Iraq signs weapons purchase contract with Iran

pete6032

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2010
7,483
3,038
136
11 years after the United States invaded Iraq, it appears that Iraq is falling further into comfort with the United State's #2 enemy Iran.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/us-iraq-iran-arms-idUSBREA1N10D20140224

Reuters) - Iran has signed a deal to sell Iraq arms and ammunition worth $195 million, according to documents seen by Reuters - a move that would break a U.N. embargo on weapons sales by Tehran.


The agreement was reached at the end of November, the documents showed, just weeks after Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki returned from lobbying the Obama administration in Washington for extra weapons to fight al Qaeda-linked militants.....

If you were Sunni Iraqi how would you feel about your prime minister doing this?
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,287
36,411
136
You doubt the word of the George W. Bush Big Damn Book o' Strategery?


History is going to prove him right, didn't you hear? Why do you hate America?
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,596
475
126
the ultimate plan was to push them together so that when the Republican candidate wins the White House in 2016 we can have another ground war in the M.E.

Pure genius Dick, pure evil genius Darth Cheney...

or something like that....



.....
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,596
475
126
But but Booosh...

Seriously?

Obama has been dealing with Iraq for 5 years.

Fern

It's easier to break something than it is to fix it. from March 2003 to Jan 2009 is closer to six years than 5 years.

Face it if weapons inspectors were given more leeway and not forced out then a situation involving them looking for and destroying any WMDs would have been a continuation of a fairly stable status quo for that country.

More stable at least, than toppling a regime had every reason to not want to make deals with Iran, then allowing the citizenry to get into all kinds of vandalism and thievery....

All that because the Secretary of Defense blew off sound advice from high ranking army officers, particularly General Shinseki, who said 125k plus soldiers wasn't a large enough force in Iraq to ensure a more peaceful aftermath in the wake of an invasion.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12shinseki.html?_r=0
First vilified, then marginalized by the Bush administration after those comments, General Shinseki retired and faded away, even as lawmakers, pundits and politicians increasingly cited his prescience.

“We never had enough troops to begin with,” Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said just before the president’s televised address. “A month or two ago we found out the Army is broken, and they agreed that General Shinseki was right.”

Gen. John P. Abizaid, the departing commander of American forces in the Middle East, told Congress late last year, “General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations.”

In his prime-time address on Wednesday, even President Bush said the main reason past efforts to stabilize Baghdad had failed was that “there were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents.”

The acknowledgment was far different from the harsh administration rebuttals after General Shinseki electrified Washington with his blunt warning that victory in Iraq would require more troops than were being deployed for the invasion.
“Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required” to stabilize Iraq after an invasion, he said.



Although to be fair I sort of blame Cheney more than Bush at this point after reading about his maneuverings to get himself selected VP in the book Angler.
http://www.amazon.com/Angler-The-Che.../dp/0143116169



.....
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Iraq is over... the die is cast. No Obama worshipper person is going to blame Obama for the outcome; it wasn't his baby war.

FTFY.

Obama has had 5 years to develop a strategy to deal with Iraq. 5 yrs to come up with his own master plan. 5 yrs to use his awesome powers of persuasion.

al-Maliki has proven far easier to deal with than Saddam. I haven't noticed them attacking any nearby countries murdering and raping their populations and creating hazards, economic and ecological, like setting oil wells on fire. Or offering rewards for suicide bombers in Palestine etc.

Obama declined the request for military arms. Now who could have possibly thought al-Maliki might to turn to Iran when denied?

Oh damn! Being President is soo complicated. It's just not fair!

Fern
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
11 years after the United States invaded Iraq, it appears that Iraq is falling further into comfort with the United State's #2 enemy Iran. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A1N10D20140224 Quote: Reuters) - Iran has signed a deal to sell Iraq arms and ammunition worth $195 million, according to documents seen by Reuters - a move that would break a U.N. embargo on weapons sales by Tehran. The agreement was reached at the end of November, the documents showed, just weeks after Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki returned from lobbying the Obama administration in Washington for extra weapons to fight al Qaeda-linked militants..... If you were Sunni Iraqi how would you feel about your prime minister doing this?

well well well

not sure what to think of this

not that it would be unexpected

the ultimate plan was to push them together so that when the Republican candidate wins the White House in 2016 we can have another ground war in the M.E. Pure genius Dick, pure evil genius Darth Cheney... or something like that....

if you watch the scene where darth vader goes nooooooooo you can see that the emperor has the exact same smirk on his face as dick cheney
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,596
475
126
So it was "fixed" under Saddam?

Geez.

Fern

Saddam as a leader who vehemently disliked Iran with weapons inspectors hindering his efforts at developing WMDs was a lot less broken than the near civil war and fierce sectarian violence that took place after the invasion.

