This time, we'll only kill the right people

[MannyGoldstein]

Last edited Sat Aug 9, 2014, 10:00 PM - Edit history (2)

Well, we're back in the saddle again in Iraq, turning evildoers who hate us for our freedoms into Freedom Mist. We're doing good: who can argue against doing good?

Those on the Left, that's who. The same moonbats who, might I remind everyone, have complained about the many successful military interventions we've taken in the last half-century or so.

Ok, moonbats, let's get a few things straight. First off, these will be highly-targeted pinpoint attacks. The targets will be selected by the same intelligence-gathering methods that have enabled our drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan to miss many wedding parties. In fact, our mission will rely heavily on brand new evildoer-seeking missiles, produced by the same folks who have developed the magnificent F-35 all-purpose plane, the first plane to truly perform equally-well in any conditions, even when disassembled. What could go wrong?

And in the unlikely event that the wrong people get mistified, we've got that covered, too. The Espionage Act allows us to effectively prosecute anyone who leaks this information in an attempt to "inform" the lumpenproletariat. Like that #%^* Kiriakou who spilled the beans on our top-secret enhanced interrogation program.

So it's time to get real: this time it's different. It will work. Americans understand this. In fact, based on phone call and email analysis conducted over the past 24 hours by our NSA, we know that only a tiny fringe group of far-left Libertarians think otherwise. And don't think we won't remember who you are, you Ayn-Rand-worshipping commies.

Regards,

Realistic-Democrat Manny

[Fred Sanders]

1. People addicted to the gee whiz military technology of Hollywood and TV killer shows do not

want to know truth of how making things blow up has a unbreachable limit on precision, like light has a speed limit.

And it is not just the far left Libertarians who get it. Rather Don Quitoish of you to say so.

[questionseverything]

3. manny gets it

personally i am so torn...i was raised on ww2 stories,how we saved minority peoples from holocaust

so part of me wants to help these minorities stuck on that mountain but i am afraid my gov't will do the worst possible thing (as they seem to do repeatedly)

we still have the nsa spying on everyone

a week ago yesterday potus admitted the cia tortured and he has no intention of punishing them and belittled anyone that thought they should be punished

we gave millions more to isreal to wipe out gaza

what i am trying to say is the whole thing feels like "wag the dog" and still part of me thinks it should be possible for the greatest military in the world to do something good (for a change)

the following op got very little notice but it discusses how the nsa is helping isreal target where to bomb in gaza...blocks at a time

i thought you might be interested

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=207886

[Fred Sanders]

5. Manny gets I, I know. Thanks for the link. Someone should ask if America is aiding IDF. No one does.

[nilesobek]

83. I noticed the reporters are very careful about the questions they ask the POTUS.

They are probably told in debriefings and by their editors to only ask certain questions. Certainly, they only write or speak what they are told to.

[A Simple Game]

33. It is possible for the greatest military in the world to do something good.

All they have to do is give 75% of their funding to humanitarian aid. That would solve 75% of the world's problems.

I know, I pulled those numbers out of my butt, but you get the idea and I would bet I'm high on the first one and low on the second one.

[TheSarcastinator]

2. bombs dropped by democrats only kill bad guys, of course

only leaders we hate kill innocent civilians.

I also heard that ISIS throws babies from incubators and bought yellow cake uranium in Niger.

[Chathamization]

12. "There's nothing that will stop these 10,000 people from establishing a caliphate from Spain to

Indonesia except for US bombs!" <- Just copy and paste every 3-5 years.

[sabrina 1]

40. Okay, how did this relatively miniscule group get so powerful in such a short time?

Last edited Sat Aug 9, 2014, 03:03 PM - Edit history (1)

And they're 'worse than Al Qaeda'. Wasn't anyone watching Iraq over the past number of years? I was, Maliki was clamping down brutally on unarmed Iraqis who simply protested Government policies.

This is one of the things Chelsea Manning tried to warn about, the Maliki Police torturing unarmed protesters. SHE is in jail. Her complaints were ignored.

So clearly they WERE watching Iraq and did nothing to rein in their installed puppet's brutal behavior towards his own people.

But suddenly out of nowhere there is this powerful group that can take over Iraq??

Something is missing from this story.

[Scuba]

64. Reward the guilty, punish the innocent. It's the American way!

[suffragette]

67. Yes, this has a rinse and repeat feel to it

[sabrina 1]

68. Hi suffragette, I agree.

Two years ago people were warning that if Maliki did not step down the end result would be a takeover by extremists who would capitalize on the discontent over his policies. If I know that, surely our government were aware of it?

I read reports almost on a dialy basis of Maliki's policies that were as bad if not worse than Saddam's. I even wondered if we were just washing our hands of the whole mess since there appeared to be little or not response from the US.

[suffragette]

110. Yep and add the arms and finanacial support for Syrian rebels, some of whom now are ISIS

Echoes of Afghanistan and Al Quaeda.
We keep pushing violent 'solutions' and keep wondering why the violence then increases and goes in directions that we keep somehow not anticipating.
I keep thinking back to points where we had the opportunity to steer things differently and did not take them, like here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023555983

Instead, we contribute to ratcheting up the warfare and end up in the same place again.

There's also an uptick in in news reports about how many in ISIS are foreign fighters who have passports to western countries and may take the violence back to their own countries.

For example:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/16/world/meast/iraq-sria-foreign-legion-jihad-threat-to-west/

As I recall, in the early stages of Libya and Syrian actions, you, I and others noticed and commented on the oddness of foreign fighters seeming heavily involved, though at that time the info was far down in the stories.

But now, these articles are pointing this out in the headline, to make (push?) the point that these groups may be striking here next.

