Militants Overrun Mosul

Bigtexx has proclaimed that in the past he is a country club Republican. He is remembered for posting on the board that because he went to Rice and has an office job in finance or energy IIRC, he is too valuable to his country to go and serve, although he thanks the troops for their service in wars he supports.

I think he now realizes not to post these type of things.

 

I don't believe that "I'm too valuable to go and serve".

hilarious

I will admit to enjoying a good round of golf at the country club, however. Don't be jelly bro

 

Roosevelt's efforts to help Great Britain, beseiged by Hitler's Germany, were either thwarted or passed by 1 vote margins (Lend-Lease, for example). The majority of the country had no interest in getting involved in "another European war." This despite a looming war with the Axis being obvious to anyone paying attention. Only after Pearl Harbor did this attitude change, and it is quite possible that open war against Germany would have been delayed had Hitler not declared war on the United States, much to the astonishment of the German High Command. So yeah, you make a good point.

 

Hey is he the same poster who was bigtex? or maybe even bigtexx Perhaps I will do some research on past posts to try to dig it up..

 

Here are some more links for the liberals to ignore. If you should accidentally click on one, however, you might learn something.

Be warned that the first one comes from that bastion of right-wing hate, Slate.com:

We Never Should Have Left Iraq
A U.S. military presence could have mollified Sunnis and prevented the new civil war.

The United States made a grave mistake by invading Iraq in 2003. Yet it also made a grave mistake by withdrawing its military forces in 2011.

The notion that we were wrong to go in but that we were also wrong to get out is hard to comprehend for many people. Once Americans collectively settled on the idea that the Iraq War was a disaster, it was perhaps inevitable that we’d want to wash our hands of the whole ordeal. President Obama appeared to do just that when he declared in December of 2011 that “we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq,” knowing full well that we were doing no such thing. The disaster that is the Iraq War did not end when the last convoy of U.S. combat troops left the country more than three years ago, as many of us are now learning as the fragile Iraqi state loses ground to Sunni extremists.

Full story:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/06/iraq_sunnis_and_shiites_the_u_s_should_never_have_withdrawn_its_troops_in.html

Here is another one from a right-wing hatemongering publication, The New Yorker:

IN EXTREMISTS’ IRAQ RISE, AMERICA’S LEGACY

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/06/iraq-extremists-mosul-american-invasion-legacy.html

Money paragraph:

Which brings us to the third reason. When the Americans invaded, in March, 2003, they destroyed the Iraqi state—its military, its bureaucracy, its police force, and most everything else that might hold a country together. They spent the next nine years trying to build a state to replace the one they crushed. By 2011, by any reasonable measure, the Americans had made a lot of headway but were not finished with the job. For many months, the Obama and Maliki governments talked about keeping a residual force of American troops in Iraq, which would act largely to train Iraq’s Army and to provide intelligence against Sunni insurgents. (It would almost certainly have been barred from fighting.) Those were important reasons to stay, but the most important went largely unstated: it was to continue to act as a restraint on Maliki’s sectarian impulses, at least until the Iraqi political system was strong enough to contain him on its own. The negotiations between Obama and Maliki fell apart, in no small measure because of a lack of engagement by the White House. Today, many Iraqis, including some close to Maliki, say that a small force of American soldiers—working in non-combat roles—would have provided a crucial stabilizing factor that is now missing from Iraq. Sami al-Askari, a Maliki confidant, told me for my article this spring, “If you had a few hundred here, not even a few thousand, they would be coöperating with you, and they would become your partners.” President Obama wanted the Americans to come home, and Maliki didn’t particularly want them to stay.

Shield your eyes, libtards. Obama will receive some blame in both articles, which we know you cannot bear to see. All the worse that they come from left-wing publications...

 

Interesting alternative viewpoint from residents of Mosul - demonstrating how complex this problem is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/13/w...me-after-militant-group-swarmed-the-city.html

If the people don't fairly universally support one side or the other, then you really just have a civil war. It's a complicated world when you have ISIS on one side, and Assad, Iran, and the US on another.

 

Setting aside our new resident lunatic it's nice to see even Fox news get it.

"The same people who 12 years ago told us this will be quick, this will be easy, this will be inexpensive, they will see us as liberators, it's the right thing to do, are now telling us: It's the right thing to do. What's the endgame? Who's thought this through?"

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith

The Same People Who Were Wrong About Iraq Now Want Us To Go Back

 

Let me add the best remark by Shephard Smith.

Later in the broadcast, Smith, who's earned a reputation for occasionally bucking his employer's conservative orthodoxy, told fellow Fox News host Chris Wallace he still hasn't forgotten "being bamboozled" by the Bush administration before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

 

Iraq was bungled by the British after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, since that it's all been duct tape and bailing wire.

Paul Bremer has got to be at the top of your American bunglers list for the total dismantling of Iraq's civil system and Army. Of course the Shia weren't going to accept Baathist in positions of power anyway but starting over from scratch was too large a task for infidel occupation force. When he left in 2004 he said, "I leave Iraq gladdened by what has been accomplished and confident that your future is full of hope."

But Bush and Cheney are your real bunglers; and anybody that thinks you can subdue and control 400,000 square miles and 36,000,000 people that think of you as infidels waging war on their religion with a 200,000 man invasion force and supply lines from 4,000 miles across an ocean.

"Soldier, you secure this 2 square miles and 18,000 people."

 

I feel for Obama on this one. He's in a no win situation. No one wants another war. And it's going to get bad if ignored. Why did we remove Saddam again? I sure hope those terrorists don't get their hands on those hidden WMDs...

 

I definitely won't argue that. Most of the borders in the Middle East are artificial, and were drawn up by people thousands of miles away who have never had ME desert sand up their a$$ cracks. The locals don;t think as highly of borders on maps as the Europeans did...

