Iraq

Post Reply
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Doc »

Hans Bulvai wrote:These useless elections will do nothing to change facts on the ground.

http://dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-Eas ... z2RXW30ksQ
Iraq PM warns of sectarian war as 179 killed April 25, 2013 11:10 PM (Last updated: April 25, 2013 11:17 PM) By W.G. Dunlop

Baghdad April 25, 2013. REUTERS/Wissm al-Okili


BAGHDAD: Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki warned on Thursday of a return to "sectarian civil war" as 179 people were killed over three days and gunmen were given 48 hours to vacate a town they seized.

Maliki called for people "to take the initiative, and not be silent about those who want to take the country back to sectarian civil war," in remarks broadcast on state television.

The violence erupted on Tuesday when security forces moved in against anti-government protesters near the Sunni Muslim town of Hawijah in northern Iraq, sparking clashes that left 53 people dead
Wait until the spill over from Syria hits.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Iraq

Post by Typhoon »

Ron Paul | Iraq Collapse Shows Bankruptcy of Interventionism
May was Iraq’s deadliest month in nearly five years, with more than 1,000 dead – both civilians and security personnel -- in a rash of bombings, shootings and other violence. As we read each day of new horrors in Iraq, it becomes more obvious that the US invasion delivered none of the promised peace or stability that proponents of the attack promised.

Millions live in constant fear, refugees do not return home, and the economy is destroyed. The Christian community, some 1.2 million persons before 2003, has been nearly wiped off the Iraqi map. Other minorities have likewise disappeared. Making matters worse, US support for the Syrian rebels next door has drawn the Shi’ite-led Iraqi government into the spreading regional unrest and breathed new life into extremist elements.

The invasion of Iraq opened the door to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which did not exist beforehand, while simultaneously strengthening the hand of Iran in the region. Were the “experts” who planned for and advocated the US attack really this incompetent?
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Iraq

Post by Ibrahim »

Iraq shows the consequences of a malicious and incompetent intervention. Intervention in general has a mixed record, though it seems easier to screw up than to get right.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11571
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Iraq

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Typhoon wrote:Ron Paul | Iraq Collapse Shows Bankruptcy of Interventionism
May was Iraq’s deadliest month in nearly five years, with more than 1,000 dead – both civilians and security personnel -- in a rash of bombings, shootings and other violence. As we read each day of new horrors in Iraq, it becomes more obvious that the US invasion delivered none of the promised peace or stability that proponents of the attack promised.

Millions live in constant fear, refugees do not return home, and the economy is destroyed. The Christian community, some 1.2 million persons before 2003, has been nearly wiped off the Iraqi map. Other minorities have likewise disappeared. Making matters worse, US support for the Syrian rebels next door has drawn the Shi’ite-led Iraqi government into the spreading regional unrest and breathed new life into extremist elements.

The invasion of Iraq opened the door to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which did not exist beforehand, while simultaneously strengthening the hand of Iran in the region. Were the “experts” who planned for and advocated the US attack really this incompetent?


Crime committed by West in Iraq was not to overthrow Saddam

The crime was to bring Saddam to power .. a CIA crony to f*ck the Kurd and Shia, to protect Turkey (Nato) and Shia Oil (KSA & Persian Golf monkeys)

Saddam was a CIA creation, and , America was duty bound to take him out

Same thing now with other "American creations" in that space .. you brake it (create it), you own (overthrow) it

Mosche, how you doin ? ? ? :lol:



.
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Iraq

Post by Alexis »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:The crime was to bring Saddam to power .. a CIA crony to f*ck the Kurd and Shia, to protect Turkey (Nato) and Shia Oil (KSA & Persian Golf monkeys)
Saddam Hussein was a Baathist (that is Arab nationalist) tyrant ruling a religiously diverse country based on one of its religious minorities. In his case, Sunnis.

Bachar al Assad is a Baathist (that is Arab nationalist) tyrant ruling a religiously diverse country based on one of its religious minorities. In his case, Alawis.

None of them is nor was a US creation, nor a creation from another foreign power for that matter.

And the rationale for your support to Al Assad while you opposed Hussein is... merely religious: you feel closer to Alawis than to Sunnis. :D
Heracleum Persicum wrote:Mosche, how you doin ? ? ? :lol:
Israel is no more a US creation than Syria nor Iraq.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11571
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Iraq

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Alexis wrote:.
Heracleum Persicum wrote:.

The crime was to bring Saddam to power .. a CIA crony to f*ck the Kurd and Shia, to protect Turkey (Nato) and Shia Oil (KSA & Persian Golf monkeys)

.


Saddam Hussein was a Baathist (that is Arab nationalist) tyrant ruling a religiously diverse country based on one of its religious minorities. In his case, Sunnis.


.



L64WSPZ5mNk



The above clip tells you all .. Saddam was a CIA creation


Yes, there are 100s of thugs roaming around any given time, and they handy for CIA to chose of .. Saddam had "Arabism" flair, a good "camouflage" .. CIA/West did not care about "Arabism" because they new "Arabism" a dead-ender.

Alexis wrote:.

Bachar al Assad is a Baathist (that is Arab nationalist) tyrant ruling a religiously diverse country based on one of its religious minorities. In his case, Alawis.

.

Assad is an "intelligent, smart nationalist" versus a dumb idi*ot nationalist (Saddam)

If Saddam was smart, he would know that number one Arab enemy is WEST .. and .. Iran, in struggle to get rid of colonial shackles on Arab legs, is a friend and not an enemy .. Assad has realized this, Saddam did not



Alexis wrote:.

