76 share
Tuesday of this week (June 10, 2014),
the ISIL stormed into Mogul and took that city from Iraqi control.
The next day, Wednesday, the terror organization took Takrit
and stood 100 miles from the Iraqi capitol of
What most do not know, unless they read
this same time blog, is that the ISIL was completely defeated and driven
from Iraq
In fact,
the whole of Iraq
Video text: “I am very optimistic about
Keep in mind, the Commander of military forces does not announce the withdrawal of 90,000 troops, unless he sees the particular war effort as a victory and their presence no longer necessary. In claiming the Bush victory for Obama, Biden unwittingly admitted the Bush victory in Iraq.
"ISIL"
translates to Islamic State of Iraq [and the] Levant .
The title of this rejuvenated terror organization, frames Iraq as its base country and the larger region
(see the Levant map) as its initial territory. And ALL of its successes have occurred in the last two months of 2014. five full years after Obama took office, claimed the Iraqi victory, and deserted that country. Note: Apparently the media is going to refer to this group as "ISIS," or the Islamic State of Iraq [and] Syria.
The entire Middle East region, including
______
Update: Understand that Biden's failure-on-purpose to negotiate a "Status of Forces" treatise, which would have left up to 25,000 troops in Iraq, is the single most important key the present day crisis. Had we committed to such a treatise effort, Iranian rebels would not have passed through Iraq into Syria, nor would the invading forces of the ISIS, moved from NW Syria into Iraq. The Obama Administration simply did not want this treatise. As a result, Obama got to brag about getting ALL troops out of that country while claiming the Bush Iraqi victory as his own. We are seeing the results of this particular word game.
________
This promises to be another nail in the Progressives' coffin. I have said
and written, for years, that the worst thing to happen for Obama, would be the Middle East blowing up in his
face. Well, you are looking at the beginning of that eventuality.
______________________
Related sources:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/06/isil-vows-march-iraq-capital-2014612132031582716.html
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/12/watch-joe-biden-call-iraq-one-of-the-great-achievements-of-this-administration/#ixzz34U3SvAVT
ISIS wouldn't have any power if it weren't for Bush's invasion of Iraq ... ISIS military force is composed of American equipment left by the Bush regime. Thanks to Bush, ISIS has US Army Combat Uniforms along with the Interceptor body armor, AN/PVS-7 night vision goggles worn with the PASGT helmets. Some of their weapons include M16 rifles, M60 machine guns, M240 machine guns and RPGs. Some of the vehicles include Humvees, MRAPs, M113 APCs and several T-55 tanks. ISIS captured numerous Type 59-1 artillery guns, Dushka guns mounted on trucks and several Sergey anti-aircraft guns.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is AMERICANS AGREE
1) The Iraq war was NOT worth it
2) No support for American boots on the ground in Iraq.
That is the bottom line - if you are a patriot and believe in Democracy. We simply can't afford to maintain a perpetual war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Any victories would only be temporary.
When we went into Iraq, the populace opinion favored the invasion, along with most of Congress. The fact that these opinions have changed is much more a testament to political cowardice and the incessant anti-war propaganda coming from the Marxist Media.including daily body counts. With the war monger, Obama, no body counts at all, almost no negative propaganda.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the equipment left behind. Good grief, man. Who claimed Iraq a "victory" and took credit for winning the war? Same guy who pulled our troops out two and a half years ago, and, left behind ALL that stuff. He has a habit of leaving arms and equipment behind. You only have to look to Libya for a pattern set by Obama.
Me? I don't believe in a raw application of "democracy." Minorities are excluded in a true, majority rule situation. Ours is a representative republic.
So what now? Ayatolla Sistani of Iran is rallying Shias to fight ISIS. SHould we arm Iran to help fight the terrorists?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Peter Galbraith - former U.S. diplomat: January 2003 the President invited three members of the Iraqi opposition to join him. In the course of the conversation the Iraqis realized that the President was not aware that there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. He looked at them and said, "I thought they were Muslims. You mean...they're not, you know, there, there's this difference. What is it about?"