I also won't argue that they bungled the war for the first few years. But they righted the ship with the surge and the Sunni Awakening when it counted, and they handed off a situation to Obama that was very easily manageable.

Spoken like someone who's never talked to an Iraqi before. And someone pulling numbers out of his a$$. Where to begin?

First with Bush and Cheney. For starters, Cheney didn't run things, Bush did. And Bush certainly made mistakes. But as I said before, he eventually fixed those mistakes and handed off a war to Obama that was all but won. He does not bear responsibility for what his successor did, or for anything that happened as a result of decisions made by other men and women after he was out of office. To try and blame him for events that took place after he had retired back to the ranch is ludicrous and smacks of desperation.

Iraq's population when we invaded was approximately 24 million. Our invasion force, counting foreign troops, was right about 300,000. The LOCs were about 6,000 miles or so. Not that it really matters, but your numbers are off, and I like pointing out to people when their numbers are off.

Iraq consists of about 440K square miles, but the large majority of that is uninhabited desert. The vast majority of Iraq's population is concentrated in the cities and towns. As for policing it, understand that if you only count US forces you are leaving out the large majority of boots on the ground. The Iraqi Army, foreign troops, US troops, Iraqi police, pushed the actual number closer to a million. COIN is manpower-driven, and this was always a strain, but it was sufficient to do the job. As evidenced by the relatively peaceful state of the country when Bush handed it over to Obama.

As for Iraq's people, some of them do see us as infidels in need of conversion or a rusty knife, but they are by no means even close to a majority. Did they want us there? For the most part no. But why would they? Who wants foreign armies on their soil? But a good number of them understood that if we left too early then the country would likely fragment, so lesser of two evils. And it might shock you to know that many of the Iraqis actually liked us and did want us there. I met guys there who understood that we had freed them and would have given their lives for us - as many of them did. For you to paint them all with the same brush is not only exceedingly ignorant, it's also somewhat insulting, I think. They are not the stupid simpletons you think they are.

We are going to continue to go back and forth about who is to blame, and we are not going to agree. You long for Obama's schlong so you absolve him of any responsibility. I don't. I understand that Bush made mistakes but again, he had them fixed by the time it was handed over.

But what I have yet to year from a single libtard in this entire thread is this: What are we going to do about it now? Guess what? Bush isn't in control now, Obama is, and Obama has a choice to make. Does he act to try and stop this, or does he wash his hands of it and watch as the dominoes fall?

I want to hear what you guys think should be done about this. If anything.

 

So the leader of ISIS speaks. And he has a message for us:

ISIS Leader to USA: ‘Soon We Will be in Direct Confrontation’

(CNSNews.com) - Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), issued a rare audio message back on January 21 in which he flatly stated his group’s intention to march on Baghdad and move into “direct confrontation” with the United States.

“Our last message is to the Americans. Soon we will be in direct confrontation, and the sons of Islam have prepared for such a day,” Baghdadi said. “So watch, for we are with you, watching.”

Full story:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/isis-leader-usa-soon-we-will-be-direct-confrontation

When I was working S2 in Iraq, I got to see lots of confiscated training manuals and other writings by the AQI sh!theads. Depictions of exploding planes and planes flying into buildings were very prevalent. The intention was that once they accomplished their goals in Iraq and the Middle East, they would turn on us. They understand that we are ultimately the ones who will stop them.

As I said before, anyone who thinks this ends at Iraq's borders is nuts. It doesn't.

 

Here's a nice list of the rules ISIS has put out for residents in Mosul to abide by:

- "For women, dress decently and wear wide clothes. Only go out if needed."
• "Our position on Shrines and graves is clear. All to be destroyed basically."
• "Gatherings, carrying flags (other than that of Islamic State) and carrying guns is not allowed. God ordered us to stay united."
• "For the police, soldiers and other Kafir institutions, you can repent. We opened special places that will allow you to repent."
• "No drugs, no alcohol and no cigarettes allowed."
• "We warn tribal leaders and Sheikhs not to "work with government and be traitors."
• "We ask all Muslims to perform prayers on time in the mosques."
• "Money we took from Safavid government is now public. Only Imam of Muslims can spend it. Anyone who steals hand will be cut."
• "For those asking who are you? We are soldiers of Islam and took on our responsibility to bring back glory of the Islamic Caliphate."
• "People you tried secular rulings (Republic, Baathist, Safavides) and it pained you. Now it is time for Islamic State Imam Abu Bakr El Qurashi.

Full Story:

http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-rules-2014-6

So ISIS oppose personal firearms ownership. Hmm...

 

If you worked S2, you need to mind your infosec protocol. Just because you know it, doesn't mean it needs to be on an internet chat board. I know it can be frustrating, but don't get yourself in trouble.

 

Quick question for those who still believe that this is all Bush's fault:

Will the next President - who will inherit this mess, along with the messes in Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Egypt, and Iran - be saying that they inherited those messes from Obama? Or since by your logic these things are all Bush's fault, will Hillary... I mean, the next President... Will they say that they inherited all of these messes from Bush?

Just curious.

 

Eh, it's not exactly a secret that these guys want to attack us. I just posted a story about their leader saying such.

No need to worry about me spilling any classified info. I'm in no hurry to see the inside of a prison cell.

 

Rubio speech on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN29Uby2IVc

He makes a good case.

 

Dude, you should take a break...your shock and awe has worked.

 

Even though I think Bush erred gravely in attacking Iraq, I appreciate your point of view and I hope you post more.

But calling people libtards is not helpful in productive conversation (even though I know a lot of liberals calling you names).

Finally, grateful for your service.