[Belize King]

Iraq is the gift that keeps giving. Until "terrorists" gain a goths and actively attacks America. Who the fuck cares. Their country their problems.

Bush and his "we will attack any country who harbors terrorists" bullshit policy. We are not the world police.

As I say this, I get deployed to Kuwait haha. I wouldn't mind another deployment right now.

[Orion]

(06-18-2014 07:14 AM)Icarus Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 06:58 AM)Orion Wrote:  

So, yes, when i said "in the best interest of Iraqi people" i mean "best interest of America", and by that i mean divided Arab population in Iraq, just as they did in Syria

Honest question: why is it in the best interest of the U.S. to keep Arabs divided in Iraq and Syria? It's only benefiting Iran.

One hypothesis is that as long as Iraq and Syria are engaged in civil wars, a gas pipeline from Iran to Syria through Iraq will not be built. This means that Iran cannot easily export its natural gas. Let us recall that Iran is the world's 3rd largest natural gas producer.

Assuming that this hypothesis is correct, it is possible that the annexation of Crimea has changed the U.S. interests in the region. If Iraq and Syria are stabilized and the gas pipeline is built, then Europe's natural gas markets could be supplied with Iranian gas, which would reduce Russia's power and influence, and weaken the Russian economy, of course.

Russia can always build a gas pipeline in the Caspian Sea and import Iranian gas at a low price, then export it to Europe at a higher price. Iran would become a Russian puppet and the U.S. sanctions on Iran would become a farce. Does that benefit the U.S.? I don't think so. This Russia-Iran alliance is natural and was proposed by Aleksandr Dugin back in the 1990s.

Isn't it obvious why such a resource rich region, united with single ethnic group and single religion, with strong and growing manpower is priority to keep unstable ? Everyone is strengthening their defenses nowadays, and west, particularly Europe, is very vulnerable to fossil fuels deficiency. If someone embargoed Europe one day, it would be unable to wage any prolonged wars, because of it's poverty in oil. So what do they do ? They instal their companies overseas to export oil back home and stack enough reserves.

[Icarus]

(06-18-2014 09:46 AM)Orion Wrote:  

If someone embargoed Europe one day, it would be unable to wage any prolonged wars, because of it's poverty in oil. So what do they do ? They instal their companies overseas to export oil back home and stack enough reserves.

That sounds like an extreme oversimplification of the problem.

Generally, it is in the U.S.'s best interest to stabilize the Middle East. But to keep the countries in the region heavily dependent on the U.S. (for protection and military technology, for instance) and to keep such countries' interests aligned with U.S. interests.

If Saudi Arabia decided to impose another oil embargo, the U.S. Navy could blockade all harbors and let the Saudis slowly starve to death. You can't grow much food in the desert, after all. The U.S. could also use diplomacy to "force" Jordan, Oman, the UAE, and Yemen to close their borders with Saudi Arabia. The U.S. could also forge an alliance with Iran to spite the Saudis. And the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve exists to keep the country running during such a crisis.

[Andy_B]

This is just slightly off topic, but I'm posting here because it doesn't warrant a new thread.

But can anyone explain the U.S.'s strategy early in the Iraq war, when they basically just indiscriminately bombed the shit out of Baghdad?

It seemed like such a ridiculous strategy, considering that one of their arguments in favor of the war was the Saddam was 'oppressing his own people'. Well... There were probably more of regular Iraqi people in Baghdad than government officials, so what the fuck was the point of the whole 'shock and awe' thing?

[vinman]

(06-18-2014 10:09 AM)Andy_B Wrote:  

This is just slightly off topic, but I'm posting here because it doesn't warrant a new thread.

But can anyone explain the U.S.'s strategy early in the Iraq war, when they basically just indiscriminately bombed the shit out of Baghdad?

It seemed like such a ridiculous strategy, considering that one of their arguments in favor of the war was the Saddam was 'oppressing his own people'. Well... There were probably more of regular Iraqi people in Baghdad than government officials, so what the fuck was the point of the whole 'shock and awe' thing?

To spread disease and misery. To crush the will to resist.

[Quintus Curtius]

Syria, Iraq, and to a lesser extent, Lebanon have all become battlegrounds in the proxy wars between Iran and its allies on the one side (Russia, Syria), and the US and its allies on the other (Gulf states, Israel).

On top of this, the US and its allies have spent a great deal of money and effort in the past 10 years to destroy the state structures in Syria and Iraq, so as to remove dictatorships that don't adhere to its policies in the region.

In the short term, there are going to be insurgencies, disorder, violence, and chaos. It's very tragic, but this is what happens when you destroy civil institutions in the wake of military invasions. There are going to be many years of violence and chaos there, until some sort of equilibrium is reached.

As for these ISIS barbarians, these people are just revolting. There is nothing to be done with fanatics of this sort except root them out and destroy them utterly. But here again, we have to remind ourselves that this is what happens when the US and Saudi Arabia continue to fund, arm, and supply Islamist organizations. This is what you get.

It's a hypocritical, lying, double game the US and Israel are playing. They like to pretend that they're so "shocked" about the appearance of these Islamist fanatic zombies like ISIS, when in reality they've been funding and supporting just such groups to try to overthrow Assad in Syria for a long time.

Only Israel and Saudi Arabia are benefitting from all this. Israel wants to see chaos and destruction in Iraq and Syria, so as to prevent the emergence of powerful competitors on its borders. They've been doing this for decades. They sow death and destruction in the region to further their plans of Greater Israel and solidify their control over the West Bank and Gaza. They foment divisions and hatreds among groups in the region. Saudi Arabia is a corrupt, degenerate state that is terrified of Iran and Shi'ism, and has its own reasons for supporting Sunni militants. And the US just does whatever Israel tells it to do.

ISIS is not strong enough to topple the government in Baghdad. But the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel don't care about that. They just want to keep chaos and instability going, so that Israel and Saudi Arabia are kept safe and happy.

[Icarus]

(06-18-2014 10:09 AM)Andy_B Wrote:  

But can anyone explain the U.S.'s strategy early in the Iraq war, when they basically just indiscriminately bombed the shit out of Baghdad?

I think you're completely mistaken. The initial "shock & awe" bombing was surgical and directed at the Ba'ath Party, not indiscriminate. Indiscriminate bombing would have been WWII-like carpet bombing.

[samsamsam]

(06-18-2014 10:24 AM)Icarus Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 10:09 AM)Andy_B Wrote:  

But can anyone explain the U.S.'s strategy early in the Iraq war, when they basically just indiscriminately bombed the shit out of Baghdad?

I think you're completely mistaken. The initial "shock & awe" bombing was surgical and directed at the Ba'ath Party, not indiscriminate. Indiscriminate bombing would have been WWII-like carpet bombing.

Icarus, that makes it all better now

1) I think it was horrible to divert resources to go to Iraq, but they still had opportunities to make it workeable
2) Disbanding the army was dumb
3) Maliki was a Bush puppet and all he did was help his people
4) You can talk Alpha all you want - but if you don't work toward some compromises (which to some degree means respect for others) you will never get stability. Maliki didn't try to work with the other groups
5) From what I understand, people from the Middle East have a big thing about history, honor, disrespect, revenge killings...hmmm...I wonder what dots can be connected.

I am a big fucking fan of the US military and have deep respect for them, but I hate the idea we destroyed lives and families for nothing (here and abroad).

[L M McCoy]

Quote:

They've been doing this for decades. They sow death and destruction in the region to further their plans of Greater Israel and solidify their control over the West Bank and Gaza. They foment divisions and hatreds among groups in the region

Yeah, if you look at a timeline when shit hit the fan in the ME, it was when they decided to expel thousands of Arabs and import a minority of Jews and millions of Eastern Europeans who eventually ended up converting to Judaism. I mean for fucks sake, Israel's first PM was an atheist.


Also, after America left Iraq in shambles, many children had lost their parents/family. I may be wrong but a lot of these ISIS guys look very young. I know these militias came in and probably raised these kids and polluted their minds.

[Icarus]

VICE News is now in Iraq, too!!

[TonySandos]

That last Mosul civilian comes off as a Sunni, ISIS supporter. The other videos put out directly by the group clearly state that they demand conversion to Sunni Islam and their Imams' interpretations of Sharia

[Farmageddon]

The Peshmerga would destroy ISIS if they ever had the gumption to do so. But I don't blame the Kurds for sitting back and letting the Sunnis and Shiites destroy themselves. Good riddance.

[Foolsgo1d]

I dont like the ignorant comments surrounding this. How it is Iraq's problem and not ours.

It is our problem as an international community and aggressor.

The USA wanted to destabilize Syria even further by destroying military infrastructure which was being used to fight the likes of ISIS. These "rebels" are not the type who fight some evil empire, they're murdering psychopaths out for a killing fix.

They were kicked out of Syria by a combination of factors and now they saw an easy target. They know the Iraqi military wont fight a good fight unless they're protecting their own tribe.

To say ISIS will take Baghdad is laughable.

Russia, US, NATO, & Iran have a vested interest in coordinating aerial and tactical strikes against ISIS right fucking now before they scarper back into their rat holes.

They are out in the open and exposed. A perfect time to corral them into a bottleneck, find their commanders and hardliners and kill them.

Corpses do not pose a threat to a nations security. The CIA and MI6, Iranian intelligence know their locations, the time to act on these guys is now.

[samsamsam]

Foolsgold1,

Of course it is our nation's problem. And the world's to a degree.

Colin Powell said from the beginning "You break it you buy it"

"Colin Powell said this to President Bush before the Iraq invasion:

“You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people. You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You’ll own it all.”

Problem is what to do. Worse yet the same assholes that pushed for this are back again in the news. They were the morons who gave the idiot Bush bad advice in the first place. Pride is a terrible thing and they will go their graves thinking this was the most genius thing ever.

Sadly, it may be best to just try to contain it without stopping it. Many innocents will die and once settled they will try to exact revenge against those they believe did this to their country. You know who I blame, Bud Selig, Commissioner of Baseball.

Quote:

Of all the people blamed for the Iraq war and the failures of the Bush administration, the name of Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig rarely comes up. But maybe it should. Selig has held his job since 1992, but for several years he was technically the acting commissioner, a team owner merely caretaking the job while searching for a permanent replacement. George W. Bush, then part-owner of the Texas Rangers, was candid about his interest in the position. Selig dithered, Bush gave up and soon decided that politics might be a good alternative career.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/03/...oe-kluger3

[KorbenDallas]

I don't like Bush.

That said, Bush hasn't been president for 6 years.

When does Bush become Emanuel Goldstein? Will Hillary be blaming Bush for her problems too?

What about this quote from Biden,

Quote:

"I am very optimistic about Iraq. I think it’s gonna be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re gonna see 90,000 troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re gonna see a stable Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government…I’ve been impressed by how they’ve been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.”

Anyone want to acknowledge the fact that Obama takes credit for good things that happen, but if anything bad happens its Bush's fault?

Bush was bad, and Obama's been worse. My two cents.

[TonySandos]

(06-18-2014 03:40 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

To say ISIS will take Baghdad is laughable.

Russia, US, NATO, & Iran have a vested interest in coordinating aerial and tactical strikes against ISIS right fucking now before they scarper back into their rat holes.

They are out in the open and exposed. A perfect time to corral them into a bottleneck, find their commanders and hardliners and kill them.

Corpses do not pose a threat to a nations security. The CIA and MI6, Iranian intelligence know their locations, the time to act on these guys is now.

•the native insurgency, AQI and ISIS in coordination, or not, pose a legitimate threat to taking Baghdad. If they successfully choke off the capital of it's external infrastructure and economic necessities, either unrest or service outages will cause ample conditions for them to mount a formidable, even if protracted, attack. The native insurgency has been waited for this time before NATO left the country.

