Posted on 06/22/2014 9:19:10 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
ANBAR Iraq (Reuters) - Iran's supreme leader condemned U.S. intervention in Iraq on Sunday, accusing Washington of seeking control as Sunni insurgents drove toward Baghdad from the Syrian border and consolidated positions in the north and west.
The statement by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was the clearest statement of opposition to a U.S. plan to dispatch of up to 300 military advisers in response to pleas from the Iraqi government and runs counter to speculation that old enemies Washington and Tehran might cooperate to defend their mutual ally in Baghdad.
"We are strongly opposed to U.S. and other intervention in Iraq," IRNA news agency quoted Khamenei as saying. "We don’t approve of it as we believe the Iraqi government, nation and religious authorities are capable of ending the sedition."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
How many times have DemocRat Presidents messed up things royally in the Middle East?
History is a tough taskmaster.. some never get it.
You think Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a smart way to spend $1 trillion and 4500 american lives?
and remember, the $1 trillion was borrowed from China. We don’t have money to spend, we have debt to finance.
Make that $2 trillion.
Looks like Ahmamurderijad is going to get his wish for world chaos so that his 1313th Imam can arise from Hell.
If Obama were serious about stopping the ISIL offensive he would be forcing Saudi Arabia to stop its funding of the “Islamists”. Instead he is sending more young brave Americans to die in a quagmire. Time for an orderly and safe evacuation of the American embassy and put this whole sorry chapter behind us. No Americans should be captured or detained. The coming battle for Baghdad between hardened Sunni veteran fighters and the mostly novice Shi’ite militias and their equally untested Iranian “volunteers” won’t be pretty.
Yes - that wasn’t the mistake. Letting the Democrats push for nation building was the error.
After taking Baghdad and the capture of Saddam Hussein, we should have left.
Give Ron Paul some credit. In 2003 he outlined chapter and verse why the invasion of Iraq was lunacy. He also accurately predicted the futility, horrendous cost and the final outcome.
Did he predict we’d have a Muslim in the white house funding terrorists?
Ireland has had its share of fighting between Protestant and Catholic, as had Germany in earlier times. From 'The History Guide':
"The Thirty Years' War began in Bohemia, an area in which Germans and Czechs, and Lutherans, Calvinists and Catholics lived in relative peace. The peace was shattered when Ferdinand II (1578-1637) became the king of Bohemia in 1617. Ferdinand was a zealous Catholic and the Bohemian Protestants feared he would recatholicize Bohemia. In May 1618, the imperial governors were thrown from the windows of Prague Castle. Ferdinand was deposed and the crown was offered to Frederick V (1596-1632, also known as the Winter King) of the Palatinate. This act extended the war from Bohemia to the Holy Roman Empire itself. The Protestant Union under Frederick now faced the Catholic League behind Ferdinand, who was now emperor. The Bohemian phase of the Thirty Years' War ended at the battle of the White Mountain in November 1620. With Bohemia in ruins, Ferdinand used the Jesuits to recatholicize the territory. The Czech nobility lost everything, the economy lay in ruins and half the population had been killed by war or plague."
Your words will mean even more in a couple of weeks:
“Time for an orderly and safe evacuation of the American embassy and put this whole sorry chapter behind us. No Americans should be captured or detained. The coming battle for Baghdad between hardened Sunni veteran fighters and the mostly novice Shi’ite militias and their equally untested Iranian “volunteers” won’t be pretty.”
I blame BushOne for not finishing the invasion of Kuwait off with a push all the way to Baghdad and Tehran while we had so much force available at the time to get the job done.
at least Powell could have been allowed to mop up the militants as they fled to Baghdad and Tehran and who knows where else.
all that was left was a tinder box.
smart has nothing to do with geopolitik btw, imo.
why some are allowed to dabble in it for so long is a mystery, in a way.
Did he predict we’d have a Muslim in the white house funding terrorists?
Bush and Cheney knew all about Obama in 2007.
And what’s Rand doing about that now?
Why did Obama leave large caches of our weapons behind when he withdrew our soldiers from Iraq?
It seems like an important question, since ISIS’s seizure of those weapons has made it easier for them to conquer their way through northern Iraq on their way to Baghdad, killing Iraqi soldiers, whom we’re supposed to be supporting.
