War Against ISIL

[Big Guy]

So Saddam kept control of Iraq with a Western (and Soviet) trained and equipped army..........but the new Iraqi Government won't be able to control Iraq with a Western trained and equipped army.......riiiiiight

I see we disagree on the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy. My perspective is that Saddam was a dictator. He not only had a SUNNI army loyal to him and supressing the Shiites but he also had a 50,000 Sunni Republican guard protecting him. He also had the USA providing him with weapons (and chemicals apparently) to intimidate the Shiite minority. Dictatorships also do not have to bother with elections or the views of any minority group. They can and are usually ruthless in the application of whatever law they choose to follow - or not.

The new Iraqi government is supposed to be a democracy, inclusive and restricted by the rule of law and a constitution. Democracies are not created, they evolve as the population becomes more educated and privy to the concept of everyone being equal. You cannot force a square peg into a round hole. You cannot force a template of an "equality of all" societal structure on a collection of a population still accustomed to a feudal system or a tribal system.

As for training, you can teach a person to take direction and to shoot but you cannot force him to kill somebody he/she sees as a fellow countryman. When push came to shove and the Iraq army fell apart it was not because of lack of training or cowardice, it was the refusal of Islamic Iraqis to kill other Islamic Iraqis to satisfy some order from the USA or some USA created puppet government.

If/when ISIS is dealt with that still will not change.

It is far easier to have good relations with a country when it is a dictatorship. You only have to deal with one person and no opposition to worry about. The USA has historically supported at least 57 dictatorships;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_of_authoritarian_regimes

Dictatorships do control a society, but no democratic government "controls" the population, it works for the people and reflects their views.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Big Guy

[bush_cheney2004]

...He also had the USA providing him with weapons (and chemicals apparently) to intimidate the Shiite minority.

Debunked a long time ago in this forum:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/18101-curveball-admits-wmd-lies-colin-powell-pod-at-cia/page-3#entry632895

[dre]

So Saddam kept control of Iraq with a Western (and Soviet) trained and equipped army..........but the new Iraqi Government won't be able to control Iraq with a Western trained and equipped army.......riiiiiight

I honestly cant imagine why you completely ignore my response, and just post the same thing again. Saddam didnt maintain control on the strength of his military, he maintained control with brutality, fear, and the crushing of even the mildest signs of political objection to his regime... and a little chemical warfare here and there.

but the new Iraqi Government won't be able to control Iraq with a Western trained and equipped army.......riiiiiight

Why are you denying something you can see right before your eyes? The west has been training and equipping the Iraqi army for most of the last decade... to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Does it look to you like they have control?

[Derek 2.0]

I see we disagree on the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy. My perspective is that Saddam was a dictator. He not only had a SUNNI army loyal to him and supressing the Shiites but he also had a 50,000 Sunni Republican guard protecting him. He also had the USA providing him with weapons (and chemicals apparently) to intimidate the Shiite minority. Dictatorships also do not have to bother with elections or the views of any minority group. They can and are usually ruthless in the application of whatever law they choose to follow - or not.

Saddam, circa 1990, had the third or fourth largest army in the world.........it was not manned by Sunni's alone, likewise Saddam's Government, with his deputy leader being a Christian........Outside of perhaps the upper echelons of leaderships within the Republican Guards, the Baath party and his personal body guards, Saddam's military, like Iraq as a whole was secular.

The new Iraqi government is supposed to be a democracy, inclusive and restricted by the rule of law and a constitution. Democracies are not created, they evolve as the population becomes more educated and privy to the concept of everyone being equal. You cannot force a square peg into a round hole. You cannot force a template of an "equality of all" societal structure on a collection of a population still accustomed to a feudal system or a tribal system.

Does the Iraqi constitution have no provision for providing internal security in Iraq?

As for training, you can teach a person to take direction and to shoot but you cannot force him to kill somebody he/she sees as a fellow countryman. When push came to shove and the Iraq army fell apart it was not because of lack of training or cowardice, it was the refusal of Islamic Iraqis to kill other Islamic Iraqis to satisfy some order from the USA or some USA created puppet government.

