My Musings on the Fall of Iraq

13

Replies

  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,952 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    I'm sitting here watching the U.S. Open contemplating what I've read on this thread and it hit me like a ton of bricks. It makes no difference what any of us think whether we thought it could have succeded or failed. It's in the stars, the gears are in motion and they have been since the 2008 elections. There was no way Iraq would have beeen allowed to stand with a democratic administration in control. It won't happen. Because it was Bush's brain child and the Dummycraps have done everything including treason to derail the whole thing since day one.

    Good point, BUT I think it's safe to say a majority of the U.S. wanted our troops out sooner rather than later... regardless of whether or not that was the mpst sensible thing to do. So as much as it pains me to say this (and believe me it hurts), he *was* responding to "the will of the people". Poorly informed people perhaps, but still....

    Of course, a GOOD leader examines all the evidence and then tries to educate his constituents as to the best course of action, and LEADS them there. Something Obama will likely never do on ANY important issue.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • gunwalkergunwalker Member Posts: 470 Member
    What do you guys think about this theory? The current president of Iraq is Shia and was in exile in Iran for 24 years. When he returned to Iraq to run for president he had an ulterior motive and that was to create a large unified state that was part of Iran and all Shia. However he miscalculated what could happen after U.S. withdrawal .
    We do not view the world as it is, but as we perceive it to be.
  • RazorbackerRazorbacker Senior Member Posts: 4,646 Senior Member
    What keeps hitting me right between the eyes is picturing some guy sitting on his couch, one leg and one arm were left behind in the desert. he's probably got at least mild PTSD but so far he has comforted himself that it was worth it. But this rudderless administration has thrown it all away, and for what!?
    Obysmal did not grow up here, he does not share our values. This spawn of a flower child and an America hating foreign national. He suckled at the teats of and bounced on the knees of commies and pinkos. He thinks the USA is the cause of all that is wrong in the world and should therefore be taken down a peg or two. And he's done it, while mocking the law and a spineless congress. With the help of a completely compliant 4th estate.They are equally guilty.
    Even if the Repubs retake the Senate and keep the house, it's too little; too late. Iraq is lost and the next domino is Afghanistan. His main puppeteer, Valerie Jarret is making sure Iran will get the bomb and Israel will act. Oil will pass 400 bucks a barrel. Diesel fuel will hit 10 bucks a gallon and our JIT food delivery system will fail.
    150,000,000 peoples checks won't come and they'll wander the streets. All systems will have collapsed. Capitalism and the free markets system will be blamed and the plan will have worked.
    If I don't see ya again in this world; I'll see ya in the next one, and don't be late.
    Teach your children to love guns, they'll never be able to afford drugs
  • centermass556centermass556 Senior Member Posts: 3,508 Senior Member
    Shush, some of your comments have reminded me of a Regimental Sergeant Major I used to each lunch with my last tour in Kabul. Whenever the Pakistani delegation would come near our table he would say "stand ready men, there's the enemy." The first time he said it, I almost spewed my tea across the table.
    "To have really lived, you must have almost died. To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    Yes, we are awfully sensitive and very diplomatic souls. :tooth:

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,832 Senior Member
    Another reason we shouldn't just let Iraq fall is that we are their ally and if we let them fall every thug in the world will do this in other countries that we are supposed to be allies of. Not that Obama commands any respect around the world, hell Putin and all other thugs are laughing at him, but if he doesn't take a stand now, then I fear that all the dominoes will fall. This kind of thing is what causes major wars. We have treaties with many countries and at some point we will have to take a stand. And when that happens it may have gone so far as to drag other countries such as China and India into the fray. This is not good. The U.S. Set up this Iraqi government and we can't just let it fall. These thugs on the rampage in Iraq are not trained armies. It wouldn't take that many of our boots on the ground right now to squash this rebellion
    But we need to do it NOW!
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,832 Senior Member
    What keeps hitting me right between the eyes is picturing some guy sitting on his couch, one leg and one arm were left behind in the desert. he's probably got at least mild PTSD but so far he has comforted himself that it was worth it. But this rudderless administration has thrown it all away, and for what!?
    Obysmal did not grow up here, he does not share our values. This spawn of a flower child and an America hating foreign national. He suckled at the teats of and bounced on the knees of commies and pinkos. He thinks the USA is the cause of all that is wrong in the world and should therefore be taken down a peg or two. And he's done it, while mocking the law and a spineless congress. With the help of a completely compliant 4th estate.They are equally guilty.
    Even if the Repubs retake the Senate and keep the house, it's too little; too late. Iraq is lost and the next domino is Afghanistan. His main puppeteer, Valerie Jarret is making sure Iran will get the bomb and Israel will act. Oil will pass 400 bucks a barrel. Diesel fuel will hit 10 bucks a gallon and our JIT food delivery system will fail.
    150,000,000 peoples checks won't come and they'll wander the streets. All systems will have collapsed. Capitalism and the free markets system will be blamed and the plan will have worked.
    If I don't see ya again in this world; I'll see ya in the next one, and don't be late.

    Razor, I don't think all is lost yet, but then again if we're going to do something it has to be like in the next two days. More diplomatic talk isn't going to do anything. It's boots on the ground. That's the only thing and air strikes a plenty. And we need the fleet off shore throwing Cruise Missiles at The Scumbags. The only problem is that we don't have the right "Case Jones" at the throttle. Obamy has no idea how to throw the gas on the fire and blow these scumbags back to Syria.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,990 Senior Member
    Believe it or not CNN has reporters in Baghdad and all over the region. They showed some videos of them crazy folks passing cars and spraying them with AK 47 fire. I guess with live cams and Selfies they are beginning to record their activities more and more.

    I guess they are either Martyrs, freedom fighters or war criminals depending on which side wins. :tooth:

    I think it's all insanity, pure chaos over there when left up to their own devices. Feud on steroids! :yikes:
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,614 Senior Member
    Jeeper wrote: »
    We would be MUCH better off industrially and economically if we would just keep our noses out of other nations internal issues and trade with everyone that it benefits us to do so.

    For a while.

    The problem is that every time we pull in our horns and quit providing resistance against all the tin pot dictators and megalomaniacs that there seem to be an endless supply of, the rest of the world backs off, too, and allows them to flourish. In the past, our economic and industrial strength has kept us capable of supplying the 'good guys' with the stuff needed to wage war and feed the masses, after everybody finally figures out that the hungry alligator they have been feeding has finally cast it's beady eyes in their direction. We were once able to 'spot' the bad guys a decade or two of unrestrained growth, and still be able to pull our own chestnuts out of the fire at the last minute, and maybe a few of our allies, too. Now, not so much.

    We have allowed our politicians to legislate our economy into oblivion and chase off all those behind-the-scenes realists who had their fingers on the pulse of our enemies. We have no more of those patriotic cynics who were willing to invest a few billion dollars, here and there, to play our enemies off against one another, and we are now left with nothing but bewildered 'diplomats' who simply encourage everybody to be nice to each other. The lunatics are running the asylum.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,665 Senior Member
    The region has been "out of equilibrium" since the allies imposed arbitrary boarders on it following WWI. When a system is out of equilibrium it will always fight any order imposed upon it. The only way to deal with a system out of equilibrium is to either continuously spend energy to fight against the system's natural tendency towards equilibrium or to let go and let the system go where it wants to go. Trying to force Shia, Sunni and Kurds to co-exist in an artificial constructed state is always going to be a losing bet, until those groups decide they're willing to get along. I applaud the optimism I see from other posters, that if we only spend more money, more bombs, and more American lives we can successfully impose lasting peace and democracy on Iraq and other nations within the region, but I just don't see it happening. From my perspective attempting to impose our idea of order on the system merely breeds greater resentment against us. As long as the various factions of Islam are busy focusing their energy and hatred at eachother, it's less they can focus on us. Trying to get in the middle of it yet again and attempting to break up the fight seems ill-advised even if from a humanitarian perspective it seems like the right thing to do.

    BTW in this specific case in Iraq (and in Syria) the conflict is quickly becoming a proxy war between Iran and the Saudi's. While the Saudi's aren't nearly as active as Iran is becoming in the conflict in Iraq, the Shia rebels or militants or whatever you want to call them are much closer aligned with the Saudi's than the Sunni ruling party which has ties to Iran. In fact there appear to be strong connections between the rebels in Iraq and the rebels in Syria who the Saudi's have been arming that have been fighting the Iran backed Assad government. This of course puts us in an especially bad spot since at least to some degree we have supported the Syrian rebels, but now we may have some obligation to work with Iran to support the Iraqi government. In short it's a giant mess and I'd much rather we stayed the heck out of it!

    For those interested here's some interesting background on what's going on:

    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/intrigue-lying-behind-iraqs-jihadist-uprising
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • RazorbackerRazorbacker Senior Member Posts: 4,646 Senior Member
    Well, my morning paper says we now have new boots on the ground in Bagdad. With more on the way.
    Teach your children to love guns, they'll never be able to afford drugs
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,832 Senior Member
    Well, my morning paper says we now have new boots on the ground in Bagdad. With more on the way.

    I hope that if we do commit we send enough boots to do some good and not just get a few killed in vain.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    This them;


    ''President Barack Obama told Congress on Monday the United States was deploying up to 275 military personnel to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the country's embassy in Baghdad after militants seized control of the north of the country.''

    http://www.jewishjournal.com/nation/article/obama_tells_congress_u.s._deploying_up_to_275_troops_to_iraq

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • centermass556centermass556 Senior Member Posts: 3,508 Senior Member
    The region has been "out of equilibrium" since the allies imposed arbitrary boarders on it following WWI. When a system is out of equilibrium it will always fight any order imposed upon it. The only way to deal with a system out of equilibrium is to either continuously spend energy to fight against the system's natural tendency towards equilibrium or to let go and let the system go where it wants to go. Trying to force Shia, Sunni and Kurds to co-exist in an artificial constructed state is always going to be a losing bet, until those groups decide they're willing to get along. I applaud the optimism I see from other posters, that if we only spend more money, more bombs, and more American lives we can successfully impose lasting peace and democracy on Iraq and other nations within the region, but I just don't see it happening. From my perspective attempting to impose our idea of order on the system merely breeds greater resentment against us. As long as the various factions of Islam are busy focusing their energy and hatred at eachother, it's less they can focus on us. Trying to get in the middle of it yet again and attempting to break up the fight seems ill-advised even if from a humanitarian perspective it seems like the right thing to do.






