SIX Suicide Car Bombers strike Ramadi where the battle for the city continue at this moment.

Ramadi was one of the toughest battles of the Iraq war.  Now ISIS has stormed the city with SIX suicide car bombers and the fight going on at this minute.  

ISIS seizes government compound in Iraq's Ramadi

Published May 15, 2015
·Associated Press

BAGHDAD –  Islamic State militants on Friday captured the main government compound in Ramadi, the capital of Iraq's western Anbar province, after fierce clashes with security forces.

Ramadi's Mayor Dalaf al-Kubaisi says the militants raised the black flag of ISIS over the area after troops were forced to withdraw from the compound, which houses most of the city's government offices.

He said the IS militants, who also seized other parts of the city, are now attacking the Anbar Operation Command, the military headquarters for the province.

Dalaf said at least 10 policemen were killed in the fighting and dozens of other security forces were wounded. He said IS militants killed several captured policemen and army officers in the city, where most civilians have fled.

U.S. troops saw some of the heaviest fighting of the eight-year Iraq intervention in Anbar, and Ramadi was a major insurgent stronghold. The IS group captured the nearby city of Fallujah and parts of Ramadi in January 2014, months before its main sweep across northern and western Iraq.

The IS assault on the Ramadi government compound began with three nearly simultaneous suicide car bombings. Two Humvees previously seized from the Iraqi army were used in Friday's attack, al-Kubaisi said.

Dozens of families were forced to flee their homes in the area, said Athal al-Fahdawi, an Anbar councilman.

[...]
Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/05/15/iraqi-officials-amid-battle-with-is-suicide-attacks-hit-government-compound/

By golly it looks like Iraq needs to handle their problems themselves.....it is refreshing not sending American kids home in body bags......damn refreshing.
Americans for the most part could care less about this civil war....or who will rule the nation Shia, Kurds, Sunni........The arbitrary colonial boundaries were certainly not improved with the half cocked American attempt to guide an Iraq constitution ten years ago......one man in the Senate clearly knew the sectarian division would explode with the invasion, and fortunately he has been disengaging from this foreign policy disaster made 10 years ago by folks who did not even understand the different groups......It is not America's job to spill our children's blood and wealth on this Neocon fiasco.

2seaoat wrote:By golly it looks like Iraq needs to handle their problems themselves.....it is refreshing not sending American kids home in body bags......damn refreshing.
Americans for the most part could care less about this civil war....or who will rule the nation Shia, Kurds, Sunni........The arbitrary colonial boundaries were certainly not improved with the half cocked American attempt to guide an Iraq constitution ten years ago......one man in the Senate clearly knew the sectarian division would explode with the invasion, and fortunately he has been disengaging from this foreign policy disaster made 10 years ago by folks who did not even understand the different groups......It is not America's job to spill our children's blood and wealth on this Neocon fiasco.

There is no doubt whatsoever that MANY people knew that an invasion would only result in more sectarian violence...and they knew this long before 2003. And the "surge"...

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/01/06/the-surge-myths-deadly-result-2/

From the Archive: Central to the neocons’ narrative on the current Mideast crisis – as Islamic terrorists seize territory in Iraq and Syria – is that George W. Bush’s “successful surge” in Iraq in 2007 had achieved “victory at last,” but was squandered by President Obama. But that’s a self-serving myth, as Robert Parry wrote in 2012.


By Robert Parry (Originally published on March 17, 2012)

"As the Afghan War grinds toward another U.S. military defeat – on the heels of the forced departure from Iraq – Official Washington remains in denial about these failed neocon strategies, still preferring to embrace happy myths about “successful surges” and ignoring the actual outcomes.

I encountered this cognitive dissonance in one Saturday morning in March 2012 when I was flipping the TV channels and landed on MSNBC’s “Up with Chris Hayes,” with substitute host, the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein. There was a panel of bright and attractive pundits again praising President George W. Bush’s Iraq War “surge.”

One had to wonder: Did these seemingly smart people not notice that the U.S. military was sent packing from Iraq at the end of 2011, less than three months earlier? Do they not know that the giant U.S. Embassy, once meant to be a command center for imperial domination of the Middle East, sits mostly idle? Were they oblivious to the fact that Iraq, still a shattered society afflicted by terrible sectarian violence, leans closer to Iranian foreign policy than America’s because of Bush’s invasion?

No doubt, the myth about Bush’s “successful surge” has been deeply implanted in the conventional wisdom of Washington. But the truth is that it was only “successful” in that it delayed the ultimate American defeat until Bush and his neocon cohorts had vacated the White House and the blame could be shifted to President Barack Obama.

Other than sparing “war president” Bush the humiliation of having to admit defeat, the dispatching of 30,000 additional U.S. troops in early 2007 did little more than get nearly 1,000 additional Americans killed – almost one-quarter of the war’s total U.S. deaths – along with what certainly was a much higher number of Iraqis..."

