President Obama recognizes that. They're asking for our help fixing the problem that WE caused. It is evil and unethical for us NOT to help.

I stand with President Obama.

I'll let you know.





(JOKE)

OK, you win.

and if the Black guy cant fix it, he gets the blame

He also made the discredited speech to the UN in an attempt to justify the breaking.

Oh, and Condi Rice, who is black, was one of the closest advisors to the shrub and really, really, really wanted to send young Americans to their deaths in the desert.

It seems to me that foreign policy idiocy during the shrub/darth administration was at least somewhat colorblind.

Extremely unhelpful

Thanks for the heads-up.

I've been away from the internet a lot since Sept. 2010 due to a family situation in the boondocks. The GD forum has changed mightly since then.

I'm just saying

Let's hope their people are courteous enough not to mock others who request NSFW tags. And then after refusing to use them, and after mocking the posters requesting them, cry when a jury hides their post.

No use in whining about it now. Maybe in 10 or 12 years it will burn itself out, but I don't think so. (Ref: Walt Starr)

Open Carry Supporters, Check In Here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025093218

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

Jberryhill needs to give up on the provocative crap. His previous thread was hidden because of a bait-and-switch thread title and this thread isn't any better. He is making DU suck.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Jun 13, 2014, 12:18 PM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is the kind of crap that blossoms anytime there's a crime with a gun. If you can't argue your POV intelligently find another subject to obsess over.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation:
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It would be okay if posted in the Lounge. Otherwise, needs a NSFW warning.

Thank you.

Mr. Berryhill is a treasure.

So let's talk about some more war!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025095765

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

See posts #5 and #9 for reasons. I agree that this poster is being overly provocative with parts of the female body which is not only disrespectful to females, but belittles the cause that he is trying to draw attention to.

Other posters have asked for him to use discretion or at least put a NSFW warning on the thread title, but he is being offensive to many and already has two hides within the past two days. What's next, pictures of aborted fetuses?

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Jun 13, 2014, 08:22 PM, and voted 7-0 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Whoa, slow down there jb, love your posts but what is this? Tell me you're not going GBCW on us because I'm gonna miss ya! But this is clearly a hide so gotta vote hide.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I take no issue with his comments. In and by itself, I have no issue with a picture of a child being born. I do feel that this is a little over the top and trying to push people over the edge.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Inappropriate.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you.

He thinks he is being clever and making some grand point; in reality he is being rude and using images of the female body as weapons in his personal quest for attention.

of 12 years. It's not like we broke it then fled a week later.

...is "If you broke it, keep on smashing it."

saying regarding our policy I have ever heard. Sadly.

You nailed that one.

Why help them when we haven't fixed our own problems? Why give preference to other countries?

We've spent trillions over there in the middle east, leaving the place worse off. Perhaps we might think about that before spending trillions more.

...with a few strategically placed drone strikes, maybe we would.

Careful what you wish for.

TYY

I'm saying, be glad the VA can't be fixed with drone strikes.

I'm betting that drone strikes will happen in Iraq before the weekend is out, if they haven't happened already. That's 'us' helping Iraq.

TYY

It's really the kindest way…

TYY

1) Go to Iraq
2) Try to fix Iraq
3) Create disabled veterans
4) Leave Iraq
5) Don't fix the VA to handle the additional injured veterans
6) Iraq breaks down AGAIN
7) Repeat Step 1 above.

nt

I am way more concerned about this broken country. And after the next invasion, then what? Do people actually think you can bomb people into 'peace'? Did more than a decade of doing so not teach ANYONE a lesson?

And does ANYONE think that any interference from the West has anything to do with the Iraqi people and NOT MORE TO DO with MORE money for more war machinery?

How much do you think Congress will be asked for this time? And who do you think will profit, again? How many will die under our bombs and drones? Does it matter?

they might determine to do something different with OUR oil.

Libya, they decided it was THEIR oil. Venezuela also. You are correct, it IS our Oil.