    BTW in this specific case in Iraq (and in Syria) the conflict is quickly becoming a proxy war between Iran and the Saudi's. While the Saudi's aren't nearly as active as Iran is becoming in the conflict in Iraq, the Shia rebels or militants or whatever you want to call them are much closer aligned with the Saudi's than the Sunni ruling party which has ties to Iran. In fact there appear to be strong connections between the rebels in Iraq and the rebels in Syria who the Saudi's have been arming that have been fighting the Iran backed Assad government. This of course puts us in an especially bad spot since at least to some degree we have supported the Syrian rebels, but now we may have some obligation to work with Iran to support the Iraqi government. In short it's a giant mess and I'd much rather we stayed the heck out of it!

    For those interested here's some interesting background on what's going on:

    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/intrigue-lying-behind-iraqs-jihadist-uprising


    You're confused.

    Saudi's (KSA) are Arab and are Sunni. Not to infer that all Arabs are Sunni, however, KSA does not get into bed with Shia groups or maintains any level of Shia Connection other than those maintained for OPEC and such. CErtainly not in the interest of the SWA and Levant Landscape.

    Iran is Persian and is Shia. Again, not to infer all persians are shia, but the majority of Shiites in the world are in PErsia. This comes from the Islamic split and civil war back in the way olden days of the religion.

    Beside the fact that Arabs do not like Persians, the fact the majority of Arab Muslims are Sunni and the MAjority of PErsian Muslims are Shia only fuels the fire in the war.

    Shia Rebels are not the ones taking over the country right now. They don't have to. The Shia currently run the government. The old Shia factions of BADR Corp, JAM, and a few others wormed their way into offices in one ministry or another. Remember that. It is important. But, The Government is Shia ran and Shia owned. Iran is pulling their strings. Most of BADR corp and JAM hide in Iran at one point or another during Ba'athist rule.

    Sunni Rebels in the Form of ISIS are the ones taking over the country. Before ISIS was ISIS, it was ISIL, and before then it was ISI. IF you went back a little further, you would find that left over members from the Ba'athist party are at the heart of it. ISIS is Islamic State of IRaq and Syria. ISIL was Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. The transition from ISIL to ISIS was more or less a difference in Translation, depending on who talk to and the source. Why? Because ISIL was fighting in Syria, out of logistical/strategic places in Iraq. So, it was always ISIS. Some folks are questioning the entire "sunni" image of ISIS because of some of their tactics. But, it is mostly PR in an attempt to distant themselves from the Mass Graves and bombings...even though they are still handing ISIS money under the table.

    The attraciveness of ISIS is that without the US on the ground to keep the peace and re-assure the Sunni's they are heard and protected, it has become the Sunni Source of voice of Protection against a Shia dominated government in Bagdad. IF you look how the chips fell, out side of the Narrow Sunni Belt, the only Sunni lands are in Anbar. What is there in Anbar...Nothing. The Sunnis really feel as if they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. In the East they have the Assad/Iran thing and in the West the Baghdad/Iran in the west. They feel trapped and unprotected.

    The Syria and Assad thing is another topic for hours, if not a few days, of discussion. There are still a lot of unanswered questions out there on that.

    I question your source. Seriously. It offers a lot of conjecture and spectulation without drawing or outlining hard facts. It also does not use terms correctly. In terms of Islam, ever Person is a Jihadist. Jihad means Struggle. It refers to the inner struggle has between desires of the Flesh and submiting to Allah's will. It also does not clearly state what the Awakening Council was or is. IT was not simply Sunni fighters recruited to Fight AQI. and that is another discussion as well. Then, later in the arcticle it contridcts its self. States Suadi has no love lost for ISIS, but is communicating with them throug a splinter militia? No Saudi doesn't want ISIS in KSA lands, but ISIS is putting the Persians back on the correct side of the Diyala river. And, in that, they support them.
    "To have really lived, you must have almost died. To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,832 Senior Member
    shush wrote: »
    This them;


    ''President Barack Obama told Congress on Monday the United States was deploying up to 275 military personnel to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the country's embassy in Baghdad after militants seized control of the north of the country.''

    http://www.jewishjournal.com/nation/article/obama_tells_congress_u.s._deploying_up_to_275_troops_to_iraq

    Those are only to guard the Embassy because Odummer knows that if he gets another Embassy crew killed we will hang his butt out to dry,

    :angry: :nono: :jester:
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 7,000 Senior Member
    The region has been "out of equilibrium" since the allies imposed arbitrary boarders on it following WWI. When a system is out of equilibrium it will always fight any order imposed upon it. The only way to deal with a system out of equilibrium is to either continuously spend energy to fight against the system's natural tendency towards equilibrium or to let go and let the system go where it wants to go.

