Iraq

brianlux

When the resources we want (mostly oil in this case) are gone, we (the U.S.) will largely end our involvement with these people.

Drowned Out

Let's not pretend we didn't see this coming. It was widely known well before the shock and awe began, that invading Iraq would destabilize the entire Middle East (and North Africa along with it), resulting in sectarian violence not seen since the early 80's, and likely the fragmentation of countries along those lines.

THAT is what the US military was fighting for, wittingly or not...divide and conquer....or 'Balkanization'


Iraq is now a staging ground, likely for both sides, in Syria. The violence in Syria is related to the violence in Libya and Ukraine as well. Viewed from a geopolitical standpoint, these are all chess moves in Zbigs 'New Great Game'....nothing to do with freeing peoples oppressed by a dictator. Nothing to do with Dems or the GOP. Everything to do with maintaining the western power structures. It's part and parcel of a foreign policy supported by governing parties for nearly 200 years.

rgambs said:

i would say the same with military aid but humanitarian aid is different

I would tend to agree, however it would depend where the aid was coming from, where it went, and who administered it. Too often humanitarian aid comes in the form of economic aid, tied to west-benefiting alliances and neoliberal principles of debt and austerity....which is usually the end goal of any military conflict we get involved in.

Halifax2TheMax

Obama ran on ending the war in Iraq, a war he never supported. He kept this promise and the fault now lies with Bush for going in there in the first place and the Maliki government for not including the Sunni minority. The Iraqi army was never a nationalist army and of course they turned tail and ran when confronted. It is not now Obama's mess to clean up. Let Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait deal with it as its in their back yard.

To quote our former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, "democracy is messy." The Iraqi people are the only ones who can determine whether they want to live under ISIS or some other form of government. Those who cannot remember the past, the chickenhawks in the Bush administration, I turn my lonely eyes to you, are condemned to repeat it.

And Mr. Lux, you are correct, if there wasn't any oil in Iraq, we wouldn't even be discussing this.

Peace.

PS: I mean no disrespect toward the members of the armed forces who served and to their families who lost loved ones. They will always have my gratitude.

Cosmo

mattsl1983 said:

I think that is such a backseat driver looking in the rear view mirror mentality. You are okay with a dictator that carried out multiple mass murders, but it's okay because we can deal with him as opposed to dealing with what might happen? The facts are we (United States) removed him of power. We left two years ago. We've allowed this to happen. The easy thing is let's look in hindsight and blame The previous administration. Hindsight is always 20/20, the question now is will we just sit back and let Iraq fall into whatever disparity it may, or are we going to do something about it? This is now on the current administrations hands. Let's get past the blame game and start dealing with what's going on. I am also curious Gimme, do you support taking no action, or do you support taking action?

...
I don't think it is all the 20/20 hindsight. Many people foresaw this coming... way back in 2003 when we decided to switch our military focus away from Afghanistan, over to Iraq because the Administration had a hard-on for Hussein. I know, I saw it coming. Many of us understood the reason why there were no Arab Nations in our war coalition was because the Sunni majority in the region knew that Hussein was keeping the Iraqi Shi'ite majority in check. Primarily, keeping the Iranian Shi'ites in check and preventing them from coming into Iraq and creating an overwhelming majority. Arab leaders feared a stronger Iran/Iraq Shi'ite bloc would emerge as emmigration across the once closed Iraqi/Iranian border was opened up. Many people knew that Hussein was sitting on a powder keg with a lit fuse... we took him out so now, we had to sit on it. This current violence was going to happen, no matter if we left in 2005, 2012, 2020 or 2099. As soon as the Iron Fist is clamped down on the situation was eased off, there would be open warfare in the streets. We took over the Iron Fist from Hussein and now that is it in the hands of a weak al-Maliki leadership... the whole fucking thing blows up. We knew that going in... we knew this was a bad idea.
...
Now... you want to focus on today... okay. What do you want us to do?
Remember, we are sided with the group in Syria... that is taking up the insurgency in Iraq. Do we fight with them in Syria and against them in Iraq? If so, how do we do that and is it a good idea in the first place? Also, the Shi'ite run Iraqi government will probably get aid from Iran. If we help Iraq, we will be allied with Iran!!!
Secondly... how much taxpayer money have we poured into Iraqi Security Forces? What did we get?
Answer: A shitload of cash, that's how much we spent. And what we got was the SAME people who dropped their weapons and waved the white flag to U.S. troops in 2003 in minute the first shot was fired are the ones fleeing aganst insurgents.
Why did we think... anything would be different?
...
Finally... you asked Gimme, "Do you support taking no action, or do you support taking action?". I won't answer for Gimme, but here is my answer....
We've helped Iraq already. I believe it is about time they decided what to do in and with their country. Sending military hardware to the al-Maliki government may possibly make it's way into the hands of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) insurgents. My opinion is.. that is not good.
...
So, really... looking over all of the scenarios prior to our invasion/occupation/regime change in 2003... one of the better solutions may have been to leave Saddam Hussein in power under the containment program set into place by the 1991 Gulf War and let the powder keg eventually blow up in his face, not ours.

