Page 2 of 47 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 923

Thread: ISIS capture Mosul, Tikrit; march towards Baghdad

Share             
  1. #21
    Elite Member T-123456's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,699
    Thanks
    4227
    Turkey Netherlands

    Re: Obama To Send Up To 300 U.S. Military Advisers To Iraq

    Good game Obama,good game!
    The Following User Says Thank You to T-123456 For This Useful Post: Aryan_B


  2. #22
    Senior Member Jameel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    3,802
    Thanks
    1714
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Re: All you need to know about ISIS and what is happening in Iraq

    The article does not point out as much as it could how barbaric these animals are

  3. #23
    Administrator Aryan_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    14,322
    Thanks
    8763
    Pakistan England

    Re: Obama To Send Up To 300 U.S. Military Advisers To Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by T-123456 View Post
    Good game Obama,good game!
    Whilst this is good I do agree the American insistence that Iraqis make their government more inclusive and pluralistic to reflect all hues of opinion in Iraq
    The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aryan_B For This Useful Post: Fassi,T-123456


  4. #24
    Elite Member T-123456's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,699
    Thanks
    4227
    Turkey Netherlands

    Re: Obama To Send Up To 300 U.S. Military Advisers To Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Aryan_B View Post
    Whilst this is good I do agree the American insistence that Iraqis make their government more inclusive and pluralistic to reflect all hues of opinion in Iraq
    Dont you think they planned all of this to happen?
    They just left Iraq with the knowledge that Maliki is a Iranian pawn,nothing fishy to you?
    All this ISIS this and ISIS that,why not interfere,why Turkiye doesnt interfere(we did before in the north of Iraq).
    The goal is Iran,we will see very soon.
    The Following User Says Thank You to T-123456 For This Useful Post: Fassi


  5. #25
    Senior Member Red Dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,616
    Thanks
    2648
    China China

    ISIS Fiasco: It’s Really an Attack on Iran



    There’s something that doesn’t ring-true about the coverage of crisis in Iraq. Maybe it’s the way the media reiterates the same, tedious storyline over and over again with only the slightest changes in the narrative. For example, I was reading an article in the Financial Times by Council on Foreign Relations president, Richard Haass, where he says that Maliki’s military forces in Mosul “melted away”.

    Interestingly, the Haass op-ed was followed by a piece by David Gardener who used almost the very same language. He said the “army melts away.” So, I decided to thumb through the news a bit and see how many other journalists were stung by the “melted away” bug. And, as it happens, there were quite a few, including Politico, NBC News, News Sentinel, Global Post, the National Interest, ABC News etc.

    Now, the only way an unusual expression like that would pop up with such frequency would be if the authors were getting their talking points from a central authority. (which they probably do.) But the effect, of course, is the exact opposite than what the authors intend, that is, these cookie cutter stories leave readers scratching their heads and feeling like something fishy is going on.

    And something fishy IS going on. The whole fable about 1,500 jihadis scaring the pants off 30,000 Iraqi security guards to the point where they threw away their rifles, changed their clothes and headed for the hills, is just not believable. I don’t know what happened in Mosul, but, I’ll tell you one thing, it wasn’t that. That story just doesn’t pass the smell test.

    And what happened in Mosul matters too, because nearly every journalist and pundit in the MSM is using the story to discredit Maliki and suggest that maybe Iraq would be better off without him. Haass says that it shows that the army’s “allegiance to the government is paper thin”. Gardener says its a sign of “a fast failing state.” Other op-ed writers like Nicolas Kristof attack Maliki for other reasons, like being too sectarian. Here’s Kristof:

    “The debacle in Iraq isn’t President Obama’s fault. It’s not the Republicans’ fault. Both bear some responsibility, but, overwhelmingly, it’s the fault of the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri Kamal al-Maliki.”

    Of course, Kristof is no match for the imperial mouthpiece, Tom Friedman. When it comes to pure boneheaded bluster, Friedman is still numero uno. Here’s how the jowly pundit summed it up in an article in the Sunday Times titled “Five Principles for Iraq”:

    “Iraq’s Shiite prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, has proved himself not to be a friend of a democratic, pluralistic Iraq either. From Day 1, he has used his office to install Shiites in key security posts, drive out Sunni politicians and generals and direct money to Shiite communities. In a word, Maliki has been a total jerk. Besides being prime minister, he made himself acting minister of defense, minister of the interior and national security adviser, and his cronies also control the Central Bank and the Finance Ministry.

    Maliki had a choice — to rule in a sectarian way or in an inclusive way — and he chose sectarianism. We owe him nothing.” (Five Principles for Iraq, Tom Freidman, New York Times)

    Leave it to Friedman, eh? In other words, the reason Iraq is such a mess, has nothing to do with the invasion, the occupation, the death squads, Abu Ghraib, the Salvador Option, the decimated infrastructure, the polluted environment, or the vicious sectarian war the US ignited with its demented counterinsurgency program. Oh, no. The reason Iraq is a basketcase is because Maliki is a jerk. Maliki is sectarian. Bad Maliki.

    Sound familiar? Putin last week. Maliki this week. Who’s next?

    In any event, there is a rational explanation for what happened in Mosul although I cannot verify its authenticity. Check out this post at Syria Perspectives blog:

    “…the Iraqi Ba’ath Party’s primary theoretician and Saddam’s right-hand man, ‘Izzaat Ibraaheem Al-Douri, himself a native of Mosul…was searching out allies in a very hostile post-Saddam Iraq … Still on the run and wanted for execution by the Al-Maliki government, Al-Douri still controlled a vast network of Iraqi Sunni Ba’athists who operated in a manner similar to the old Odessa organization that helped escaped Nazis after WWII … he did not have the support structure needed to oust Al-Maliki, so, he found an odd alliance in ISIS through the offices of Erdoghan and Bandar. Our readers should note that the taking of Mosul was accomplished by former Iraqi Ba’athist officers suspiciously abandoning their posts and leaving a 52,000 man military force without any leadership thereby forcing a complete collapse of the city’s defenses. The planning and collaboration cannot be coincidental.” (THE INNER CORE OF ISIS – THE INVASIVE SPECIES, Ziad Fadel, Syrian Perspectives)

    I’ve read variations of this same explanation on other blogs, but I have no way of knowing whether they’re true or not. But what I do know, is that it’s a heckuva a lot more believable than the other explanation mainly because it provides enough background and detail to make the scenario seem plausible. The official version–the “melts away” version– doesn’t do that at all. It just lays out this big bogus story expecting people to believe it on faith alone. Why? Because it appeared in all the papers?

