Iraq and it's Al-Queda problem

[GostHacked]

The failure of Iraq lies with those who created it as a nation state, and the people who live there.

The borders were drawn up by people not living in the area. Nomads don't give a crap about the borders. Iraq did not disband their military or police. Iraq did not chose to be invaded.

The failure also comes with decade of foreign support in order to fend of Iran. Only to be invaded years later for the WMDS that were never found.

Blunder after blunder with the US handling of the war led to this.

[GostHacked]

Libya was a shithole run by a dictator.

And now it is being overrun by Al-Queda types as well. Where the US/NATO goes, Al-Queda soon follows. Why?

[Shady]

And now it is being overrun by Al-Queda types as well. Where the US/NATO goes, Al-Queda soon follows. Why?

Because US/NATO can't stick around forever in every place to hold back the extremist aspects of their societies. But brutal dictatorial regimes usually are.

[Shady]

Was he drunk at the time? Do you have a cite? Iraq hasn't been stable and secure since before the Iran/Iraq war.

Granted stable and secure are subjective terms. But after the surge, it became much more stable and secure. However there was still occasional violence. But the trend was significant, and going in the right direction.

[Shady]

Even The New Yorker magazine confirms what we all know to be true...

The negotiations between Obama and Maliki fell apart, in no small measure because of a lack of engagement by the White House. Today, many Iraqis, including some close to Maliki, say that a small force of American soldiers—working in non-combat roles—would have provided a crucial stabilizing factor that is now missing from Iraq.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/06/iraq-extremists-mosul-american-invasion-legacy.html

One can hardly accuse The New Yorker as a conservative or Repulican mouthpiece. It's actually the opposite.

[Argus]

Blunder after blunder with the US handling of the war led to this.

So the local people bear no responsibility, right? They're not even really human, so we can't expect them to act in any way responsibly?

[Argus]

Granted stable and secure are subjective terms. But after the surge, it became much more stable and secure. However there was still occasional violence. But the trend was significant, and going in the right direction.

And how many Americans, in round figures, wanted to keep a huge number of US troops in Iraq indefinitely?

[Shady]

And how many Americans, in round figures, wanted to keep a huge number of US troops in Iraq indefinitely?

Not many. But a huge number wasn't required. As per the link I posted. A small presence probably could have been effective in helping keep things in line. It's all moot now I guess.

[Shady]

So the local people bear no responsibility, right? They're not even really human, so we can't expect them to act in any way responsibly?

Yeah, it's surprising that in Germany and Japan, Germans and Japanese didn't start killing eachother after American forces left. The real blunder was actually thinking that a middle eastern country besides Israel might be civilized.

[dre]

The failure of Iraq lies with those who created it as a nation state, and the people who live there.

No it really doesnt. The current situation in Iraq is a DIRECT AND ENTIRELY PREDICTABLE RESULT of the Invasion and the decision to back the Shia over the Sunni after decades of doing the opposite, and the gaping power vacuum they created.

The result of really stupid people making really bad decisions, and the stupid people that believed in them and supported them.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah, it's surprising that in Germany and Japan, Germans and Japanese didn't start killing eachother after American forces left. The real blunder was actually thinking that a middle eastern country besides Israel might be civilized.

Yes...funny how that works, eh ? Maybe the Koreans could make it a different result after the Americans "leave".

[On Guard for Thee]

Actually Iraq was quite stable when I was there. Granted if you said anything bad about Sadam he'd throw you through a leaf chipper. But you could go to a restaurant and have a glass of wine with dinner, walk home late at night, and never be bothered. And no WMD was ever found. And then, along came Bush. And look what we have now.

[marcus]

Bush Jr. should apologize to Daddy. So should Cheney and Rumsfeld. He was right and they were wrong.

Empires usually fall after they arrogantly expand and spread themselves thin. The short-sighted policy always prove to be unsustainable.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have weakened America.

[bush_cheney2004]

Still waiting for the UN and Canadian peacekeepers....waiting.....waiting....waiting.

[On Guard for Thee]

Bush Jr. should apologize to Daddy. So should Cheney and Rumsfeld. He was right and they were wrong.

Empires usually fall after they arrogantly expand and spread themselves thin. The short-sighted policy always prove to be unsustainable.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have weakened America.

Totally agreed. Daddy Bush, if I may call him that, had a mandate from the UN in GW 1, and he abided by it and sent the boys home when they chased Saddam from Kuwait. Bush/Cheney went whacko in GW 2. That's why they are both criminals in the eyes of the ICC.

[Argus]

Actually Iraq was quite stable when I was there. Granted if you said anything bad about Sadam he'd throw you through a leaf chipper. But you could go to a restaurant and have a glass of wine with dinner, walk home late at night, and never be bothered. And no WMD was ever found. And then, along came Bush. And look what we have now.

