Snip:

Iraq is to ask the United States for weapons, training and manpower to help fight the resurgence of al-Qaeda, two years after US troops left the country as security talks broke down.

The request will be discussed during a White House meeting on Friday between the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, and the US president, Barack Obama.

“We know we have major challenges of our own capabilities being up to the standard. They currently are not,'' Lukman Faily, the Iraqi ambassador to the US, told the Associated Press news agency.

“We need to gear up, to deal with that threat more seriously. We need support and we need help.''

“We have said to the Americans we'd be more than happy to discuss all the options short of boots on the ground.''

The US withdrew all but a few hundred soldiers from Iraq in December 2011 after Baghdad refused to renew a security agreement to extend legal immunity for US forces thatwould have let more stay.

At the time, the withdrawal was hailed as a victory for the Obama administration, which campaigned on ending the Iraq war and had little appetite for pushing Baghdad into a new security agreement.

But within months, violence began creeping up in the capital and across the country. More than 5,000 Iraqis have been killed in attacks since April, and suicide bombers launched 38 strikes in the last month alone.

If the US does not commit to providing the weapons or other aid quickly, “we will go elsewhere,'' Faily said.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast...70998.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should the US agree to invest more and increase aid to Iraq (on the premise of thwarting al Qaeda expansion)?

Or, should the US call Faily's bluff and say, "sorry man, we're done - look elsewhere."?

Hell no!
It's obvious these dirty bastards are never going to change, so let them kill each other off.

It was pretty obvious that this was an eventuality. They should have taken us up on the extended security agreement when it was offered. Now they just want money, weapons and training with no boots on the ground? I say no. They're dysfunctional, corrupt and there's no assurance that any aid we would provide would be used correctly without more direct involvement.

Shame...I see 10+ years of war wasted and Iraq unraveling to the same type of mess it was in before we even got involved.

(10-30-2013, 08:14 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Should the US agree to invest more and increase aid to Iraq (on the premise of thwarting al Qaeda expansion)?

No.

...but now I'm wondering if we owe them something for invading & destroying their country.

They are so numb over there I'm surprized everyone is not walking around under open umbrellas.

I read something a year or so ago and it was said that many of the people there have issues with valium. They are self medicating.

well, I'd pro lay hit the Valium, too. Heck, living in here in the US may cause me to start that at any moment.

And, No...no help...no weapons...

Wait, we could just give them back the ones we took and have yet to finish destroying.

All western countries should make a joint pact to completely ignore the middle east from now on. I don't care if its ragheads or kikes fuck them all.

US STATEMENT ON IRAQI ANTI-TERRORISM ASSISTANCE

Snip:



US Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States will help the Iraqi government in its battle against al Qaeda-linked fighters in western Iraq, but stressed it won't send troops.

"We are not, obviously, contemplating returning. We're not contemplating putting boots on the ground. This is their fight, but we're going to help them in their fight," Kerry said, noting that the United States plans to be in "close contact with all of the Iraq political leaders" to determine how to help them.

"We going to do everything that is possible to help them, and I will not go into the details except to say that we're in contact with tribal leaders from Anbar province whom we know who are showing great courage in standing up against this as they reject terrorist groups from their cities. And this is a fight that belongs to the Iraqis. That is exactly what the President and the world decided some time ago when we left Iraq."

Fighting in the predominantly Sunni Anbar province in recent days has posed a serious challenge to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his Shiite-dominated government, raising questions about his ability to hold the country together amid a rising insurgency.

Conflicting reports have the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), formerly the group commonly known as al Qaeda in Iraq, in partial control of Falluja, the site of some of the bloodiest fighting between U.S. forces and insurgents during the Iraq War.

Full story: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/05/world/meas...?hpt=wo_c1
===============================================================

Well, I'm glad to see the new Iraqi leadership is committed to thwarting a major resurgence of al-Qaeda in the country.

And, I'm glad that the US is not considering putting boots on the ground there, again.

But, I do wonder how the hell we're gonna help them stave off a mutually declared enemy that is on the rebound without a physical presence.

Kerry focused his statements on what we're not gonna do, but isn't giving details about how exactly we're going to support Iraq.

Drones? Intel/surveillance? Weapons? Financial aid? Mere consultation?

Curious to see where this leads.

Fuck em then, fuck em now, we never should have gotten involved there in the first place!

(What a waste of our soldiers and money!!)

Before we invaded Iraq Al Qaeda were not there at all.

We created a frontline for Al Qaeda to attack the west by killing our troops.

The insurgency was different, if I was an Iraqi I would have been an insurgent.

I still think we should ignore the middle east when we intervene we always make the situation worse.

Fuck em. We have been spending money and people on iraq since 1991, enough is enough. Those assholes over there have been doing a fine job of killing each other for 5000 years and it is not going to change in our lifetime. THE only success over there was running SODAM INSANE out of Kuait. Even then those faggots at the UN wouldn't let George Sr finish it by taking him out. The result was we spent the next 20 years spending money, equipment and people keeping his ass in his box. While in his box he still manages to murder a few thousand more people and the UN does Nothing
So he is gone now finally, many years late but its done.
Come hime, fence them in and let france deal with them.

They could just use the many crates of freshly minted 100 dollar bills that mysteriously disappeared a few years ago to hire some mercenaries.

We got the oil.

Mission accomplished.

Game over.

And, so...we gotta get right back to where we started from...



