basedheisenberg:

vikingforkliftsafari:

redbloodedamerica:

vikingforkliftsafari:

basedheisenberg:

militiamedic:

thejacksonjeffersoncollaboration:

redbloodedamerica:

The last ostrich is right though.

But I do believe in action against ISIS.

'US policy created ISIS' is 100% true. ISIS is the functional equivalent of a false flag. The US government trained them, funded them, then let the Mad Dog off the leash and pretended they were shocked when it bit the world.

'Isn't this what they wanted? What they bargained for? They create a problem so they can offer a solution. They scare us, then offer relief, and we fall on our knees in gratitude. They create a war, promise peace, and we walk into their traps, like mice.

Recognizing problems for that they are ahead of time and advocating an end to the cycle that propagates them in the first place?

Nah, clearly you’re just sticking your head in the sand. Give me your money for the war tho.

Not only did we help create ISIS, but attacks against ISIS are already being used as a recruiting tool for ISIS.

Children, gather around so I can explain something to you.

The Islamic State has been recruiting Muslims from across the globe before the US began its bombing campaign.  They are still recruiting people, even from the US, because they believe in the Islamic caliphate…not because the United States is involved.  

This has very little to do with the United States, even when we were involved in the rebel factions against Assad in Syria.  The caliphate is the ultimate goal of all radical Islamists, no matter where they happen to be or come from.  They will always hate the west and other religions, because that’s their belief system.  It does not matter if we have a presence there or not.  And it sure as hell isn’t any of this “false flag” nonsense.

>Children

September 11, 2001 was a couple months before my 18th birthday. We very quickly invaded Afghanistan in the following months not realizing that a western Jeffersonian democracy, let alone a society that is even somewhat functional, was basically impossible over there.

Within a short period of time after that, the American public was told that “The smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud” if we didn’t preemptively strike Iraq. We did, and managed to destroy nearly all of the civil society and much of the infrastructure of Iraq. We then stood by while a sectarian civil war further destroyed Iraq and many of our own soldiers in the process. Saddam Hussein was a terrible despot, but I have a hard time believing that the cost in American and coalition lives, Iraqi lives (which was believed to be in the hundreds of thousands), and the trillions of dollars was worth it.

A friend of mine from high school was in Iraq for a time during his USMC service. He was a Harrier mechanic, so luckily he saw no front line combat duty (that I know of). He told me that Iraq was basically Vietnam for the 21st century, a quagmire in which we should never have been involved.

A few years later the “Arab Spring” swept across much of the Middle East and Northern Africa. These movements swept away many of the authoritarian governments, some of which were nominal allies of the United States. With particular emphasis on Libya, Egypt, and Syria, the government decided to side with the people of these places whether or not those people were “friendly” to US interests. We bombed Libyan military targets to help overthrow Gaddafi. We pressured Mubarak to leave the Egyptian presidency. We supplied rebel fighters in Syria to help overthrow Assad.

And what have been the results of this? Libya is in a state of civil war. Egypt has had an election, resulting in the Muslim Brotherhood taking over, then leading to a military coup. Egypt is effectively still led by an authoritarian government, and is less friendly to American interests than before. Syria has turned into a meat grinder where over 200,000 civilians have died, chemical weapons and “barrel bombs” have been employed, and some of the rebels that fought Assad are now part of ISIS.

Now, some of the very same politicians that demanded our involvement in some or all of the US led interventions in the Middle East are demanding more intervention to fight ISIS. When Someone like myself is showing reluctance toward intervention, it isn’t because my “head is in the sand”, it is because American involvement in the Middle East rarely has the desired outcome. Our foreign policy is an absolute mess, and more war and more meddling does not help this.

Our position isn’t because we are “children” pal, far from it, it’s because we have “seen this movie before.”

"not because the United States is involved.  "

-Years of meddling US foreign policy that involved overthrowing ‘unfriendly’ governments in the Middle East and arming rebel fighters to fight said governments isn’t the major cause of instability in the Middle East

-The US never armed Mujaheddin fighters in the 80s to fight the Soviets, fighters who totally did not launch strikes on the US on 9/11, ushering in the age of the American police state.

-The US didn’t send $500m in weapons to Al Qaeda in Libya, which is cited as a causing factor of the Benghazi incident.

-Obama wasn’t equipping Syrian rebels under the table while lobbying to the American people and congress start launching military strikes against Assad’s regime. Also pretends the CIA at this time wasn’t running a clandestine operation to train “moderate opposition” in Jordan.

-These rebels armed by the US in Libya and Syria, as well as forces in Egypt emboldened after the failed US backed revolution, totally did not band together to form ISIS, causing a massive uprising in the world of Islamic extremism that led to an invasion of an over equipped and poorly trained Iraqi Army, which was totally not left in a deplorable state after years of a failed US occupation, and ISIS totally did not capture even more US weapons and equipment that never should have been there in the first place.

-This is all because the United States HASN’T DONE FUCKING ENOUGH ALREADY in order to ‘combat’ the religious extremists popping up all over the middle East, who are clearly all pissed off because of “Western Values” and “our freedoms”.

-The evidently corrupt and oligarchical US government has not become increasingly servile to the military-industrial complex and totally isn’t playing Lord of War to stir up extremists across the globe in order to drum up support for increased erosion of our constitutional and natural rights at home.

-Everyone who disagrees is clearly a child who wants to stick their head in the sand, and not just people who aren’t falling for the played out nationalistic “American Exceptionalism” bugle call that totally has not wasted trillions of dollars of US taxpayer money. So, clearly, what the US needs to do- instead of not playing the same stupid games with people’s lives, is the same failed imperialistic interventionist strategy it’s been using for years and hope that THIS TIME, things will be different and everything will work out.

(Source: hipsterlibertarian)

Russia Delivers 2nd Batch of Jets To Iraq As USA Unloads 4000 Hellfire Missiles | Zero Hedge

priceofliberty:

As Bloomberg reports, the proxy war favoritism continues in Iraq…

The U.S. readied to sell Iraq thousands of missiles and a second batch of Russian Sukhoi combat jets arrived in Baghdad as foreign powers moved to help Iraqi forces battle an al-Qaeda offshoot.

The U.S. State Department has told lawmakers informally that the Obama administration wants to sell Iraq more than 4,000 additional Hellfire missiles to support its fight against the Islamist insurgents, according to people familiar with the plan.

Sale of the laser-guided missiles made by Lockheed Martin would be in addition to 500 previously purchased.

 …

 Russia began sending used fighter jets and military advisers to Iraq over the weekend in response to an appeal from the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Today’s arrivals bring the number of planes shipped to 10.

But Iraq is ready to use the new war materials…

The jets will be flown by Iraqi pilots and “are ready to provide air support to the armed forces,” the Defense Ministry said in a statement.

“The lack of a serious aerial threat has allowed Sunni militants to use lightning raids in quickly assembled convoys of pickup trucks equipped with medium- or heavy-weapons systems,” Texas-based consulting firm Stratfor said in a report e-mailed last night.

Iraq can use the Russian jets to “interdict massed Islamic State and Sunni rebel convoys,” it added.

But the US-Russia pissing match continues…

Iraq’s Shiite-led government said it turned to Russia to bolster its aerial capabilities because U.S. F-16 jets were taking too long to be delivered. U.S. President Barack Obama has also refrained from ordering air strikes against the Sunni militants, putting the onus on Iraqi leaders to first form an inclusive government that could work to end the marginalization of minority Sunnis.

Pressure from the U.S. and Iraq’s top Shiite cleric wasn’t enough to prod lawmakers yesterday to end an impasse over picking a prime minister and fill key posts. An hour after convening in Baghdad for the first time since April elections, parliament adjourned until July 8, citing a lack of quorum and disagreements among leading political blocs.

Marie Harf, a U.S. State Department spokeswoman, said while it was important parliament convened, “we do hope that Iraq’s leaders will move forward with the extreme urgency that the current situation deserves.”

“Time is not on Iraq’s side here,” she added, according to an e-mail of her daily briefing. “They need to do this as quickly as possible.”

Iraqi forces agree with Kurds to defuse tension - World Updates | The Star Online

theamericanbear:

Iraqi military leaders agreed on Monday with commanders from the Kurdistan region to defuse tension and discuss pulling their troops back from an area over which they both claim jurisdiction.

Baghdad and the autonomous Kurdish region last week sent thousands of troops into the oil-rich territories along their contested internal border, raising the stakes in a long-running row over land and oil rights.

Military leaders from both sides met at the Ministry of Defence in Baghdad in the presence of a senior military officer from the United States on Monday.

A statement from the commander in chief of the Iraqi armed forces said the two sides had agreed to “start pacifying the situation and discuss a mechanism to return the forces which were deployed after the crisis to their previous positions”.

Continue

Also:
Kurds Fight Islamist Rebels In Syria, Threaten Independence In Iraq | The Agonist

[T]here are many who would say I am a hero for doing what others would not while putting myself at extreme risk … I understand the sentiment, and I trust that there are those who truly believe that all service members are heroes, simply for signing up. But I can’t help think that for some, “hero” is a throw-away word, designed to demonstrate a “support the troops” position or guarantee applause at an event.

… I don’t feel comfortable being called a hero. In fact, my brow furrows and my mind sharpens when I hear it. Words matter, and “hero” is so loaded and used so frequently that it stands to lose its meaning altogether. Maybe this is just New York cynicism, but I know I’m not the only veteran who feels skeptical when he or she is placed in the hero bin along with every other service member from the past 10 years. I admire the fact that men and women with whom I served chose a dangerous profession for their country – often making the decision after 9/11. But, these are soldiers. Soldiers are human beings. There are good ones and bad ones. A few do amazing, heroic things. The rest do their jobs – incredible, unique jobs – but jobs, nonetheless. Some perform happily, others grudgingly. And I argue that most feel embarrassed when lauded as heroes.

