# Iraqi troops cut and run from Ramadi leaving their U.S weaponry to ISIS!



## Ralphy1 (May 20, 2015)

This is getting to be a familiar tale and our air power alone may not be enough to carry the day.  Could McCain be right that boots on the ground are necessary?  I hope not but I am beginning to think so...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 20, 2015)

For what?   Iraq will NEVER be a country again.  We made sure of that when we followed Bush and Cheney into war. The days of a stable Iraq are over.   Same with syria.  It's not about countries now.. its about Suni and shiit and these factors that be are busy carving them up.     Why do we want to waste our blood and treasure?   Time to let them do what they are going to do, and know that we destabilzed the region by our folly.


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 20, 2015)

But aren't you worried about a beheading in your future?


----------



## QuickSilver (May 20, 2015)

Not particularly.   

Look.  Their WAS no Iraq prior to 1919 when the British claimed it for the United Kingdom under the mandate of Mesopotamia.  It gained it's independence in 1932 and remained fairly stable until we decided to meddle in it.   NOW.. it's simply reverting back to what it always was.. ancient Mesopotamia with warring tribes of Sunnis and Shia.    Britain started it... and we finished it.    NOW it reverts back to antiquity.  The only difference NOW is that they HATE us... and want to kill us..  Thanks GEORGE and DICK.   

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-history-fast-facts/

*1921 - *After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire during World War I, Great Britain gains control of the area. It sets up a government in Mesopotamia and renames the country Iraq.

*1924 - *The new Constitutional Assembly of Iraq meets to consider the Anglo-Iraq treaty. The treaty would compel Iraq to honor all agreements made by Great Britain previously, including oil concessions. In order to compel Iraq to accept the treaty, Great Britain threatens to withdraw and leave Iraq vulnerable to Saudi Arabia or Turkey. The treaty is ratified.

*October 3, 1932 -* Iraq becomes an independent nation with Baghdad as its capital, and is admitted to the League of Nations.

*1943-1945 -* Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani leads an uprising, gaining control of areas of Irbil and Badinan. When the uprising is defeated, Barzani and his forces retreat to Kurdish areas in Iran and align with nationalist fighters under the leadership of Qazi Muhammad.

*March 22, 1945 -* Iraq becomes a founding member of the Arab League.

*December 21, 1945 -* Iraq becomes a member of the United Nations.

*July 14, 1958 - *King Faisal is killed in a coup led by Abdul Karim Kassem.

*October 1959 - *A group, including Saddam Hussein, attacks the motorcade of Abdul Karim Kassem. The assassination attempt fails and most of the attackers are killed. Hussein escapes and flees to Syria. 

*February 1963 - *Kassem is overthrown and executed. The Baath Party assumes control of the government. Hussein returns from Cairo, Egypt. The new Baath government is overthrown before the end of the year.

*July 17, 1968 - *In a coup, Major General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr of the Baath party becomes Iraq's new president. Saddam Hussein becomes the secretary and acting deputy chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council.

*October 1973 - *Iraq fights Israel in the Yom Kippur war.

*March 6, 1975 -* Saddam Hussein and Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran meet to discuss a treaty. The Algiers Accord is signed by both countries later in the year.

*October 1978 -* At the Shah's insistence, Hussein expels Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini from Iraq, where he has been in exile for 13 years.

*February 1979 - *The Ayatollah returns to Iran to lead the country, after the ouster of the Shah in January.

*July 16, 1979 -* Hussein takes over as president of Iraq.

*1979 -* In response to the Ayatollah's call for the overthrow of the Baathist regime, comprised mostly of Sunni Muslims, President Hussein expels 40,000 Shiite Muslims. Hussein also orders the execution of Ayatollah Mohammed al-Bakr Sadr, an ally of Ayatollah Khomeini.

*September 22, 1980 -* Iraq launches an air attack against Iran, beginning the Iran-Iraq war. In 1984 and 1986 Iraq is accused of using mustard gas and other chemical weapons against Iran. The war ends in a stalemate in 1988.

*March 16, 1988 -* Iraq uses poison gas against the Kurdish people in Halabja in Northern Iraq. Thousands of people are believed to have died in the attack. 
*August 2, 1990 -* Iraq invades Kuwait. 

*January 17, 1991 - *Operation Desert Storm begins.

*February 28, 1991 -* A ceasefire in the Gulf War takes effect.

*March 1991 -* After the coalition expels Iraq from Kuwait, the U.S. encourages the Kurds to rebel. However, Iraq crushes the rebellion and one million Kurds flee to Turkey.

*April 3, 1991 - *The U.N. passes Security Council Resolution 687. It establishes UNSCOM.

*April 6, 1991 - *Iraq accepts SCR 687.

*April 18, 1991 -* Under the terms of SCR 687, Iraq gives a detailed account of its weapons inventory. It states that it has no biological weapons program.

*April 14, 1995 - *The U.N. Security Council adopts Resolution 986 establishing the "oil-for-food" program, providing Iraq with the opportunity to sell oil to finance the purchase of humanitarian goods. Iraq does not accept the plan.

*December 16, 1998 - *Great Britain and the United States launch air strikes against Iraq. The attack, called Operation Desert Fox, is in response to Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.

*January 29, 2002 -* U.S. President George W. Bush says in his State of the Union address that Iraq, Iran and North Korea constitute an "axis of evil'' that threatens the United States.

*September 16, 2002 - *Facing the threat of U.S. air strikes, Iraq unconditionally agrees to the return of United Nations inspectors.

*September 19, 2002 -* Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri sends a letter to the U.N. from Saddam Hussein stating that Iraq has no chemical, nuclear or biological weapons.  

*November 8, 2002 -* The U.N. Security Council unanimously adopts Resolution 1441, outlining strict new weapons inspections and threatening "serious consequences" if Iraq fails to comply.

*November 13, 2002 -* Iraq agrees to comply with U.N. Resolution 1441. 

*November 27, 2002 - *U.N. inspectors begin working in Iraq
.
*December 7, 2002 -* Iraq submits a 12,000 page declaration of former weapons programs and civilian industries with military applications to the United Nations.

*January 27, 2003 - *Chief inspectors Mohammad ElBaradei and Hans Blix brief the U.N. Security Council on Iraqi compliance with inspections.

*March 7, 2003 - *Chief inspectors ElBaradei and Blix submit their final reports to the U.N. Security Council.

*March 19, 2003 -* President George W. Bush announces that U.S. and coalition forces have begun military action against Iraq. (This means that military action began the morning of March 20 in Iraq.)


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 20, 2015)

Yes, but you still got to be concerned about your head...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 20, 2015)

Do you have anything of substance to add?


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 20, 2015)

Yes, let's try not to lose our heads over this matter...


----------



## Josiah (May 20, 2015)

The history of our military interventions in the middle east has been one dismal failure after another. It would be nice if we make things better over there but history tells us that we tend to make matters much worse when we try. I think the people of the middle east are going to have to sort things out for themselves and correspondents who cover the story will just be vulnerable to beheading.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 20, 2015)

Josiah said:


> The history of our military interventions in the middle east has been one dismal failure after another. It would be nice if we make things better over there but history tells us that we tend to make matters much worse when we try. I think the people of the middle east are going to have to sort things out for themselves and correspondents who cover the story will just be vulnerable to beheading.



I believe the invasion of Iraq will go down in history as the worst policy and military blunder ever.   It has destabilized the entire Middle East and may eventually lead to WWIII.   Yet we have factors in government who want to continue the policy of intervention in that area.  I am hopeful they will lose in our next election as most Americans have truly seen the light on this matter and do not want to continue Bushes war.


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 20, 2015)

But if we don't stop them there they will beheading over here, so maybe it is time to crank up the draft and get the Yanks over there,  and this time they won't be back until it is over over there, well, maybe this time...


----------



## Don M. (May 20, 2015)

These Sunni's and Shiites have been at each others throats for centuries.  Nothing we do will change that.  The best approach, IMO, is to let them have at each other, and contain their actions to the Middle East.  Our efforts should be directed towards gathering intelligence and monitoring any radicals who are here, or try to enter this country.  If they want to encourage "jihad" here, with their postings on social media, etc., that should be easy to spot, and the proper actions taken to round them up and "isolate" them.  

It should be pretty obvious to anyone that any time, lives and money spent trying to "mold" Islam into Western ideals is a monumental waste that is doomed to failure.


----------



## AprilT (May 20, 2015)

Don M. said:


> These Sunni's and Shiites have been at each others throats for centuries.  Nothing we do will change that.  The best approach, IMO, is to let them have at each other, and contain their actions to the Middle East.  Our efforts should be directed towards gathering intelligence and monitoring any radicals who are here, or try to enter this country.  If they want to encourage "jihad" here, with their postings on social media, etc., that should be easy to spot, and the proper actions taken to round them up and "isolate" them.
> 
> It should be pretty obvious to anyone that any time, lives and money spent trying to "mold" Islam into Western ideals is a monumental waste that is doomed to failure.



