First Batch of Russian Jets in Iraq.

[Boges]

It's not worth commenting on further. There's a difference between Maliki being a US puppet and Maliki having been a US puppet who has gone sour. Some won't understand that of course and some will deny any truths that don't shine the apologist light on the US.

Was there not an election in 2010? maintaining that he's a US puppet would indicate the election was rigged. Such a claim would sort of need some citation.

[monty16]

Was there not an election in 2010? maintaining that he's a US puppet would indicate the election was rigged. Such a claim would sort of need some citation.

Saddam was Iraq's leader before the US wars to remove him. The US war was meant to remove Saddam and in the case of the first war, the US expected the Iraqi people to do the job for them. They didn't of course. Isn't it pretty obvious that the US occupation of Iraq will maintain a puppet that will do their bidding? And now I'm suggesting that Maliki has gone sour on the US. The US would be coming to his rescue if they were still pulling his strings. Instead, Maliki has turned to Russia and Russia is coming to his assistance.

Would you be interested in a citation that isn't US friendly? You aren't going to find a US friendly site that has an interest in telling the real truth on what the US is doing in Iraq.

[Boges]

Saddam was Iraq's leader before the US wars to remove him. The US war was meant to remove Saddam and in the case of the first war, the US expected the Iraqi people to do the job for them. They didn't of course. Isn't it pretty obvious that the US occupation of Iraq will maintain a puppet that will do their bidding? And now I'm suggesting that Maliki has gone sour on the US. The US would be coming to his rescue if they were still pulling his strings. Instead, Maliki has turned to Russia and Russia is coming to his assistance.

That's a logic leap, you could argue the US installed puppet dictators in countries without a democracy, Egypt comes to mind, or The Shah in Iran.

But if you're going to try and install a Western Democracy, the bedrock of those things are elections. Now dictatorships often have elections but it's easy to see them as shams (eg. 97% support)

From the 2010 Iraq election we see evidence that it was not only a legit election with 60% out but the support for the opposite party as the PM.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/11/world/middleeast/20100311-iraq-election.html?ref=middleeast&_r=0

So how could the US have crafted these results? The fact that the US aren't coming to his rescue is not an indication he's "gone sour" it's an indication that they can't keep interfering civil wars.

Would you be interested in a citation that isn't US friendly? You aren't going to find a US friendly site that has an interest in telling the real truth on what the US is doing in Iraq.

How about a source from a legit news agency. I'll even accept Al Jazeera. But not a site that also thinks 911 was an inside job.

[monty16]

The U.S. crafted the results when it went to war to remove Saddam. No election from that point on can be called legitimate and especially of a country under U.S. occupation. The current noise coming out of the U.S. is that Maliki needs to be removed. Has something changed? I would say that what has changed is that Maliki has gone sour.

ISIS is moving through Iraq with practically no resistance. The propped up US armed Iraqi military forces are throwing down their arms and have no will to fight for their country. It's a demonstration of no loyalty for the US plan for Iraq, or loyalty for their elected leader. Or more correctly, the best of the choices that were offered or allowed by the occupation.

Saddam's rule was successful for Iraq and nothing else is working. No installed leader is going to fix it now and certainly not Maliki. So how about this? He's turning into Russia's puppet now.

[Boges]

The current noise coming out of the U.S. is that Maliki needs to be removed. Has something changed? I would say that what has changed is that Maliki has gone sour.

Again Citation.

Saddam's rule was successful because he was a dictator. Sayin' things would be all sunshine and kittens if he was still in control, is an admission that democracy is untenable in this part of the world. Which I would concede considering what's happened in Egypt.

Doesn't mean the USA is pulling the strings because things would be so much easier if they had just installed a guy that could crush ISIS with the backing of the US military.

But we can see with all the allies of each faction that there's no natural ally of the bunch, cept for maybe the Kurds but they would benefit the most from the partitioning of Iraq.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Boges

[monty16]

The citation isn't going to be worth more to the debate than the real facts.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38839.htm

But I don't have any difficulty saying that Iraq would be sunshine and kittens if Saddam was still in power. In fact, it blows the mind to imagine just how stable the ME as a whole would have been without US involvement and the Iraq wars.

Doesn't mean the USA is pulling the strings because things would be so much easier if they had just installed a guy that could crush ISIS with the backing of the US military.

I'm not sure I get your point there? What I'm saying is that the US was able to pull the strings but no longer can. Can you appreciate the significance of Maliki inviting Russia sending military aid?