And the rationale for your support to Al Assad while you opposed Hussein is... merely religious: you feel closer to Alawis than to Sunnis. :D

.


Azari has no preference for any religion, does not let political analysis be effected by personal preferences

AND

Iranian "Shia Jafari 12 Emami " .. in fact SHIA , is not a religion as such, but is a POLITICAL "ISM" in form of Sufi Mysticism




.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Iraq

Post by Ibrahim »

Alexis wrote: Saddam Hussein was a Baathist (that is Arab nationalist) tyrant ruling a religiously diverse country based on one of its religious minorities. In his case, Sunnis.

Bachar al Assad is a Baathist (that is Arab nationalist) tyrant ruling a religiously diverse country based on one of its religious minorities. In his case, Alawis.

None of them is nor was a US creation, nor a creation from another foreign power for that matter.
Hussein was backed by the US for decades before they turned on him, or him on them, or both. Assad and his father were backed by the Soviets.

And the rationale for your support to Al Assad while you opposed Hussein is... merely religious: you feel closer to Alawis than to Sunnis. :D
Untrue. There are strategic reasons for backing one party or the other. Presumably Azari is backing Assad, and if so that will be because it is in Iranian interests to have him there.




Israel is no more a US creation than Syria nor Iraq.
They are a client state for sure, always have been, and moreso than Iraq or Syria. I wouldn't say "created," term is too loaded/complex.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11571
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Iraq

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Ibrahim wrote:.
Alexis wrote:.

And the rationale for your support to Al Assad while you opposed Hussein is... merely religious: you feel closer to Alawis than to Sunnis. :D

.
Untrue. There are strategic reasons for backing one party or the other. Presumably Azari is backing Assad, and if so that will be because it is in Iranian interests to have him there.

.


Having Assad there is in Iranian, all Middle Eastern, Western, Israel's interest


Iran does not want anything that is not in interest of humanity, Middle Eastern AND western interest .. only problem is, (some eggheads in the) west thinking "stealing" (they call it controlling) other people's "natural resources" is in Western (long term) interest .. well, it ain't (anymore)




.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Iraq

Post by Ibrahim »

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/i ... RM20130723
Al Qaeda militants flee Iraq jail in violent mass break-out
By Kareem Raheem and Ziad al-Sinjary

BAGHDAD/MOSUL, Iraq (Reuters) - Hundreds of convicts, including senior members of al Qaeda, broke out of Iraq's Abu Ghraib jail as comrades launched a military-style assault to free them, authorities said on Monday.

The deadly raid on the high-security jail happened as Sunni Muslim militants are gaining momentum in their insurgency against the Shi'ite-led government that came to power after the U.S. invasion to oust Saddam Hussein.

Suicide bombers drove cars packed with explosives to the gates of the prison on the outskirts of Baghdad on Sunday night and blasted their way into the compound, while gunmen attacked guards with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades.

Other militants took up positions near the main road, fighting off security reinforcements sent from Baghdad as several militants wearing suicide vests entered the prison on foot to help free the inmates.

Ten policemen and four militants were killed in the ensuing clashes, which continued until Monday morning, when military helicopters arrived, helping to regain control.

By that time, hundreds of inmates had succeeded in fleeing Abu Ghraib, the prison made notorious a decade ago by photographs showing abuse of prisoners by U.S. soldiers.

"The number of escaped inmates has reached 500, most of them were convicted senior members of al Qaeda and had received death sentences," Hakim Al-Zamili, a senior member of the security and defense committee in parliament, told Reuters.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Iraq

Post by Endovelico »

From a well known Iraqi blogger:
Ten Years On...

April 9, 2013 marks ten years since the fall of Baghdad. Ten years since the invasion. Since the lives of millions of Iraqis changed forever. It’s difficult to believe. It feels like only yesterday I was sharing day to day activities with the world. I feel obliged today to put my thoughts down on the blog once again, probably for the last time.

In 2003, we were counting our lives in days and weeks. Would we make it to next month? Would we make it through the summer? Some of us did and many of us didn't.

Back in 2003, one year seemed like a lifetime ahead. The idiots said, “Things will improve immediately.” The optimists were giving our occupiers a year, or two… The realists said, “Things won’t improve for at least five years.” And the pessimists? The pessimists said, “It will take ten years. It will take a decade.”

Looking back at the last ten years, what have our occupiers and their Iraqi governments given us in ten years? What have our puppets achieved in this last decade? What have we learned?

We learned a lot.

We learned that while life is not fair, death is even less fair- it takes the good people. Even in death you can be unlucky. Lucky ones die a ‘normal’ death… A familiar death of cancer, or a heart-attack, or stroke. Unlucky ones have to be collected in bits and pieces. Their families trying to bury what can be salvaged and scraped off of streets that have seen so much blood, it is a wonder they are not red.

We learned that you can be floating on a sea of oil, but your people can be destitute. Your city can be an open sewer; your women and children can be eating out of trash dumps and begging for money in foreign lands.

We learned that justice does not prevail in this day and age. Innocent people are persecuted and executed daily. Some of them in courts, some of them in streets, and some of them in the private torture chambers.

We are learning that corruption is the way to go. You want a passport issued? Pay someone. You want a document ratified? Pay someone. You want someone dead? Pay someone.

We learned that it’s not that difficult to make billions disappear.

We are learning that those amenities we took for granted before 2003, you know- the luxuries – electricity, clean water from faucets, walkable streets, safe schools – those are for deserving populations. Those are for people who don’t allow occupiers into their country.