Unfortunately, we've already awoken the dragon and I'm not sure we are going to get that monkey off our backs easily even when if we do retreat, though, I agree we need to leave them to themselves as we should have done in the first place.  We had no business interfering with their fight except to assist along with other nations in humanitarian aid and sanctions where possible change can be made without forcing our way of life on them, our arrogance will time and time again get us into trouble and garner more hate and harm to our nation.


----------



## WhatInThe (May 20, 2015)

This is an over simplification and I don't care. You force a bunch of nomads, farmers, religious sects, towns people to live under contrived boundaries and rules of a dictator and outside influences this is what you get. To top it off it takes decades for nation building to take effect. You had a war torn country who yet did not get a chance to experience the full benefits of their "newly built nation" and that not only includes power & utilities but modern conveniences and lifestyles. That means not joking here until they got to the point where they could go to the local 7-11 convenience store at 3 in the morning or fill out a credit application at an appliance store and go home with a new washing machine in their new pick up truck free of Sadam doesn't mean squat.

To top it off history, recent history was ignored. How many regimes in South Vietnam when they were a US puppet. People forget there was a Kue or two. Heck, just look at the collapse of eastern Europe with many of the same religions and sects. Many of these countries were and are so poor other than some religion all they care about is basic survival, they are fighting for their lives and not ideology.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 20, 2015)

This is made all the more complicated because the Shiite militia set to take back Ramadi are Iranian..  Iran is primarily Shia.    AND Ramadi is in Sunni territory.  SO  the Militia may win back Ramadi from ISIS, but that in itself is being seen as a power grab of Iran to take over Iraq and will spark even more fighting.   HOW in the bloody hell can the US get involved in this?  IMO this is nothing more than a return of the region to it's ancient roots.  There is nothing we can do but protect ourselves at home.


----------



## Davey Jones (May 20, 2015)

Anyone that is suggesting boots on the grounds has never seen boots in a body bags.

I have, not a pretty sight.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 20, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> This is getting to be a familiar tale and our air power alone may not be enough to carry the day.  Could McCain be right that boots on the ground are necessary?  I hope not but I am beginning to think so...



Why should it be OUR boots on the ground.  You have the Cheney mentality?


----------



## AZ Jim (May 20, 2015)

Davey Jones said:


> Anyone that is suggesting boots on the grounds has never seen boots in a body bags.
> 
> I have, not a pretty sight.



Right you are.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 20, 2015)

Look!  Others wars that we were up to our collective asses in has cost us dearly.  Not just money, we had to borrow but Amrican lives as well.  Every wrong, or wrong as we perceive it need not be our war.  If you are watching TV and see something that bothers you, you turn the channel knowing there's nothing you can do otherwise to change it.  That is what we need to do in this ancient tribal conflict that is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.  Get rid of the mentality that makes you push others into being world cops.


----------



## oldman (May 20, 2015)

Davey Jones said:


> Anyone that is suggesting boots on the grounds has never seen boots in a body bags.
> 
> I have, not a pretty sight.



I have helped put some of my fellow Marines in bags. It brought tears to my eyes. Wars that have boots on the ground should be avoided, except if the fighting is here at home.


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 21, 2015)

Isolationism has never worked in our favor.  We must determine the where and when of boots on the ground so that we don't get sucked into a waste of young lives again, but we must be willing to shed blood when the the threat to our survival is real...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 21, 2015)

I agree... we should definitely use intelligence and counter intelligence to keep an eye on these extremists and to prevent them from doing us harm here.  That is why I guess I am in the minority as far as Liberals go when it comes to collecting meta-data..   BUT.. I think we have to finally admit that the Middle East will be what it is.  They really don't WANT democracy and would be perfectly happy going back to life as it was before the West decided it knew what was best for them.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 21, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Isolationism has never worked in our favor.  We must determine the where and when of boots on the ground so that we don't get sucked into a waste of young lives again, but we must be willing to shed blood when the the threat to our survival is real...



The war and the enemy is very different now that in the past.  It is more covert and no one is really sure who the enemy is and where they are.  I don't see this a isolationism..  we will continue to operate in a covert fashion to target the enemy using intelligence rather than battle.


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 21, 2015)

Doesn't look like this approach is stopping them so far...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 21, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Doesn't look like this approach is stopping them so far...