Cosmo

Godfather. said:

this is an e-mail I happened to get this morning, when the shit hits the fan they want the help of the American people to help no matter what faith they are.

Godfather.

from: united for iraq in Berkly Ca.


My Son Shahram Ahmadi has been sentenced to death. His case will be reviewed by the Supreme Court in the upcoming weeks. He is 26 years old and has spent the last 6 years of his life in prison. I couldn’t stop the execution of his younger brother Bahram and had a heart attack when I heard the news. The Iranian government refuses to hand over Bahram’s body. Now I need your help to stop Shahram’s execution.
Bahram, on the right in the picture above, has been executed and Shahram, on the left, can be saved.
We are Sunni and Kurd. My son Shahram like many other Sunni youths has been critical of how badly the Iranian government treats the Sunni minority. Security police arrested him in April 2009 on his way home from mosque in our town, Sanandaj. They shot, beat, and kicked my son in the face, breaking his nose and head. They took him to the Intelligence Bureau of Sanandaj and subjected him to severe torture including electric shocks and forced him to falsely confess to armed resistance. It took the authorities 10 months before they allowed us to see him.
My son's trial was unfair. The authorities kept him in detention for 4 years before charging him. The first time they allowed him to talk to his attorney was on the day of his trial. His trial lasted less than 10 minutes. Judge Mohammad Moghiseh used his coerced confession, the only evidence against him, to declare him a mohareb (enemy of God). I have no doubt that my son would have been found innocent if he had received a fair trial.
Your support could save my son. In the past international pressure has been instrumental in protecting individuals who had been unfairly prosecuted in Iran. A recent example is Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani who in 2006 was sentenced to stoning. Due to international pressure her sentence was later reduced to 10 years in prison and in March of this year, the Iranian judiciary announced that she has been released.
Shahram is not the only one at risk. Dozens of other Kurds have been unfairly sentenced to death. Most of their cases are waiting review by the Supreme Court. We do not have much time. Please help me save my son and the other Kurds' lives by asking Iranian officials to halt their executions and grant them fair trials.

...
Sir... do you want to help the Sunnis in Iran?
Before you answer... I hope you understand that the insurgents fighting in Iraq are Sunni minorities, too.
Now... what to you propose we do about this situation in Iran?

Cosmo

rgambs said:

mattsl1983
you ask many snarky questions on this board and i am seeing that you avoid answering the snarky questions that are asked of you so why dont you tell us, without hindsight or blaming EITHER administration what solution you would offer? How many lives is it worth to you to be the Middle East Police...if its just a humanitarian urge, without media/political influence, dont you think we could save more lives for less money if we went to the Sudan with our aid?

...
Dear, Sudan
You have OIL?!?!?!
...
Oh... you don't?
Oh, well... then, fuck you.

Sincerely,
America

Godfather.

Cosmo said:

Godfather. said:

this is an e-mail I happened to get this morning, when the shit hits the fan they want the help of the American people to help no matter what faith they are.

Godfather.

from: united for iraq in Berkly Ca.


