It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Carter: Iraqis showed 'no will to fight' in Ramadi

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
I'm sure the Iraqi military enjoys receiving paychecks and they get cool equipment, but its obvious to many that they won't actually fight for what the rest of the world knows as Iraq.

no matter what is spent on training, no matter how many airstrikes against ISIS...if Iraqi don't believe in Iraq and fight for it...no strategy against the group will be successful.

my question then...is Iraq an obsolete concept?

should the United States keep trying to push something on a people that they don't want?

Washington (CNN)Defense Secretary Ash Carter, in his first comments since the key town of Ramadi fell to ISIS, blamed the weak state of Iraq's military as one major reason for the city's fall, in an exclusive interview on CNN's "State of the Union" aired Sunday.

"What apparently happened was that the Iraqi forces just showed no will to fight," Carter told CNN's Barbara Starr. "They were not outnumbered. In fact, they vastly outnumbered the opposing force, and yet they failed to fight, they withdrew from the site, and that says to me, and I think to most of us, that we have an issue with the will of the Iraqis to fight ISIL and defend themselves."

Iraqis don't believe in Iraq and won't fight for it
edit on 24-5-2015 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2015 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
People have to be willing to fight for their own land and their own freedom. If they aren't willing to do it for themselves, then they won't be able to hold onto it when the time comes to try to keep what is handed to them.

America had to fight for it's own freedom. We got help from France and others, but the bottom line is that we had to be willing to fight for it. Without that determination, America would have fallen. And without that same determination, Iraq will fall.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux



my question then...is Iraq an obsolete concept?


As soon as the U.S. decided they wanted Iraq's oil then yes, and if anything the moral to this story, if you want people to fight for you, don't ruin the infrastructure of their country first because then they have nothing to fight for.
edit on -180002015-05-24T08:57:09-05:000000000931201509052015Sun, 24 May 2015 08:57:09 -0500 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   
US proxy Army vs. US proxy Army; just as 'ISIS' will not attack Israel; NATO, ISRAEL, and SAUDI will arm every side of every conflict across the ME, until the borders are gone and the Western bankers draw their own order from the chaos.

Naturally, conflicts of interests will occur, and we see weird stories like this one...
And MSM trying to plug the holes in the official narrative they profess, make what is really happening here ever more obvious.
edit on 24-5-2015 by ecapsretuo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

i agree...the very idea that such a thing as Iraq exists in reality should be questioned before all these Presidential candidates send troops to fight to defend it...

...even when the US Military wipes out ISIS, the state called Iraq will simply fall into disrepair regardless because the people we call Iraqis never wanted it in the first place.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Well their main religion promotes death as a goal. There is no unity in effort there, no "we the people', no 'we'. Iraq is a nation full of "I's". No 'I' in Team. "Allah's will be done" translation = 'sh@#t happens'.
Which means if they are over run by ISIS or anyone really... it must be gods will, so why fight it?

apathy does not a nation make.
edit on 24-5-2015 by Xeven because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

the oil will still exist and be available for use whether Iraq exists or not. why keep pushing a vision that the people of the region are not capable of seeing?



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: michaelbrux
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

the oil will still exist and be available for use whether Iraq exists or not. why keep pushing a vision that the people of the region are not capable of seeing?


Capitalism or corporatism (whatever crap the west is pushing) is evil, as a westerner I understand why they don't want it



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

i think its being called Free Enterprise now; that's what I've decided to call it.

i want to know why can't Iraq be allowed to die and the United States allow something new to emerge?

i mean, ISIS will be destroyed either way, but what's the purpose of the political concept called Iraq?



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
It was our wars in Iraq and failed foreign polices that led to the rise of ISIS. We left Iraq, now you have Sunni radicals and Shiite outsiders moving in. The average Iraqi soldier may have no motive because it is unclear which sect will dominate there. So far, Isis is winning.

To fight them, risk capture and identification where Isis assassins will hunt down and brutally kill your family. Or so they have threatened... Would you want to fight?

We can sit back and watch all of this, but if IS takes over in Iraq they will turn to the rest of the world. I think we have enough security interests, alone to have an obligation to go back in and deal with this. If the Iraqi army had us there leading the way, they would join the fight.

As it is now, they see no end to the rise in IS, maybe they realize that these guys will rule much of the country one day.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: michaelbrux
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

i think its being called Free Enterprise now; that's what I've decided to call it.

i want to know why can't Iraq be allowed to die and the United States allow something new to emerge?

i mean, ISIS will be destroyed either way, but what's the purpose of the political concept called Iraq?


Rumours are that ISIS is backed by Israel and that could mean that the U.S. have a hand in on it also. Keeping ISIS going is a money maker, whatever tactics are being used out there.

ISIS may never go away.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: michaelbrux
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

i think its being called Free Enterprise now; that's what I've decided to call it.

i want to know why can't Iraq be allowed to die and the United States allow something new to emerge?

i mean, ISIS will be destroyed either way, but what's the purpose of the political concept called Iraq?


Rumours are that ISIS is backed by Israel and that could mean that the U.S. have a hand in on it also. Keeping ISIS going is a money maker, whatever tactics are being used out there.