We’re learning that the biggest fans of the occupation (you know who you are, you traitors) eventually leave abroad. And where do they go? The USA, most likely, with the UK a close second. If I were an American, I’d be outraged. After spending so much money and so many lives, I’d expect the minor Chalabis and Malikis and Hashimis of Iraq to, well, stay in Iraq. Invest in their country. I’d stand in passport control and ask them, “Weren’t you happy when we invaded your country? Weren’t you happy we liberated you? Go back. Go back to the country you’re so happy with because now, you’re free!”

We’re learning that militias aren’t particular about who they kill. The easiest thing in the world would be to say that Shia militias kill Sunnis and Sunni militias kill Shia, but that’s not the way it works. That’s too simple.

We’re learning that the leaders don’t make history. Populations don’t make history. Historians don’t write history. News networks do. The Foxes, and CNNs, and BBCs, and Jazeeras of the world make history. They twist and turn things to fit their own private agendas.

We’re learning that the masks are off. No one is ashamed of the hypocrisy anymore. You can be against one country (like Iran), but empowering them somewhere else (like in Iraq). You can claim to be against religious extremism (like in Afghanistan), but promoting religious extremism somewhere else (like in Iraq and Egypt and Syria).

Those who didn’t know it in 2003 are learning (much too late) that an occupation is not the portal to freedom and democracy. The occupiers do not have your best interests at heart.

We are learning that ignorance is the death of civilized societies and that everyone thinks their particular form of fanaticism is acceptable.

We are learning how easy it is to manipulate populations with their own prejudices and that politics and religion never mix, even if a super-power says they should mix.

But it wasn’t all a bad education…

We learned that you sometimes receive kindness when you least expect it. We learned that people often step outside of the stereotypes we build for them and surprise us. We learned and continue to learn that there is strength in numbers and that Iraqis are not easy to oppress. It is a matter of time…

And then there are things we'd like to learn...

Ahmed Chalabi, Iyad Allawi, Ibrahim Jaafari, Tarek Al Hashemi and the rest of the vultures, where are they now? Have they crawled back under their rocks in countries like the USA, the UK, etc.? Where will Maliki be in a year or two? Will he return to Iran or take the millions he made off of killing Iraqis and then seek asylum in some European country? Far away from the angry Iraqi masses…

What about George Bush, Condi, Wolfowitz, and Powell? Will they ever be held accountable for the devastation and the death they wrought in Iraq? Saddam was held accountable for 300,000 Iraqis... Surely someone should be held accountable for the million or so?

Finally, after all is said and done, we shouldn't forget what this was about - making America safer... And are you safer Americans? If you are, why is it that we hear more and more about attacks on your embassies and diplomats? Why is it that you are constantly warned to not go to this country or that one? Is it better now, ten years down the line? Do you feel safer, with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis out of the way (granted half of them were women and children, but children grow up, right?)?

And what happened to Riverbend and my family? I eventually moved from Syria. I moved before the heavy fighting, before it got ugly. That’s how fortunate I was. I moved to another country nearby, stayed almost a year, and then made another move to a third Arab country with the hope that, this time, it’ll stick until… Until when? Even the pessimists aren’t sure anymore. When will things improve? When will be able to live normally? How long will it take?

For those of you who are disappointed reality has reared its ugly head again, go to Fox News, I'm sure they have a reportage that will soothe your conscience.

For those of you who have been asking about me and wondering how I have been doing, I thank you. "Lo khuliyet, qulibet..." Which means "If the world were empty of good people, it would end." I only need to check my emails to know it won't be ending any time soon.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.pt/
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Iraq

Post by Parodite »

Gunner Palace
Gunner Palace is a 2004 documentary film by Michael Tucker, which had a limited release in the United States on March 4, 2005. The film was an account of the complex realities of the situation in Iraq during 2003–2004 amidst the Iraqi insurgency not seen on the nightly news. Told first-hand by American troops stationed in the middle of Baghdad, Gunner Palace presents a portrait of a dangerous and chaotic war.
Is available here for 7 days as of today (693Mb)
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Iraq

Post by Typhoon »

CSM | Iraq turmoil has one winner: the Kurds
Northern Iraq's capable Kurdish forces have taken over areas long disputed with Baghdad, ostensibly to protect local Kurds from a Sunni militant offensive. But it's also a territorial gain.
Why did Kirkuk get the works?
That's nobodies business but the Kurds.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Iraq

Post by Typhoon »

FP | The Battle for Iraq Is a Saudi War on Iran
Why the ISIS invasion of Iraq is really a war between Shiites and Sunnis for control of the Middle East.
re the USA: with allies like these . . .
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

The Kurds May Get Their Whey.....

Post by monster_gardener »

Typhoon wrote:CSM | Iraq turmoil has one winner: the Kurds
Northern Iraq's capable Kurdish forces have taken over areas long disputed with Baghdad, ostensibly to protect local Kurds from a Sunni militant offensive. But it's also a territorial gain.
Why did Kirkuk get the works?
That's nobodies business but the Kurds.
Thank You VERY MUCH for your Post & Maintaining the Forum, Typhoon.


Look's like the Kurds are going to get their way ;)
Cheesy though it may be.... ;)
Better than Set Born ISIS :twisted:

Kurds are tired of Maliki’s Malarky :twisted:
Going to be busy taking care of themselves......
Not helping a loser
Who to a large degree set off this mess by persecuting the less Loony Sunnis...... :roll:
Last edited by monster_gardener on Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Time to Walk Away..... Maybe Run...... Gun Ready.......

