For those of you that think we need to fix the Iraqi problem, how do you propose we do that? It can't be fixed. And for those of you that think we owe anything to Iraq of the middle east, let me just say fuck that. We don't owe them anything. What do we owe them? A military? A stable government? Money?
You owe Iraq a lot more than that.
No the US doesn't. We need to walk away. I thought about saying I don't deny that the US is responsible for some of the problems over there, but which is worse: terrorist taking over the country or Saddam Hussien being in power? Either way, it's not our problem now.
Cosmo, I agree with you in that we can't keep our greedy little fingers out of another country's oil, but to say we need to go fix their mess is crazy, Especially at the cost of our military. Its an Iraqi problem now. Staying out of Syria may have been Obama's best move since he's been in office. He should do the same here.
For those of you that think we need to fix the Iraqi problem, how do you propose we do that? It can't be fixed. And for those of you that think we owe anything to Iraq of the middle east, let me just say fuck that. We don't owe them anything. What do we owe them? A military? A stable government? Money?
You owe Iraq a lot more than that.
No the US doesn't. We need to walk away. I thought about saying I don't deny that the US is responsible for some of the problems over there, but which is worse: terrorist taking over the country or Saddam Hussien being in power? Either way, it's not our problem now.
Cosmo, I agree with you in that we can't keep our greedy little fingers out of another country's oil, but to say we need to go fix their mess is crazy, Especially at the cost of our military. Its an Iraqi problem now. Staying out of Syria may have been Obama's best move since he's been in office. He should do the same here.
You make it sound like the removal of Saddam was a simple kidnapping or something. Removing Saddam left hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, 2 milliion peoples displaced/homeless, their infrastructure in ruins, their soil contaminated by depleted uranium, livelihoods destroyed, a government that cannot (not willing to? taking orders to not?) defend against invaders, and of course, massive debt and one-sided trade to rebuild. Also, remember....it's not like they asked for someone to come save them. The US should pay reparations directly to the people affected by the war, and the people who lied to make it happen should be tried for war crimes. For starters.
Also, to say 'it's not our problem now' completely misses the fact that these terrorists are funded by washington (via)/and middle eastern puppet regimes. They're playing both sides. Destabilizing the middle east, installing subservient dictators, and possibly re-drawing maps along ethnic and sectarian lines (Balkanization), is an over-arching goal of US foreign policy.
Imagine If Iraq Had Not Been Invaded Whatever else you may say about the "young war criminal" (as British journalist Alan Watkins used to call former prime minister Tony Blair), he certainly fights his corner with great determination. He is condemned to spend his life defending his part in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and last weekend he was at it again.
In a 3,000-word essay on his website, Tony Blair wrote about last week's conquest of almost half Iraq's territory by the fanatical fighters of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria): "We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that 'we' have caused this. We haven't." What he really meant by "we," of course, was "I."
But at least give Blair credit for producing an interesting argument. "As for how these (recent) events reflect on the original decision to remove Saddam," he wrote, "...(the argument) is that but for the invasion of 2003, Iraq would be a stable country today....
"Consider the post-2011 Arab uprisings. Put into the equation the counterfactual -- that Saddam and his two sons would be running Iraq in 2011 when the uprisings began. Is it seriously being said that the revolution sweeping the Arab world would have hit Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria... but miraculously Iraq, under the most brutal and tyrannical of all the regimes, would have been an oasis of calm?
"So it is a bizarre reading of the cauldron that is the Middle East today, to claim that but for the removal of Saddam, we would not have a crisis."
Blair is employing one of his favourite techniques: winning an argument with a straw man. Nobody is actually saying that if the United States, Britain and some hangers-on had not illegally invaded Iraq in 2003, the country would be an "oasis of calm" today. Of course the Arab Spring would have come to Iraq, too, and of course there would be huge turmoil in the country today.
If Saddam Hussein had managed to hang on to power in the face of a democratic uprising in 2011 that was initially non-violent, Iraq today might be in a civil war somewhat like that in Syria. And if his dictatorship had been overthrown in 2011, whatever new government emerged in Iraq would certainly be contending with acute ethnic and sectarian rivalries today.