    That seems like a particularly bad reason for believing anything.

    And the “army melting away” story is just one of many inconsistencies in the official media version of events. Another puzzler is why Obama allowed the jihadis to rampage across Iraq without lifting a finger to help. Does that strike anyone else as a bit odd?

    When was the last time an acting president failed to respond immediately and forcefully to a similar act of aggression?

    Never. The US always responds. And the pattern is always the same. “Stop what you are doing now or we’re going to bomb you to smithereens.” Isn’t that the typical response?

    Sure it is. But Obama delivered no such threat this time. Instead, he’s qualified his support for al-Maliki saying that the beleaguered president must “begin accommodating Sunni participation in his government” before the US will lend a hand. What kind of lame response is that? Check out this blurb from MNI News:

    “President Barack Obama Friday warned Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the United States wants him to begin accommodating Sunni participation in his government, or see the United States withhold the help he needs, short of U.S. troops on the ground, to ward off an attack on Baghdad.

    Obama added the emphasis of an appearance before TV cameras to his midday message, that while he will be considering options for some military intervention in the days ahead, the next move is up to Maliki.”
    (Obama Warns Iraq’s Maliki,Looking for Sunni-Shia Accommodation, MNI)

    Have you ever read such nonsense in your life? Imagine if , let’s say, the jihadi hordes had gathered just 50 miles outside of London and were threatening to invade at any minute. Do you think Obama would deliver the same message to UK Prime Minister David Cameron?

    “Gee, Dave, we’d really like to help out, but you need to put a couple of these guys in your government first. Would that be okay, Dave? Just think of it as affirmative action for terrorists.”

    It might sound crazy, but that’s what Obama wants Maliki to do. So, what’s going on here? Why is Obama delivering ultimatums when he should be helping out? Could it be that Obama has a different agenda than Maliki’s and that the present situation actually works to his benefit?

    It sure looks that way. Just take a look at what Friedman says further on in the same article. It helps to clarify the point. He says:

    “Maybe Iran, and its wily Revolutionary Guards Quds Force commander, Gen. Qassem Suleimani, aren’t so smart after all. It was Iran that armed its Iraqi Shiite allies with the specially shaped bombs that killed and wounded many American soldiers. Iran wanted us out. It was Iran that pressured Maliki into not signing an agreement with the U.S. to give our troops legal cover to stay in Iraq. Iran wanted to be the regional hegemon. Well, Suleimani: “This Bud’s for you.” Now your forces are overextended in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, and ours are back home. Have a nice day.” (5 Principles for Iraq, Tom Friedman, New York Times)

    Interesting, eh? Friedman basically admits that this whole fiasco is about Iran who turned out to be the biggest winner in the Iraq War sweepstakes. Naturally, that pisses off people in Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh to no end, so they’ve cooked up this goofy plan to either remove Maliki altogether or significantly trim his wings. Isn’t that what’s going on? And that’s why Obama is holding a gun to Maliki’s head and telling him what hoops he has to jump through in order to get US help. Because he’s determined to weaken Iran’s hegemonic grip on Baghdad.

    Friedman also notes the Status of Forces agreement which would have allowed U.S. troops to stay in Iraq. Al Maliki rejected the deal which enraged Washington setting the stage for this latest terrorist farce. Obama intends to reverse that decision by hook or crook. This is just the way Washington does business, by twisting arms and breaking legs. Everybody knows this.



    To understand what’s going on today in Iraq, we need to know a little history. In 2002, The Bush administration commissioned the Rand Corporation “to develop a Shaping Strategy for pacifying Muslim populations where the US has commercial or strategic interests.” The plan they came up with–which was called “US Strategy in the Muslim World after 9-11”– recommended that the US, “Align its policy with Shiite groups who aspire to have more participation in government and greater freedoms of political and religious expression. If this alignment can be brought about, it could erect a barrier against radical Islamic movements and may create a foundation for a stable U.S. position in the Middle East.”

    The Bushies decided to follow this wacky plan which proved to be a huge tactical error. By throwing their weight behind the Shia, they triggered a massive Sunni rebellion that initiated as many as 100 attacks per day on US soldiers. That, in turn, led to a savage US counterinsurgency that wound up killing tens of thousands of Sunnis while reducing much of the country to ruins. Petraeus’ vicious onslaught was concealed behind the misleading PR smokescreen of sectarian civil war. It was actually a genocidal war against the people who Obama now tacitly supports in Mosul and Tikrit.

    So there’s been a huge change of policy, right? And the fact that the US has taken a hands-off approach to Isis suggests that the Obama administration has abandoned the Rand strategy altogether and is looking for ways to support Sunni-led groups in their effort to topple the Al Assad regime in Damascus, weaken Hezbollah, and curtail Iran’s power in the region. While the strategy is ruthless and despicable, at least it makes sense in the perverted logic of imperial expansion, which the Rand plan never did.