[sabrina 1]

126. Hi suffragette, I wish I had seen that post you made a year ago. Looking at it now,

it only emphasizes the point I was making, about how they seemed to be ignoring the violent reactions in Iraq to Maliki's violent reactions to the Sunnis. Chelsea Manning's whistle blowing started AFTER she reported on Maliki's supposedly Western trained Police, torturing protesters who 'were just holding signs' and she couldn't in conscience remain quiet when she realized that. But SHE was ignored. You would think that the US would have WANTED to know these things and do all they could to stop them. Any intelligent person would realize that there WOULD be consequences for such treatment. Seems either we don't have very good people running things or they were watching and wanted it to happen, this new 'fear' that would require a return to Iraq.

Iraq has been boiling over with violence over the past couple of years, and unless you went out of your way to keep track of it, (same thing in Libya btw) you wouldn't know from the Corporate Media.

Someone on CNN today suggested that if the Maliki Govt stops excluding Sunnis from participation in their govt, he didn't mention 'and stops the violence against them, shooting protesters etc', that might resolve most of the issues.

But other observers have called for Maliki to step down as he is the CAUSE of the unrest in Iraq and therefore cannot fix it. I agree with that, although you would have to WANT to fix it to do that.

You mentioned Syria, yes, one of the reasons the UK Parliament refused to get involved militarily, as we wanted them to do, was fear that they might be arming 'people who if they were here in the UK would be under constant surveillance'.

They got their weapons from us, in Iraq, probably Syria and Libya because no matter how many denials there are, we did support anyone who was willing to help us achieve our 'regime changes'.

It's a mess, maybe too far gone for anyone to end it at this point. The neocons must be smiling as THIS was their goal, which they weren't shy about telling us, airc.

[suffragette]

132. Peace posts don't get the traction they used to on DU

It sank before many could see it.

You bring an important perspective and information to discussion of this.
To be honest, I had forgotten about the Manning connection. Very important to remember this and to look at Maliki's role in keeping the hatred boiling.

So many critical voices being ignored and every opportunity to change the course of events squandered.

Ban Ki Moon is still trying to be heard above the drums of war and has been bringing up similar points about Maliki.

Democracy Now had a thoughtful report the other day. I think it's still at the top of their page.

And malaise has posted a critically important historical perspective. I highly recommend you look at it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025360114

[sabrina 1]

133. Sad isn't it, we on the left were the only hope to try to stop all these criminal invasions of

other nations. I did read Malaise's OP and it is very important. Unfortunately most Americans have no idea of that history.

Chelsea Manning was like the canary in the goldmine. What she saw and tried to report, if the goal really had been to 'create a democracy' could have helped stop the Maliki regime's brutal oppression of the Sunni population. Others would also probably have reported what they were seeing, had there been an atmosphere that encouraged 'doing what is right'. But there wasn't, and now I wonder if the whole thing was ignored for a reason.

Thanks for the link to Malaise's OP.

[Comrade Grumpy]

69. Yes, there are several things missing from this story:

1. A decade ago, there were no Islamic insurgents in Iraq or Syria.

2. The US invasion of Iraq overthrew the Sunni dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and led, eventually, to the Sunni uprising. That provided space for ISIS's direct predecessor, Al Qaeda in Iraq. Remember Zarqawi? They were eventually blunted by other Sunnis during 2007-2008, but never went away.

3. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki presided over a harshly sectarian Shia-led government that turned many Sunnis away from Baghdad. That allowed ISIS to regroup in northern and western Iraq.

4. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and to a lesser degree, the US, decided to take advantage of the Arab Spring uprisings to try to overthrow Assad in Syria. That misbegotten misadventure weakened the Syrian state enough that jihadi militants were able to create a safe haven for themselves in northeast Syria, right across the border from Iraq.

5. The first jihadis in Syria were the Al Nusra Front, affiliated with Al Qaeda. Then, Al Qaeda in Iraq, under Mr. al-Baghdadi, moved into Syria, tried to take over the Al Qaeda franchise from Al Nusra, and got chastised by Zawahiri.

6. Now, Al Qaeda in Iraq, renamed ISIS, or now just the Islamic State, is on a tear in Iraq and Syria.

I am not a fan of US military interventions. But these ISIS fuckers are murderous barbarians. They are positively medieval. They are an existential threat to the entire region, and perhaps beyond, if they are allowed to keep expanding.

[sabrina 1]

73. Zarqawi? The one we 'killed' multiple times until we finally killed him, the one who had only

one leg, but when he 'died' no one would confirm that he was the same 'one-legged' Al Queda 'leader'? The one who journalists found out, Dan Rather as a matter of fact, was just a petty thief from Jordan with zero influence over Al Queda, blown up to be the leader of Al Queda who we had to stay there to catch?

The one that one of our Generals admitted was 'propaganda'?

Yes, I remember the man with one leg who was killed then resurrected multiple times. We had a lot of fun each time Bush et al 'killed him'. Catapulting the propaganda as always, presidenting was HARD. I can see why when I think of Al Zarqawi.

Al Zarqawi, Dead Again

Let’s see. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the phantom terrorist with super-human powers, was killed in the Sulaimaniyah mountains of northern Iraq, and then he was killed in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, followed by a death during Operation Matador near the town of Qaim on the Syrian border, and finally he was killed, along with his mentor, Osama bin Laden, in the besieged city of Fallujah. Now we are told he was “killed in a U.S. air raid north of Baghdad [in the town of Hibhib near Baquba],” according to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Reuters reports.

The media reported diligently on each separate 'death' as if they were talking about it for the first time. We on DU and elsewhere of course, recalled each and every death. The man was a miracle at resurrecting himself only to 'die' again. No one in Iraq seemed to know him. Airc, this was one of the first incidences of war propaganda being aimed, illegally, at the American people.

Why are we supporting Maliki who is the cause of all of this?

I sure hope they don't resurrect Al Zarqawi, again.

[Comrade Grumpy]

82. Yeah, that Zarqawi, the petty thief from Lebanon.

And leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the lineal predecessors of ISIS.

Yeah, there was a lot of bullshit about killing him, but Al Qaeda in Iraq was real.

My broader point is that this mess is the result of our invasion of Iraq and the attempt to overthrow Assad in Syria, in which we have a role.

