned
We should roll troops into Syria...no, no, wait.....Ukraine....what? wait a minute...Iraq, we need troops in Iraq...yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.
 
The only reason why Western countries and Japan becoming interfere in affairs of a loser countries such as Afganistan, Irak and Syria is Oil.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
We should roll troops into Syria...no, no, wait.....Ukraine....what? wait a minute...Iraq, we need troops in Iraq...yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.

Well how in the hell else do you expect us to start WW!!!?!?!
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
We should roll troops into Syria...no, no, wait.....Ukraine....what? wait a minute...Iraq, we need troops in Iraq...yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.

Well how in the hell else do you expect us to start WW!!!?!?!
 

Mayhem

Banned
Welcome to the wonderful world of George W. Bush's disastrous legacy.

Always remember that in the 2012 campaign, the Republican candidates were all very receptive to sending troops back to Iraq. Santorum in particular was point blank on the subject.
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Let's remember that before 2003, there was no insurgency in Iraq. Yeah Saddam was a dictator, but shit was stable. Just saying

^^^This.

I'm OK with sending troops back into Iraq... as long as W. Bush's and Cheney's daughters are in the lead tanks. And Condoleeza let's ban the word 'bossy' Rice. Her ass goes in a tank on point too!
 
^^^This.

I'm OK with sending troops back into Iraq... as long as W. Bush's and Cheney's daughters are in the lead tanks. And Condoleeza let's ban the word 'bossy' Rice. Her ass goes in a tank on point too!

I prefer strapped to the front of the tanks, fucking fiasco.
 
^^^This.

I'm OK with sending troops back into Iraq... as long as W. Bush's and Cheney's daughters are in the lead tanks. And Condoleeza let's ban the word 'bossy' Rice. Her ass goes in a tank on point too!

I prefer strapped to the front of the tanks, fucking fiasco.
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Better make sure you've got plenty of room on those tanks for these democratic senators who voted for the resolution to use force in Iraq back in 2002 if you want to play the partisan blame-game. By the way, one of them is the sitting VP and another the front-running presidential candidate for 2016:

Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea

Reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/who-voted-to-authorize-fo_b_85652.html
 
^ oops.


Hindsight is 20/20 yeah yeah but I'm convinced and recent history bears this out - if this is about U.S. interests then we're better off with strongman secular dictators running countries in the middle east. It's the classic lesser of two evils. Saddam and his sons were fucking bastards but they were secular bastards. They're concerned with self-preservation first and foremost. You can reason with that.

ISIS and an islamic caliphate (read: terrorist Disneyland) can be nothing but bad news for the U.S.


Oh wait, that reminds me, I don't care.
 
Better make sure you've got plenty of room on those tanks for these democratic senators who voted for the resolution to use force in Iraq back in 2002 if you want to play the partisan blame-game. By the way, one of them is the sitting VP and another the front-running presidential candidate for 2016:



Reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/who-voted-to-authorize-fo_b_85652.html

Although in hindsight a very poor vote on their part George and Dick orchestrated the entire thing openly lying to the American people the entire time.

The lies and manipulation made it very politically difficult to vote any other way.

Still waiting for 'any' WMD to make an appearance but thank dumb luck it was all a sham or our troops would have had a great deal more to worry about than road side bombs.
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Although in hindsight a very poor vote on their part George and Dick orchestrated the entire thing openly lying to the American people the entire time.

The lies and manipulation made it very politically difficult to vote any other way.

Still waiting for 'any' WMD to make an appearance but thank dumb luck it was all a sham or our troops would have had a great deal more to worry about than road side bombs.

Sorry but that's a cop-out. These senators had the same information that the ones who voted for the resolution did and yet they found the courage and wisdom to vote against it (including a republican!) so how difficult could it have really been?

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Russell Feingold (D-WI)
Robert Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
James Jeffords (I-VT)
Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

http://www.democrats.com/node/6890
 
Sorry but that's a cop-out. These senators had the same information that the ones who voted for the resolution did and yet they found the courage and wisdom to vote against it (including a republican!) so how difficult could it have really been?



http://www.democrats.com/node/6890

I ask you to review the vote that took place for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that put us neck deep into Vietnam. When the public is openly lied to and a furor has gripped the voting community our leaders often are swayed into voting for things that in hind sight are wrong and/or manipulated.
By the way only 2 Senators voted against the Gulf of Tonkin which years later has proven out to be a fabrication.
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I ask you to review the vote that took place for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that put us neck deep into Vietnam. When the public is openly lied to and a furor has gripped the voting community our leaders often are swayed into voting for things that in hind sight are wrong and/or manipulated.
By the way only 2 Senators voted against the Gulf of Tonkin which years later has proven out to be a fabrication.