My Son Shahram Ahmadi has been sentenced to death. His case will be reviewed by the Supreme Court in the upcoming weeks. He is 26 years old and has spent the last 6 years of his life in prison. I couldn’t stop the execution of his younger brother Bahram and had a heart attack when I heard the news. The Iranian government refuses to hand over Bahram’s body. Now I need your help to stop Shahram’s execution.
Bahram, on the right in the picture above, has been executed and Shahram, on the left, can be saved.
We are Sunni and Kurd. My son Shahram like many other Sunni youths has been critical of how badly the Iranian government treats the Sunni minority. Security police arrested him in April 2009 on his way home from mosque in our town, Sanandaj. They shot, beat, and kicked my son in the face, breaking his nose and head. They took him to the Intelligence Bureau of Sanandaj and subjected him to severe torture including electric shocks and forced him to falsely confess to armed resistance. It took the authorities 10 months before they allowed us to see him.
My son's trial was unfair. The authorities kept him in detention for 4 years before charging him. The first time they allowed him to talk to his attorney was on the day of his trial. His trial lasted less than 10 minutes. Judge Mohammad Moghiseh used his coerced confession, the only evidence against him, to declare him a mohareb (enemy of God). I have no doubt that my son would have been found innocent if he had received a fair trial.
Your support could save my son. In the past international pressure has been instrumental in protecting individuals who had been unfairly prosecuted in Iran. A recent example is Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani who in 2006 was sentenced to stoning. Due to international pressure her sentence was later reduced to 10 years in prison and in March of this year, the Iranian judiciary announced that she has been released.
Shahram is not the only one at risk. Dozens of other Kurds have been unfairly sentenced to death. Most of their cases are waiting review by the Supreme Court. We do not have much time. Please help me save my son and the other Kurds' lives by asking Iranian officials to halt their executions and grant them fair trials.

...
Sir... do you want to help the Sunnis in Iran?
Before you answer... I hope you understand that the insurgents fighting in Iraq are Sunni minorities, too.
Now... what to you propose we do about this situation in Iran?

no and stay out of iran (or anywhere in the middle east), like I said earlier, no aid at all and not to act unless acted upon.


Godfather.

Godfather.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/13/militants-vow-to-march-on-baghdad-as-obama-administration-mulls-response/


solve your problems......did barry-o say that ??????? hahhahhahhahhahha

Cosmo

Godfather. said:

Cosmo said:

Godfather. said:

this is an e-mail I happened to get this morning, when the shit hits the fan they want the help of the American people to help no matter what faith they are.

Godfather.

from: united for iraq in Berkly Ca.

My Son Shahram Ahmadi has been sentenced to death. His case will be reviewed by the Supreme Court in the upcoming weeks. He is 26 years old and has spent the last 6 years of his life in prison. I couldn’t stop the execution of his younger brother Bahram and had a heart attack when I heard the news. The Iranian government refuses to hand over Bahram’s body. Now I need your help to stop Shahram’s execution.
Bahram, on the right in the picture above, has been executed and Shahram, on the left, can be saved.
We are Sunni and Kurd. My son Shahram like many other Sunni youths has been critical of how badly the Iranian government treats the Sunni minority. Security police arrested him in April 2009 on his way home from mosque in our town, Sanandaj. They shot, beat, and kicked my son in the face, breaking his nose and head. They took him to the Intelligence Bureau of Sanandaj and subjected him to severe torture including electric shocks and forced him to falsely confess to armed resistance. It took the authorities 10 months before they allowed us to see him.
My son's trial was unfair. The authorities kept him in detention for 4 years before charging him. The first time they allowed him to talk to his attorney was on the day of his trial. His trial lasted less than 10 minutes. Judge Mohammad Moghiseh used his coerced confession, the only evidence against him, to declare him a mohareb (enemy of God). I have no doubt that my son would have been found innocent if he had received a fair trial.
Your support could save my son. In the past international pressure has been instrumental in protecting individuals who had been unfairly prosecuted in Iran. A recent example is Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani who in 2006 was sentenced to stoning. Due to international pressure her sentence was later reduced to 10 years in prison and in March of this year, the Iranian judiciary announced that she has been released.
Shahram is not the only one at risk. Dozens of other Kurds have been unfairly sentenced to death. Most of their cases are waiting review by the Supreme Court. We do not have much time. Please help me save my son and the other Kurds' lives by asking Iranian officials to halt their executions and grant them fair trials.