Did anyone EVER get the minutes from Cheney's meeting at the WH I believe it was BEFORE 9/11 with all those Oil Execs and no Dems present? We did finally see some maps of Iraq's Oil Fields, but we know that had nothing to do with the invasion!

Well you can but it takes a lot more bombs then we were using in Iraq. (see: Japan, Germany-WWII)

good reason to invade that sovereign nation in the first place, I might think about it. But Iraq was never a threat to this country nor was it involved in 9/11, nor did it have WMDs that could ever have been a threat to this country.

We have been interfering in Iraq for two decades, we killed half a million of their children with sanctions, we invaded them in 1991 and then went back and bombed them again for ten more years.

The Sunnis are never going to forget what was done to them. Maliki was THEIR dictator, brutalizing them, viewed by them as a traitor to their country.

So it appears they prefer to align themselves with terrorists who at one time they despised, than accept the West's puppet government. But one way or another, all that killing of their people, isn't going to be forgotten and anyone who thought it would be, needs to have their head examined. And more bombing is only going to create MORE future uprisings.

....you can indeed bomb people into peace, it just takes a LOT of bombs to do so.

This is just another surge we're talking about.

This current issue is a product of a failure within the Iraqi leadership and it is up to them to fix it.

This is part of the Saudi Arabian - Iran war. The Shiites of Iraq are allied with Iran. Thus if any ground forces enter Iraq it will be Iranian.

They won't let the Shia in Iraq be destroyed by the Jihadi Sunnis.

We may have to cooperate to save moderate Sunnis to keep the Saudis happy.

The Kurds, who are Sunni, can probably take care of themselves.

Or . . . . we could just say that we screwed it up last time and don't want to screw things up even worse now.

Ottoman Turkish empire after WWI. They gave no thought to the allegiances of the people actually living here.

It seems to me that any force that deposed Saddam or any illness that might have killed him would have blown Iraq into its constituent parts. This is not to excuse the shrub and Darth Cheney for killing Saddam well before his expiration date.

Anyway, CNN is now reporting that the aircraft carrier Ford is heading to the Persian gulf, will be used in whatever we do, which looks like it will include air strikes.

. . .without a political effort from the Iraqi government. He went out of his way to correctly identify the problem as primarily political. Question for him now is whether military strikes will further that political aim he outlined. I don't think he can make that case yet and I think he indicated as much.

He also emphasized a regional response with other nations taking some responsibility there. I don't think he's anxious to just start bombing or insinuating the military in some overt way. That's my read.

for that reason, rather than a "glass is shattered on the ground, causing the earth to split open and unveil the gates of hell" sort of way. but i very much understand will's frustration and dismay, given how hard and long he (and others) fought to avoid the whole fiasco entirely.

. . .and challenge him to show how any military action would further those political aims he outlined.

But rather setting himself (and the nation) up for an out, I mean what's the chance that the Al-Maliki government is going to come up with/agree to a good solution at this point? They don't even need to really, as they have Iran to back them up. They'll be safe in their Shia areas, the Kurds can defend their region, and Sunnis will have to see on their own how they like living with ISIS. I suspect in the absence of any external sectarian threat, ISIS is going to get really old, really fast.

So, I hope that Obama does indeed hold back on any military options, and I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that he will pursue them... which I guess is something of a minority opinion here? I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments on DU regarding this mess, but I guess I'm not ready to strap on the "end is nigh" placards and begin with the self-flagellation just yet...

The problem is religious. Not political. And without a strong dictator, they'll just keep killing each other until they have cleansed each other out of their respective territories. This is not a rational fight. It's about GOD.

. . .I think he's shown restraint in Libya, Syria, Yemen . . . I think he deserves to be taken at his word - and held to it.

So assuming the Prexy is about to do so is an unsupported assumption.

bullet" that will solve problems without unduly risking American lives or as a "hey, at least we did something" CYA tactic.

Let us be thankful that McCain (perish the thought of a President Palin) or Romney are not in the Oval Office right now. The bombs would already be falling and the soldiers would be on their way - invited or not.

