« NASA gets OK to keep space station running to 2024 - Computerworld | Main | "Pogo" strikes again. »

09 January 2014


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Looks as if the shards of pottery
in Colin Powell's analogy have
splintered at an exponential pace.

r whitman

I am very confused by all this:
!. What is the US interest here?
2. Who's side are we on?
3. Who's side should we be on if any?
4. What are the worst case consequences if our side loses?


r whitman

The fact that you don't understand this is sad. We don't have a "side" in Iraq. We never did. Maliki has a "side," his own and that of his particular Shia Arab party, not the other Shia parties, but his own. pl


Isn't this the expected civil conflict that resulted from the US overturning the social order in Iraq after the invasion? I believed you warned us then this would happen.


1) None. The major Iraqi oil fields are not in Anbar province.
2) Saudi Arabia's and Israel's
3) The USA's. If a conflict isn't profitable for the goyim it should be avoided.
4) The situation remains the same. When you have no dog in the fight you usually don't face any consequences when the fight is over.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad