There are no solutions for Iraq. Not anymore.

[U2Edge]

But once again, I'll articulate my point:

1. Saddam was a genocidal maniac. His and the Baath Party's efforts to eradicate the entire Kurdish population goes back to the 1970s.
2. Saddam was bribing France and Russia to get the sanctions lifted. This corrupted the process of the UN Security Council.
3. Saddam was a State Sponsor of Terror. He harbored Abu Nidal, rewarded the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and allowed Zarqawi to set up a base in Northern Iraq.
4. Saddam broke the cease-fire with the US many times and the perception of the US as a "paper tiger" was undermining the purpose of any cease-fire agreement.
5. Saddam was either going to be Al Qaeda's most ardent supporter or he was going to be ousted and the resources at his disposal were going to be in control of someone worse.

The traditional American approach has been to depose the "out of control bastard" and install another bastard who understand that we hold the whip.

The effort to turn Iraq into the Shining Democracy on the Hill was so damn asinine that it looks like a policy devised by drugged out peaceniks congregated together at a dorm room bull session.

What's so hard to understand about the fact that identification of a problem is DIFFERENT than a solution to the problem. All you're doing is identifying the problem and resting on your laurels. EVERYONE understood that Saddam was a problem, so don't go patting yourself on the back for being able to see that he was a problem.

The hard part here is to devise the best solution to that problem. Invading and then nation-building in order to create a western-modeled outpost in the Middle East was sheer lunacy.

Iraq was invaded and removed from power to remove a threat to United States and global interest in protecting and securing the vital natural resources of the region that were often threaten by Saddam's behavior.

In removing Saddam, the United States had no choice by to choose another form of government. It would have been foolish for the United States to invade Iraq and ignore its own democratic principles of government as well as the wishes of the Iraqi people and install a new dictatorship. Doing so would have created a far worse insurgency than the United States faced in the early days of occupation.

 

[Samson]

Wrong. This decision to remove Saddam was the worst thing to happen. Iraq was a functioning society with Saddam, even amidst the terror he inflicted upon his own citizens.

So a "functioning society" is when citizens are terrorized........



Brilliant.

Republicans terrorized America and we still more or less "functioned".

When Republicans do these things, they are purposely terrorizing the people of the United States. That is true "terrorism".

While I suppose "terrorism" could be defined very subjectively (I'm certain you'd be terrorized by Ronald McDonald), I'm pretty sure having your balls electrocuted for jay- walking in Bagdad is a little more serious.

Poor Stupidly Partisan dream.

 

[Samson]

But once again, I'll articulate my point:

1. Saddam was a genocidal maniac. His and the Baath Party's efforts to eradicate the entire Kurdish population goes back to the 1970s.
2. Saddam was bribing France and Russia to get the sanctions lifted. This corrupted the process of the UN Security Council.
3. Saddam was a State Sponsor of Terror. He harbored Abu Nidal, rewarded the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and allowed Zarqawi to set up a base in Northern Iraq.
4. Saddam broke the cease-fire with the US many times and the perception of the US as a "paper tiger" was undermining the purpose of any cease-fire agreement.
5. Saddam was either going to be Al Qaeda's most ardent supporter or he was going to be ousted and the resources at his disposal were going to be in control of someone worse.

The traditional American approach has been to depose the "out of control bastard" and install another bastard who understand that we hold the whip.

The effort to turn Iraq into the Shining Democracy on the Hill was so damn asinine that it looks like a policy devised by drugged out peaceniks congregated together at a dorm room bull session.

What's so hard to understand about the fact that identification of a problem is DIFFERENT than a solution to the problem. All you're doing is identifying the problem and resting on your laurels. EVERYONE understood that Saddam was a problem, so don't go patting yourself on the back for being able to see that he was a problem.

The hard part here is to devise the best solution to that problem. Invading and then nation-building in order to create a western-modeled outpost in the Middle East was sheer lunacy.

Iraq was invaded and removed from power to remove a threat to United States and global interest in protecting and securing the vital natural resources of the region that were often threaten by Saddam's behavior.

In removing Saddam, the United States had no choice by to choose another form of government. It would have been foolish for the United States to invade Iraq and ignore its own democratic principles of government as well as the wishes of the Iraqi people and install a new dictatorship. Doing so would have created a far worse insurgency than the United States faced in the early days of occupation.

Which is all well and good but the PRESENT debate has absolutely nothing to do with Saddam, Bush, Cheny, Haliburton, or any of the issues associated with Iraq prior to Obama.

While we may certainly appreciate Ozombies desire to deflect the present into the distant path, what is going in the ME TODAY and for the past 6 years has been a result of Obamas inability to lead.

 

[U2Edge]

George Bush did the greatest thing for Iraq ever in its history by removing SADDAM from power. SADDAM since 1979 was been the largest killer of Iraqi's and is responsible for more unprovoked invasions and attacks in the region than any other leader in modern history. Iraq should be the richest country in the Middle East, but instead SADDAM used its riches for WAR.

Wrong. This decision to remove Saddam was the worst thing to happen. Iraq was a functioning society with Saddam, even amidst the terror he inflicted upon his own citizens.

Most of the ME actually needs Strong-Man political systems in order to function. This follows from the tribal political tradition which permeates their entire societies. Absent that strong-man, but with the tribal system retained, you get all-out tribal warfare, which is exactly what we're seeing breaking out all over the Middle East. Having one massive prick on the top of the whole pile keeping everyone in line does wonders for keeping those societies functioning.

."

What you fail to understand is that the decision to remove Saddam FIRST and formost was about Saddam's impact on the region outside of Iraq. Saddam's threat to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Persian Gulf. The United States and the rest of the world depends on the natural resources that come from this region and Saddam's wars against Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and his refusal to comply with international resolutions passed against his country after the end of fighting created difficult conditions in Iraq throughout the 1990s.

The United States used sanctions, a weapons embargo, military air strikes and other means to try and contain Saddam from 1991 to 2003. But unfortunately, the Iraq's neighbors in many in the international community FAILED to continue to apply the sanctions and embargo against Iraq for their own financial gain and other reasons. The essential end of the sanctions and weapons embargo against Iraq meant that the only option for dealing with Saddam was regime change.

The decision to remove Saddam was about US national security interest in the region NOT the actual conditions in Iraq, regardless if you think Saddam was good or bad for those conditions inside Iraq. SADDAM had to go because of his past wars and continued threat to natural resources in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, as well as the failure of the US containment strategy in the 1990s. Regime change was the only option left, since everything else had been tried and failed.

Its also interesting to note that it first became the policy of the United States to find a way to remove Saddam from power under the Clinton administration. Ultimately Bush took the only action capable of achieving that objective.

So to put it bluntly, you are missing the main reasons for US involvement in the region which involve the international lawlessness practiced by Saddam involving attacking and invading four different countries and annexing Kuwait wiping it off the map. The TYPE of government Iraq should be ruled by or country a or b should be ruled by is a distant secondary issue.

The George Bush administration did make mistakes after removing Saddam in rebuilding the country. Disbanding the military was one. Debathification was another. But these mistakes are things that can be fixed and things that the Bush administration was in the process of fixing when Barack Obama became President.

All of the mistakes made by Bush have a common root cause - he and his advisers didn't know jack about how the societies in the region function. They believed that they could graft an alien Western sensibility onto a tribal society.

If you misunderstand an issue at the very foundational level, then every decision you make is very likely to produce bad outcomes.



Not political loyalty, tribal allegiances. The higher up you ascend in a tribal society, the greater become your obligations to your fellow tribe members. If you're a leader of a bureaucracy, the notion of promoting a qualified member of an opposing tribe over promoting a member of your own tribe is a.) nonsensical and b.) a direct threat to your own power as leader because those under you see that you're failing in carrying out your leadership duties.

The Bush administration understood the issues, but they made mistakes which made the occupation more difficult than it had to be. It usually takes several decades for a country that has always been ruled by a dictatorship to develop a fully functioning, successful democracy. Yes, the past tribal culture makes it more difficult but evolving from that tribal past to a more modern one is very common and something that has happened all over the world at some point. Iraq's tribal past does not make it immune to globalilization or democratic governance.