    What is happening in Iraq today was anticipated in a 2007 Seymour Hersh article titled “The Redirection.” Author Tony Cartalucci gives a great summary of the piece in his own article. He says:

    “The Redirection,” documents…US, Saudi, and Israeli intentions to create and deploy sectarian extremists region-wide to confront Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hersh would note that these “sectarian extremists” were either tied to Al Qaeda, or Al Qaeda itself. The ISIS army moving toward Baghdad is the final manifestation of this conspiracy, a standing army operating with impunity, threatening to topple the Syrian government, purge pro-Iranian forces in Iraq, and even threatening Iran itself by building a bridge from Al Qaeda’s NATO safe havens in Turkey, across northern Iraq, and up to Iran’s borders directly…

    It is a defacto re-invasion of Iraq by Western interests – but this time without Western forces directly participating – rather a proxy force the West is desperately attempting to disavow any knowledge of or any connection to.” (America’s Covert Re-Invasion of Iraq, Tony Cartalucci, Information Clearinghouse)

    So, now we’re getting to the crux of the matter, right? Now we should be able to identify the policy that is guiding events. What we know for sure is that the US wants to break Iran’s grip on Iraq. But how do they plan to achieve that; that’s the question?

    Well, they could use their old friends the Baathists who they’ve been in touch with since 2007. That might work. But then they’d have to add a few jihadis to the mix to make it look believable.

    Okay. But does that mean that Obama is actively supporting Isis?

    No, not necessarily. Isis is already connected to other Intel agencies and might not need direct support from the US. (Note: Many analysts have stated that the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) receives generous donations from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both of whom are staunch US allies. According to London’s Daily Express: “through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the West (has) supported militant rebel groups which have since mutated into ISIS and other al‑Qaeda connected militias. ( Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2014)

    What’s important as far as Obama is concerned, is that the strategic objectives of Isis and those of the United States coincide. Both entities seek greater political representation for Sunnis, both want to minimize Iranian influence in Iraq, and both support a soft partition plan that former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie H. Gelb, called “The only viable strategy to correct (Iraq ‘s) historical defect and move in stages toward a three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south.”

    This is why Obama hasn’t attacked the militia even though it has marched to within 50 miles of Baghdad. It’s because the US benefits from these developments.

    Let’s summarize:

    Does the US Government “support” or “not support” terrorism depending on the situation?
    Yes.

    Have foreign Intel agencies supplied terrorist organizations in Syria with weapons and logistical support?
    Yes.

    Has the CIA?
    Yes.

    Has the Obama administration signaled that they would like to get rid of al Maliki or greatly reduce his power?
    Yes.

    Is this because they think the present arrangement strengthens Iran’s regional influence?
    Yes.

    Will Isis invade Baghdad?
    No. (This is just a guess, but I expect that something has been already worked out between the Obama team and the Baathist leaders. If Baghdad was really in danger, Obama would probably be acting with greater earnestness.)

    Will Syria and Iraq be partitioned?
    Yes.

    Is Isis a CIA creation?
    No. According to Ziad Fadel, “ISIS is the creation of the one man who played Alqaeda like a yo-yo. Bandar bin Sultan.”

    Does Isis take orders from Washington or the CIA?
    Probably not, although their actions appear to coincide with US strategic objectives. (which is the point!)

    Is Obama’s reluctance to launch an attack on Isis indicate that he wants to diminish Iran’s power in Iraq, redraw the map of the Middle East, and create politically powerless regions run by warlords and tribal leaders?
    Yes, yes and yes.

    http://www.4thmedia.org/2014/06/the-...ttack-on-iran/
    The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Red Dragon For This Useful Post: manuu,T-123456


  6. #26
    Member Iranzamin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    543
    Thanks
    669
    Iran Iran

    Re: ISIS Fiasco: It’s Really an Attack on Iran

    As long our mainland remains safe ISIS barks are no issue, but we will fight them anywhere we can. Right now we are helping Iraqi government to smash these monsters.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Fassi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    3,774
    Thanks
    1828
    Pakistan France

    Re: Obama To Send Up To 300 U.S. Military Advisers To Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by T-123456 View Post
    Dont you think they planned all of this to happen?
    They just left Iraq with the knowledge that Maliki is a Iranian pawn,nothing fishy to you?
    All this ISIS this and ISIS that,why not interfere,why Turkiye doesnt interfere(we did before in the north of Iraq).
    The goal is Iran,we will see very soon.
    But I thought they were now working WITH Iran?
    The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Fassi For This Useful Post: manuu,Naveed HRitom,T-123456


  8. #28
    Elite Member T-123456's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,699
    Thanks
    4227
    Turkey Netherlands

    Re: Obama To Send Up To 300 U.S. Military Advisers To Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Fassi View Post
    But I thought they were now working WITH Iran?
    It sure seems like it.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Jameel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    3,802
    Thanks
    1714
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Re: Obama To Send Up To 300 U.S. Military Advisers To Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by T-123456 View Post
    Dont you think they planned all of this to happen?
    They just left Iraq with the knowledge that Maliki is a Iranian pawn,nothing fishy to you?
    All this ISIS this and ISIS that,why not interfere,why Turkiye doesnt interfere(we did before in the north of Iraq).
    The goal is Iran,we will see very soon.
    Interesting perspective. But as they say sometimes the ends justify the means

  10. #30
    Senior Member KingKong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    8,846
    Thanks
    5485
    Pakistan UK

    Re: Obama To Send Up To 300 U.S. Military Advisers To Iraq

    and this will make a difference? I think even a layman like me can derive that what is needed is air support.

  11. #31
    Senior Member Amjad Hussain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    4,762
    Thanks
    2241
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Re: ISIS Fiasco: It’s Really an Attack on Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Iranzamin View Post
    As long our mainland remains safe ISIS barks are no issue, but we will fight them anywhere we can. Right now we are helping Iraqi government to smash these monsters.
    To attack Irans mainland would be like committing suicide. They would get mince meat made out of them.

  12. #32
    Senior Member Mazea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,301
    Thanks
    984
    Iran Netherlands

    US trained ISIL terrorists at secret Jordan base: Report

    US military instructors trained Takfiri militants of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) at a secret base in Jordan in 2012, informed Jordanian officials say.

    The officials, who were not identified, revealed to American news website WorldNetDaily (WND) that dozens of ISIL members received training as part of covert aid to militants fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

    The Jordanian officials said the 2012 training of the ISIL operatives was not supposed to be used for any future offensive in Iraq.

    They said all ISIL militants trained in Jordan had been vetted for any links to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda.

    German weekly Der Spiegel had also reported last March that Americans were training militants in Jordan for fighting in Syria.

