US Sends Warships and Airship Carrier to Arabian Gulf

Secretary of defense Chuck Hagel today ordered the aircraft carrier U.S. Bush to the Arabian Gulf, along with a guided-missile cruiser and guided-missile destroyer.

The Bush will be accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea and the guided-missile destroyer USS Truxtun. The ships are expected to complete their transit into the Gulf later this evening.

ISIS is conducting mass executions of soldiers. Today their supporters posted photos of truckloads of captured Shia soldiers in Tikrit, with accompanying text claiming ISIS rounded up and killed 1,700 soldiers.

< World Cup Day 3 | World Cup Day 4 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Horrible... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by fishcamp on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 06:08:01 PM EST

    Words fail (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 06:14:25 PM EST
    I don't think the Bush is going to be used for (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 06:21:13 PM EST
    Much more than evacuations.  This is horrible, but it is not new to Iraq.  This is the only way Sunnis have ever been able to created haven for themselves between Iran and Assad.  What we disturbed by removing a place of centralized power for Sunnis will be replaced, and most Sunnis will support it because they are second class citizens with Iran, Maliki, and Assad.

    This blood belongs to the Bush regime, and if we interfere we will in the end not make anything better.  We are the ones responsible for making Sunnis second class citizens in the region.

    You either don't know history (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 08:38:02 AM EST
    or,more like it, you don't want to admit it.

    The "region" was destabilized by Jimmy Carter removing support for the Shah of Iran and the subsequent take over by the radicals.

    Everything stems from that point.

    Without that the Soviets would not have tried to take over Afghanistan in an attempt to get access to a warm water port in Iran.

    We would not have assisted the Taliban in their fight with the Soviets.

    The Iraq-Iran war would not have occurred.

    We would not have assisted Saddam giving him the false belief that he could do as he liked which led to his invasion of Kuwait and our involvement.

    The violence in Lebanon would not have occurred and our attempt to stop the fighting would not have happened.

    Osama bin Ladin would not have been empowered and al Qaeda created as a backlash to our attempts to stop the terrorists and the subsequent attacks on the WTC and, finally, 9/11 and the deaths of 3000 or so Americans and our belief that Iraq had WMDs.

    And many other acts of terrorism.

    Tracy, you can have your opinion and you can attack Bush.

    But include the whole history and accept that it was a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, who midwifed the mess we are in now.



    Wow - first you support Carter, ... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 09:10:01 AM EST
    ... who, according to you, is responsible for everything bad that's happened in the MME, then you support Bush, who let's 9-11 happen and drives the economy into the Great Recession.

    Let us know who you're supporting so we'll know who we shouldn't vote for ...


    Yes, I did vote for Carter (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 11:34:36 AM EST
    He promised change and he was supposedly the smartest man in the world.

    But, I haven't repeated my mistake.

    You, OTOH, keeping doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

    Which, of course, is a definition of insanity.


    Yeah, because Carter and Obama (none / 0) (#54)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 08:33:57 PM EST
    ... are the only politicians who promise "change".

    OTOH - No one called Carter the "smartest man in the world" ... or Obama for that matter.  But you may be onto something ...no one's ever going to accuse the guys you support of the smartest in any group ... let alone the entire world.

    Heh, heh ...


    Well, yes... and they both delivered (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 10:48:04 PM EST
    change... only not the change that was expected....or wanted.

    Sort of like how Bush ... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 06:14:15 AM EST
    ... promised change and delivered 9-11 and economic collapse.

    When the Demos (3.00 / 2) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 06:38:52 AM EST
    took charge of both Houses unemployment was below 5%, gasoline around $2.00 and the market was rising.

    17 short months later unemployment was rising, the market was collapsing and gasoline $4.50...

    Of course there was no connection to their actions.

    (sarcasm alert!)


    When Bush "took charge" ... (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 07:18:03 AM EST
    ... there was no 9-11, no Iraq War, a budget surplus and the economy was great.

    Then you guys put him in office.


    When you were born gas was .25/gallon (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 12:52:58 PM EST
    Why Jim, why did you raise our gas prices?

    Dude (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 12:55:24 PM EST
    He's older than me and gas was 24 cents a gallon when I got my first car.  I'm thinking 10

    You Mecca me laugh. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by desertswine on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 11:26:04 AM EST
    If history is a guide, (none / 0) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 10:41:15 AM EST
    the destabilization should be tagged to the overthrow of Iran's elected government, August 19, 1953.  The coup that overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh was organized by the CIA (Operation Ajax).

    Mossaddegh proved to be a reformer for the time instituting many social changes.  However, he nationalized the British owned and operated Iranian oil industry, after the Brits rejected proposals for increased royalties. The British wanted the Americans to intervene on their behalf (they were unwilling to go it alone) but  Dean Acheson, Truman's Secretary of State opposed the idea of a coup, as urged by Winston Churchill. When when Eisenhower took office, John Foster Dulles, picked up on it and gave the green light, invoking socialistic leanings and the  possibilities of ties to Communists, more than enough evidence in the 1950's.   The resentment of that coup continues.  


    So to move it further back we can (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 11:56:53 AM EST
    blame the communists who were supporting Mossaddegh whose claim to be a reformer is unproven.

    The  facts are that the region was stable, outside the Israeli-Arab conflict, when Carter abandoned the Shah.

    The Shah was not a nice person but, at least, we had his ear and he was making some slow moves towards turning Iran into a 20th century democracy.

    And then we have the Palestinians, those people of a non-nation who achieved 90% of their demands at the 2000 Camp David conference but walked away preferring to remain under the wing of Iran.

    It is and has been a mess for quite some time.

    Interestingly enough I never see anyone blaming the conflict on the teachings of Islam. It is as if the Church of England was formed without anyone mentioning the Catholic Church's stand on divorce.

    So it boils down to this.

    Will the various sects of Islam reconcile their differences and opt for peace?

    As of this moment I don't see that happening. And truth be known, given the animosity, our presence and actions were not required to start the fighting.


    In my lifetime though (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 12:11:46 PM EST
    And based on competent leadership doing the next right thing, BUSH BROKE IT...HE OWNS IT.  He broke something that will take at least two generations and buckets of blood to re stabilize.  Everything horrible that was predicted to him that would happen to Iraq if he removed Saddam using military force has happened.

    The rest (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 04:37:41 AM EST
    of the story is that the Democrats let themselves be swept along by Bush's fear mongering. And the media did their share of whipping up hysteria and became mere loudspeakers for the propaganda of the likes of Bush and Cheney and an endless string of "Generals" brought out of mothballs (not unlike Jim) to cheer on the debacle and give it the semblance of respectability.

    So this mess is a joint effort: Bush at the helm - spreading lies to promote his rotten agenda, and a congress controlled by Democrats at the time that did not do its duty to fully investigate those lies before allowing that madman to destroy Iraq and to cause 100s of thousands of deaths.

    We still are mired there, despite Obama's having "ended" the war.

    So, he sends, ironically, laughably, "The Bush".

    It is to make the eyes spin.

    Definitely - this is on Bush.
    But the enablers in government and in the media will have a cozy berth next to him in Hades.


    MT, I know that "everything is about me" (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 12:21:40 PM EST
    is your basis for understanding things.

    But trust me.

    A lot happened before you came along.


    Once again (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 12:32:16 PM EST
    I cannot change the sins of my fathers.  In a reality based life one is most often left with choosing to do the next competent right thing, that is how adults have to live Jim, trust me.

    So I reiterate, under Bush's leadership it was spelled out to him clearly what would happen to Iraq if he removed Saddam using military force.  He thumbed his nose at everyone who cautioned him and probably even a few who made it into his psychotic bubble and pleaded with him, he did exactly what he wanted to do and now Iraq is a swimming in blood hell hole that can only destroy lives for a very long time.  Bush is likely the worst President this nation ever suffered.

    I'd like the opportunity to tell him what he can do with his paintbrushes and canvas.  Maybe give him a few birthing pains.


    Bush (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 01:10:09 PM EST
    likely will be the worst president the country has ever had. Even LBJ had some redeeming qualities like passing civil rights and voting rights. Bush has no redeeming values whatsoever. The list of his bad decisions are legendary already. No other president has ever sat around and joked about Americans dying in a Hurricane.

    Pans had mothers who (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 01:15:20 PM EST
    Didn't waste their beautiful minds.  I don't think I will ever recover from that woman saying that.