...
Sir... do you want to help the Sunnis in Iran?
Before you answer... I hope you understand that the insurgents fighting in Iraq are Sunni minorities, too.
Now... what to you propose we do about this situation in Iran?

no and stay out of iran (or anywhere in the middle east), like I said earlier, no aid at all and not to act unless acted upon.

Godfather.

...
That's kind of what I figured... because of your past stated hatred of Muslims.
I just thought is was odd that you had poseted a letter about injustices to Sunnis in Iran.. in a discussion of Iraq. I actually sounded like you were concerned about this father's son.
That was why I asked...
That's all.

Cosmo

Godfather. said:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/13/militants-vow-to-march-on-baghdad-as-obama-administration-mulls-response/


solve your problems......did barry-o say that ??????? hahhahhahhahhahha

...
Sir... I need to ask...
what is funny about that?
I mean, what is so funny about telling Iraq that they need to quit dropping their weapons and waiving the white flag as soon as someone points a gun at them?
How much money did we spent trainning thier forces? How many Servicemen and women lost thie lives or have been serverly injured in standing them up to fight for themselves?
Please, tell me why shouldn't they use the weapons and trainning we gave them... to stand up and fight for themselves?
I am seriously looking forward to see how you answer this.

Drowned Out

Cosmo said:

Many people knew that Hussein was sitting on a powder keg... and we took him out so we could on it. This was going to happen, no matter if we left in 2005, 2012, 2020 or 2099. As soon as the Iron Fist is clamped down on the situation, there would not be open warfare. We took over the Iron Fist from Hussein and not that is it in the hands of a weak leadership... the whole fucking thing blows up. We knew that going in... we knew this was a bad idea.
...
Now... you want to focus on today... okay. What do you want us to do?
Remember, we are sided with the group in Syria... that is taking up the insurgency in Iraq. Do we fight with them in Syria and against them in Iraq? If so, how do we do that and is it a good idea in the first place? Also, the Shi'ite run Iraqi government will probably get aid from Iran. If we help Iraq, we will be allied with Iran!!!
Secondly... how much taxpayer money have we poured into Iraqi Security Forces? What did we get?
Answer: A shitload of cash, that's how much. And what we got was the SAME people who dropped their weapons and waved the white flag to U.S. troops in 2003 in minute the first shot was fired.
Why did we think... anything would be different?
...
Finally... you asked Gimme, "Do you support taking no action, or do you support taking action?". I won't answer for Gimme, but here is my answer....
We've helped Iraq already. I believe it is about time they decided what to do in and with their country. Sending military hardware to the al-Maliki government may possibly make it's way into the hands of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) insurgents. My opinion is.. that is not good.
...
So, really... looking over all of the scenarios prior to our invasion/occupation/regime change in 2003... one of the better solutions may have been to leave Saddam Hussein in power under the containment program set into place by the 1991 Gulf War and let the powder keg eventually blow up in his face, not ours.

The first part - I agree with everything up to 'we knew this was a bad idea'...unless you're talking 'us' as the people who criticized the war. The invasion was by no means a bad idea for those it benefited economically and politically - the people pushing for invasion had no consideration for those affected, so they didn't consider it a bad idea (and likely still don't), since, as I mentioned earlier, the sectarian violence was either a desired outcome, or a measured consequence.
.......

It's kinda semantics, but I don't think the invasion helped Iraq in any way, shape, or form. So saying 'weve helped Iraq already' is pretty inaccurate imo...removing Saddam was not help. The standard of living in that country was set back decades by the invasion. At least the majority of people there had a chance at a normal life before they were 'liberated'.
As for the sectarian violence, and who we should ally ourselves with...since we have been funding and using Al-Qaeda and their affiliates for years, all over the middle east and north africa...why wouldn't we be on board with this 'invasion'? My understanding is that we are not funding these people in Syria and fighting them in Iraq....these ARE, in large part, the fighters we were funding in Syria...they pulled out, and we're using them to re-invade Iraq. I don't really see ISIS making this move without full knowledge and support of the West. They're surrounded by hostile Shia (edit: and secular in Syria) armies, if they didn't have Western backing, I think Iran, Iraq, and Syria could wipe them out pretty easily. My guess is that the Iraqi government was becoming too closely aligned with Iran, and the West has re-focused on Iraq after weakening, but being ultimately repelled by Assad.
What a crazy fucking game we're playing over there. If any of us lived in any of those countries....how could we not hate Western powers?