I don't disagree about the universal lies that were told and the resulting mistakes that were made by those in our government who were taken in by the fabrications. I also do not disagree that Bush, Cheney and company were in a bull-rush hurry to get us involved in taking out Saddam and, consequently, bear a major brunt of responsibility when it comes to the disaster that was (and still is) the Iraq War. However, I'm just not content to view this as a strictly partisan mistake since it took the cooperation of those on the other side of the aisle to get us involved over there. There's plenty of blame to go around for both republicans and democrats. Only those who voted against the resolution showed the foresight and courage that, had their colleagues followed suit, would have kept us out of this mess to begin with. Read what some of them had to say when asked why they voted against the resolution and then ask yourself why their fellow senate members couldn't have shown the same level of conscience and integrity:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)

"Great uncertainty surrounds the President's post-war strategy. Remember the day the war ends, Iraq becomes our responsibility, our problem. The United States lacks strategic planning for a post-conflict situation. Retired General George Joulwan recently said that the U.S. needs 'to organize for the peace' and design now a strategy with 'clear goals, milestones, objectives.' Our objectives in Iraq have not yet been made clear: is it our goal to occupy Baghdad and if so, for how long? A rush to battle without a strategy to win the peace is folly.

"I support action by the United Nations in the form of a resolution calling for unconditional and unfettered inspections in Iraq. Only after we exhaust all of our alternative means should we engage in the use of force, and before then, the President must ensure we have a strategy and plans in place for winning the war and building the peace."

Kent Conrad (D-ND)

"Before we ask young men and women to put themselves in harm's way, I must be convinced that we have exhausted every other possibility, pursued every other avenue. For me, and I believe for the people I represent, war must be the last resort. Saddam has not directly threatened his neighbors since the Gulf War. And a recent threat assessment from the Central Intelligence Agency concludes that Iraq is not likely to initiate a chemical or biological attack on the United States.

"Yet the President is contemplating a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq with the goal of ousting Saddam Hussein and installing a new regime. Never before in the history of this nation has the Congress voted to authorize a preemptive attack on a country that has not first attacked us or our allies. In my judgment, an invasion of Iraq at this time would make the United States less secure rather than more secure. It would make a dangerous world even more dangerous."

Mark Dayton (D-MN)

"There appears to be no imminent threat to the United States from Iraq. If there were, the Bush Administration could not have decided last summer to delay this unveiling until September because, in the words of White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Jr., 'from a marketing point of view, you don't bring out new products in August.'

"Because Iraq's threat is not immediate, and because U.N. diplomatic efforts are just under way, I believe it is unwise and unnecessary for Congress to vote now on a future use of military force. So why is Congress rushing to judgment at this time? It is for political advantage in the upcoming election, rather than diplomatic or military necessity."

Richard Durbin (D-IL)

"Historically, we have said it is not enough to say you have a weapon that can hurt us. Think of 50 years of cold war when the Soviet Union had weapons poised and pointed at us. It is not enough that you just have weapons. We will watch to see if you make any effort toward hurting anyone in the United States, any of our citizens or our territory.

"It was a bright-line difference in our foreign policy which we drew and an important difference in our foreign policy. It distinguished us from aggressor nations. It said that we are a defensive nation. We do not strike out at you simply because you have a weapon if you are not menacing or threatening to us. Has September 11, 2001, changed that so dramatically?"

Russell Feingold (D-WI)

"Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up. They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al Qaeda and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us.

"I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I'm not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action. But when the Administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the Administration's motives in insisting on action at this particular time."

James Jeffords (I-VT)

"I am very disturbed by President Bush's determination that the threat from Iraq is so severe and so immediate that we must rush to a military solution. I do not see it that way. I have been briefed several times by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, CIA Director Tenet and other top Administration officials. I have discussed this issue with the President. I have heard nothing that convinces me that an immediate preemptive military strike is necessary or that it would further our interests in the long term.

