That we could bring democracy to the Middle East. It was a stupid ideal, but people believe lots of stupid things all the time. You know, like thinking a global wealth tax is a good idea. And for your claim that "the reopening of this pipeline was discussed as one of the pluses for Israel before the invasion of Iraq"....you use a source after the invasion of Iraq. By the Israelis. Did the Israelis plan the Iraq War now?
For those who still think it is a good idea for us to go back into Iraq even the architect of the surge doesn't think that is a good idea. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ir...aks-hawks-iraq-echoes-obamas-warnings-n135601 Petraeus Breaks with Hawks on Iraq, Echoes Obama's Warnings By Carrie Dann and Mark Murray For the staunchest defenders of the war in Iraq and the “surge” that quelled the last major insurgency there, no name garnered more deference than Gen. David Petraeus, the four-star general who led the U.S. effort. But now, Petraeus is at odds with former admirers, who say that immediate military action is necessary to stabilize the country. The retired general warned Wednesday that the political conditions now in Iraq mean that military intervention would falter because both sides would perceive the United States as favoring one religious faction against another rather than as squashing terrorism alone. “This cannot be the United States being the air force for Shia militias, or a Shia on Sunni Arab fight,” he said at a London conference. That aligns with President Barack Obama’s assessment that any military engagement must be conditioned on a political plan that would form a national unity government aimed at healing long-standing wounds between the clashing sectarian groups. “In the absence of this type of political effort, short-term military action, including any assistance we might provide, won’t succeed,” Obama said last week. Petraeus’ biggest fans on Capitol Hill, like Republicans Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have advocated loudly for intervention and said their warnings about the growing insurgency should have been heeded long ago. On Wednesday night, McCain suggested that the United States should “go in, we use airpower, we get some boots on the ground, a few that can identify targets.” While Graham differs with McCain on whether the U.S. should coordinate with Iran in the effort to staunch the violence in Iraq, the South Carolina lawmaker is also among the most outspoken advocates for military action there. The defense hawks’ admiration for Petraeus runs deep. During a presidential debate against President Barack Obama in 2008, McCain dubbed Petraeus one of the three “wisest people” whose counsel he would rely on in the Oval Office. During the same campaign, an incensed McCain defended Petraeus against attacks by liberal group MoveOn.org, saying the anti-war organization should be “thrown out of this country” for dubbing him “General Betray Us.” The same year, Graham did not hold back in his praise for the Iraq surge, saying Petraeus’s plan would “go down in history as one of the most successful counter-insurgency operations in history.” Even recently, the lawmakers have advocated for Petraeus – who has largely been out of the spotlight since resigning from the CIA because of an extramarital affair – to return, along with Ambassador Ryan Crocker, to lead the U.S. strategy in Iraq.
We can agree that it was stupid to believe the democracy angle thing. Why did you support it, again? Yeah, the Israelis president talking about reopening an oil pipeline right after the US invasion is so irrelevant to be in lala land "marxist', "conspiracy" land. I don't think the Israelis planned it, but certainly pushed for it.
Because my political views weren't the same over a decade ago as they are today? You know, political opinions can change over time. I know that's a concept that seems to be difficult to understand in our modern enlightened republic where everyone shrieks "flip-flopper" at the slightest derivation from orthodoxy, but it still happens now and then. Well, the Israelis have gone and actually started buying oil from Iraq ( well, Kurdistan but whatever) which it hadn't done before. Does this mean that Israel pushed for the current Iraq conflict? Or does it mean that Israel is like most countries, who don't have to engineer world-changing events to figure out how to profit from them. And besides, you claimed "The reopening of this pipeline was discussed as one of the pluses for Israel before the invasion of Iraq". You then went out of your way to provide evidence which didn't actually back up your claim, so now I'll go ahead and demand evidence which does.
Good to see you are backing off your conspiracy/Marxist charge. Also good to see you changing your opinion on our reason for the Iraq War. Now we certainly know that that Cheney and the oil guys were discussing what to do with the Iraqi oil once they took over. (I can provide links but yo might want to do this for yourself). It seems pretty obvious to me that the Israelis would be plotting also how to get in on the oil and a return to getting oil they had gotten before seems pretty obvious to me. I guess you could say that Wow! they just thought of it once the US took over. Granted what I cited was a couple months after the US take over. Let me see what a bit more googling turns up. My initial post was based on memory from back then. I will see if I can find some mention of the Israelis talking about it a few months before. Probably it was just specualation by the types of folks who turned out correct about the whole wmd hoax, the problems that would start between the Sunnis and Shiites etc.
http://www.juancole.com/2002/10/iraqi-kurds-eye-kirkuk-mosul-oil-fields.html By Juan Cole | Oct. 20, 2002 | US Vice President Dick Cheney, while CEO of Halliburton, did considerable business in the area, especially with regard to supplying equipment to refurbish the Iraq-Turkey oil pipeline. Armen Georgian speculates in “In these Times” that Halliburton and other US energy companies are eyeing the Kirkuk and Mosul fields hungrily or about 33 days after the US invasion (03-2-03)from the Christian Science Monitor I know no proof that it just did not occur to them within 30 days of the US attack. Nevertheless, the authoritative Cyprus oil journal Middle East Economic Survey (MEES) reports that the Washington hawks may insist that the next Iraqi government rebuild the Kirkuk-Haifa oil line, probably with major US firms. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0423/p11s01-coop.html
Wow an editing mistake. Got me.!! Substantive as usual, Buck. You must be so smart. Sometimes I envy your contentedness with American society, Iraq and all.
