The Islamist militants took control of Mosul after hundreds of its fighters overwhelmed government military forces in a lightening attack on Monday, forcing up to 500,000 people to flee the city and Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to call a national state of emergency.For the record, the U.S. is "deeply concerned" and "stands with the Iraqi people." Noted.
The militants freed up to 1,000 inmates from Mosul's central prison, according to senior police officials. They are also in control of Mosul airport and local television stations.
११ जून, २०१४
"The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (Isis) has become the richest terror group ever after looting 500 billion Iraqi dinars..."
"... the equivalent of $429m (£256m) - from Mosul's central bank, according to the regional governor."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६६ टिप्पण्या:
If only Obama had given them a red line, this could have been avoided.
They forgot to say ... unexpectedly.
I am sure that as we blog and enjoy our morning coffee, the best brains in the Obama administration are conjuring up a killer #hashtag to deal with this situation.
Thank you Mr. President!
Was there a helicopter on the roof of the U.S. Consulate?
"Strong letter to follow."
Cool snark, Althouse. What would HRH Scott Walker do about it?
Hmmm...if we hadn't illegally invaded Iraq on false pretenses and destroyed their country, this wouldn't be happening now.
Syria and Iraq were cobbled together from the corpses of several Ottoman provinces. The centrifugal forces of culture, tribe, and religion pulling them apart could only be counteracted by strong and often brutal central dictatorships a la Saddam and Assad. Now that those dictators have been neutered or killed, there will eventually have to be a redrawing of borders along more realistic lines. No matter how much the UN or the US wishes to maintain the current borders.
"Was there a helicopter on the roof of the U.S. Consulate?"
No, it left for Kabul already.
Looks like some lucky jihadi will be getting his picture in the Forbes 500 list of the world's richest....
(And there's a Governor of Nineveh!)
It used to be we'd send The Envoy.
Today it's emo tweets.
Forward!
Status of Forces Agreement? In the Obama world - so NOT necessary. Obama can talk to these guys and get them to come around.
What an effed up world since he became president. How are things going in the middle east these days? Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya are hell holes. Lebanon is refugee central, so who knows where that will lead. Iran is clapping its' hands in glee because we are going to allow them 50-100 nukes.
What a depressing situation!
#obamajustreadaboutitonthenews
Obama's failure to press for a renewed Status of Forces agreement is another addition to the junkyard of his foreign policy. He got short-term gratification for pulling the military out of Iraq. We may realize long-term disaster from the results of the bugout.
Mark said...
Was there a helicopter on the roof of the U.S. Consulate?
Not so funny when you consider it's a long way from Kabul to anywhere safe when the Taliban roll into town.
Time to whip out the hashtags again.
A lot of US soldiers died in that town, now half a million people have been driven out by the very forces those soldiers had once defeated.
Maybe the war was wrong, maybe we should have let Saddam keep his torture state, but abandoning Iraq to these people was a wrong on top of a wrong.
BTW, the total rape and torture quotient of the globe went down once Saddam was gone, Guantanamo's enhanced interrogations can't even be mentioned in the same breath with the kind of stuff Saddam's forces did to keep power and suppress opposition and disfavored ethnic groups.
Maybe stopping that was not worth a single US life, but just know that this is what weakness invites before you propose a policy of weakness.
Heck of a job, Barry!
An BHO thinks terrorism is receding. The day of reckoning will come again. It is just like Clinton thinking OBL was not worth capturing.
Well hey! Give it another month, and we'll be in a position to find out first hand if the Republican argument, "we fight them there so we don't fight them here" is true or not!
Lt. Col. Tom Kratman at everyjoe.com argues that Iraq was an accidentally brilliant decision for none of the official reasons: as Baghdad is so critical to the prestige and culture of the Islamic world that Islamists could not not counterattack there... but that Iraq had the logistical capabilities for us to field an overwhelming force against them, which we could not do in Afghanistan.
Consider the power alternatives now for the Maliki Shiite Government.
1. We step in with the 10,000 troops that Teh Won refused to leave there in the first place so he could end the bad war and go fight the good one.
2. Since we won't, Iran does it. Putting their troops on the border of Syria and Saudi Arabia.
That will do a great deal for the long term stability/instability of the ME.
Man, that Obama foreign policy is rock solid.
What would HRH Scott Walker do about it?
As governor of WI, his options are exceptionally limited.
if we hadn't illegally invaded Iraq on false pretenses and destroyed their country, this wouldn't be happening now.
The Left is abnormally FOND of Saddam Hussein.
I mention it because you are advocating that we should've kept him in power.
You are all cowardly jokers for acting like Iraq is an easy problem to solve or that the American people would tolerate being involved there further after the last decade. Makes me sick to think this kind of thinking created the mess in the first place and all those young Americans died because people like you consider foreign adventures to be "easy". For shame.
".if we hadn't illegally invaded Iraq on false pretenses and destroyed their country, this wouldn't be happening now."
Do you mean to tell me that Hillary voted for something illegal ?
I'm shocked ! Shocked, I tell you !
What, no one has said its "Bush's Fault"?
Thanks for voting for him!!
Drill SGT, wasn't meant to be funny.
Vietnam was the template for how to lose a war in the most expensive way possible. Fight to the win, declare peace in our time, and abandon our allies (and often our own soldiers) to the barbarians who didn't get the memo that they were beaten fair and square and just go away already.
"Halp us John Carry!"
Curious George said...
If only Obama had given them a red line, this could have been avoided.
The order of precedence is:
Red Line Warning
Hashtag of Death
Sternly Worded Diplomatic Letter
"Cool snark, Althouse. What would HRH Scott Walker do about it?"
Had somebody besides Obama been elected, there would likely have been a status of forces agreement that would have kept stability in the fledgling democracy that was Iraq.
It is kind of late to do anything but watch Iraq fall to the Islamists.
Cook is right, the best thing would have been to leave Iraq in the hands of a guy who knew what it took to maintain "stability",and I am pretty sure he would have laughed at waterboarding as for softies, more like raping family members and batteries to the testicles kind of stuff for him, you know, actual torture, and look the other way. Ignore the fact that Hussein had torture rooms, complete with a hook in the ceiling in just about every town.
After all, looking the other way is now our only choice, we just should have done it sooner and not deluded ourselves into thinking we could help Iraq become a democracy and make the world a safer place.
Afghanistan soon to follow.
Poverty, rule by warlords, complete repression of women, and sovereign territory available to enterprising souls seeking to advance the will of Allah through terrorism against the unbelievers.
Good day's work, Barry.
Asking what Walker would do is like asking a pilot to fix a situation where the plane has already crashed. All you can do is draw lessons from this. Troops are not going back. I wouldn't ask anybody to fight for a guy who believes that a deserter is a hero.
I will tell you what was a heckofa job. Kerry has managed to scrub the internet of that photo of him hanging from the landing gear of that helicopter from the 2004 campaign
This is why we needed to maintain a residual for there to deal with terrorists, so they don't come in when we leave a vacuum by leaving.
And he's going to do the same thing in Afghanistan.
Robert Cook said...
Hmmm...if we hadn't illegally invaded Iraq on false pretenses and destroyed their country, this wouldn't be happening now.
Not sure that "Hmmm" is the reflected sound of cogent analysis as it is the process of conjuring an excuse for the Obama foreign policy only slightly less obvious and hackneyed than "it's Bush's fault".
Besides, it's not like those who were for sanctions and against invasion putatively didn't want Saddam's regime to collapse as a result, an outcome which would have most likely resulted in the same "broken china" by other means that would have also required occupation to avoid such outcomes.
And the occupation was the tough slog, not the invasion.
So does Obama not know the difference between "ending" a war and "winning" a war, or doesn't he care?
At least Assad seems to be winning in Syria.
"You are all cowardly jokers for acting like Iraq is an easy problem to solve or that the American people would tolerate being involved there further after the last decade"
So if it was hard, I guess that moved it right off of Obama's list then?