Post by monster_gardener »

Typhoon wrote:FP | The Battle for Iraq Is a Saudi War on Iran
Why the ISIS invasion of Iraq is really a war between Shiites and Sunnis for control of the Middle East.
re the USA: with allies like these . . .
Thank You VERY MUCH For your Post & Maintaining the Forum, Typhoon.
re the USA: with allies like these . . .
Seconded........

Most relevant part:
For Washington, the option of inaction has to be balanced by the fate of the estimated 20,000 American civilians still left in the country (even though the U.S. military is long-departed).
Time to come home or at least go somewhere else.......


Jj4nJ1YEAp4
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Kurds say they have no friends except the mountains........

Post by monster_gardener »

Typhoon wrote:CSM | Iraq turmoil has one winner: the Kurds
Northern Iraq's capable Kurdish forces have taken over areas long disputed with Baghdad, ostensibly to protect local Kurds from a Sunni militant offensive. But it's also a territorial gain.
Why did Kirkuk get the works?
That's nobodies business but the Kurds.

Thank You VERY MUCH For your Post & Maintaining the Forum, Typhoon.
That's nobodies business but the Kurds.
The Turks
May decide to be Jerks
And disagree.....
That is the thrust of recent history....
Turks don't need no stinking cheesy Kurdish nation ;) ...... :twisted:

Suspect the other neighbors of the Kurds feel the same way.........

The Kurds say they have no true friends except the mountains......
I suspect the Kurds are correct.......
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Iraq

Post by manolo »

folks,

I have a puzzling question. Why did Bush order the invasion of Iraq?

Alex.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11571
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Iraq

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

manolo wrote:folks,

I have a puzzling question. Why did Bush order the invasion of Iraq?

Alex.

OIL


.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Iraq

Post by Doc »

manolo wrote:folks,

I have a puzzling question. Why did Bush order the invasion of Iraq?

Alex.
That has been answered many times:

http://aolsvc.pbs.aol.com/wgbh/pages/fr ... iraq/view/
But the Bush administration insiders who helped define the "Bush Doctrine," and who have argued most forcefully for war, are determined to set a course that will remake America's role in the world. Having served three Republican presidents over the course of two decades, this group of close advisers -- among them Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and perhaps most importantly, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz -- believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein is the necessary first act of a new era.

In "The War Behind Closed Doors," FRONTLINE traces the inside story of how those advisers -- calling themselves "neo-Reaganites," "neo-conservatives," or simply "hawks" -- set out to achieve the most dramatic change in American foreign policy in half a century: a grand strategy, formally articulated in the National Security Strategy released last September, that is based on preemption rather than containment and calls for the bold assertion of American power and influence around the world.

Through interviews with key Republican insiders, foreign policy analysts, and longtime White House observers, the report reveals how America got to the brink of war with Iraq -- and how a war and its aftermath will put these advisers' big idea to the test.

"The War Behind Closed Doors" follows a long-running policy battle between two of Washington's most powerful insiders and the philosophies they represent: Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Powell, who held the top military job at the Pentagon under President George H.W. Bush and other powerful posts at the highest levels of government, is a cautious realist who represents the establishment's abiding belief in diplomacy and the containment of foreign enemies. Wolfowitz, who built a career as a smart and tough hardliner at the Departments of State and Defense, champions the idea of preemption, striking first to defend America and to project its democratic values.
Care to name what triggered the changes in American Foreign policy on the two previous occasions it was changed?
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11571
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Iraq

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Doc wrote:
manolo wrote:folks,

I have a puzzling question. Why did Bush order the invasion of Iraq?

Alex.
That has been answered many times:

http://aolsvc.pbs.aol.com/wgbh/pages/fr ... iraq/view/
But the Bush administration insiders who helped define the "Bush Doctrine," and who have argued most forcefully for war, are determined to set a course that will remake America's role in the world. Having served three Republican presidents over the course of two decades, this group of close advisers -- among them Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and perhaps most importantly, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz -- believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein is the necessary first act of a new era.

In "The War Behind Closed Doors," FRONTLINE traces the inside story of how those advisers -- calling themselves "neo-Reaganites," "neo-conservatives," or simply "hawks" -- set out to achieve the most dramatic change in American foreign policy in half a century: a grand strategy, formally articulated in the National Security Strategy released last September, that is based on preemption rather than containment and calls for the bold assertion of American power and influence around the world.

Through interviews with key Republican insiders, foreign policy analysts, and longtime White House observers, the report reveals how America got to the brink of war with Iraq -- and how a war and its aftermath will put these advisers' big idea to the test.

"The War Behind Closed Doors" follows a long-running policy battle between two of Washington's most powerful insiders and the philosophies they represent: Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Powell, who held the top military job at the Pentagon under President George H.W. Bush and other powerful posts at the highest levels of government, is a cautious realist who represents the establishment's abiding belief in diplomacy and the containment of foreign enemies. Wolfowitz, who built a career as a smart and tough hardliner at the Departments of State and Defense, champions the idea of preemption, striking first to defend America and to project its democratic values.
Care to name what triggered the changes in American Foreign policy on the two previous occasions it was changed?

