yup, and the u.s. army overran the iraqi army in 6 months, found the wmds, freed all the women of their burkas and established democracy for the arabs without sustaining significant casualties. didn't you see the banner, mc mark?
I have heard from some colleagues of mine that there were multiple sources telling us that Iraq did indeed possess weapons of mass destruction. But so does North Korea, Russia, and several other countries that the US is not on entirely good terms with. I'm not sure if that constitutes a full scale invasion of a country. Now to say that he used weapons of mass destruction, which I'm assuming would be nuclear weapons, on his own people is a bit of a reach in my personal opinion. Wouldn't we see radioactive levels surging in Iraq? But in fact we have not. Where is the evidence for Saddam using weapons of mass destruction on his own people. Kind of off note, but remember how many of his own people Joseph Stalin killed? GENOCIDE, the man was more of a monster than Hitler, only difference was that he killed his own people, yet we went to war with the man.
McMark, SamFisher -- your presence is requested, if you're man enough... http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=255315
You can't incentivize peace with killers and zealots. They want to kill each other. The entire area is in a constant Shia Sunni power struggle. Invading Iraq and screwing up so badly just gave Iraq to Iran and the Shia, changing the power dynamic and setting us closer to a powder keg with Iran and Saudi Arabia doing battle if just by proxy right now.
A fair point. I'm not as optimistic as you though. I don't see there being enough real economic success until the turbulence and violence cuts down, but I also don't see an end to violence happening without economic success (kind of a chicken and egg quandary). I also really don't think that the American public or the Iraqi public has the stomach for such an intense and prolonged occupation that such a project would need. Nobody likes being occupied, and nobody likes risking their sons, daughters, and taxes to the building of a foreign country. It worked in Japan and Germany because the Germans and Japanese were committed to the idea (the Germans because of a fear of a Soviet occupation and the Japanese because the Emperor stayed in power and allowed it all to happen). There isn't enough commitment by the Iraqis to agree to an American led project because of an intense mistrust of Americans in the region and a mistrust between Sunnis and Shias. It also doesn't help that the Sunni/Shia divide exists well beyond Iraq's borders. It's more than just about Iraqi ethnic groups; it's a tug of war for power and influence by Saudi Arabia and Iran. And the two of them are going to keep funding and supporting their respective sides until either of them completely dominate the region. A peace in Baghdad (or Beirut or Damascus or anywhere in the Gulf) has to start with those two cooperating. And that won't happen because the Iranian Ayatollah is fiercely anti American and Anti Arab, and the Saudi royal family (and the wahabbi clerics they need to keep happy) will likely not negotiate with the Shi'as. Again, I hope you're right- but I just don't see it happening. I do agree that an economic carrot can (in most cases) lead a donkey to peace but this is a situation extending far beyond Iraq. I do appreciate your post though. It's a welcome change to see a substantive coherent reply based in some form of reasoning, logic, or facts. It's a nice break from the usual **** in here.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but it's a sad outlook. What would you suggest? Just let them kill each other?
Yes, they are all killers and zealots, let's just dehumanize the entire region to justify abandoning them. The Shia-Sunni power struggle will always exist just as the Catholic-Protestant power struggle in Ireland, but it doesn't have to always be a bloody power struggle. When the incentive for peace overrides the incentive for violence, peace usually wins out. Of course you need several factors in place before that can happen, you need economic prosperity, a solid and legitimate government structure, and a legitimate and functional legal system. Until ALL of that is in place, they'll need help, if they don't get it they are in for more of the same. It can last 1000 more years or 100 all dependent on how we deal with it.
We've (westerners) given the people of the middle east plenty of reason to distrust us over the last century, gaining that trust will take longer than a few years of doing the right thing. As to going beyond Iraq, that will take even longer. I think if we (hopefully not just the US) can create a success in Iraq, others eventually will follow...if not, a success in Iraq is better than no success at all. The reason we have such trouble there is because no one believes that the US is there for the long haul. The US has a long history of abandoning people that depend on them and let's face it, we're all set to do it again right now. Saudi and Iran will always be there, Iraqis know that they aren't going to be abandoned by them....that's why they have more legitimacy in the region than us even though the Iranians and Iraqis have historically been enemies.
Agree to disagree. I think the Iranians and Saudis have to set aside their differences before anything gets done- no matter how long we stay there.
that's the funniest thing I have read on the bbs ever. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Gpc5_3B5xdk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> BWHAHAAHAA It's official bigkkk belongs in a padded room with a cork on the end of his fork.Nice troll attempt. wow Anyone seen those WMDS??
We sit back and watch. We removed ourselves from the equation, and we cannot easily insert ourselves again. We have very few options at this point. Either the Iraqis will pull it together or they won't. If they don't then we will either watch in real timea general regional war erupt actoss sectarian lines, or we will see the reestablishment of the caliphate, and the beginning of the global war to follow. Or both. Understand that elements of the jihadists' message are very seductive to many islamic ears. Kill the Jews, kill the Americans, spread the faith by whatever means necessary... Islam is a religion of conquest, and these are its bravest warriors who put their lives forwards to propel the faith. That is a VERY attractive message to many young muslims around the world. I'd expect the Iranians to move into Iraq at some point if this continues. While the overall push is islamic the ISIL / ISIS movement threatens their power. They have a different revolution in mind - one with Persian rulers at the top, not a bunch of stinking Arabs (from their view). If we're very lucky the Iraqis will stamp this out. If we're slightly less lucky the Iranian will stamp it out. If we're not that lucky... This has the potential to get really bad over the next few years, and it has a high potential to draw us back in on the ground at some point with a far larger and more costly commitment than we experienced between 2003-2011. So. How do you grade your foreign policy if your best hopes for success lie in backing the Iraqis and/or Iranians?
Hah I won't be so quick to banter him because he hasn't done the same to me, but I'm still waiting on multiple responses from him in other threads as well.
