- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,256
- Reaction score
- 2,693
10 years on and they are just sooo liberated.
- Thread starter FluffyMcDeath
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,767
- Reaction score
- 697
The Iraq invasion was a massive cluster {bleep} and the ramifications continue to this day. I always said the violence would become a regional problem and that's exactly what happened.
Still, I would never go so far as to suggest that Iraq was a great place before the invasion. You can say that Saddam was a murderous piece of shit who deserved to be tortured to death (along with his sons) and still oppose the invasion.
Btw, the I found it interesting that the Iraqi government is expected to ask for help from the Kurdish Peshmerga. And they might actually decide to help as ISIS is attacking the Kurds in Syria. But little chance of them asking the US for help. Iran is probably higher on the list.
Still, I would never go so far as to suggest that Iraq was a great place before the invasion. You can say that Saddam was a murderous piece of shit who deserved to be tortured to death (along with his sons) and still oppose the invasion.
Btw, the I found it interesting that the Iraqi government is expected to ask for help from the Kurdish Peshmerga. And they might actually decide to help as ISIS is attacking the Kurds in Syria. But little chance of them asking the US for help. Iran is probably higher on the list.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 10,232
- Reaction score
- 3,006
Iran’s special forces rush in to help Iraq
Bashar al-Assad said Syria is prepared to come to Iraq's aid against the Sunni insurgents sweeping through the country. "The foreign-backed terrorism that our brothers in Iraq are facing is the same that is targeting Syria," the foreign ministry said.
Smart Diplomacy! (tm)
the State Department has a #hashtag offensive they will unleash any moment now.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,803
- Reaction score
- 6,529
Bit of a straw man there; I don't think anyone here would describe it as such.
On the other hand, comparisons can be made between then and now and I've a feeling that for large numbers of the population you could argue that it was indeed a comparatively great place.
As many of us, including you, pointed out at the time, whatever the evils of Saddam, removing him by force of war would potentially make things much, MUCH worse for the average Iraqi.
This has turned out be the case.
What puzzles me is that you're capable of making such a distinction for Iraq but not for Syria.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,767
- Reaction score
- 697
Ok, fine. But simply stating that Iraq had "Good public healthcare and women's rights" almost implies it was a liberal Western democracy - which I find to be rather misleading on it's own. It clearly wasn't, Saddam's secret police was notoriously brutal. Also, Iraq, similar to Syria, was ruled by a dictator who had the support of his ethnic group which was only a minority. The Shia and Kurds outnumbered the Sunni, meaning, the majority of Iraqi citizens felt the full brunt of Saddam's oppressive security forces. The Kurds in particular paid a heavy price. Fluffy's statement ignores all of that and that's what prompted my response.
Sure there are similarities between Iraq and Syria, but from the Western point of view a key difference is that the Syrian war is already under way and has been for over two years and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. Inaction in Iraq would have preserved the peace and that was fine even though it preserved a brutal dictator. War was clearly the greater of two evils there. In Syria we already have a war, so it's not a choice between war and no-war. In Syria we are faced with the option to help end the war in a manner that is likely to lead to long term stability (relatively speaking) or by doing nothing which is likely to lead to continued bloodshed. Remember, this isn't the first time Syrians have risen up violently against the Assad dynasty and there's no reason to believe it'll be the last. By removing the minority rule of Assad's regime and handing it over to the Sunni majority, we could not only end this conflict but future ones as well. Would I expect Syria to transform into a peaceful liberal utopia? No, not ever. But what's going on in Syria right now is absolutely horrible and even a "broken" Syria run by competing Sunni tribes would be a step forward.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,767
- Reaction score
- 697
You know, sometimes you wish you were wrong....
And by that I mean, I wish Bush and the neo-cons were right. I wish that after the invasion peace and a liberal democracy sprung up in the Middle east. I wish that Iraqis could live in harmony and not ever know the horror of bomb blasts and beheadings. But unfortunately, I and all those who opposed the invasion were bang on. And that really does suck.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,767
- Reaction score
- 697
The fact is Iraq has no appetite for US assistance but it does seem as though international intervention is unavoidable now. Iraq would be wise to seak assistance from it's friends and neighbors in the region. And since Iraq is mostly Shia, Iran is the obvious best choice for that. However, the numbers in your article are pretty tiny. 150 troops isn't gonna do anything against ISIS. I'd expect more than that, but what Iraq really needs is strong air support. Maybe Iran can send it's new stealth drones.