•Yes the CIA and other intel services will have the Jihadists 'under the barrel' so to speak for a grueling amount of time and slowly watch those opportunities slip away by diplomatic squabbling. That was common during a supported and direct war, of course we'll fall to the same circumstances under a highly political atmosphere.

[Que enspastic]

I don't blame Bush as much as I blame the neo-cons in his ear. And Tony Blair - without him, Bush would have lacked the rhetorical sword and the modicum of international standing he needed to win his case. Prior to 9/11 Bush had no intention of invading other countries. His proclaimed foreign policy was supposed to be a rebuke to Clinton's years of activism - in the Balkans, Somalia, etc - he wasn't interested.

9/11 was a strategic shock that brought about a sense of crisis and urgency, a period of profound soul-searching. Why did it happen? How best to respond? The response was to be delivered by an enraged country more powerful than any other in the history of the world.

The US from 1991-2003 had unilateral power of a scale never before seen, the likes of which may never be seen again. It was greater than the British Empire at its zenith, Napoleonic France or the great Roman Empire in 117AD. It was a preponderance of power that faced no significant constraints by rivals whatsoever in the international sphere. In 2014 by contrast, the world is increasingly more multi-polar due to the rise of China, Brazil, etc and re-emergence of Russia.

9/11 was America's 21st century Pearl Habor moment. There was a need for action and it required a vision to channel it. The only ones who were throwing out "answers" were the likes of Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Bremer etc who occupied key positions of power and influence within the Bush Administration. The neo-cons had influential thinkers in Krauthammer and Kristol, among others, and the propaganda arm of Murdoch in the form of Fox News. It was flavour of the month.

Bush placed his trust in his closest advisors, and the prescription they offered was a dangerous one, their ideological bent focused on replacing despotic regimes with democracy, particularly in the Middle East, preventive war, and unilateral action. This, it promised, would bring true stability to the region, significant economic rewards while shoring up US national security.

In reality it was a recipe for fanning the flames of extremism across the Middle East, an exercise in self-ostracism for the US within the international community, and a waste of immense treasure, blood and good will.

[samsamsam]

Yes it is much easier to put out a fire than to start one. What was I thinking?

[Icarus]

(06-18-2014 04:27 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  

The US from 1991-2003 had unilateral power of a scale never before seen, the likes of which may never be seen again. It was greater than the British Empire at its zenith, Napoleonic France or the great Roman Empire in 117AD. It was a preponderance of power that faced no significant constraints by rivals whatsoever in the international sphere.

That is the mainstream narrative, and I think it's bullshit.

From 1991 to 2003, the U.S. had enough firepower to kill all living beings in the Middle East, human and otherwise. The U.S. still has that firepower, actually. But, then, so does Russia.

Let's see what the U.S. did in those 12 years. In 1993 it got humiliated in Somalia (everybody has watched Black Hawk Down). In 1995 it finally ended the conflict in Bosnia, after 3 years of fighting that revealed how utterly impotent Europeans have become since 1945. In 1998 it bombed Iraq. In 1999 it bombed Serbia. On both occasions it had air superiority, of course.

Yet, the U.S. left Somalia without fixing the country. And the U.S. defeated Serbia not by bombing, but by engineering a color revolution (Georgia and Ukraine would follow in 2003 and 2004, respectively).

The British Empire would have conquered Serbia. The Mongols would have done it, too. The Ottomans actually did. The U.S. bombed from 30,000 feet above because Clinton did not want to see Americans dragged on the streets ever again. Mogadishu 1993 was enough.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a success. But pacifying the country took 8 years. The mongols pacified Baghdad a lot quicker, and left some 1 million skeletons behind.

The point I am trying to make is that the U.S. has enough firepower to split the Earth in two, but it's not really that powerful. Why? Because the U.S. cannot use most of its firepower, especially due to Russia and China. The Romans could use maximum brutality, because China was very far away from Rome at the time. The British could, because photographs and electronic communications had not been invented (or made ubiquitous) yet. The U.S. cannot because the American public does not understand what war is and, much more importantly, because the portable video camera is mightier than the sword.

The mere fact that people believe that you need "hearts & minds" to win wars says it all about our pathetic Zeitgeist. Did the Mongols win battles because they conquered hearts & minds?

Where the U.S. attains supremacy is in the diplomatic arena. The U.S. State Department has more power than the Pentagon, because the weapons of the former are more socially acceptable in the 21st century than the weapons of the latter.

[TonySandos]

"The U.S. cannot because the American public does not understand what war is and, much more importantly, because the portable video camera is mightier than the sword."

Amazing assertion. The American public has been losing wars since Vietnam. The military in contrast has more or less stayed consistent.

[Icarus]

(06-18-2014 05:14 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

Amazing assertion. The American public has been losing wars since Vietnam. The military in contrast has more or less stayed consistent.

Something happened in the 1960s. The baby boomers came up with the silly idea that military power can only be used to attain a righteous goal. Unfortunately, only people detached from reality would conflate war and righteousness. In other words, the American public opinion has essentially castrated the military.

This would not be a problem in the old days. But when every soldier can take photos of corpses, xerox classified documents, and leak those to the New York Times, then the military in a warzone has dozens if not hundreds of potential PR problems to face everyday.

[AnonymousBosch]

(06-18-2014 04:14 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

When does Bush become Emanuel Goldstein? Will Hillary be blaming Bush for her problems too?

It's almost like politics isn't about helping people, keeping society stable or solving social problems but simply perpetuating power for those currently in charge...

Which is why whatever happens is always the previous governments fault, and anything being currently-attempted is always done in a half-arsed, temporary-fix way, (because making it work would be expensive and could possibly cost votes), since you can pass the buck of responsibility for making it truly work to a later government.

[scorpion]

The senile warmonger John McCain and his homosexual sidekick Lindsey Graham are beating the drums of war and sowing fears about ISIS planning "another 9/11". Truly an odious pair, those two.

I'd like to see them personally fly over to Baghdad to try and work things out on the ground. With any luck they'd make an appearance in ISIS's next YouTube video.

[germanico]

(06-18-2014 10:21 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

There are going to be many years of violence and chaos there, until some sort of equilibrium is reached.

Until the wells run dry.

Quote:

It's almost like politics isn't about helping people, keeping society stable or solving social problems but simply perpetuating power for those currently in charge.

Politics is never about the people. Its all a game of chess.

But in chess, both king and pawn are moved by the same hand.

Quote:

because the portable video camera is mightier than the sword.

You keep forgetting that everything you see in media, down to the color of the news anchor tie, is there because someone wants you to think a certain way.

Quote:

Yet, the U.S. left Somalia without fixing the country

No strategic advantage in "fixing" Somalia.

Quote:

The Romans could use maximum brutality, because China was very far away from Rome at the time. The British could, because photographs and electronic communications had not been invented (or made ubiquitous) yet.

So, you think pictures of dead thracian babies would have toppled the government of a civilization that watched slaves fight to death for entertainment?

Quote:

9/11 was America's 21st century Pearl Habor moment. There was a need for action and it required a vision to channel it.

And like Pearl Harbor, it achieved no strategic importance to the attackers and was convenient for the larger scale plans of the people in charge.

[Matt3B]

(06-18-2014 05:51 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

The senile warmonger John McCain and his homosexual sidekick Lindsey Graham are beating the drums of war and sowing fears about ISIS planning "another 9/11". Truly an odious pair, those two.

I'd like to see them personally fly over to Baghdad to try and work things out on the ground. With any luck they'd make an appearance in ISIS's next YouTube video.

David Cameron today has been drumming the same tune about how people in the UK are at threat whether we do something or not (ie, intervene in the situation).

I've seen some fucked up videos on the internet, but that one of the shootings from the car is the heaviest I've ever seen.