Don Gomez, Iraq War Veteran (via letterstomycountry)
Although the wary pundits who criticized the early chemical weapons stories were wrong about this particular case, they were right about the overarching truth of the situation: the invasion and occupation of Iraq was an horrific war crime in itself, regardless of what weapons or tactics were or were not used. Even without the chemical weapons, the death squads, the tortures of Abu Ghraib, the rapes and rampages, the deliberate empowerment of violent extremists, the endless barrage of lies, and the world-historical levels of corruption and war-profiteering that characterized the reality of the war, this act of aggression would still be a work of the most vile, most putrid, most irredeemable evil. … The destruction of Fallujah was like a black hole, where all the evil of the war was sucked in and concentrated with unbreakable force. So I think it’s worth reiterating, once more, the actual context of this atrocity that is now reverberating through the twisted, tormented bodies of children born long after the guns have fallen silent.

Chris Floyd, “After the Fire, the Fire Still Burns”: Horror Goes on for Victims of Iraq War Atrocities

Writing in response to “Iraq records huge rise in birth defects” from the Independent. From that report:

It played unwilling host to one of the bloodiest battles of the Iraq war. Fallujah’s homes and businesses were left shattered; hundreds of Iraqi civilians were killed. Its residents changed the name of their “City of Mosques” to “the polluted city” after the United States launched two massive military campaigns eight years ago. Now, one month before the World Health Organisation reveals its view on the legacy of the two battles for the town, a new study reports a “staggering rise” in birth defects among Iraqi children conceived in the aftermath of the war.

High rates of miscarriage, toxic levels of lead and mercury contamination and spiralling numbers of birth defects ranging from congenital heart defects to brain dysfunctions and malformed limbs have been recorded. Even more disturbingly, they appear to be occurring at an increasing rate in children born in Fallujah, about 40 miles west of Baghdad.

There is “compelling evidence” to link the increased numbers of defects and miscarriages to military assaults, says Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, one of the lead authors of the report and an environmental toxicologist at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health. Similar defects have been found among children born in Basra after British troops invaded, according to the new research.

US marines first bombarded Fallujah in April 2004 … Seven months later, the marines stormed the city for a second time, using some of the heaviest US air strikes deployed in Iraq. American forces later admitted that they had used white phosphorus shells, although they never admitted to using depleted uranium, which has been linked to high rates of cancer and birth defects.

… The latest study found that in Fallujah, more than half of all babies surveyed were born with a birth defect between 2007 and 2010. Before the siege, this figure was more like one in 10. Prior to the turn of the millennium, fewer than 2 per cent of babies were born with a defect. More than 45 per cent of all pregnancies surveyed ended in miscarriage in the two years after 2004, up from only 10 per cent before the bombing. Between 2007 and 2010, one in six of all pregnancies ended in miscarriage.

The new research, which looked at the health histories of 56 families in Fallujah, also examined births in Basra, in southern Iraq, attacked by British forces in 2003. Researchers found more than 20 babies out of 1,000 were born with defects in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital in 2003, a number that is 17 times higher than recorded a decade previously. In the past seven years, the number of malformed babies born increased by more than 60 per cent; 37 out of every 1,000 are now born with defects…

Dr Savabieasfahani said that for the first time, there is a “footprint of metal in the population” and that there is “compelling evidence linking the staggering increases in Iraqi birth defects to neuro-toxic metal contamination following the repeated bombardments of Iraqi cities”. She called the “epidemic” a “public health crisis”.

Dr Savabieasfahani said she plans to analyse the children’s samples for the presence of depleted uranium once funds have been raised. She added: “We need extensive environmental sampling, of food, water and air to find out where this is coming from. Then we can clean it up. Now we are seeing 50 per cent of children being born with malformations; in a few years it could be everyone.”

(via theamericanbear)
In seeking to replicate a policy which its own UN administrator at the time characterised as “effectively genocidal”, those implementing and advocating for intensified and far-ranging sanctions against Iran are waging an indiscriminate war against the Iranian people, despite the broad consensus and observable historical track record that sanctions only serve to immiserate innocent civilians while consolidating the hold on society of the governing regime. If, as many US officials have publically said, the goal of sanctions are to forcibly coerce Iranians to rise up and overthrow their government, the decimation of the Iranian middle class through the collapse of the economy will have only the opposite effect. The people of Iran will suffer potentially catastrophic harm as Iraqis did a decade earlier, while their state grows increasingly repressive and empowered relative to a poor and destitute population - a natural outcome within a command economy such as Iran’s. It is incumbent upon all those concerned that the grotesque crimes of the past not be repeated, and that the blanket, indiscriminate economic war against the Iranian people not continue in the name of political expediency. The blunt instrument of untargeted sanctions against a country are not an alternative to war but a form of war in and of themselves, even more pernicious in that the victims are always necessarily the weakest and most vulnerable of society.
Murtaza Hussain, Sanctioning society: From Iraq to Iran via Al Jazeera English (via jayaprada)
To Tumblr, Love Pixel Union
>