Drowned Out

America's Covert Re-Invasion of Iraq
June 13, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Heavily armed, well funded, and organized as a professional, standing army, the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) swept southward into Iraq from Turkey and northeastern Syria, taking the cities of Mosul and Tikrit, and now threaten the Iraqi capital city of Baghdad itself. The United States was sure to prop up two unfounded narratives - the first being that US intelligence agencies, despite assets in Iraq and above it in the form of surveillance drones, failed to give warning of the invasion, and that ISIS is some sort of self-sustaining terror organization carving out a "state" by "robbing banks" and collecting "donations" on Twitter.

The Wall Street Journal in its report, "Iraqi Drama Catches U.S. Off Guard," stated:
The quickly unfolding drama prompted a White House meeting Wednesday of top policy makers and military leaders who were caught off guard by the swift collapse of Iraqi security forces, officials acknowledged.
In another WSJ post, "U.S. Secretly Flying Drones Over Iraq," it claimed:
A senior U.S. official said the intelligence collected under the small [secret US drone] program was shared with Iraqi forces, but added: "It's not like it did any good." The rapid territorial gains by the Islamist forces loyal to Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, an al Qaeda offshoot, caught the U.S. by surprise, the officials said.


Image: ISIS has convoys of brand new matching Toyota's the same
vehicles seen among admittedly NATO-armed terrorists operating
everywhere from Libya to Syria, and now Iraq. It is a synthetic, state-
sponsored regional mercenary expeditionary force.

Despite drone flights collecting intelligence, and a 3-year ongoing CIA program (here, here, and here) all along the Turkish-Syrian border to "monitor" and "arm" "moderate" militants fighting the Syrian government, the US claims it was caught "by surprise." If drones and CIA operatives operating in ISIS territory weren't enough to detect the impending invasion, perhaps the CIA should have just picked up a newspaper.

Indeed, the Lebanon Daily Start in March 2014 reported that ISIS openly withdrew its forces from Latakia and Idlib provinces in western Syria, and redeployed them in Syria's east - along the Syrian-Iraqi border. The article titled, "Al-Qaeda splinter group in Syria leaves two provinces: activists," stated explicitly that:
On Friday, ISIS – which alienated many rebels by seizing territory and killing rival commanders – finished withdrawing from the Idlib and Latakia provinces and moved its forces toward the eastern Raqqa province and the eastern outskirts of the northern city of Aleppo, activists said.
The question remains, if a Lebanese newspaper knew ISIS was on the move eastward, why didn't the CIA? The obvious answer is the CIA did know, and is simply feigning ignorance at the expense of their reputation to bait its enemies into suspecting the agency of incompetency rather than complicity in the horrific terroristic swath ISIS is now carving through northern Iraq.

Described extensively in the full New Eastern Outlook Journal (NEO) report, "NATO’s Terror Hordes in Iraq a Pretext for Syria Invasion," the United States, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, have funded and armed terrorists operating in Syria for the past 3 years to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars - coincidentally the same amount that ISIS would require to gain primacy among militant groups fighting in Syria and to mobilize forces capable of crossing into Iraq and overwhelming Baghdad's national defenses.


Image: The most prominent routes into Syria for foreign fighters is depicted, with the inset graph describing the most widely used routes by foreign fighters on their way to Iraq, as determined by West Point's 2007 Combating Terrorism Center report "Al-Qa'ida's Foreign Fighters in Iraq" (page 20). These same networks were then used to invade and attempt to overthrow the Syrian government itself in 2011, with the addition of a more prominent role for Turkey, and today in 2014, to re-invade Iraq once again.

The NEO report includes links to the US Army’s West Point Countering Terrorism Center reports, “Bombers, Bank Accounts and Bleedout: al-Qa’ida’s Road In and Out of Iraq,” and “Al-Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighters in Iraq,” which detail extensively the terror network used to flood Iraq with foreign terrorists, weapons, and cash to fuel an artificial "sectarian war" during the US occupation, and then turned over to flood Syria with terrorists in the West's bid to overthrow the government in Damascus.

What's ISIS Doing in Iraq?
The NEO report would also post Seymour Hersh's 2007 article, "The Redirection," documenting over the course of 9 pages US, Saudi, and Israeli intentions to create and deploy sectarian extremists region-wide to confront Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hersh would note that these "sectarian extremists" were either tied to Al Qaeda, or Al Qaeda itself. The ISIS army moving toward Baghdad is the final manifestation of this conspiracy, a standing army operating with impunity, threatening to topple the Syrian government, purge pro-Iranian forces in Iraq, and even threatening Iran itself by building a bridge from Al Qaeda's NATO safe havens in Turkey, across northern Iraq, and up to Iran's borders directly. Labeled "terrorists" by the West, grants the West plausible deniability in its creation, deployment, and across the broad spectrum of atrocities it is now carrying out.


Image: ISIS's alleged territory spans across both Iraqi and Syrian
territory. If it is able to establish a NATO-backed buffer zone, it will be
able to launch attacks with impunity into Syria, Iraq, and Iran - in a
region-wide sectarian war the West has been engineering for years.

It is a defacto re-invasion of Iraq by Western interests - but this time without Western forces directly participating - rather a proxy force the West is desperately attempting to disavow any knowledge of or any connection to. However, no other explanation can account for the size and prowess of ISIS beyond state sponsorship. And since ISIS is the clear benefactor of state sponsorship, the question is, which states are sponsoring it? With Iraq, Syria, and Iran along with Lebanese-based Hezbollah locked in armed struggle with ISIS and other Al Qaeda franchises across the region, the only blocs left are NATO and the GCC (Saudi Arabia and Qatar in particular).

With the West declaring ISIS fully villainous in an attempt to intervene more directly in northern Iraq and eastern Syria, creating a long desired "buffer zone" within which to harbor, arm, and fund an even larger terrorist expeditionary force, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and others are offered an opportunity to preempt Western involvement and to crush the ISIS - cornering and eliminating NATO-GCC's expeditionary force while scoring geopolitical points of vanquishing Washington's latest "villain." Joint Iraq-Iranian operations in the north and south of ISIS's locations, and just along Turkey's borders could envelop and trap ISIS to then be whittled down and destroyed - just as Syria has been doing to NATO's proxy terrorist forces within its own borders.

Cosmo

Drowned Out said:

Cosmo said:

Many people knew that Hussein was sitting on a powder keg... and we took him out so we could on it. This was going to happen, no matter if we left in 2005, 2012, 2020 or 2099. As soon as the Iron Fist is clamped down on the situation, there would not be open warfare. We took over the Iron Fist from Hussein and not that is it in the hands of a weak leadership... the whole fucking thing blows up. We knew that going in... we knew this was a bad idea.
...
Now... you want to focus on today... okay. What do you want us to do?
Remember, we are sided with the group in Syria... that is taking up the insurgency in Iraq. Do we fight with them in Syria and against them in Iraq? If so, how do we do that and is it a good idea in the first place? Also, the Shi'ite run Iraqi government will probably get aid from Iran. If we help Iraq, we will be allied with Iran!!!
Secondly... how much taxpayer money have we poured into Iraqi Security Forces? What did we get?
Answer: A shitload of cash, that's how much. And what we got was the SAME people who dropped their weapons and waved the white flag to U.S. troops in 2003 in minute the first shot was fired.
Why did we think... anything would be different?
...
Finally... you asked Gimme, "Do you support taking no action, or do you support taking action?". I won't answer for Gimme, but here is my answer....
We've helped Iraq already. I believe it is about time they decided what to do in and with their country. Sending military hardware to the al-Maliki government may possibly make it's way into the hands of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) insurgents. My opinion is.. that is not good.
...
So, really... looking over all of the scenarios prior to our invasion/occupation/regime change in 2003... one of the better solutions may have been to leave Saddam Hussein in power under the containment program set into place by the 1991 Gulf War and let the powder keg eventually blow up in his face, not ours.

