Military What was done is being undone...Iraq

Getting off topic but...you are right, we didn't invade Iraq for their oil, we invaded to keep their oil in the ground. An invasion planned before 9/11 even occurred. Saddam wanted to flood the market but we (Bush, Cheney, Baker, Exxon-Mobil, et al) could not ever think of allowing such a push to degrade the market price by almost 80%. Aren't we all over the fact that WMD's was window dressing for an alternative motive?

http://www.gregpalast.com/how-george-bush-won-the-war-in-iraq-really/

If ISIS wanted to truly have an impact, they would flood the market with oil to lower the price. If that were to be a true threat by ISIS then guess what? They become a bonafide threat to those who have very much to lose with a tampered market.

 

In a stretch perhaps but mostly, no. That wasn't my point. You said Syria wasn't mentioned AT ALL but then took Winston to task for not having read the testimony from McGurk where Syria was, in fact, mentioned.

You said, "the article says nothing whatsoever about Syria." Not so much. Ticky tack, I realize. Shame on me.

I don't believe he has been prudent. I think as in most things with him, he hedges instead of leads and we find ourselves at the back end of the horse. I'm not fond of shit.

Did you watch the video I linked? It had nothing to do with McGurk. But you did quote the man as an Obama official so....if he isn't a planner, then why is he giving testimony?

I don't think he does know more. I am not ready to give McGurk idol status but his time in the region makes him more knowledgeable about the situation than the President....unless you consider what lies he has heard from Brennan.

The pipeline was stated in the testimony as one of the primary goals of the US. Is McGurk lying, uninformed, clueless? Which is it? And again, if he is so lost, why is he testifying?

You agree with me then.....the US always gives the public a face to hate.....from the Ayatollah to Sadam to Qadaffi to bin laden. We don't have to kill them all. We have to kill their spirit or at least let them know we see it like a game of Whac-a-mole. Military action doesn't have to be massive troops. We have to depend on intel, weapons, and stealth.

They are and will continue to become global....access to Westerners and sympathizers who have US passports. That's what it's about.
http://www.nltimes.nl/2014/06/20/isis-gets-support-dutch-islamic-political-party/

Little things like this....global support is built. They don't care about wrath. They don't value life.

 

The idea of Saddams capability to flood the market holds much more water than the fact that no WMD's exist. It actually holds more water than the assumption we went in to actually get the oil. With no oil and no WMD's, there is little left to point at a motive.

That is your opinion on Palast. Unless you have something other that someone else's opinion to discredit him, we have your opinion. He has collaborations with the Wall Street Journal to serve this story. I have read all of his books and other than the reports on voter fraud (he cited 500 Rove emails but not all have been released) he puts out his documents...shares his file cabinet to make his point. Dude ain't a hack but he is a journalist, a respected investigative reporter that want's to sell books, so opinions will vary...I have seen very little on him to suggest he is making shit up other than some drama to sell the story. Dude hates Dems just the same as Bush and the gang so lets not get all dismissive because he actually makes a point. Dude supplies the BBC with a cesspool of material including this very story. There is more to his credibility than anything to take away from it, with exception of your opinion.

If you re-read what you just said, you and the rest of the planet would surmise the example I gave to be a pretty extreme stretch for even a formidable threat. What I said and meant was should ISIS even get remotely close to that kind of holding, they will be the threat they dream to be. Till then, if at all, they continue to make their charge.

 

Move your focus....I held you to the letter of your post as you are often want to do with others. You went after Winston for not reading the link within the text, claimed that Syria wasn't mentioned, but it WAS mentioned in the same link you hit him over the head with. It was baiting IMO so I addressed it. Apologies for going after the nit.

He was not prudent IMO because he pursued a drawdown with a date that was too aggressive and a numer that was too low. I am not behind a military action. I believe we are pursuing one no matter what PBO says. So, in that vein, do it quickly and effectively.

So your take is that McGurk was being forced to testify? I don't agree but does that make his testimony less valid? Here is what he closed with, "I want to thank this Committee, in particular, for working so closely with us over
the past six months to approve the Apache helicopter lease and sale through our
Foreign Military Sales program. While this is not an immediate remedy to the
current problem, they will provide the ISF with the most effective platform
possible for denying ISIL a safe haven in the remote western deserts of Iraq. They
will also ensure that we can provide effective oversight on the end use of attack
helicopter systems, as well as influencing planning and operations.
Similarly, the Iraqis have recently proven effective at deploying Hellfire missiles
against remote ISIL targets from a Caravan aircraft. The ISF have equipped
Caravans to launch Hellfire strikes, but the overall supply of Hellfire missiles was
not adequate to tackle the threat and number of targets they had located and
surveyed. Again, thanks to close coordination with this Committee, this situation
has begun to change.
Before concluding, I would like to say a brief word to our men and women who
served so bravely in these areas of Iraq. I cannot imagine what it must have been
like to see al-Qa’ida raise its flag once again in the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi. I
was sickened by the spectacle. But I want to ensure everyone who served, and this
Committee, that we will do everything possible to help the Iraqis take back their
streets. The situation in Ramadi is slowly improving, and we will support the
Iraqis – and the tribes of Anbar province – to secure the city of Fallujah.
Conclusion
Vital U.S. interests are at stake in Iraq. While my testimony today has focused on
the threat from ISIL, the issues of oil, regional stability, and Iranian influence, are
also central to our policy during this pivotal new year. I look forward to working
closely with this Committee to ensure that we are doing all we can to protect and 11

advance U.S. interests month-to-month. Thank you again for the opportunity to
address these complex issues today. I look forward to answering your questions. "

Obama relies on folks like McGurk....hell, you quoted him earlier in the thread.

"In May, Iraq notched a near-record level of crude exports out of its Persian Gulf terminal in Basra, though overall Iraqi exports are still below the 2.8 million barrels a day reached earlier this year because of the damaged northern pipeline. Ongoing repairs on the pipeline have been disrupted because of the ISIS offensive, raising questions over just when that export route will again be safe and operational, despite Iraqi promises Wednesday that repair work continues.

But the bigger concerns are two-fold: The ISIS offensive comes at a time when global oil markets could soon look tight due to supply disruptions in a number of big producers, and it could have important knock-on effects on Iraqi oil production over the medium term.

Although OPEC seems content with global oil supplies, that's largely because of continued growth in U.S. oil production, which has risen more than 1 million barrels a day since the beginning of last year. But traditional suppliers are faltering: Libyan oil production has fallen to about 10 percent of levels before militants took over eastern areas of that country; South Sudan's modest oil production has roughly been cut in half by the civil war there; and Western sanctions are keeping roughly 1 million barrels of Iranian oil off the market."

"Most oil fields remain unaffected by the insurgency. But the Islamist militants have seized control of Mosul, an important Iraqi city, and captured sizable amounts of military weaponry, vehicles, and money. They have surrounded the country's largest refinery in the northern town of Baiji. And they are trying to capitalize rapidly on the absence of pressure from Iraqi forces.

ISIS “is almost certain to attempt to exploit the current momentum of its offensive in northern Iraq and seize as much territory as possible in an attempt to maintain serious political pressure on the government” in Baghdad, says Matthew Henman, head of IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Center in London.

ISIS “may be aiming for the government to involve Shia Muslim militia groups, as it would play into its narrative of presenting itself as the defender of Iraq’s Sunni population,” he says in a written analysis.

President Obama said he is actively considering options for a US response.

“I don't rule out anything because we do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either Iraq or Syria,” Mr. Obama said when asked whether he was contemplating airstrikes."


If McGurk is so far off-base why is he giving Congressional testimony and why did Obama so strongly back him as an Ambassador to Iraq?

Read....IF our goal is a pipeline and the protection of oil AND the fomenting of contracts with US companies, then it seems to me that our ONLY option is JSOC type operations....not what I would describe as guerilla warfare. If we truly are going to opt out of Iraq, then we should denounce any use of Iraqi oil....period. I'm waiting for PBO to do so.

 

Again, did you watch the video I linked? Are those folks idiots too?