Do you really believe that?

Seriously?



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
It was our wars in Iraq and failed foreign polices that led to the rise of ISIS. We left Iraq, now you have Sunni radicals and Shiite outsiders moving in. The average Iraqi soldier may have no motive because it is unclear which sect will dominate there. So far, Isis is winning.

To fight them, risk capture and identification where Isis assassins will hunt down and brutally kill your family. Or so they have threatened... Would you want to fight?

We can sit back and watch all of this, but if IS takes over in Iraq they will turn to the rest of the world. I think we have enough security interests, alone to have an obligation to go back in and deal with this. If the Iraqi army had us there leading the way, they would join the fight.

As it is now, they see no end to the rise in IS, maybe they realize that these guys will rule much of the country one day.



i suppose that's a possibility, i don't think so; i think ISIS is basically the remnant of the group that ruled Iraq during the Hussein era...thus they are not a recent creation but what is left of something that had been there operating behind the scenes since Faisal was murdered.

i also consider it a more plausible theory that the Iraqi's are conspiring with ISIS to keep the United States engaged in the region.

all that put aside...i think its time for the US Congress to insist that the Iraqi's fight, right now, or die.

ISIS can be dealt with after all that nasty business has concluded itself.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux




my question then...is Iraq an obsolete concept?


The logical question isn't it? A lot of blood and treasure could have been saved if they would have simply allowed the people to vote for separate countries. The problem was and probably still is that the Sunni's are the most aggressive, used to run the whole country, but their part of the country has no oil... That is not good deal for the Sunni. The Kurds have oil and have needed their own country for decades. They will fight. The big issue is the Shia majority, it appears Sadama's rule took all the brave Shia and killed them, consequently the gene pool appears to be riddled with cowards and poor moral in general.

If the country fractures the Shia part will simply be a small, weak, puppet of Iran. You can bet the Sunni's will be pissed and civil war will be the norm. How do the Kurds get their oil to market if to the south there is strife.

It's a big ugly mess. They need to sort it out. For at least two more years they won't get any solid backing for a fight. Obama let the whole country fall apart on his watch. All the good that came of the "surge" was squandered by the abrupt pull out.


V



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ausername

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: michaelbrux
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

i think its being called Free Enterprise now; that's what I've decided to call it.

i want to know why can't Iraq be allowed to die and the United States allow something new to emerge?

i mean, ISIS will be destroyed either way, but what's the purpose of the political concept called Iraq?


Rumours are that ISIS is backed by Israel and that could mean that the U.S. have a hand in on it also. Keeping ISIS going is a money maker, whatever tactics are being used out there.


Do you really believe that?

Seriously?



With some of the stories about what the west has been up to in other countries, I wouldn't disbelieve it



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux


"ISIS can be dealt with after all that nasty business has concluded itself."

Okay folks, let's just sit back and see what happens, we can deal with it later.

Good luck with that.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

i don't know anything about their religion but i've heard that before...

...but it seems like they are working together for some greater purpose...it just seems practical that if the greater purpose involves screwing over the United States that's its time to pull a rabbit from the hat and make all involved in not following through with their oaths well aware that America's got game too.

by death being a goal...does that mean getting killed? i'm a newby with regards to what Iraqis enjoy.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ausername

so you are saying that Americans need to be willing to sacrifice themselves in order to save Iraq at all costs?


i'm saying it seems to make more sense to withdraw American assistance all at once...either the Iraqi system in Baghdad fights or is destroyed.

if Iraq's destroyed by ISIS, then send the forces to completely destroy ISIS without ambiguity and then place an American system permanently in charge of the country and its resources...then after the oil is gone give it to whoever wants it.
edit on 24-5-2015 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux


but its obvious to many that they won't actually fight for what the rest of the world knows as Iraq.

How hard is it for outside influences to convince people to war against their own countrymen for the outsiders?


should the United States keep trying to push something on a people that they don't want?


The US is pushing its own agenda there. They are enlisting criminals (that have no loyalty other than money) to kill off any resistance to ultimate subjugation for oil and other resources. The US doensn't care about indigenous peoples, only conquest. The less they have to fight themselves to achieve their goals the better.

Thats why "the Iraqi Army" isn't really representative of Iraq. Its led by whatever puppet government beholden to the West is currently propped up in power. And why its impossible to count on them to do our dirty work.

Same thing always happens in targeted countries. The end will eventually be the same as other failed endeavors like Vietnam and Afghanistan, or Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc.

The corporations ultimately don't care as long as they get to the resources. The military doesn't care as long as they get to keep running missions. The politicians don't care as long as they continue to get money for reelection.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: michaelbrux
a reply to: ausername

so you are saying that Americans need to be willing to sacrifice themselves in order to save Iraq at all costs?


If all of the American blood spilled there and sacrifice in the "war on terrorism" is going to be made meaningless by the rise of radical evil Islamic terrorists now. Yes.

If you think this is just going to be a problem confined to Iraq if we let it go, then there is the problem...

That said, let's just do nothing and see what happens, maybe that will work.




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join