There would be no rebellion or insurrection along sectarian lines if Nouri al-Maliki had lived up to the power-sharing agreements he had made and run on to be widely popularly-elected. Instead, he ran as a candidate for all Iraqis on a platform of specific concessions, power-sharing and regional funding that he immediately started to break as soon as he gained office. He openly began to oppress and persecute the Sunni majority. So when leaders from ISIS came with stories of the Baghdad regime committing far-off atrocities against Sunnis, it was neither hard to believe nor seemingly out of character in light of Maliki's broken promises.

We didn't break it. The elected government did. We're going to end up fixing it again...but the best solution is the one that we will never consider. Fragmentation. A Kurdistan for the Kurds. A Shiite urban core. A resource-rich Sunni heartland with poor infrastructure. That's really what Iraq is. Three unequal and largely codependent nations jammed together 9 centuries ago and held together for those 800+ years by a parade of tyrants and conquerors. There was an opportunity there for an experiment in Democracy...but they elected bad leaders and now the faith is broken so too is the experiment in Democracy.

In Europe politics and religion are usually two entirely separate things.

In America politics and religion are two different things that are all too often often intertwined, but are recognizably distinct philosophies.

In that region religion and politics are the exact same thing at this stage in history.

at least as discussed by us non-policy officials, is our insistence to see everything through the lense of the west.

I couldn't agree more that it's not about God; it's about power.

One of the biggest problems with US foriegn policy, at least as discussed by us non-policy officials, is our insistence to see everything through the lense of the west.

took in a couple of million of Iraq refugees after our brutal attack on their country drove them out. Jordan also, and airc, didn't get much help to take care of them.

Iran also offered help back in the beginning. But since then, we alienated both Syria and Iran, so why would they want to help?

Half a million more refugees have now left Iraq. Who is going to take them in?

Iraq refugees in Syria, have you ever seen those camps btw, have now been driven out of Syria as our 'proxies' there, the 'rebels' targeted THEM also.

What would be in it for countries we've been attacking to help us now?

. . . but the assumption in most analysis has the present Iraqi regime as some ideal for the country or the region. It may well be that Americans can't rationalize any of our expectations there in any 'workable' way with the assumption many here make that the Maliki regime represents stability or even responsible governance and all resistance to that autocratic, abusive regime is 'terrorism'.

other than brutality towards anyone who dares to challenge them politically. This has been brewing for years. Maliki may be OUR idea of a 'stable govt' but how on earth can WE determine what is good for a ME country? Our years of bombing them, destroying their country certainly doesn't qualify us as experts on that subject.

As someone said yesterday, Saddam for all his faults, was able to keep a 'lid on' things in Iraq and if people just went about their business, they lived a pretty decent life under his regime. Now the entire country is a nightmare. For everyone.

One fifth of the population has fled over the past decade, formerly middle class Iraqis were driven out and into refugee camps in Jordan and Syria. Dahr Jamail did some great coverage of this.

But I can't think of anyone less qualified to help that country than the very people who wrecked it. But then that's what I thought back in 2003 and people called me a 'traitor' for saying so. We had already wrecked it with years of sanctions, so it didn't take a genius THEN to predict what MORE interference was going to do.

I'll be around I hope ten years from NOW to say 'I told you so' which isn't very satisfying, but we did 'Tell them so'.

from a ragtag small group? Really? After all these years, and Iraq can't have a basic military to repel this type of incursion?

Exactly, Iraq has been in a mess for years, Bush didn't help, his father didn't help to push Saddam while he worked for the CIA, Iraq is a pushed together with different ideas and radical.

I don't have a transcript handy, but he basically said that we spent a lot of money training their security forces and not much can be done when they won't stand and fight. And the reason for that is they aren't united and we aren't going to do anything if the government of Iraq doesn't have a solid plan to bring those factions together.

that the Iraqi military and police want to take their country back and are joining those who are apparently doing so.