Would you agree with me if I said that the US now thinks Maliki has to go? He will go because he's lost his usefulness and become the exact opposite of the US plan for Iraq. That being, holding Iraq within the US sphere of influence.

We just can't discount the fact that Saddam was overthrown by the US. After that fact there is no other explanation in my opinion but to accept that the US needed to install, or have installed, a US sympathetic regime.

But we can see with all the allies of each faction that there's no natural ally of the bunch, cept for maybe the Kurds but they would benefit the most from the partitioning of Iraq.

Can you explain that point further. Not the point that the Kurds would benefit most because that's a given.

[Boges]

The citation isn't going to be worth more to the debate than the real facts.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38839.htm

I don't know about anyone else, but a site that describes itself as an "information clearing house" sounds more like a den for conspiracy theories.

I'm not sure I get your point there? What I'm saying is that the US was able to pull the strings but no longer can. Can you appreciate the significance of Maliki inviting Russia sending military aid?

Would you agree with me if I said that the US now thinks Maliki has to go? He will go because he's lost his usefulness and become the exact opposite of the US plan for Iraq. That being, holding Iraq within the US sphere of influence.

We just can't discount the fact that Saddam was overthrown by the US. After that fact there is no other explanation in my opinion but to accept that the US needed to install, or have installed, a US sympathetic regime.

If the goal of the US was simply to install a puppet, they have a pretty lengthy track record of doing it rather successfully.

Their goal in this instance was to install a democracy, therefore taking sides in an emerging civil would indicate they want influence in who governs Iraq.

Notice the country is majority Shiite so it's not surprising Shiites won an election. Since Saddam was a Sunni, the only way he could effectively govern was with an Iron Fist.

Shiites are also allies of Iran who are also allies of Russia. Which is why they have no quams sending jets in to help out their boys.

I'll repeat, There are no obvious allies to the west in any of the parties involved. Sunnis are friends of the Saudis (largely al Queda) and the Shiites are buds with Iran (Axis of Evil remember)

I'm curious, which side do you favour?

Edited June 30, 2014 by Boges

[Rue]

Monty you know nothing about Iraq during Sadaam's era. For you to pose as if you do and make ludicrous comments about how stable Iraq wzs speaks to that. .

You have littered the board with responses that make no sense.

Right now ISIS is calling on a holy war and wants a caliphate in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and now Jordan and Israel. Its leaders are calling out to march on Jerusalem, then on to Mecca. On the other fringe are the Shiite extremists.

Egypt. Israel and Jordan are now caught in the middle and if ISIS keeps invading Jordanian soil Israel will retaliate. There is a defacto alliance now of Egypt, Jordan and Israel surrounded by Sunni and Shiite extremists and uprisings in Yemen and Saudi Arabia are only a matter of time. Sunni extremists in both nations are already agitating.

The bottom line is there is a Sunni-Shiite war going on. Its side-tracked a bit by the Kurds and Israelis and Egypt's current military leadership but its a war. Its not going to end soon. The war is now spreading. Israel, the Kurds and Egypt like Jordan want nothing to do with it.

The Americans will defend Jordanian soil and so would Israel. Right now Obama has made a fool of himself. He committed himself to Malicki in Iraq who turned on him, committed himself to Erdogan in Turkey who openly laughed and ridiculed him, alienated Netanyahu, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.. The Egyptians and Israel are waiting for Obama to leave and barely hidetheir hostility towards him. Netanyahu made a point of putting Tzipi Levni in his cabinet as she is the only Israeli cabinet member who still tallks to Kerry or Obama.

A strong US leader is needed to emerge because Obama's leadership vacuum leaves Egypt, Jordan and Israel trapped in a no go zone biding their time.

The destablization has spread from Syria to the Ukraine and over to Pakistan on the other end and shows no signs of slowing down or burning itself out.

What you need to do Monty is get a reality check and go speak to Iranians and Iraqis or Kurds who got out of Iraq or Iran.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Rue

[monty16]

Monty you know nothing about Iraq during Sadaam's era. For you to pose as if you do and make ludicrous comments about how stable Iraq wzs speaks to that. .

You have littered the board with responses that make no sense.

Right now ISIS is calling on a holy war and wants a caliphate in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and now Jordan and Israel. Its leaders are calling out to march on Jerusalem, then on to Mecca. On the other fringe are the Shiite extremists.