    How did Pans get there? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 01:17:36 PM EST
    This is what happens when you comment on politics while watching World Cup soccer.

    Pans is supposed to be And


    That and (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 01:17:57 PM EST
    saying that people living in tents in a stadium were "better off". What is with that family?

    Tracy (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 01:16:09 PM EST
    the truth of the matter is NOTHING we have ever done in the middle east has worked. It doesn't matter whether they were D or R.

    Even Gulf War I spawned Al Qaeda. Reagan thought training Osama Bin Laden was a great idea.


    MT, no. (3.00 / 2) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 03:52:51 PM EST
    This is not about the sins of your fathers. The comment was about how we got wherever it was we were and the results.

    If bin Ladin hadn't been empowered by the Soviets attacking Afghanistan... If bin Ladin hadn't been empowered by the attacks in Lebanon by the terrorists empowered by fall of the Shah and our attempts at making peace...

    etc., etc.

    It is a complex thing. Yet all you want to do is blame Bush. I say that you have no proof that Bush was told anything... I say that Bush attacked based on the information he had and that any President should have done the same... And I'll repeat that I disagreed with "nation building." You cannot build a nation  when the religion of the country is calling jihads but it is no PC to say that.

    Obama did inherit two wars. That is a fact. He has had 6 years and all he has done is make things unbelievably worse. He is no leader. He is a "community organizer."

    Unfortunately our enemies aren't slum landlords.

    He failed to properly conclude the one in Iraq and his telling the enemy in Afghanistan when we were leaving was the stupidest thing I have ever seen a CINC do.

    Accept that. And accept that we can expect inside the US attacks with substantial deaths because of this.


    Once again Jim (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 05:14:01 PM EST
    There is nothing I can do about the mistakes that my fathers made.  I can only do the next right competent thing, that was never ever removing Saddam via our military force.  If his country removed him fine.

    Knowing Iraq's history made that crystal clear too.


    He's having (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 08:42:12 PM EST
    a meltdown. He knows that Bush broke it and the American people are going to blame George W. Bush for this mess. He's twisting himself into a pretzel trying to blame everybody but Bush.

    Yes, that's true enough (3.00 / 2) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 11:02:52 PM EST
    but what Bush did was take information given to him by his intelligence, and other intelligence, agencies and based on that took action.

    I hope that any President would do the same. The safety of the country shouldn't be gambled with.

    Now, what else do we know??

    The No 2 man in the Iraqi air force has said WMD's were trucked to Syria.

    David Kay said that Saddam was trying to get back into the WMD business and in point of fact had rockets with the range to reach Israel. A clear violation of the UN agreement.

    For unknown reasons decided to stand and fight when it should have been obvious that we were going to invade if he didn't take our offer. Perhaps he had been watching Clinton pussy foot around and thought we were bluffing???

    You know, Obama has had 6 years and has just made things worse. And the cat's tail has followed the cat home. So you, GA and some others want to make this about Bush.

    You should tell your Dear Leader to put on some big boy pants and try leading.


    Ha ha ha ha ha! (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 07:42:09 AM EST
    What Bush did was cherry pick.  A high level intel officer testified to that before Congress :)

    Oh please... (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 01:08:28 PM EST
    ...what Bush did was take information given to him by his intelligence, and other intelligence, agencies and based on that took action.

    What Bush did was have an agenda.
    He had a personal vendetta against Saddam.
    He used 9/11 as a pretext to pursue that agenda.
    He glorified bad intel if it suited his agenda.
    He ignored better intel that undermined his agenda.
    He smeared those who presented him and the world with evidence that there were no wmds.

    He slaughtered 100s of thousands of innocents.
    He is responsible for many more deaths and injuries to Americans than Al Queda.
    He wrecked the American economy.


    Vanity (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 01:39:48 PM EST
    agenda at that

    18-storey Al-Rashid hotel in Baghdad was known for its mosaic tiles installed in the foyer, depicting George HW Bush. Tiles - a portrait of former U.S. president with an expression of surprise is made on the floor to the entrance to the hotel to make any visitor to walk on his face. After the invasion of Iraq, a mosaic was destroyed by U.S. soldiers.


