they don't have a "period" in Arabic ...
Posted on 09/18/2014 10:33:16 AM PDT by gandalftb
Iraq's new prime minister ruled out stationing U.S. ground troops in his country.
"Not only is it not necessary," he said, "We don't want them. We won't allow them. Full stop."
Instead, al-Abadi urged the international community to expand its campaign against the extremists in neighboring Syria.
"The only contribution the American forces or the international coalition are going to help us with is from the sky," al-Abadi said.
Al-Abadi, however, said that Iraq doesn't have the luxury of refusing cooperation with (Syria) Damascus, and instead pushed for some sort of coordination.
"We cannot afford to fight our neighbor, even if we disagree on many things," al-Abadi said of the Assad regime.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
At least we have a friend in the Kurds. They will emerge as independent with an enlarged territory as Iraq cannot govern N Iraq.
The Sunni Iraqi provinces will also emerge as more autonomous with the creation of their own militias.
The central Iraqi army will be largely Shia to protect Shia dominated areas.
The Saudi's are saying that the US is gearing for a 10 year fight. The Jordanians and Saudi's are working together to train the Free Syrian Army. The Saudi's gave the Brits $100 million as seed money. The Brits will announce their involvement in the coalition as soon as the Scottish vote is over.
The French have cut a separate deal directly with al-Abadi to recon western Iraq and then air strikes. Iraq won't work with the UAR, but their new French allies are flying out of al Dafra AB. Guess where? That's right, the UAR.
"Full stop" is one of those phrases the Occupant uses when he wants to sound tough. This is such crap.....reeks of Obama propaganda.
Because Obama told him to rule out U.S. ground troops.
they don't have a "period" in Arabic ...
So, the U.S. plays second fiddle to Syria? We sure have fallen low on the rung of super powers, huh..
Iran says NO to US ground troops in their colony Iraq.
Iraq will not let the Kurd held land go, that is where most of the country’s oil revenue comes from.
Anything the muzzies run is an amazing mess.
Can we not just abandon the ME as a shiite-hole and just green light Israel to do whatever they need to and we won;t interfere. We have absolutely no business there.
Ahem. Countries we conquered and pacified do NOT give the USA orders. The Boy President might take their orders. . .
The Obama plan, which is a plan heartily backed by the GOP’s neocons and media outlets like the WSJ oped page editors, is calling for air strikes against ISIS inside Syria yes but (a) also seeks to somehow not do that to help the Syrian people generally, especially not when and where Assad may be the beneficiary [which, I think, managing our attacks on ISIS that way is dumb) and (b) upping support for the “Syrian opposition”, which is by all reports no longer dominated by “moderates” but now and since 2012 dominated by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. See WaPo May 2012.
The result from not limiting our activities inside Syria to ONLY trying to degrade ISIS, & with more intervention on our part on behalf of the “Syrian opposition”, will result in an expansion of the “Syrian” internal conflict to fully engage and engulf Lebanon and see expanded Russian, Iranian and Hezbolla support for Assad. The result will be a more extensive and extended conflict around Syria and more opportunity for ISIS in the more extensively fracturing region of Syria and Lebanon.
The answer? ONLY go after ISIS in Syria and do not up the ante of support for the “Syrian opposition” but instead work for military stalemate, and Assad and the opposition’s admission that stalemate will be all they’ll likely get, to be followed by getting them into a truce and political talks. That - the end point - is where some general’s on Assad’s staff might need to be recruited to that endeavor.
LOL, cute kid .... interesting mix ;)
Post of the day. Took the words right out of my mouth.
Since both Iraq and Syria are no more, the state os ISIL can be attacked wherever they gather in a well defined target.
You must forget Iraq and syria, they are gone. The bombing effort is all about defining the new borders of the new states.
It is not official until SecState Wind bag makes it perfectly clear.
A mess indeed. The concept of a third party taking action against one of the sides in a revolution while simultaneously trying to claim it’s neutral is absurd. The only thing we’ll accomplish by not coordinating with Assad is blundering into blue on blue incidents. We need, at minimum, an operational understanding with the Syrian government if we’re going to bomb their country. Even the Iraqis have caught on to that.
Screw him.....we will do whatever is in our best interest....
If we need to occupy Iraq, we will do it regardless of his protests...
.
“Iraq’s new prime minister ruled out stationing U.S. ground troops in his country.”
...........
Because Obama told him to rule out U.S. ground troops.
*******
Hopefully, he’s smart enough to realize that neither Iraq nor the anti-Assad Syrians can rely on the continued support of American leftists and that his country, using its oil revenue, rebuild its own forces and take control of its own destiny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.