How do Western Governments maintain security within their own countries?

If/when ISIS is dealt with that still will not change.

It is far easier to have good relations with a country when it is a dictatorship. You only have to deal with one person and no opposition to worry about. The USA has historically supported at least 57 dictatorships;

How many has Canada supported?

Dictatorships do control a society, but no democratic government "controls" the population, it works for the people and reflects their views.

Riiight.

[Derek 2.0]

I honestly cant imagine why you completely ignore my response, and just post the same thing again. Saddam didnt maintain control on the strength of his military, he maintained control with brutality, fear, and the crushing of even the mildest signs of political objection to his regime... and a little chemical warfare here and there.

Saddam maintained security within Iraq on his own? No wonder they built statues in his honor, he was a deity.

Why are you denying something you can see right before your eyes? The west has been training and equipping the Iraqi army for most of the last decade... to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Does it look to you like they have control?

The previous Iraqi Government undid much of the progress achieved by the West in the training of the Iraqi army, likewise their refusal of a SOFA which resulted in a halt of training and support.

[Hudson Jones]

Debunked a long time ago in this forum:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/18101-curveball-admits-wmd-lies-colin-powell-pod-at-cia/page-3#entry632895

Actually no. You are wrong again.

It has been proven that U.S. did assist Hussein:

The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.

"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes told Foreign Policy.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations.

[dre]

Saddam maintained security within Iraq on his own? No wonder they built statues in his honor, he was a deity.

The previous Iraqi Government undid much of the progress achieved by the West in the training of the Iraqi army, likewise their refusal of a SOFA which resulted in a halt of training and support.

This is getting silly. Why dont you just admit the obvious... That your idea of the Iraqi army dealing with this problem with some "equipping", and a "little more unit training", is pure fantasy?

[GostHacked]

It's been reported ISIS has already used mustard gas on Syrian Kurds........is that the incident that you speak of?

If that did happen, I missed it. But thinking a little bigger in the works.

[GostHacked]

If you try a strategy with a 1% chance of success 100 times, chances are pretty good it'll work one of those times!

That fits the definition of insanity. Trying the same thing over and over expecting different results.

[GostHacked]

Ghost Hacked your reply to me made no sense. You claim terrorists have been effective against Israel citing two grounds; I-that Israel has developed a superior military force; ii-it set up security fences.

That is a hell of an argument. Both grounds directly contradict your contentions.

The fact that all terrorism has done is succeed in having Israel establish one of the world's premier armed forces with leading expertise in anti-terrorism proves that the intent of terrorism, to dismantle Israel has been not only ineffective but achieved the exact opposite results of what it was intended to do and that is destroy Israel.

It has been effective. Or else that powerful military plus the security barrier would not exist. Even if the destruction of Israel is not achievable, Israel is still spending a good amount of it's GDP on the military and security. Terrorism does not need to mean the destruction of Israel.

As for the security walls the moment they went up terror attacks from the West Bank into Israel stopped from that area proving once again terrorism is ineffective when one uses appropriate security strategy. If anything you showed how ineffective terrorism is against security walls..

If terrorism via suicide bombers was not effective, why does the barrier exist?

You done?

Not even close. Pull up a chair, we might be here a while.

Now please explain, what has terrorism achieved for Palestinians,

Not a damn thing.

You need to come to the West Bank and Gaza and understand the reality of terrorism and how it capture people with fear and prevents them from achieving anything,

I did not say it was effective in terms of advancing the society for Palestinians. That was not the question you posed. You asked if terrorism was effective. It may be overall detrimental to the Palestinians, but it has been very effective in getting Israel to implement a large military and security barriers.

Fatah, Hamas, the whole stinking lot of them have produced nothing. This is why Palestinians have no country, no vision of democracy no values from which to build on.

I agree, it has produced nothing. But that was not really the question you posed.

Terrorism builds nothing but fear. Fear is sand. You can not build a foundation on sand.