2seaoat wrote:By golly it looks like Iraq needs to handle their problems themselves.....it is refreshing not sending American kids home in body bags......damn refreshing.
Americans for the most part could care less about this civil war....or who will rule the nation Shia, Kurds, Sunni........The arbitrary colonial boundaries were certainly not improved with the half cocked American attempt to guide an Iraq constitution ten years ago......one man in the Senate clearly knew the sectarian division would explode with the invasion, and fortunately he has been disengaging from this foreign policy disaster made 10 years ago by folks who did not even understand the different groups......It is not America's job to spill our children's blood and wealth on this Neocon fiasco.

Good post, Seoat. 'Neocon Fiasco'..... That is about the size of it.

Markle wrote:  

ISIS seizes government compound in Iraq's Ramadi

What the hell, are you trying to do some homemade version of the Fox News banner that scrolls across the screen.

Like I give a shit about Ramadi. But I stayed in a Ramadi Inn one time and I guess it wasn't so bad.

Iraq was under control and peaceful when Bush handed the baton off to Iraq. That is a fact. Obama pissed it all away.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

KarlRove wrote:Iraq was under control and peaceful when Bush handed the baton off to Iraq.  That is a fact.  Obama pissed it all away.

Obama wanted to get us out of there so you wouldn't have to make any more deployments there. We wanted the U.S. out of there too, that is why we booted the GOP out of the Whitehouse in 2008.

He got us out of there before the job was done and now we are reaping the whirlwind.

Iraq was under control and peaceful when Bush handed the baton off to Iraq. That is a fact. Obama pissed it all away.

If that was the case then none of what has happened would have happened. The flaw was in the political constitution....it was smoke and mirrors which hid the divisions and the certainty the moment that constitution was envisioned by the Neocons, that the place would explode..........the fuse was lit 10 years ago.....the certainty of the explosion was predicted by Senator Obama ten years earlier.

Horsecrap. It was under control and we had not finished the Spec Ops training for Iraqi army. On top of that we cut off the intel element which is heart and soul of spec ops. Obama neutered any ability of the Iraqi SOF to do their job. That's why we have them back in Iraq trying to piecemeal put it back together

Oh, I see the reason it failed was because we failed to train the new occupation army rather than addressing the underlying issues. So the democracy in Iraq under the Neocon constitution meant that there would always be an occupying army over ruling any free democratic political system.....brilliant......and to think some are arguing even now it was a good move.....simply brilliant.

Jeb must have you as a foreign relations adviser.

Not the army,
The SoF was not finished. You fail to understand that SOF isn't created as quickly
As regular army and regular army isn't going to defeat
Terrorism as it is not trained for asymmetrical warfare

It takes 2.5 to 3 years for US forces to create SOF that is competent.

[quote="2seaoat"]Iraq was under control and peaceful when Bush handed the baton off to Iraq. That is a fact. Obama pissed it all away.

If that was the case then none of what has happened would have happened.  The flaw was in the political constitution....it was smoke and mirrors which hid the divisions and the certainty the moment that constitution was envisioned by the Neocons, that the place would explode..........the fuse was lit 10 years ago.....the certainty of the explosion was predicted by Senator Obama ten years earlier.[/quote

LIE...as you know.

KarlRove wrote:

He got us out of there before the job was done and now we are reaping the whirlwind.

The Bush administration installed a Shia government for Iraq which shut out the sunnis from having any power even though Sunnis make up 40% of the Iraqi population.
And to make matters even worse,  that Shia government Bush gave Iraq is allied with the Shia government in Iran.  
Iraq and Iran are the only major muslim countries in the world which are governed by Shias.  Sunni muslims account for 90% of the world muslim population.

Bush was too stupid to even realize that shutting out the Sunnis from having any power in Iraq was a recipe for disaster.  All that accomplished was to make the Sunni population in Iraq want to destroy the Shia government.  And of course that's what led to the creation and growth of the Sunni ISIS movement in Iraq.

Dick Cheney said it best in 1991 following the Gulf War...

"If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?"

What Cheney warned about at the end of that quote (the part I've put in red fonts) is exactly what happened when Bush invaded Iraq,  Karl.  
And the only way to avoid the country falling back into violent chaos was a permanent never-ending American occupation of Iraq which would be total insanity since we had no business invading the fucking place to start with.

Bob wrote:And the only way to avoid the country falling back into violent chaos was a permanent never-ending American occupation of Iraq which would be total insanity since we had no business invading the fucking place to start with.

Sal wrote:Jeb's brother created ISIS.

How incredible. They didn't even exist until three years after semi-retired President Obama took office.

