Rebels captures Mosul, Iraq’s 2nd largest city

[steve_bnk]

What I have to ask is, "Where is ISIL getting their weapons from? And who is supplying them with food, fuel, and transport?" Rebellions do not finance themselves. Someone is behind this. My guess would be Saudi Arabia since they are Sunni and the rebels are Sunni, and the Iraqi government is sympathetic to Iran. But what that would mean is that Saudi Arabia is working against US policy in the Mid-East.

On the other hand, I guess that's to be expected. US policy everywhere in the world is so incoherent that one shouldn't expect that our allies are necessarily going to defer to all of our schemes all of the time.

From the reports ISIS gets a lot of funding from conservative Saudis. It is the Iran-Saudi proxy war in Syria. The Saudis have been arming Syrians. It is rarely emphasized in the media and never by our govt, the Saudis have long funded extremists. 9/11 traced back to the Saudis. including anti-west religious schools in the USA.

 

[tupac chopra]

The Arabs-Muslims are doing what they have for centuries, slaughter each other over sect and clan andtribe..

What do you imagine they say about the US who lied and invaded Iraq.
"These are the people who invaded North America and tried to commit genocide on the native population."

 

[steve_bnk]

The Arabs-Muslims are doing what they have for centuries, slaughter each other over sect and clan andtribe..

What do you imagine they say about the US who lied and invaded Iraq.
"These are the people who invaded North America and tried to commit genocide on the native population."

The wars on the Native Americans, at this point not relevant to the current situation. And if you actuallylook at history, the North and South American natives made war on each other over territory and displacement. They lost to superiortechnology and greater numbers. No comparison to to Iraq today. Iraq now has nothing to do with the USA, it has to do with regional culture and history.


We are not acquiring territory or rule.Remember the WTC was attacked not once, but twice. Had 9/11 nothappened there would have been no invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.


Regardless of our motivation, the fact remains we left Iraq a free democracy in the hands of thepeople. Oil contracts favorable to Iraq were granted by Iraq at auction. They had easy wealth to be made. We coud easily have installed an American administration and taken control of Iraqi oil.

What they did was turn on each other from long standing sectarian and tribal conflict. It is the same in Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, and Iraq.


Certainly not all, I talked to a fewIraqi immigrants who said many people wanted the USA to stay.


Maliki was supposed to form a unity govt and instead had a purge. Morsi in Egypt did the same thing. Both resulted in violent backlash. The difference is Egypt has a strong cohesive military that mantains some level of stability.


They are anachronisms stuck 200 years behind the west.


The mistake GWB and the neo-cons made was idealistically looking at the culture as the same as the westlacking only democracy.

 

[Narapoia]

The Arabs-Muslims are doing what they have for centuries, slaughter each other over sect and clan andtribe. The difference is now because of oil it affects us and we see it 24/7 on TV.


When Maliki was elected we declared avictory for democracy, and he promptly attacked and persecutedSunnis out of govt.


Summarizing some of today's mediacommentary, Sunnis are oppressed and they rebel..what a freaking surprise.


The Arab oil states and Iran are stablebecause they are authoritarian sates that do not tolerate subversionand destructive sectarian dissent.


It is utter American hubris for ou rpoliticians to think we are so powerful we can change any of it by force of our will. The last 10 years shows our overwhelming militarypower does ot work, unless we are willing to fully unleash it withoutrestraint. As in WWII. In the breakout from Normandy Eisenhowerresorted to carpet bombing the French countryside incurring civiliancausalities.


Have a draft and fully mobilize forwar. Occupy and pacify Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan as in postWWII. Anything less is wasted effort as we see in Iraq..


In these times we do ot have the stomach and will for it.

For good reason - we had the stomach and the will for it in WW2 because the Germans and the Japanese wanted everything and were quite set on killing a whole shitload of people all over the world. They also had some of the best weapons and tactics the world has seen to that point. There is no similar threat from the region referred to in your post today.

A far better idea would be to take the economic, political and human capital required for the 'invade and occupy on a massive scale' plan and re-tool the rest of the world to be less dependent on the oil in these countries. No massive loss of life, far less resentment of the west and we get to stop fucking over the planet quite as much as we are. In fact - imagine what the US would be like now if all the money spent on Iraq/Afghanistan had been spent developing a sustainable energy economy.

