Iraq 2014

eeven73 · Posted: Jun 12, 2014 7:21 am Post subject: Iraq 2014

Going to hell in a handbasket.

Totally predictable.

Do we, or should we(The USA) care?

goofyboy · Posted: Jun 12, 2014 8:51 am Post subject:

We should since we caused it.

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

Yeah. It sucks, but we own it. Now, I don't think we should send any troop support, but some drone work and potentially some live air support might be warranted.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

Ignore it an contain it, focus on intelligence and stopping the enemy with the cloak and dagger instead of the tank and drone.

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

Whether we care or not, we do have a responsibility to clean up the mess we caused. I agree with the idea of this being as covert as possible. Are the Sunni's even a real threat? Isn't Saudi Arabia mostly Sunni's?

eeven73 · Posted: Jun 13, 2014 7:45 am Post subject:

Isn't "ingore it and contain it" exactly what got us 9-11?

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

.THIS mess isn't our doing.

eeven73 · Posted: Jun 13, 2014 12:57 pm Post subject:

ORLY

What was Slick Willies response to the USS Cole or the first Trade Center bombing?

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

The attack on the USS Cole as well as the first world trade center bombing are not analogous to a group INSIDE a foreign country taking territory or political control inside that country, whether through a political process or violence.

Involvement in the politics of foreign countries combined with religious zealotry is what ultimately led to the 9/11 attacks. And that is in NO way a justification for 9/11, but an analysis.

eeven73 · Posted: Jun 13, 2014 3:37 pm Post subject:

Well, i would argue ignore and contain is exactly the policy that
was used by the Clinton administration and specifically in those
two instances. If we ignore the problem it will not go away. Its
a geopolitical issue that is a direct result of the Iraq War. Like it or
not we are involved.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

Again, apples to oranges. An attack on US soil is not the same as the internal political fighting in a foreign country.

Also, does this ring a bell: Memo: "Osama Bin Laden determined to attack within US?" I don't know if you know a lot about WHY we missed 9/11, but it was a combination of a lack of inter-departmental communication and well-gathered intelligence not making it to the right people. If we had gone to war after the first world trade center bombing, I don't know if it would have stopped 9/11. We had the intelligence to stop it.

Another point: no connection between al queda and iraq in 2001.

We have withdrawn from Iraq.

Even though I will personally profit from renewed US military action in Iraq, it is time to let them just kill themselves without our interference. Making the middle east "safe for democracy" is like making a fish tank safe for kittens.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

Again, apples to oranges. An attack on US soil is not the same as the internal political fighting in a foreign country.

Also, does this ring a bell: Memo: "Osama Bin Laden determined to attack within US?" I don't know if you know a lot about WHY we missed 9/11, but it was a combination of a lack of inter-departmental communication and well-gathered intelligence not making it to the right people. If we had gone to war after the first world trade center bombing, I don't know if it would have stopped 9/11. We had the intelligence to stop it.

Another point: no connection between al queda and iraq in 2001.

We have withdrawn from Iraq.

Even though I will personally profit from renewed US military action in Iraq, it is time to let them just kill themselves without our interference. Making the middle east "safe for democracy" is like making a fish tank safe for kittens.

eeven73 · Posted: Jun 14, 2014 10:07 am Post subject:

1. I don't agree it is apples and oranges. All are terrorist related incidents. Problems like currently occurring in Iraq are not in a vacuum or won't stay in whatever little box you would like them to.

2. The hope that someday, someway there will be a perfect flow of information among govt organizations is incredibly naive. Saying that we could have prevented 9-11 is the worst kind of Monday morning quarterbacking.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

1- We should not be the world's policemen, and Iraq needs to determine and fight for its own government. We cannot essentially colonize the middle east.

2- It's not MY idea that we could have prevented 9/11. It is the idea of the intelligence analysts at the NSA and the CIA, as stated by them in several interviews for the book The Shadow Factory by James Bamford.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/PBS_NSA_tracked_911_hijackers_but_0127.html

I want to say that I don't mean this to place BLAME at all. I think mistakes happen, people cannot be perfect at all times, and with the sheer number of conspiracies against the United States, eventually something did, and will again, succeed in causing damage here in the US.

But it is my belief that occupying foreign countries and openly getting involved in the internal affairs of sovereign nations is not going to make the situation any better.

That money, IMO, is far better spent on improving our intelligence gathering and sharing across various agencies, and in fine tuning our ability to make small, surgical and secretive strikes to eliminate key targets.

You know, like sending Seal Team Six in to kill Bin Laden, instead of sending in the entire US Marine Corp.

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

Op-Ed (Guardian) on the subject from an old bud from HS.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/13/mosul-iraq-war-return-isis

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

That piece seems to essentially call for permanent occupation.

IDK... what do the people of Iraq want?

Should we stay for however long it takes for Islam to have its reformation?

With every passing year, the wisdom of GHWB becomes more apparent.

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

My takeaway was: we shouldn't create messes we cannot clean up. (IOW we shouldn't have gone there in the first place) This mess is not cleanable.

I can tell you exactly what the majority of people in Iraq want: to live peacefully. The problem is, as it is here, the loudest and DUMBEST among them are the voices that are heard. So realistically, I think what the people want needs to be broken down along two party lines (sound familiar?):

Sunnis: we don't have enough power now that Saddam is gone. The Shia are treating us like crap and we don't want to take it anymore.
Shia: we are kinda pissed about the way you Sunnis treated us, so now it's our turn to treat you like shiite now. Not so fun is it you fugging hypocrites?

-Kurds: stay off my lawn. And Turkey's as well.

Here's the thing. There are way more Shia in Iraq. Shia controls the power, the military, etc. The way to keep men from laying down weapons - make it a religious thing. Shia clerics are calling to arms men across the country to fight. If Iraq rolls with this, arms these guys, the Sunnis might be f'ed. Most definitely if we back the gov't with air support. Then of course, we sided with a specific side of Muslims, pissed off a side, and the cycle continues ad nauseum.

GHWB saw a lot of sh*t during his time as VP. He knew damn well where to stop.

eeven73 · Posted: Jun 16, 2014 9:53 am Post subject:

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

eeven73, what do you propose we do?

We three seem to agree that we should not have invaded Iraq.

So what now? The way I see it, this problem keeps repeating itself until a new Saddam comes to power. IMO, these people are not socially geared for a peaceful democracy. And if I'm wrong, let them prove it by earning it themselves.

what do you think the price will be if we "ignore" the situation? What do you think is going to happen?

eeven73 · Posted: Jun 16, 2014 11:04 am Post subject:

It is all conveluted and Bubb Rubb by our current posture in the world.

That being thrown out, the US should be leading a UN action to stop the ISIS's overrun of Iraq. That would include military action.(what mix of air and land I wouldn't pretend to know)

If we ignore the situation the result IMPO will be something on the order of 9-11(who the Bubb Rubb knows when) up to regional war that one has to pray will not involve nukes, if Isreal and Pakistan get involved.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

Ok, so a UN joint operation to stop ISIS in Iraq.

Ok, I can be persuaded for that.

Where I don't agree with you is in the idea that ISIS taking over Iraq changes the threat level for a 9/11 type terrorist attack. I'm also not sure how ISIS taking over Iraq increases the chances of a regional war. Do you think they will unite with Iran in an action against Israel or something? It's my understanding that Iran is not on good terms with ISIS, but they DO like the current Shiite government. Am I mistaken?

So it sounds like a ISIS led Iraq might be in conflict with Iran. Why would Israel and/or Pakistan get involved in that?

I'm not following your logic on how an ISIS Iraq increases any threats in the region or at home to the US. Can you explain?

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

Neognosis, ISIS = Sunnis. Iran = Shiites, as are the current gov't of Iraq

Syrian rebellion is also typically Sunni where the leadership is Shia.