All we are pointing out is that this is the inevitable result of Obama's policy of abandonment of our allies. Something other allies will note. Can you honestly say this was not the inevitable result of leaving Iraq?
What were some positive scenarios out of that action?
You are all cowardly jokers for acting like Iraq is an easy problem to solve
It WAS solved when Obama came to office.
It is very much not solved now.
Our allies like us significantly less. Our enemies have been empowered but still hate us.
Iraq FUBAR Afghanistan FUBAR. Egypt FUBAR. Syria FUBAR. Controlling Iran FUBAR. Libya FUBAR.
The next president is going to have to deal with Terrorists with billions of dollars because we just had to leave territory we already won for oBamas election.
Ok, but is Osama Bin Laden still dead? How is GM doing these days, anyway?
Amichel wrote:
Now that those dictators have been neutered or killed, there will eventually have to be a redrawing of borders along more realistic lines. No matter how much the UN or the US wishes to maintain the current borders.
nah. Iraq and Afghanistan could also function as they do now with more moderate govts. They just need to be able to defeat those who would overrun their govt.
If you want to talk about redrawing borders, who would redraw them? the west? Or would they have to fight it out? Meaning all out war in the ME?
Since we are already fighting why not support govts that aren't hostile to the west.
There doesn't have to be a strongman. What has to happen is we need to defend our gains. Especially against Al Qaeda and related groups. Do we really want Al Qaeda to be the one that redraws those borders? Because they will.
"if we hadn't illegally invaded Iraq on false pretenses and destroyed their country, this wouldn't be happening now."
Every word you said, with the possible exception of if and "and" is rubbish.
"Obama's failure to press for a renewed Status of Forces agreement is another addition to the junkyard of his foreign policy. He got short-term gratification for pulling the military out of Iraq. We may realize long-term disaster from the results of the bugout."
I am no fan of or apologist for Obama, a war criminal and murderer equal to his predecessor, but he had no choice. The agreement to remove our troops by the specific date had been made by the Bush administration; Obama wanted us to stay there--to compound our folly and waste of financial resources and human lives--but the Iraqis insisted as a necessary condition of our staying on making American soldiers subject to arrest and punishment by the Iraqis if they violated any Iraqi laws while in country. Obama wouldn't agree to this, so we had to leave.
In effect, the Iraqis kicked us out.
The disasters (plural) we're seeing in the Middle East are the result of our military aggression there.
Tim in Vermont: no we don't have to make Obama's mistakes. And it would be even more foolish to become isolationists. We have a say in what happens in the ME, and if Al Qaeda is re surging then we need to continue fighting them.
What Obama is doing is just letting it turn to shit. That shouldn't be our policy as well.
the best brains in the Obama administration are conjuring up
They're searching for a YouTube video that taunts Islam.
Susan Rice is already booked for five Sunday talk shows to spew utter fucking nonsense, and fix blame on the Republicans that constrain Baracky's greatness.
Robert Cook said...
Hmmm...if we hadn't illegally invaded Iraq on false pretenses and destroyed their country, this wouldn't be happening now.
True enough. Also:
If the British Mandate of Mesopotamia hadn't been established...
If the Kingdom of Iraq hadn't been overthrown...
If Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait...
If Pres. Clinton hadn't signed the Iraq Liberation Act..
"After all, looking the other way is now our only choice, we just should have done it sooner and not deluded ourselves into thinking we could help Iraq become a democracy and make the world a safer place."
Ha! We never had the slightest interest in "help(ing) Iraq become a democracy" or "mak(ing) the world a safer place." Our interests were, as they always are, selfish: we wanted dominance in and over that part of the world.
"Do you mean to tell me that Hillary voted for something illegal ?"
Yes.
Michelle Obama needs to quickly tweet a photo of herself looking all concerned and holding a hashtag sign! She can still save the day!
Remember when those Nigerian terrorists got all Twitter-shamed and let their hostages go?
"The Left is abnormally FOND of Saddam Hussein.
