IGX

...is going down the toilet

I'll be first to ask a question I'm not hearing anyone ask. I wonder if what is going on Iraq is connected to what is happening in Syria? You know, the Al-Qaida groups in Syria McCain and Obama seem so intent on arming and training. I guess it would never passed their dim bulb minds that Al-Qaida in Syria might have some connection to the Al-Qaida groups operating next door in Iraq.

I will bet you that the surprised strength and organization of the Iraqi Al-Qaida groups is directly tied to what is going on next door.

If the Obama Administration had any common sense, they'd cut a security deal with the only real friends we have in what is called Iraq; the Kurds. Partition Iraq and start fucking with the Sunni Al-Qaida groups. No need to send mass quantities of US troops. There are plenty of Shiites and Kurds willing to kill Jihadist. We just need to add some fuel to fire. However, I feel we are going to leave our Kurdish friends hanging out in the breeze. They are used to it though. It wouldn't be the first time the Western powers fucked over the Kurd in favor of the goat fucking Arabs.

Same for Afghanistan. Fuck Karzi and the corrupt Afghan government. Back what used to be called the Northern Alliance, stop nation building and let our Special operation people off the leash. Turn Afghanistan into a Special operation hunting preserve.

BTW- That multi Billion US embassy compound;the largest in the known world. It's about to become the Saigon Embassy reloaded.

Turkish and Iranian interests are the other wild cards in this whole equation. Lots of oil in both Kurdish and Shiite regions, and from what I understand, Turkish-Kurdish (foreign and domestic) have grown much less toxic over the last decade.

This group that have just conquered ancient Ninevah and Tikrit in two days are not Al-Qaida. They are ISIS - Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant/Syria - and they split off from Al-Qaida because they consider Al-Qaida to be too moderate.

There are at least three groups in Syria, the Alawites in charge, the moderates who are rebelling, and the ISIS who are rebelling. That's the problem...we want to help the moderates without helping the ISIS/fundies, and if the fundies are winning then we'd rather have Hussein stay in charge. It's a suck sandwich.

The Turks were letting fighters cross their borders, but now they aren't letting the fundies cross since they don't like them. So the ISIS grabbed a bunch of Turks in Mosul.

This can be a boon to the Kurds. The ISIS are successful because they are fighting on home ground. They won't touch Kirkuk, because the Kurds will nut punch them. The Kurds get Kirkuk because the Shia Iraqis ran away.

The ISIS won't take Baghdad, because of the Shia and because Iran will step in.

Iran has already stepped in and Crazy Uncle Joe said he is gonna help Iran protect the Iraqis. But wait a minute. Obama ended that war over there.

Maybe we should send a few million "Coexist" bumper stickers.

Notice when things are important, Joe Biden is the one making assurances. That's sas when he is the most compitent sounding guy in the Administration.

And what is Barry doing? Probably getting blown by Reggie while doing coke and on the phone with the ragheads.

I say:Batboy for president ruling the entire free world!

Bobby wrote:I say:Batboy for president ruling the entire free world!

I agree. He has absolute and inerrant knowledge on any topic, from international relations, to constitutional law and beyond

I think we can say that any response to this will probably be cocked up in one way or another

Notice when things are important, Joe Biden is the one making assurances.

That's because he's the only American in the Oval Office....HEEEEYYYYYOOO!

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:I think we can say that any response to this will probably be cocked up in one way or another

BushBama admins experiencing the law of unintended consequences squared.

A dearth of leadership is basically the end. Democrat, Republican. Doesn't matter. We're led by idiots and it won't get any better in any meaningful fashion.

is the following accurate? some of the responsibility for the current mess may rest with the iraqis, not our oh-so fallible leaders:

Now take a look at exactly what happened in Mosul. While reports are sketchy, there were likely tens of thousands of Iraqi security forces of all types in and around Mosul. They had tanks and mortars and all sorts of armaments provided by the American taxpayer. On the other hand, the jihadis who won the battle probably numbered, according to the BBC, hundreds to around a thousand troops. Apparently they had no tanks or heavy artillery. The jihadis started firing, and the Iraqi security forces took off their uniforms, gave up their weapons and started running. All this after a decade of Americans fighting and dying and training and equipping them at the cost to the United States of well over a trillion dollars.

source, the daily beast, leslie gelb

buckethead wrote:

Bobby wrote:I say:Batboy for president ruling the entire free world!

