How the situation with Iran may reflect on Georgia

Discussion in 'Nuclear, Chemical & Bio Weapons' started by jeddie80, Nov 23, 2011.

  1. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,566
    Likes Received:
    1,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even though I sympathize with the liberal tradition you seem to espouse, and wish America would represent that tradition (with certain modifications) as opposed to what I consider its exact opposite, namely the AIPAC driven, PNAC type, American foreign policy ushered by the neocons and still in place in its broad contours despite Obama's attempts to tame it, here is exactly where the "realist school" (now closer to the Democratic party foreign policy establishment, even if they were once closer to the Republicans) has prescriptions that might be different than the "AIPAC school, but which aren't really consistent with America's liberal traditions either. Specifically, I am talking about the evil alliance between leftist secular forces in the west with an assortment of groups (including the Baathists) in the Middle East because they were "secular" and had attitudes towards religion that you and I might be comfortable with, but which are opposite of liberal: it is not liberal to force feed secularism on people which requires, in the process, assuming dictatorial powers because you can't forcibly impose a vision on a society by democratic means when that vision has not yet gained majority support. I will discuss that with you at greater length if you wish, but on de-Baathication in particular let me note:

    1- It is wrong to have a predominately Sunni military force rule over a predominately Shia nation. Those who wanted to control or contain Iran by propping up Sunni Baathist officers, by supporting the Sunni Awakening under the surge, and by similar acts, are committing crimes. The Shia majority as well as the Kurds should not be ruled under the gun of Baathist officers. That is not liberal. That is not right.

    2- The problem in Iraq wasn't de-Baathication. It was the unwillingness of the US to accept the natural order that would emerge from a truly democratic Iraq, namely an order that would see Iraq close to Iran. That is the core reason for much of the problems in Iraq. The reason the US allowed Saddam to butcher the Shia uprising after Desert Storm. The reason the US began to arm and support Sunni militia in Iraq from 2004 and thereafter, when the so-called "American list" lost to the "Iranian list" in Iraqi elections. The reasons why the US allowed the Saudis and company to instigate so much mayhem in Iraq and pursue policies directly responsible for the rise of ISIS. All of this was done, at the end, in the name of containing Iran. When the right policy would have been finding a rapprochement with Iran instead. A rapprochement of the kind which is suggested by this article (Why Iran Rising is a Good Thing) and by these former US CIA and national security council experts authors, but which doesn't fit the preoccupation of realists and neoconservatives alike, namely containing Iran!
     
  2. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    579
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yeah...right! HA!

    Former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki removed every Sunni Iraqi Military Officer and replaced them with his Shia BUDDIES who had very little and in some cases ZERO MILITARY EXPERIENCE and even though they were armed with U.S. Supplied Weapons that could have wiped out the ISIS Force coming into Iraq....those Shiite Military Officers got into their cars and DROVE BACK TO BAGHDAD as they were cowards!!!!

    Former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki also removed just about every single Sunni Politician from Cities, Regions and the National Assembly and replaced them with Shiite's which is the reason there is fighting between Sunni's and Shiite's in Iraq now.

    If Former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had integrated both Sunni's and Shiite's into the Military Leadership and Political Leadership in Iraq there would not be such a mess as there is right now!!

    We can't help people who are more interested in killing each other than rebuilding their nation.

    AboveAlpha
     
  3. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,566
    Likes Received:
    1,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nouri al-Maliki was appointed Prime Minister under intense US lobbying, to replace Jaffari who was deemed "too close to Iran". Maliki's first order of business was to disarm the Shia militia forces in Iraq, which was he did with US backing and support. In the meantime, though, he began to see the US continuing the policies the US had begun after Jaffari became prime minister, fund, support, and arm a Sunni militia army that was clearly not going to tolerate any real power for Maliki or the Iraqi government. A force of some 100,000 Iraqi Sunnis was created by the US, dubbed the Sons of Iraq (but who should have been named the Sons of Saddam instead!), as part of the so-called surge and US efforts to contain Iranian influence in Iraq, while ostensibly fighting Al Queda. When the US ignored Maliki's pleas, and natural concerns, Maliki went the only route that was available to him. He build up his ties to Iran and to the shia forces he had once suppressed.

    As for the Iraqi military, the Iraqi defense ministry for a long time under US pressure had been under Sunni control. It is under Sunni control today. Many Iraqi officers were Sunnis. Seeing how a majority Shia nation was being pushed to once again be under Sunni military rule, Maliki did try to put more Shia officers in the Iraqi military, but ultimately if the Iraqi military (trained, supplied, and armed by the US) wasn't putting up a fight against ISIS, it was because that was a mercenary force working with the Americans for money not because of any real commitment to their job. Many of their soldiers and officers are Sunni, reluctant to fight their fellow Sunni ISIS forces (most of whose military cadre, besides the Jihadists pouring into Syria and Iraq from around the world (backed by assortment of countries, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, even at times the US), were former "Sons of Iraq" forces who have joined ISIS). Those who weren't Sunni, were working with the Americans in a still largely Sunni dominated military establishment and defense ministry that was vehemently anti-Shia. They weren't there out of any genuine belief. Which is why the real fighting force against ISIS in Iraq is the pro Iranian Shia militia. Yet, the US even now is more focused on "containing" the power and influence of the Shia militia as it is focused on defeating ISIS.
     
  4. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    579
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The ISIS entered Iraq unapposed because when a bunch of Grunts see their own Military Leaders RUNNING AWAY.....THEY RUN AWAY THEMSELVES!!

    THAT'S WHY OFFICERS ARE CALLED LEADERS!!!

    If there is no one to LEAD Soldiers into Battle....your troops scatter.

    COLONEL (COL)
    (Addressed as "Colonel")
    Typically commands brigade-sized units (3,000 to 5,000 Soldiers), with a CSM as principal NCO assistant.
    Also found as the chief of divisional-level staff agencies.

    In the U.S. Military you are going to see a Colonel LEADING a Brigade into Combat!!!

    You are NOT going to see a Colonel watching the Battle behind the lines!!!

    The U.S. Military is an all vollunteer FORCE.

    They are Highly Trained in the EXTREME.

    They are PROFESSIONAL WARRIORS.

    They are THE MOST BATTLE HARDENED MILITARY FORCE ON PLANET EARTH.

    And Officers in the U.S. Military WOULD RATHER DIE THAN DESERT THEIR MEN LIKE THOSE SHIA OFFICERS DID WHEN THEY GOT IN THEIR CARS AND DROVE BACK TO BAGHDAD!!!

    There is a SPECIAL PLACE IN HELL for Officers who abandon their men!!!

    On the Battlefield....if a Soldier and ESPECIALLY if an OFFICER ABANDON'S HIS MEN THAT HE IS LEADING INTO BATTLE AND RUNS THE OTHER WAY.....HE IS SHOT DEAD BY THE MEN BEHIND HIM AS A COWARD AND DESERTER!!!

    This is a part of the Legal Military Code.

    You run away from the enemy when you are ordered to attack or are an officer who runs away....YOU ARE SHOT DEAD BY THE MEN BEHIND YOU!!!

    If I was a U.S. Advisor at the time the ISIS crossed the boarder into Iraq and I saw those Shiite Majors and Colonels and Captains getting into their Mercedes to drive away from the fight leaving their men.....I WOULD HAVE WALKED RIGHT INFRONT OF THEIR CARS AND SHOT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM DEAD!!!

    This is what the Sunni Grunt's should have done and it would have been LEGAL!!!

    What those Shia Officers did is without a doubt the most DISHONORABLE, COWARDLY, DISLOYAL, SCUMBAG ACTION THAT MARKS THEM AS COWARDS FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES....THING THAT AN OFFICER CAN DO!!!

    If they were members of the U.S. Military they would have been put on trial and found guilty and then EXECUTED!!

    AboveAlpha
     
  5. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,566
    Likes Received:
    1,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I should add one thing, which is broader in scope, and relates to the scaremongering and Islamophobia that some in the west (and among pro Israeli groups) like to foster. There is a vision of Islam that scares me as much as anyone else. And then there is a vision of Islam that even an agnostic like myself is comfortable with, especially if the avenues for the natural evolution of that vision to wherever reason, scholarship, and learning takes us is allowed. The differences between these visions aren't just found in the Sunni v Shia divisions. They are much more profound. They relate to the difference between Wahabi Islam (regardless of the political agendas of those who aspire it, whether in the House of Saud, or Al Queda, or ISIS or Taleban) as opposed to "Iranian Islam". On the latter, let me quote an imminent scholar of Islamic history who regrettably, later in his life, lent his political writings to the neoconservative cause, namely Bernard Lewis:
    Re-quoted from this Wikipedia article

    This Iranian Islam, whether Sunni for the Sunni heartlands or Shia for the Shia areas, is what the US can ally itself with to help build a much better future for the region and the world than either the AIPAC driven agenda of the neoconservatives or the ubber secularist agenda of the left. Neither of the latter two can in any way lead to a democratic or stable future for the Middle East. But there is a vision that can, if only those in the west who are genuinely committed to steer the US to be a positive influence in the region begin to understand the path that they need to be steering instead. In this vision, the Sykes-Picot colonial demarcation of the Middle East will be torn apart. A new political order would emerge. The foundation of that order would be to see the region divided into 3 political spheres: A Sunni sphere under Turkish tutelage continuing the so-called Turko-Persian tradition referred to above; A Shia sphere under Iranian tutelage which continues a different form of the same tradition, exercising its influence over the regions which fall within the traditional Iranian sphere. And an Arabian sphere, tamed by US alliance, which can be led by the Saudis. The precise boundaries of these spheres could be decided based on the demographics and political leanings of each area in question, but the mechanism to bring this vision about would require the US to lead and steer the discussion in this direction by being engaged with all relevant powers.
     
  6. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    579
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Don't be surprised if a New Democratic Iran becomes a CLOSE U.S. ALLY.

    This is what the vast majority of young Iranian's want.

    And as the Old Iranian Revolutionary Religious Guard dies out.....the remaining Iranian's have an ideology that is very much in line with American Democratic Ideology.

    They want Religion out of their Politics and removed from curtailing their FREEDOMS.

    This is especially true for the young, computer and internet savvy Iranian's who have to jump through hoops to be able to access the Free Information Internet.

    THEY are the real Future of Iran.

    NOT the Stone Age Ideological Mentality of the Ayatollah's and Mullah's.

    AboveAlpha
     
  7. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,566
    Likes Received:
    1,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Iraqi military, as opposed to the Iraq's Popular Mobilization Front forces, is still disproportionately Sunni and led by many Sunni officers. That is one reason why they are so ineffective going against their brethren who have joined ISIS -- mainly former Sons of Iraq militia and ex Baathist officers that were recruited and paid as part of that militia by the US. The notion that Maliki filled the Iraqi military with Shia officers is bogus nonsense, since Maliki simply made the force a bit more proportional relative to the rest of the population.

    Let me say what I said and you didn't get: the Iraqi military is a mercenary force. Those who enlist do it for money only. They see it as an American instrument to exercise influence in Iraq. No one, whether Sunni or Shia, is going to put their lives on the line following orders coming from the Iraqi military. The Shia militias, commanded under the Popular Mobilization Front auspices, are different. They are forces that fight for the cause and led by brave officers (including Iranian officers) who, unlike the Americans who aren't found near the battlefield, often join them in battle in the front lines.
     
  8. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,893
    Likes Received:
    947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Were they?

    What was the ultimate aim of Afghanistan and Iraq?

    The goals in each were removing the government in power at the time (Taliban in Afghanistan, Ba'ath in Iraq). And since neither of them lasted more then a few months after the invasions, I would say that is a success.

    What failed is the insurgency that followed. And actually, that can be won (and usually has been) by military occupations. The thing lacking in the modern era however is the will to do so. During and after WWII military occupations and almost total foreign control with large numbers of military occupiers by the victorious militaries of both sides.

    Insurgencies rarely last long when they are brutally suppressed. This did not happen however, so they only grew.
     
  9. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    579
    Trophy Points:
    83
    In Afghanistan 196 members of Special Forces, Special Teams and CIA Teams in the first 2 weeks directed Air Strikes that killed THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF THE ENEMY.

    In about 4 weeks 300 of us had killed over 10,000 Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

    They fled into Wiziristan for the winter and every spring would come back and we should have used Heavy Bombers to wipe them out coming back in as they were easily detected.

    Political agendas prevented this and then some idiots in DC decided to go NATION BUILDING in a place where Kabul is a City State and the rest of Afghanistan is living in the STONE AGES!!!

    There was absolutely no reason to place large number of U.S. Ground Forces in Afghanistan.

    Iraq was an Invasion specifically designed to demonstrate U.S. Military Power as Afghanistan was considered too remote a place for media coverage to record such U.S. Military Power.

    As brutal as Saddam was...he was the only thing preventing an all out Sunni/Shia Civil War and President Bush Sr. KNEW THIS and this was the reason why we did not go all the way to Baghdad during Desert Storm.

    You can never use the U.S. Military as a Police Force....especially in a Nation that does not care about rebuilding itself as the Sunni's and Shiite's were much more interested in kiling each other.

    After Japan surrendered the Japanese People worked hard along with the U.S. Military and Corps of Engineers to rebuild Japan as the Japanese knew to do so was in their best interest.

    In Iraq and Afghanistan....you have ancient religious feuds and tribalism to the point Leaders could care less how many died as long as they remained in Power.

    We can't help people rebuild a nation when they are too busy killing one another.

    AboveAlpha
     
  10. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,893
    Likes Received:
    947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And they were not already living like that, after more then 2 decades of war and civil war?

    Do not forget, between 1992 and 1996, over 50,000 civilians were killed in Kabul alone, and 80% of the city was destroyed in the civil war. For years at a time they had no water service, no power, and when the US entered the war the Taliban and Northern Alliance were fighting for control of the city already.

    Once again, people placing all the blame on the US, even though prior to late 2001 they were not involved in that conflict at all.

    But I bet that 80% of the city is not destroyed anymore, and they have water and power when the Taliban is not busy destroying it.


    Who said I was just talking about Japan?

    Heck, look at Japan itself. They built one of the largest empires in history during WWII, and were brutally repressive. Kill 1 of their soldiers, and they killed 10 or more civilians. Region in revolt? Cut off all food and supplies, and send in the army to kill anybody they can get their hands on. And this was repeated throughout the Pacific and Asia. And outside of some areas of China, they did not have much of a problem from the civilian population.

    They eliminated anybody that gave even a hint of resisting.

    The same in France. The French Resistance is largely a myth, they never really did much of anything until the Allies landed in Normandy. This was a pattern largely followed by all sides in WWII. Occupy a region, and if needed brutally repress any resistance. The Soviets were known to have put huge numbers of bodies into the ground if they even thought that the people might cause even a little resistance to their rule.

    Just look at Katyn. Over 22,000 executed. Cadets, officers, priests, teachers, unionists, police, lawyers, anybody who might be able to start a resistance movement was executed. And they made no secret about the fact that any resistance would mean punishment to the civilian community.

    Now I am not saying that is the proper approach. But it should eliminate once and for all the foolish concept that "military forces can not stop an insurgency". They very well can, if they have the desire to really put an end to it. Capturing the people who plan mass murderers and putting them in jail for a few years is no kind of deterent.
     
  11. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    38,476
    Likes Received:
    9,437
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the sole metric of success in those wars is regime change then yes I would agree, the regimes certainly did change. Of course instead of winning the "war on terror" that both Afghanistan and Iraq were components of, I'd say so far those regime changes have only broadened and deepened the initial problem. As for the usual "brining democracy and freedom to the world", I'm afraid those replacement regimes didn't get the message but did get lots of the cash.
     
  12. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,893
    Likes Received:
    947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That was a foolish political goal, which should have never been attempted in the first place.

    Most Westerners love the idea of "Democracy", even though in most areas of the world, "Democracy" is no different then "Anarchy", and rarely lasts for long.
     
  13. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    680
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Shiism reminds me of Catholicism in the sense that both are messianic. The worst bunch of Shiite messianic cultists are the Twelvers who await the coming of Sayyed Khorasani to prepare the way for the return of a savior called the Mahdi, the 12th and last Imam. Unfortunately, catastrophe must befall humanity before the coming of the Mahdi. Ayatollah Khamenei and the ruling gang of theocrats in Tehran are all members of the Twelver School of Thought. Check this nonsense out:

    [video=youtube;WwiadYT-N9k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwiadYT-N9k[/video]
     
  14. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    680
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Islamic peoples are not meant to experience individual liberty. Individual liberty contradicts submission to Allah and compliance with Shariah.
     
  15. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    38,476
    Likes Received:
    9,437
    Trophy Points:
    113
    tangential to my point.
     
  16. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    38,476
    Likes Received:
    9,437
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree.

    I agree, it doesnt' take a rocket surgeon to understand that imposing "democracy" without developing the necessary foundational institutions.
    Impartial and independent "rule of law" being perhaps the single most important after a constitution of course which requires a resolute desire to protect it at all costs.
     
  17. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    579
    Trophy Points:
    83
    When the Sunni Non-Commisioned Officers asked their Shia Colonel's, Major's, Captain's...etc...who were getting in their cars to drive back to Baghdad ...what they should do....the Shia Officers told the Sunni Grunt's to take off their uniforms and blend in with the local communities.

    THE SHIA OFFICER'S ACTUALLY TOLD THEM TO DO THIS!!!

    When the ISIS came into these communities after asking where and who the Iraqi Military Men where that worked with the American's and Sunni's at first none of the Villager's said anything.

    But after the ISIS started shooting to death little children such as the Grandchildren of the Village Elders...they talked and even though the Iraqi Soldier's were also Sunni...the ISIS killed them anyways.

    The tragedy is that if the Shia Officers had STAYED and BEEN LEADERS OF MEN....they would have easily WIPED OUT ALL ISIS FORCES attempting to come into Iraq as they were equipped with high tech. American Weapons Systems.

    I was in Iraq doing a JOB with my Team and we had just finished this JOB and were about to go home when the ISIS incident happened.

    We were asked to stay and as although my Team are members of the U.S. Military and sometimes I even have Team Members who are either British or Aussie SAS....I am NOT MILITARY....am I..."CIVILIAN"...in the manner the quotes denote.

    After the ISIS trapped about 40,000 Iraqis on top of Mt. Sinjar and these mostly women and children began dying as the ISIS would not allow Food or Water up the mountain my Team and I were asked to do another JOB.

    We didn't have to do this JOB as we had just finished another but as I am not Military although I am Team Leader I put it to a vote...and every single member of my tired but READY TEAM VOTED TO STAY.

    Or JOB was to find out exactly who and what the ISIS in Iraq were and after doing a few SNATCH AND GRABS and after a few intensive interogations we found that the ISIS numbered no more than 27,000 and were mostly Criminals and Mentally Insane that had been let out of jails and given AK-47's and RPG's and let lose upon the Middle East by some Ghost Leadership who I will not discuss.

    The members of ISIS have very little to zero Military Training.

    Against my Team it was as if we were shooting FISH IN A BARREL and after a week we decided to leave as we understood that the ISIS was not a real trained Military Force but rather a bunch of CRIMINALLY INSANE SOCIOPATHS AND PSYCHOPATHS that were let loose by another Group.

    If those Shia Officer's had not been COWARDS and had not run away back to Baghdad....they could have Lead their Men and the ISIS would have been destroyed entering Iraq.

    AboveAlpha
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  18. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    579
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I agree with you....but the U.S. Military should NEVER BE USED AS A POLICE FORCE!!

    We can and basically did stop the Iraqi Insurgency and many people forget that more American's die in a MONTH slipping on wet floors in their homes that the total number of U.S. Soldiers killed in both Iraq and Afghanistan over 10 YEARS!!!

    But we could have made examples of Insurgents and one that I PERSONALLY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH is Muqtada al-Sadr who had left Iraq after we decided we had enough of his S#!#!!

    As with all BIG MOUTHED SHIA CLERICS....Muqtada al-Sadr just LOVED TO INCITE VIOLENCE but when it was his A$$ ON THE LINE...what did he do? HE RAN HOME TO MAMA IRAN!!!

    Then this SOB helped coordinate the Qud's Force who pretended to be Iranian Diplomats as they came into Iraq with SHAPED CHARGED MUNITIONS to be used as roadside IED's that could penetrate U.S. Light Armored Vehicles.

    We caught 5 of then driving a van loaded with Shaped Charged Munitions and they all took out their paperwork that identified with as Iranian Diplomats thus we could not arrest them or shoot them once they ID'ed themselves but we confiscated the van loaded with the munitions.

    Then we told them that next time we would just SHOOT FIRST and check for their Diplomatic Paperwork after the fact....that seemed to stop them from driving in the open but they found other ways to get shaped charged munitions into Insurgent Hands.

    They liked to supply the Sunni Insurgents as well as the Shiite Insurgents with suich munitions.

    Many Iranian Qud's Force Members were operating out of Syria and we basically told Assad that if he did not stop these over the boarder incursions that we were going to start drawing a circle within circle target on his forehead.

    AboveAlpha
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  19. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    9,892
    Likes Received:
    1,481
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I heard that ISIS is in Afghanistan now. So much for containment.

    Also, how did the take out Assad for using chemical weapons operation go? It didn't.
     
  20. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    579
    Trophy Points:
    83
    This is what happened.

    We had a nice little....STORE....in Jordan...on the Boarder....and you could get all sorts of Soviet Made Conventional Weapons...to an extent...on sort of a Credit System which was not Monetary.

    This STORE made sure that those weapons got to the RIGHT PEOPLE AND DID NOT ALLOW ANY ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS TO OBTAIN SUCH WEAPONS.

    It was working very well and the Assad Regime....and Assad is one vicious SOB....was being effected by it's own people.

    Then....Obama goes on TV and announces that he is going to ask the U.S. Congress to fund OVERT WEAPONS SUPPLY TO THE SYRIAN REBELS!!!

    I watched Obama say this on TV and I almost fell out of my chair.

    Assad has a massive amount of Chemical Weapons which he recieved much of from a large Convoy of Iraqi Military Vehicles which we watched in REAL TIME SATELLITE FEED...drive out of Iraq and across the boarder into Syria right before the U.S. Invasion of Iraq and this FLOORED US as Assad and Saddam were SWORN BLOOD ENEMIES!!!

    Obama drew a line over the use of Chemical Weapons by Assad and this use was confirmed by the French, the Brits and even the Russian's as well as the U.S.....and after the U.S. Congress voted NO to overt Weapons Supply to Syrian Rebels....Obama did not follow though with his threats.

    This gave Sunni Islamic Extremists the gut's to come into Syria in MASS.

    AboveAlpha
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  21. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    9,892
    Likes Received:
    1,481
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And they should have rushed the barricades and got mowed down by the Syrian army. That should eventually cut down on the numbers of violent extremists right?
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  22. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    579
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The Syrian Boarder is pourous in many areas.

    It was not difficult for them to come in from the North and North East.

    AboveAlpha
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  23. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    9,892
    Likes Received:
    1,481
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When I say "charging the barricades" I don't mean the Syrian border, I mean ill conceived battle tactics like a WW1 cavalry charge. Charge the machine gun nest and get mowed down.
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  24. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    579
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That's what the Iranian's did as they were ordered by their Religious Leadership for every abled man and boy to grab any weapon they could find and that includes tire irons and pitchforks....to charge the Iraqi Republican Guard lines in mass.

    This is also why over 70% of all Iranian's are under the age of 30 years old.

    AboveAlpha
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  25. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    9,892
    Likes Received:
    1,481
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, and it's a great way to remove the religious nuts from a generation of people.

    So why didn't it happen in Syria?

    And what about Iraq?

    Actually, in Syria I was admiring the stalemate that Assad set up, and I was thinking that it was a great way to get rid of the violent types hiding in our midst. My only concern was what happens if the Islamic extremists start coming home to USA, Australia, and Europe? Domestic terrorism that's what.

    Well, I was a little happy to see that some governments were starting to take that threat seriously.
     
    DennisTate likes this.

Share This Page