"I mention it because you are advocating that we should've kept him in power."
It is not our place to depose leaders of other countries, no matter how awful they may be. More significantly, it is a violation of the UN Charter for us to invade another country without UN Security Council approval or unless in defense against an imminent or already initiated attack on us--or an ally--by that country. Neither condition pertained when we launched our war on Iraq.
And, Saddam was a friend of America's for many years, when it served our purposes. We have no problem consorting with (or helping install and prop up) odious tyrants.
One thing to remember in Iraq is that there are 3 separate "states" here - Anbar is Sunni, there is a Kurdish area in the north and the Shia in the South. ISIS would get it's ass kicked if it went after the Kurds and they would have zero support in the South. So the Sunni population - the ones that produced Saddam - get to enjoy the fruit of their faith. I hope that when ISIS murders enough of them, they might realize that supporting their "brothers" had a cost.
Nah - get out the popcorn and let the show begin. Frankly, they have it coming to them.
@Heyooyeh:
You have it exactly backwards when you say people here are snarking because we think foreign policy is "easy." It was precisely the attitude of the current Administration in their campaign rhetoric who indicated there were no hard choices, no costly decisions, and no difficult problems in foriegn policy that couldn't be easily solved by voting for this group. Remember the "reset button," the various pivots, how a vote for Obama was a vote to "restore our standing in the world?" After which the rise of the seas would begin to slow, of course, but also we would "end a ware" and "our image as the last, best hope on earth" would be restored. And a Nobel Peace Prize was awarded!
Many on the Right argued that the tone and content of the campaign w/r/t foreign policy was unrealistic and insulting to the prior Administration: that it wasn't easy to close Gitmo, that hard choices had to be made in fighting terror and ending the war, etc. Those objections were dismissed and the media assured us that Team Obama was competent and so much better than those warmongering neocons/Bush Admin members/Rethuglicans that all these problems would be quickly solved through force of will alone. As that is (again and again) proven false snark is a natural response. We realize how large the problem is and the likely cost of this failure (these failures).
The danger was there all along, though, and pretending like foreign policy was only difficult because Pres. Bush's Admin was incompetent obscured that danger. Pointing out the gulf between what was sold and what we got (in the present Admin) is a valuable exercise, if only to try and see that "we don't get fooled again." Will the media learn? [no, of course not]
Robert Cook:
Can you please remind me when Zarqawi arrived in Iraq?
Apparently they don't understand what "stupid shit" is.
Heh. If we had not invaded Iraq, this would *exactly* be happening now. The only difference is, the left would be cheering it as yet another glorious moment in the Arab spring!
Robert Cook wrote:
It is not our place to depose leaders of other countries, no matter how awful they may be
Well depending on how awful they are it may well be our place to do exactly that.
Robert Cook wrote:
More significantly, it is a violation of the UN Charter for us to invade another country without UN Security Council approval or unless in defense against an imminent or already initiated attack on us--or an ally--by that country. Neither condition pertained when we launched our war on Iraq.
can we please get off this "we need to follow the UN" business. Iraq was contained and the UN passed 16 resolutions against it. Including one that said it was their last chance to comply. I dno't care what the UN says frankly. The UN is Russia veto over our self interest.
If you want the UN to mean anything then it has to be more than a toilet paper distributor. (and by toilet paper I mean it's useless resolutions).
Robert Cook wrote:
More significantly, it is a violation of the UN Charter for us to invade another country without UN Security Council approval or unless in defense against an imminent or already initiated attack on us--or an ally--by that country. Neither condition pertained when we launched our war on Iraq.
can we please get off this "we need to follow the UN" business. Iraq was contained and the UN passed 16 resolutions against it. Including one that said it was their last chance to comply. I dno't care what the UN says frankly. The UN is Russia veto over our self interest.
If you want the UN to mean anything then it has to be more than a toilet paper distributor. (and by toilet paper I mean it's useless resolutions).