The first part - I agree with everything up to 'we knew this was a bad idea'...unless you're talking 'us' as the people who criticized the war. The invasion was by no means a bad idea for those it benefited economically and politically - the people pushing for invasion had no consideration for those affected, so they didn't consider it a bad idea (and likely still don't), since, as I mentioned earlier, the sectarian violence was either a desired outcome, or a measured consequence.
.......
It's kinda semantics, but I don't think the invasion helped Iraq in any way, shape, or form. So saying 'weve helped Iraq already' is pretty inaccurate imo...removing Saddam was not help. The standard of living in that country was set back decades by the invasion. At least the majority of people there had a chance at a normal life before they were 'liberated'.
As for the sectarian violence, and who we should ally ourselves with...since we have been funding and using Al-Qaeda and their affiliates for years, all over the middle east and north africa...why wouldn't we be on board with this 'invasion'? My understanding is that we are not funding these people in Syria and fighting them in Iraq....these ARE, in large part, the fighters we were funding in Syria...they pulled out, and we're using them to re-invade Iraq. I don't really see ISIS making this move without full knowledge and support of the West. They're surrounded by hostile Shia armies, if they didn't have Western backing, I think Iran, Iraq, and Syria could wipe them out pretty easily. My guess is that the Iraqi government was becoming too closely aligned with Iran, and the West has re-focused on Iraq after weakening, but being ultimately repelled by Assad.
What a crazy fucking game we're playing over there. If any of us lived in any of those countries....how could we not hate Western powers?

...
I believe the whole Iraqi mess was a clusterfuck from the beginning. We would not even be part of the discussion, if we hadn't gone there in the first place.
My point is that once we got there... we had to figure out how to get out. We completely dismantled their military structure and had to restore it. Iraq needed some sort of security force and we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars training and arming them to fend for themselves.
We should have gotten a clue when Iraqi forces abandoned their uniforms when they were tasked to support U.S. military operations in Fallujah. They are acting in the same manner now, as they had back then. If the Iraqi people believe in the nation of Iraq... THEY are the ones that need to fight for Iraq, not Americans.
...
I'm saying that any American that believes we need to re-introduce a U.S. military solution into a sectarian war that was inevitable can pick up a weapon and go over there and fight. i am sick of these couch potato assholes wanting to send someone else's kid to fight a war based on politics and fueled by religion and the economics of oil. Basically, FUCK YOU, SENATOR McCAIN!!

Last-12-Exit

We went into Iraq in 03 for no real reason and no real plan. Everyone knew what would happen when we did leave. All I have go say on the matter is we need to leave it the fuck alone. It has nothing to do with us.

Halifax2TheMax

Totally agree, particularly your last sentence. Did you see him on the senate floor with his blood red tie on during his diatribe? What a jerk. I lost all respect for him in 2000 when he allowed turd blossom to smear him the way he did in South Carolina. I wish he'd retire.

Peace.

Jason P

If this article is true, shit must be royaly fucked up to a degree I can't even fathom over there ... cats and dogs, living together ...

Exclusive: Alarmed by Iraq, Iran open to shared role with U.S. - Iran official

ANKARA (Reuters) - Shi'te Muslim Iran is so alarmed by Sunni insurgent gains in Iraq that it may be willing to cooperate with Washington in helping Baghdad fight back, a senior Iranian official told Reuters.

The idea is being discussed internally among the Islamic Republic's leadership, the senior Iranian official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official had no word on whether the idea had been raised with any other party.

Officials say Iran will send its neighbor advisers and weaponry, although probably not troops, to help its ally Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki check what Tehran sees as a profound threat to regional stability, officials and analysts say.

Islamist militants have captured swathes of territory including the country's second biggest city Mosul.

Tehran is open to the possibility of working with the United States to support Baghdad, the senior official said.

"We can work with Americans to end the insurgency in the Middle East," the official said, referring to events in Iraq.

"We are very influential in Iraq, Syria and many other countries."

For many years, Iran has been aggrieved by what it sees as U.S. efforts to marginalize it. Tehran wants to be recognized as a significant player in regional security.

....

news.yahoo.com/exclusive-alarmed-iraq-iran-open-shared-role-u-090305368.html

Drowned Out

The point I'm trying to make is that the current chaos is not a bad thing for the US. No western nation wants any oil rich eastern nation to be stable enough to gain power and form trading blacks to rival the current power structures. The lack of exit strategy WAS the exit strategy. Leaving Iraq in shambles was part of the plan. Hot air about 'fixing' it is just that...

unsung

I have to say it, I agree with Obama, this is an Iraq problem.

That said, we did create this mess, but eventually Iraq has to get off the (breast). Knuckle up.

This is what happens when you leverage your bets and get involved in Syria and Libya, and all of these other BS mideast wars.

gimmesometruth27

know1 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i am surprised nobody has posted anything about this. the country is in serious trouble right now. so many of the cities that the "coalition" fought so hard to secure have been taken back by extremist groups and militants.

i thought for sure people would be on here bashing obama about it, but i am really surprised nobody here is saying anything about it.

we said it back in 2003. invading is a terrible idea. and as soon as we leave, everything those brave men and women fought so hard for will be lost.

so yeah, we really screwed the pooch on this one. thank you neocons and all of your amazing wisdom. history will judge you even more harshly than i do.

We only bash Republican Presidents on issues of the military.

i have bashed obama's military use plenty the last few years.

gimmesometruth27

mattsl1983 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

unsung said:

Saddam wasn't so bad after all.

exactly.

tikrit, his hometown, fell a few days ago.

at least with saddam, sometimes you are better off with the devil that you know versus the devil that you don't.

i just hope we learn a lesson from this, but knowing our government, we won't.

I think that is such a backseat driver looking in the rear view mirror mentality. You are okay with a dictator that carried out multiple mass murders, but it's okay because we can deal with him as opposed to dealing with what might happen? The facts are we (United States) removed him of power. We left two years ago. We've allowed this to happen. The easy thing is let's look in hindsight and blame The previous administration. Hindsight is always 20/20, the question now is will we just sit back and let Iraq fall into whatever disparity it may, or are we going to do something about it? This is now on the current administrations hands. Let's get past the blame game and start dealing with what's going on. I am also curious Gimme, do you support taking no action, or do you support taking action?

backseat driver looking in the rearview mirror??? excuse me, but you can not hope to solve the current issue if you fail to recognize how we got to where we are. george w bush diverted our entire mission from dethroning the taliban and finding bin laden to attack a sovreign nation who had done us no wrong, was not involved with al qaeda or bin laden (in fact saddam hated bin laden), and was not a threat to us or anybody in his region. we went in and deposed saddam with no plan to win the peace. skip ahead, obama kept his promise to get us out of there. he wanted to stay longer but al maliki would not allow it. it was politically unpopular there for him to allow us to stay. we were basically told to get the hell out. since we left, the government is a mess, people hate the current government there. they would rather have the militants. to answer your question, which i already answered in the post you quoted, but yes, you are better off dealing with the devil that you know rather than dealing with the devil(s) that you don't. we knew saddam's record. we knew he was a strongman, and the only man who could be the linchpin to keep the peace between iraq, iran, syria, and the rest of the region. you depose saddam, the sunnis have no voice, so they are going to rebel. this is essentially what is happening now. the blame lies squarely at the feet of bush, rice, cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, ashcroft, powell, and the rest of the neocons. they need to be tried now. they need to be investigated by the obama administration. the game was over long ago. they are wholly responsible for getting us in to this. they had a plan to win this war but they had no plan to win the PEACE, which is the most important part of a war, winning the peace, which we failed to do. we gave them democracy, and the did not know how to handle it. worse yet, the majority of them do not even want it. what works in western nations governmentwise can not be generalized to countries in other regions. it doesn't work that way.

i blame the previous administration because it is their fucking fault that we went into iraq in the first place. obama does not bear near the responsibility for this. he did not even support the invasion in the first place. he tried to get us out of there sooner but he couldn't.

i support taking no action at all. this is what needs to happen. the government and their military is too weak. these people have been fighting for thousands of years. we have wasted too much money and too many lives trying to support a regime that we can call "our guys", or favorable to us interests. what we need to do is get entirely off of fossil fuels. if we do not have to deal in oil, we do not have to deal with anybody in that region. let them fight it out and whoever wins wins, while we live off of fossil fuels. it would be better for the environment as well. but since our politicians have their heads so far up their ass, they would never see the benefit of getting off of oil and on to renewables. all this is is "waterworld" but instead of the resources they looked for in that movie, it is about oil in this reality.

also, mccain said we should be in iraq for 100 years. he has been wrong on iraq since 2002, are we really, really, going to listen to what this dinosaur has to say about iraq in 2014???