Egypt. Israel and Jordan are now caught in the middle and if ISIS keeps invading Jordanian soil Israel will retaliate. There is a defacto alliance now of Egypt, Jordan and Israel surrounded by Sunni and Shiite extremists and uprisings in Yemen and Saudi Arabia are only a matter of time. Sunni extremists in both nations are already agitating.

The bottom line is there is a Sunni-Shiite war going on. Its side-tracked a bit by the Kurds and Israelis and Egypt's current military leadership but its a war. Its not going to end soon. The war is now spreading. Israel, the Kurds and Egypt like Jordan want nothing to do with it.

The Americans will defend Jordanian soil and so would Israel. Right now Obama has made a fool of himself. He committed himself to Malicki in Iraq who turned on him, committed himself to Erdogan in Turkey who openly laughed and ridiculed him, alienated Netanyahu, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.. The Egyptians and Israel are waiting for Obama to leave and barely hidetheir hostility towards him. Netanyahu made a point of putting Tzipi Levni in his cabinet as she is the only Israeli cabinet member who still tallks to Kerry or Obama.

A strong US leader is needed to emerge because Obama's leadership vacuum leaves Egypt, Jordan and Israel trapped in a no go zone biding their time.

The destablization has spread from Syria to the Ukraine and over to Pakistan on the other end and shows no signs of slowing down or burning itself out.

What you need to do Monty is get a reality check and go speak to Iranians and Iraqis or Kurds who got out of Iraq or Iran.

Your first sentence told me that you are in denial of the truth. Your second sentence told me that your intention is to be rude and insulting. I didn't bother reading any further.

[monty16]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38839.htm

I don't know about anyone else, but a site that describes itself as an "information clearing house" sounds more like a den for conspiracy theories.

If the goal of the US was simply to install a puppet, they have a pretty lengthy track record of doing it rather successfully.

Their goal in this instance was to install a democracy, therefore taking sides in an emerging civil would indicate they want influence in who governs Iraq.

Notice the country is majority Shiite so it's not surprising Shiites won an election. Since Saddam was a Sunni, the only way he could effectively govern was with an Iron Fist.

Shiites are also allies of Iran who are also allies of Russia. Which is why they have no quams sending jets in to help out their boys.

I'll repeat, There are no obvious allies to the west in any of the parties involved. Sunnis are friends of the Saudis (largely al Queda) and the Shiites are buds with Iran (Axis of Evil remember)

I'm curious, which side do you favour?

That is more like something that deserves a proper response. I'll do so when I can afford the time. And right now, the rabble has arrived to insult and take our conversation off topic so I'll let things cool off a bit.

[monty16]

Actually Boges, I'll preview you on the question I'm going to ask so you'll be prepared. I'm interested in hearing your spin on:

If the goal of the US was simply to install a puppet, they have a pretty lengthy track record of doing it rather successfully.

where have they been successful? And unsuccessful if you like?

Edited June 30, 2014 by monty16

[Boges]

Actually Boges, I'll preview you on the question I'm going to ask so you'll be prepared. I'm interested in hearing your spin on:

where have they been successful? And unsuccessful if you like?

I don't believe American led puppet regimes are exactly in style in the last 20 years. Which is why I don't agree that Iraq's current regime is a puppet regime.

You could argue that Saddam, pre-invasion of Kuwait was a puppet regime he was supported against Iran. Mumbarak in Egypt was certainly a puppet regime and since Egypt is 0 for 2 post Mumbarak in finding proper government, you could say he was successful.

In the Cold War the US made it it's bidness to install puppet regimes to oppose communism. The USSR did the same.

[monty16]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38839.htm

I don't know about anyone else, but a site that describes itself as an "information clearing house" sounds more like a den for conspiracy theories.

Nobody is going to like a source that doesn't agree with their politics. The objection to the particular title doesn't add to your credibility.

If the goal of the US was simply to install a puppet, they have a pretty lengthy track record of doing it rather successfully.

Their goal in this instance was to install a democracy, therefore taking sides in an emerging civil would indicate they want influence in who governs Iraq.

You tell me Saddam was a US puppet? And Mubarak was a success? Hmmmmm! He was the Iran and the Shah's situation in the making!

Notice the country is majority Shiite so it's not surprising Shiites won an election. Since Saddam was a Sunni, the only way he could effectively govern was with an Iron Fist.

Actually the US descriptions of the 'iron fist' were mostly exaggerations. In truth Saddam had brought his country prosperity after their war and had allowed all religions to practice openly. Women even worked alongside men in jobs where they were paid equally. (Would you like to concentrate on those submissions and leave the rest aside for now?)