More importantly, despite the problems, the Iraqi democratic systems has actually had many success's. It has held multiple elections and help to increase oil production and distribute the profits all across Iraq which is vital to people standards of living. So far all its problems, the Iraqi government has had some successes. Unfortunately, Obama abandoned the nation building project long before it was complete. This abandonment weakened the Iraqi government, weakened Iraqi democracy, and weakened the Iraqi military over the past two years which heavily contributed to the problems we see in 2014.

The only responsible thing to do in forming a new government once Saddam was removed was to form a democratic government. Obviously, in a democracy, the Shia Arab's naturally have an advantage given that they are 60% of the country. This is the natural state of Iraq and it can work provided that the various groups learn to solve their difference through politics and respect the law and minority rights.

You're suffering from the same limited exposure to the cultures of the region that the Bush brain trust suffered.

Look, people can learn to sunbathe on the surface of the moon so long as they learn to live without oxygen and learn to live in a vacuum. Simple, right?

Using wishful thinking as the basis for political decision making always leads to failure. We do this regularly here in the US with education policies - NCLB mandated that ALL children WILL BE proficient by the end of the program. All that was needed to achieve universal proficiency was to have better teachers and schools. Simple, right?

Jokes and gross anti-Bush rhetoric are no substitutes for sound objective commentary and advise on issues of international relations.

Imposing a dictatorship on Iraq would not have worked better than the formation of a democratic government. Once Saddam's was removed, the United States needed to set up a new government to help create a stable environment. That's not wishful thinking, that's just a simple reality, a necessity for stability! You can criticize how that was done, but the need to do that is not debatable. Once Saddam's regime was gone, Iraq needed a new government. Imposing a new dictatorship would have caused far more problems than helping set up a democratic one.

The responsible thing for the United States to do now is to re-engage with Iraq with its military, economic, and diplomatic strength. The United States should be redeployed to Iraq in numbers large enough to support an air campaign against IS and to properly train, equip and advise the Iraqi military and Kurdish Pershmerga. Together with United States Air Power, the Iraqi Military, Kurdish forces, and as needed US troops on the ground, IS can be defeated in Iraq and eastern Syria and stability and security restored to this part of the region.




What is it about some people who continually push the same damn policy and after every failure they keep coming back with the same damn policy thinking that "this time it will work."

First you need to understand some historical facts that you seem to be ignorant of:

1. The United States successfully invaded Iraq and removed Saddam from power
2. The United States successfully set up a new Iraqi government and military.
3. The new Iraqi government has successfully held 3 democratic Presidential elections and 3 state an local provincial elections over the past 8 years!
4. The United States successfully brought violence down with the Surge of US troops in 2007 and 2008.
5. By 2009, the Iraqi military was starting to take over security responsibilities from US troops and were succeeding in that role.
6. When Obama prematurely withdrew US forces in 2011, the Iraqi military was in charge of all security throughout the county was getting better at that role.
7. When Obama prematurely withdrew US forces in 2011, the Iraqi political factions were still cooperating with each other and sectarianism was being held down or non-existent.


So what you have here is an invasion, occupation and nation building project that was on the road to success, but one that Obama abandoned pre-maturely. The project started crumble when Obama abandoned it. That is what has led to the current crises. The solution to the current crises is to help the Iraqi government and military defeat the terrorist IS and re-establish control and stability in areas that have been lost to IS. The Iraqi military and government have taken a sharp blow and have been weakened by two years of Obama's disengagement from the region. But the United States does have the ability to reverse this set back and put Iraq back on he right course provided it is willing to use the right military resources to do so.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Do the current 300 advisers have SOFA status?

I can wait

-Geaux

Wait for what? Did you have a point? Maliki is out. See what happens now before assigning blame without any cause for everything on Obama.

 

[Geaux4it]

Do the current 300 advisers have SOFA status?