    Great! (none / 0) (#94)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 04:47:58 PM EST
    Tiles on the floor of Poppy Bush so that people can walk on his face. Great idea.

    Next, I hope they put a statue up in some dismal park somewhere so that the birds can sh-t on it.


    Jim... (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 09:07:19 AM EST
    You can be so patronizing and insulting.
    Especially to MT.

    You may have something to say, but it is couched in such venom and self-promotion that I simply can't stand it.


    It's venomous but I don't even feel it (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 10:41:31 AM EST
    Jim thinks he knows some secret about the real military, and often he attempts to paint me as anti-soldier.  It doesn't even scrape my surface though.  We are the support system for a super competent hyper productive soldier in this house, and through him I am exposed to others because those types in service always attract each other.

    I don't know if everyone has seen Stonekettle Station yet, but here is the voice of obviously another hyper competent soldier.


     He knew his job, he knew his duty, he did both during the Iraq War and dealt with the insane cognitive breach between the two during the war....and he made it out sane.  Hopefully one we don't have to fret about.  One of our best friends retired a Colonel out of Army intel, he was plagued by so much guilt over Iraq he shot himself to death two years ago.  Waited until we had to take Josh to Atlanta for halo traction because he loved my husband and wanted him to not be available to have to clean up the mess.

    What Jim says to me about all this, it just doesn't  matter,


    Jim (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 11:12:11 AM EST
    is like a rat that has been cornered and faced with failure of his beloved fantasy policy and his beloved Bush and Cheney he is lashing out at everybody and blaming everybody except the ones that are responsible for getting into his mess.

    And there is no stomach in this country to continue a failed policy that he and few others still believe in because the rest of us know it was a bad decision from the start. Left to conservatives the Iraq war would still be going on, we would still be losing thousands of Americans over there and squandering trillions of dollars.


    Left to them (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 11:15:44 AM EST
    There would be a draft

    Which many of (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 11:44:00 AM EST
    their privileged kids would manage to get out of.

    You hate Bush (none / 0) (#100)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:50:58 PM EST
    Saying it a thousand times isn't changing anybody's minds.

    I didn't vote "for" Bush, I voted against Kerry, not a unique position in politics. Its a pragmatic arena, not a pool with purity on one end and evil on the other.


    It's more like a gene pool (none / 0) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:52:43 PM EST
    And you like the shallow end

    Is this (none / 0) (#102)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 11:01:25 PM EST
    personal insult Friday for you?

    The endless task of defending Obama makes Liberals so cranky.


    It does (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 11:06:12 PM EST
    It really does.  It's such a burden.

    Blaming Bush (1.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 07:52:34 PM EST
    Obama has six years, puts the bulk of the middle east in chaos and you think this is about Bush. Amazing, but still just party line baloney. This is Obama's fubar, and a direct result of his actions in the last two years.

    Obama did not destabilize the region (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 08:17:34 PM EST
    And once all the stabilizing secular institutions and structures  were destroyed, they can only start over again through pain and suffering because those social groups were formed through such compromise.  George Bush deliberately turned Iraq into a secular hell hole, now that poor country has to go through all the incredible bloodshed all over again before its citizens communally embrace they want lives greater than and beyond the horror of secularism.

    The Bush regime did this, and no single American President could ever fix what took a couple of generations for a social structure to evolve into through humanism compromises.


    Sorry...meant to type (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 08:21:02 PM EST
    George Bush deliberately turned Iraq into a sectarian hell hole.

    Don't interrupt (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 08:35:38 PM EST
    when a Bush apologist is shooting himself in the foot. For some reason they can't remember that it was a mess even before Obama took over.

    I know, it was awful (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 08:44:48 PM EST
    The Army had been crushed too.  When Obama announced we were sticking to the leave date, those serving had an end in sight.  They struggled toward it, but at least we stopped  hemorrhaging troops.  And we even had some return and new enlistments we he announced his plan for Afghanistan, because there are people who really care about doing what they can to face what endangers our nation.  Who wants to die for the oil guys plans though to steal a country's oil? Turned out practically no one!  

    Segue: oil. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 10:43:56 PM EST

    From late 2007 until the end of 2008, the battalion had safeguarded the huge refinery at Baiji, often described as the most valuable asset in the country's three heavily Sunni provinces in the north.