That about shows the understanding of where Bush was when we went into Iraq. We have no business there.
Bush was aware, however, of the fact that if you declared war on "terror," took out the single most troublesome national leader in the Middle East, at the time, and (thus) controlled all the finances of alQaeda, he could beat them at their own game. He knew they would come to fight, like a moth to a flame, and they did. As a result, our forces killed 40,000 of these murderous jerks, in five years, and won the war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . according to Joe Biden, talking to Larry King, 12 months after he and the other blow, took office. AFTER 9/11 and because of the Bush terror doctrine at home and in the Middle East, our country did not experience another homeland death or injury, until Obama, that is.
DeleteAbsolute nonsense. You have about as much understanding of the Sunni vs Shia dynamic as Bush.
DeleteSaddam had NO link to al Qaeda (as the Pentagon confirmed) or any organization that would potentially threaten his authority, and was no friend to the theocrats in Iran.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/
"Nonsense" !!!??? Everything I wrote is spot on. You get your info from the likes of Media Matters, MSNBC, and other Soros sponsored fantasy news outlets. Me? I actually remember what was reported by the Compliant Media and official documents of the time. Case in point, the 94 page PDF found here: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/v1.pdf. While the document admits there is no "smoking gun" connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, it is clear that his support of non-government terror included all terrorist organizations, at the time. (ES-2). We learn, from this document, that Saddam intended to be the primary influence for radical terror, whether state sponsored or of non-government entities. Understand that al Qaeda trained its forces in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Sudan AND in Iraq (by permission of Saddam, of course). You really need to try to keep up with current events. That will not happen, if you continue to use partisan sources, dedicated to "truth by any means."
DeleteYea right, the Pentagon under Bush is "partisan". Saddam was in power for decades... and suddenly because Bush decided to invade, the wingnuts grasp at straws to justify the blunder. Now the chickens are coming home to roost and they conveniently blame Obama. Sick.
ReplyDeleteYour CNN (partisan as hell) source, quoted in your link, above, is the very same report I just linked. I acknowledged "no smoking gun" for a direct link between al Qaeda and Saddam, but that same report makes it clear that Saddam's Iraq, was fast becoming the financial hub for state sponsored terrorism AS WELL AS NONGOVERNEMNT terror -- ahhhhhh, that would include alQaeda, since alQaeda was about the only organized, non Iraqi sponsored terror group in the freaking world, at the time. Coupling that with your Marxist Media reporting, at the time, of al Qaeda training in the deserts of Iraq and you have my case. I think it funny, that you deny Iraq was a dynamic victory (if you understand the use of the word "dynamic"), so much so, that your bud, Joe the Blow, decided to brag about the end game of the Iraqi war, 12 short months after he and the other Blow took office, and claim Iraq as one of the most "significant accomplishes" of the young, Obama Administration. Such is the problem you have in defending an Administration of opportunistic nutballs.
ReplyDeleteIn review: I claim that the Iraqi war was a victory. My source. Joesphine and his bun buddy, our Over Lord, B Hussein Obama !!!
I love winning arguments, this way.
Like I said, any "victories" in the Middle East are temporary ... so short sighted ignorant neo cons like Smithson can crow about their "triumph" ... until the sectarian violence that has gone on for hundreds of years eventually returns.
ReplyDelete"I thought they were Muslims. You mean...they're not, you know, there, there's this difference. What is it about?"
-G W Bush - Smithson's man, exposing his ignorance. You can see where it got us.
A lesson in the cost of cultural ignorance and short sighted, expensive and ineffective policy. Thanks GWB.
You write, " . . . . "victories" in the Middle East are temporary." What in the world do you think "dynamic" implies, in my comment above? What is short sighted is the utopian fantasy that wars can be "won" without residual and long term military involvement. This is exactly why a Democrat should never be Commander in Chief, in times of war . . . . . . they have no clue how to fight AND MANAGE a war and its victory.
Delete