    WND further reported that, according to a source in contact with a high official in the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the Obama administration has been aware for two months that the al-Qaida-inspired group, which has taken over two Iraqi cities and now is threatening Baghdad, was also training fighters in Turkey.

    The source told WND that at least one of the ISIL training camps is in the vicinity of Turkish air base, Incirlik, which houses American personnel and equipment.

    After being trained in Turkey, thousands of ISIL militants sneaked into Iraq to wreak havoc on the country.

    Over the past days, Iraqi armed forces have been engaged in fierce clashes with the ISIL terrorists, who have threatened to take their acts of violence to other Iraqi cities, including the capital, Baghdad.

    However, their advance has been slowed down as Iraqi military forces and volunteer fighters have begun engaging them on several fronts, pushing the militants out of several areas they had earlier overrun.

    KA/HSN/SS

  13. #33
    Senior Member Jameel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    3,802
    Thanks
    1714
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Re: All you need to know about ISIS and what is happening in Iraq

    The Following User Says Thank You to Jameel For This Useful Post: manuu


  14. #34
    Senior Member manuu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    3,711
    Thanks
    1626
    Pakistan Ireland

    Turkey sends f-16 fighter jets near the city of mosul

    ANKARA – Turkey's Air Force has sent F-16 fighter jets on reconnaissance flights near the Iraqi city of Mosul on Sunday. Turkey's Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated on that Iraq has not taken the necessary security measures to combat ongoing violence affecting the country.

    "The ongoing violence in Iraq is quickly spreading and has started to enter neighboring countries," said a statement released by Turkey's Foreign Ministry.

    The self pro-claimed Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, ISIS, already a formidable force inside Syria, has extended its reach into Iraq since Tuesday, when it seized Iraq's second largest city Mosul.

    The group seized large swathes of western Iraq's Anbar Province in January, including much of Fallujah and parts of Ramadi, flashpoints of the US-led war in 2003.

    Iraq has seen a marked increase in sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia Muslims in recent months, which the Iraqi government blames the terrorist group, ISIS.

    Turkish Airlines has scheduled flights from Iraqi capital Baghdad, as well as from the cities of Basra, Najaf, Erbil and Sulaymaniyah for Turkish citizens who are currently in the region and wish to leave.

    http://www.dailysabah.com/nation/201...-city-of-mosul
    The Following User Says Thank You to manuu For This Useful Post: T-123456


  15. #35
    Forum Administrator bilalhaider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    6,605
    Thanks
    4000
    Pakistan Pakistan

    ISIS capture Mosul, Tikrit; march towards Baghdad

    All posts on the current Iraqi ISIS crisis will be posted in this sticky thread, like it was before. Thanks
    The Following User Says Thank You to bilalhaider For This Useful Post: alihamza


  16. #36
    Senior Member ArshadK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,860
    Thanks
    1378
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Burn, Men in Black, burn

    Let's cut to the chase. As in chasing that Zara outdoor summer collection, complete with state of the art assault rifles, brand new white Nike sneakers and brand new, unlimited mileage white Toyotas crossing the Syrian-Iraqi desert; the Badass Jihadis in Black.

    Once upon a (very recent) time, the US government used to help only "good terrorists" (in Syria), instead of "bad terrorists". That was an echo of a (less recent) time when it was supporting only "good Taliban" and not "bad Taliban".

    So what happens when Brookings Institution so-called "experts" start blabbering that the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS) is really the baddest jihadi outfit on the planet (after all they were cast out of al-Qaeda)? Are they so badass that by warped newspeak logic they're now the new normal?

    Since late last year, according to US government newspeak, the "good terrorists" in Syria are the al-Qaeda spinoff gang of Jabhat al-Nusra and (disgraced) Prince Bandar bin Sultan, aka Bandar Bush, the Islamic Front (essentially a Jabhat al-Nusra multiple outlet). And yet both Jabhat and ISIS had pledged allegiance to Ayman "the doctor" al-Zawahiri, the perennial gift that keeps on giving al-Qaeda capo.

    That still leaves the question of what Men in Black ISIS, the catwalk-conscious beheading stormtroopers for a basket of hardcore tribal Sunnis and Ba'ath party "remnants" (remember Rummy in 2003?) are really up to.

    We interrupt this desert catwalk to announce they will NOT invade Baghdad. On the other hand, they are busy accelerating the balkanization - and eventual partition - of both Syria and Iraq. They are NOT a CIA brainchild (how come Langley never thought about it?); they are in fact the ******* children of (disgraced) Bandar Bush's credit card largesse.

    The fact that ISIS is NOT directly in Langley's payroll does not imply their strategic agenda essentially differs from that of the Empire of Chaos. The Obama administration may be sending a few marines to protect the swimming pools of the largest, Vatican-sized embassy on Planet Earth, plus a few "military advisers" to "retrain" the dissolving Iraqi Army. But that's a drop of Coke Zero in the Western Iraqi desert. There's no evidence Obama is about to authorize "kinetic support" against ISIS, even though Baghdad has already green-lighted it.

    Even if Obama went ballistic ("targeted military action"), and/or manufactured a new kill list to be itemized by his drones, that would amount to no more than a little diversion. What matters is that the confluent ISIS/Beltway agenda remains the same; get rid of Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki (not by accident the new meme in US corporate media); curb Iran's political/economic influence over Iraq; fundamentally erase Sykes-Picot; and promote the "birth pangs" (remember Condi?) of vast wastelands bypassing centralized power and run by hardcore tribal Sunnis.

    For the Empire of Chaos, ISIS is the agent provocateur that fell from (Allah's?) Heaven; the perfect ski mask-clad tool to keep the Global War on Terror (GWOT) in Enduring Freedom Forever mode.

    The icing in the (melted) cake is that the House of Saud has officially denied support of ISIS. So this means it's true, even over Bandar Bush's carcass. Cue to the official House of Saud and House of Thani narrative about ISIS: they are not in charge of what's happening in Iraq. It's all organized by the Ba'athist "remnants".

