monty16

The reason is one and is always going to be the same. The US thinks that if it doesn't kill them over there then they will kill Americans over here. There could be a bit of logic in that considering the grieveances built up in the minds of the people of Iraq. Some may reach outside of their country for revenge. The US going in will strengthen the likelihood of that! At least the US knows that it can't continue to support Maliki. And as of yet, there's no other good choice. It's smelling more and more like another helicopter evacuation by Americans and Iraqis traitors with their tails tucked up between their legs.

Beginning with Rue, and then most others are so uneducated and uninformed that you will accept the standard US line of b.s. again and again. That is, as you've all been spoonfed to believe, Arab sects can't live peaceably together. In fact, even some who don't want to fall into the trap of being US apologists just do so anyway. Saddam did succeed in keeping his country together and in relative peace. There were Sunnis, Shiites, Christiand, and other religious sects living side by side in prosperity before the US came to interfere. You're just not supposed to know that and you won't unless you're willing to investigate the question a little deeper. At least everyone should know that the Iran/Iraq war had ended. At least everyone should know that that war was started, prolonged, and supported by the US. The current situation is telling in that ISIS is sweeping through Iraq with little resistance. The Iraqi armed forces have no interest in fighting for US ideals and are dropping their arms or turning them over to ISIS. The lobical conclusion is, without US interference, Maliki's head will get cut off if he stays and a new leader or leadership will rise up to which enough Iraqis will fall in behind. So by all means, continue to spew the old story about how Arabs can't live in peace with Arabs. It would take far too much effort to deprogram any propagandized US apologists at this late date. p.s. The facts hold true for virtually every other Arab ME state, only the names of the victims have been changed.

Syria's army is pounding ISIS forces as we speak. Should the US supply Assad with more chem/bio weapons if Assad only uses them on ISIS. If anybody wants to stay up to date on what's really going on then just check out RT news. The US still isn't talking about it because they're all confused. Really, it's just great entertainment for Russia! Oh, and anyone who thinks the Ukraine situation has cooled off, isn't paying attention. The Kiev gov is pushing Russia to the brink with violence and killing of people who are loyal to Russia.

I rather enjoy it because we can assume that his fellow Americans are about the same. Now that's something to be proud of isn't it!

Anything can happen in sports. Two American players won the Stanley cup last year! None of the Russians, Canadians, or Europeans on the team mattered one bit.

this is a good one! http://rt.com/op-edge/165876-maliki-iraq-baath-army/ Many fighters are coming together to fight against Maliki's government. And how many of the Baghdad defenders will just walk away from it all?

Gotta love that one! No need for US intervention! Playing it safe and predicting that the US won't need to intervene, just in case it doesn't. Not because the US obviously doesn't know 'how' to intervene now. In any case, everybody except US apologists and Americans should be happy because this can't turn out to be a bad thing!

http://rt.com/news/166068-us-uk-iraq-joint-force/ Not too much argument over this analysis right kids? What's going to be interesting is seeing what the US will do if it does start bombing ISIS and they shoot down a few US planes with their new toys! If the US reads this right they will begin to understand that they are just getting themselves deeper into the sh-t if they decide to prop up Maliki. LOL Almost sounds like Russia is hoping they do!

How could David Lewis or Ed Broadbent move their party closer to the center? What could either of them have done that would have gained more support from the middle without losing support from their base? I would suggest that they both took the position that they thought would give them the most support.

I take that as an admission of US guilt. But your comments are so cryptic that it could mean something else too. Who knows? Who really cares? Explain if you think anybody does. Hopefully you do understand that you can't have it both ways, a fight against terrorism and oil too. Or maybe 'you' can?

The West does have another choice. It's entirely possible that the West can walk away from it all. Obama knows, as well as Ron Paul knows, that it was never about a fight against terrorism. They both know that the US created the problem right from the beginning. 9/11 was revenge! So it's part my prediction and part wishful thinking that this can end in the same way the Vietnam war ended. Nothing negative for the US came out of that one other than a loss of face. And if we believe the US then the urgency to control ME oil is no longer a factor either. The way to end terrorism is for the US to stop terrorizing them. The Israeli/Zionist factor is a sticking point but the US can surely come to understand eventually that supporting that evil apartheid regime is going to cost the US. It was surely a big part of the revenge attack on 9/11. It's no longer worth supporting. It's very encouraging to see that the US is pretty much undecided on whether or not to interfere by propping up Maliki. We won't have to wait long in order to see if the US decides to drag it's feet and not act. We already know that more troops back into Iraq is out. And we're told that bombing somebody, whoever that is, is not going to do the job against ISIS.

you've completely screwed up the quoting in that post #201. Why not eliminate it or fix it. I don't want to be credited with somebody else's words.

Maybe Big Guy will comment on that possibility? I just don't think it's there because it was practically non-existant under Saddam. However, it's interesting to speculate that the US will try to prop up the Shiites by bombing ISIS. It's certainly not in their plans at the moment though. About all they are saying is that they want to prevent American heads from getting lopped off.