True, it build nothing but fear. Politicians love to use it as an excuse to provide you with more security. Works for the politicians as much as it works for the terrorists. Never let a crisis go to waste.

You think terrorizing people is effective? You really think Israelis are frightened of dying?

Yep. Like most people.

Someone needs to stick you in a taxi in Tel Aviv for 30 seconds.

Why?

Edited October 16, 2014 by GostHacked

[jbg]

That fits the definition of insanity. Trying the same thing over and over expecting different results.

The expression was definition of stupidity.

[Derek 2.0]

This is getting silly. Why dont you just admit the obvious... That your idea of the Iraqi army dealing with this problem with some "equipping", and a "little more unit training", is pure fantasy?

Why would I do that? You've yet to explain why Saddam's army was able to control Iraq with Western Aid, but present day Iraq's army won't be able to control Iraq with Western Aid......

[GostHacked]

The expression was definition of stupidity.

We can go with that too.

[Big Guy]

To-day I read a report about 14 "air strikes" in .......

What is one air strike?

Is it one bomb or one plane or one sortie or one "pass" where bombs were dropped or one pass where there were no bombs dropped or one group of airplanes from one country or one group of airplanes from a number of countries or ....?

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually no. You are wrong again.

It has been proven that U.S. did assist Hussein:

I'm sorry...but you are very late to this very old discussion. Independent sources have documented the sources of Saddam's weapons and pre-cursors.

Nice try to pin it all on the USA.

Edited October 17, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

Why would I do that? You've yet to explain why Saddam's army was able to control Iraq with Western Aid, but present day Iraq's army won't be able to control Iraq with Western Aid......

I explained it at least 3 times, and someone else explained it once. You just completely ignored it. Saddam didnt use "his army" to control Iraq. He used secrety police style security service ran by his brother that brutally repressed political dissent, and he used the countries oil revenues to keep people relatively happy and raise the standard of life for Iraqis. In 1972 he nationalized Iraqs oil asssets and then used the proceeds to provide all kinds of social programs, etc. A carrot and stick approach that was very successful. And he never let things get to the point where they are now. Subversive groups were dealt with quickly and harshly... political movement were squashed before they even got off the ground.

The current situation is completely different. Your questions are silly and irrelevant, and you have yet to provide a shred of evidence or logic that suggests that what you are proposing will work. Its already been tried and it DIDNT work... thats why we are where we are now.

[Hudson Jones]

I'm sorry...but you are very late to this very old discussion. Independent sources have documented the sources of Saddam's weapons and pre-cursors.

Nice try to pin it all on the USA.

What do you mean nice try?

It is documented by the information released by the U.S. government and former military men who were there. Stop fighting against the facts. The U.S. gave a helping hand to Saddam to use chemical weapons. It's a fact.

[Derek 2.0]

I explained it at least 3 times, and someone else explained it once. You just completely ignored it. Saddam didnt use "his army" to control Iraq.

He used his army numerous times against both the Kurds and Shia population in the South........post '91, it even led to a no-fly zone, which remained in effect until the '03 invasion.......

and he used the countries oil revenues to keep people relatively happy and raise the standard of life for Iraqis. In 1972 he nationalized Iraqs oil asssets and then used the proceeds to provide all kinds of social programs, etc. A carrot and stick approach that was very successful. And he never let things get to the point where they are now. Subversive groups were dealt with quickly and harshly... political movement were squashed before they even got off the ground.

The current situation is completely different. Your questions are silly and irrelevant, and you have yet to provide a shred of evidence or logic that suggests that what you are proposing will work. Its already been tried and it DIDNT work... thats why we are where we are now.

I think we're talking about a different Iraq...........Evidence or logic? Are you suggesting a Western trained Iraqi army was never able to control Iraq?

[bush_cheney2004]

What do you mean nice try?

It is documented by the information released by the U.S. government and former military men who were there. Stop fighting against the facts. The U.S. gave a helping hand to Saddam to use chemical weapons. It's a fact.

So did Canada and many other nations...so what ? It's not only a U.S. joint...far from it. The U.S. "gave" far more to Israel !