But the living standards, infrastructure, and health and educational services of a quite developed country would not have been massively degraded by a decade of invasion, foreign occupation and popular resistance. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were killed in these events would still be alive (although Saddam's secret police would have murdered the usual thousand or so each year). And above all there would be no ISIS, nor anything like it.
There were no terrorists in Iraq in 2003. There were people with radical Islamist ideas, but they kept quiet for fear of Saddam's torturers and there weren't very many of them. And there were no "weapons of mass destruction" either. It was an exceptionally dumb war, to borrow Barack Obama's famous phrase, and it began the destruction of Iraq.
It is the deep sectarian divisions in Iraq's Arabic-speaking population (the Kurds are a separate issue) that are now completing that process of destruction. However, as with the distinctions between Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Muslims in old Yugoslavia before the breakup and the Balkan wars of the 1990s, most Sunnis and Shias in Iraq before 2003 lived side by side with a fairly low degree of friction.
It was the fight against foreign occupation after 2003 that radicalized people in Iraq and drove so many of them back into narrow sectarian identities. "Al-Qaida in Iraq," the original name for what now calls itself ISIS, was born in that struggle, and Tony Blair and George W. Bush were its midwives.
It's striking that al-Qaida in Iraq's main target during the occupation was to kill large numbers of Shias rather than lots of Americans. Its strategy was to provoke a sectarian war in which Iraqi Sunnis would be losing at first -- but then their plight would trigger intervention by Sunni states in the region and lead to a general Sunni-Shia war. It was a convoluted, nasty and deeply unrealistic strategy, but it made sense in terms of their radical Islamist ideology.
If there had been no invasion, and Saddam Hussein had been overthrown by a popular revolution only three years ago, there would certainly be great tension in a newly democratic Iraq now.
Sunni Arabs would be having trouble coming to terms with their minority status (which most were unaware of under Saddam). Shias would be tempted to exploit their majority status unfairly. Kurds would be pushing for more autonomy.
But they would be doing so in an atmosphere that had not been contaminated by a decade of sectarian hatred and savagery. There would be no organizations like ISIS dedicated to waging a sectarian war. And even if Saddam Hussein had not been overthrown and Iraq was caught up in a civil war like Syria's, it would have a far less sectarian character. As would Syria's, for that matter.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
you don't invade a country and "liberate" its people and leave in a few years and think that country will be stable enough to stand on its own two feet. they should never have gone there, but since they did, they should have stayed a LOT longer to try to help stabilize it. What the US did is the equivalent of trying to help a battered wife by bulldozing her house with her husband inside, and then leaving her in the company of rapists. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
We invaded Iraq. We were welcomed by most Iraqis especially after we toppled Saddam. We spent millions and millions of dollars and spent years training the Iraqi army and police. Then after all of that, were not welcome in Iraq, so we left. Now we are expected to spend more millions and years fixing what is now their problem.
Obviously, that is way over simplified, but the point remains the same.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/16/fox-news-iraq-violence-proves-bush-was-right-about-pretty-much-everything/ ... “Some say the Islamic militant group that is violently overtaking large parts of Syria and now Iraq could have been stopped if the situation there had not been neglected,” Fox News host Martha MacCallum reported during her Monday broadcast. “In fact, in 2007, President George W. Bush pretty much laid this out as it is happening.”
After a clip of Bush talking about potential violence in Iraq, MacCallum turned to former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card to back up her point. “Yes, President Bush did anticipate this being a likely outcome if we didn’t do some thing right, and President Obama and his team has not done some things right. The lack of a status of forces agreement is paramount to the cause of this angst right now. And I’m troubled by it.” ... And at no time during the segment did MacCallum or Card mention that it was President Bush who signed the status of forces agreement in 2008 that said all U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by 2012. ref. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html?_r=1&
"The proposed agreement, which took nearly a year to negotiate with the United States, not only sets a date for American troop withdrawal, but puts new restrictions on American combat operations in Iraq starting Jan. 1 and requires an American military pullback from urban areas by June 30. Those hard dates reflect a significant concession by the departing Bush administration, which had been publicly averse to timetables. " ... On December 14, 2008, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the security pact with Iraq. You might have remember this because someone almost hit him with a shoe that day.
Post edited by Cosmo on
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,048
I have to say it was disheartening to hear left their posts. No pride enough to even defend home?(in the bigger sense of the word)
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
So let me see if I understand this....The terrorists (ISIS) that are taken over Iraq are the same ones or faction of the rebels that were fighting in Syria to topple Assad and we supported those rebels who had ties to Al-Qaeda. Now we will most likely work with Iran to stop ISIS and then what? Where does it end?
I have a great idea...How about we bring all our men and women in uniform home, close every overseas base that we have. How about America starts to help its citizens instead of protecting its interests (Big Oil, Big Banks, Big Corporations).
Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler once said "I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. "
General Butler spoke those words in 1933 and 81 years later its the same shit. All these wars are done for profit. Our Presidents have been nothing more than puppets and the American people, especially those in uniform, have been played.
I love my country. I love what the founding fathers did and I love the fact that this country took my parents in when they lost their homeland. But this is NOT the America that our founders wanted for us. Our founders warned us of accruing debt ($17 Trillion and counting) and warned us of interfering in others affairs (Name a country and we have been there) The America that our founders envisioned for us is long gone.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/16/fox-news-iraq-violence-proves-bush-was-right-about-pretty-much-everything/ ... “Some say the Islamic militant group that is violently overtaking large parts of Syria and now Iraq could have been stopped if the situation there had not been neglected,” Fox News host Martha MacCallum reported during her Monday broadcast. “In fact, in 2007, President George W. Bush pretty much laid this out as it is happening.”
After a clip of Bush talking about potential violence in Iraq, MacCallum turned to former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card to back up her point. “Yes, President Bush did anticipate this being a likely outcome if we didn’t do some thing right, and President Obama and his team has not done some things right. The lack of a status of forces agreement is paramount to the cause of this angst right now. And I’m troubled by it.” ... And at no time during the segment did MacCallum or Card mention that it was President Bush who signed the status of forces agreement in 2008 that said all U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by 2012. ref. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html?_r=1&
"The proposed agreement, which took nearly a year to negotiate with the United States, not only sets a date for American troop withdrawal, but puts new restrictions on American combat operations in Iraq starting Jan. 1 and requires an American military pullback from urban areas by June 30. Those hard dates reflect a significant concession by the departing Bush administration, which had been publicly averse to timetables. " ... On December 14, 2008, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the security pact with Iraq. You might have remember this because someone almost hit him with a shoe that day.
of course fox news is not going to say anything to deviate from the narrative that obama is the worst thing to ever happen to this country. hell would sooner freeze then bush be called out for anything on fox news.
this is so clearly bush's fault. as stated, bush signed the status of forces agreement, essentially tying obama's hands. he wanted to stay longer, but iraq wanted us out.
the people that engineered the original invasion are all back in the media and on the talk shows. they are not being taken to task by anybody in the media. it is the media's responsibility to provide truth in the reports, but they aren't doing it. the media is complicit in all of this. they are wanting more military action in iraq because it sells papers and generates page hits. proper journalism is dead in this country.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
No the US doesn't. We need to walk away. I thought about saying I don't deny that the US is responsible for some of the problems over there, but which is worse: terrorist taking over the country or Saddam Hussien being in power? Either way, it's not our problem now.
I'd say that terrorists taking over the country is worse. The U.S government has shown repeatedly that's it's perfectly comfortable with dictators being in power, many of whom it placed there after overthrowing those who were democratically elected. It was also perfectly happy with Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980's when he was busy committing the worst of his crimes, and had no problem selling him the weapons to carry out those crimes.
The U.S, with the help of it's poodle, Tony Blair, carried out an illegal invasion, based on a prolonged and concerted campaign of lying to the public - an invasion that killed over a million Iraqi's and destabilized the entire country. Does the U.S and it's poodle now have anything to answer for?
Also, remember....it's not like they asked for someone to come save them.
Exactly. People are talking as though we did them a favour.
Murdering over a million people and destroying a country does not constitute doing somebody a favour.
And if the U.S is really so concerned about brutal regimes that routinely murder innocent, men, women, and children, then why does it not bother them that $4 Billion of their tax dollars go to Israel every year?
This "War on Terrorism" is nothing but a façade to make oil companies and banksters richer. And at the same time government takes a crap on the Constitution by passing the Patriot Act and NDAA. We also have our own government spying on citizens. Its all interconnected. We are pretty much fucked!
This "War on Terrorism" is nothing but a façade to make oil companies and banksters richer. And at the same time government takes a crap on the Constitution by passing the Patriot Act and NDAA. We also have our own government spying on citizens. Its all interconnected. We are pretty much fucked!
Pretty much. The U.S is about as far from any real 'Democracy' as China. Yet people still vote very four years to elect the next corporate shill. Maybe it's time for the U.S to follow to example of the Arab Spring and remove these lying, murdering hucksters from power?
That clip of John McCain saying "That old Beach boys song, 'Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran'.
...speaks volumes.
Clearly mass murder is just a joke to these people. Killing men, women and children is something to laugh about. And these are the people we elect to govern us, and to dictate foreign policy?
There are no good options with the current situation. The last thing that we need is to be dropping bombs on targets, for which we have no human intel to guide us, to wind up as propaganda for ISIS. Iraq was 'created' by Great Britain after WWI - before that it was 3 separate states - Kurds, Shi'ites and Suni's - which is what it is headed to becoming once again; only with a lot of bad actors involved.
I believe we should get our people out of the embassy; which will not be an easy task and that is it. We have tried diplomacy but Maliki refused to budge on the Status of Forces Treaty - there was no way we could stay in a country without that being renegotiated.
Two things that really bother me - 1. All that Congress has been saying since President Obama took office is that we have a huge deficit and cannot afford to pass, say, a job's bill with heavy emphasis on infrastructure which is falling apart here. So the bill doesn't even come up for a vote. Cut food stamps cause they are a drain on the economy. But whenever there is a foreign conflict; that flies out the window and money is no problem. I have a huge problem with this. 2. We no longer have a draft; so 1% of the country fights our wars. I am not in favor of the draft, but I do not think that the same neo cons who said we'd be in and out in 6 months tops and greeted as liberators back in 2003 should be showing their faces on every damn news show saying how weak & clueless Obama is (par for the course) and talk about war like they are in any position to even utter a word - all of them should be banned from speaking about this situation. And if they have such a hard-on for more Middle Eastern war - then the first people to go over should be those of fighting age from their families; followed by Congress and the Senate's families. How eager would they be then?
Bush and his crew screwed up royally in 2003, and i do not believe that this country has to continue to pay for their stupidity and complete ignorance of the history of Mesopotamia. Do I hate seeing people being killed - hell ya. is there a part of me, as an American, who feels we should help - yes. But we are not the only country on this planet and Europe, especially, has been allowing us to do the dirty work for decades and decades. All of the people involved are enemies of ours. And if we talk to one- we are pissing off another one who hates us more. Al-Maliki needs to go - he is doing just what Sadam did except the loyalties are switched. He refused to work with us to help build a representative government. We did not break Iraq - specific people did. We are not obligated to fix it. And we are extremely narcissistic if we think that we can fix this problem which has existed for hundreds and hundreds of years.
just get our people the hell out of there. Attempt some diplomacy, but I think that a better understanding of the Arab history and people are necessary.
And, as stated above, in our absence will come Russia - no doubt. No wonder Presidents turn grey. This is truly a clusterfuck - has Bush had any comment? Or is he painting shower portraits? ~X(
Post edited by njnancy on
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,802
^^^ Well said, njnancy. The fiasco created during the Bush Administration is showing ripple effects that will run across long stretches of time. It almost seems as though this whole... well, clusterfuck it is... will not go away until the people there are scattered, the oil is all gone and the sands have blown over the entire region.
I think it is worth remembering that the wars in the middle east, especially in Iraq, have destroyed for all time a vast amount of incredible art and architecture- really, much of their culture as a whole. Disastrous.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
^^^ Well said, njnancy. The fiasco created during the Bush Administration is showing ripple effects that will run across long stretches of time. It almost seems as though this whole... well, clusterfuck it is... will not go away until the people there are scattered, the oil is all gone and the sands have blown over the entire region.
I think it is worth remembering that the wars in the middle east, especially in Iraq, have destroyed for all time a vast amount of incredible art and architecture- really, much of their culture as a whole. Disastrous.
You're right - when we went in 2003, no one was protecting the museums or cultural sites. They were guarding the oil fields. Not the soldiers' fault, they were following orders.
Another player is Saudi Arabia - our 'great' friend. From where did most of the 9/11 hijackers originate? And who has Saudi Arabia been funding during the Syrian tragedy?
I really can't think of one good option; but there are people far wiser than I who are without answers (and i respect those who actually say that). They don't want us there; we invaded their country; let's leave them alone.
While US diplomacy is being rightfully criticized, what about the effects of papyrus, parchment, ink and words written long ago in the current situation? Did Bush have a DeLorean and flux capacitor back in ‘03?
Money, air strikes, and reparations aren’t going to solve what’s going on right now. Education is the key.
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.
well ISIS goal is to create a muslim state, this whole topic is what I have been in disagreement with, the muslims want a muslim world and are willing to kill anybody who even disagrees with them and you think I should be concerned with them ? I'm not sure what your getting at, my whole gripe with this is if the U.S helps either side as they did some years ago it will just keep happening and those dirt bags come to our country and start bullshit here as well so I say that we( the U.S) should back away and when they mess with us we shouls wipe their ass's right out.....we should have done that right after 9/11 or in my opinion or at the very least excuted those even remotely involved already but to be honest with you I think obama is kissing muslim ass somewhere in this whole mess...to the point of offering a reach around (that is an angry statement) and I'm a little tired of the "it's only the radical muslims" defence every time this issue is brought up, this whole crock of shit pisses me off.
Godfather.
... That's a nice little off-topic incoherent rant, sir... but you did not answer the question... Why are you laughing at President Obama telling Iraq to 'Solve their own problems' by standing up to the insurgents? Do you think that he is wrong? That they shouldn't stand up for themselves? ... And regarding your suggestion for a solution, Wipe them all out... I'll put your name on the list... along with Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Adolph Hitler... who believe that genocide is a viable solution to a geo-political problem. Wipe them ALL out... problem solved, right? In Jesus' name... amen.
stalin...hitler ? really ??????? re-read my posts on this topic Cosmo, 1) I stated that this is one of the few times I agree with what obama said "solve your problems" 2) I also stated we should NOT act unless acted upon then wipe em out,,,,,,,in the name Jesus ?...I never said that so please get off your high horse,are you trying to attack my faith ? look at your self before attacking my faith (very low shot).
After invading Iraq and bombing/murdering tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children -
well what of the killing done by the governments of the middle east ? or the rapes,beatings and killings done by muslim men or the attacks on America and other countries by terrorist of the middle east ? do they get a pass ?
well my friend how do you know what I believe ? this back and forth crap between the U.S and the middle east goes back much longer than the 9/11 attacks, and maybe if the middle eastern countries would stop putting their hands out looking for aid we would not be debating this mess.
well ISIS goal is to create a muslim state, this whole topic is what I have been in disagreement with, the muslims want a muslim world and are willing to kill anybody who even disagrees with them
ISIS don't represent all Muslims, just as Al Qaeda doesn't represent all Muslims. Why is that simple fact so difficult for you to comprehend?
but to be honest with you I think obama is kissing muslim ass somewhere in this whole mess...to the point of offering a reach around (that is an angry statement)
Yeah, sure. And he's also a Commy from Kenya, right?
and I'm a little tired of the "it's only the radical muslims" defence every time this issue is brought up, this whole crock of shit pisses me off.
It's not a defence, it's a fact. but it's o.k, we understand that you have a problem with facts, and especially with facts that contradict and challenge your bigotry and racism.
Europe, especially, has been allowing us to do the dirty work for decades and decades.
Like you did a good thing by invading Iraq and Afghanistan? Are you suggesting that you've been doing Europe a favour with your foreign policy? It was your foreign policy that caused 9/11. And If you think you've been doing Europe a favour, tell that to the families of those killed in the blow-back terror attacks in London and Madrid.
all these political masterminds on the train, I'm sure all of us have only very limited knowledge of what really happens between our countries and yet some of us cant wait to tell us all how it really is and blame the U.S for everything they can, which of you said to choose your sources wisely.
all these political masterminds on the train, I'm sure all of us have only very limited knowledge of what really happens between our countries and yet some of us cant wait to tell us all how it really is and blame the U.S for everything they can, which of you said to choose your sources wisely.
Godfather.
We DO know enough to realize that the Iraq war was a waste of lives and money. Isnt that enough? What more do you need?
Did you read the article Hugh posted? Does it make you ponder what might have happned if the USA didnt attack Iraq? Do you think we'd be better off, or worse off? We're all going to have an opinion on what we've learned, whether or not there are things we dont know.
Bush's idiotic decisions is likely why most of America didnt trust the Republicans after his term was up. He essentially put Obama in the White house because America was afraid of McCain and Romney
Comments
Cosmo, I agree with you in that we can't keep our greedy little fingers out of another country's oil, but to say we need to go fix their mess is crazy, Especially at the cost of our military. Its an Iraqi problem now. Staying out of Syria may have been Obama's best move since he's been in office. He should do the same here.
Also, to say 'it's not our problem now' completely misses the fact that these terrorists are funded by washington (via)/and middle eastern puppet regimes. They're playing both sides. Destabilizing the middle east, installing subservient dictators, and possibly re-drawing maps along ethnic and sectarian lines (Balkanization), is an over-arching goal of US foreign policy.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/imagine-if-iraq-had-not-been-invaded-263398751.html
Imagine If Iraq Had Not Been Invaded
Whatever else you may say about the "young war criminal" (as British journalist Alan Watkins used to call former prime minister Tony Blair), he certainly fights his corner with great determination. He is condemned to spend his life defending his part in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and last weekend he was at it again.
In a 3,000-word essay on his website, Tony Blair wrote about last week's conquest of almost half Iraq's territory by the fanatical fighters of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria): "We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that 'we' have caused this. We haven't." What he really meant by "we," of course, was "I."
But at least give Blair credit for producing an interesting argument. "As for how these (recent) events reflect on the original decision to remove Saddam," he wrote, "...(the argument) is that but for the invasion of 2003, Iraq would be a stable country today....
"Consider the post-2011 Arab uprisings. Put into the equation the counterfactual -- that Saddam and his two sons would be running Iraq in 2011 when the uprisings began. Is it seriously being said that the revolution sweeping the Arab world would have hit Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria... but miraculously Iraq, under the most brutal and tyrannical of all the regimes, would have been an oasis of calm?
"So it is a bizarre reading of the cauldron that is the Middle East today, to claim that but for the removal of Saddam, we would not have a crisis."
Blair is employing one of his favourite techniques: winning an argument with a straw man. Nobody is actually saying that if the United States, Britain and some hangers-on had not illegally invaded Iraq in 2003, the country would be an "oasis of calm" today. Of course the Arab Spring would have come to Iraq, too, and of course there would be huge turmoil in the country today.
If Saddam Hussein had managed to hang on to power in the face of a democratic uprising in 2011 that was initially non-violent, Iraq today might be in a civil war somewhat like that in Syria. And if his dictatorship had been overthrown in 2011, whatever new government emerged in Iraq would certainly be contending with acute ethnic and sectarian rivalries today.
But the living standards, infrastructure, and health and educational services of a quite developed country would not have been massively degraded by a decade of invasion, foreign occupation and popular resistance. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were killed in these events would still be alive (although Saddam's secret police would have murdered the usual thousand or so each year). And above all there would be no ISIS, nor anything like it.
There were no terrorists in Iraq in 2003. There were people with radical Islamist ideas, but they kept quiet for fear of Saddam's torturers and there weren't very many of them. And there were no "weapons of mass destruction" either. It was an exceptionally dumb war, to borrow Barack Obama's famous phrase, and it began the destruction of Iraq.
It is the deep sectarian divisions in Iraq's Arabic-speaking population (the Kurds are a separate issue) that are now completing that process of destruction. However, as with the distinctions between Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Muslims in old Yugoslavia before the breakup and the Balkan wars of the 1990s, most Sunnis and Shias in Iraq before 2003 lived side by side with a fairly low degree of friction.
It was the fight against foreign occupation after 2003 that radicalized people in Iraq and drove so many of them back into narrow sectarian identities. "Al-Qaida in Iraq," the original name for what now calls itself ISIS, was born in that struggle, and Tony Blair and George W. Bush were its midwives.
It's striking that al-Qaida in Iraq's main target during the occupation was to kill large numbers of Shias rather than lots of Americans. Its strategy was to provoke a sectarian war in which Iraqi Sunnis would be losing at first -- but then their plight would trigger intervention by Sunni states in the region and lead to a general Sunni-Shia war. It was a convoluted, nasty and deeply unrealistic strategy, but it made sense in terms of their radical Islamist ideology.
If there had been no invasion, and Saddam Hussein had been overthrown by a popular revolution only three years ago, there would certainly be great tension in a newly democratic Iraq now.
Sunni Arabs would be having trouble coming to terms with their minority status (which most were unaware of under Saddam). Shias would be tempted to exploit their majority status unfairly. Kurds would be pushing for more autonomy.
But they would be doing so in an atmosphere that had not been contaminated by a decade of sectarian hatred and savagery. There would be no organizations like ISIS dedicated to waging a sectarian war. And even if Saddam Hussein had not been overthrown and Iraq was caught up in a civil war like Syria's, it would have a far less sectarian character. As would Syria's, for that matter.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Obviously, that is way over simplified, but the point remains the same.
...
“Some say the Islamic militant group that is violently overtaking large parts of Syria and now Iraq could have been stopped if the situation there had not been neglected,” Fox News host Martha MacCallum reported during her Monday broadcast. “In fact, in 2007, President George W. Bush pretty much laid this out as it is happening.”
After a clip of Bush talking about potential violence in Iraq, MacCallum turned to former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card to back up her point.
“Yes, President Bush did anticipate this being a likely outcome if we didn’t do some thing right, and President Obama and his team has not done some things right. The lack of a status of forces agreement is paramount to the cause of this angst right now. And I’m troubled by it.”
...
And at no time during the segment did MacCallum or Card mention that it was President Bush who signed the status of forces agreement in 2008 that said all U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by 2012.
ref. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html?_r=1&
"The proposed agreement, which took nearly a year to negotiate with the United States, not only sets a date for American troop withdrawal, but puts new restrictions on American combat operations in Iraq starting Jan. 1 and requires an American military pullback from urban areas by June 30. Those hard dates reflect a significant concession by the departing Bush administration, which had been publicly averse to timetables. "
...
On December 14, 2008, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the security pact with Iraq. You might have remember this because someone almost hit him with a shoe that day.
Hail, Hail!!!
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I have a great idea...How about we bring all our men and women in uniform home, close every overseas base that we have. How about America starts to help its citizens instead of protecting its interests (Big Oil, Big Banks, Big Corporations).
Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler once said "I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. "
General Butler spoke those words in 1933 and 81 years later its the same shit. All these wars are done for profit. Our Presidents have been nothing more than puppets and the American people, especially those in uniform, have been played.
I love my country. I love what the founding fathers did and I love the fact that this country took my parents in when they lost their homeland. But this is NOT the America that our founders wanted for us. Our founders warned us of accruing debt ($17 Trillion and counting) and warned us of interfering in others affairs (Name a country and we have been there) The America that our founders envisioned for us is long gone.
Sorry for the long rant.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
this is so clearly bush's fault. as stated, bush signed the status of forces agreement, essentially tying obama's hands. he wanted to stay longer, but iraq wanted us out.
the people that engineered the original invasion are all back in the media and on the talk shows. they are not being taken to task by anybody in the media. it is the media's responsibility to provide truth in the reports, but they aren't doing it. the media is complicit in all of this. they are wanting more military action in iraq because it sells papers and generates page hits. proper journalism is dead in this country.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The U.S, with the help of it's poodle, Tony Blair, carried out an illegal invasion, based on a prolonged and concerted campaign of lying to the public - an invasion that killed over a million Iraqi's and destabilized the entire country. Does the U.S and it's poodle now have anything to answer for?
I'd say it does, unequivocally.
Murdering over a million people and destroying a country does not constitute doing somebody a favour.
And if the U.S is really so concerned about brutal regimes that routinely murder innocent, men, women, and children, then why does it not bother them that $4 Billion of their tax dollars go to Israel every year?
Maybe it's time for the U.S to follow to example of the Arab Spring and remove these lying, murdering hucksters from power?
...speaks volumes.
Clearly mass murder is just a joke to these people. Killing men, women and children is something to laugh about.
And these are the people we elect to govern us, and to dictate foreign policy?
Hears another example of the type of scheming, murdering scumbags that you vote for every four years:
and mccain was a POW.
you would think that he, of ALL people, would know a little better that ignorance and arrogance is bad foreign policy...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I believe we should get our people out of the embassy; which will not be an easy task and that is it. We have tried diplomacy but Maliki refused to budge on the Status of Forces Treaty - there was no way we could stay in a country without that being renegotiated.
Two things that really bother me - 1. All that Congress has been saying since President Obama took office is that we have a huge deficit and cannot afford to pass, say, a job's bill with heavy emphasis on infrastructure which is falling apart here. So the bill doesn't even come up for a vote. Cut food stamps cause they are a drain on the economy. But whenever there is a foreign conflict; that flies out the window and money is no problem. I have a huge problem with this.
2. We no longer have a draft; so 1% of the country fights our wars. I am not in favor of the draft, but I do not think that the same neo cons who said we'd be in and out in 6 months tops and greeted as liberators back in 2003 should be showing their faces on every damn news show saying how weak & clueless Obama is (par for the course) and talk about war like they are in any position to even utter a word - all of them should be banned from speaking about this situation. And if they have such a hard-on for more Middle Eastern war - then the first people to go over should be those of fighting age from their families; followed by Congress and the Senate's families. How eager would they be then?
Bush and his crew screwed up royally in 2003, and i do not believe that this country has to continue to pay for their stupidity and complete ignorance of the history of Mesopotamia. Do I hate seeing people being killed - hell ya. is there a part of me, as an American, who feels we should help - yes. But we are not the only country on this planet and Europe, especially, has been allowing us to do the dirty work for decades and decades. All of the people involved are enemies of ours. And if we talk to one- we are pissing off another one who hates us more. Al-Maliki needs to go - he is doing just what Sadam did except the loyalties are switched. He refused to work with us to help build a representative government. We did not break Iraq - specific people did. We are not obligated to fix it. And we are extremely narcissistic if we think that we can fix this problem which has existed for hundreds and hundreds of years.
just get our people the hell out of there. Attempt some diplomacy, but I think that a better understanding of the Arab history and people are necessary.
And, as stated above, in our absence will come Russia - no doubt. No wonder Presidents turn grey. This is truly a clusterfuck - has Bush had any comment? Or is he painting shower portraits? ~X(
I think it is worth remembering that the wars in the middle east, especially in Iraq, have destroyed for all time a vast amount of incredible art and architecture- really, much of their culture as a whole. Disastrous.
Another player is Saudi Arabia - our 'great' friend. From where did most of the 9/11 hijackers originate? And who has Saudi Arabia been funding during the Syrian tragedy?
I really can't think of one good option; but there are people far wiser than I who are without answers (and i respect those who actually say that). They don't want us there; we invaded their country; let's leave them alone.
Money, air strikes, and reparations aren’t going to solve what’s going on right now. Education is the key.
Godfather.
Godfather.
Godfather.
Godfather.
What more do you need?
Did you read the article Hugh posted? Does it make you ponder what might have happned if the USA didnt attack Iraq? Do you think we'd be better off, or worse off? We're all going to have an opinion on what we've learned, whether or not there are things we dont know.
Bush's idiotic decisions is likely why most of America didnt trust the Republicans after his term was up. He essentially put Obama in the White house because America was afraid of McCain and Romney