All politics of Middle East revolves on ENERGY , OIL .. Western Oil companies run ME policy of west

Wolfowitz or Powel and and just tools of implementation of those policies, Oil policy

This no "ideology" or "theology" or "Samaritan" policy .. this pure and simple ENERGY, OIL

Notion, West was fighting Russia because of Communism, that notion was for IDI*TS .. West was fighting Russia because Russia was threatening Western controlled Middle Eastern Oil fields .. same thing right now, Russia, again, threatening Middle Eastern Oil fields, because west can not tolerate a strong adversary next to those Oil fields .. Israel (Israeli commandos) are guarding now UAE oilfields (probably also Qatari and Kuwaiti)

That is why America did not want a strong Iran in that space, unless Iran would partner with America FOR THE RIGHT PRICE

America now ready to pay the price Iran was demanding


.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Iraq

Post by Doc »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:
manolo wrote:folks,

I have a puzzling question. Why did Bush order the invasion of Iraq?

Alex.
That has been answered many times:

http://aolsvc.pbs.aol.com/wgbh/pages/fr ... iraq/view/
But the Bush administration insiders who helped define the "Bush Doctrine," and who have argued most forcefully for war, are determined to set a course that will remake America's role in the world. Having served three Republican presidents over the course of two decades, this group of close advisers -- among them Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and perhaps most importantly, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz -- believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein is the necessary first act of a new era.

In "The War Behind Closed Doors," FRONTLINE traces the inside story of how those advisers -- calling themselves "neo-Reaganites," "neo-conservatives," or simply "hawks" -- set out to achieve the most dramatic change in American foreign policy in half a century: a grand strategy, formally articulated in the National Security Strategy released last September, that is based on preemption rather than containment and calls for the bold assertion of American power and influence around the world.

Through interviews with key Republican insiders, foreign policy analysts, and longtime White House observers, the report reveals how America got to the brink of war with Iraq -- and how a war and its aftermath will put these advisers' big idea to the test.

"The War Behind Closed Doors" follows a long-running policy battle between two of Washington's most powerful insiders and the philosophies they represent: Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Powell, who held the top military job at the Pentagon under President George H.W. Bush and other powerful posts at the highest levels of government, is a cautious realist who represents the establishment's abiding belief in diplomacy and the containment of foreign enemies. Wolfowitz, who built a career as a smart and tough hardliner at the Departments of State and Defense, champions the idea of preemption, striking first to defend America and to project its democratic values.
Care to name what triggered the changes in American Foreign policy on the two previous occasions it was changed?

All politics of Middle East revolves on ENERGY , OIL .. Western Oil companies run ME policy of west

Wolfowitz or Powel and and just tools of implementation of those policies, Oil policy

This no "ideology" or "theology" or "Samaritan" policy .. this pure and simple ENERGY, OIL

Notion, West was fighting Russia because of Communism, that notion was for IDI*TS .. West was fighting Russia because Russia was threatening Western controlled Middle Eastern Oil fields .. same thing right now, Russia, again, threatening Middle Eastern Oil fields, because west can not tolerate a strong adversary next to those Oil fields .. Israel (Israeli commandos) are guarding now UAE oilfields (probably also Qatari and Kuwaiti)

That is why America did not want a strong Iran in that space, unless Iran would partner with America FOR THE RIGHT PRICE

America now ready to pay the price Iran was demanding
You mean perhaps Obama not America. But don't be so sure AZ. But look at the bright side Maybe someday Toronto will have the largest population of and be the capital city of Shia...
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Price American Joe Willing to Pay

Post by monster_gardener »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:
manolo wrote:folks,

I have a puzzling question. Why did Bush order the invasion of Iraq?

Alex.
That has been answered many times:

http://aolsvc.pbs.aol.com/wgbh/pages/fr ... iraq/view/
But the Bush administration insiders who helped define the "Bush Doctrine," and who have argued most forcefully for war, are determined to set a course that will remake America's role in the world. Having served three Republican presidents over the course of two decades, this group of close advisers -- among them Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and perhaps most importantly, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz -- believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein is the necessary first act of a new era.

In "The War Behind Closed Doors," FRONTLINE traces the inside story of how those advisers -- calling themselves "neo-Reaganites," "neo-conservatives," or simply "hawks" -- set out to achieve the most dramatic change in American foreign policy in half a century: a grand strategy, formally articulated in the National Security Strategy released last September, that is based on preemption rather than containment and calls for the bold assertion of American power and influence around the world.

Through interviews with key Republican insiders, foreign policy analysts, and longtime White House observers, the report reveals how America got to the brink of war with Iraq -- and how a war and its aftermath will put these advisers' big idea to the test.

"The War Behind Closed Doors" follows a long-running policy battle between two of Washington's most powerful insiders and the philosophies they represent: Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Powell, who held the top military job at the Pentagon under President George H.W. Bush and other powerful posts at the highest levels of government, is a cautious realist who represents the establishment's abiding belief in diplomacy and the containment of foreign enemies. Wolfowitz, who built a career as a smart and tough hardliner at the Departments of State and Defense, champions the idea of preemption, striking first to defend America and to project its democratic values.
Care to name what triggered the changes in American Foreign policy on the two previous occasions it was changed?

All politics of Middle East revolves on ENERGY , OIL .. Western Oil companies run ME policy of west

Wolfowitz or Powel and and just tools of implementation of those policies, Oil policy

This no "ideology" or "theology" or "Samaritan" policy .. this pure and simple ENERGY, OIL

Notion, West was fighting Russia because of Communism, that notion was for IDI*TS .. West was fighting Russia because Russia was threatening Western controlled Middle Eastern Oil fields .. same thing right now, Russia, again, threatening Middle Eastern Oil fields, because west can not tolerate a strong adversary next to those Oil fields .. Israel (Israeli commandos) are guarding now UAE oilfields (probably also Qatari and Kuwaiti)

That is why America did not want a strong Iran in that space, unless Iran would partner with America FOR THE RIGHT PRICE

America now ready to pay the price Iran was demanding


.
Thank You Very Much for your post, Azari.