    I am not surprised one soldier wanted (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 11:03:09 PM EST
    To aid the Kurds and begin to fight ISIS through them.  It is a clean alliance for reasons that escape me, I suppose you would have had to have been there to understand. When I told my husband that the Kurds took Kirkuk he mumbled something about the only sane people there.  He is also very bonded to the Kurds, probably for reasons he can't even put into words.

    "Oil" Someone should redo Edwin Starr's (none / 0) (#81)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 09:18:41 AM EST
    1969 protest song, War, with that as the title.

    If President Obama and the (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 01:39:40 PM EST
    Democrats have any culpability in the disaster that is Iraq, it was being too magnanimous and/or too concerned that Republicans would  be divisive.  

    Among Nancy Pelosi's first words after the midterm elections in 2006, were that "impeachment (of Bush) was off the table--a license for the Bush administration to continue as they were doing. And, after Barack Obama was elected, he claimed that we needed to look forward not backward--giving not just a get-out-of jail-free card to Bush, Cheney, Rummny et. al., but also, a national void in accountability for, perhaps, the worst foreign policy disaster in our history.  

    A serious matter, for sure, with danger of revenge for the next, in-coming administration of the opposition party.  However, at a minimum, there should have been a broad investigation  (not just the specific issue of alleged torture) into mounting a war in Iraq on fraudulent premises and deceiving Congress to authorize invasion.  And, to fund it off the books, to boot.  

    The investigation, and a trial, would not be aimed just at individual official(s) but at identifying mis-steps and possible crimes  so as to inform  and reform future foreign and military policy strategies.

    If a trial outcome resulted in a conviction, it would be better to then pardon the official rather than not to have had the trial at all.   If an investigation and/or trial resulted in exoneration, that too would be important for the nation. While accountability for actions would not quiet Republican war mongers, it would put a judicially sanctioned truth to the official lies.

     Moreover, for members of the media who were cheerleaders for the Iraq invasion, a list should be promulgated so that their latest war chants could be put into the perspective of very likely being, once again, wrong.  


    But Dan, there was such an investigation (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 02:08:13 PM EST
    That produced the Taguba Report.  And military culture did change for regulars, while McChrystal did what the beltway still thought needed to happen to really bad Iraqi apples (who still had never done anything to Americans on a American soil) at black sites.

    Something that nobody is talking about is that Baghdadi Qaida, the leader of ISIS, was probably spawned at camp Bucca.  Camp Bucca was the new improved not torturing Abu Ghraib, where we locked up Sunnis who wouldn't go gently into that 2nd class citizen goodnight.  And then when we had everything "just so", we released those silly verklempt trouble makers into freedom so they could enjoy a normal 2nd class citizen life.


    Agreed. General Taguba's (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 02:21:54 PM EST
    report was very good and resulted in changes.  I was thinking of a broader investigation--one that comes with an impeachment inquiry.  

    Well they weren't going to do (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 02:23:26 PM EST
    That because Pelosi and Reid had been in the torturing briefed loop.

    And we don't know that Baghgdadi (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 02:27:26 PM EST
    Was at Abu Ghraib, but we don't know what sort of interrogations were done to him, nor do we know what sort of interrogations were done to those jailed with him at Bucca who had been transferred from Abu Ghraib.

    Man....not a lick of high ground in sight, just lots of blood now.


    Tracy, your continual (1.00 / 3) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 03:35:19 PM EST
    apologizing for Suni's leads me to question.

    Do you approve of what ISIS is doing??


    Sorry, not enough (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 04:46:05 PM EST
    That is the sickest most personally viscous filth I have ever seen on this site.
    You do not get to say such a thing to a member of a military family.
    Please PLEASE stop responding to this.  Everyone.  If it wants to rant let it.  There is not a reader of this site who will not recognize the source.   Response is really not necessary.  If correction is irresistible do it in a separate comment and don't engage it. It will soon tire of arguing with itself.


    Tracy your continual apologizing for Suni's leads me to question.
    Do you approve of what ISIS is doing??

    Is not ok.  It is beneath this site and everyone who reads it.


