The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on June 16, 2014, 01:50:13 pm
-
http://thehill.com/policy/international/209445-kerry-isis-doesnt-have-ability-to-overrun-baghdad (http://thehill.com/policy/international/209445-kerry-isis-doesnt-have-ability-to-overrun-baghdad)
Kerry: Militants can't take Baghdad
By Mario Trujillo - 06/16/14 09:18 AM EDT
Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday said he's confident that Sunni militants will not be able to capture Baghdad.
Kerry told Yahoo News he is "absolutely convinced" the U.S. Embassy in Iraq has the security needed to keep personnel safe as militants aligned with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) lay siege to a number of cities in the country.
"I don't believe that they will in the near term certainly, and I don't believe they necessarily can at all," Kerry said of the group's ability to take over the capital. "But that remains to be determined by the decisions that are made over the course of the next few days."
The Defense Department has sent additional security forces to secure the Iraqi embassy, while the State Department has evacuated a limited number of people. Kerry said a diplomatic presence remains in Iraq, and that many of the personnel moved out were contractors.
The secretary of State "absolutely, unquestionably" denied that the turmoil in Iraq could have been prevented if the United States had left residual forces in the country after the combat mission ended in 2011. Republican critics of the administration say the U.S. left Iraq too soon.
But Kerry said any security agreement keeping forces in Iraq would have called for troops to only train, advise and assist the Iraqi military, not participate in combat.
He said the conflict is the result of an internal struggle between factions in the country, including the Shiite Muslim government and Sunni groups that have been excluded.
"This is complicated," he said. "And it is not something where any number of forces of the United States would have made the difference or are going to make the difference right now. This is about the internal politics and governance of Iraq."
President Obama is considering a number of options in the country. Kerry said U.S. air strikes could be a possibility to help stop ISIS's march across Iraq.
"No individual, no country — certainly no country in the region — can sit back and allow a terrorist entity to run whole-hog over an election, over a constitutional process, and over people who have chosen a government through a legitimate process and allow them to terrorize it simply because they don't like the outcome or they want something else," he said.
He said air strikes could not be the whole answer. He implored Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the government to be more inclusive.
Kerry said he does not believe Iranian troops are crossing over the border to Iraq, as has been reported in the press. But he said there has been a mobilization of militias, which has its dangers.
The secretary would not say whether the U.S. would be willing to work with Iran, which is aligned with the Iraqi prime minister, if it commits to a process of more inclusion in the Iraqi government.
"Let's see what Iran might or might not be willing to do before we start making any pronouncements," Kerry said. "I think we are open to any constructive process here that can minimize the violence, hold Iraq together, the integrity of the country and eliminate the presence of outside terrorist forces."
-
Kerry is clueless.
If our military were there in any capacity, they would serve as a deterrent for this kind of blatant Islamofascist takeover of Iraq.
-
I had this horrible nightmare that John Kerry was our Secretary of State and the middle east was on fire...oh wait.
8888crybaby
-
Kerry is indeed clueless, and should learn to shut his damned mouth - but this can be laid at the door of Madam Clinton and the Worm. He's just working with what he's got at the moment. Let me rinse with bleach - I just defended an indefensible bleep.
They are the ones who ran most HUMINT capacity (a rather impressive network at one stage) into the ground. The combination of not looking after translators and letting the Pakistani doctor who actually fingered bin Laden swing in the breeze shut down co-operation like a clam slamming shut when you poke it.
SIGINT is fine and all very well, but the top brass on their side don't use phones or email. They use couriers who memorize instructions. Any encryption system can be broken, given enough time. The only way to break a courier is to catch him and make him talk.
-
Kerry is indeed clueless, and should learn to shut his damned mouth - but this can be laid at the door of Madam Clinton and the Worm. He's just working with what he's got at the moment. Let me rinse with bleach - I just defended an indefensible bleep.
They are the ones who ran most HUMINT capacity (a rather impressive network at one stage) into the ground. The combination of not looking after translators and letting the Pakistani doctor who actually fingered bin Laden swing in the breeze shut down co-operation like a clam slamming shut when you poke it.
SIGINT is fine and all very well, but the top brass on their side don't use phones or email. They use couriers who memorize instructions. Any encryption system can be broken, given enough time. The only way to break a courier is to catch him and make him talk.
Agree Kerry has to play a bad hand, thanks to Hillary and Obama, and Kerry will play it badly!
-
The secretary of State "absolutely, unquestionably" denied that the turmoil in Iraq could have been prevented if the United States had left residual forces in the country after the combat mission ended in 2011. Republican critics of the administration say the U.S. left Iraq too soon.
This is the statement by Kerry that shows his cluelessness.
The turmoil in Iraq now is precisely because Obama and Hillary pulled everyone out of Iraq for PURELY POLITICAL purposes.
Had they treated Iraq, and what our troops had accomplished there, with even a modicum of respect and truthfulness, ISIS would not have had the capacity to do what it's doing now.
They needed the absence of an American presence there to begin their reign of terror.
And Obama obliged and left a chasm for them to fill.
-
:banging:
-
Save this for viewing at a later date. I have a feeling we will be looking back at this idiots comments in the not to distant future.
-
If our military were there in any capacity, they would serve as a deterrent for this kind of blatant Islamofascist takeover of Iraq.
We can't keep a permanent presence. Sooner or later these people need to learn to take care of themselves. We don't have the resources and I don't want to see any more young people die unnecessarily.
-
We can't keep a permanent presence. Sooner or later these people need to learn to take care of themselves. We don't have the resources and I don't want to see any more young people die unnecessarily.
Do you care that ISIS is killing hundreds/thousands of people "unnecessarily?"
Or is it alright with you that the sacrifice of so many in our military to give them a fighting chance has been destroyed by Obama's political desires, devoid of strategic reality?
btw, we still have a presence in Germany, Japan and Korea.
I'd say that's pretty 'permanent.'
And it has preserved the peace, not thrown it against the rocks as Obama has done.
-
Do you care that ISIS is killing hundreds/thousands of people "unnecessarily?"
Or is it alright with you that the sacrifice of so many in our military to give them a fighting chance has been destroyed by Obama's political desires, devoid of strategic reality?
btw, we still have a presence in Germany, Japan and Korea.
I'd say that's pretty 'permanent.'
And it has preserved the peace, not thrown it against the rocks as Obama has done.
We are not the police of the world. It is not our responsibility to micromanage the nations of the world and make sure everything is fair. It is our responsibility to look after the well being of the United States and its people. I'm not okay with any of my brothers having died in Iraq. I don't think we should maintain bases in Germany or Japan, either.
-
We are not the police of the world. It is not our responsibility to micromanage the nations of the world and make sure everything is fair. It is our responsibility to look after the well being of the United States and its people. I'm not okay with any of my brothers having died in Iraq. I don't think we should maintain bases in Germany or Japan, either.
Your first two statements create strawmen, your third statement shows alarming naivte.
NO one is "OK" with having brothers die in Iraq (another straw man, not implied in any of my statements).
Your final statement is the only part of your argument that has a modicum of consistency.
However, it is not the way things work, so it doesn't get you very far in a real world.
-
Your first two statements create strawmen, your third statement shows alarming naivte.
NO one is "OK" with having brothers die in Iraq (another straw man, not implied in any of my statements).
Your final statement is the only part of your argument that has a modicum of consistency.
However, it is not the way things work, so it doesn't get you very far in a real world.
I suppose we will have to respectfully disagree with each other. Your earlier statement said something along the lines of all of the sacrifices will be for nothing. I've always felt they were for nothing, and that every last death in Iraq was tragic and unnecessary. I feel like adding onto that death count will be even more tragic and unnecessary.
-
I suppose we will have to respectfully disagree with each other. Your earlier statement said something along the lines of all of the sacrifices will be for nothing. I've always felt they were for nothing, and that every last death in Iraq was tragic and unnecessary. I feel like adding onto that death count will be even more tragic and unnecessary.
1. I didn't say anything like that on this thread, nor do I believe that our troops' sacrifices will ever be 'for nothing.' We killed a lot of terrorists in Iraq, who didn't have the chance to get here and kill us. That's not "nothing." We also created a stable country in the center of the ME until Obama destroyed what we had accomplished. So that wasn't "nothing" either, until the Obama reign of terror started, and the good done previously was dismantled.
2. Protecting American lives and freedom is never 'tragic and unnecessary.' I'm sorry you believe that it is.
3. Yes. We will have to agree to disagree. Even though you have set up a number of liberal straw men in your argument that didn't relate to anything I said, I strongly disagree with your premise that protecting liberty is a waste, and I don't imagine I can ever convince you otherwise.
-
Save this for viewing at a later date. I have a feeling we will be looking back at this idiots comments in the not to distant future.
I think we will be watching John eat those words in a matter of days. This is an excellent example of how the Obama Administration insists on seeing things as they wish they were, instead of how they actually are.
I will allow John may be close to right, but not like he thinks. The way the Iraqi army has performed, they are just as likely to hand Baghdad over without much of a fight....
-
1. I didn't say anything like that on this thread, nor do I believe that our troops' sacrifices will ever be 'for nothing.' We killed a lot of terrorists in Iraq, who didn't have the chance to get here and kill us. That's not "nothing." We also created a stable country in the center of the ME until Obama destroyed what we had accomplished. So that wasn't "nothing" either, until the Obama reign of terror started, and the good done previously was dismantled.
2. Protecting American lives and freedom is never 'tragic and unnecessary.' I'm sorry you believe that it is.
3. Yes. We will have to agree to disagree. Even though you have set up a number of liberal straw men in your argument that didn't relate to anything I said, I strongly disagree with your premise that protecting liberty is a waste, and I don't imagine I can ever convince you otherwise.
I don't believe Iraq was about protecting Americans or preserving liberty, both of which I do support.
-
I don't believe Iraq was about protecting Americans or preserving liberty, both of which I do support.
I know that you don't. You've made that abundantly clear.
In fact, the only times you've engaged me in conversation here on this forum was when you felt the need to use phony arguments against things I never said to make sure I knew you disagreed with Iraq.
My son's Bronze Star was awarded to him because of the amazing things he accomplished there, in a noble mission that was working until Obama threw it all away.
You're not going to convince me that it was a failure.
I know too much to believe that.
-
I don't believe Iraq was about protecting Americans or preserving liberty, both of which I do support.
Thank you for sharing.
-
Breaking news. Kerry is fighting back against ISIS with a hashtag #BringBackOurBaghdad and threats to sic global warming on them. Lessons he learned while serving in Vietnam.
-
send in the drones..hundreds, thousands.. fill the skies with them.
-
I think we will be watching John eat those words in a matter of days. This is an excellent example of how the Obama Administration insists on seeing things as they wish they were, instead of how they actually are.
:thumbsup:
-
I don't believe Iraq was about protecting Americans or preserving liberty, both of which I do support.
Then what was it about?
-
Then what was it about?
That's a good question.
-
I don't believe Iraq was about protecting Americans or preserving liberty, both of which I do support.
Despite the flak you're getting on the thread...I generally agree with the above statement. Generally, the key word.
Although I do believe we killed more than a few terrorists in Iraq during the Bush presidency, in deference to MusicLady, those terrorists had family too. Ask them and 'he' died in righteous jihad...or some other abstract bullshit. IOW, ask them and they're not the 'bad guys'.
But make no mistake. President GHWB stopping Saddam Hussein in Desert Storm protected Americans AND preserved liberty.
And it's not 'Six degrees of Kevin Bacon' to see it. Saddam would have given us $10 a gallon gasoline.
I was totally for going in and getting rid of the Hussein regime. And I'd be for it again.
.....just not under this charlatan.
-
Then what was it about?
Oil, revenge against Saddam for the assassination attempt against GHWB, war-mongering........
Just run through the leftist talking points and you'll come up with something he agrees with. **nononono*
-
Despite the flak you're getting on the thread...I generally agree with the above statement. Generally, the key word.
Although I do believe we killed more than a few terrorists in Iraq during the Bush presidency, in deference to MusicLady, those terrorists had family too. Ask them and 'he' died in righteous jihad...or some other abstract bullshit. IOW, ask them and they're not the 'bad guys'.
But make no mistake. President GHWB stopping Saddam Hussein in Desert Storm protected Americans AND preserved liberty.
And it's not 'Six degrees of Kevin Bacon' to see it. Saddam would have given us $10 a gallon gasoline.
I was totally for going in and getting rid of the Hussein regime. And I'd be for it again.
.....just not under this charlatan.