"We must ensure that any action we take against Iraq does not come at the expense of the health and strength of our nation, or the stability of the international order upon which our economic security depends. Just think of what progress we could make on non-proliferation if we were to put one fraction of the cost of a war against Saddam Hussein into efforts to prevent the emergence of the next nuclear, chemical or biological threat. Strong efforts at strengthening international non-proliferation regimes would truly enhance our nation's future security."

Edward Kennedy (D-MA)

"It is wrong for Congress to declare war against Iraq now before we have exhausted the alternatives. And it is wrong to divert our attention now from the greater and more immediate threat of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda terrorism. We cannot go it alone on Iraq and expect our allies to support us. We cannot go it alone and expect the world to stand with us in the urgent and ongoing war against terrorism and Al Qaeda."

Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

"This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President: Why don't you decide; we are not going to. This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long. This Vermonter does not sign blank checks.

"We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I am not asking for 100 percent proof, but the administration is asking Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting statements, angry assertions, and assumption based on speculation. This is not the way a great nation goes to war."

"The key words in the resolution we are considering today are remarkably similar to the infamous [Gulf of Tonkin] resolution of 38 years ago which so many Senators and so many millions of Americans came to regret. Let us not make that mistake again. Let us not pass a Tonkin Gulf resolution. Let us not set the history of our great country this way. Let us not make the mistake we made once before."

Carl Levin (D-MI)

"The vote we take today may have significant consequences for our children and our grandchildren. I believe our security is enhanced when we seek to enhance the authority and credibility of the United Nations and when, if military force is required, it is done with support of the world community."

Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

"America cannot face this situation alone. The support and cooperation of allies would enable us to share the risks and costs. We need international legitimacy, international support, and international manpower. I also worry that unilateral action could undermine the war on terrorism. Some special forces have already been withdrawn in the efforts to hunt al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The focus of our top military and civilian leaders could shift away from Bin Laden and al Qaeda."

Jack Reed (D-RI)

"Acting alone will increase the risk to our forces and to our allies in the region. Acting alone will increase the burden that we must bear to restore stability in the region. Acting alone will invite the criticism and animosity of many throughout the world who will mistakenly dismiss our efforts as entirely self-serving. Acting alone could seriously undermine the structure of collective security that the United States has labored for decades to make effective. Acting alone today against the palpable evil of Saddam may set us on a course, charted by the newly announced doctrine of preemption, that will carry us beyond the limits of our power and our wisdom."

Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

"If we do this right, Mr. President, we will truly make the world safer for our families. If we choose the wrong approach, I am deeply concerned that we will start down a road that could ultimately create a more unstable and dangerous world for our children and our grandchildren. There is no doubt that we can defeat Saddam Hussein in battle. The test of our strength is not in our ability to marshal our military forces, but our willingness to adhere to that which has made us great.

"We are a strong and powerful nation, made that way by our willingness to go the extra mile in the name of liberty and peace. The time is now for us to work together in the name of the American people and get it right."

Ron Wyden (D-OR)

"I am not convinced that Saddam Hussein currently poses a clear and present threat to the domestic security of our nation. While my service on the Senate Intelligence Committee has left me convinced of Iraq's support of terrorism, suspicious of its ties to al Qaeda, I have seen no evidence, acts, or involvement in the planning or execution of the vicious attacks of 9/11."[Daniel Akaka (D-HI)

"Great uncertainty surrounds the President's post-war strategy. Remember the day the war ends, Iraq becomes our responsibility, our problem. The United States lacks strategic planning for a post-conflict situation. Retired General George Joulwan recently said that the U.S. needs 'to organize for the peace' and design now a strategy with 'clear goals, milestones, objectives.' Our objectives in Iraq have not yet been made clear: is it our goal to occupy Baghdad and if so, for how long? A rush to battle without a strategy to win the peace is folly.

"I support action by the United Nations in the form of a resolution calling for unconditional and unfettered inspections in Iraq. Only after we exhaust all of our alternative means should we engage in the use of force, and before then, the President must ensure we have a strategy and plans in place for winning the war and building the peace."

Source: http://www.democrats.com/node/6890
 
Wow that's got to be the biggest post I've ever seen.
I say strap them all to tanks, outlaw political organizations of ant kind, and make this a country of the people by the people and for THE PEOPLE.
Democrats puzzle me, republicans infuriate me, and the Teaparty is an abomination on this earth.
 
Top