And, Cook, 1441 was Iraq's last chance. Signed unanimously by the security counsel. Was that the UN's last chance until it's next last chance? Which would be followed by the real last chance?
It's like the Who's Farewell Tour. But they keep coming back!
I wonder if it was in conformance with "international law" to let two terrorist go who were wanted by the UN for war crimes?
I am sure Robert Cook thinks so.
Democratics, this is exactly what your party's policies led to. We told you so at the time. Suck it up and stop making excuses.
"Ha! We never had the slightest interest in "help(ing) Iraq become a democracy" or "mak(ing) the world a safer place." Our interests were, as they always are, selfish: we wanted dominance in and over that part of the world." - Cookie
Once again we hear from the omniscient narrator of the story of human history. Thanks for the insight into the private thoughts of so many. Without all knowing and all seeing people like yourself, this world might be less black and white.
"can we please get off this 'we need to follow the UN' business."
As members of the UN and the UN Security Council, and as signatories to the UN Charter, the provisions of the UN Charter are legally binding on us. (As per the Constitution, treaty agreements become "the law of the land.")
Therefore, we are legally required to follow the provisions of the charter. This is not to say we do--as we do not think any laws apply to us--although we are quick to accuse others of violating their charter agreements if it serves our purposes to paint them as outlaw nations.
Given that the UN was formed for the express purpose of preventing war, it is not an insignificant oversight when we violate our charter agreements in order to attack another country.
"-but the Iraqis insisted as a necessary condition of our staying on making American soldiers subject to arrest and punishment by the Iraqis if they violated any Iraqi laws while in country. Obama wouldn't agree to this, so we had to leave."
It is amazing the kind of "just so" stories that Robert Cook will swallow as long as they come from the mouth of Obama. I am sure it was all just that simple because the all knowing Cook said it was. Only Republicans have ulterior motives. Only Republicans misrepresent negotiations or what is possible.
Ummm...who says Iraq violated 1441? Who says 1441 was an approval by the Security Council that we invade Iraq?
Actually, we violated 1441, in that it required Saddam to comply with his disarmament obligations and we did not allow him to prove he already had. UN Inspectors spent four months searching Iraq for indications of WMD or active WMD programs and they found nothing in that time. They said they needed several more months to complete their inspections, but we told them to leave Iraq for their own safety as we were going to war on the date already planned.
As to whether 1441 was an approval for war, it was not:
"While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:
'[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3] '
"The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:
'We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[4]'
"The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:
'Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[5]'"
(From Wikipedia)
Tim in Vermont at 1:08 pm:
"It is amazing the kind of 'just so' stories that Robert Cook will swallow as long as they come from the mouth of Obama."
Hahahaha! As if I believe anything Obama says. He's as despicable a liar and murderer as Bush was, if not worse, actually.
Also, the reason we were kicked out of Iraq is hardly a "just so" story from Obama. If anything, I'm sure he'd rather play down his diplomatic defeat and boast that it was a conscious fulfillment of one of his campaign promises. After all, it may be the one campaign promise he actually kind of kept, even if against his wishes, and only by default--he was unable to renegotiate the withdrawal date set by the Bush Administration.
For years, I followed Red Robert's rules of order at bi-weekly council meetings at the Center Country Community College (CCCC).
"Obama's a corporate stooge"
Up twinkles!
Occasionally, me and Hobo Joe would go out the vending machines to see if that stray Dr. Pepper had jarred loose.
Filthy Vending Machine Cabal destroying our souls with their sugary drinks and corporate greed!
Robert cook wrote:
Therefore, we are legally required to follow the provisions of the charter. This is not to say we do--as we do not think any laws apply to us--although we are quick to accuse others of violating their charter agreements if it serves our purposes to paint them as outlaw nations.
I agree that we are supposed to follow the UN, but all it is is a useless organization that serves no purpose other than to ensure that no t international issues actually get resolved (other than by allowing dictators and murderers to gain or maintain power). And it shows international law to be a law that no one follows.
Cook, again you're only proving my point about the UN. The last chance leads to yet more chances.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा