Iraq formally seeks US air strikes

[webfact]

Iraq formally asks US to launch air strikes against rebels

(BBC) Iraq has formally called on the US to launch air strikes against jihadist militants who have seized several key cities over the past week.

"We have a request from the Iraqi government for air power," confirmed top US military commander Gen Martin Dempsey in front of US senators.

Earlier the Sunni insurgents launched an attack on Iraq's biggest oil refinery at Baiji north of Baghdad.

Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki earlier urged Iraqis to unite against the militants.

Government forces are battling to push back ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) and its Sunni Muslim allies in Diyala and Salahuddin provinces, after the militants overran the second city, Mosul, last week.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27905849


-- BBC 2014-06-19

[ClutchClark]

We Americans sure opened this can 'o worms.

If only Saddam had not been involved in the 9/11 terror attacks against the US.

My mistake, I meant if only Saddam did not have an active WMD program and a stockpile of those WMD's then the US would never had to go in there.

[Ulysses G.]

If only Saddam did not repeatedly violate sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions and refused full access to international weapons inspectors, he would still be in Iraq brutally murdering his populace without a care and ISIS would not be marching on Baghdad.

[rijb]

We? I don't remember Bush / Cheney asking us? They should be sent over there to deal with the mess.

[Pralaad]

Today it's air support, tomorrow it's boots on the ground and sadly US soldiers are back in war

[Bulldozer Dawn]

Oil....whoa...whoa...whoa..what is it good for?

Absolutely nothing.

Say it again.

Oil...whoa...whoa...whoa

[boomerangutang]

They hate us when we bomb insurgents.

They love us when we bomb insurgents.

It just depends on who they deem (on any given week) is the enemy of their enemy or the friend of their enemy.

[Ulysses G.]

Try that one on a judge if you're an accomplice in a bank robbery.

It never worked for me.

[JoeLing]

We Americans sure opened this can 'o worms.

If only Saddam had not been involved in the 9/11 terror attacks against the US.

My mistake, I meant if only Saddam did not have an active WMD program and a stockpile of those WMD's then the US would never had to go in there.

Do you mean Americans where in Iraq?

Are you sure that's not just a rumour?

I have it from authentic sources. Many authentic sources.

"There are where no Americans in Baghdad. They all committed suicide"

[JoeLing]

We? I don't remember Bush / Cheney asking us? They should be sent over there to deal with the mess.

Off course Americans were ask and,

you re-elected that clown again.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted.

[orientalsf]

We Americans sure opened this can 'o worms.

If only Saddam had not been involved in the 9/11 terror attacks against the US.

My mistake, I meant if only Saddam did not have an active WMD program and a stockpile of those WMD's then the US would never had to go in there.

Oh Stop.. I hope your being sarcastic, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. And yes I'm American too.

[belg]

if they start to kill people here, will the US intervene ?

i guess not

internal affairs of the country

iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that was more than probable an inside job to START WARS ! nothing more, nothing less, same as PEARL HARBOUR

how many americans know that Saddam was a good friend of the US, while fighting IRAN ???

how many americans know that the taliban was a good friend of the US, while fighting the ex-USSR ???

war means big business for a small conglomerate of war mongers

[ChoakMyDee]

If only Saddam did not repeatedly violate sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions and refused full access to international weapons inspectors, he would still be in Iraq brutally murdering his populace without a care and ISIS would not be marching on Baghdad.

Wow, nice job on the whitewash. The UN inspectors repeatedly reported that there were no WMDs. The CIA knew it but Uncle George and the gang decided to go to war anyway and ended up killing up to a million people over complete lies. Just in case you think people are going to believe your lies.

[Robby nz]

If only Saddam did not repeatedly violate sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions and refused full access to international weapons inspectors, he would still be in Iraq brutally murdering his populace without a care and ISIS would not be marching on Baghdad.

Or if he had not started asking for euros for his oil.

[chuckd]

We? I don't remember Bush / Cheney asking us? They should be sent over there to deal with the mess.

With all due respect, the Bush/Cheney administration did ask "us".

The Bush administration went to the people's representatives, Congress, and obtained authorization for the action in Iraq.

Without the votes of both Republicans and Democrats , acting as the people's representatives, there would have been no Iraq war.

And that is an inescapable fact that nobody can spin.