I'm not going to cheer Obama's decision to bomb ISIS--although somebody sure needs to do it--but neither am I going to go into a full-blown anti-war meltdown over it. I expect him to limit our involvement to bombing runs and try to extricate himself (and us) as fast as he can.

As far as I am concerned, ISIS is an abomination. The sooner it is destroyed, the better.

[sabrina 1]

84. Al Zarqawi was a myth. And there was no Al Queda in Iraq until WE BROUGHT IT THERE.

Isis isn't the only abomination in all of this. Maliki is an abomination, our murder of over one million Iraqis, the torture campaign, the rapes, the theft of their oil, make most of what is happening there now PALE, at least by the numbers, in comparison. So, IF this were truly about altruism, shock at the actions of ISIS, do you recall ANY of the atrocities committed against those people by OUR government, the very first thing we would be doing is PROSECUTING the War Criminals, not calling them 'patriots'. THAT might have ameliorated some of the deep sense of injustice those people have felt.

I do not support this. We need to get out totally.

[Comrade Grumpy]

85. Zarqawi was not "a myth." He was a real person, with a real history.

From Wikipedia:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (Arabic: أبومصعب الزرقاوي‎, About this sound pronunciation (help·info) ’Abū Muṣ‘ab az-Zarqāwī, Abu Musab from Zarqa); October 30, 1966 – June 7, 2006), born Ahmad Fadeel al-Nazal al-Khalayleh (Arabic: أحمد فضيل النزال الخلايله‎, ’Aḥmad Faḍīl an-Nazāl al-Ḫalāyla) was a militant Islamist from Jordan who ran a paramilitary training camp in Afghanistan. He became known after going to Iraq and being responsible for a series of bombings, beheadings, and attacks during the Iraq War.

He formed al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in the 1990s, and led it until his death in June 2006. Zarqawi took responsibility, on several audio and video recordings, for numerous acts of violence in Iraq including suicide bombings and hostage executions. Zarqawi opposed the presence of US and Western military forces in the Islamic world, as well as the West's support for the existence of Israel. In late 2004 he joined al-Qaeda, and pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden. After this al-Tawhid wal-Jihad became known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and al-Zarqawi was given the Al-Qaeda title, "Emir of Al Qaeda in the Country of Two Rivers".[1]

In September 2005, he declared "all-out war" on Shia in Iraq after the Iraqi government offensive on insurgents in the Sunni town of Tal Afar.[2] He dispatched numerous suicide bombers throughout Iraq to attack American soldiers and areas with large concentrations of Shia militias. He is also thought to be responsible for the 2005 bombing of three hotels in Amman, Jordan.[3] Zarqawi was killed in a targeted killing by a Joint US force on June 7, 2006, while attending a meeting in an isolated safehouse approximately 8 km (5.0 mi) north of Baqubah. One United States Air Force F-16C jet dropped two 500-pound (230 kg) guided bombs on the safehouse.[4]

-----

I understand and share your anger about what we did in Iraq. And I'm not real keen on the US getting militarily involved again. But I'm gonna cut Obama some slack on this one. These guys are barbarians.

Here's a nice ISIS video for you. Check for yourself what these guys are like:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=efe_1403037495

[sabrina 1]

88. I know he was a real person. But he was in no way the powerful, AQ Leader we were

told he was. He was from Jordan, a small village, not too bright, a petty thief, and by all accounts not even associated with AQ.

Dan Rather, curious about the sudden appearance of this all powerful leader, went to Jordan to try to find his hometown. Al Zarqawi was propaganda at its worst.

Gen. Kimmet acknowledged that "The Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign to date.' However the Pentagon, even while acknowledging this claimed it was 'aimed at Iraq, not at the US' which would of course have been against the law.

Cheney's lie that Saddam had connections with AQ involved a one-legged man who had gone to Iraq to have his leg amputed. THIS was supposedly that man. However no one ever SAW him, no one ever knew if Zarqawi was without a leg.

And when asked how they identified him, the Pentagon claimed 'by his tatoos'. But apparently he did not have tatoos, having had them removed according to other sources at the time, when he became 'religious'.

The lies about Al Zarqawi, the contradictions were amazing throughout his 'stint' as our greatest enemy. But our Corporate Media went along with it.

We have been told so many, many lies, and since no one has been accountable but rather PROTECTED, I am of the opinion that lying is the standard for this government. So forgive me if I, who followed all of this for years, saw the lies exposed one after the other, saw the media play along and even Dems who were either gullible or complicit, who knows, I believe NOTHING when it comes to our foreign invasions.

[Autumn]

87. That one, he sure was a good job creator. Every damn time we killed him someone else moved up

up into his spot. Every single time.

[MrMickeysMom]

108. Thank you, sabrina, for bringing up that article...

You are well resourced. For those who didn't link, this article is back from the summer of 2006...

Now that “civil war” has spread over Iraq, as engineered (the idea is to break up Iraq into three ethnic and religious pieces), the Pentagon may want to move on from the al-Zarqawi PSYOP program. “Has the US created, as part of a covert intelligence operation, a bogus ‘resistance movement’ made up of its own Al Qaeda sponsored ‘terrorists’? Their suicide attacks target Iraqi civilians rather than the US military,” Michel Chossudovsky writes.

The suicide bombings tend to encourage sectarian divisions not only within Iraq, but throughout the entire Middle East. They serve Washington’s interests. They contribute to undermining the development of a broader resistance movement uniting Shia, Sunni, Kurds and Christians against the illegal occupation of the Iraqi homeland. They also tend to create, at the international level, divisions within the antiwar and peace movements.

Moreover, the disinformation campaign also permeates the Iraqi and Middle East press. The latter tend to take the alleged Al Zarqawi’s statements published on the internet at face value. The Zarqawi threat to the Shia is seen as genuine. The links between Al Qaeda in Iraq and US intelligence is rarely mentioned.