    Or, as my father likes to say, build a wall around the entire middle east and leave it alone for 100-200 years, then open up diplomatic talks with whoever's left.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,626 Senior Member
    The region has been "out of equilibrium" since the allies imposed arbitrary boarders on it following WWI. When a system is out of equilibrium it will always fight any order imposed upon it. The only way to deal with a system out of equilibrium is to either continuously spend energy to fight against the system's natural tendency towards equilibrium or to let go and let the system go where it wants to go. Trying to force Shia, Sunni and Kurds to co-exist in an artificial constructed state is always going to be a losing bet, until those groups decide they're willing to get along. I applaud the optimism I see from other posters, that if we only spend more money, more bombs, and more American lives we can successfully impose lasting peace and democracy on Iraq and other nations within the region, but I just don't see it happening. From my perspective attempting to impose our idea of order on the system merely breeds greater resentment against us. As long as the various factions of Islam are busy focusing their energy and hatred at eachother, it's less they can focus on us. Trying to get in the middle of it yet again and attempting to break up the fight seems ill-advised even if from a humanitarian perspective it seems like the right thing to do.

    BTW in this specific case in Iraq (and in Syria) the conflict is quickly becoming a proxy war between Iran and the Saudi's. While the Saudi's aren't nearly as active as Iran is becoming in the conflict in Iraq, the Shia rebels or militants or whatever you want to call them are much closer aligned with the Saudi's than the Sunni ruling party which has ties to Iran. In fact there appear to be strong connections between the rebels in Iraq and the rebels in Syria who the Saudi's have been arming that have been fighting the Iran backed Assad government. This of course puts us in an especially bad spot since at least to some degree we have supported the Syrian rebels, but now we may have some obligation to work with Iran to support the Iraqi government. In short it's a giant mess and I'd much rather we stayed the heck out of it!

    For those interested here's some interesting background on what's going on:

    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/intrigue-lying-behind-iraqs-jihadist-uprising

    Your analysis is a monument to liberal thinking. The Left looks at people through the prism of race - everybody is either white, Hispanic, black, Asian, or whatever, and naturally each (except white) has been graciously provided with a generous suite of persecutions and discriminations in an effort to make them all victims. Ethnicities in need are voters indeed, and to the rescue is liberal largess, offering sanctuary and entitlements in exchange for self-reliance, freedom and prosperity. So nobody's feelings got hurt, liberalism proclaimed the doctrines of multiculturalism and worse, cultural equivalence, and then concocted political correctness, which serves to protect these subcultures from richly deserved criticism. Validation and encouragement of less successful, and even failed and barbarous cultures takes precedence over assimilation and even peaceful coexistence. Liberals don't need no stinkin' "E Pluribus Unum!" E Pluribus Pluribus is the plan, because it works at the ballot box. Liberals don't see people as personally accountable individuals, after all, that's a Judeo-Christian concept, they just see groups.

    And so it is with the Middle East. The excuse liberals offer for all the violence and unrest is that the imperial powers drew the borders of new nations carved out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire without consideration for tribes, clans, sects and so forth. I call deja moo - we've heard that bull before. The French and the English live together peaceably in Canada, The Welsh, the Scots and the English get along in the UK. The Catholics and Protestants co-exist in Ireland. The Russian Empire embraced a dozen nationalities, and as many religions and sects, and they enjoyed internal peace for centuries under the Romanov "Tsars of all the Russias." The Hapsburgs pulled it off with the Austrians, Hungarians, Poles, Slavs, Ruthenians, Czechs, Slovaks, and so forth, keeping the lid on "Middle Europa" for centuries. The Pax Romana gave almost 200 years of peace and prosperity to the 143 nationalities of the Roman Empire, amounting to one-fourth of the world's total population. Yes, that was then, but today we have the example of the U.S.A., where people from throughout the known Universe manage to get along - regardless of ethnicity and religion, despite the efforts of the Left to arouse and divide.

    Well meaning people of good intentions are obligated to learn from history, and to try very, very hard not to repeat anyone's mistakes of the past. They're supposed to take the examples of more successful cultures and institutions and use them to their own benefit. To excuse their failure to do so by justifying and validating the hide-bound traditions, racial bigotry, religious hatred, and petty jealousies of assorted tribes, clans, and groups as "historical" just encourages them to continue failing. When Shiite and Sunni oppress each other, when Muslims hate Jews and Christians, when Persians and Arabs loathe one another, within and without their borders, just amounts to proof that these people are not qualified for self-government. Silence is acceptance. Racial bigotry, religious hatred, cruel traditions, and discrimination of every kind must be rejected out of hand, lest these excuses preclude holding each and every person in the Middle East individually accountable for every single one of their actions. Even if nations can't get along, there's no legitimate excuse for various peoples within nations not to do so. All it takes is common sense, maturity, empathy, tolerance and good intentions - the essential qualifications for self-government.