    Yes, it's just facts (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 07:24:47 PM EST
    What happens when you through military force arrest, send to camps, interrogate, and marginalize an ethnic or religious group?  

    When we arrived in Iraq our forces in the Sunnni triangle were given lists of people to immediately arrest along with the deck of cards, remember the deck of cards?  My spouse wanted a deck of cards because these were key dangerous people he was supposed to be looking for the minute he hit country. But because he was not on the ground and only flying support overhead he did not rate a deck of cards.  Now I just wish he had been given one so we could go through it for the blatant lies.

    Just like how we wound up with people at Gitmo who were really there because the war lord they fought against in Afghanistan somehow got to submit their name,  we arrested and interrogated Sunnis that curveball and associates....who wasn't Chalabi and associates...wanted expediently removed from the gameboard.

    There is nothing magical about how ISIS came to be.


    Just my opinion... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by unitron on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 08:47:18 PM EST
    ...but are you sure you aren't confusing explanation with apology?

    I don't approve of the IRA bombing Harrod's in London but that doesn't mean I think anyone who tries to explain why Irish Catholics might be angry with England is automatically a terrorist sympathizer and enabler.


    When you do it twice (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 10:42:47 PM EST
    it raises questions

    That is nothing but crude innuendo, Jim (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 09:25:27 AM EST
    You take a lot of heat for expressing your opinion around here, but that comment crossed a line that I haven't seen you cross before.

    You may want to retract that comment and apologize.


    Tracy, as your friend (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 04:18:55 PM EST
    Please stop dignifying this idiots sick offensive bike with response.  It's beneath you.  No one here believes this.  

    That would be sick offensive BILE (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 04:19:39 PM EST
    But you knew that

    I bet his bike is offensive too (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 07:03:28 PM EST
    You know it has playing cards clothes pinned to frame around a tire.

    Sorry. Really not trying to make rules (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 07:05:25 PM EST
    That comment just blew my skirt way up.

    France scored so I have a moment of free time (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 02:52:16 PM EST
    See it while you can, because if the "who is ISIS" discussion broadens this will disappear down the memory hole.

    Camp Bucca Riots

    What a mess, if I'm not careful I'll end up turning Jeralyn into a Baghgdadi sympathizer :)


    You're absolutely right (4.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 08:25:12 PM EST
    Obama is responsible for his invasion of Iraq after he sold the war on false pretenses.  He's responsible for negotiating and signing the SOFA that set the timetable for withdrawing US forces from Iraq.  He bears responsibility for the power vacuum he created and civil conflict that has resulted.

    Oh, ... wait ...


    I wonder what it was that Obama failed (3.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 08:28:19 PM EST
    To do that caused this?

    He failed (3.67 / 3) (#13)
    by nycstray on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 08:49:47 PM EST
    to be an old rich white Republican. But he did get the male part right  . . .

    Who knows (3.67 / 3) (#14)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 08:54:03 PM EST
    The best part about being a conservative dealing with fantasies rather than facts is that all you need is a good imagination.  Actually, not even that ... just some links to WND/Drudge/NR and some talk radio time.

    What (3.00 / 2) (#17)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 07:31:19 AM EST
    you have written is so dumb, so ignorant, so numbingly unintelligent one has to wonder if your post is a put-on, or whether you were under water or comatose during the entirety of 2002 and 2003.

    Your tolerance of other views (none / 0) (#98)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:30:19 PM EST
    is humorous.

    The unending lack of ability to find any fault in the dear leader continues to amaze me, even more so than the dogma of its all Bush's fault.

    What is it that Obama did SIX YEARS ago to fix this massive problem you now blame on Bush? Took the war to Afghanistan.


    But but but... I thought it was Bush who said (none / 0) (#19)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 08:39:37 AM EST
    on May 1, 2003, "Mission Accomplished!"

    This was Bush's war.  Quit being his enabler and admit the straight up truth - what Bush and Cheney and Rummy and Rice did was wrong from the get-go, beginning with attacking the country.  Their strategy was wrong. Their ideas were wrong.  They didn't get anything right yet you want someone else to fix what they broke?  The sad truth is Iraq can't be made into a democracy which is the so-called original intent of the war.  I think the current situation is one the US cannot fix, and that we should stay out of it.  You really need to ask yourself why you're angry at Obama when your anger should be directed at Bush and Co.  