Snip:
The al-Qaida-inspired group that led this week's charge in capturing two key Sunni-dominated cities in Iraq vowed Thursday to march on to Baghdad, raising fears about the Shiite-led government's ability to slow the assault following lightning gains.

Signs emerged that the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant is backed in its campaign by former military officers and other members of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein's regime — including a force led by Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, the late leader's former deputy who escaped the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and eluded U.S. and Iraqi forces ever since.

In the north, Kurdish security forces took over an air base and other posts abandoned by the Iraqi military in ethnically mixed Kirkuk, a senior official with the Kurdish forces said. He denied they had taken over the oil-rich city.

As world leaders expressed alarm over the destabilization of large parts of the country by fighters from the militant group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the U.N. Security Council scheduled consultations on the crisis.

The Islamic State aims to create an Islamic emirate spanning both sides of the Iraq-Syria border. It has been able to push deep into parts of the Iraqi Sunni heartland once controlled by U.S. forces because police and military forces melted away after relatively brief clashes.

The Islamic State issued a triumphalist statement declaring that it would start implementing its strict version of Shariah law in Mosul and other regions it had overrun. It said women should stay in their homes for modesty reasons, warned it would cut off the hands of thieves and told residents to attend daily prayers. It told Sunnis in the military and police to abandon their posts and "repent" or else "face only death." "People, you have tried secular regimes ... This is now the era of the Islamic State," it proclaimed.

Baghdad does not appear to be in imminent danger of a similar assault, although Sunni insurgents have stepped up car bombings and suicide attacks in the capital recently.

Full story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/12...87019.html

Y'all know whose fault I want to say this is.

Iraq soon to be Iran, I would like to see that, they will both fight to the death they hate each other that much and it would weaken Iran.

(06-12-2014, 02:09 PM)Duchess Wrote: Y'all know whose fault I want to say this is.

Well, Juan Cole, author of The New Arabs, agrees with you.

Snip:
It is an indictment of the George W. Bush administration, which falsely said it was going into Iraq because of a connection between al-Qaeda and Baghdad. There was none. Ironically, by invading, occupying, weakening and looting Iraq, Bush and Cheney brought al-Qaeda into the country and so weakened it as to allow it actually to take and hold territory in our own time. They put nothing in place of the system they tore down. They destroyed the socialist economy without succeeding in building private firms or commerce. They put in place an electoral system that emphasizes religious and ethnic divisions. They helped provoke a civil war in 2006-2007, and took credit for its subsiding in 2007-2008, attributing it to a troop escalation of 30,000 men (not very plausible). In fact, the Shiite militias won the civil war on the ground, turning Baghdad into a largely Shiite city and expelling many Sunnis to places like Mosul. There are resentments.

Those who will say that the US should have left troops in Iraq do not say how that could have happened. The Iraqi parliament voted against it. There was never any prospect in 2011 of the vote going any other way. Because the US occupation of Iraq was horrible for Iraqis and they resented it. Should the Obama administration have reinvaded and treated the Iraqi parliament the way Gen. Bonaparte treated the French one?

http://www.juancole.com/2014/06/promises...story.html
------------------------

Juan's a busy man. He's also making cases to indict Sadam Hussein, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Shiite political elite that took over Iraq in 2005, the Iraqi Army, the British, and the French for the fall of Mosul.

EVERYBODY'S TALKING AT ME...

President Obama (Democrat) said today:
"This is an area that we have been watching with a lot of concern," Obama said, noting the United States and the international community should extend additional support.

"So my team is working around the clock to identify how we can provide the most effective assistance to them," Obama said. "I don't rule out anything because we do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either Iraq or Syria, for that matter."

Note: however, a senior administration official followed up by saying the use of American ground forces is not under consideration. "No boots on the ground. Not being considered."

Meanwhile, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari stated:
"No one is calling for American troops into Iraq." He said Washington has been cooperative and has a responsibility to be proactive in the current fight against militants.

The U.S. government has already provided $15 billion in training, weapons and equipment to the Iraqi government. (HOTD: Iraq's position is that it needs/wants more.)

Iraq on Wednesday indicated a willingness for U.S. airstrikes. But there has been no indication if that's under consideration.

And, then, House Speaker Boehner (Republican) weighed-in:
"I think what we should do is to provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis have been asking for," the Ohio Republican said.

"But it's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen over the last five or six months, these terrorists moving in, taking control of western Iraq, now they've taken control of Mosul, they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and what's the President doing? Taking a nap," Boehner added.

After which, Arizona Senator John McCain (Republican) told the press:
"The President should get rid of his entire national security including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," he said prior to a classified briefing for Armed Services Committee members.

He said Obama should bring back David Petraeus, the former commander of American forces during a decisive period of the Iraq War, among other Bush-era generals to "turn this whole situation around."

Although McCain was highly critical of Obama's handling of Iraq, he did not advocate for military airstrikes.

But, Nancy Pelosi (Democrat), Minority House Leader, disagreed:
"I don't think there's any appetite in our country for us to become engaged in any more military activity in Iraq --are we going to refight the war that we just got out of?" she asked (a view consistent with many other Democratic congresspersons).


Where do you stand today, three years after the US pulled out of Iraq and given the current jihadist gains?

(06-12-2014, 05:18 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Where do you stand today, three years after the US pulled out of Iraq and given the current jihadist gains?

If you pull out, it ain't yo sprout.