    The Middle East is a basket case because the cultures there are backward, obsolete, immature, unsophisticated, inferior, and otherwise failed. They slaughter each other because it's who and what they are. They're almost as bad as Europeans, who even though they have correctly divided themselves along recognizable ethnic, religious and geographic lines, satisfying those liberal priorities, still went trotting off after every hair-brained ideology that came along, and managed to burn their continent to the ground every other generation or so until widespread American occupation after WW2 brought reason and sensibility to soothe the savage breast. Are Europeans qualified yet for self-government? Some yes, some no.

    Bottom line is I cut the Muslims no slack, and allow them no excuses. I reject blaming their actions on the British, the French, the Ottomans, the Israelis, or anybody else. In fact, when the Middle East and Mesopotamia were occupied and colonized, they lived more peacefully than they do now. The truth is they terrorize, hurt, destroy and kill each other. and everybody else within reach, because, and only because they're easily led and don't know any better. Xenophon was right - they really are barbarians.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,990 Senior Member
    Time to rebuild the British Empire and whip them "Fuzzy Wuzzies" around the world back in-line! :tooth::roll2::roll2::roll2:

    You did make some very good points/observations, folks/ethnic groups-peoples need to held accountable for their actions no matter what borders/GOVT they fall under, what they believe in, but the decisions made after WW1 are without a doubt responsible for more turmoil in regions around the world and to a great extent why there was a WWII after the "War To End All Wars".

    I do think some cultures/peoples are not ready for freedom/independence, can't or won't live with it or accept it. I'm not saying being occupied/conquered/colonized is great way of life (for them), but some places in the world were better off having structured governance , even if they were much/somewhat lower on the Totem Pole than the powers in charge.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,665 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    Your analysis is a monument to liberal thinking. The Left looks at people through the prism of race - everybody is either white, Hispanic, black, Asian, or whatever, and naturally each (except white) has been graciously provided with a generous suite of persecutions and discriminations in an effort to make them all victims. Ethnicities in need are voters indeed, and to the rescue is liberal largess, offering sanctuary and entitlements in exchange for self-reliance, freedom and prosperity. So nobody's feelings got hurt, liberalism proclaimed the doctrines of multiculturalism and worse, cultural equivalence, and then concocted political correctness, which serves to protect these subcultures from richly deserved criticism. Validation and encouragement of less successful, and even failed and barbarous cultures takes precedence over assimilation and even peaceful coexistence. Liberals don't need no stinkin' "E Pluribus Unum!" E Pluribus Pluribus is the plan, because it works at the ballot box. Liberals don't see people as personally accountable individuals, after all, that's a Judeo-Christian concept, they just see groups.

    And so it is with the Middle East. The excuse liberals offer for all the violence and unrest is that the imperial powers drew the borders of new nations carved out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire without consideration for tribes, clans, sects and so forth. I call deja moo - we've heard that bull before. The French and the English live together peaceably in Canada, The Welsh, the Scots and the English get along in the UK. The Catholics and Protestants co-exist in Ireland. The Russian Empire embraced a dozen nationalities, and as many religions and sects, and they enjoyed internal peace for centuries under the Romanov "Tsars of all the Russias." The Hapsburgs pulled it off with the Austrians, Hungarians, Poles, Slavs, Ruthenians, Czechs, Slovaks, and so forth, keeping the lid on "Middle Europa" for centuries. The Pax Romana gave almost 200 years of peace and prosperity to the 143 nationalities of the Roman Empire, amounting to one-fourth of the world's total population. Yes, that was then, but today we have the example of the U.S.A., where people from throughout the known Universe manage to get along - regardless of ethnicity and religion, despite the efforts of the Left to arouse and divide.

    Well meaning people of good intentions are obligated to learn from history, and to try very, very hard not to repeat anyone's mistakes of the past. They're supposed to take the examples of more successful cultures and institutions and use them to their own benefit. To excuse their failure to do so by justifying and validating the hide-bound traditions, racial bigotry, religious hatred, and petty jealousies of assorted tribes, clans, and groups as "historical" just encourages them to continue failing. When Shiite and Sunni oppress each other, when Muslims hate Jews and Christians, when Persians and Arabs loathe one another, within and without their borders, just amounts to proof that these people are not qualified for self-government. Silence is acceptance. Racial bigotry, religious hatred, cruel traditions, and discrimination of every kind must be rejected out of hand, lest these excuses preclude holding each and every person in the Middle East individually accountable for every single one of their actions. Even if nations can't get along, there's no legitimate excuse for various peoples within nations not to do so. All it takes is common sense, maturity, empathy, tolerance and good intentions - the essential qualifications for self-government.

    The Middle East is a basket case because the cultures there are backward, obsolete, immature, unsophisticated, inferior, and otherwise failed. They slaughter each other because it's who and what they are. They're almost as bad as Europeans, who even though they have correctly divided themselves along recognizable ethnic, religious and geographic lines, satisfying those liberal priorities, still went trotting off after every hair-brained ideology that came along, and managed to burn their continent to the ground every other generation or so until widespread American occupation after WW2 brought reason and sensibility to soothe the savage breast. Are Europeans qualified yet for self-government? Some yes, some no.