Why don't you give us a nutshell analysis and save us the trouble? It's better than getting into something blind and just hearing more US propaganda and wishful thinking. Fwiw, we all know how Wesley Clarke blew the whistle on US plans to run roughshod over Syria before doing Iran. We all should have known that the US intended on supporting any opposition to Assad's government so that they could eventually see a sympathetic US government installed in Syria. Thereby isolating Iran. It's all gone awry and it's too after the fact to waste time on now.

Big guy suggested civil war and it doesn't sound like that at the moment. In a civil war ISIS would be seeing resistance and wouldn't be moving so swiftly and easily. Would you not agree? If ISIS is receiving support from the local people, which I would agree they must be, then where's the civil war? That could develop in the future when it's the Kurds' turn. And without US support it's not going to be much of a civil war in my opinion. I'm even wondering if the Kurds will attempt to stand up against the rest of Iraq, or will they just turn tail?

I hope you're not just now finally figuring out that it was about oil. Read carefully: Oil in respect to the US intending to free up Iraq's huge oil resources and get it on the world market in order to keep the price of oil affordable for the US. And now, because of US brutality and the hate the Iraqi people have for the US, it's a fight to rid their country of the US occupation. That is, the US occupation that they need to maintain control. And if the Iraqi military doesn't stand up for the US then the US will be obliged to increase the occupation. That's not necessarily boots on the ground but could be US air force bombing on Maliki's behalf. If it's left up to Obama, he won't do it and Iraq will get rid of the hated occupation. If Obama is cowed by the rightwing hawks then he will and that will be because it will become too big of a joke for the US to lose all control over Iraq. It amounts to losing complete control over the entire ME soon.

I'm a little prone to not trusting your analysis even though it sounds right. Can you back it up? Is there a possibility that you are taken in by the propaganda efforts of the US? If a few thousand insurgents are moving so fast then it indicates to me that they have no opposition. That doesn't sound like the makings of a civil war. It sounds more like there's no resistance to their progress. And that sounds like the insurgents are really just representing the Iraqi people who are opposed to US occupation and plans to exploit Iraqi oil resources. In fact, if we look more closely at history we find that the amount of unrest in Iraq under Saddam had declined to negligible levels. Or even if some aren't willing to accept that, to levels that were far less than the current killing of differing factions. The current US stand on the issue is confused to say the least. They have no idea on how to deal with it. They see a great danger in propping up Maliki because he's not amenable to power sharing. Yet he's their puppet and without him the US is going to be relinquishing any control they have. The best answer the US has at the moment is to keep an eye on the situation and make sure that American heads don't get chopped off. And beside that, many in the US are now predicting another possible running away with their tails between their legs, Ho Chi Minh city style in helicopters. Obama is buying time by sending some ships to the region. Neither he or the US congress knows what to do with them when they get there. My best guess is that they will have to prop up Maliki because there's really nothing else they can do. This will cause the exact problem that they 'claimed' to have wanted to prevent in the first place. The illusion of Saddam's onesided government which never really did exist.

The 'trolling' charge is meaningless and is only used when the person making the charge has no comeback. I've never seen it used in any kind of a consistent manner and usually is only used by moderators who want to take sides unfairly. Hopefully this forum's mods and admin can rise above that. So far they have done a good job of doing that.

It's too close to call. Give it up because the difference isn't significant. The biggest problem the US is experiencing is that the upper quintiles aren't paying enough. That's substantiated by the huge income inequality. If the American people don't want to correct that and claim their piece of the pie then they deserve what they are getting. Talk of revolution amongst the teabaggers is cheap. It will probably remain talk though because they haven't yet figured out why they are getting the short end of the stick. They probably think the black people are stealing all their money or something like that. Not that I'm not optimistic of there being some meaningful gunplay though!

I'm not a troll and this is not about me.

The only thing you missed mentioning is that the Iraqis who put on a uniform did it for the pay they would receive from the US occupiers. They have no loyalty to the US except on payday. Or maybe you did say that in a different way. In any case, why would they want to shoot at the force that is coming to liberate Iraq from the US puppet Maliki? Also, I would caution you from seeing Iraqis through Western eyes. That is, seeing them as insects as some of the ignorant self-professed war experts are trying to do. Your comment about them having no loyalty to Iraq is a bit worrying.

So who is the US going to bomb then? What? you don't know? LOL Just pay attention to what RT news tells you and you'll eventually learn that there's more to the issue than just getting an erection from hearing that the US is sending some ships to the region. Or in other words, who do you bomb when your wife's cat goes and hides from you? Don't worry, we'll let you know when some American heads get lopped off. Then you can tell them who to bomb! And the cat will get some peace!

And again Harper is slapped down. But be sure he won't stop until Canada is turned into the cesspool of hate and racism that is the mess south of our border.

Exactly! the reason why most *Americans don't understand Trudeau is because they hate women and they love their imaginary god so much that they think he cares about destroying sperm cells. In fact, half of them think birth control measures kill babies. Why should Canadians pay any attention to that crap? Trudeau talks over their heads and that's why they've got their piss in a knot over it all. *includes alberta

Sure! Let's compare ours with France's #1 health care in the world. If Canada could get rid of the Harper rightwing Nazis and elect the Liberals who would concentrate more on social responsibilities then maybe we could be more like France. But no, the rabid right can't do anything but criticize France for looking after their people. And try to stay away from the personal attacks o.k. because this isn't about me.