[danglars]

"from the Iraqi government" oh you mean from the US imposed puppet regime. well what else would you expect?

anything short of genocide isnt going to achieve you objectives. get used to it. the world hates you.

[Soutpeel]

if they start to kill people here, will the US intervene ?

i guess not

internal affairs of the country

iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that was more than probable an inside job to START WARS ! nothing more, nothing less, same as PEARL HARBOUR

how many americans know that Saddam was a good friend of the US, while fighting IRAN ???

how many americans know that the taliban was a good friend of the US, while fighting the ex-USSR ???

war means big business for a small conglomerate of war mongers

Such good friends with the Taliban, that the leaders where invited to Texas, for a BBQ with the Bushes

[Daffy D]

If anyone is going to bomb anything it should be all the AK47 factories and all the weapons dumps of every army.

Lets see how long they continue fighting then.

[orosee]

Turkey, Syria, Iran and a few more... why don't the neighbouring countries get involved at least once in a while? Muslim-on-muslim violence is a daily business and won't elicit anti-American/anti-Western reactions that would feed the flames more. The Rwanda issue was also largely "resolved" by central African troops from neighbouring countries. The West and East both have sent plenty of weaponry to the region, is it too much to ask our allies and enemies to use them on each other when the time is right?

I really hope the US and Iran will agree on a non-interference pact that'll leave local powers free reins to get their mess sorted out (with securities for Israel but I needn't say that).

[rijb]

We? I don't remember Bush / Cheney asking us? They should be sent over there to deal with the mess.

With all due respect, the Bush/Cheney administration did ask "us".

The Bush administration went to the people's representatives, Congress, and obtained authorization for the action in Iraq.

Without the votes of both Republicans and Democrats , acting as the people's representatives, there would have been no Iraq war.

And that is an inescapable fact that nobody can spin.

I was hoping for a phone call.

[Morch]

We Americans sure opened this can 'o worms.

If only Saddam had not been involved in the 9/11 terror attacks against the US.

My mistake, I meant if only Saddam did not have an active WMD program and a stockpile of those WMD's then the US would never had to go in there.

Not arguing the bogus reasons for the previous USA intervention.

That said, Saddam did not exactly stabilize the region - Iraq was actually at odds with most neighboring countries at one point

or another, during his reign. Even disregarding that, and seeing him as a necessary evil, how were things supposed to go on

after him? Far as I recall, he did a good job of cutting down to size most eligible alternative leaders likely to have carried on.

The mess Iraq is in, or something similar, was always brewing under the surface. Just a question of time and circumstances

as to when it would come to a head.

[Morch]

Turkey, Syria, Iran and a few more... why don't the neighbouring countries get involved at least once in a while? Muslim-on-muslim violence is a daily business and won't elicit anti-American/anti-Western reactions that would feed the flames more. The Rwanda issue was also largely "resolved" by central African troops from neighbouring countries. The West and East both have sent plenty of weaponry to the region, is it too much to ask our allies and enemies to use them on each other when the time is right?

I really hope the US and Iran will agree on a non-interference pact that'll leave local powers free reins to get their mess sorted out (with securities for Israel but I needn't say that).

Syria is busy with its own domestic troubles, so nothing to expect from that direction.

Turkey is at odds with ISIS for a while now, things not better after Turkish citizens and diplomats were taken hostage at

Mosul. If things get too close to home, they will probably take some limited action in neighboring areas. Their position is

somewhat complicated due to their stance vs. the Curds. Remains to see which they perceive as the greater threat.

Iran already expressed support for the Iraqi government, and some readiness to intervene. As they already have some

presence helping out the Syrian regime, not inconceivable they would do the same in Iraq.

Saudi Arabia....now that's an interesting question .

[ClutchClark]

We Americans sure opened this can 'o worms.

If only Saddam had not been involved in the 9/11 terror attacks against the US.

My mistake, I meant if only Saddam did not have an active WMD program and a stockpile of those WMD's then the US would never had to go in there.

Not arguing the bogus reasons for the previous USA intervention.

That said, Saddam did not exactly stabilize the region - Iraq was actually at odds with most neighboring countries at one point

or another, during his reign. Even disregarding that, and seeing him as a necessary evil, how were things supposed to go on

after him? Far as I recall, he did a good job of cutting down to size most eligible alternative leaders likely to have carried on.

