Iraq 2014

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

Why would we do that now?

Reagan and Rumsfeld spent a lot of time and money secretly keeping the fight even, why wouldn't we just do that again?

Plus, Iran and Iraq, currently both under Shiite power, have not combined at this point to do something sinister.

I say, if Iran took over Iraq, (which is not going to happen), let them have it. Then they can deal with the constant insurgencies for the next 100 years, and then they can go broke instead of us.

Let them fight each other over there so they don't try to fight us here.

so, eeven, are you suggesting that the US recommit our forces to a new ground war and occupation in Iraq?

eeven73 · Posted: Jun 17, 2014 8:16 am Post subject:

I've told you what I suggest.

goofyboy · Posted: Jun 17, 2014 9:11 am Post subject:

We will never let Iran take over Iraq. Too much $$$$ involved with our private interests over there.

jason_ssr · Posted: Jun 17, 2014 9:39 am Post subject:

microman · Posted: Jun 17, 2014 10:50 am Post subject:

jason_ssr · Posted: Jun 17, 2014 11:12 am Post subject:

which facts?

Oh, the one where we spent over a year pleading with the UN to force Saddam to comply with the ceasefire agreement to have UN inspectors catalog and destroy the remaining Sarin?

Or where we demanded Saddam allow the inspections to be completed or we would use force?

or where we gave him 48hrs to leave the country so we could work with more reasonable leadership to get the sarin gas inspections completed.

After 9/11 the uncertainty of the sarin status was a risk, due to inspections not being completed. The fear was that it would be given to AQ to use against a mutual enemy.

microman · Posted: Jun 17, 2014 11:19 am Post subject:

jason_ssr even the Bush admin didn't care about the old sarin gas that they found.

www.nbcnews.com/id/13480264/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/officials-us-didnt-find-wmds-despite-claims

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

good to see some things don't change.

jason_ssr · Posted: Jun 17, 2014 1:07 pm Post subject:

We didnt know the condition of all the Sarin prior to going in. thats why we when we ended the first war we asked for UN inspectors to resolve the sarin issue. They were kicked out. ...or do you not remember those facts?

Remember Colin Powell claiming that doing the UN dance gave Iraq opportunity to move the remaining functioning Sarin to Syria?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/2013916142939119643.html

This is what we were hoping to avoid by forcing compliance.

microman · Posted: Jun 17, 2014 1:30 pm Post subject:

jason_ssr · Posted: Jun 17, 2014 2:12 pm Post subject:

We gave Iraq Sarin to use against Iran. When we engaged Saddam in the first Iraq war, you dont remember seeing all those chem suits our soldiers were wearing? it wasnt because of a rumor that he might be producing Sarin. It was because we gave it to him. As part of the ceasefire, he agreed to allow the UN to destroy the remaining Sarin. He then kicked them out. In 2003, all we asked of Saddam was to allow this to be completed. This would have ended our concerns for unaccounted for Sarin. He called our bluff and we were stuck.

Im not saying it wasnt a complete cluster. It was. Turns out unnecessary. The remaining Sarin wasnt used on US soil. It was a domino of bad politics starting with giving him Sarin, not taking it in the first war. Not insisting after he kicked UN out, and not going in in 2003, taking a looksee and bailing. I dont like how it turned out, but Im not foolish enough to say I dont understand why we did what we did based on what we knew at the time.

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

Looks like Rand Paul decided to comment. Cheney whipped out the "isolationist" moniker, as well.

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

I like some of Rand Paul's comments in the article.

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

After doing some research and listening to the opinions of middle east experts who are NOT in politics, I believe this to be a conflict between Sunni and Shiite, with neither side being "the good guy."

Both sides have been attempting to wipe each other off the face of the earth for a long time, and the victors of WWI made it worse when they created Iraq. My opinion is that we should let them shoot it out between themselves until they come to the solution, which I believe to be a three state solution.

I don't think ISIS is coming to US soil or attacking the US anyplace except the middle East any time soon, nor do they have any intention of doing so. I also think that the news media has done a very poor job of reporting the situation accurately. I watch mostly Fox news, and I have heard them talk about "Isis heading for baghdad?," "is it just a matter of time before they are in Baghdad?" 'ISIS taking city after city with little effort, "etc. etc.

What they fail to tell us is that the cities they have taken were Sunni majority cities, and that if they went into Shiite majority Baghdad, they would be massacred. So, they are not the juggarnaut that the news wants to scare you into thinking they are. A more accurate picture is that they are taking cities that are already sympathetic to them and not putting up much resistance.

I watch those who are advocating strongly for a return of US combat forces to Iraq, and they seem to be the same ones who told us that our soldiers would be greeted as liberators and democracy would spring up like a garden. They also seem to have a lot of ties to industries that make a lot of money when we are at war or occupying a hostile country. They also make some misleading statements, and seem to be banking on americans being ignorant and not understanding how complex the situation is there, or who is fighting who.

this is a civil war between two sects of Islam. This is not a war heading toward the US. We should do absolutely nothing.

Porterwake · Posted: Jun 29, 2014 4:35 pm Post subject:

This whole thing the USA needs to be kept out of because its the Iraqis fault this happened. Who didn't see this coming?

First of all, Maliki was democratically elected as a Shia (ha, no way, in Iraq?). Isn't that what we wanted? Democracy? So we have Shia pretty much in control of the country and they aren't letting Sunni's have any say. So the Sunnis I'm pretty sure tried to make term limits on the PM. The courts threw it out.....I'm sure making the Sunnis very happy Rolling Eyes

This is what you get. Sunnis make up like 95% of all Muslims I think and we have a country controlled by Shia. What did you think was going to happen?!?! This is what happens when you put Democracy in the hands of Islam, much less ANY country in the Middle East. it won't freaking work.

So now that Iraq has democracy and the country people are pissed, NOW we're supposed to go back in and make it our problem? The only way to subdue these barbarians in the Middle East is a dictatorship. Saddam is looking like a peacekeeper right now.

And to every one of you who would be in favor of sending our young men to DIE for this bulls#!+, you should be ashamed. Shame on you. Shame on John McCain and shame on every neocon suggesting we send our boys back in to die for this crap.

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

87-89%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations

But your point still stands.

However, Shia are the majority in Iraq.

It is an old trick to put the minority in power to keep a tenuous balance.

I believe that the Bush admin was aware of all of this (nobody could be this ignorant or ignore scores of experts) and they intended to occupy Iraq for a century or so. Making a lot of money along the way.

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

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

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

It's the old cons as well.

Either ignorance or deception. I'm not a fan of either in my elected officials.

It SEEMS that public opinion is leaning toward "Hell no" this time.

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

jason_ssr · Posted: Jul 01, 2014 8:11 am Post subject:

In hindsight, what would the total savings be today if GHWB would have just wiped the map day 1 of Desert Storm?

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

jason_ssr, interesting thought.

I think it would be very hard to say, mostly because we don't really know what would have happened in the power vacuum that would have followed. Probably the same BS they are dealing with now, just with a lot less of our blood and $$ spent on it.

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

You guys might find this interesting:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/us-soldiers-dated-rant-to-iraqi-police-more-relevant-th-1596285483/+damon

NSFW due to language.

Apparently, a rant at some iraqi cops by a US soldier around 2008.

jason_ssr · Posted: Jul 01, 2014 1:54 pm Post subject:

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