Iran and what's left of Syria would like nothing more than to see ISIS stopped.

eeven73 · Posted: Jun 16, 2014 11:50 am Post subject:

ISIS is Al Qaeda related.

Al Qaeda has sworn jihad against the United States.

There are a whole slew of ways that Isreal and Pakistan get involved, and it was on the extreme end of my "possibilites". I think it boils down to civil wars do spill over borders and anyone of the neighbors feeling threatened ups the stakes.

jason_ssr · Posted: Jun 16, 2014 12:35 pm Post subject:

Our problem is simple. We believe in the value of human life, including a humans ability to live free and equal to his fellow man. It makes it hard to impose our will on other cultures (democracy for all) while taking (and spending) human life to do it. We try to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy with good will assistance. Democracy is not something that can be gifted. AQ does not outnumber Iraqis. They only outnumber Iraqis willing to fight and possibly die for the freedom they were given.

You guys seem to forget what Iraq was about. It was about the risk of US made Sarin gas given to Iraq being used by AQ. Iraq itself was never a threat. We should have removed the Sarin in the 1st Iraq war. Instead we tried to do it as a UN operation in a ceasefire agreement. Iraq faulted on their agreement and we let it slide. After 9/11 we simply asked Saddam to allow the UN to complete their operation. He refused. So we went in. We should have just made our inspections and left. But no, we don't like bad press so we propped them up.

We don't like doing a lot of covert work because it makes us look shady. We don't like using overwhelming force because it makes us look like bullies. So we are stuck tiptoeing around at tremendous risk to our own soldiers for nothing more than image control.

We are what we are, and image control should stop being priority #1.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

eeven73 · Posted: Jun 16, 2014 1:52 pm Post subject:

My thought is the more powerful they are the worse.

Maybe having a home makes them forget there jihad, i doubt it though.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

well, I suppose that the UN can't allow the overthrow of an elected government by a group of radicals.

microman · Posted: Jun 16, 2014 7:04 pm Post subject:

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

I think he's still waiting for us to find the weapons of mass destruction, mm.

At this point, after listening to several arguments on both sides, I'm going to say that we do nothing except contain ISIS to Iraq. Let Iraq split into the three countries it should have been after WWI, and if ISIS gains more territory and props up a government, let Iran deal with it.

Let them fight each other instead of fighting us.

If ISIS somehow manages to thrive after warring with Iran and has the spare time and resources left to use Iraq as a terrorist staging and training ground, then we bomb them back to the stone age. Again.

Unless we stayed in Iraq until Islam had its reformation, which could be another 500 years, this was going to happen once we removed the force holding it all together.

I'm starting to think that this might not be a bad thing. Let sunni fight shiia , let iraq and iran go to war again. Heck, we worked tirelessly behind the scenes to make sure that Iran and Iraq stayed at war as long as possible the first time, now maybe it's just being handed to us on a silver platter.

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

Iran isn't the only one that would have to deal with it. Turkey is going to have to deal with it as well as Iran. Difference being, Turkey = NATO member. This complicates the matter a bit for us.

Not that Turkey can't take care of their own bizness, but we still have a potential obligation to assist them if this crosses their border.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

As long as nobody invades Turkey, I don't think we are obligated to participate.. but I'm not sure about that.

eeven73 · Posted: Jun 17, 2014 6:43 am Post subject:

Are you good with us giving Iraq to Iran?

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

No, and that is unlikely to happen as long as they are at war.

As it stood until a few weeks ago, they were cooperating because they were both Shiite countries. This ISIS sunni thing throws a wrench into that.

Under what situation do you think we are "giving Iraq to Iran?"

eeven73 · Posted: Jun 17, 2014 7:28 am Post subject:

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-us-iraq-iran-20140617-story.html#page=1

Scenario.

We get Iran to do the troops on the ground work. Iran goes Putin and decides to stay once the work is done. Barack and Kerry send the Mullahs a sternly worded note. Iran has wanted Iraqs land forever.