Then we could let them quietly get along with brutally killing each other, as per the last x many years, without global implications.

 

[steve_bnk]

The Arabs-Muslims are doing what they have for centuries, slaughter each other over sect and clan andtribe. The difference is now because of oil it affects us and we see it 24/7 on TV.


When Maliki was elected we declared avictory for democracy, and he promptly attacked and persecutedSunnis out of govt.


Summarizing some of today's mediacommentary, Sunnis are oppressed and they rebel..what a freaking surprise.


The Arab oil states and Iran are stablebecause they are authoritarian sates that do not tolerate subversionand destructive sectarian dissent.


It is utter American hubris for ou rpoliticians to think we are so powerful we can change any of it by force of our will. The last 10 years shows our overwhelming militarypower does ot work, unless we are willing to fully unleash it withoutrestraint. As in WWII. In the breakout from Normandy Eisenhowerresorted to carpet bombing the French countryside incurring civiliancausalities.


Have a draft and fully mobilize forwar. Occupy and pacify Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan as in postWWII. Anything less is wasted effort as we see in Iraq..


In these times we do ot have the stomach and will for it.

For good reason - we had the stomach and the will for it in WW2 because the Germans and the Japanese wanted everything and were quite set on killing a whole shitload of people all over the world. They also had some of the best weapons and tactics the world has seen to that point. There is no similar threat from the region referred to in your post today.

A far better idea would be to take the economic, political and human capital required for the 'invade and occupy on a massive scale' plan and re-tool the rest of the world to be less dependent on the oil in these countries. No massive loss of life, far less resentment of the west and we get to stop fucking over the planet quite as much as we are. In fact - imagine what the US would be like now if all the money spent on Iraq/Afghanistan had been spent developing a sustainable energy economy.

Then we could let them quietly get along with brutally killing each other, as per the last x many years, without global implications.

In WWII we also had a positive propaganda machine. You can watch the us film Why We Fight online. There was isolationist opposition during the war.

In the Pacific initially the desperate state of the war was initially not made public for morale reasons. it was not opened up till later in the war. Film ad pictures of casualties were not made public out of fear of the rise of anti war feelings.


I posted that years ago. I was against the Iraq war. It was one of two times I emailed the president.

A better pragmatic approach would have been to give the money in grants to homeowners to install solar stimulating growth in the industry and getting us closer to energy independence.

Our military is fielding portable soar systems and developing alternatives to oil based fuels.

 

[Narapoia]

The Arabs-Muslims are doing what they have for centuries, slaughter each other over sect and clan andtribe. The difference is now because of oil it affects us and we see it 24/7 on TV.


When Maliki was elected we declared avictory for democracy, and he promptly attacked and persecutedSunnis out of govt.


Summarizing some of today's mediacommentary, Sunnis are oppressed and they rebel..what a freaking surprise.


The Arab oil states and Iran are stablebecause they are authoritarian sates that do not tolerate subversionand destructive sectarian dissent.


It is utter American hubris for ou rpoliticians to think we are so powerful we can change any of it by force of our will. The last 10 years shows our overwhelming militarypower does ot work, unless we are willing to fully unleash it withoutrestraint. As in WWII. In the breakout from Normandy Eisenhowerresorted to carpet bombing the French countryside incurring civiliancausalities.


Have a draft and fully mobilize forwar. Occupy and pacify Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan as in postWWII. Anything less is wasted effort as we see in Iraq..


In these times we do ot have the stomach and will for it.

For good reason - we had the stomach and the will for it in WW2 because the Germans and the Japanese wanted everything and were quite set on killing a whole shitload of people all over the world. They also had some of the best weapons and tactics the world has seen to that point. There is no similar threat from the region referred to in your post today.

A far better idea would be to take the economic, political and human capital required for the 'invade and occupy on a massive scale' plan and re-tool the rest of the world to be less dependent on the oil in these countries. No massive loss of life, far less resentment of the west and we get to stop fucking over the planet quite as much as we are. In fact - imagine what the US would be like now if all the money spent on Iraq/Afghanistan had been spent developing a sustainable energy economy.