A lot less broken.

Also Iran and Iraq as allies or even making initial steps toward being allies isn't a very nice situation for us either.

No amount of sarcasm from you is going to change that. Although it might win points with the "we like bombs exploding at night on tv" crowd....



......
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,287
36,411
136
Iraq is over... the die is cast. No sane person is going to blame Obama for the outcome; it wasn't his baby war.

Exactly.


This simply wouldn't be occurring had Bush not allowed himself to be corralled into the biggest military blunder since Vietnam. Fern and the rest of the B-B-B-Bushh! bleaters can pretend 'cause and effect' doesn't matter all they want. I can't take any of them seriously when they try to set their own arbitrary limits on what part of what issue is valid for consideration.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
85
91
Iraq ordered 18 f-16s from the U.S. three years ago... None have been delivered. The committee on foreign relations has denied requests by Iraq for attack helicopters.

Maliki should just say he is part of al-Qaeda and he will get all types of military hardware by way of Libya.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
This is nothing. $150M? Hah. They're purchasing far, far more defense equipment from us.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
FTFY.

Obama has had 5 years to develop a strategy to deal with Iraq. 5 yrs to come up with his own master plan. 5 yrs to use his awesome powers of persuasion.

al-Maliki has proven far easier to deal with than Saddam. I haven't noticed them attacking any nearby countries murdering and raping their populations and creating hazards, economic and ecological, like setting oil wells on fire. Or offering rewards for suicide bombers in Palestine etc.

Obama declined the request for military arms. Now who could have possibly thought al-Maliki might to turn to Iran when denied?

Oh damn! Being President is soo complicated. It's just not fair!

Fern

What part of "Iraq is an independent nation" don't you understand?

What part of "They have reasons not to be our best buddies" eludes you?

Perhaps they have a score to settle over sanctions & the UN in general? Just a friendly "Fuck You" from people who endured over a decade of sanctions before being invaded?

Obama? Iraq? He followed through on GWB's exit plan. The rest? reference above. Omnipotence not found.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,313
1,214
126
Obama has had 5 years to develop a strategy to deal with Iraq. 5 yrs to come up with his own master plan. 5 yrs to use his awesome powers of persuasion.

Bush broke Iraq beyond any possible point of repair. Other than reinstalling another secular strong man, I can't think of much Obama could have done to fix it. He did the right thing by getting the hell out of there. I am sure neo-cons want another go at it, too fucking bad.

Obama should have the entire Bush administration brought up on charges of treason. Bush's crimes rise to the level of meriting execution as punishment. Every soldier who was maimed or killed in Iraq was a much much much better man than Bush. Bush will go down as the worst president in American history. An epic failure.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Bush broke Iraq beyond any possible point of repair. Other than reinstalling another secular strong man, I can't think of much Obama could have done to fix it. He did the right thing by getting the hell out of there. I am sure neo-cons want another go at it, too fucking bad.

Obama should have the entire Bush administration brought up on charges of treason. Bush's crimes rise to the level of meriting execution as punishment. Every soldier who was maimed or killed in Iraq was a much much much better man than Bush. Bush will go down as the worst president in American history. An epic failure.

The ignorance of leftist scumbags like you doesn't surprise me at all. obama wanted to keep troops in Iraq past the deadline.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/05/barack-obama-did-not-end-the-war-in-iraq
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
No sane person is going to blame Obama for the outcome; it wasn't his baby war.

Obama is working to loosen trade sanctions against Iran.

First comes the sale of smart phones to iran, now weapons deals, Russia is talking about building a nuclear reactor in Iran in exchange for oil,,,, all while obama has been president.

A nuclear iran is just around the corner, while obama sits on his hands.

The problem is not iraq, the problem is iran.
 

AViking

Platinum Member
Sep 12, 2013
2,264
1
0
Bush was such a good president. Truly a visionary. LOL

Besides using nuclear weapons on a neutral country or causing WWIII I don't think the man could have done a more terrible job as president.
 

AViking

Platinum Member
Sep 12, 2013
2,264
1
0
Obama is working to loosen trade sanctions against Iran.

First comes the sale of smart phones to iran, now weapons deals, Russia is talking about building a nuclear reactor in Iran in exchange for oil,,,, all while obama has been president.

A nuclear iran is just around the corner, while obama sits on his hands.

The problem is not iraq, the problem is iran.

No. The problem is you don't understand the difference between nuclear material for weapons and nuclear material for energy.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
No. The problem is you don't understand the difference between nuclear material for weapons and nuclear material for energy.

And, what is your point?

Iran is advancing its nuclear program, and now it is made a weapon deal with iraq.

Obama is working to lift trade sanctions against iran, which will allow it to progress its weapons development.