What I don't understand is how the Iraqi army could be so completely useless. Now ISIS has captured all sorts of modern weaponry including body armour and vehciles, probably night vision goggles as well. This is not good.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,767
- Reaction score
- 697
Looks like I was wrong: Iraq Wants America Back to Fight Insurgents With Air Strikes
Air strikes I guess are a lot more easy to accept than more US troops on the ground. And who better to call for air strikes than the US? It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. It could also lead up to an intervention in Syria, especially if it proves successful. It's an interesting development.
Air strikes I guess are a lot more easy to accept than more US troops on the ground. And who better to call for air strikes than the US? It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. It could also lead up to an intervention in Syria, especially if it proves successful. It's an interesting development.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 10,232
- Reaction score
- 3,006
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,256
- Reaction score
- 2,693
But immensely profitable and extremely helpful in destabilizing the entire region. The US never left Iraq despite what Obama says in public. There are still US bases and still US troops and that thing they call The Green Zone. They are there to protect US interests and, sadly, the well-being of the people of Iraq is not actually one of those interests. Letting the people slaughter each other is far preferable to letting the people join together and take their country (and its resources) back.
The other big bonus for the US is that the ISIS have now captured large amounts of money and US made weapons from the towns they've overrun. If they had back to Syria with that lot then the US will be able to ship them more weapons and claim they were "stolen" thus being able to multiply the pressure on Syria and by extension Russia while they position forces in Eastern Europe, perhaps hoping Russia will get distracted so "we" can invade and reconquer Crimea and deny the Russians naval access to the Mediterranean and therefore to their port in Syria.
This pushes Russia closer to the point where their best option might be to get the war started rather than wait for it on US terms.
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,256
- Reaction score
- 2,693
It's because the rebels are more useful than Maliki.
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,256
- Reaction score
- 2,693
Why did the US not intervene in Rwanda? Why did they intervene in Yugoslavia? Why did they want to intervene in Syria and now they don't. There's always at least three versions of the truth: what they want, what they tell you, and what they do.
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,256
- Reaction score
- 2,693
BTW, which part made you think that? Curious to know which bit you disagreed with most but not in a way cogent enough to form a rebuttal.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,803
- Reaction score
- 6,529
I'm not so sure about that for a number of reasons.
Here's one of them:
Given that the ISIS, behind much of the current chaos in Iraq, is one of the very groups the "West" has been backing in Syria, your predicted outcome seems hopelessly optimistic to me.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,767
- Reaction score
- 697
Well part of that is just Russian and Syrian propaganda. I see no reason to believe that any Western nation is backing ISIS and ISIS and all other extremist groups would be targeted along with Assad. Syria is not black and white, it's not Assad's side vs a Western backed side. There are many players all warring against each other and the West has backed only one of them - and by "back" I mean little more than moral support. Also, keep in mind I don't consider Turkey or Saudi Arabia Western nations, which have supported some Islamic groups, but I've seen no evidence to suggest that they support ISIS either. Everything I do know about ISIS tells me they are completely out of control, even al-Qaeda is alarmed by their actions and al-Qaeda groups have attacked them. In fact I think the entire world should band together to defeat ISIS. I even see this as something Russia and the US could work together on and could even lead to easing tensions over Ukraine.
At any rate, I think their venture into Iraq might be the best thing they did. At least in terms of making themselves vulnerable to Western attack. Not only are they opening a new front but they are stretching their operations. They can more easily be cut off and isolated. We just need to exploit the opportunity that has been presented.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,767
- Reaction score
- 697
For now. That might change. I think there is some merit in putting pressure on Baghdad to deal with this themselves (I'm sure isolationist Republicans are writtng Obama love letters over this). The Iraqi military should be fully capable of taking on ISIS, the US can't keep coming to their rescue. But if the Iraqi military continues to fail then at some point someone will need to step in. And the US air force is capable of attacking almost instantly.
U.S. Aircraft Could Strike Iraq Tomorrow