    Bottom line is I cut the Muslims no slack, and allow them no excuses. I reject blaming their actions on the British, the French, the Ottomans, the Israelis, or anybody else. In fact, when the Middle East and Mesopotamia were occupied and colonized, they lived more peacefully than they do now. The truth is they terrorize, hurt, destroy and kill each other. and everybody else within reach, because, and only because they're easily led and don't know any better. Xenophon was right - they really are barbarians.

    Sorry but there is a whole lot of nosense in the above. Your second paragraph is complete rubbish and you largely debunk it yourself in your own 4th paragraph. Let's not forget the civil war and the constant struggle within the US to maintain order between wildly desperate groups and culture. I can't count the number of times I've heard people here talk casually and even occasionally seriously of revolution. Many of the other examples you gave only became peaceful after decades or centuries of fighting to reach some at least quasi-stable equilibrium. None of them had outside states attempting to impose it upon them.

    The key is of course self-determination. This is where the 3 state solution comes in in Iraq. Rather than letting one group impose it's will on the other two or try to force all 3 to come to some compromise if you let each group rule itself and make a lot of their own decisions it would go a long way towards peace. It works quite well in the US and is probably about the only reason we're able to keep such a diverse population largely peaceful. Imagine if China came in and tried to impose California's laws on AL or TN! Talk about some "backward, obsolete, immature" "barbarians" that can cause some trouble! The ensuing violence would make Iraq look downright tranquil by comparion.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,665 Senior Member
    You're confused.

    Saudi's (KSA) are Arab and are Sunni. Not to infer that all Arabs are Sunni, however, KSA does not get into bed with Shia groups or maintains any level of Shia Connection other than those maintained for OPEC and such. CErtainly not in the interest of the SWA and Levant Landscape.

    Iran is Persian and is Shia. Again, not to infer all persians are shia, but the majority of Shiites in the world are in PErsia. This comes from the Islamic split and civil war back in the way olden days of the religion.

    Beside the fact that Arabs do not like Persians, the fact the majority of Arab Muslims are Sunni and the MAjority of PErsian Muslims are Shia only fuels the fire in the war.

    Shia Rebels are not the ones taking over the country right now. They don't have to. The Shia currently run the government. The old Shia factions of BADR Corp, JAM, and a few others wormed their way into offices in one ministry or another. Remember that. It is important. But, The Government is Shia ran and Shia owned. Iran is pulling their strings. Most of BADR corp and JAM hide in Iran at one point or another during Ba'athist rule.

    Sunni Rebels in the Form of ISIS are the ones taking over the country. Before ISIS was ISIS, it was ISIL, and before then it was ISI. IF you went back a little further, you would find that left over members from the Ba'athist party are at the heart of it. ISIS is Islamic State of IRaq and Syria. ISIL was Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. The transition from ISIL to ISIS was more or less a difference in Translation, depending on who talk to and the source. Why? Because ISIL was fighting in Syria, out of logistical/strategic places in Iraq. So, it was always ISIS. Some folks are questioning the entire "sunni" image of ISIS because of some of their tactics. But, it is mostly PR in an attempt to distant themselves from the Mass Graves and bombings...even though they are still handing ISIS money under the table.

    The attraciveness of ISIS is that without the US on the ground to keep the peace and re-assure the Sunni's they are heard and protected, it has become the Sunni Source of voice of Protection against a Shia dominated government in Bagdad. IF you look how the chips fell, out side of the Narrow Sunni Belt, the only Sunni lands are in Anbar. What is there in Anbar...Nothing. The Sunnis really feel as if they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. In the East they have the Assad/Iran thing and in the West the Baghdad/Iran in the west. They feel trapped and unprotected.

    The Syria and Assad thing is another topic for hours, if not a few days, of discussion. There are still a lot of unanswered questions out there on that.

    I question your source. Seriously. It offers a lot of conjecture and spectulation without drawing or outlining hard facts. It also does not use terms correctly. In terms of Islam, ever Person is a Jihadist. Jihad means Struggle. It refers to the inner struggle has between desires of the Flesh and submiting to Allah's will. It also does not clearly state what the Awakening Council was or is. IT was not simply Sunni fighters recruited to Fight AQI. and that is another discussion as well. Then, later in the arcticle it contridcts its self. States Suadi has no love lost for ISIS, but is communicating with them throug a splinter militia? No Saudi doesn't want ISIS in KSA lands, but ISIS is putting the Persians back on the correct side of the Diyala river. And, in that, they support them.

