Militants Overrun Mosul

So, would you accept a tax hike to pay for it?

 

You need to STFU.

I'm not trying to discredit any of treeman's "first hand accounts," I have actively discredited his idiotic musings that have nothing to do with first hand experience, but with his partisan opinions that bear no resemblance to reality.

It would be best for you to keep quiet all the time, given your individual performance on this board. You're an intellectually dishonest troll who hasn't had an original thought in years, based on the posts you have made on this board.

Go back to staring, slack-jawed at your television pundits, they'll tell you what to think so that you can parrot it back here while we all laugh and roll our eyes at you.

 

You're making the critical assumption that the US *can* fix the problem. I understand your point that what happened in Iraq is America's responsibility. And I agree that we have some responsibility to the Iraqi people to do what's best for them, even at our own expense since we caused it. But as of now, no one knows how to fix it or if it's even possible or if our presence is actually helpful in the larger scheme of things.

The "surge" just delayed the inevitable and was an unsustainable idea. Many critics of the surge said that whenever it wound down, things would fall apart - and that's exactly what's happening. Nothing actually was "fixed" by it - just delayed. Your comparison to rebuilding Germany is flawed because Germany wasn't a warzone post-WW2. The people there were all-in on the rebuilding instead of having insurgents constantly blowing things up and recruiting based on the presence of the foreigners.

 

Yes, they are just a warmongering people that can never be civilized....thank you for your contributions to this discussion.

That really stupid view of the situation doesn't help anyone or further anything. The main reasons for the problems in the region are only about 100 years old and a direct result of the West screwing over those in the middle east. The idea that "they've been fighting for over 3 millenia" is just ignorant. The West caused the mess, they should help fix it. Learn a bit more about the middle east and you'll be able to contribute more intelligently to this conversation.

 

It's obviously not the exact same situation as with Germany, but the US still has the same responsibility. Had the Allies done right by the middle east after the 2nd world war, we wouldn't be having the problems over there that we are now. They didn't give a damn about the region and treated them poorly and we are paying for it now. The bulk of the blame goes to France and England, but that doesn't mean that we don't share our portion of the blame. If we leave the area impoverished and run by warlords, what do you think the result will be?

We need to build up Iraq to the point where they are a first world country so that they can eventually prosper on their own. It'll take a really long time, and it'll be expensive, but it needs to be done. Also, the US doesn't have to do this by themselves, if there was a firm commitment to rebuilding the country to the point that we rebuilt Germany or Japan then there would be plenty of reason for others to get involved.

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Perhaps you should brush up on your world history, here's a primer. There has been nearly constant fighting in that region for all of recorded history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Middle_East

 

For everybody wondering how the U.S. paid for WWII, here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_home_front_during_World_War_II

I doubt that plan would pass today. Also, why is it OK to subsidize the rebuilding of the nations of people who refuse to fight for themselves, but it's not OK to subsidize the poor and starving people at home?

 

The difference is that both Germany and Japan formed organically and are mostly homogeneous.

Iraq (just like most of the Middle East) is a loose collective of autonomous regions and tribes- created by the British and French following the Ottoman collapse. Hence why Iraq was ruled almost entirely by dictators during it's time of existence.

Just like Yugoslavia fell apart, so will Iraq. Accept the conflict will span borders and be a lot bloodier and a lot longer - as both the Saudis and Iranians will fund their sides.

Normally, I agree with the principle that we have a responsibility to clean up our mess, but there's no cleaning this up. And I'm not comfortable spilling more American blood in a vain attempt to create a peace deal. Because there's only three scenarios possible. Either Iraq splits into three or four different countries, it stays together and headed by a Sunni dictator (Saudi puppet), or it stays together and be headed by a Shi'a dictator (Iranian puppet). None of these benefit us.

 

If it's not better off after ELEVEN years then that's your cue that you need to leave. As Major rightfully points out, this is a totally different situation than Germany. Write Iraq a check and let the Iraqis rebuild Iraq.

It has nothing to do with weak will. You can trot out these stupid little Republican tag lines but you don't run a country or a war with tag lines. You don't send men to war so you don't look weak to chicken hawks who've skipped every war we've had. Tucking and running is what Reagan did in Beirut. Eleven years isn't tucking and running.

All of this underscores the incalculable damage that George Bush's Presidency has done to our country, our economy, and our military. He ****ed the country.

 

Wow. FDR was a boss. Never realized he did that to pay for the war.

 

Completely irrelevant to the thread as a whole, but if the Marshall Plan wasn't such a resounding success - we'd be saying the complete opposite. Same thing if Lincoln hadn't won the Civil War.

One man's dictator is another's hero I suppose.

 

BigTexxx, I would like to hear your opinion on this subject. As someone who is from the middle east, I would like to point out to you the conflicts on Afghanistan's southern border with Yemen, or the insurgents in Iraq pre-US intervention, or the Kurds battle in Syria, northern Iraq, and parts of Egypt. Conflict has long been the defining factor of the region. To define it ultimately as Islam vs Infidel due to the relatively short US occupation would be somewhat narrow sighted. All we do in the region is fuel anti-west propaganda, nothing more... Who are we really at war with? An ideology? Good luck winning that war my friend. Why are we there in the first place, what is there to accomplish there that is realisticly plausible within the current bounds of US resources and time? And who put us in this dilemna to begin with?

 

Heh, only a stereotypical American would think 11 years was a long time. If you don't see immediate results write a check and abandon the issue. That's why the US was doomed for failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, we don't have the will to do what would need to be done for success. Tearing something down is easy, and honestly fun to do, building something up can take a really long time and can be painful and it was clear that while we love tearing things down, we don't have the attention span to truly build anything up. It's the reason they didn't want us to get involved in the first place, they knew that all we'd do is blow stuff up and leave them worse off than they were to begin with and, well, they were right. You are pretty much proof of that. Partisan BS and the ADD nature of the American public will always get in the way.

 

While I agree that the American public and the American government if often short sighted (just look at our expenditures on Medicare compared to what we spend on education and R&D)- you're basing this on the assumption that we have the ability to dramatically alter the state of things, or that we have enough resources to sustain two military campaigns halfway across the world.

It is politically and logistically impossible for the United States - or any foreign power - to create peace and stability in Iraq. The only there will be peace between Sunnis and Shias in the region (short of some sort of divine revelation) is when both sides decide they've had enough pointless fighting and decide to stop, and that peace will only last until there's something to flare it up again.

 

edit...

misread

 

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There is 100% clear evidence that Saddam had them and even used them on his own people. There were dozens (42?) UN resolutions on the topic that Iraq did not successfully address, so that was the result.

Hillary Clinton herself even voted for the war in Iraq.

 

Aaaand Maliki's sending in Shia militias and asking the Kurds to help [per the CSM].

Nothing says "ripe and ready for a multi-ethnic democracy" like having ethnically divided state institutions. You can't have a unified country and operate the way Iraq has since the fall of Saddam. The country's too damn divided to function.

 

You keep holding on to that little solider.

 

He used them on his own people. It's 100% clear. There is no debate on the topic.

 

The way I see it, if we were able to keep things calm for long enough to make them economically prosperous then there would be incentive to keep the peace. The religious disagreement between Sunnis and Shias will probably never end, much like between Catholics and Protestants, but that doesn't mean that disagreement has to always be bloody. Incentive peace and you get more peace. Baghdad at one point was the greatest city in the world, if we can work towards restoring even a little bit of that then we'll be working towards peace. Abandoning them before they have a solid foundation and economic prosperity ensures disaster and just furthers the anti-US propaganda.