Shiites are also allies of Iran who are also allies of Russia. Which is why they have no quams sending jets in to help out their boys.

Partly correct but Russia is certainly not going to turn down any invitation by Maliki. Maliki is temporary but the Russian presence most likely won't be. LOL Do you appreciate the humour in that? I think you will!

I'll repeat, There are no obvious allies to the west in any of the parties involved. Sunnis are friends of the Saudis (largely al Queda) and the Shiites are buds with Iran (Axis of Evil remember)

Any of the factions in Iraq would, and did, align with the West if it was to gain by doing so. The Kurds are the most obvious. That hasn't changed and won't.

I'm curious, which side do you favour?

The side of the Iraqi people of course. I always have.

Saddam had made his country prosperous and peaceful for ME Arab country standards. Other ME Arab countries that are being propped up by the US are mostly corrupt monarchies. Saudi was a prime example and the brutality of that monarchy in chop/chop square illustrates that truth. Their treatment of women further illustrates that truth.

Any regime that is installed, elected, or supported while Iraq is occupied is a puppet regime. The truth in that is to observe how long it takes for heads to roll after the US occupation has ended. Maliki is expected to maintain the gains the US made and it's pretty obvious that all that will be reversed as soon as the Iraqi people again have control over their own destiny.

Freedom is coming as we speak with the ISIS march through Iraq and the people readily surrendering to their wishes. The US will either lose all or will install a puppet who will remain cooperative. Maliki has turned.

The best thing we can do is tell the real story of Iraq under Saddam. If you're aware of the truth then join in. If not then read the facts and rebut when you feel prepared to do so. Only substance will win points for you. Not liking the source because it sounds like a den of conspiracy theories won't!

[monty16]

300 more US combat troops to Iraq.

http://news.antiwar.com/2014/06/30/us-sending-300-combat-troops-to-iraq/

Making it about 800 so far. That we know of?

[Argus]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38839.htm

I don't know about anyone else, but a site that describes itself as an "information clearing house" sounds more like a den for conspiracy theories.

WND (formerly WorldNetDaily or, as it was affectionately known to its fans, WingNutDaily or WhirledNutDaily) is an extremist conservative website founded by Joseph Farah in 1997 as a project of his Western Center for Journalism. It espouses a fundamentalist Christian, creationist view of the world, and regularly engages in racist attacks against African-Americans...

... While they present themselves as news, WND is essentially a tabloid for radical right-wingers. Their publishing standards are rock-bottom, and they have run stories from extremely questionable sources on many, many occasions

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/WND

Edited July 2, 2014 by Argus

[Shady]

Nobody is going to like a source that doesn't agree with their politics. The objection to the particular title doesn't add to your credibility. If the goal of the US was simply to install a puppet, they have a pretty lengthy track record of doing it rather successfully. You tell me Saddam was a US puppet? And Mubarak was a success? Hmmmmm! He was the Iran and the Shah's situation in the making! Actually the US descriptions of the 'iron fist' were mostly exaggerations. In truth Saddam had brought his country prosperity after their war and had allowed all religions to practice openly. Women even worked alongside men in jobs where they were paid equally. (Would you like to concentrate on those submissions and leave the rest aside for now?) Partly correct but Russia is certainly not going to turn down any invitation by Maliki. Maliki is temporary but the Russian presence most likely won't be. LOL Do you appreciate the humour in that? I think you will! Any of the factions in Iraq would, and did, align with the West if it was to gain by doing so. The Kurds are the most obvious. That hasn't changed and won't. The side of the Iraqi people of course. I always have.Saddam had made his country prosperous and peaceful for ME Arab country standards. Other ME Arab countries that are being propped up by the US are mostly corrupt monarchies. Saudi was a prime example and the brutality of that monarchy in chop/chop square illustrates that truth. Their treatment of women further illustrates that truth.Any regime that is installed, elected, or supported while Iraq is occupied is a puppet regime. The truth in that is to observe how long it takes for heads to roll after the US occupation has ended. Maliki is expected to maintain the gains the US made and it's pretty obvious that all that will be reversed as soon as the Iraqi people again have control over their own destiny.Freedom is coming as we speak with the ISIS march through Iraq and the people readily surrendering to their wishes. The US will either lose all or will install a puppet who will remain cooperative. Maliki has turned.The best thing we can do is tell the real story of Iraq under Saddam. If you're aware of the truth then join in. If not then read the facts and rebut when you feel prepared to do so. Only substance will win points for you. Not liking the source because it sounds like a den of conspiracy theories won't!