What is it about the Pentagon and CIA that blindsight those who claim to live in a democracy? We were warned before Chelsea Manning. We were warned by Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address and before that by Smedely Butler. Yet, when the Psyops programs are pointed out, and the questions go ignored in due process, whistle blowing material somehow morphs into "Reynolds Wrap" conversation. Really?

[cui bono]

76. Has no one reported on that anywhere?

I must admit to not having followed this as closely as I should have. Playing catch up now.

[questionseverything]

91. some sources are saying they are financed by the Saudis and by kuwait

here is recent article about their finances

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014827050

[Chathamization]

79. Yep. Being sold a fairytale again. My guess is that they're not that powerful and they're part of a

larger rebellion in Sunni areas against the sectarian government in Baghdad. After the invasion, we told the Iraqi military to screw off, and many of them fought us in Anbar for years. Then we decided to pay some of them off to stop fighting us (the Sunni awakening). Anbar and other Sunni dominated areas quieted down considerably. Then the US left and the sectarian Maliki government pushed out the Sunni militias and went after Sunni leadership. Now the Sunni militias are fighting the government again in Sunni areas. A month ago they were fighting in Sunni areas close to Baghdad, and we were told that Baghdad was about to fall. Now they're fighting in Sunni areas close to Kurdistan, and we're told that Kurdistan is about to fall.

And like you said, not much talk about the Shiite death squads or the fact that the Kurds just conquered Kirkuk. It's hard to be sanguine about our military operations there when we're stuck in the "forget about history, this is good vs. evil, don't tell me anything else" mindset.

[sabrina 1]

123. Good post, some of us aren't suffering from amnesia regarding what has gone on in Iraq

over the past few years.

Maliki is the cause of the over two year uprisings across Iraq, which we ignored for some reason, I mean HIS role in it, his treatment of the Sunnis, the huge demonstrations that were going there, the shooting and torture of those who dared to peacefully demonstrate. Which btw, Manning reported and ended up in jail rather than those who were responsible. Now it makes sense WHY her reports were ignored and why she was told to be quiet.

Good post, 'fool me once, .... I can't be' to quote one of our 'patriots' who only tortured because he was afraid.

[woo me with science]

127. Thank you.

[grahamhgreen]

113. They were funded by the Saudi's and other oil rich Sunni countries.

[grahamhgreen]

114. Then a bunch of Sunni generals abandoned equipment for them.

[freedom fighter jh]

17. +1

[Comrade Grumpy]

27. You don't need to make up propaganda about how bad ISIS is.

They do it themselves.

And they are atrocious. You should check out some of their videos. That is, if you're really into mass murders, mass executions of surrendered prisoners, heads on pikes, stoning to death, destruction of holy sites (at least they're ecumenical in that regard), genocide against apostates, forced concubinage, and all that.

[grahamhgreen]

29. But, torture is patriotic, no?

[Comrade Grumpy]

71. Are you talking to me?

I think the US resort to torture was atrocious and the perpetrators and the intellectual authors should be prosecuted.

What that has to do with this thread, I don't know.

[sabrina 1]

43. What are we doing to help the victims of murder in Libya since we left? Would you support

a humanitarian effort there to stop the killings, detentions, torture of Libyans by the rampaging radicals we supported? How about the Congo, speaking of brutal killings? Why ONLY Iraq, who not go around the world and defend all the innocents being brutalized and tortured by radical regimes.

Better yet, how about we stop supporting some of them, like Bahrain and Uzbekistan which is ruled by a torturing dictator?

And how about we round up our own War Criminals who are the cause of all that is happening in Iraq right now? Why didn't we STOP the slaughter of so many innocent Iraqis when WE COULD HAVE? The torture, the maiming, the displacement of over 4 MILLION Iraqis still living in Refugee Camps in Syria (now under attack AGAIN) and Jordan?

Why is this different to what has been done by US to those unfortunate people?

[Comrade Grumpy]

75. So many questions.

1. Libya. Yeah, we helped fuck that place up pretty good. And it's a mess right now. But ISIS has killed more people in a day than have died in the last month of fighting in Libya.

2. The Congo. NOBODY gives a shit about the Congo. I've posted about the SIX MILLION people killed in political violence there since 1998. It sinks like a stone. There's more outrage when somebody mistreats a dog.

3. Iraq. I'm an anti-imperialist. I did not support the Iraq war (in part precisely because of fears that it would lead to shit like this). I certainly don't support a renewed US military presence there. But I also see ISIS as not only murderous and barbaric, but an existential threat to the entire region, and beyond, if they are not snuffed out. It makes me a bit queasy to see US jets dropping bombs there, but all I can say is I hope they are well-aimed and do the job. And then we back away.

4. Bahrain and Uzbekistan. I'm all for not supporting them.

5. Rounding up war criminals. Obama wanted to look forward, not backwards. I mistake, in my opinion. And he's still doing the same shit with regard to the torturers.

[mbperrin]

38. AND they gassed their OWN PEOPLE!!!

NEVER FORGET!!!!

[SidDithers]

41. Carry on, brave internet warrior...nt

Sid

[Zorra]

55. In my country, the wise ones have two sayings for those who beat the drum for war.

The first is

Either sign the fuck up, or shut the fuck up.

The second is

Fuck the Queen.

[neverforget]

81. when is Canada going to send jets/troops to fight

ISIS in Iraq? Pretty easy for you to say sitting in the safe confines of Canada.

[Pholus]

4. These aren't the same evildoers it was wrong to go after last time....

Cue the Jon Stewart "W" laugh...

[malaise]

6. And then they woke up

and wondered...what happened this time???

[elias49]

8. They never really wake up. There's the rub.

Bad case of sleep apnea.

[TheSarcastinator]

9. and those of us who stayed awake the whole time are left to despair

of the future.

Progress is a lie.

[zeemike]

18. Yes it is.

And welcome to DU.

[Cyrano]

7. This time I disagree with you, Manny

From what I can see, this ISIS bunch really seems crazy. Even Howard Dean said last night, on MSNBC, that these people are insane. And he agrees with what Obama has done so far.