HOW I must ask, will going into Iraq with a full throttle attack against ISIS STOP attacks from happening here?  Don't you think it will only intensify them?


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 21, 2015)

No, their goal is to wipe us out and we had better be ready to pay the price in the right place to stop them  This is not Vietnam...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 21, 2015)

No... It's not Vietnam...  That's what I am saying.   There was no internet or social media in the 60's and early 70's   People could not connect and information could not be spread as it can now.    ISIS is THERE... and make no mistake about it... ISIS is here too.  They do not have to come here..  So having Americans die in Iraq fighting ISIS is silly IMO.   Warfare is different now..  It is fought through intelligence and special OPS..  The way to protect ourselves is to always know what they are doing and saying with regard to attacks on the USA.


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 21, 2015)

This is not a civil war as in Vietnam, but, rather a war for world domination and pussyfooting around it may not be enough...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 21, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> This is not a civil war as in Vietnam, but, rather a war for world domination and pussyfooting around it may not be enough...



Extremists are in every country in the Middle East.. Your opinion is that the USA should become embroiled in an endless war in 5 or 6 Middle Eastern countries?  I hardly think that ISIS would be able to achieve world domination... do you?


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 21, 2015)

Do not underestimate a determined opponent who senses our reluctance to die in the numbers to insure victory.  Hitler thought that we wouldn't and it was big mistake on his part.  As to location, you pick them one at a time and then wipe them out.  The island hopping strategy used in the Pacific in WW2 was very bloody but very successful...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 21, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Do not underestimate a determined opponent who senses our reluctance to die in the numbers to insure victory.  Hitler thought that we wouldn't and it was big mistake on his part.  As to location, you pick them one at a time and then wipe them out.  The island hopping strategy used in the Pacific in WW2 was very bloody but very successful...



ahh.....  Hitler..   I was wondering when he would come up..  Hitler did not stay within German boarders.. he attacked other European countries..  Do you not think if ISIS marched on Italy, Germany, France, or England, or marched across our border from Canada, we wouldn't notice and do something?


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 21, 2015)

One has to mention Hitler at times as he was the touchstone in modern times for a desire for world domination.  The ME today, and if they aren't stopped, the world tomorrow.  And don't forget they don't mind dying in a final world conflagration, so if they ever get their hands on nukes it could be too late...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 21, 2015)

Hopefully Washington can be stopped from adopting that line of thinking..


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 21, 2015)

FDR had to manipulate foreign policy to help England when they were on their knees so that a squeamish American public thought that we wouldn't be going to war again.  This approach may be necessary again as the situation unfolds...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 21, 2015)

I don't believe that the analogy of Hitler and the situation in Europe is like the ISIS problem in the ME.   For one thing, they may TALK world domination, but in reality they as Sunnis really just want control of the ME..   Remember.. all those borders or Iraq, Iran, Syria, mean NOTHING to them..  Those were artificial borders set up by the Untied Kingdom in 1919.   What they care about is the ongoing fourteen hundred year fight with the Shiites.  They see the ME as Shia vs Sunni.  Period.   ISIS is Sunni.  They came to be a force AFTER the newly formed Iraq government excluded all Sunni and was primarily Shiite..  Iran is Shiite.  They are moving in NOT to take over Iraq, but to maintain Shiite dominance.   This is purely religious to them.     ISIS just happens to be a very fundamental form of Islam.. and "Killing the Infidel" is just standard operating procedure to them.


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 21, 2015)

Don't be too sure of what their goals are, as once again, to mention Hitler, he just wanted to insure the well being of Germans in other countries, his only goal...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 21, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Don't be too sure of what their goals are, as once again, to mention Hitler, he just wanted to insure the well being of Germans in other countries, his only goal...



That is nonsense..


----------



## Warrigal (May 21, 2015)

Nonsense, Ralphy. Among other things Hitler wanted revenge for the humiliation of Germany's defeat in WW I.
If he wanted the wellbeing of his people he would have sued for peace when defeat was inevitable.
Instead he continued with hopeless military strategies that prolonged the suffering of the Volk.


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 21, 2015)

Sorry that you don't want to take a longer historical perspective.   What may be nonsense to some may not be for others...


----------



## Warrigal (May 21, 2015)

I think my historical perspective was a bit longer than yours. :grin:


----------



## AZ Jim (May 21, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Sorry that you don't want to take a longer historical perspective.   What may be nonsense to some may not be for others...



:stirthepot:


----------

