The Coming Bloodbath in Bagdad
- Thread starter Vercingentorix
- Start date
Gents,
What...no mention of Liberals...Democrats...even evil American conspiracy. You sober or toasted???
Nice to see my government history lesson hit it's mark.
You mean the same army that surrendered to a CNN crew in Dessert Storm.
It's not a matter of training or professionalism. It's a matter of deeply divided loyalties and trying to survive when you don't know who will be in charge in the government next week or what warlord may seize your area and threaten your family. I mean, who should you really turn your gun on or use it to defend in that situation?
Merlot
What...no mention of Liberals...Democrats...even evil American conspiracy. You sober or toasted???
Nice to see my government history lesson hit it's mark. You mean the same army that surrendered to a CNN crew in Dessert Storm.
It's not a matter of training or professionalism. It's a matter of deeply divided loyalties and trying to survive when you don't know who will be in charge in the government next week or what warlord may seize your area and threaten your family. I mean, who should you really turn your gun on or use it to defend in that situation?
Merlot
With the Canadians probably entering in combat against the terrorists I fully agree, Justin and his liberals plus Mulclair and his NDP can pull their panties up and complain all they want but enough is enough, the good old Canadians can assist in getting rid of the scum. Just my opinion.
You may want to read Leon Panetta's new book where he blast the Community Organizer/Golfer in-Chief for pulling the troops out early.
How about that blithering idiot trading the 5 Hitlers for a deserter/collaborator? And then celebrating it?????
Read "Hero" about Laurence of Arabia (not Laurence of Montreal GFE) to understand how the French and and English carved up the Mid-East. The French wanted Lebanon and Damascus (they made some claim dating back to the Crusades). The English wanted Mesopotamia (that is where the oil was). Next they had to give Ibn Saud something for his help in the Turkish rebellion so they gave him this worthless, vast area of sand! Next, according to the author they had to placate King Faisal. They made him King of Iraq even though he was a minority Sunni and was unknown in those parts.
Here's the problem in your thinking.
Of course, going into Iraq was a huge mistake, but the US went (under George W. Bush), conquered (Sadam Hussein was convicted and executed) and the US pretty much won the peace after 6 years after a surge in offense against the militant forces.
Obama had a choice before leaving Iraq completely, even though the Iraqi's in charge (Shiite) asked the US to leave. Obama should have insisted that the US leave a base in Iraq to protect the minorities (Christians, Yezidis, Armenians, Kurds, etc.).
There has been an on going fight between the Sunnis and Shiites. But this new group ISIS or ISIL, or Islamic State ... , has up the ante. They have been beheading, shooting all of their enemies at an alarming rate.
Obama's strategy of air strikes only will not defeat this group. For one, the air force is not sure what the legitimate targets are except for obvious targets, like the ISIS controlled oil fields. All upper echelon of the US military have said that air strikes without ground troops will not defeat this group. But Obama is insistent on his strategy, which is probably political and ideological.
The biggest problem in the Middle East was not Iraq. It is Iran, and Iran will continue to be the source of trouble. This group ISIS is an enemy of the US and Iran. Hussein acted as a buffer between Iran and the non-secular militants, which became ISIS. The US's action under Bush certainly destroyed this buffer, but in time Hussein's Sunni forces would have lost power to the growing Islamic militant forces that are threatening the West.
Both Bush and Obama have been fooled by Iran. It is not a group you would want to have nuclear weapons. The Iranians are even more dangerous than ISIS, Al Queda or any other Islamic terror group. Regarding Iran, both Bush and Obama are the idiots.
All it needs is an act of terror to happen in the west to spark an all out millile attack on ISIS, Last week the arrested a group of second generation muslims in Australia planning to behead total stangers to cause panic and fear in the public. If that act of terror would have happened, what the whole world would be on lock down red alert.
Heeeellllooooo all,
Interesting phrase. Let's see how it works out.
"The U.S. ...won the peace". What peace was that? The one where there was never a government unifying all parties in Iraq, where U.S. troops played whack a mole putting out one threat here, then there, then back again. The idea that the "U.S. ...won the peace" is a problem because it was imposed, not a real foundation generated by agreements among the Iraqi parties it had to address.
Isn't this the "peace" you say the "U.S. won". It's been going on since Saddam was removed, in fact Saddam never completely suppressed it. A brutal gas attack against the Kurds by Saddam was one of the incidents Bush used to justify going into Iraq.
Uh Huh! So..................having made a "huge mistake" going into Iraq, spending a trillion $ and failing in a cauldron of extremely violent religious and political conflicts, you want to solve the problem by going into a much larger cauldron of the same unresolvable issues with the need to use many more troops than ever before with proportional multiplied expenses to the U.S. budget.
The heart of the problem is not contained in borders. It's a struggle of religious ideas, principles, and methods for resolution that has been going on almost since the death of Mohammed to define what the true path to God/Allah should be. Perhaps coincidentally, it's been going on for almost 1500 years, about the same amount of time in which Christians had to endure such shattering divisions as the Great Schism between East and West and the so-called Protestant Reformation. Today's issues in the Middle East are not contained in borders, they are divisions in the hearts and minds of Muslims that are exploited by idealist sub-groups, ethnic, national entities within borders and across them.
The problem in your thinking is that these issues can be resolved by going into any one place and removing the cause, a cause that really has no body. It's a conflict of ideas and principles over directing the destiny of the human soul. You can't control that by invading a political entity.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, at last. Bias be gone...for the moment.
Cheers,
Merlot
Interesting phrase. Let's see how it works out.
"The U.S. ...won the peace". What peace was that? The one where there was never a government unifying all parties in Iraq, where U.S. troops played whack a mole putting out one threat here, then there, then back again. The idea that the "U.S. ...won the peace" is a problem because it was imposed, not a real foundation generated by agreements among the Iraqi parties it had to address.
Isn't this the "peace" you say the "U.S. won". It's been going on since Saddam was removed, in fact Saddam never completely suppressed it. A brutal gas attack against the Kurds by Saddam was one of the incidents Bush used to justify going into Iraq.
Uh Huh! So..................having made a "huge mistake" going into Iraq, spending a trillion $ and failing in a cauldron of extremely violent religious and political conflicts, you want to solve the problem by going into a much larger cauldron of the same unresolvable issues with the need to use many more troops than ever before with proportional multiplied expenses to the U.S. budget.
The heart of the problem is not contained in borders. It's a struggle of religious ideas, principles, and methods for resolution that has been going on almost since the death of Mohammed to define what the true path to God/Allah should be. Perhaps coincidentally, it's been going on for almost 1500 years, about the same amount of time in which Christians had to endure such shattering divisions as the Great Schism between East and West and the so-called Protestant Reformation. Today's issues in the Middle East are not contained in borders, they are divisions in the hearts and minds of Muslims that are exploited by idealist sub-groups, ethnic, national entities within borders and across them.
The problem in your thinking is that these issues can be resolved by going into any one place and removing the cause, a cause that really has no body. It's a conflict of ideas and principles over directing the destiny of the human soul. You can't control that by invading a political entity.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, at last. Bias be gone...for the moment.
Cheers,
Merlot
One would think that the Shites aren't going to let Bagdad go without quite a fight, regardless of US actions.
Not only that, the Shiite government of Iraq is going to ask the Iranians for help. They are the only ones who are capable of helping Iraq directly with ground forces. Iran does not want to see the downfall of one of its few friends in the area.
Turkey are only interested in wiping out the Kurdish independence movement on both sides of its border, and they are happy to let ISIL wipe them out in Syria for them. After that happens, they may be interested in rolling in, wiping out the rest of ISIL and their alllies, and then taking over Syria for themselves. At least install a puppet regime after ousting Assad; just like the good old days of the Ottoman Empire. All that after the US somehow stumbles into bombing the Syrian Army and wiping out much of the Syrian infrastructure; that almost happened last year, when Obama accused Assad of crossing his imaginary red lines.
The US trained and equipped Iraqi army is mired in corruption and nepotism and is virtually useless. The Iraqi Shiite miilitias are probably more effective. The Iraqi army is also hated by most of the Sunni population, as they had been conducting persecutions against them. That's why ISIL rolled in so easity in Iraq, because the Sunnis had nothing to lose over Iraqi Shiite persecution.
