"I don't rule out anything" Obama: US troops fighting alongside Iranian troops?

G

Grandluxe

By Faith Karimi and Laura Smith-Spark, CNN
June 13, 2014 -- Updated 1404 GMT (2204 HKT)

Violence is spreading and security deteriorating in the nation, prompting U.S. President Barack Obama to say the beleaguered government required assistance. "It's going to need more help from us, and it's going to need more help from the international community," Obama said. "I don't rule out anything."

With the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, an offshoot of al Qaeda, rapidly gaining territory, Iran deployed Revolutionary Guards units to Iraq, according to Iranian security officials. The so-called Shiite crescent—stretching from Iran to Iraq, Lebanon and Syria—was forged largely as a result of this effort.

Two Guards' units, dispatched from Iran's western border provinces on Wednesday, were tasked with protecting Baghdad and the holy Shiite cities of Karbala and Najaf, these security sources said. Iraq's military was trained and equipped by the U.S. and coalition forces. When attacked by insurgents in several cities this week, Iraqi soldiers surrendered without a fight.

Iran has also positioned troops on full alert along its border with Iraq and has given clearance to its air force to bomb ISIS rebel forces if they come within about 60 miles of Iran's border, according to an Iranian army general. The two IRGC battalions that moved to Iraq on Wednesday were shifted from the Iranian border provinces of Urumieh and Lorestan, the Iranian security officials said.

The involvement of Iran would pose yet another security challenge for the White House, and raises the prospect of the U.S. and Iran fighting on the same side.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/13/world/meast/iraq-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Obama's dream come true.
 
Of course we knew it was coming.

The Washington Post has just stated that the fall of the Iraq sate, six years into Odumbo's term, is George Bush's fault.

rofl
 
It is somewhat unfair to blame Bush totally, as the Obama/Clinton foreign policy contributed significantly to instability in the region. What they would tout as their greatest success, toppling Khaddafi in Libya, probably was the biggest contributor, as vast stores of sophisticated weapons were handed over to the extremists Obama supported.

All that said, I don't think it is much of a stretch to blame Bush for Iraq's current state. In his zeal to take out Saddam, he overlooked the very real possibility that a failed state might result. We wasted billions to try to prevent that, but it is happening anyway. Even if the government manages to hang on, we turned Iraq int basically a colony of Iran. I can't see how that justifies the horrible waste of human life and resources.

It's also ironic that the person who appears to have had the best plan for post-war Iraq was our resident buffoon, Joe Biden. He proposed splitting the country into three parts along religious lines, eg Kurd, sunni and shia. It made sense to me then, and it is looking increasingly likely that will be the ultimate result.
 
Isis' reign of terror in the middle east started in Syria during Obama's watch. I don't think that anything Bush did ten years ago has anything to do with Isis attempting to take over the middle east.
 
fhl said:
Isis' reign of terror in the middle east started in Syria during Obama's watch. I don't think that anything Bush did ten years ago has anything to do with Isis attempting to take over the middle east.
More...

That's a fair point. I said that Obama/Clinton's encouragement of jihadists in Egypt, Libya and Syria contributed to this. My point however is that Iraq under Saddam was a stable country that could certainly have defended itself. Saddam would have crushed these jihadists like cockroaches, and he was prepared to do anything that was necessary.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
That's a fair point. I said that Obama/Clinton's encouragement of jihadists in Egypt, Libya and Syria contributed to this. My point however is that Iraq under Saddam was a stable country that could certainly have defended itself. Saddam would have crushed these jihadists like cockroaches, and he was prepared to do anything that was necessary.
More...


Isis seems to be going after Shia countries now and so since Sadam was Sunni, they probably wouldn't have gone after Iraq right away anyway. If they got stronger through conquest of shia countries, though, my guess is they go after sunni countries that don't cut off enough heads to suit them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top