[marcus]

So did Canada

So Canada gave the coordinates of the Iranians and Kurds to Saddam knowing Saddam could gas them?

Your Canada complex has reached a new level.

[Rue]

Hudson Jones your saying something is a fact does not make it so. In fact, when you claim something is a fact on this forum it is a subjective opinion stated by you as a fact.

So for example your partisan take that the US assisted Hussein with chemicals is yet another in a long round of anti American, anti Israeli opinions which has nothing to do with this thread and again shows the tactic of avoiding the thread topic to piss on Israel and the US.

People can go find out for themselves where Iraq purchased its chemicals from. It was not the US. That Hudson Jones is a fact. What is a fact is the world remained silent when Sadaam Hussein gassed repeatedly kurds. Israel did try help the kurds and that is one of the primary reasons Turkey's Erdogan turned on them.

Fact, the US was the only country willing to depose Hussein. Yes maybe it created a leadership vacuum, yes people can speculate all they want it was pay back from Bush Sr., yes I am one who criticizes the fact that Chaney-Rumsfeld insulted the US Armed Forces, refused to listen to their advise and placed more mercenaries on the ground than US soldiers and in fact bankrupt the nation doings so.

I criticize the use of a private army that was lawless. I do not like you piss on the United States Armed Forces. They acted honourably, put their lives on the line, and rid the world of a sick man. Because of their sacrifice you live the lifestyle you do.

The US Armed Forces warned repeatedly their government to get in and out fast. Do not piss on them.

Then again that is your script is it not? What does it have to do with ISIL? Hmmm?

In your world Iraq should have remained a prisoner of Hussein. He should have continued to slaughter and engage in genocide. No problem.

Yah it was a problem.

The civil war that still rages in Iraq is as a result not of the US but the original decision of the British to create an artificial state jamming together a three layer cake of Kurds on the top, Sunni in the Middle and Shiite at the bottom geographically from North to South.

That empire was created to placate the Faisal family for lying to them and breaking up an agreement that family would have otherwise engaged in with the Jewish community of Palestine to create two states living side by side peacefully.

Britain and France and later Germany deliberately manipulated the Arab League of nations.

The Arab League of Nations arose because of the ease in finding corrupt Arabs to control

You want to revise history to suit your pro Muslim extremist anti Israel, anti US view knock yourself out. You do a piss poor job at it.

The fact is ISIL is a break off from Al Quaeda. The fact is Al Quaeda like all the other extremist cells, will come and go constantly changing their names and leaders but dedicated to killing off each other as much as the West in the name of Allah.

The fact is ISIL is an attempt to resist Western assimilation by Muslims who find themselves becoming dinosaurs in a world where the internet and cell phone makes their control of their masses harder and harder.

Don't look now, "Hudson Jones" but your extremist Muslim beliefs are evaporating. They wither in the advance of technology. What once was a kingdom full of illiterates dependent on Mullahs to tell them how to think now have cell phones.

Slip sliding away buh bye Hudson. Allah can't keep up with Beyoncé.

[bush_cheney2004]

So Canada gave the coordinates of the Iranians and Kurds to Saddam knowing Saddam could gas them?

Your Canada complex has reached a new level.

Hardly....the complex came from Canadian Gerald Bull:

[dre]

I think we're talking about a different Iraq...........Evidence or logic? Are you suggesting a Western trained Iraqi army was never able to control Iraq?

So thats it? Youre just going to repeat the exact same question even though Iv answered 4 times now, and other posters have answered it as well?

And saying Saddam had a "western trained army" is mostly false anyways. The current Iraqi army is the western trained one. Hows that working out?

Anyhow, Ironically enough it seems like your big answer here is for the Iraqi government to act like Saddam!

[Topaz]

Speaking of training, on the noon news, it was reported that Hussein's former Air force members are training ISIS to flying jets that they have captured. This war could become really nasty, if they succeed on getting many jets.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not really...any such jets would become easy targets for coalition aircraft...on the ground or in the air.