Then we could let them quietly get along with brutally killing each other, as per the last x many years, without global implications.

In WWII we also had a positive propaganda machine. You can watch the us film Why We Fight online. There was isolationist opposition during the war.

In the Pacific initially the desperate state of the war was initially not made public for morale reasons. it was not opened up till later in the war. Film ad pictures of casualties were not made public out of fear of the rise of anti war feelings.


I posted that years ago. I was against the Iraq war. It was one of two times I emailed the president.

A better pragmatic approach would have been to give the money in grants to homeowners to install solar stimulating growth in the industry and getting us closer to energy independence.

Our military is fielding portable soar systems and developing alternatives to oil based fuels.

That's an excellent film, I saw it a number of years ago. Sorry, re-reading my post I could have made it clearer that I do understand your position on Iraq. It was more a general response to the mindset that invading and occupying anywhere actually solves problems (except in the most extreme of circumstances), which I do not think accurately reflects your mindset at all.

 

[tupac chopra]

The Arabs-Muslims are doing what they have for centuries, slaughter each other over sect and clan andtribe..

What do you imagine they say about the US who lied and invaded Iraq.
"These are the people who invaded North America and tried to commit genocide on the native population."

The wars on the Native Americans, at this point not relevant to the current situation. And if you actuallylook at history, the North and South American natives made war on each other over territory and displacement. They lost to superiortechnology and greater numbers. No comparison to to Iraq today. Iraq now has nothing to do with the USA, it has to do with regional culture and history.

America is squarely to blame for the mess in Iraq today. How many marauding bands or terrorists were there before America's invasion?

We are not acquiring territory or rule.Remember the WTC was attacked not once, but twice. Had 9/11 nothappened there would have been no invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

How pathetic try to justify the invasion of Iraq on 911. Sad.

Regardless of our motivation, the fact remains we left Iraq a free democracy in the hands of thepeople.

You turned Iraq into a civil war.

Oil contracts favorable to Iraq were granted by Iraq at auction. They had easy wealth to be made. We coud easily have installed an American administration and taken control of Iraqi oil.

Huh...you could have invaded Iraq on the basis of documented lies and then stolen it's oil???
As it is your corporations are raping the poor country anyway

The mistake GWB and the neo-cons made was idealistically looking at the culture as the same as the westlacking only democracy.

The mistake as you call it. It's really a war crime. Was to invade a country that had done nothing to you, on the basis of lies, and have savages like Chris Kyle start serial murder.

 

[Cycad]

The Iraqi situation prior to the Shrub, with a perpetual air blockade and severe trade sanctions still didn’t stop the psycho Saddam from running a hell hole.

What hell hole ?

You mean sunni, shia, christians and Kurdi living together without any fear of being killed any minute ?
A stable country building up a brand new infrastructure as fast as it could.
With Iraqis studying abroad and relatively no poverty ?

As opposed to now where the country collapsed, social fabric destroyed, religious wars, refugees and abject poverty ?

Big progress for the 99 percent majority of Iraqis.

And psycho Sadam ? Demonizing the enemy ? Changed a bit since the Germans were calleed The Hun but its still the same technique.

Salaam

 

[Cycad]

Remember the WTC was attacked not once, but twice. Had 9/11 nothappened there would have been no invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Serious ?

Saudi terrorists with a base in Afghanistan attacked the WTC and the US invade Iraq to find non existing WMD ?

Am I to understand you are defending this policy
or you have privileged knowledge about a relation between Iraq and the Al Qaida ?

Regardless of our motivation, the fact remains we left Iraq a free democracy in the hands of the people. Oil contracts favorable to Iraq were granted by Iraq at auction. They had easy wealth to be made. We coud easily have installed an American administration and taken control of Iraqi oil.

Even Bush senior knew better after the Kuwait liberation. He liberated Kuwait and got out.
Maybe because he did have UN backing and a clear mission : liberating Kuwait not destroying the country and destabilizing the region.

And about leaving a democracy in the hand of the people : yeah sure, absolutely.

 

[tupac chopra]

Bad situation.