Notion, West was fighting Russia because of Communism, that notion was for IDI*TS ..
WRONG!

Kulaks in America can see what happened to their cousins back in the Old Country and decide that they don't want
be starved to death or shot :evil: .... :idea:

America now ready to pay the price Iran was demanding
Maybe.......

If the price is pulling out of the Messy Potamine :twisted: Poison Wrestling Ring to let the $hitites & Looney Sunnis duke it out and merrily kill each other as long as they keep it in the boxing/wrestling ring.....

Sure.........

Beyond that, No.

And going to agitate for better border & immigration control.....

And still going to work on the Fallout Shelter and South Hemisphere......

And Space........
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11571
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Iraq

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.

Iran won’t bite American bullet in Iraq

.

A good close look at Tehran’s pronouncements through the past week actually gives a vastly different story than what Kerry would have liked us to believe. Let me quote a few top-ranking Iranian officials:

A) Presdient Hassan Rouhani (June 9 at Ankara): Violence and terrorism have grown more complicated due to the interference of trans-regional powers.”

B) DFM Hossein Amir Abdollahian (June 10): The role of certain “foreign sides” in the Mosul events is obvious. “Those sides which are supporting Takfiris should be seriously concerned about anti-security measures by this terrorist current in their own countries.”

C) Commander of Iran’s Basij, Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqudi (June 11): i) Takfiri groups commit crimes in line with the ominous goals of the arrogant powers and obey the Western and israeli think tanks as they are supported by certain regional Arab countries’ petrodollars. ii) “Saudi Arabia is equipping terrorists in Syria with different light and heavy weapons in breach of all international regulations and conventions.” iii) Takfiri and Salafi groups in different regional states, especially in Syria and Iraq, are supported by the US. iv) The US is manipulating the Takfiri terrorists to tarnish the image of Islam and Muslims.

D) Foreign Ministry spokesperson Marziyeh Afkham (June 11): Urged immediate stop in support of the terrorist groups by certain states and called on all countries to adopt collective measures to fight terrorism.

E) DFM Hossein Amir Abdollahian (June 11): “We will mightily support Iraq in its confrontation with terrorism.”

F) Speaker of the Majlis Ali Larijani ((June 13): “It is obvious that the Americans and the countries around is have made such moves… Terrorism has grown into an instrument for the big powers to advance their goals.”

G) President Rouhani (June 13): i) “If the Iraq government wants help, we will study it… Of course, help and assistance is one thing and interference and going to the battlefront is another… The entry of Iranian troops (on battlefront in Iraq) has never been considered… we have never sent our troops to another country fro operations… If a terrorist groups approaches our borders, we will certainly confront it. ii) Warned those states which are providing financial back-up and arms to the ISIL and other terrorist groups and cautioned that these groups would return to set fire on those countries as well. iii) Dismissed the Reuters report of US-Iranian cooperation over Iraq. “The Americans might want to do something, but I am not informed about it.” iv) The recent events in Iraq are because the terrorist groups are mad at the results of the Iraqi election which have kept the Shi’ites and Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki in power through democratic means.

H) Ala’eddin Broujerdi, chairman of the Majlis foreign and security policy commission (June 14): “The US support, arms shipments and military training (of Takfiri groups) is the root cause of the spread of terrorism and inhumane crimes in the region… The Muslim Ummah needs to put an end to the US interventions in the region.”

I) Commander of Basij, Gen. Mohammed Naqdi (June 14): The ISIL attacks in Iraq are a new US plot after Washington was defeated in the confrontation with the resistance groups in the region. The US faced defeat in the confrontation and plots against Iran’s allies in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, and now “they have started the same experience in Iraq… A huge popular force has rushed to the region which will foil their ominous plots.” These popular forces that have been formed in the regional states have now grown into a chain stretching across the Middle East.

J) FO spokesperson Afkham (June 14) : Iran opposes any military interventions in Iraq. “Iraq has the required potentials and military prepared ness to fight the terrorist and extremist elements… Any move that complicates the situation in Iraq will not be in the interests of Iraq and the region.”

K) FM Mohammed Zarif in interview with New Yorker magazine: “It is in the interest of everybody to stabilize the government of Iraq. If the US has come to realize that these groups [ISIL] pose a threat to the security of the region, and if the US truly wants to fight terrorism and extremism, then it’s a common global cause.”

L) Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (June 15): Lashed out at Washington for the creation of the ISIL. Strongly refuted reports of likely US-Iran cooperation over Iraq; such reports are part of the West’s ‘psywar’ against Iran and are “completely unreal.” Creating terror and instability and inciting armed and violent campaign against the will of the (Iraqi) people, as manifest in the free and fair elections in Iraq, are among the US objectives behind establishing terrorist groups such as the ISIL. The US and some of its allies have financial, intelligence and logistic cooperation to implement such a policy. Called on the Iraqi Shias, Sunnis and Kurds to remain vigilant against plots by foreign powers and to defend their country. Any Iranian help for Iraq will be on a bilateral basis “and it has nothing to do with a third country.”

M) Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani (June 16): The western and regional states are responsible for the present crisis in Iraq.
Given the above unequivocal pronouncements by Tehran through the past one-week period, it seems highly improbable, to say the least, that there could be any overt US-Iranian “cooperation” or coordination over Iraq. The fact of the matter is that Tehran sees an American hand, directly or indirectly, in the ascendancy of the Saudi-sponsored extremist islamist groups such as the ISIL in Syria and Iraq.
Equally, Tehran has no faith in the US’ willingness and capacity to make a clean departure from its past policies in Syria and Iraq and, more importantly, to confront Saudi Arabia. Of course, it is a different matter if the Obama administration takes a bold decision to depart from the past trajectory of the US policies toward Syria and Iraq; in such an eventuality, Tehran will respond positively. But it is difficult to see that happening anytime soon.