    Bring on more regime change
    Now for the all-encompassing Iranian angle, because the whole drama, as usual, is mostly about "containment" of Iran. We just need to endure this to confirm it; the same old regurgitation about "evidence" that "Iran and its Syrian allies" have "cooperated" with ISIS and that Bashar al-Assad in Syria has a "business partnership" with ISIS. And don't forget the scaremongering; what's ahead is a "nuclear Iran" against a "Sunni Arab world" in which the great bogeymen remains al-Qaeda.

    Neo-con propaganda denouncing the US government for being in bed with Tehran against ISIS is, once again, disinformation.

    Commander of Iran's Basij, General Mohammad Reza Naqudi, was very close to the mark when he said, "Takfiri and Salafi groups in different regional states, especially in Syria and Iraq, are supported by the US", and that "the US is manipulating the Takfiri terrorists to tarnish the image of Islam and Muslims." The same applies to Speaker of the Majlis Ali Larijani; "It is obvious that the Americans and the countries around it have made such moves ... Terrorism has grown into an instrument for the big powers to advance their goals."

    What this all implies is that Tehran has identified the ISIS catwalk parade for what it is; a trap. Moreover, they are also convinced Washington won't break with its vassals at the House of Saud. Translation: Washington remains committed to old school GWOT. What Tehran is already, practically, supporting - also with "advisers" on the ground - is a myriad of Shi'ite militias who are being deployed to secure Baghdad and especially the Shi'ite holy cities, Najaf and Karbala.

    US Return of the Living Neo-Con Dead, meanwhile, insist on regurgitating their favorite theme; Maliki Maliki Maliki. Nothing of what's goin' on in Iraq has anything to do with Shock and Awe, the invasion, occupation and destruction of most of the country, Abu Ghraib, or the vicious, totally Washington-instigated sectarian war (Divide and Rule, all over again). It's all Maliki's fault. So he must be booted out. When everything fails - to the tune of trillions of dollars - the neo-con playbook always resets to default; regime change.

    Slouching towards Hardcore Sunnistan
    It's all extremely fishy about ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, aka Abu Dua, born in Samarra in 1971, a Saddam "remnant" but - crucially - a former prisoner of the US government in Camp Bocca from 2005 to 2009, as well as a former leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. It's no secret in the Levant that ISIS Men in Black were trained in 2012 by US instructors at a secret base in Safawi, in the northern desert of that fiction disguised as a country, Jordan, so they would later fight as Western-approved "rebels" in Syria.

    It was al-Baghdadi who sent a batch of Men in Black to set up Jabhat al-Nusra ("good terrorists", remember?) in Syria. He may have split from Jabhat in late 2013, but still remains in charge of a vast desert wasteland from northern Syria to Western Iraq. He's the new Osama bin Laden (the gift that keeps on giving, again), the all but certain Emir of an Islamically correct desert Caliphate in the heart of the Levant.

    Forget about Osama in the Hindu Kush; this is so much sexier.

    A hardcore Sunnistan between Iraq's Kurdish north and the Shi'te south, swimming in oil, extending all the way to Aleppo, Rakka and Deir ez-Zor in Syria, between the two rivers - the Tiger and the Euphrates - with Mosul as capital, back to its ancestral role of pivot between the twin rivers and the Mediterranean. Sykes-Picot, eat your heart out.

    Obviously, al-Baghdadi could not have pulled that awesome feat off all by himself. Enter his top Saddam "remnant" sidekick, Ba'ath party theorist extraordinaire Izzaat Ibrahim al-Douri, who happens to be from strategic Mosul. And most of all, enter the General Military Council for Iraqi Revolutionaries - an awesomely "secret" organization which has had the guile to dribble, like an infernal composite of Lionel Messi and Luiz Suarez, the whole Western intel apparatus, Orwellian-Panopticon NSA included.

    Well, not really, because this ISIS-Ba'athist coalition of the willing was brokered by none other than Bandar Bush - while he was still in action, with crucial, lateral input from Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan. No way to trace it all back to the Beltway.

    What the General Military Council managed to assemble was no less than all the "remnants" of the good old early 2000s Iraqi resistance, top tribal sheiks, merge it with ISIS, and create what might be dubbed a "Resistance Army" - those Badass Jihadis in Black in their white Toyotas, now the stuff of legend, performing the miracle of being untrackable by the NSA's satellite maze. They're so hip they even have their own Facebook page, with over 33,000 "likes".

    Balkanize or bust
    Meanwhile, the agenda of the Empire of Chaos proceed unabated. Balkanization is already a fact. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, crucially a Kurd, pledged Kurdish Peshmerga "cooperation" with the Iraq army to keep oil-rich Kirkuk away from ISIS. Like clockwork, the Peshmergas for all practical purposes annexed Kirkuk. Grand Kurdistan beckons.

    Grand Ayatollah Sistani, also for all practical purposes, launched a Shi'ite jihad against ISIS. For his part, the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, Sayyid Ammar al-Hakim, all but resurrected their formidable paramilitary, the Badr Corps - very close to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. These are real badasses, against which ISIS does not stand a chance. And Muqtada al-Sadr is launching "Peace Brigades" to protect the Shi'te holy cities and also Christian churches. Civil war rules.

    Meanwhile, in the Land of Oz, the Pentagon will certainly be able to extract extra funds for its perennial crusade to save Western civilization from Islamist terror. After all, there's a (ski masked) neo-Osama bin Laden in da hood.

    Although the majority of Iraqis reject balkanization, Sunnis will keep accusing Shi'ites of being Iranian pawns, and Shi'ites will keep accusing Sunnis of being the House of Saud's fifth column. ISIS will keep getting loads of cash from wealthy Saudi "donors". The US government will keep weaponizing Sunnis in Syria against Shi'ites and (perhaps) conducting soft "targeted military strikes" for Shi'ites against Sunnis in Iraq. Welcome to Divide and Rule run amok.

    Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

    He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_...01-200614.html
    The Following User Says Thank You to ArshadK For This Useful Post: sami


  17. #37
    Elite Member Naveed HRitom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Dhaka
    Posts
    3,704
    Thanks
    1794
    Bangladesh Bangladesh

    Re: ISIS capture Mosul, Tikrit; march towards Baghdad

    Another Iraq War Begins ....
    The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Naveed HRitom For This Useful Post: manuu,sami

    Fear Is No Policy Surrender Is No Option

  18. #38
    Senior Member sami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    5,147
    Thanks
    2361
    Pakistan UK

    Re: ISIS capture Mosul, Tikrit; march towards Baghdad

    Quote Originally Posted by Naveed HRitom View Post
    Another Iraq War Begins ....
    Arab leaders allow their people to be used as fodder and treat them like animals
    The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sami For This Useful Post: ManojKumar,Naveed HRitom,T-123456


  19. #39
    Member Hadeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    707
    Thanks
    630
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Re: ISIS capture Mosul, Tikrit; march towards Baghdad

    by ROB URIE
    The most recent war on Iraq is widely considered to be George W. Bush’s war but a majority of leading Democrats including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted to grant Mr. Bush authority for the war. As its moral, military and geopolitical catastrophes have emerged it is necessary to remember that a large majority of Americans also supported both Mr. Bush and the war on Iraq when it was undertaken. Left largely unsaid in discussion of the events currently unfolding, as the CIA has armed and ‘trained’ Syrian ‘rebels’, is that according to UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) America’s war sent 1.2 million Iraqis fleeing to Syria to escape violence in Iraq. And a total of four million Iraqis were displaced. The question of precisely how many Iraqis were killed from the U.S. invasion and occupation ranges from the determined undercount of 191,000 on the low end to over one million on the high end. The most plausible count placed the number of ‘excess’ Iraqi deaths at 655,000 by 2006, five full years before U.S. troops left the country.

    With ‘official’ America debating how to respond to what at present appears to be a Saudi-Iranian proxy war in Iraq the question both within and outside of the U.S. is: why do America and the Americans have any say in the matter? The last quarter century of U.S. engagement in Iraq has been a series of military and geopolitical blunders with catastrophic consequences across the Middle East. The answer of course, as it was with the mis-sold invasions of 1990 and 2003, is Operation Iraqi Liberation, oil. The dim hubris of Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld / Rice that broke ‘Iraq’ into Sunni and Shi‘ite factions has been met by leading Democrats with claims that the war was ‘mismanaged’ and that Iraq remains of some vaguely specified ‘vital interest.’ The moral, ethical and societal sickness that has U.S. President Obama now sending murder robots (drones) and additional troops to force the will of ‘official’ Washington onto what remains of the national government of Iraq misses that it was this very same will that caused the social / political catastrophe now claimed to be in need of rectification.

    robiraq1

    Graph (1) above: as experience has shown, Americans love a good fairy tale. In the case of U.S. involvement in Iraq we have been fed a long series of substantially unrelated rationales from political ‘liberation’ (1990-1991) to WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) and democratization (2003 – 2006) and now on to ‘re-stabilization.’ Left unstated are economic interests like oil company profits, munitions sales and contracts for rebuilding what the U.S. has destroyed. Graph (1) illustrates the relation of oil prices to oil company profits. Wars against oil-rich nations raise the price of oil to the benefit of international oil companies. What do one million dead and four million displaced human beings matter when profits are to be ‘made?’ Source: Reuters.

    The American farce now underway is to argue implausibly parsed Party politics when the whole of U.S. officialdom bears substantial responsibility for current circumstances in Iraq, to a large extent for the broader Middle East, and most certainly for what remains of America. The illumination-lite question of when U.S. history in Iraq began is being used to hide / ignore that this much is known: The CIA helped bring Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party to power in a CIA-orchestrated coup in the early 1960s. After overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran in a CIA – MI5 orchestrated coup in 1953 the Reagan / (George H.W.) Bush administrations supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War in the early-mid 1980s. That war resulted in substantial casualties and Reagan / Bush went so far as to supply Iraq with chemical and biological weapons to use against Iran. George H.W. Bush hired PR (public relations) firms to sell the first Gulf War in 1990 – 1991 as a war of liberation while giving wholly fictional accounts of the geopolitical interests at stake. The U.S. propaganda effort for that war went so far as to have the Kuwaiti Ambassador’s daughter pose as a witness to Iraqi atrocities that did not, in fact, occur. Estimates are of 60,000 – 200,000 Iraqi soldiers killed in the first Gulf War, mostly Iraqi conscripts (citizens drafted under threat of sanction) buried by bulldozers in the desert sand.

    Toward the end of that war (1990 – 1991) a contingent of U.S. and Israeli neo-cons (neo-conservatives)— armchair ‘warriors’ sitting comfortably in plush chairs in Georgetown devising U.S. military ‘strategy,’ argued that the U.S. should occupy Iraq to project U.S. military power throughout the Middle East. Exploiting manufactured public bloodlust toward Iraq, U.S. President Bill Clinton then implemented devastating economic sanctions believed to be responsible for the deaths of between 350,000 – 500,000 Iraqi children. By the late 1990s the neo-cons had coalesced into the Project for the New American Century complete with fresh plans for world domination. When the Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush to the U.S. Presidency in 2001 the neo-con ‘brain trust’ was made the core of his foreign policy advisory staff. Mr. Bush proposed a series of wholly manufactured rationales for war against Iraq and in 2003 war was launched. Upon his election in 2008 current U.S. President Barack Obama declined to call for the prosecution of senior Bush administration officials for their crimes of aggressive war, torture and murder and extended the Bush / Cheney claim of ‘unitary’ executive power to assert the right to murder U.S. citizens without due process. Mr. Obama has since led covert U.S. wars in Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and dozens of other countries.