Unfortunately Iraq was neither prosperous or peaceful under Saddam.

[Wilber]

What's the problem, most of Saddam's equipment was Russian.

[Boges]

Unfortunately Iraq was neither prosperous or peaceful under Saddam.

Why are you Spamming this Board? Iraq was clearly up there with Sweden and Denmark with quality of life under Saddam. To deny it would make you a US apologist.

[monty16]

US propaganda to justify war against Iraq is nearly impossible to reverse at this stage of the game. However, those that can't bear to just shut their eyes at knowing the truth don't need any further convincing. Some will look into the facts and put the pieces together and some will not. I doesn't make a lot of difference anyway except that the US has earned a reputation in the eyes of the world for lying to justify war and that will play against the US in the future. It will play negatively in that they will fail to enlist support that is necessary in order to maintain the image of being on the side of right and justice.

Those countries opposed to US aggression will reap the benefits of that loss of the moral high ground by the US. And in fact it's already given Russia and China the momentum they will put to good use.

Boges:

Iraq was clearly up there with Sweden and Denmark with quality of life under Saddam.

No, there are no ME Arab countries that have progressed that far yet. But it's undeniable that Iraq had succeeded to place itself above nearly all other ME Arab dictatorships and monarchies, under Saddam's rule. The truth that can't be denied is that the US supports and props up the worst of them.

Shady's uninformed and kneejerk spamming does little to dispel that truth.

[Boges]

It would help if you provided some supporting evidence that would suggest the quality of life in Iraq, under Saddam, was much better.

I'll concede it got a lot worse once the Religious fundamentalists got a hold of the country thanks to the 2003 war. Especially for minorities like Christians. The US have to own that, and largely Obama has.

But I don't imagine ISIS, (though Sunni like Saddam) is looking the improve the lot of non-Muslims in Iraq or anyone that doesn't agree with their narrow worldview.

[monty16]

Boges, if you wish to get into the details then stick with me and stop the sarcasm of the sort I detected in your last post. That is, to do with your first assertion that life under Saddam wasn't peaceful and settled, relative to other ME Arab countries.

Fwiw, I've already posted links to the truths of pre-US wars against Iraq.

And if you want to just win an argument without acknowledging the facts then join the crowd.

I accept that which you concede and have always been in total agreement. Yes, the US has to own that.

I can only speculate on how ISIS will turn Iraq and Syria but I think that in the longterm it's going to evolve into a large and powerful caliphate that will seek nuclear weapons as a deterrent to US aggression.

But let's stay with pre-war Iraq and the facts for now.

[Derek 2.0]

But let's stay with pre-war Iraq and the facts for now.

Pre-what war Iraq?

[Boges]

I can only speculate on how ISIS will turn Iraq and Syria but I think that in the longterm it's going to evolve into a large and powerful caliphate that will seek nuclear weapons as a deterrent to US aggression.

But let's stay with pre-war Iraq and the facts for now.

No actually I'd like to address your claim that ISIS wants a Caliphate that will seek Nuclear weapons.

Saddam may very well have been a relatively capable leader and only a grudge match between the Bush family and Saddam caused a costly war based on a bold face lie. But that's in the past. The Sunni v Shiite dispute existed long before the US showed any interest in Iraq.

But if you do believe ISIS wants to turn Iraq and Syria into Nuclear Islamic states, why aren't the US swooping in and crushing this civil war right now? From a US standpoint a Real puppet that does the US's bidding would be far preferable to a Sharia Law State with Nuclear weapons like Iran. Luckily they're Iran's mortal enemy so we're back to the war in the 80's except with nukes.

How on Earth is that a preferable situation?

[Derek 2.0]

How on Earth is that a preferable situation?

The price of Brent & WTI crude will skyrocket.......

[Hudson Jones]

Saudi and Israel are in bed together. Both of those would rather see bloodshed and fraction, as opposed to Iranian-friendly governments. ISIS is active in both Syria and now in Iraq and with the lack of support from U.S. and U.S.' refusal to talk to Iran to stop ISIS from growing stronger, it's very clear that U.S., which is heavily influenced by the Israeli lobby group doesn't mind the turmoil. It's been said that the U.S. would like to see Iraq turning into three states; Kurds, Sunnis and Shia's, with the oil still under the protection of the Americans.

Russian military support for the Iraqi government ruins this plan.