    You're correct I got my sunni and shia reversed, but the central point still stands that Syria and Iraq are largely becoming proxy power struggles between Iran and KSA.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 7,000 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    And so it is with the Middle East. The excuse liberals offer for all the violence and unrest is that the imperial powers drew the borders of new nations carved out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire without consideration for tribes, clans, sects and so forth. I call deja moo - we've heard that bull before. The French and the English live together peaceably in Canada (After fighting a whole mess of wars over it), The Welsh, the Scots and the English get along in the UK (after a whole lot of slitting each other's throats, and there's still three well defined regions separating them). The Catholics and Protestants co-exist in Ireland (No bloodshed there AT ALL). The Russian Empire embraced a dozen nationalities, and as many religions and sects, and they enjoyed internal peace for centuries under the Romanov "Tsars of all the Russias." (Never mind that they could probably have given Hitler some useful tips on purging Jews or anyone else not fitting the mold) The Hapsburgs pulled it off with the Austrians, Hungarians, Poles, Slavs, Ruthenians, Czechs, Slovaks, and so forth, keeping the lid on "Middle Europa" for centuries (ask Archduke Ferdinand how well THAT worked out). The Pax Romana gave almost 200 years of peace and prosperity to the 143 nationalities of the Roman Empire, amounting to one-fourth of the world's total population (Peace through superior crucifixion). Yes, that was then, but today we have the example of the U.S.A., where people from throughout the known Universe manage to get along - regardless of ethnicity and religion, despite the efforts of the Left to arouse and divide. (Because we don't have a KKK, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, NAACP, pissed off Native Americans or any other groups and individuals using race as the excuse for all the problems in their world)

    Nope - I don't really see us as being a whole lot better - if we ARE more laid back, it's probably due to a fuller belly. Go without three meals straight, we'll be just as obnoxious as the rest. People are idiots. Some idiots are American. Which makes us trying to bring other people up to our level all the more puzzling. Lose the rose-colored glasses Equinelabia.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,614 Senior Member
    When you boil it all down to it's essence, we have a world that is in just as much conflict as it ever was. Thanks to the industrial revolution, the power has shifted from the nations with the most good swordsmen to the ones with the most good guns. Thankfully, that allows those with mostly brains and fortitude to overwhelm those with mostly muscle and fortitude.

    When it's all said and done, the people that populate this planet will continue to fight over its resources till a meteor obliterates it or the sun becomes one of those cool supernovas. That being the case, the best course for any country is to keep making good guns so they can enjoy themselves without having to expend quite so much energy fending off barbarians.

    "Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we shall die." :silly:
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 14,959 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    The U.S. Set up this Iraqi government and we can't just let it fall.

    Why? Name one single thing in that pesthole that is worth one more American life....trying to impose "democracy" in a theocracy doesn't work...never has and never will....

    AND...How is Iraq an ally? Allies provide for a mutual defense/support...when has Iraq ever come to the aid of........anybody?
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    And so it is with the Middle East. The excuse liberals offer for all the violence and unrest is that the imperial powers drew the borders of new nations carved out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire without consideration for tribes, clans, sects and so forth. I call deja moo - we've heard that bull before. The French and the English live together peaceably in Canada, The Welsh, the Scots and the English get along in the UK. The Catholics and Protestants co-exist in Ireland. The Russian Empire embraced a dozen nationalities, and as many religions and sects, and they enjoyed internal peace for centuries under the Romanov "Tsars of all the Russias." The Hapsburgs pulled it off with the Austrians, Hungarians, Poles, Slavs, Ruthenians, Czechs, Slovaks, and so forth, keeping the lid on "Middle Europa" for centuries. The Pax Romana gave almost 200 years of peace and prosperity to the 143 nationalities of the Roman Empire, amounting to one-fourth of the world's total population. Yes, that was then, but today we have the example of the U.S.A., where people from throughout the known Universe manage to get along - regardless of ethnicity and religion, despite the efforts of the Left to arouse and divide.

    Wow!
    What time is the next rocket back to your own world, eh!




    Big Chief wrote: »
    Time to rebuild the British Empire and whip them "Fuzzy Wuzzies" around the world back in-line! :tooth::roll2::roll2::roll2:

    So, we are exposed.

    They will all come back to the fold, you also, but only if you play nicely with the other toddlers. :devil:

    Big Chief wrote: »
    :tooth::roll2::roll2::roll2:

    No joking, wait still 2016.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTa_nNMxtlO0v7Q9dhMDM4YO4zCBv7E4u3NlmZAm7o837a_NRP5

    2016 Hillary-Michelle ‘Dream Ticket’ floated.


    PS.

    It is, after all, just a small twist to the Great Game, Kipling./Kim.

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • centermass556centermass556 Senior Member Posts: 3,508 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    Why? Name one single thing in that pesthole that is worth one more American life....trying to impose "democracy" in a theocracy doesn't work...never has and never will....

    AND...How is Iraq an ally? Allies provide for a mutual defense/support...when has Iraq ever come to the aid of........anybody?

    Can't really agree with that one...

    We have a whole list of allies that haven't supported us or defended us...Canada is good example. Not a whole lot of support and defense there. Turkey is another. France is another. We are all of South Korea's support and defense. Japan isn't holding up its end either. Pakistan harbored OBL, has state sponsored terrorist killing Americans, and is unstable.

    I can really only think of two true Allies that we have had..if you go by that deffinition. The Brits and the Aussies.

    I think Allies are more who we say they are at the moment we need them. After all, do you know gave us the intel and provided us the entry into Afghanistan in '01? Iran.
    "To have really lived, you must have almost died. To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 14,959 Senior Member
    My thought as to allies - an agreement to the benefit of both parties....Don't see much benefit to allying with Iraq....

    In the first Gulf War I seem to recall...pretty much everyone getting in on the act....French, Germans, Canadians, etc,etc,etc....