I agree. He has absolute and inerrant knowledge on any topic, from international relations, to constitutional law and beyond

Your man crush is embarrassing. Maybe if you had a personality built on something beyond posting porn constantly you'd come across as someone that was interesting. As it it, you're a junior member of of the humorless dick club.

Coming back to the initial question, events in Syria are connected to Iraq. I work with an Iraqi surgeon, and according to him everyone in Iraq is very concerned about Syria. Once again a lot revolves around Russia and USA: Russia backs its long standing friend Asad, while USA is supporting anti-Asad groups, who - surprise - happen to be Muslim fundamentalists hated by most Arabs. Just like in Acghanistan in the 80-s it's all about freedom and democracy. Just like it was about Iraq: the bad dictator is gone, the country is free and democratic and is going straight down the toilet.

Batboy, if you really believe that the Administration cannot connect the dots - while you can - you're naive.

Smet wrote:Coming back to the initial question, events in Syria are connected to Iraq. I work with an Iraqi surgeon, and according to him everyone in Iraq is very concerned about Syria. Once again a lot revolves around Russia and USA: Russia backs its long standing friend Asad, while USA is supporting anti-Asad groups, who - surprise - happen to be Muslim fundamentalists hated by most Arabs. Just like in Acghanistan in the 80-s it's all about freedom and democracy. Just like it was about Iraq: the bad dictator is gone, the country is free and democratic and is going straight down the toilet.

Batboy, if you really believe that the Administration cannot connect the dots - while you can - you're naive.

Your opinion on Iraq is based on your conversation with the one Iraqi you know?

How many Iraqis do you know, Turd?

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:How many Iraqis do you know, Turd?

I can think of a couple dozen that I consider friends, and I know quite a few more.

all righty then

Turd should have his own tribute thread with these nuggets

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:all righty then

Honestly, Iraqi doesn't nail it down very much. Attitudes vary based on which of the religious groups you belong to, how good your family is, how much education you have, and how connected your family was to various dictators in the region. I respect these things, but don't understand the nuances at all.

"Dump everything you got left ON MY POS. It's a lovely war."

I'll be first to ask a question I'm not hearing anyone ask. I wonder if what is going on Iraq is connected to what is happening in Syria? You know, the Al-Qaida groups in Syria McCain and Obama seem so intent on arming and training.

If you were the first, you were only a few hours ahead of NPR, they had some reporting last night on this exact topic. (The editorial staff at NPR hasn't figured out yet that this isn't something they can blame on the previous administration.) The various maggot fundamentalists have managed to put aside their ideological differences long enough to share information and methods, and ISIS in Iraq is stiffened by veterans of the Syrian conflict. So now there are several strains of experienced, adaptable maggots to deal with in Iraq.

The Saigon comment is to the point; they are saying the same things they said about Viet Nam - "we want it more than they do," that is, we, the U.S., want a strong central government in Iraq more than the Iraqi leadership does. Are we still surprised about this kind of thing? Surprised when it turns out the Iraqui leadership just wants to grab power and look out for Numero Uno? Did we learn anything in Viet Nam, or in twenty conflicts in Africa, or about a million other lessons in history? Anyone taken a look at our leadership in the US lately?

It's a shame colonialism went out of style, everyone would be better off if Iraq was now Iraqsylvania, our fifty-first state. We could make a quarter with a fundamentalist fucking a goat on the back.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:I think we can say that any response to this will probably be cocked up in one way or another

I'm not happy about it, but you are most likely right.