Seems like the Mosul thing is turning into a Kurdistan issue. Should the US support an independent Kurdistan after emphasizing Iraqi unity and democracy for a decade? The other big issue is again Saudi Arabia. They rejected the UN Security Council seat over the lack of US opposition against Assad. But do they reject ISIL? Obama in a tough spot. Should probably emphasize Iraq unity while unopposing independent Kurdistan, and continue to work with Iran to check possible Saudi influence in ISIL.
my own idea subject to rethink. Independent Kurdiststan. Another country in the area dominared by those crazis of ISIL. Howver tell the Sunni tribes they need to assist us in eliminating ISIL
The Kurdish have been the enemies of my mother's people (The Assyrians) for centuries...I never thought that the Kurdish Peshmerga would be the ones coming to the rescue of the Assyrians. Thank God. ...but once again, how many more people have to die before Obama starts cleaning up his mess???
The best I can figure out is that the main reason ISIL has been successful to date isn't that they're so brilliant, but rather that the Sunni tribes shunned by al-Maliki have grabbed the opportunity the ISIL has given them to push back against a government that ignored international pressure from several countries, including the US, to give them a voice in the Iraqi government. Our famous "surge" became successful, in my opinion, when the Sunni tribes come into the conflict due to the wooing of the United States. They made a huge difference, and expected that this would give them a seat at the table in Baghdad. The current Iraqi regime basically told them to get ****ed. Al-Maliki and his cronies are the main problem. ISIL would be crushed already if those tribal militias fighting with them had stayed out of it, or better yet, came to the side of the government. In my humble opinion.
First of all it's not Obama's mess. Assigning blame to this President is bogus and unnecessary. I'm almost to the bigtexx point of not caring about assigning blame but just considering where we go from here. It's been explained in linked articles including one from former General Petraeus that the US cannot be seen as the Shia Air Force. There are too many associated alliances and world-wide strategic interests that can be influenced by picking sides. And Mr. Maliki and the Shia are not blameless in losing any Sunni support. I think US force should only be used to secure the embassy, provide a safe haven for U S aligned foreign contractors and securing the airport for the purposes of humanitarian supply and evacuation. I would not be too opposed to a surgical strike against ISIS leadership command and control but I would prefer that happen covertly with some plausible deniability. Other than that, you've got a Shia/Sunni, Iran/Saudi proxy war over which the US has little influence. Partition is the obvious outcome but since the lines of demarcation between tribes, religions and even countries is so blurred we are probably at least a decade away from any resolution.
ISIS is getting a lot of support from Qatar, the UAE and partly Saudi-Arabia. Also, from Sunni Islamist fanatic Erdogan, who is letting them cross the border and get supplies from Turkey at will. He is closer to ISIS (and Al Qaeda) than to the West. Erdogan wants to get rid of Assad, not because Assad is a tyrant (Erdogan is a tyrant and dictator himself), but because Assad is not a Sunni.
Hey, Ergodan is a Muslim. We get it. To say he is a dictator pure and simple shows your obesession again. Interesting though that all our buds in the Muslim/ Middle East world are supporting ISIL. Maybe that says something about our confusion and prospects for success.
I've mentioned it to you before and I don't live to admonish other posters, but c'mon treeman... do you think you could you find another term for liberals you disagree with than LIBTARD? It's not so much that I find the repurposing of r****d unsettling (although I do), it's that I have a cousin that is mentally challenged and her perspective on the issue of the word is one that should be heard. She hears the word (and its repurposed versions), understands the context, and feels shamed by it. Again, not trying to be the PC police, just hoping to bring this issue to your attention (again) and see if that has any effect. If it doesn't, so be it... I just hope you can realize how many other pejorative suffixes you could use in place in TARD that convey your same meaning. I'm off the soapbox. Sorry all...
So you are saying that The Economist also has an "obsession"? http://www.economist.com/news/europ...shes-out-his-opponents-erdogan-v-judges-again And the Turkish opposition leader (a Muslim, by the way) has an "obsession"? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/15/turkish-opposition-leader-dictator-erdogan
The point was that you don't have to have an "obsession" to call Erdogan a dictator or a tyrant. The fact that opposition politicians will use hyperbole to make a point doesn't change that point.
well, he kinda has to have an obsession, he is the official opposition to Erdogan. not sure you're illustrating your point too well here.