    With history being but mere ‘opinion’ in U.S. political debate the aggressively misleading ‘division’ over whether it was the war on Iraq (2003) or the forced withdrawal of U.S. troops (2011) that is responsible for Iraq’s recent dissolution is so much chatter coming from a group that should rightly be in prison or already hung for their war crimes. Following from the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) penned by Mr. Bush that committed the U.S. to quit Iraq by 2011, and against his campaign promise to end the war there, Mr. Obama did everything in his power to persuade the Iraqi government to allow a large U.S. troop presence to remain after the date for withdrawal had passed. The central sticking point was the refusal of the Iraqi government to give blanket immunity to U.S. troops for crimes committed against the people of Iraq. In other words, Mr. Obama could have continued the U.S. war if he had been willing to let the Iraqis prosecute criminal acts committed by Americans in Iraq. Apparently unwilling to risk murder, rape and torture prosecutions against U.S. troops, Mr. Obama reluctantly settled for withdrawal of all but the tens of thousands of troops now ‘guarding’ the U.S. embassy in Iraq. Democrat partisans could rightly point to the rank hypocrisy of the central architects of the Iraq war blaming Mr. Obama’s reluctant withdrawal for current circumstance if there hadn’t existed a bi-partisan front in favor of war against Iraq for most of the last quarter-century.

    The question of how a relatively small group of cloistered gangsters can so consistently destroy everything they touch (except the bank accounts of their benefactors) and still remain in power gets to the heart of the American conundrum. As with oil company profits, international finance and ‘outsourced’ environmental devastation, perpetual chaos and destruction is the American business model. Iraq was destroyed so that U.S. munitions manufacturers could sell their wares, so that U.S. infrastructure builders could ‘reconstruct’ the country, so that multi-national oil companies could profit from rising oil prices and so that the U.S. polity could be distracted from careful examination of who ‘their’ government actually works for. Lest this seem unduly conspiratorial, what precisely was the reason the U.S. attacked and occupied Iraq in the 2000s? Iraq had no relationship with Al-Qaeda prior to 2003, WMDs supplied by the U.S. had already been removed long before the start of the war, the idea of ‘democratization’ at the point of a gun is a non sequitur and elimination of the ‘madman’ Saddam Hussein requires overlooking the relationship senior U.S. leadership had with him from the early 1960s through prosecution of the war in the mid-2000s. As there were no ‘good’ reasons for war on Iraq perhaps it is time to look at the bad reasons for it.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	robiraq1-510x332.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	36.2 KB 
ID:	5733

    Graph (1) above: as experience has shown, Americans love a good fairy tale. In the case of U.S. involvement in Iraq we have been fed a long series of substantially unrelated rationales from political ‘liberation’ (1990-1991) to WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) and democratization (2003 – 2006) and now on to ‘re-stabilization.’ Left unstated are economic interests like oil company profits, munitions sales and contracts for rebuilding what the U.S. has destroyed. Graph (1) illustrates the relation of oil prices to oil company profits. Wars against oil-rich nations raise the price of oil to the benefit of international oil companies. What do one million dead and four million displaced human beings matter when profits are to be ‘made?’ Source: Reuters.

    The American farce now underway is to argue implausibly parsed Party politics when the whole of U.S. officialdom bears substantial responsibility for current circumstances in Iraq, to a large extent for the broader Middle East, and most certainly for what remains of America. The illumination-lite question of when U.S. history in Iraq began is being used to hide / ignore that this much is known: The CIA helped bring Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party to power in a CIA-orchestrated coup in the early 1960s. After overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran in a CIA – MI5 orchestrated coup in 1953 the Reagan / (George H.W.) Bush administrations supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War in the early-mid 1980s. That war resulted in substantial casualties and Reagan / Bush went so far as to supply Iraq with chemical and biological weapons to use against Iran. George H.W. Bush hired PR (public relations) firms to sell the first Gulf War in 1990 – 1991 as a war of liberation while giving wholly fictional accounts of the geopolitical interests at stake. The U.S. propaganda effort for that war went so far as to have the Kuwaiti Ambassador’s daughter pose as a witness to Iraqi atrocities that did not, in fact, occur. Estimates are of 60,000 – 200,000 Iraqi soldiers killed in the first Gulf War, mostly Iraqi conscripts (citizens drafted under threat of sanction) buried by bulldozers in the desert sand.

    Toward the end of that war (1990 – 1991) a contingent of U.S. and Israeli neo-cons (neo-conservatives)— armchair ‘warriors’ sitting comfortably in plush chairs in Georgetown devising U.S. military ‘strategy,’ argued that the U.S. should occupy Iraq to project U.S. military power throughout the Middle East. Exploiting manufactured public bloodlust toward Iraq, U.S. President Bill Clinton then implemented devastating economic sanctions believed to be responsible for the deaths of between 350,000 – 500,000 Iraqi children. By the late 1990s the neo-cons had coalesced into the Project for the New American Century complete with fresh plans for world domination. When the Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush to the U.S. Presidency in 2001 the neo-con ‘brain trust’ was made the core of his foreign policy advisory staff. Mr. Bush proposed a series of wholly manufactured rationales for war against Iraq and in 2003 war was launched. Upon his election in 2008 current U.S. President Barack Obama declined to call for the prosecution of senior Bush administration officials for their crimes of aggressive war, torture and murder and extended the Bush / Cheney claim of ‘unitary’ executive power to assert the right to murder U.S. citizens without due process. Mr. Obama has since led covert U.S. wars in Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and dozens of other countries.

    With history being but mere ‘opinion’ in U.S. political debate the aggressively misleading ‘division’ over whether it was the war on Iraq (2003) or the forced withdrawal of U.S. troops (2011) that is responsible for Iraq’s recent dissolution is so much chatter coming from a group that should rightly be in prison or already hung for their war crimes. Following from the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) penned by Mr. Bush that committed the U.S. to quit Iraq by 2011, and against his campaign promise to end the war there, Mr. Obama did everything in his power to persuade the Iraqi government to allow a large U.S. troop presence to remain after the date for withdrawal had passed. The central sticking point was the refusal of the Iraqi government to give blanket immunity to U.S. troops for crimes committed against the people of Iraq. In other words, Mr. Obama could have continued the U.S. war if he had been willing to let the Iraqis prosecute criminal acts committed by Americans in Iraq. Apparently unwilling to risk murder, rape and torture prosecutions against U.S. troops, Mr. Obama reluctantly settled for withdrawal of all but the tens of thousands of troops now ‘guarding’ the U.S. embassy in Iraq. Democrat partisans could rightly point to the rank hypocrisy of the central architects of the Iraq war blaming Mr. Obama’s reluctant withdrawal for current circumstance if there hadn’t existed a bi-partisan front in favor of war against Iraq for most of the last quarter-century.