    Bottom line...the Iraqis as a whole don't seem to want us there....unless it's one side hoping to get a leg up on the other...Didn't see any of them begging us not to leave when we pulled out....Screw 'em...I'm sick and tired of throwing lives and money down that particular sewer....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • centermass556centermass556 Senior Member Posts: 3,508 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    My thought as to allies - an agreement to the benefit of both parties....Don't see much benefit to allying with Iraq....

    In the first Gulf War I seem to recall...pretty much everyone getting in on the act....French, Germans, Canadians, etc,etc,etc....

    Bottom line...the Iraqis as a whole don't seem to want us there....unless it's one side hoping to get a leg up on the other...Didn't see any of them begging us not to leave when we pulled out....Screw 'em...I'm sick and tired of throwing lives and money down that particular sewer....


    You could not be more wrong with that statement....You missed my earlier post about the ground truth of the way it went down when the annoucemenets were made.

    Even though the foriegn policy focus has shifted to the pacific, there is strategic value in having more than one ally in SWA. Especially since we have fallen out of favor with KSA.

    Some of y'all have seem to have bought into the "loss of AMerican life" mentality. In the grand scheme of things, in the context of all the places we have lost American Life for whatever reason, the lives we have lost in IRaq is a Very small number. 3528 is the number of actual combat deaths. By the time Obama came on board, we were not losing enough Soldiers for the news to even bother keeping track of. We lost more than that in the first 30 minutes of D-Day. Not to mention the money we poured into Europe with the Marshal plan. We paid for their own mess. And for what? So 50 years down the road the next generation of Europeans could snub their nose at us and drum us down in the world market? Do you honestly think Germany and France gives two shakes about the lives we gave for them?

    Are we now so Miopic and Xenophobic in our approach to the world that we shun everything that doesn't come in a certain flavor. Since the start of the Nation we have stood up for the little guy and for folks that can't do on their own. Was all of that a waste of American life? We have a romantic idea that We as a Single voice rose up against the british and chased them from the shores. No that was not the case. Most folks ducked their heads and just wanted to go about their lives. And, we certainly didn't do it without help.

    We didn't waste American lives in Iraq until the Current Adminstration and the rest of America refused to let us finish the job.
    "To have really lived, you must have almost died. To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,832 Senior Member
    You could not be more wrong with that statement....You missed my earlier post about the ground truth of the way it went down when the annoucemenets were made.

    Even though the foriegn policy focus has shifted to the pacific, there is strategic value in having more than one ally in SWA. Especially since we have fallen out of favor with KSA.

    Some of y'all have seem to have bought into the "loss of AMerican life" mentality. In the grand scheme of things, in the context of all the places we have lost American Life for whatever reason, the lives we have lost in IRaq is a Very small number. 3528 is the number of actual combat deaths. By the time Obama came on board, we were not losing enough Soldiers for the news to even bother keeping track of. We lost more than that in the first 30 minutes of D-Day. Not to mention the money we poured into Europe with the Marshal plan. We paid for their own mess. And for what? So 50 years down the road the next generation of Europeans could snub their nose at us and drum us down in the world market? Do you honestly think Germany and France gives two shakes about the lives we gave for them?

    Are we now so Miopic and Xenophobic in our approach to the world that we shun everything that doesn't come in a certain flavor. Since the start of the Nation we have stood up for the little guy and for folks that can't do on their own. Was all of that a waste of American life? We have a romantic idea that We as a Single voice rose up against the british and chased them from the shores. No that was not the case. Most folks ducked their heads and just wanted to go about their lives. And, we certainly didn't do it without help.

    We didn't waste American lives in Iraq until the Current Adminstration and the rest of America refused to let us finish the job.

    Amen Centermass, I for one am with you. And this administration should take the heat, but many Americans deserve a share of that heat too. Because Obama goes out every morning and wets his finger and puts it in the air to see which way the breeze is blowing from. That's how he decides things, and when most Americans act like they don't give a crap he uses that to make policy. Truth is, he doesn't really give a crap. All he's interested in is looking good. And most Americans, even those that gripe about him are promoting his inaction.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,990 Senior Member
    O'Riley Factor and Charles Krauthammer made one valid point, those terrorist/Islamofacist need to be whacked, easy targets for our aircraft. Why, because they will take over or try to take over Baghdad and or flee back into Syria and it's a pay me now or pay me later situation. Let them get into control of too much landscape/territory as sure as the sun rises will make trouble for us in the future, maybe with another 911 type attack on us.

    The other nut jobs in the region will probably be content to salvage what they gained or some of it from our earlier occupation. Also, Iran in interfering and will be a a problem to deal with later on. We should have intervened with Iran (Nuclear program) and Syria and Egypt (asking for help during the uprising) early on. Once they form alliances and get stronger the harder it will be to deal with them.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,990 Senior Member
    Look fellers, I don't even pretend to have the answers to that mess over there or how to solve the problem. But we have a do nuthing numbskull occupying 1600 Penn Ave who probably won't even listen to his lefty advisers who most likely have told him to act on some of this mess in America's interest, but he is reluctant to do anything that doesn't fit into his distorted vision of how he thinks the world should be.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.