Nazi Germany was 'stable' too. So was Stalin's Russia. Ruthless dictatorships tend to control things nicely. So what some people are saying is it would have been better for Iraq to stay a brutal autocratic state forever, I guess.

[GostHacked]

Nazi Germany was 'stable' too. So was Stalin's Russia. Ruthless dictatorships tend to control things nicely. So what some people are saying is it would have been better for Iraq to stay a brutal autocratic state forever, I guess.

To get rid of Saddam was an Iraq problem to begin with. The US made it their problem too, so they have to wear whatever comes after.

Again the absolute security void that was left after the US-led invasion is one huge reason we see the sectarian violence.

It is still a US problem.

[Argus]

To get rid of Saddam was an Iraq problem to begin with. The US made it their problem too, so they have to wear whatever comes after.

Again the absolute security void that was left after the US-led invasion is one huge reason we see the sectarian violence.

It is still a US problem.

It's not like they left right after that. They stayed for years, spent billions to build up the country's infrastructre and security apparatus and give them a chance. There are half a million soldiers in Iraq. Why can't they handle a few thousand crazy Islamists? Most of them are just abandoning their posts, dumping their uniforms and running rather than fighting. Total lack of moral, incompetant, corrupt leaders, and politicians who are too busy collecting graft to do their jobs. That's not an American problem. That's a local problem having to do with a corrupt culture.

[GostHacked]

It's not like they left right after that. They stayed for years, spent billions to build up the country's infrastructre and security apparatus and give them a chance. There are half a million soldiers in Iraq. Why can't they handle a few thousand crazy Islamists? Most of them are just abandoning their posts, dumping their uniforms and running rather than fighting. Total lack of moral, incompetant, corrupt leaders, and politicians who are too busy collecting graft to do their jobs. That's not an American problem. That's a local problem having to do with a corrupt culture.

I would say the insurgents that the current Iraqi military is fighting are the people that were in the military and police services before they were disbanded. Trained vets against young rookies.

No, this definitely is a US problem. But nice to know that the US is there to help at a moments notice. Meanwhile the US is helping to train and arm the rebels in Syria, Lybia and abroad.

You are already seeing this play out in Syria as the violence there continues. The US was wanting to make that a US problem to solve. Libya was also a US problem to solve.

What did it solve? Nothing, it made things worse.

[GostHacked]

The real kicker is that I started this thread on Jan 3, 2014.

I am so stupid I was able to predict this.

[Argus]

I would say the insurgents that the current Iraqi military is fighting are the people that were in the military and police services before they were disbanded. Trained vets against young rookies.

There's no evidence to support this. In fact, many previous members of the Iraqi military were taken back into the new Iraqi military. Many of the members of ISIS are foreigner fighters from around the fractured Muslim world. I would say the more likely reason is commitment. The ISIS people believe they're fighting for God, and that if they die they'll go heaven and be given a lot of virgin girls to molest. The government troops have little or no loyalty to the government and aren't willing to risk their lives.

[GostHacked]

There's no evidence to support this. In fact, many previous members of the Iraqi military were taken back into the new Iraqi military.

Of course I am just guessing at this. But it is quite plausible.

Many of the members of ISIS are foreigner fighters from around the fractured Muslim world. I would say the more likely reason is commitment. The government troops have little or no loyalty to the government and aren't willing to risk their lives.

So the US need to go in and correct their mistakes. And you WILL see Afghanistan go the same way. The war on terror is an absolute total failure.

Edited June 14, 2014 by GostHacked

[monty16]

Nazi Germany was 'stable' too. So was Stalin's Russia. Ruthless dictatorships tend to control things nicely. So what some people are saying is it would have been better for Iraq to stay a brutal autocratic state forever, I guess.

There is absolutely no question that Saddam should have remained in control of Iraq. He was successful in controlling the violence between the various sects with minimal bloodshed. And now, it's even up for question on whether or not he was responsible for gassing 'his own people'. CIA section leader Stephen Pelletiere blew the whistle on that most likely being a US propaganda lie.

Evil has been responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousnads of Iraqi citizens.

Saddam has not been responsible.

Only US propagandized lemmings would disagree on the real facts.

Now, cooler heads in the US are saying that Iraq needs to be left to it's own devices in order to bring back the stability that the US was responsible for destroying. Now, finally, the US doesn't know who the good guys are!

[monty16]

Of course I am just guessing at this. But it is quite plausible.

So the US need to go in and correct their mistakes. And you WILL see Afghanistan go the same way. The war on terror is an absolute total failure.

In fact, the war on terror has become the war 'for' terror. There is great and increasing likelihood that there will be a terror/freedom fighter attack on the US in the near future.

And now, we should all be aware of the fact that it never was a war on terror.

[GostHacked]

In fact, the war on terror has become the war 'for' terror. There is great and increasing likelihood that there will be a terror/freedom fighter attack on the US in the near future.

And now, we should all be aware of the fact that it never was a war on terror.

And it will be 'home grown' terrorists. Meaning US citizens.