I can wait

-Geaux

Wait for what? Did you have a point? Maliki is out. See what happens now before assigning blame without any cause for everything on Obama.

See what happens now? What more do you need to see? More decapitations?

-Geaux

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What you fail to understand is that the decision to remove Saddam FIRST and formost was about Saddam's impact on the region outside of Iraq.

That is not true, your entire pro-invasion whitewashing screed is in error.

You ignore critical realities regarding the internationaly lawless and amoral decision by Bush to invade Iraq in March 2003 in midst of the legitimate UN inspection process that was recognized by the majority of the worlds nations to be the way to maintain peace and stability in the region with regard to the Baathist regime in Iraq.

The decision to invade Iraq was explained very clearly FIRST and foremost by Bush on March 17, 2003. He told it was because Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from the UN inspectors at that moment in time.

If true that would be the only justification for the US to have invaded Iraq in March 2003. As we all know it was not true. The FACT that Bush's reasons to invade Iraq was not true leaves the accountability for that decision, whether it was the case that Bush lied about that last few days of intelligence or not, directly upon Bush's shoulders.

Iraq was the least threat or potetional threat to the region for decades in March 2003 with 200 UN inspectors on the ground there verifying Iraq's weapons status. There was no threat to anything external or internal to Irag in March 2003.

No intelligently informed world citizen thinks it is ok for one nation to invade another nation based upon historical past. There has to be an existential current and verifiable threat to justify use if military force against another country.

You entire screed contains no reference to Iraq's 2003 actions that could be defined in any way as an existential threat to anyone or anything.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

See what happens now? What more do you need to see? More decapitations?

-Geaux

Is your point that the 2014 decapitation that happened in Syria is directly related to SOFA negotiations in Iraq in 2011?

Is there any rhyme or reason to your thoughts on all this.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Before Obama = No ISIS

After Obama = ISIS

Any more idiotic questions?

What an idiotic form of reasoning,

Only an idiot could conclude:

Before Eve = no sin.

After Eve = Sin.

Or :

Before Reagan = No al Qaeda
After Reagan = al Qaeda


So if you wish to apply this logic to the current situation you must apply actual cause and effect to you equations.

Here is in reality based factor that you did not consider.

Al Qaeda is on offshoot of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan that were praised and supported by the US under Reagan to drive the anti-Islamist Soviet Army out of Afghanistan.

Cause = Cold War between US and USSR

Effect = Taliban and al Qaeada established. Two decades later 9/11/01.

Cause = US invasion of Iraq March 2003 - no AlQaeda in Iraq.

Effect = AQI (al Qaeada in Iraq) established. al Baghdadi joins AQI.

Cause = Anbar awakening in '06 - '07

Effect = Baghdadi and AQI base driven out of Iraq / many to Syria.

Cause = Syria civil war

effect = AQI splits from AQ and named ISIL


So ISIL can be traced to Reagan an Bush through its foundational roots and ties going through the Mujahadern and AQ and AQI.

Changing names does not change the terrorists that drive these organizations.

Its the same scum running them no matter what they call it.

 

[Geaux4it]

Before Obama = No ISIS

After Obama = ISIS

Any more idiotic questions?

What an idiotic form of reasoning,

Only an idiot could conclude:

Before Eve = no sin.

After Eve = Sin.

Or :

Before Reagan = No al Qaeda
After Reagan = al Qaeda


So if you wish to apply this logic to the current situation you must apply actual cause and effect to you equations.

Here is in reality based factor that you did not consider.

Al Qaeda is on offshoot of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan that were praised and supported by the US under Reagan to drive the anti-Islamist Soviet Army out of Afghanistan.

Cause = Cold War between US and USSR

Effect = Taliban and al Qaeada established. Two decades later 9/11/01.

Cause = US invasion of Iraq March 2003 - no AlQaeda in Iraq.

Effect = AQI (al Qaeada in Iraq) established. al Baghdadi joins AQI.

Cause = Anbar awakening in '06 - '07

Effect = Baghdadi and AQI base driven out of Iraq / many to Syria.

Cause = Syria civil war

effect = AQI splits from AQ and named USIL


So ISIL can be traced to Reagan an Bush through its foundational roots and ties going through the Mujahadern and AQ and AQI.

Changing names does not change the terrorists that drive these organizations.

Its the same scum running them no matter what they call it.

 

[Samson]

Before Obama = No ISIS

After Obama = ISIS

Any more idiotic questions?

What an idiotic form of reasoning,

You cannot comprehend = Idiotic

 

[Richard-H]

Speaking of which President is to blame for catastrophes, I've always been amazed that all discussions of the Vietnam war only encompass the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon Presidencies.

In fact, it was Eisenhower that screwed the pooch in Vietnam. It was he that decided to recognize the illegal creation of the Republic of South Vietnam, to support the brutal Diem regime ad to send about 1000 U.S. advisors there. Yes, it was SAINT Eisenhower that caused the Vietnam war debacle.

Speaking of which, an awful lot of the problems that the U.S. is currently having can be traced back to a tradition of American imperialist policies that were initiated by SAINT Eisenhower.

Eisenhower supported the overthrow of the Democratic Iranian government, installed the Shah, who in turn was overthrown by Shiite extremists - the beginning of problems in that region.

The CIA later support Saddam Hussein, used him as a puppet, then decided to destroy him when he got to independent. We would have no war in Iraq if the U.S. had supported the legitimately elected government of Iraq.

Yes, most of our problems in the 'third world' today are rooted in American imperialist policies that destroyed democracy in those countries and then completely backfired on us.

Notice how the U.S. won the wars in Central America back in the 1980s and now the extreme poverty caused by U.S. policies are why Central Americans are sending their children to the U.S. - an act of utter desperation.

Notice how there aren't any children arriving from Nicaragua? Gee, I wonder why that is.....

 

[Geaux4it]

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Can you explain how or why?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You cannot comprehend = Idiotic

What in my response do you believe lacks comprehension of what Geaux4IT simple-mindedly wrote?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Samson 9587969

The fall of Iraq will always be something to decorate the Obama Presidential Library. #12

How does the 'fall of Iraq' decorate the Obama Presidential Library when there has been no "fall of Iraq" and there is not about to be a 'fall of Iraq'? Are right wingers going to build an Obama Presidential Library to commemorated all the right wing delusions, mythis and distortions about the Obama Presidency?

 

[deltex1]

The obabble library will be called the "Hall of Falls". The fall of:

Iraq
Libya
Syria
Yemen
Ukraine
Iran sanctions
Russian relations
Israeli relations
The job market
Border security
Trust in government
Energy independence
Constitutional integrity

 

[NotfooledbyW]

DT 11270984

The obabble library will be called the "Hall of Falls". The fall of:

Only by hate mongering idiots who were headed in that direction the first time RW white people feared a black man just might become President.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

DT 11270984.

Iraq

Iraq did not fall. Bush surrendered Iraq to the the King of Clubs. Iraq is now finally putting together a real fighting force that is and will defeat ISIS in Iraq without the Bush method of American troops doing the fighting and dying. There's 4484 reasons why this is the better way.

.
'King of Clubs' deputy Izzat al-Douri reportedly killed in Iraq
The Telegraph - Telegraph online Daily Telegraph Sunday Telegraph - Telegraph › News › World News › Middle East › Iraq Apr 17, 2015 - The body of Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, who spent 24 years as Saddam's ... was discovered on a battlefield after he was killed by Iraqi soldiers and ...

Bush didn't kill or capture "Izzat" just like he didn't kill or capture OBL. Obama gets to put those two on the wall as dead terrorists in his library.
And thats along with hundreds of other terrorist leaders just like them but not as high on the list.

And another reminder Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri did not become a terrorist or sympathize with Al Qaeda until Bush knocked off Saddam Hussein getting 4474 American troops killed in that dumb assed ground invasion.

 

[deltex1]

DT 11270984

The obabble library will be called the "Hall of Falls". The fall of:

Only by hate mongering idiots who were headed in that direction the first time RW white people feared a black man just might become President.

Not "a" black man, Foo......"that" black man.