Yes, indeed. Those non-'bad guys' chopped off the heads of children in front of their parents in Anbar Province, and our troops killed them dead.
-
Yes, indeed. Those non-'bad guys' chopped off the heads of children in front of their parents in Anwar Province, and our troops killed them dead.
It makes me sick to my stomach...thinking many of the Iraqis being slaughtered today were cute, innocent 10 year olds when we "liberated" them.
WTF for?
I hate him.
-
Kerry is indeed clueless, and should learn to shut his damned mouth - but this can be laid at the door of Madam Clinton and the Worm. He's just working with what he's got at the moment. Let me rinse with bleach - I just defended an indefensible bleep.
They are the ones who ran most HUMINT capacity (a rather impressive network at one stage) into the ground. The combination of not looking after translators and letting the Pakistani doctor who actually fingered bin Laden swing in the breeze shut down co-operation like a clam slamming shut when you poke it.
SIGINT is fine and all very well, but the top brass on their side don't use phones or email. They use couriers who memorize instructions. Any encryption system can be broken, given enough time. The only way to break a courier is to catch him and make him talk.
All absolutely right and that is just the tip of the iceberg!
BTW: Does anyone want to make a guess as to where and how ISIS got those stingers?
-
This is the statement by Kerry that shows his cluelessness.
The turmoil in Iraq now is precisely because Obama and Hillary pulled everyone out of Iraq for PURELY POLITICAL purposes.
Had they treated Iraq, and what our troops had accomplished there, with even a modicum of respect and truthfulness, ISIS would not have had the capacity to do what it's doing now.
They needed the absence of an American presence there to begin their reign of terror.
And Obama obliged and left a chasm for them to fill.
Most recently yes! But there have been a great many previous statement by him that prove the case LONG ago for anyone who was paying attention!
-
That's a good question.
OK then.
-
Yes, indeed. Those non-'bad guys' chopped off the heads of children in front of their parents in Anwar Province, and our troops killed them dead.
Not to mention the killing of THOUSANDS of Kurds with chemical weapons!
-
"Never argue with an idiot. They only bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience." -- George Carlin
:smokin:
-
Chieftan wrote above:
[[ I think we will be watching John eat those words in a matter of days. This is an excellent example of how the Obama Administration insists on seeing things as they wish they were, instead of how they actually are. ]]
I'd trust John Kerry's comments on Iraq, about as much as I trusted Henry Kissinger's on South Vietnam back around 1974...
-
Musiclady wrote about our involvement in Iraq:
[[ You're not going to convince me that it was a failure. ]]
The events of the next few months may convince you.
There's a reason our efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan were doomed to fail, even before they began.
I'm not going to re-post it all here, but please see:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=140672.msg574753#msg574753
and
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,140734.msg575204.html#msg575204
and
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,140734.msg575223.html#msg575223
We've never even tried to fight the real "enemy" in either of those countries.
Until we do, not much is going to be gained there.
If anything, we're LOSING ground...
-
Musiclady wrote about our involvement in Iraq:
[[ You're not going to convince me that it was a failure. ]]
The events of the next few months may convince you.
There's a reason our efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan were doomed to fail, even before they began.
I'm not going to re-post it all here, but please see:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=140672.msg574753#msg574753
and
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,140734.msg575204.html#msg575204
and
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,140734.msg575223.html#msg575223
We've never even tried to fight the real "enemy" in either of those countries.
Until we do, not much is going to be gained there.
If anything, we're LOSING ground...
The events of the next few months won't convince me of anything other than the abject failure of Barack Obama, or his deliberate loss in Iraq.
When George W. Bush left office in 2009, Iraq was under control. If a responsible President had followed him, it still would be.
-
Musiclady wrote about our involvement in Iraq:
[[ You're not going to convince me that it was a failure. ]]
The events of the next few months may convince you.
There's a reason our efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan were doomed to fail, even before they began.
I'm not going to re-post it all here, but please see:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=140672.msg574753#msg574753
and
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,140734.msg575204.html#msg575204
and
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,140734.msg575223.html#msg575223
We've never even tried to fight the real "enemy" in either of those countries.
Until we do, not much is going to be gained there.
If anything, we're LOSING ground...
Regarding your post in the second link you cited here, I agree fully with Lando Lincoln's post immediately below yours.