Some think it could be catastrophic,
Black Flags Over Mosul

Let’s face it: If the ISIS starts taking out pipelines and oil installations around Mosul, it’s Game-Over USA. Oil futures will spike, markets will crash, and the global economy will slump back into a severe recession. Obama has a very small window to reverse the current dynamic or there’s going to be hell to pay.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, Iraq's full of Al Quaida inspired terrorists who wield what amounts to a weapon of mass destruction?

Told ya. I expect apologies from all the libruls who spent the past decade saying Dubya was wrong about that. He just got the date a little bit wrong, that's all.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What I have to ask is, "Where is ISIL getting their weapons from? And who is supplying them with food, fuel, and transport?" Rebellions do not finance themselves. Someone is behind this..

As I mentioed above. The US has been arming "rebels" in Syria. many of these Syrian "rebels" would be aligned (or the same) as those who have taken Mosul.
The US has admitted they are helping Syrian opposition, which includes Muslim radicals, with "lethal and non lethal" assistance.
Rice: US offers 'lethal and non-lethal' aid to Syrian opposition

Syria borders Iraq. Mosul is quite near the Syrian border.

the people running America are boneheads. But if you criticise them or what they do it means you are unpatriotic

They were trying to support the nationalized opposition, the people that would take over for Assad, not the terrorists. Once the radical fringes were getting involved, the US involvement seemed to increase because they didn't want what is happening now to occur.

 

[steve_bnk]

xx

 

[steve_bnk]

Serious ?

Saudi terrorists with a base in Afghanistan attacked the WTC and the US invade Iraq to find non existing WMD ?

Am I to understand you are defending this policy
or you have privileged knowledge about a relation between Iraq and the Al Qaida ?

Regardless of our motivation, the fact remains we left Iraq a free democracy in the hands of the people. Oil contracts favorable to Iraq were granted by Iraq at auction. They had easy wealth to be made. We coud easily have installed an American administration and taken control of Iraqi oil.

Even Bush senior knew better after the Kuwait liberation. He liberated Kuwait and got out.
Maybe because he did have UN backing and a clear mission : liberating Kuwait not destroying the country and destabilizing the region.

And about leaving a democracy in the hand of the people : yeah sure, absolutely.

What policy and who's policy exactly?


If Saudi Arabia and the UAE descended into the 'Arab Spring' and went into chaos the world's economy could have crashed. Our foreign policy is a balancing act, we use the Arabs and they use us. Quid pro quo. That is the pragmatic Realpolitik..


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realpolitik


'...politics based on practical andmaterial factors rather than on theoretical or ethical objectives...'


Yes. He wrote he did not want togointo `Iraq because it would lead to unpredictable results. If youlook at the senior bush's background he had experience indiplomacy,intelligence, and had personal relationships in the region.


A democratic process was in place.Maliki could have chosen to be an Iraqi patriot and he became anotherautocrat. Contrast to Ataturk who had a vision of a modern Turkey.

 

[steve_bnk]

So, Iraq's full of Al Quaida inspired terrorists who wield what amounts to a weapon of mass destruction?

Told ya. I expect apologies from all the libruls who spent the past decade saying Dubya was wrong about that. He just got the date a little bit wrong, that's all.

The estimate being stated is ISIS has around 1000 people in Iraq. The problem is disaffected Iraqi Sunnisare going over to their side.

 

[funinspace]

An interesting reflection back on the Shia-Suni divide, and Maliki’s corruption and Shia favoritism...
http://www.emptywheel.net/2014/06/1...ded-we-drop-it-on-malikis-corruption-in-2010/

On February 28, 2013, Chelsea Manning made a statement before her providence inquiry. As part of that, she explained why she leaked details of the abusive crackdowns by the Iraqi Federal Police.