When we left Vietnam, we did so under duress, with American personnel clinging to helicopters. So there was no chance for an orderly withdrawal of our weapons then, as there was in Iraq.
The North Vietnamese subsequently used our abandoned weapons to massacre their former American-supported enemies in South Vietnam. Does anyone doubt ISIS will do the same to their American-supported Shiite enemies in Iraq when they achieve their inevitable victory using our abandoned weapons?
What are Bush and Cheney doing about it now? Cheney speaks out but Bush is silent.
Bush and Cheney are big New World Order supporters so it is to be expected.
Good points.
You can also blame Bush Two for not fighting the war properly. This assumes that we should have gone there at all. I do not believe in Petraeus-style winning of hearts and minds. That is for host governments conducting counter-insurgency operations, not for invading armies. I believe in minding our own business for the most part. However, if we go to war, we should be dropping Daisy cutters like rain and crushing the enemy. Also, once Baghdad fell we should have kept rolling into Iran and crushed them too. After toppling both governments and crushing their militaries, we should have set up our puppet governments and left. If they acted up again, we could have dropped more daisy-cutters. No reason to get drawn into low-intensity conflict and occupation.
RonPaulian and AlexJonesian goggly gook.
You need to wake up and smell the crap.
“We are entering a New World Order” was repeated many times by GHW Bush and his son also made that pronouncement.
Now the US military is only being used to protect those interests and that goal.
Sailors take aim at new recruiting slogan
Oct. 11, 2009 - 09:27AM | Last Updated: Oct. 11, 2009 - 09:27AM | 0Comments
By Philip Ewing
Staff writer
Filed Under
News
The Navy’s new recruiting slogan, “America’s Navy: A global force for good,” was designed from the outset to motivate existing sailors as much as to entice young people to enlist.
But according to reactions by Navy Times readers in the week since the slogan was made public, that plan isn’t working.
“Holy cow! This is getting really stupid. Why do we need to change our slogan again? I don’t think it describes the Navy at all,” said Machinist’s Mate 1st Class (SS/SW) Michael Dayton, stationed at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bangor, Wash.
Navy Times received 56 e-mails from readers, and all but six disliked the slogan.
Their reasons were many. Several sailors said they worried the new slogan was wrong for the Navy’s reputation as a combat force.
“This bumper-sticker jingle would look good on a flower-toting cart, but when an [aircraft carrier] that displaces over 100,000 tons pulls up off your coast, generally the thought is, ‘Oh crap, the U.S. Navy is here,’” said Information Specialist 1st Class (SW/AW) Joshua Forman, of the 2nd Fleet Military Intelligence Operations Center.
Others said they didn’t like what they saw as the Navy using too preachy a sales pitch.
“I think the new Navy slogan is utterly ridiculous,” said Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class (FMF) Gabriel Michaels, attached to 2nd Battalion, 8th Marines, in Camp Dwyer, Afghanistan. “It evokes feelings of moral superiority and control — which is not something we are or need — and completely brushes aside the fact that we are a vastly technologically superior Navy when compared to others.”
Some people disliked the slogan for practical reasons: “This is not ‘America’s Navy.’ It is the United States Navy … America encompasses two continents. The United States is located in just one. Tell them to get it right,” said retired Lt. Cmdr. Bill Jones.
Other people disliked it because it sounded too over the top: “It sounds like a catchphrase for a bunch of superheroes,” said Chief Aviation Machinist’s Mate (AW) Randy Whitney, just one of the sailors who invoked the 1970s cartoon classic “Super Friends.”
“Do they plan on moving all the Navy’s Pentagon offices to the Hall of Justice?” Whitney asked.
To be sure, two sailors did say unequivocally that they liked the change.
Operations Specialist 3rd Class Daniel Leaks, of Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility Virginia Capes, Va., said he appreciated the slogan’s focus on the Navy’s service all over the world.
“I believe that the new slogan is a brilliant idea that represents the Navy as a family and fighting for one goal, and that goal is protecting our United States,” he said.
Master-at-Arms 3rd Class Gary Adams, an individual augmentee serving with the Army’s 705th Military Police Battalion in Camp Taji, Iraq, also liked how the new campaign reflected what the Navy does today.
“I think it is right on the spot,” Adams said. “We are outside the box more than any other branch in these times.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.