Maybe if Maliki had not been so brutal to Iraq's peaceful protesters, see the Arab Spring et, yes, Iraqis tried to join that movement were killed and imprisoned for peaceful protests asking their 'democratic' government to do more to restore their jobs etc.

Maybe if the US had listened to Chelsea Manning's reports of the brutality of the Iraqi Govt's police towards peaceful protesters, something could have been done to make things better for the people. But we threw her in jail after torturing her for a couple of years.

Iraq didn't need our 'training'. They HAD a very well trained military which Bush et al disbanded leaving the country with no infrastructure. And then they sent Giuliani's moronic and corrupt Police Chief to Iraq supposedly to train Iraq's police. He ended up in jail here for corruption.

We need to stay out of Iraq and let the people there decide what they want. Over ten years of failure doesn't qualify us in any way to 'help'. More bombs and death from us is going to do what that it didn't do before?

but people are going to hear what they want to hear, even if that's not what is being said.

Sid

until the !% can vacation there (See: VietNam).

http://worldspree.com/escorted-southeast-asia-tours/amazing-vietnam-tour-2013/southeast-asia-tour-information.aspx?gclid=CK7z0t-g974CFQEdOgodVwoATw

Biden: Split Iraq into 3 different regions
Updated 5/1/2006 8:28 AM ET Share on emailE-mail | Share on printPrint |

WASHINGTON (AP) — The senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee proposed Monday that Iraq be divided into three separate regions — Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni — with a central government in Baghdad.
In an op-ed essay in Monday's edition of The New York Times, Sen. Joseph Biden. D-Del., wrote that the idea "is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group ... room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests."

The new Iraqi constitution allows for establishment of self-governing regions. But that was one of the reasons the Sunnis opposed the constitution and why they demanded and won an agreement to review it this year.

Biden and co-writer Leslie H. Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, acknowledged the opposition, and said the Sunnis "have to be given money to make their oil-poor region viable. The Constitution must be amended to guarantee Sunni areas 20% (approximately their proportion of the population) of all revenues."


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-01-biden-iraq_x.htm

and of course I am no expert, but I assume that all Iraqis would like to benefit in some way from the oil resources.

"Biden and co-writer Leslie H. Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, acknowledged the opposition, and said the Sunnis "have to be given money to make their oil-poor region viable. The Constitution must be amended to guarantee Sunni areas 20% (approximately their proportion of the population) of all revenues.""

I gotta remember this one.

"We have to do something...." because we did "something" there before which was a flop and cost hundreds of thousands of lives. So, it only makes sense to "do something" again, kill more people, and have another flop so we can shed crocodile tears over the troops, make excuses for our atrocities, and build some more monuments.

Pakistan, Chile, etc, etc, etc. All, of course, to "protect our vital national interest$".

which is a win/win one for both Saudi Arabia and Iran...

Even if those countries lose something on the ground, the spike in oil prices fills their coffers.

Last edited Fri Jun 13, 2014, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)

How many times.

We did not go there so Iraq could make decisions for itself. That was never going to happen.

We went there on a lie.

Does that mean we don't try to make up for it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

I know that's simplistic. But wouldn't it be good if the fodder was ended? I realize the job poor market has a lot to do with enlistments.

But damn.

...which is basically why we aren't seeing the 1 million man group of security forces we trained not giving much resistance. They aren't united.

I think he is playing this really carefully and buying time to see if this can work itself out.

He's just working as hard as he can to clean up Bush & Blair's Mess. What's the poor guy to do? It was all left on his doorstep. He's duty bound to fulfill "The Mission."

Plus...Iraq can't be a failure on his watch because Democrats will be blamed in the coming elections. So, he's doing what he has to do to make sure we get more and better Democrats by doing "whatever it takes," to make the Democratic Party as bloodthirsty as the Republicans.

On Edit: Maybe we can pay off one of the groups --or pull in some favors owed us with Saudi Arabia..

And you want to do something so that Democrats won't be blamed? That is one sorry excuse for "doing something."

And if "doing something" means more military action on our part, that is ok with you?

I did the "roll eyes" emoticom. the emoticom might have been better.

I was totally against Iraq Invasion.

I missed the meaning of the eye roll. I bet you that many Dems are thinking that, though.

Plenty of blame to go around.

Where do you get that he's decided on air strikes?

I'm pretty sure that's the actual plan.

Not good. Time to cut our losses and let them sort their problems out internally.

Well...

Uh, Well what Sir?

Shoot some more at them

OhOkay Sir

... as the bombs began falling on their own base.

Seems we have sufficient funds for this potential venture, eh?

....that, now the President has come out in support of getting involved, the Rethugs and Teabaggers are going to be tripping all over themselves saying how much of a bad idea it is and how wrong the president is, providing the President the cover to change his mind.

(and ONLY Syria)

but, hey, if you back AND fight all sides at once, that's 6x the arms you can sell compared to just supporting or fighting just one side

We are told that there is a moderate Sunni group, which we support if we can identify them, and there is a radical Jihadi Sunni that the moderates won't have anything to do with and sometimes fight.

Re "As of this morning we're gonna support Iran and Iraq against the people we're supporting in Syria (and ONLY Syria)."

Re: But, hey, if you back AND fight all sides at once, that's 6x the arms you can sell compared to just supporting or fighting just one side.

Yeah, but that's so obvious even a teabagger could see through it. Hell, even Sarah Palin could see through it! Lotsa luck getting ANYONE to support this one--I don't mean the American people as a whole but any faction of them, including the most demented.

ultra-Salafists, sorta with the Contras); if you reduce the turnaround time to zero, you can support and fight a group SIMULTANEOUSLY--have your cake and eat it too!

Re "If you reduce the turnaround time to zero, you can support and fight a group SIMULTANEOUSLY--have your cake and eat it too!"

I suppose it makes perfect sense to those who profit from endless war, but good luck trying to sell it to ANY faction of the electorate.

this used to be the case in Latin America until the 70s--and it only ended because they stopped voting for their duopolies

Did he say it was the first he's heard of it?

The Iraqis wouldn't sign a release of liability for any US ground troops so there won't be any soldiers in uniform. The President should think about getting the Embassy staff out of there, don't want another repeat of Jimmy Carter/Iran 1980.
Libya showed that airstrikes can turn the balance, if the Iraqis would follow up.
What's unknown is how much support the Iraqi government has among its people, or its army

It has cost us so much already. I'm very depressed about all this.

There's proof—don't you remember the photo? Sheese!
(sarcasm, or course).

The people standing on the ground aren't what matters. It's the black liquid UNDER the ground that matters.

The people on top of it are just an annoyance.

And FWIW, oil still in the ground is like money in the bank. Better even.

Bend Over, Here It Comes Again.

With Israel and Iran and Saudi Arabia; Lions and Tigers and Bears sound more friendly.

I worry about false flags to get us involved where we don't belong. I'm for humanitarian intervention only. .

If there were a way I'd have an orphanage for Iraqi and Syrian kids. And any mom with kids could stay, too.

And everything to do with Iran, who just sent in two battalions to Tikrit.

At this point it seems like an international dick waving contest, with Iraq being some poor schmuck caught in the middle.

So obvious when DU'ers support actions that they excoriated when bush did them. They frothed, they stamped their feet, they barged themselves incoherent. But when Obama does it - "Meh"

More and more, I see no hope for the Democratic party as it becomes what it used to despise. The koch's and their ilk outsmarted the left with our own weapon. They knew that they could never get away with crap like this under a bush or bush, but they got so much from a white third wayer that they tried a black third wayer and got even more. You gotta wonder what kind of mess they will run against Hillary to insure her election.

probably because I have those DU'ers on Ignore.

They are going to protect the Shiite population.

Hang onto to your hats, folks.

Bombing ISIS will only fan the flames of war. Riyadh will not like it.