    The question of how a relatively small group of cloistered gangsters can so consistently destroy everything they touch (except the bank accounts of their benefactors) and still remain in power gets to the heart of the American conundrum. As with oil company profits, international finance and ‘outsourced’ environmental devastation, perpetual chaos and destruction is the American business model. Iraq was destroyed so that U.S. munitions manufacturers could sell their wares, so that U.S. infrastructure builders could ‘reconstruct’ the country, so that multi-national oil companies could profit from rising oil prices and so that the U.S. polity could be distracted from careful examination of who ‘their’ government actually works for. Lest this seem unduly conspiratorial, what precisely was the reason the U.S. attacked and occupied Iraq in the 2000s? Iraq had no relationship with Al-Qaeda prior to 2003, WMDs supplied by the U.S. had already been removed long before the start of the war, the idea of ‘democratization’ at the point of a gun is a non sequitur and elimination of the ‘madman’ Saddam Hussein requires overlooking the relationship senior U.S. leadership had with him from the early 1960s through prosecution of the war in the mid-2000s. As there were no ‘good’ reasons for war on Iraq perhaps it is time to look at the bad reasons for it.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	robiraq2-510x338.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	34.0 KB 
ID:	5734

    Graph (2) above: With mid-term elections rapidly approaching in the U.S. changing the subject from the abject failure of American governance seems more promising than defending U.S. political economy. The graph above represents the proportion of the U.S. population that is employed both before and after the economic calamity of the mid-2000s. Unbeknownst to most in the modern era is that at the outset of the Great Depression American economists claimed that 25% of the U.S. workforce suddenly decided to quit their jobs to go on vacation. Similarly, today the economic mainstream claims that ‘demographics’ explain the sudden collapse in employment around 2008. The question for U.S. politicians running for office in 2014 is exactly how stupid they believe the American people to be? With war against Iraq back in the public ‘discussion’ the answer is in.

    Political economy in the Middle East is no doubt complicated but American involvement has historically been relatively straightforward, even when covert. When George W. Bush told former Argentine President Nestor Kirchner that war would ‘grow the U.S. economy’ what on the surface might be understood to mean ‘military Keynesianism,’ the economic argument that government spending on munitions and equipment boosts economic growth, can more properly be understood as imperial prerogative. The gangster accounting that Mr. Bush was using put U.S. munitions sales, oil company profits and rebuilding contracts in the ‘plus’ column while failing to deduct the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan, the displacement of four million more, the near total destruction of a modern nation-state and the setting in motion of historical forces that will continue to wreak havoc for decades, if not centuries, to come. It is no accident that Mr. Bush also forced a developed, explicitly extractive, neo-liberal economic ‘system’ on Iraq after it was believed that military ‘success’ had been achieved. Were U.S. goals strictly political and ‘democratization’ one of them evolution of an economic order favored by the people of Iraq would have been in order. And lest this be lost on American ‘patriots,’ versions of this same ‘bi-partisan’ neo-liberal model have been hoisted onto American political economy for the last forty years.

    The Bush administration’s economic program imposed on Iraq was / is imperial looting, the imposition of asymmetrical economic relations at the point of a gun so that Western corporate interests could take what they want from the people of Iraq without recourse. What is now at risk with the fall of Mosul and Tikrit and the reported capture of a major oil field is the investment and past, present and future profits of the multi-national oil companies that are now operating in Iraq. Imperial chatter about Western interests in Iraq has correlation = 1 with oil assets, oil company profits and the role that oil plays in the engineered dependencies of Western political economy. Holding what is reported to be the largest Western oil company contract in Iraq, British Petroleum ties current machinations to the previously mentioned CIA – MI5 orchestrated coup in Iran to secure oil for this very same company. Democratic partisans ‘confused’ by the cover Mr. Obama provided BP for its Gulf of Mexico oil spill that continues to decimate the Gulf Coast might wish to study the corporate-state relations behind near unimaginable destruction in states that ‘threaten’ U.S. imperial prerogative.

    From the ‘official’ U.S. perspective President Obama wanted to keep a U.S. military presence in Iraq in 2011 and by throwing Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki overboard, as is apparently the plan, he most likely sees a new entry point to achieve this goal. Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and any of the apparent bottomless pit of guardians of the U.S. imperial line existing in / off of official Washington will likewise seek to maintain a U.S. presence in Iraq as long as multi-national oil companies need military cover for their imperial predations. The perceived danger at present is the seizure of ‘Western’ oil company assets— as graph (1) above illustrates, oil companies are fine with a rise in oil prices because it boosts their profits.

    As commentator Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report has added, Mr. Obama’s major ‘innovation’ to America’s racist wars is to bring American blacks along with him. By Mr. Ford’s analysis American blacks now support racist / religionist wars against brown Muslims in the Middle East for the first time in history. Possibly Hillary Clinton can follow George W. Bush’s ‘feminist’ agenda by liberating Afghan women from their burqas at the point of a gun as she ‘liberates’ Iraqi oil from the Iraqis. As the Americanism apparently goes, ‘freedom ain’t free.’

    Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is forthcoming.
    source:http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/...ican-hegemony/
    The Following User Says Thank You to Hadeed For This Useful Post: ManojKumar


  20. #40
    Senior Member manuu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    3,711
    Thanks
    1626
    Pakistan Ireland

    Re: All you need to know about ISIS and what is happening in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Jameel View Post

    Whats with the hat?

Page 2 of 47 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Join us on twitter Follow us on twitter