By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mr Khan said:
KungKras said:
I see only one solution for this.
The USA fucked up Iraq from the beginning, so they should take their resposibility and go eliminate ISIS.
Then Iraq needs to be split into three states. A Kurdish, a Shia and a Sunni.

That's the important thing. The only reason ISIS is being tolerated and/or helped by the local populace in parts of Iraq is because the Sunni tribal leaders do not trust Maliki's government at all, and so would rather work with the Islamist group so crazy that they've been disavowed by Al-Qaeda and the Taliban alike. Jordan, for instance, is pretty much pure Sunni and is having none of this ISIS nonsense. If Sunni Iraq were its own state, it wouldn't have this problem.

The Sunni people support ISIS because they aren't the one's suffering. The Shiites are being killed by them. The Sunni people were already annoyed that the Shia government wasn't treating them fairly. This government was probably a big change for them as well, since Sunni Saddam probably treated the Sunni's well.

In the end, all this will end with many lives lost, and Iraq will probably be seperated into 3 seperate states. And that would be exactly what Israel wants.



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

Around the Network
Goatseye said:
LiquorandGunFun said:

You think it was up to one man to decide the fate of the troops in Iraq?

Maliki didn't want US troops there that your King Bush put there to avenge his dad's failure.

Obama had many misteps, but pulling troops out of a zone that nobody wanted us there is NOT one.

There was nothing else to be done in Iraq and the cost of operating numerous bases and boots on the ground is not something a weak economy can afford. But I'm pretty sure you give rats ass about our economy.

king bush. dont care about economy? wtf?  

yeah... im done here.

im going to take a page from Mark Twain on this one and not even argue it.



 

bouzane said:
Mr Khan said:

The poor job of nationbuilding in Iraq is the big one, although to be fair to us Americans, Iraq is really a country that shouldn't exist as a cohesive political entity, but it was too tall of an order for the US and coalition allies to partition the country outright.

A stronger dose of federalization should have been the better idea; more local control for regional governments to help ease sectarian tensions.

Iraq is definitely better off without Saddam. It's not like the Iraqis themselves could have overthrown him peacefully (it's not a homogenous society like South Korea or Chile, who overthrew their dictators peacefully). It would have been just as bad as Syria had Saddam's downfall come endogenously.


I can agree with everything you said except for the bolded. Under Saddam Iraq was a highly productive nation that enjoyed relatively good education, healthcare, infrastructure and a secular legal system. He may have been a statist (something I oppose) but it may have been a necessary evil as it prevented the spread of Islamofascism. My biggest gripe with Saddam was the warmongering and that's hardly an uncommon policy :(

Warmongering and lots of internal torture and extrajudicial killings, not to mention brief spurts of genocide like the gassings of Kurds and Shias in the 80s. It wasn't a pretty place to live, either through the 80s in the war with Iran, and then after that the country basically fell under perpetual siege after the disastrous First Gulf War.

I can agree that the Baathists and pre-Baathist republicans that ran the country after the fall of the British-backed Hashemites did many good things for the country, but they did so by papering over the ethnoreligious differences through force and fear of force, which is ultimately unsustainable.

Iraq may have been better off for *enduring* Baathist rule, in the sense of what the Baathists brought, but removing it had to happen, and if you compare what has happened in Iraq to what has happened in Syria, it wouldn't have gone well in any direction.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

deskpro2k3 said:
Good opportunity for Iran to invade.

What will happen then I wonder.

Iran will not invade. They don't want to be involved in a war. 

Iran has already sent troops to Syria to protect Assad and are sending troops to Iraq to fight ISIS and stop these terrorists from reaching their own border. But most importantly, they've sent troops and miliary aircraft to protect the Shiite shrines in Iraq. If ISIS takes over the Shia cities, they will stroy those shrines, and those places are the some of the most religious places in Shia Islam. 



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

Hopefully a common threat will unite US, Iraq, Iran and other neighboring countries in the Middle East.
Those people really need a generation or two of peace just to reflect their relation and future. Most people that fight in Syria and Iraq aren't even native of those places. So, those countries need to get their sovereignty back and think for themselves, instead of getting pushed around by the West, Saudis and some psychopath groups.



Around the Network

:'(

That's what happens when you fuck a country up, mess with the status quo, and establish something alien and unsustainable.



LemonSlice said:
:'(

That's what happens when you fuck a country up, mess with the status quo, and establish something alien and unsustainable.

Sooner or later that was gonna happen in Iraq unfortunately. Saddam just delayed it and the War sped it up.



Goatseye said:
LemonSlice said:
:'(

That's what happens when you fuck a country up, mess with the status quo, and establish something alien and unsustainable.

Sooner or later that was gonna happen in Iraq unfortunately. Saddam just delayed it and the War sped it up.

Isn't it interesting how Israel isn't worried about these terrorists? And more importantly. these radical 'Islamists' never mention Israel. They always say that they hope to create a big Islamic state from Palestine, Syria, and Iraq. Something doesn't seem right...



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

MoHasanie said:

Isn't it interesting how Israel isn't worried about these terrorists? And more importantly. these radical 'Islamists' never mention Israel. They always say that they hope to create a big Islamic state from Palestine, Syria, and Iraq. Something doesn't seem right...

Israel really has a grip on their borders unlike the neighboring countries.

Nobody or no group in Israel would house ISIS members unlike Syria and Iraq.You have to think about that before other possiblities.



Goatseye said:
LemonSlice said:
:'(

That's what happens when you fuck a country up, mess with the status quo, and establish something alien and unsustainable.

Sooner or later that was gonna happen in Iraq unfortunately. Saddam just delayed it and the War sped it up.

Got something 50 pageish I could read?