I was against every single thing that the Bush/Cheney criminals did regarding Iraq and I always believed we should get out asap. However, there is a humanitarian situation this time -- tens of thousands of people trapped on a mountain who will be murdered if they come down. That's called genocide and it would be unconscionable to not do what we can.

There is also the fact that we have Americans in Erbil who may need to be evacuated. Add to that the Kurds who have been staunch allies to us for a variety of reasons. We should arm them with whatever is needed to stop ISIS in that area and then get the hell out of the way.

What I am against is U.S. troops on the ground for any reason.

I can understand your skepticism after we've been lied to so many times, but I don't think this time is about oil or making our weapons sellers wealthier. Obama is in spot he doesn't want to be in and the GOP will find a way to hurl a ton of shit at him no matter what he does. I think we have to stand by him for now, as long as this thing doesn't escalate.

[sabrina 1]

45. If we wanted to stop the slaughter of the Iraqi people, over one million of them, and the

displacement of over 4 million, who fled OUR BRUTAL invasion and are still living in Refugee camps in Jordan and up to recently, in Syria who took them in but where they are now victims of the extremists THERE, every single person who was an elected official during that time would have voted to STOP THE FUNDING for that slaughter.

So far our killing and displacement and torture, sometimes to death, of Iraqis, has gone without consequences and it was supported by a majority of our elected officials. So to ask to now believe that our government suddenly cares about the Iraqi people is asking a bit too much.

We have been the cause of all of this, how on earth can we be the ones to stop it? We can't, we won't and I hope I am wrong, for the sake of the people who have so wronged for so long.

[Stardust]

93. This whole thing smells...at first, I was all for helping those poor people trapped on a mountain.

Then after reading more, it appears that those poor people also engage in stoning. Maybe not the ones trapped up there, and maybe it happened long ago, but it begs the question: why are we suddenly so concerned about Iraqis' well-being? And the sudden concern over Irbil? I'd never even heard of that city and now it's some fabulous stronghold that we can't bear to lose??? And somehow we've forgotten how to evacuate State Dept. personnel before the bad guys reach them? It all stinks to high heaven and I suspect there's a whole lot of money involved.

[sabrina 1]

107. Exactly. Remember when we used to be slammed by the Bushbots for saying that the Iraq

invasion was all about OIL? You did not dare mention that it was all about OIL. And then we learned about the deal with Maliki the Bush puppet. We didn't learn it from Congress, no, we learned about it from Dennis Kucinich.

Maliki, in opposition to the will of the Iraqi people, who DID know about that deal, was about to sign an agreement that would hand over control of more than 80% of Iraq's oil to Global Oil Corps.

It was a 'hidden clause' in a bill that I believe was to hand over control to Maliki but was held up, it turned out because they were waiting for Maliki to sigh the OIL agreement.

I couldn't wait to go tell my Right Wing Bush supporters, guess what WE WERE RIGHT, it WAS about Oil after all.

Kucinich was threatened with censure if he continued to talk about the 'secret clause', but it was too late, we proven right, it WAS almost all about controlling ME oil.

[Stardust]

109. Good ol' "Operation Iraqi Liberation." So obvious what the whole thing was about that it's

laughable.

[rhett o rick]

104. Of course Charlie Brown, this time is for real. Lucy won't pull the ball away.

If your point is that there may some time be a case when the US should intervene, I might agree. But I want to know what the criteria is. Why Iraq and not other similar circumstances? And do we leave this very important decision up to the President?

[bigtree]

10. talk about doing good

“All the talk used to be about doing people good, now it is about doing people”

- Mark Twain

[RobertEarl]

11. Yeah, its getting much better

This time we may kill a just minority of innocents.

If we can just get the kill rate below 50% innocents it will all be good.

Practice makes perfect!

[woo me with science]

13. Rumsfeld: "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months"

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
--Donald Rumsfeld, November 14, 2002

"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months"
-- Donald Rumsfeld, February 7, 2003

"I think it will go relatively quickly. Weeks rather than months."
-- Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003

"No one is talking about occupying Iraq for five to ten years."
-- Richard Perle, March 9, 2003

"It could be that, absolutely."
-- George W. Bush, when asked of the United States would have troops in Iraq for the next ten years, January 11, 2008

Source: The War in Quotes, by G.B. Trudeau, p. 40-41 Oct 1, 2008

[Jackpine Radical]

15. Well, fer Chrissake, Perle was absolutely right.

Nobody WAS talking about occupying Iraq for 5 to 10 years.

[woo me with science]

20. Boy, they sure weren't.

Just like they aren't, now.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

118. My kid graduates high school in ten years ....

I suspect she will be reading similar stories then as we are today. And perhaps she'll also read about yet another U.S. carrier in the works.

Empire ain't good for the health of the Republic. But it greatly enriches a certain few.

[leftstreet]

23. Obama: "This will be a long-term project"

President Barack Obama made a statement from the White House on Saturday to discuss the ongoing military operations taking place in Iraq to combat jihadists affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS or ISIL). In his statement, Obama reiterated his claim American airstrikes and humanitarian efforts are focused on two "immediate" goals — protecting diplomatic personnel and military advisors in the Iraqi city of Erbil and providing aid and protection to members of the Yazidi religious minority trapped on a mountain in the northern part of the country by ISIS fighters. However, the president declined to commit to a specific timetable for military operations in Iraq.

"This will be a long-term project," Obama said.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-admits-us-underestimated-isis-2014-8#ixzz39ugITkVC

FFS he sounds like a CEO

[woo me with science]

26. Good god. nt

[sabrina 1]

47. Here's a better suggestion regarding the 'diplomatic personnel', they just did it in Libya

that other 'glorious victory' people here were cheering for btw, REMOVE the personnel and then let someone with a better record of success at humanitarian interventions, take over. Our record could not be more dismal.

[Laelth]

14. You are right to note that we may very well end up at war again.

This time, however, I think the use of military force is warranted.

Those of us on the left were right in 2003. Bush's Iraq war was stupid and has caused untold and unnecessary human suffering. Nevertheless, we broke Iraq, and I feel we have a continuing duty to fix it.

More (specifically regarding President Obama's decision to aid the Kurds) here.

-Laelth

[TheKentuckian]

22. No, our first duty is to stop making it worse which we have continuously failed to do

Our actions in the region have been a fucking bust INCLUDING under Obama and we have fanned the shit out of the flames and made bad worse. Syria and Libya contribute significantly here. We have to just stop.

Nothing happening is a surprise, this is the path of destiny we placed this country on. If you felt this way then why support leaving in the first place? Probably because we cannot stay forever and haven't a clue on how to fix shit but are easily baited right back in as soon as the horror stories start.

[Cyrano]

24. Can't agree with you

See my post #7 above.

I believe that we have a minimum responsibility here. Bill Clinton said his biggest regret was not stepping in to stop the genocide in Rwanda. I believe we'll all regret it if tens of thousands are massacred while we do nothing.

Nonetheless, I believe we should do what we can and then get the hell out.

And I'm also wondering where the hell the U.N. is at this moment.

[woo me with science]

35. It's time to stop imagining what we wish the MIC would do, and look at the actual record.

You have to ignore all of MIC recent history to believe that we will "do what we can and get the hell out." Obama even said today that the commitment in Iraq is open-ended.

We have a long history by which to evaluate the behavior of the MIC. This is part of a well-established pattern of crisis, intervention, destabilization, and crisis. It is a cycle, and it is linked to the military INDUSTRY which profits from it all. We have to stop reacting to the crises that the MIC's own behavior creates.

I'm going to link again to this post by JackRiddler that I think should have hundreds of recommendations:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025355401

Add in the one by IchingCarpenter for good measure: We are at this point bombing our own guns:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025359142

The MIC's own behavior ensures the continuation of this cycle of violence. As JackRiddler's post points out, there are things they could do to show good faith in actually trying to end the violence rather than perpetuating this cycle, but their behavior, and the behavior of US politicians, does exactly the opposite.

It's a racket. It's shock doctrine. We're always reacting to a crisis we helped create, and we ignore the ones behind the scenes getting filthy rich from it all. Meanwhile, our country is hollowed out from all our money being poured into war.

No. It's time to end it.

[ReRe]

98. ^^^^K&R^^^^ n/t

[littlemissmartypants]

111. Ditto. eom

[swilton]

36. Why does 'fixing' Iraq have to be done with the military?

just asking?

Couldn't we have just as easily spent the money going to the MIC on Iraqi health care and infrastructure which have been destroyed by bombing (to include DU and cluster munitions) for the past two decades.

[Laelth]

53. I can't address what we should have done differently.

There are millions of different paths we could have taken. I am more interested in what we are going to do now. I think we should help the Kurds. I also think we should crush IS before it grows.

-Laelth

[sabrina 1]

49. We continued to support the dictator Maliki, despite warnings of his brutal treatment

of the Sunni population there, warnings that came from, wait for it, Chelsea Manning eg.

Among others. And we are STILL supporting the puppet that has caused all of this by brutalizing those who actually believed the 'democracy' claims, at least for a while, and thought they could protest peacefully, with signs, like other democracies. Maliki ordered them shot and arrested and detained and TORTURED according to Manning and others.

We ignored it.

When Iraqis tried to join the Arab Spring protests (yes, we never heard about that on our Corporate Media) another brutal crackdown took place. It was so sad to read their websites, they had so much hope back then.

So, since we are supporting the Maliki dictatorship which is part of the reason for these latest Iraq problems, how on earth can WE help to end it?

[Laelth]

52. I am no fan of Maliki.

That said, he is the elected leader of the democratic government in Iraq that we created after we toppled Saddam Hussein. I think it unconscionable of us not to support the Shiite government of Southern Iraq when that government was, in fact, an American brainchild. We created that government, and I think we have a duty to support it (at least to some extent).

I don't buy the argument that the use of American arms always makes things worse. Sometimes that is true, and other times it's not. In 2003, we blew it. With that I agree, but that does not necessarily mean that we may never use American military might for fear of worsening a given situation.

In this case, the Kurds are defenseless, and nobody is willing to help them. We caused the situation that has led to their weakness at the moment, and I think we have a humanitarian duty to help. Besides which, IS is an existential threat to the entire Middle East. I'd rather address them now ... before they become more powerful and established.

-Laelth

[sabrina 1]

56. Over a year ago, people were calling for Maliki to step down as his brutal treatment

and isolation from participation in the so-called 'democracy' we 'created' of a large segment of the Iraq population had resulted in some of the worst violence across the country since the war was in full progress.

Rational voices made the case that he, BEING THE CAUSE of the violence, could not possibly resolve the problems and in the best interests of PREVENTING exactly what is now happening, predicted and predictably, he should be asked to step down.

We continued to support him despite all the warnings not to mention the EVIDENCE readily available to anyone still watching, which I assume our government was doing.

Those voices were like cries in the dark but they had the solution to prevent this IF someone with the power to stop it before it was too late, had listened.

Reading back some of those appeals, I just feel sad because once again, we support the wrong people and then act surprised when things get to this point.

So, I have little faith that more bombing in Iraq is going to make things any better, in fact, just as I knew back in 2003, that an invasion of that country would be a disaster, for everyone.

We've had 11 years to resolve all of this. It wasn't difficult to see what was needed to stabalize the country, or to at least stop the current disaster from happening.

Sorry, but so long as Maliki remains in power, there is virtually no hope for that country to be anything other than a war zone. We should not help that to happen.

[Laelth]

58. We were stupid to think that Democracy would work well in Iraq.

Majority populations tend to treat minorities very poorly in democracies. Look how badly the U.S. treated its minorities for hundreds of years. Even now, there's a good argument that we treat our minorities pretty badly, yet we somehow figured that the majority Shiites in Iraq would protect the rights of minority Sunnis and Kurds?