On 27 February 2010, a report was received from a subordinate battalion. The report described an event in which the FP detained fifteen (15) individuals for printing “anti-Iraqi literature.” By 2 March 2010, I received instructions from an S3 section officer in the 2-10BCT Tactical Operations Center to investigate the matter, and figure out who these “bad guys” were, and how significant this event was for the FP.
Over the course of my research, I found that none of the individuals had previous ties with anti-Iraqi actions or suspected terrorist or militia groups. A few hours later, I received several photos from the scene from the subordinate battalion.
[snip]
I printed a blown up copy of the high-resolution photo, and laminated it for ease of storage and transfer. I then walked to the TOC and delivered the laminated copy to our category 2 interpreter. She reviewed the information and about a half-hour later delivered a rough written transcript in English to the S2 section.
I read the transcript, and followed up with her, asking for her take on its contents. She said it was easy for her to transcribe verbatim since I blew up the photograph and laminated it. She said the general nature of the document was benign. The documentation, as I assessed as well, was merely a scholarly critique of the then-current Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki. It detailed corruption within the cabinet of al-Maliki’s government, and the financial impact of this corruption on the Iraqi people.
After discovering this discrepancy between FP’s report, and the interpreter’s transcript, I forwarded this discovery, in person to the TO OIC and Battle NCOIC.
The TOC OIC and, the overhearing Battlecaptain, informed me they didn’t need or want to know this information any more. They told me to “drop it” and to just assist them and the FP in finding out where more of these print shops creating “anti-Iraqi literature” might be. I couldn’t believe what I heard, (24-25)

 

[funinspace]

The Iraqi situation prior to the Shrub, with a perpetual air blockade and severe trade sanctions still didn’t stop the psycho Saddam from running a hell hole.

What hell hole ?

You mean sunni, shia, christians and Kurdi living together without any fear of being killed any minute ?
A stable country building up a brand new infrastructure as fast as it could.
With Iraqis studying abroad and relatively no poverty ?

As opposed to now where the country collapsed, social fabric destroyed, religious wars, refugees and abject poverty ?

Big progress for the 99 percent majority of Iraqis.

And psycho Sadam ? Demonizing the enemy ? Changed a bit since the Germans were calleed The Hun but its still the same technique.

Salaam

How many died in the insane Iraq-Iran war of the 1980's (Not that Iran was innocent in this either)? Oh, yeah I'm sure the Kurd's really thought a lot of Saddam.

He fits my definition of psycho, but butcher would work as well. His son Uday was a sweet kid as well. If it helps on the wording, I consider the Shrub somewhat a butcher as well, but maybe not in Saddam's league... But certainly the US has played just about every side of the political games around the Middle East, sometimes switching more partners than a big groupfest orgy. A short list of his machinations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq

According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule". Other estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million,[10][11] including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion. Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.

 

[Underseer]

But I thought we brought them freedom and democracy and everything is great now?

No, no, this is all Obama's fault. If you phrase it like that, it sounds like Bush's fault, and since his holiness was appointed by God Himself, that is simply impossible.

 

[Horatio Parker]

This a Sunni insurgency in Sunni territory. Baghdad is Shiite, the ISIS will not take prevail there. At best, the insurgency will be contained in the Sunni provinces. At worst, the Shiites and Kurds will ally to take the rebels down.

There's a good argument for Iraq to break up, after all the British drew fucked up borders intentionally, but Turkey and Iran don't want an independent Kurdistan. There something like 4M Kurds in Iran and 12M in Turkey.

Interesting times.

 

[funinspace]

This a Sunni insurgency in Sunni territory. Baghdad is Shiite, the ISIS will not take prevail there. At best, the insurgency will be contained in the Sunni provinces. At worst, the Shiites and Kurds will ally to take the rebels down.

It is quite possible that the central govt (Shiite's) will be able to stop them at Baghdad. Though about 1/3 of the Baghdad area is Sunni, so it could get ugly, as well as that Baghdad is pretty much right at the transition area between the generally Sunni north by north west, and the Shia south by south east. If the Iranians increase their direct military support, then I would expect it to hold. Which would be ironic if Iran ends up saving the US billion dollar embassy from destruction. Or maybe they could accidentally bomb the US embassy while attacking ISIS insurgents

There's a good argument for Iraq to break up, after all the British drew fucked up borders intentionally, but Turkey and Iran don't want an independent Kurdistan. There something like 4M Kurds in Iran and 12M in Turkey.

Interesting times.

Yup, the UK-French re-mapping of the post Ottoman ME was a mess. With ISIS gaining so much momentum, Iran might find a new Kurdish country on their border not so bad an idea.

But I read that Kerry said that the Administration is rapidly reaching for a response...or something like that.