All of them...Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Abramson, Feith, Libby, etc...had to know that their invasion would only create more chaos in the Middle East. That, and the oil, were objectives, not accidents. Yet Cheney stated on Meet the Press in March 2003 that we would be greeted as liberators by the Iraqis and that the war would be over within a few weeks.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Sal wrote:Jeb's brother created ISIS.[/font]

If Jeb's brother had possessed any sense, he would have found an alternative method of containing Saddam. The No Fly Zones worked, and were much less costly to maintain than hosting a full-on invasion of the country.

Bush was out to show the world how tough he was going to be on the world scene. He didn't care what this disaster would ultimately cost humanity.

Bush's invasion of Iraq was akin to Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia back in the 1930s. I guess he wanted to outdo the 20th century fascist conquerors.

Liar

If you deny that you're a liar. PLEASE show us in modern history where the United States has kept any land we have fought for other than space to bury our dead.

That George W. twerp is a hayseed.  All you have to do is listen to him attempt to talk.
He exhibited a lot of hick'ish ideas too.  And I know,  he graduated Yale and all but I'd be willing to bet money some strings were pulled on that one.  

And it's for that reason that I have to suspect what his motive was for what he did.  I wouldn't be thinking this about any other President I've observed in my lifetime. Only this one.

I think in his mind Saddam came out on top against his Dad in "the first one" just because Saddam was allowed to remain in power.
My gut feeling is sonny boy Bush had spent his life trying to get out of the shadow of his father.  And this was the ultimate win for him.  He could do what his Dad didn't do by getting rid of Saddam.  And in his mind that TOPS dear old dad.

That coupled with a complete ignorance of other countries.  I think those neoconservative advisors surrounding him convinced him he could remove saddam and actually turn the country into a democracy while reaping the benefits of the Iraq oil fields.  AND give him the win in the junior vs daddy contest.

Bob wrote:That George W. twerp is a hayseed.  All you have to do is listen to him attempt to talk.
He exhibited a lot of hick'ish ideas too.  And I know,  he graduated Yale and all but I'd be willing to bet money some strings were pulled on that one.  

And it's for that reason that I have to suspect what his motive was for what he did.  I wouldn't be thinking this about any other President I've observed in my lifetime. Only this one.

I think in his mind Saddam came out on top against his Dad in "the first one" just because Saddam was allowed to remain in power.
My gut feeling is sonny boy Bush had spent his life trying to get out of the shadow of his father.  And this was the ultimate win for him.  He could do what his Dad didn't do by getting rid of Saddam.  And in his mind that TOPS dear old dad.

That coupled with a complete ignorance of other countries.  I think those neoconservative advisors surrounding him convinced him he could remove saddam ][Saddam] and actually turn the country into a democracy while reaping the benefits of the Iraq oil fields.  AND give him the win in the junior vs daddy contest.

Yes, President Bush was not nearly as educated about "other countries" as all that experience gained by semi-retired President Obama during his ACORN meetings.

Obviously President Bush was following the guidelines established by all these Democrats and Progressives. Try again.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
- President Clinton in 1998 “

[…], when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”
- President Clinton , Jan. 27, 1998 – State of the Union

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 .

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

“Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”

“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”
- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
- Madeline Albright, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "

Update: September 8, 2005 - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them..

[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 .

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 .

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 .

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 .

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 .

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 .

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 .

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003" (Currently President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State)

I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam is gone and good riddance," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday, but he urged President Bush to resist trying to get even with nations that opposed the war.

"There are German and French soldiers in Afghanistan today. Does the President want them to come home?" Clinton said at a Manhattan forum on corporate integrity.

Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk&feature=related

He [President Clinton] praised Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their handling of the war, but said Bush should have waited longer before attacking for the "chance that either [Saddam Hussein] would have disarmed or . . . we would have had far more members of the Security Council with us."

Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found.

"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.
- Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010

How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Is45Jwqizc

And now the Obama administration wants to TAKE CREDIT for the Iraq war…whew….

Bob wrote:That George W. twerp is a hayseed.  All you have to do is listen to him attempt to talk.
He exhibited a lot of hick'ish ideas too.  And I know,  he graduated Yale and all but I'd be willing to bet money some strings were pulled on that one.  

And it's for that reason that I have to suspect what his motive was for what he did.  I wouldn't be thinking this about any other President I've observed in my lifetime. Only this one.

I think in his mind Saddam came out on top against his Dad in "the first one" just because Saddam was allowed to remain in power.
My gut feeling is sonny boy Bush had spent his life trying to get out of the shadow of his father.  And this was the ultimate win for him.  He could do what his Dad didn't do by getting rid of Saddam.  And in his mind that TOPS dear old dad.

That coupled with a complete ignorance of other countries.  I think those neoconservative advisors surrounding him convinced him he could remove saddam and actually turn the country into a democracy while reaping the benefits of the Iraq oil fields.  AND give him the win in the junior vs daddy contest.

Bob is on a roll tonight...... Great insights, Bob!

All semi-demented poste Markle can do is post silly 10-year old cut-and-pastes and call other posters 'liars.' As if there is any truth in the propaganda he posts!