The Obama presidency today is so badly battered in the US domestic politics that the White House won’t have the political will today to reset so audaciously the US’ Middle East policies in a virtually contrarian direction overnight by reading the riot act to its regional allies, especially Saudi Arabia. Iran is quite capable of comprehending the geopolitical reality devolving upon the US-Saudi alliance. In sum, Tehran would have misgivings about the US’ intentions.

The extreme caution with which Tehran is moving on Iraq developments suggests that it is wary of getting entrapped in a sectarian quagmire that would have profound consequences to Iran’s regional standing as a whole.

Tehran doesn’t see a convergence of interests with the US as of now over the Iraq situation. From its perspective, Shi’ite empowerment in Iraq is non-negotiable. It also seems in no mood to agree to a change of leadership in Baghdad at this juncture.

The ball is in Obama’s court to convince Tehran that he is now prepared to rein in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey with all the influence at the command of the US and to truly opt for a war on terror. Can Obama pull it off — even if he wants to ?

Indeed, Tehran won’t be rigid and will be prepared to discuss Iraq with anyone for putting across its concerns. Therefore, informal contacts between the US and Iran cannot be ruled out. Obama seems genuinely probing the possibilities. The British Foreign Secretary William Hague had a telephonic conversation with Zarif. Britain is always there to act as a go-between for Washington in such awkward moments.

.

.
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Refugees Incoming.......

Post by monster_gardener »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:.

Iran won’t bite American bullet in Iraq

.

A good close look at Tehran’s pronouncements through the past week actually gives a vastly different story than what Kerry would have liked us to believe. Let me quote a few top-ranking Iranian officials:

A) Presdient Hassan Rouhani (June 9 at Ankara): Violence and terrorism have grown more complicated due to the interference of trans-regional powers.”

B) DFM Hossein Amir Abdollahian (June 10): The role of certain “foreign sides” in the Mosul events is obvious. “Those sides which are supporting Takfiris should be seriously concerned about anti-security measures by this terrorist current in their own countries.”

C) Commander of Iran’s Basij, Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqudi (June 11): i) Takfiri groups commit crimes in line with the ominous goals of the arrogant powers and obey the Western and israeli think tanks as they are supported by certain regional Arab countries’ petrodollars. ii) “Saudi Arabia is equipping terrorists in Syria with different light and heavy weapons in breach of all international regulations and conventions.” iii) Takfiri and Salafi groups in different regional states, especially in Syria and Iraq, are supported by the US. iv) The US is manipulating the Takfiri terrorists to tarnish the image of Islam and Muslims.

D) Foreign Ministry spokesperson Marziyeh Afkham (June 11): Urged immediate stop in support of the terrorist groups by certain states and called on all countries to adopt collective measures to fight terrorism.

E) DFM Hossein Amir Abdollahian (June 11): “We will mightily support Iraq in its confrontation with terrorism.”

F) Speaker of the Majlis Ali Larijani ((June 13): “It is obvious that the Americans and the countries around is have made such moves… Terrorism has grown into an instrument for the big powers to advance their goals.”

G) President Rouhani (June 13): i) “If the Iraq government wants help, we will study it… Of course, help and assistance is one thing and interference and going to the battlefront is another… The entry of Iranian troops (on battlefront in Iraq) has never been considered… we have never sent our troops to another country fro operations… If a terrorist groups approaches our borders, we will certainly confront it. ii) Warned those states which are providing financial back-up and arms to the ISIL and other terrorist groups and cautioned that these groups would return to set fire on those countries as well. iii) Dismissed the Reuters report of US-Iranian cooperation over Iraq. “The Americans might want to do something, but I am not informed about it.” iv) The recent events in Iraq are because the terrorist groups are mad at the results of the Iraqi election which have kept the Shi’ites and Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki in power through democratic means.

H) Ala’eddin Broujerdi, chairman of the Majlis foreign and security policy commission (June 14): “The US support, arms shipments and military training (of Takfiri groups) is the root cause of the spread of terrorism and inhumane crimes in the region… The Muslim Ummah needs to put an end to the US interventions in the region.”

I) Commander of Basij, Gen. Mohammed Naqdi (June 14): The ISIL attacks in Iraq are a new US plot after Washington was defeated in the confrontation with the resistance groups in the region. The US faced defeat in the confrontation and plots against Iran’s allies in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, and now “they have started the same experience in Iraq… A huge popular force has rushed to the region which will foil their ominous plots.” These popular forces that have been formed in the regional states have now grown into a chain stretching across the Middle East.

J) FO spokesperson Afkham (June 14) : Iran opposes any military interventions in Iraq. “Iraq has the required potentials and military prepared ness to fight the terrorist and extremist elements… Any move that complicates the situation in Iraq will not be in the interests of Iraq and the region.”

K) FM Mohammed Zarif in interview with New Yorker magazine: “It is in the interest of everybody to stabilize the government of Iraq. If the US has come to realize that these groups [ISIL] pose a threat to the security of the region, and if the US truly wants to fight terrorism and extremism, then it’s a common global cause.”

L) Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (June 15): Lashed out at Washington for the creation of the ISIL. Strongly refuted reports of likely US-Iran cooperation over Iraq; such reports are part of the West’s ‘psywar’ against Iran and are “completely unreal.” Creating terror and instability and inciting armed and violent campaign against the will of the (Iraqi) people, as manifest in the free and fair elections in Iraq, are among the US objectives behind establishing terrorist groups such as the ISIL. The US and some of its allies have financial, intelligence and logistic cooperation to implement such a policy. Called on the Iraqi Shias, Sunnis and Kurds to remain vigilant against plots by foreign powers and to defend their country. Any Iranian help for Iraq will be on a bilateral basis “and it has nothing to do with a third country.”

M) Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani (June 16): The western and regional states are responsible for the present crisis in Iraq.
Given the above unequivocal pronouncements by Tehran through the past one-week period, it seems highly improbable, to say the least, that there could be any overt US-Iranian “cooperation” or coordination over Iraq. The fact of the matter is that Tehran sees an American hand, directly or indirectly, in the ascendancy of the Saudi-sponsored extremist islamist groups such as the ISIL in Syria and Iraq.
Equally, Tehran has no faith in the US’ willingness and capacity to make a clean departure from its past policies in Syria and Iraq and, more importantly, to confront Saudi Arabia. Of course, it is a different matter if the Obama administration takes a bold decision to depart from the past trajectory of the US policies toward Syria and Iraq; in such an eventuality, Tehran will respond positively. But it is difficult to see that happening anytime soon.


The Obama presidency today is so badly battered in the US domestic politics that the White House won’t have the political will today to reset so audaciously the US’ Middle East policies in a virtually contrarian direction overnight by reading the riot act to its regional allies, especially Saudi Arabia. Iran is quite capable of comprehending the geopolitical reality devolving upon the US-Saudi alliance. In sum, Tehran would have misgivings about the US’ intentions.

The extreme caution with which Tehran is moving on Iraq developments suggests that it is wary of getting entrapped in a sectarian quagmire that would have profound consequences to Iran’s regional standing as a whole.

Tehran doesn’t see a convergence of interests with the US as of now over the Iraq situation. From its perspective, Shi’ite empowerment in Iraq is non-negotiable. It also seems in no mood to agree to a change of leadership in Baghdad at this juncture.

The ball is in Obama’s court to convince Tehran that he is now prepared to rein in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey with all the influence at the command of the US and to truly opt for a war on terror. Can Obama pull it off — even if he wants to ?

Indeed, Tehran won’t be rigid and will be prepared to discuss Iraq with anyone for putting across its concerns. Therefore, informal contacts between the US and Iran cannot be ruled out. Obama seems genuinely probing the possibilities. The British Foreign Secretary William Hague had a telephonic conversation with Zarif. Britain is always there to act as a go-between for Washington in such awkward moments.

.

.

Thank You Very MUCH for your post, Azari.

Sounds like Iraqi Shiites may be Royally ;-) oops I mean Mullahly :twisted: screwed if the Iranians don't want to rescue their brother Shia..... :|

Maybe the problem is Iran's $hitite puppet Malarkey ;) , Mal-Icky, Maliki or whatever his worthless name is who seems to be maybe even more arrogant, incompetent and stupid than obama which is quite a feat.....

Seems good help is hard to find even for Ayatollahs..... :lol:

Or maybe the mad mullahs see how the Iraqi Government troops just run away or join the other side..... :roll:
Maybe not good candidates for the Revolutionary Guards......
And not worth saving........

Don't blame the Loony Sunnis who desert too much......
Reports are that Mal-Icky Malarkey hasn't been paying them...... :shock: :roll:
Wonder where the money not paid is going :twisted:


Even more reason to stay out now that we are out........


Betting that the Kurds may get finally get their Way ;)
Unless the Turks
Decide to be Jerks.....
As is likely.....


Sounds like the Shiites of Iraq better elect some passable militia leaders and fight like their lives depend on it because with Set Born ISIS, they do....... :idea:

Unless they all go to Iran like yesterday ;)

Hey! That's a great idea!

Start a rumor that the Iranians will receive them with open arms....

They're the same culture....... ;)
Surely the Iranians can take all of them into their homes...... ;)

Including any Mara-Salva ;) oops I mean SET Born Isis infiltrators...... ;)


NOTE: If obama is sending any money or arms to Set Born Isis or similar :roll: that should stop........
Spend the money on the Space Program..... Or even the Golf Course......

Quit paying the locals to kill each other...
They seem quite willing to do if for free
Or what they can loot....

Leave ASSad alone....
Better than Set Born ISIS........

But if ASSad & the Iranians keep supplying the HezBozos who bomb Israel.....
Buying trouble for an area that doesn't need any more......
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Beating the Bush for Reasons ;-)

Post by monster_gardener »

manolo wrote:folks,

I have a puzzling question. Why did Bush order the invasion of Iraq?

Alex.
Thank You Very Much for your post, Alex Manolo eThinker,

Have heard various reasons.....

Some somewhat plausible ones......

Hubris...... :roll:
May have thought he was going to be the Great Republicanizer ;) of the Middle East :lol: :roll:
Gulf War 1 looked so easy

SadDam Hussein wanted revenge for Gulf War 1
Could not just sit back and build new palaces ;)
Tried to kill Bush I, W's Dad....
Bush W wanted to get SadDam as revenge.....
Perhaps to again prove he was as good as Brother Jeb...

Bush W may have thought that SadDam had WMD
Because SadDam wanted the Iranians to think he had them....
SadDam had them before...
And used them before...

Maybe all of the above......
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
Post Reply