The mess Iraq is in, or something similar, was always brewing under the surface. Just a question of time and circumstances

as to when it would come to a head.

Some valid points; however, we removed whatever chance there was for a peaceful transition when we destroyed the entire countries infrastructure with our "shock & awe" and did not provide the Iraqi people time to prepare for the eventual vacuum that would have occurred when he died or was ousted from power by fellow Iraqis.

Was it even a decade later that the Arab spring took place?

And in the process, we lost the credibility the US once held globally, we showed our enemies that our military can't even fight small wars effectively and that we don't have enough military to even fight two regional wars, we cost many American and Allied soldiers loss of life, and left many more seriously injured and absent limbs, we spent a trillion of taxpayer dollars and we have witnessed how many tens of thousands of Iraqis killed both before and during this civil war and the violence is growing worse.

And regardless who voted for it, the war drums were beaten by an administration of neo-cons with proven interest in attacking Iraq prior to 9/11 and who made fictitious ties between 9/11 and saddam in oder to manipulate the country into doing their dirty work and furthering their own business interests.

[vogie]

We Americans sure opened this can 'o worms.

If only Saddam had not been involved in the 9/11 terror attacks against the US.

My mistake, I meant if only Saddam did not have an active WMD program and a stockpile of those WMD's then the US would never had to go in there.

Please don't take all the credit, we Brits and Tony helped too. We should have let sleeping dogs lay

[Chao Lao Beach]

We? I don't remember Bush / Cheney asking us? They should be sent over there to deal with the mess.

President Cheney and lapdog Bush Jr

[SanukJoeII]

Turkey, Syria, Iran and a few more... why don't the neighbouring countries get involved at least once in a while? Muslim-on-muslim violence is a daily business and won't elicit anti-American/anti-Western reactions that would feed the flames more. The Rwanda issue was also largely "resolved" by central African troops from neighbouring countries. The West and East both have sent plenty of weaponry to the region, is it too much to ask our allies and enemies to use them on each other when the time is right?

I really hope the US and Iran will agree on a non-interference pact that'll leave local powers free reins to get their mess sorted out (with securities for Israel but I needn't say that).

There is a very simple answer to your first question about neighbouring countries. Most people, certainly the Bush administration at that time, have no clue (or pretend so) about the divide in Islamic people. There are two main streams: Sunnis and Shias (or Shiites). Sunnis are the largest group of islamists in the world, and are that in many countries in the Middle East, e.g. Saudi-Arabia. In Iran and Pakistan the Shiites are the majority.

Iraq has been ruled by the Sunnis during Saddam era, and the Shiites were not only suppressed, but also tortured, killed and several 100,000s have been deported. When the US performed its illegal attack on and occupation of Iraq, the minority Shiites were installed as new government and guess what, started to suppress the Sunnis, as revenge probably. Now ISIS or better ISIL, consisting of Sunnis, are standing up against the Shiite suppression, hence the trouble.

And now the Shiites ask the US to bomb the Sunnis.... would be wise if the US for one time does not step into a war-arsenal-testing action, it's not only the non-existing enemy they kill, but obviously quite some US soldiers will be killed, and those that return might have some mental damage.

Stay out of it, USA!

PS I'm not in favour of either group of islam, just summing up historical information.

[chuckd]

We? I don't remember Bush / Cheney asking us? They should be sent over there to deal with the mess.

With all due respect, the Bush/Cheney administration did ask "us".

The Bush administration went to the people's representatives, Congress, and obtained authorization for the action in Iraq.

Without the votes of both Republicans and Democrats , acting as the people's representatives, there would have been no Iraq war.

And that is an inescapable fact that nobody can spin.

Might there not have been some doubt about the information Bush gave Congress, on which they based their decision?

Just asking like.

Congress was provided classified briefings by the same intelligence experts that briefed the White House. The same data was provided both parties.

By the same token, I was told by a Saudi Naval Admiral that Saddam moved all his remaining WMDs to Syria just before the war broke out. He was perplexed as to why Saddam did not allow the weapon's inspectors to simply verify it.

[Maggusoil]

Oil....whoa...whoa...whoa..what is it good for?

Absolutely nothing.

Say it again.

Oil...whoa...whoa...whoa

Some call it the Devil's Blood.

[coma]

Leave them to it I say.