    If Obama did the exact (none / 0) (#99)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:39:05 PM EST
    same thing you would be singing its wisdom.

    I see ISIS has captured some of the WMD that don't exist.

    Reality seems a bit harsh on the left lately.


    I don't respond directly to it any more (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 08:59:01 AM EST
    But sometimes it says something so mind bendingly ignorant and offensively stupid it requires a response.  
    Like the problems in the Middle East are all on Carter for opposing the bloody tyrant the Shaw.  Got forbid any blame should be shared by the people who installed him--

    The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, was the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and his cabinet on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name 'Operation Boot') and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project).[3][4][5][6]

    Mossadegh had sought to reduce the semi-absolute role of the Shah granted by the Constitution of 1906, thus making Iran a full democracy, and to nationalize the Iranian oil industry, consisting of vast oil reserves and the Abadan Refinery, both owned by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, a British corporation (now BP).[7][8][9] Following the coup in 1953, a military government under General Fazlollah Zahedi was formed which allowed Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran (Persian for an Iranian king),[9] to effectively rule the country as an absolute monarch according to the constitution. He relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.[7][8][9][10] In August 2013 the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda.[11][12] The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government." [13]

    In 1951, Iran's oil industry was nationalized with near-unanimous support of Iran's parliament in a bill introduced by Mossadegh who led the nationalist party the National Front. Iran's oil had been controlled by the British-owned AIOC.[14] Popular discontent with the AIOC began in the late 1940s: a large segment of Iran's public and a number of politicians saw the company as exploitative and a central tool of continued British imperialism in Iran.[7][15] Despite Mosaddegh's popular support, Britain was unwilling to negotiate on its single most valuable foreign asset, and instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Iran economically.[16] Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, then the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott[17] while using Iranian agents to undermine Mosaddegh's government.[18] With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Winston Churchill and the Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor Truman administration had opposed a coup.[19] Classified documents show British intelligence officials played a pivotal role in initiating and planning the coup, and that AIOC contributed $25,000 towards the expense of bribing officials.[20]

    Or for that matter (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 09:15:34 AM EST
    The history of imperialism and colonialism in the area that preceded him

    Agreed. Sorry, (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 10:48:19 AM EST
    Captain, I did not get down to your comment before I found it necessary to respond to the  Foxified history--not for the commenter, but for the record.   You did a better and more thorough job of it.

    Well any policy initiative or idea anywhere (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 17, 2014 at 11:13:23 AM EST
    from 1950 practically to the present that conservatives don't like is "communist"..

    Mossedegh was a communist, Arbenz in Gautamala was a communist, MLK was a dang communist..



    An attempt to repeal Bush era Iraq AUMF (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 09:51:10 AM EST
    is progressing, according to Justin Raimondo at AntiWar.com.

    The present mess in Iraq has "Made in Washington" written all over it. But not everyone in Washington is crazy, and the proof is a bipartisan effort to repeal the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Iraq. Cosponsored by Senators Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York), the measure has widespread support, including from some very conservative Republicans like Mike Lee (R-Utah).

    Nothing like being anti-war (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 12:02:12 PM EST
    Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accept the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay-and claims a halo for his dishonesty."

    ― Robert Heinlein


    Sort of like ... (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 08:44:41 PM EST
    ... like cheering for others to go to war from the comfort of your LaZ-Boy?  Or joining a Champagne Unit?

    Sorry Yman the Parser (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 11:05:11 PM EST
    before I found that Lazy Boy I did 10 years, which is much more than you did.

    Of course I guess those demonstrations carry those signs were hard on the hands.



    Still punching the hippies, Jim? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 12:37:27 AM EST
    Another (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 04:38:27 AM EST
    piece of irrelevance from Jim.

    Your personal history is not the topic here.

    It is the war in Iraq.


    Then tell Yman to stop the personal (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 06:45:48 AM EST

    Your (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 06:54:34 AM EST
    personal history is not the subject here.

    You did 10 years ... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 06:18:51 AM EST
    ... in war, ... in actual combat?!?

    Heh, heh, heh ...


    What ever I did (1.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 06:40:49 AM EST
    was more than you.

    Nice quote. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 04:22:23 AM EST
    But, as usual, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand:

    Oh, really??? (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 06:47:35 AM EST
    I must have imagined this.

    An attempt to repeal Bush era Iraq AUMF

    What, (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 06:56:20 AM EST
    in your mind, does the potential repeal of the AUMF, have to do with pacifism?

    Heck (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 07:59:00 AM EST
    Jim even far right Paul Broun is helping to appeal the AUMF. It seems you are in a fantasy world where everybody likes the AUMF, Bush was wondeful etc.

    Heinlein is "claiming a halo" (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 17, 2014 at 10:57:26 AM EST
    for being a classic black shirt fascist if he's saying that citizens can't make valuable contributions to society aside from military service.

    Maybe they can award one to him and Jim at the next Star Trek convention. Then they can go out and play Starship Troopers in the back yard.



    Peeking in for a brief moment (I simply (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 02:22:58 PM EST
    can't stand anything jim has to say, and it's better to not even see it), to post an observation by Charlie Pierce:

    On a week in which all the predictable chickens came home to their predictable roosts, at least all those chickens and roosts predicted by all the people who were roundly ignored in 2002, there wasn't a single guest on any of the shows who opposed the clusterfck in the first place. This is an astonishing bit of circular history. Before you launch the war, ignore all the people who knew that knocking over the regime would ignite sectarian violence and then, when the sectarian violence erupts, ignore those people again. And have Paul Wolfowitz argue that the sectarian violence is not sectarian at all.

    I don't watch the Sunday shows anymore, either - stopped that a long time ago, when I realized they just put me in a foul mood, and my weekends seemed too preciously short to waste wanting to punch things - but I found it instructive that the best the bookers could do was round up the same bunch of chickenhawks who waved their pom-poms for the wars the last time.  They've become like parrots, squawking the same tired talking points.

    At this point, I'd settle for one person - just one - going on one of those shows and reciting, like poetry, the lyrics to "War:"

    War, huh yeah
    What is it good for?
    Absolutely nothing, oh hoh, oh
    War huh yeah
    What is it good for?
    Absolutely nothing, say it again y'all
    War, huh good God
    What is it good for?
    Absolutely nothing, listen to me

    Oh, war, I despise
    'Cause it means destruction of innocent lives
    War means tears to thousands of mothers eyes
    When their sons go off to fight and lose their lives

    I said
    War, huh good God y'all
    What is it good for?
    Absolutely nothing, just say it again
    War whoa Lord
    What is it good for?
    Absolutely nothing, listen to me
    War, it ain't nothin' but a heartbreak
    War, friend only to the undertaker

    Oh war, is an enemy to all mankind
    The thought of war blows my mind
    War has caused unrest within the younger generation
    Induction, then destruction who wants to die


    Oh, war has shattered many young man's dreams
    Made him disabled bitter and mean
    Life is much to short and precious to spend fighting wars these days
    War can't give life it can only take it away, ooh


    Peace love and understanding tell me
    Is there no place for them today
    They say we must fight to keep our freedom
    But Lord knows there's got to be a better way


    And Lordy, Lindsey Graham...what the hell is wrong with him that he's always warning us that we're about about to be attacked again?  How are people not openly laughing in that man's face by now?

    I don't get it.  

    The media (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 03:45:43 PM EST
    Is as deeply in denial as the neocons.   And bear just as much responsibility.  If not more.  

    Get (none / 0) (#97)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 09:25:20 AM EST
    ready for an Obama cave in the face of pressure from these proven idiots.

    People in the administration, (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 03:29:59 PM EST
    are likely wrestling with the bad options, looking at them in a studied and studying way, including consequences, short and long term.   Miss Lindsey, et. al, have no responsibility other than to the television cameras and to the tea party they service.

     It is also a good "change the subject" for Graham in the face of some of his tea party critics. A charge probably still considered vile in S.C.   And, John McCain--giving us more advise on Iraq.  Why does anyone listen to him?  The guy who determined that Governor Palin would make a grand vice president. Or course, in fairness, she would have made  a better vice president than he would have a president.

    I hope they find a way to use (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 06:18:55 PM EST
    Some of that ordnance that will do some good.

    What could they do with it that (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 06:22:53 PM EST
    Would do any good?