That was a pretty stupid assumption, and it does not shock me to discover that the majority Shiites in Iraq, led by Maliki, have treated the Sunnis and the Kurds badly.

Still, we created the democratic government of Iraq--the same one that Maliki leads now. Are we not responsible for it? Are we not responsible for the injuries sustained by the people who have been harmed by our 2003 invasion? Isn't this a mess that we, alone, created? Shall we just sit by and do nothing now?



There are no good answers here.

-Laelth

[sabrina 1]

60. Of course we are responsible, and despite how it looks, we succeeded in OUR goals,

we got control of Iraq's oil, remember Maliki signing over, over 80% of Iraq's oil to Global Oil Corps? Do you remember the Iraqis PROTESTING that selling of their country's resources? Do you remember the hold up in Congress waiting for Maliki to sign that, although WE didn't know about it until Dennis Kucinich blew the whistle and exposed what we were up to.

HE was threatened with 'discipline' if he continued to oppose that 'bill' which would hand over control to Maliki, with the hidden clause selling his country's resources to Global Cartels.

And now we are protecting what we 'fought for'. We ignored the violence over the past number of years until the oil wells seemed to be threatened by the unrest, the possible toppling of our puppet government.

IF we were to take responsibility for the ravaging of that country, we would not be bombing anyone, we would:

1) Start investigations into the liars who got us into this mess.

2) Join the voices demanding that Bush's puppet, Maliki step down in favor of a more moderate leadership, and yes, that could have been done. He did it for a while and it was working.

3) We can't undo the torture or bring back the dead but we could acknowledge these horrific crimes, continuing under Maliki and start prosecuting the guilty here and pay attention to Chelsea Manning's reports on who was doing it over there.

4) Money we will spend on bombs and the aftermath and then more bombs etc, should be spent on compensating the victims, which would mostly be the Sunnis.

What has enraged the Iraqis the most is what we did to them, what we took from them, and our support for Maliki. But most Iraqis wanted to move forward AFTER getting some justice, and with participation of all factions in the Government.

When that didn't happen, it opened the door for radical extremists to move in as was predicted.

I do not support US trying resolve yet another disaster we created by doing what created it in the first place.

[woo me with science]

99. This should be an OP.

Thank you, sabrina 1.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. And, we'll have the "unfortunate deaths", "human shields" speeches ready when we don't.

[GeorgeGist]

19. Don't worry, be happy ...

SuperCop™'s got Freedumb mist.

[PowerToThePeople]

21. F'ing moonbats

Don't they realize this is a new world after 9/11? Kill them there before they kill us here and all..

[msanthrope]

25. You know the funniest thing in your OP? Kiriakou is a torturer who defended

torture. And you spend time feeling sorry for him?

Look, Manny....if you've got a solution to help the 40k people on that mountain, why haven't you posted it?

[MannyGoldstein]

30. So you disagree with the contention that

the only jail time meted out in relation to torture - a war crime - is for disclosing the torture, not for the torture itself?

Or you agree with the statement, but you think it's funny?

Or that it doesn't matter, because everything is invalidated because of the person who released the information?

(I didn't have a solution for Iraq's nuclear program, either.)

[msanthrope]

37. He wasn't put in jail for exposing torture, Manny. He pled guilty to

violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Remember Scooter Libby?

Hell, I'm all for John getting more time if he was directly involved in torture. I just think it's hysterical that this is someone you are concerned about. Christ...a CIA operative writes a couple of letters on FDL, and all of a sudden, he's a hero.

Do you have a solution? Or just complaints?

[MannyGoldstein]

51. *Pled* guilty. Interesting.

Was it because he had a guilty conscience?

Or was there a plea bargain involved?

[msanthrope]

54. Of course there was a plea....he chickenshitted out from a trial after his

CIPA hearing and sang like canary when he realized the government had him.....and not for anything, but a five year jolt in federal prison is hard time.

Kiriakou is a liar and a poseur......and John Cole and Stephen Colbert eviscerated his lying ass way back:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/01/28/just-making-shit-up-7/

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/qqtebr/tip-wag---waterboarding---canada-s-history

[MannyGoldstein]

57. so the penalty for the crime he pled guilty to

is up to five years in prison? You sure about that?

[msanthrope]

59. Manny...instead of the rhetorical gambits, why not state your point?

Kiriakou agreed to talk, took a plea, and now, spends his time writing love letters to Snowden on FDL while he completes his time.

It's sad, but what's even sadder is watching the FDL crowd get trolled by a former CIA operative. And he does it well.

[MannyGoldstein]

62. Seems like I asked an inconvenient question.

It has a one-word answer.

[msanthrope]

66. Seems like you picked a CIA operative who defended torture as a poor

example in your OP.

Why not just admit that Kiriakou is a poor example of whatever point you were trying to make?

[MannyGoldstein]

77. LOL. Must be frustrating. nt

[msanthrope]

94. For you, perhaps. In the meantime, I am enjoying your current run. nt

[zappaman]

134. Me too.

[sabrina 1]

50. Maliki is a torturer, murderer and brutal dictator and our government is supporting HIM.

Do you have a solution to protect the victims who have been suffering under his brutal regime, the ones that are still alive that is, while we continue to support him?

[rhett o rick]

105. Are you stalking Manny? You seem not to have much to add, just here to get on Manny's case.

Do you support the bombing in Iraq?

[msanthrope]

115. I'm stalking Manny? Is that how he feels? nt

[rhett o rick]

131. It's how it looks.

[ClarkeVII]

28. I knew Manny would...

hit this out of the park. We've been at war with Iraq in-and-out for 24 years now. We need to rethink our domestic policy.

[Corruption Inc]

31. Neener neener, ritual chants, don't get santimonious, look forward, patriots torture folks

Thought I'd add a few to the list of things "realistic democrats" have said lately.

[SidDithers]

72. You forgot "propaganda paradigm". You've been using that one for years...nt

Sid

[Spitfire of ATJ]

32. You forgot to mention we got a liability contract signed so we can't get sued.

[MisterP]

34. he'll do all the wrong things for the right reasons! or maybe say "antiwar activism is the

creationism of the left wing!"

[Chathamization]

39. So you seriously want us to just stand by while Boko Haram slaughter innocents?

We need to #bringbackourgirls. What kind of heartless...oh wait, sorry, that was a couple months ago. Who's the big bad guy now? ISIS? Yeah, so anyway, you seriously want us to just stand by while...

[daleanime]

42. K&R....

[Initech]

44. Iraq War II: Electric Boogaloo Die Harder

[DocwillCuNow]

46. Mistified..... wow. Great minirant, k&r.

[marble falls]

48. Tough John McCain knows who the killers are: he's looked into their eyes .....

and then shook hands for photo ops:

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DHN.608039628449254117%26pid%3D15.1&f=1

[hughee99]

61. You mean "suspected militants" aren't the right people?

It seems like anyone killed by the US is either a top official in <insert group here> or at least, a "suspected militant".

[woo me with science]

80. To avoid counting civilian deaths, Obama re-defined "militant" to mean "all military-age males

Actually, that's part of the new rules!

Anybody male within a certain age range is OFFICIALLY a militant, simply by virtue of having been slaughtered by our bombs!

To avoid counting civilian deaths, Obama re-defined "militant" to mean "all military-age males in a strike zone."
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002741255


I guess it was supposed to make the PR a bit easier...

______________________________
War is a racket.

[MineralMan]

63. Try a straightforward approach to what you have to say, Manny.

That generally works better.

This post got you some recs, but it makes little sense. Some folks will rec anything you post, whether it says anything worthwhile or nor.

[MineralMan]

70. I suppose so.

I read Manny's threads, and sometimes comment in them. Rarely, however, do I find any useful ideas in them. Too bad. He seems like a clever person.

[sabrina 1]

103. A majority of DUers fully understand Manny's posts. The small minority who don't

get it, probably were not around during the Bush era when we all learned useful information as to how our government works.

It was a sad era, for those of us who tried, like Manny, to stop the damage before it was too late.

Oh well, I guess you had to be there, to use an old saying.

[pa28]

74. Hahaha

the magnificent F-35 all-purpose plane, the first plane to truly perform equally-well in any conditions, even when disassembled

[Shivering Jemmy]

78. Meh

Of course it will work. If the goal is killing mostly the right people and mostly degrading the military capabilities of those people it is almost guaranteed to work.

[DeSwiss]

86. K&R

[center][/center]

[littlemissmartypants]

112. Nice! nt

[woo me with science]

116. +1000000 The moral dumpster fire.

[Enthusiast]

89. Manny, I am encouraged that you now realize the USA is the greatest nation ever.

Even a foolish liberal can eventually see the errors of their way.

[blkmusclmachine]

90. So, who's profiting off our newest killing spree in Iraq???

Death = Profit

[sabrina 1]

106. Lots of mercenary groups, possibly our old friends Blackwater, or whatever they are calling

themselves lately and Caci, remember them?

Since we are not going to have 'boots on the ground', mercs can do what they did in Libya. I think Hillary explained it as a very clever NEW way to do things, to use 'proxy armies'. Lots of money in that business.

I'm not sure who paid the Qatar and Bahrain troops who were 'on the ground' in Libya. We provide the air cover, see Libya again and the 'proxy armies' do the 'ground work', though technically they are not 'boots on the ground' meaning not US troops. NATO didn't stick around in Libya once the oil wells were secured. And the carnage continued and is still ongoing today. I guess we really were not there to 'protect civilians', or we certainly haven't been there over the past few years as the country sank into chaos.

We'll have to see how much Congress approves for this.

And hopefully some actual journalist will check what Defense contracts are being handed out.

[woo me with science]

117. And the banks.

I mean, the bankers.

[sabrina 1]

124. Yes, when you think about it, it has all worked out the way the neocons told us

they wanted it to work out. Chaos in the ME, and remember the 'noble lie', Ledeen was the one whose hero was Machiavelli I believe.

Can't remember the quote from Rove about them being the world's 'actors' and we, trying to stop them or something, doing what we do, while they move on to the next 'act', leaving us floundering.

They WANTED this, forever war, arms sales, saw today on CNN that they are pushing to lift the arms embargo on the Kurds so they 'can fight Isis'. First we armed Isis, now we have to arm the Kurds. If I had no conscience and saw the 'business opportunities' here, I'd probably be salivating right now. Thankfully I have a conscience.

[bettyellen]

92. so, ya think we should stand around waiting for the genocide? Will that "work" for you? What will?

[MannyGoldstein]

95. Remember when I wanted to stand around waiting for

Saddam to gas more of his own people and build nukes?

Or when I wanted to stand around and wait for Gaddafi to murder Libya's anti-government protestors?

I'll bet there were people who just wanted to wait around and see Viet Nam fall to the Communists.

Sometimes waiting around is terrible, but the alternatives are worse.

[bettyellen]

122. Wow, so this thread IS about Manny! Well yeah, not interested.

[MannyGoldstein]

128. So you ask about *my* thoughts, I give you my thoughts,

then you say "Ha! It's about *your* thoughts!!!".

Shameful.

[bettyellen]

129. I asked WHAT you thought WOULD work better. And got no real answer.....

'cept me me me.

[m-lekktor]

96. those talking points dug out and brushed off from the free republic archives

sure come in handy 10 years later when a DEM president is dropping the bombs, eh Bettyellen?

[vlakitti]

97. Thank you!

Great comment.

[woo me with science]

101. Indeed.

[tabasco]

102. Waaaaah! The world's not a pacifist utopia!!!

[Autumn]

119. Yes indeed Manny. We can rest assured this will be a kinder, gentler bombing.

Bush is long gone.

[SylviaD]

120. ISIS scares me. n/t

[woo me with science]

121. K&R

[marble falls]

125. At least they'll look like the right people.

[KG]

130. we'll get it right this time!

because obama!