Things go from really bad to a lot worse in Iraq (and Syria)

[wasted]

Cash, war and working to 11pm.

The reason why rich people seek out power is to secure their wealth.

The world corrupt.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Obama squandered all of the great sacrifice by our brave men and women, and all for his political gain.

What he lacks in forward thinking is only matched by his lack of resolve

He has no clue what to do now.

That's what happens when you put those mouthy negroes in charge.

Yeah, I knew it was just a matter of time before Shades chimed in with his usual enlightened contributions.

Look, unless the U.S. was and is willing to make a Korea-like military commitment (and even then it's questionable), this is the natural outcome of the 2003 invasion. Iraq is not a natural country as it exists today; it was created less than a hundred years ago by the British for imperial purposes. Like the rest of the Mid East, boundaries have no reflection of ethnic/religious populations. It's why most mid-east countries are ruled by the minority over the majority. The system (relatively) worked so long as those regimes had the authoritarian means to impose complete control over their "national" populations.

Iraq is a state wherein three nations exist. Kurds in the North, a mix of Sunnis and Shiites in the centre, and a Shiite majority in the South. Once you impose democracy and remove the binding force that was the Saddam dictatorship, no amount of diplomacy is going to keep things at bay for long. So long as you had PM Maliki oppressing the Sunni minority that had long been the governing force in Iraq, hell was the natural outcome.

There's been a lot of finger pointing by Obama critics who will argue that Bush won the war while Obama is in the process of losing it. Nonsense. It was always going to be a situation prone to division and mass violence. Unless new boundaries are drawn up along sectarian lines, the state of Iraq will forever been in flux. You can't introduce liberty and democracy into a country where the respective populations want nothing to do with one another. The U.S. left Vietnam with a trained 1.5 million man army and all the tanks and missiles the country's military brass could hope for. What good did any of it do in the face of widespread desire by the people of Vietnam to support Ho Chi Minh. The same is happening in Iraq, except almost in a reverse sort of way. Maliki and his governing coalition have not substantiated themselves enough to the diverse populations within Iraq. Hence nobody feels any loyalty to it. No amount of diplomacy or U.S. troop presence is going to change that dynamic. Even had the Obama administration been more engaged in extending the SOFA in 2011, thereby allowing for a small contingency force of 10k troops, the governing bodies of Iraq didn't want it and weren't willing to accept the basic tenet of any SOFA (immunity for U.S. personnel from local prosecution under Iraqi law). And even if the SOFA had been extended, what good would it have done? If Maliki was already starting to act like an authoritarian thug with over a 100k American troops present, what leverage would the U.S. had with 10k troops? It took an influx of 30k troops (on top of the 100k U.S. forces already present) to scale back the violence in 2006-2007. If anyone believes that a 10k contingency force could solve the problems facing Iraq today they're simply deluding themselves.

It just hard to believe how anyone would think a democracy would work in Iraq. They have never been a democratic country. If anything, pick a group, arm them. Ordinary American citizens were horrified by Saddam's rule. Nothing was said of Saudi Arabia, but that is hush hush. Then when he was gone, you realize that if you cut off the head, millions sprout up. Maybe some of the people being tortured were the same fuckers who have been killing our troops and are now causing mayhem today?

I think it is the US's responsibility to help out their ally in the Middle East. I mean the Kurds are sending their people in, but many of them are demoralized because Jalabil Talabin is still recovering from his stroke. He is a like a father to them.

[downzy]

It just hard to believe how anyone would think a democracy would work in Iraq. They have never been a democratic country. If anything, pick a group, arm them. Ordinary American citizens were horrified by Saddam's rule. Nothing was said of Saudi Arabia, but that is hush hush. Then when he was gone, you realize that if you cut off the head, millions sprout up. Maybe some of the people being tortured were the same fuckers who have been killing our troops and are now causing mayhem today?

I think it is the US's responsibility to help out their ally in the Middle East. I mean the Kurds are sending their people in, but many of them are demoralized because Jalabil Talabin is still recovering from his stroke. He is a like a father to them.

Well, democracy in new lands can happen. It did become the governing structure in Japan following its defeat in WW2. And though Germany's first foray into democracy turned into a nightmare with the Weimar Republic, it did eventually take root in Western, and later a unified, Germany. It can happen, but it has to happen where the conditions make success likely. In Iraq, none of those precursors existed. You didn't have a relatively cohesive population. You didn't have borders drawn up on religious/ethnic lines. There is no one nation in Iraq like what's found in Japan and Germany (again, relatively). Democracy only works in the Balkans once the borders were redrawn in the late 80s throughout most of the 90s.

Edit: As for American responsibility to assist it's "ally" in Iraq, that's questionable. Sure, the U.S. broke it so it should be on the hook to fix it. But at what point does the intransigence of an Iran-affiliated ruling coalition take responsibility? I'd be more inclined to support American assistance to Maliki's government if he was able and willing to do an about-face in regards to his governing style and the exclusionary nature of his policies. But I don't see that happening. Maliki is too beholden to his Shiite coalition and his allegiances with Iran. Things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get any better. And unless you have a faithful and willing partner in Iraq, there's not much the U.S. can and should do about it.

Edited June 13, 2014 by downzy

[Guest Len B'stard]

A lot of people think democracy is an universally applicable system for any place in the world

I think it's the leap from thinking something is universally applicable to setting about trying to apply it universally, with or without mass consent of the populus in question is where the contention arises.

Personally, i think thats a fucking arrogant perspective anyway. People think democracy is a universally applicable system, yeah, well, all adherents to a political system think that, don't they? That their way is THE way.

My perspective is this, people should be allowed to be governed in whatever the fuck way they see fit, there is no universally applicable system that everyone should adopt until such time as there is mass consensus regarding the flawlessness of A given system. Even the lovers of democracy and capitalism will admit that it is by no means perfect and based on that, knowing full well it's down sides, how can you spill blood for it in the way that has become so common?

[magisme]

lol democracy

[AxlisOld]

Im sick of hearing about Iraq or Afghanistan or the Middle East in general and we should as far the fuck away as possible.

[downzy]

Now we have Senator "I Should Have Been President" John McCain lamenting how badly the Obama administration has handled things in Iraq. Right, because Senator McCain gets it right so often:

http://on.msnbc.com/1nzCqFL

[Guest Len B'stard]

Im sick of hearing about Iraq or Afghanistan or the Middle East in general and we should as far the fuck away as possible.

Not if you wanna remain a superpower you shouldn't, thats kinda what it's all about, playing the rest of the world like bitches In your defence you do it admirably too

Edited June 13, 2014 by sugaraylen

[shades]

anyone still defending Obama on his foreign policy, is either stubbornly hiding their bad decision of supporting him in the first place, uniformed, or like Obama himself unable to forward think.

leaving Iraq entirely was a bad decision.

maintaining a peace keeping force, even a minimal force with the resources and intelligence available to our military would have not only stopped this mad man in his tracks at the border, but would have emboldened the Iraqi military to stand their ground knowing we had their backs.

there was absolutely no reason outside of the politics of it to completely abandoned Iraq when the clown-in-chief decided he wanted the "I ended the war" T-shirt.

So what does he do now? draw a red line in the sand and dare Baghdadi to cross it?

It's the most blatant display of inexperience and lack of foresight ever displayed by an American President, ever.

Edited June 13, 2014 by shades

[downzy]

leaving Iraq entirely was a bad decision.

maintaining a peace keeping force, even a minimal force with the resources and intelligence available to our military would have not only stopped this mad man in his tracks at the border, but would have emboldened the Iraqi military to stand their ground knowing we had their backs.

there was absolutely no reason outside of the politics of it to completely abandoned Iraq when the clown-in-chief decided he wanted the "I ended the war" T-shirt.

Ah, Shades, you do realize it was Maliki and the Iraqi government that turned down the opportunity to extend the SOFA, right? Besides the politics of it all? Do you mean the U.S. should have given the middle finger to the democratically elected government (that was supported by the U.S.) and told them that U.S. forces was staying put?

Once again, a guy who knows fuck all about anything feels the need to pass judgement.

[shades]

leaving Iraq entirely was a bad decision.

maintaining a peace keeping force, even a minimal force with the resources and intelligence available to our military would have not only stopped this mad man in his tracks at the border, but would have emboldened the Iraqi military to stand their ground knowing we had their backs.

there was absolutely no reason outside of the politics of it to completely abandoned Iraq when the clown-in-chief decided he wanted the "I ended the war" T-shirt.

Ah, Shades, you do realize it was Maliki and the Iraqi government that turned down the opportunity to extend the SOFA, right? Besides the politics of it all? Do you mean the U.S. should have given the middle finger to the democratically elected government (that was supported by the U.S.) and told them that U.S. forces was staying put?

Once again, a guy who knows fuck all about anything feels the need to pass judgement.

you are officially the biggest dumb ass on the board, congratulations.

yes, we should have given the middle finger to ANYONE who potentially put our national security interests at risk, and had the nerve to thumb their nose at the great sacrifice of life and resources spent to defend security for all.

Iraq being overun by the wave of terror sweeping the middle east is bad news for everyone in the world.

Is that too fucking hard for you to grasp.

Knock off the charade, you can't think past your stupid ideology, you're embarrassing yourself to anyone outside of your little following here.

you're a phony, fuckhead, and I'm on to you, have been for some time.

and like I told you 20 times already, try posting your opinion without disregarding someone else's, at least it would keep you from looking so desperate.

[downzy]

leaving Iraq entirely was a bad decision.

maintaining a peace keeping force, even a minimal force with the resources and intelligence available to our military would have not only stopped this mad man in his tracks at the border, but would have emboldened the Iraqi military to stand their ground knowing we had their backs.

there was absolutely no reason outside of the politics of it to completely abandoned Iraq when the clown-in-chief decided he wanted the "I ended the war" T-shirt.

Ah, Shades, you do realize it was Maliki and the Iraqi government that turned down the opportunity to extend the SOFA, right? Besides the politics of it all? Do you mean the U.S. should have given the middle finger to the democratically elected government (that was supported by the U.S.) and told them that U.S. forces was staying put?

Once again, a guy who knows fuck all about anything feels the need to pass judgement.

you are officially the biggest dumb ass on the board, congratulations.

yes, we should have given the middle finger to ANYONE who potentially put our national security interests at risk, and had the nerve to thumb their nose at the great sacrifice of life and resources spent to defend security for all.

Iraq being overun by the wave of terror sweeping the middle east is bad news for everyone in the world.

Is that too fucking hard for you to grasp.

Knock off the charade, you can't think past your stupid ideology, you're embarrassing yourself to anyone outside of your little following here.

you're a phony, fuckhead, and I'm on to you, have been for some time.

and like I told you 20 times already, try posting your opinion without disregarding someone else's, at least it would keep you from looking so desperate.

Really? So the U.S. should act unilaterally whenever it damn well feels like it. LOL. And how did that work out for the U.S. the last time they unilaterally pushed troops into Iraq?

Let's just recap: fuck what the people of Iraq wants, if the U.S. needs to occupy other countries to satisfy some absurd notion of national security, then so be it. That's your foreign policy?

Moreover, is it Iraq's fault that the U.S. chose to unnecessarily involve itself into its domestic affairs? That it's beholden to a foreign power who crafted trumped up reasons to invade it? That because U.S. policy makers decided it was important to spill blood and spend billions in Iraq that such foolishness renders Iraqis subservient to their wayward masters? What kind of logic is that? The mistake of one country doesn't render the occupied nation beholden to it. Look at the logic you're implying here.

Also curious how you've been on to me for quite some time? Really? You almost never respond to my posts. Are you conducting some sort of investigation? Was that you hiding behind the bushes the other day outside my place?

Edited June 13, 2014 by downzy

[downzy]

It's the most blatant display of inexperience and lack of foresight ever displayed by an American President, ever.

I think most would agree that going into Iraq in the first place might rank higher on that list. But you're entitled to your own opinion, no matter how deluded it really is.

[OmarBradley]

leaving Iraq entirely was a bad decision.

maintaining a peace keeping force, even a minimal force with the resources and intelligence available to our military would have not only stopped this mad man in his tracks at the border, but would have emboldened the Iraqi military to stand their ground knowing we had their backs.

there was absolutely no reason outside of the politics of it to completely abandoned Iraq when the clown-in-chief decided he wanted the "I ended the war" T-shirt.

Ah, Shades, you do realize it was Maliki and the Iraqi government that turned down the opportunity to extend the SOFA, right? Besides the politics of it all? Do you mean the U.S. should have given the middle finger to the democratically elected government (that was supported by the U.S.) and told them that U.S. forces was staying put?

Once again, a guy who knows fuck all about anything feels the need to pass judgement.

you are officially the biggest dumb ass on the board, congratulations.

yes, we should have given the middle finger to ANYONE who potentially put our national security interests at risk, and had the nerve to thumb their nose at the great sacrifice of life and resources spent to defend security for all.

Iraq being overun by the wave of terror sweeping the middle east is bad news for everyone in the world.

Is that too fucking hard for you to grasp.

Knock off the charade, you can't think past your stupid ideology, you're embarrassing yourself to anyone outside of your little following here.

you're a phony, fuckhead, and I'm on to you, have been for some time.

and like I told you 20 times already, try posting your opinion without disregarding someone else's, at least it would keep you from looking so desperate.

Really? So the U.S. should act unilaterally whenever it damn well feels like it. LOL. And how did that work out for the U.S. the last time they unilaterally pushed troops into Iraq?

Let's just recap: fuck what the people of Iraq wants, if the U.S. needs to occupy other countries to satisfy some absurd notion of national security, then so be it. That's your foreign policy?

Moreover, is it Iraq's fault that the U.S. chose to unnecessarily involve itself into its domestic affairs? That it's beholden to a foreign power who crafted trumped up reasons to invade it? That because U.S. policy makers decided it was important to spill blood and spend billions in Iraq that such foolishness renders Iraqis subservient to their wayward masters? What kind of logic is that? The mistake of one country doesn't render the occupied nation beholden to it. Look at the logic you're implying here.

Also curious how you've been on to me for quite some time? Really? You almost never respond to my posts. Are you conducting some sort of investigation? Was that you hiding behind the bushes the other day outside my place?

I don't understand how you can read someone's post which directly contradicts information you posit, then proceed to ignore that section of the person's post, and then continue to berate them via ad hominem attacks. It is actually very enlightening regarding the quality of your psyche, and the effectiveness of your argumentation. No attention should be paid to you until you can argue using reason, logic, fact, and composure.

EDIT: In regards to the topic, Georgy and Downzy (and others I'm forgetting) have done an excellent job of discussing this. I'd love to contribute, but I don't have the time right now.

Edited June 13, 2014 by OmarBradley

[downzy]

leaving Iraq entirely was a bad decision.

maintaining a peace keeping force, even a minimal force with the resources and intelligence available to our military would have not only stopped this mad man in his tracks at the border, but would have emboldened the Iraqi military to stand their ground knowing we had their backs.

there was absolutely no reason outside of the politics of it to completely abandoned Iraq when the clown-in-chief decided he wanted the "I ended the war" T-shirt.

Ah, Shades, you do realize it was Maliki and the Iraqi government that turned down the opportunity to extend the SOFA, right? Besides the politics of it all? Do you mean the U.S. should have given the middle finger to the democratically elected government (that was supported by the U.S.) and told them that U.S. forces was staying put?

Once again, a guy who knows fuck all about anything feels the need to pass judgement.

you are officially the biggest dumb ass on the board, congratulations.

yes, we should have given the middle finger to ANYONE who potentially put our national security interests at risk, and had the nerve to thumb their nose at the great sacrifice of life and resources spent to defend security for all.

Iraq being overun by the wave of terror sweeping the middle east is bad news for everyone in the world.

Is that too fucking hard for you to grasp.

Knock off the charade, you can't think past your stupid ideology, you're embarrassing yourself to anyone outside of your little following here.

you're a phony, fuckhead, and I'm on to you, have been for some time.

and like I told you 20 times already, try posting your opinion without disregarding someone else's, at least it would keep you from looking so desperate.

Really? So the U.S. should act unilaterally whenever it damn well feels like it. LOL. And how did that work out for the U.S. the last time they unilaterally pushed troops into Iraq?

Let's just recap: fuck what the people of Iraq wants, if the U.S. needs to occupy other countries to satisfy some absurd notion of national security, then so be it. That's your foreign policy?

Moreover, is it Iraq's fault that the U.S. chose to unnecessarily involve itself into its domestic affairs? That it's beholden to a foreign power who crafted trumped up reasons to invade it? That because U.S. policy makers decided it was important to spill blood and spend billions in Iraq that such foolishness renders Iraqis subservient to their wayward masters? What kind of logic is that? The mistake of one country doesn't render the occupied nation beholden to it. Look at the logic you're implying here.

Also curious how you've been on to me for quite some time? Really? You almost never respond to my posts. Are you conducting some sort of investigation? Was that you hiding behind the bushes the other day outside my place?

I don't understand how you can read someone's post which directly contradicts information you posit, then proceed to ignore that section of the person's post, and then continue to berate them via ad hominem attacks. It is actually very enlightening regarding the quality of your psyche, and the effectiveness of your argumentation. No attention should be paid to you until you can argue using reason, logic, fact, and composure.

I'm assuming you were referring to Shades in your post? Or should I be getting my psyche checked.

[OmarBradley]

I'm assuming you were referring to Shades in your post? Or should I be getting my psyche checked.

Yup I quoted the wrong post, very enlightening as to the quality of my psyche....

[Ace Nova]

We'll see what Iran can do. I have a feeling Obama is done about hearing how the U.S. needs to stop policing the world. If we don't do it, obviously no one else will...and then this happens....so now we get blamed for not doing something.

Maybe this is the wake up call the world needs. Either accept U.S. imperialism or live with the consequences of what happens without it.

Please be kidding. The majority of the world is tired of the US 'helping' out.

No offense, but the US sees itself entirely different than the rest of the world does.

First off, the U.S./America and most of Europe are basically one and the same now. So if you criticize the U.S., you might as well be critical of Europe as well...as in the "West".

And I know how the U.S. is viewed in other countries...and viewing/thinking is one thing but action is another. So they can view and think all they want...it's meaningless until they get the balls to do something about it....or come up with a better solution.

Maybe this is the wake up call the world needs. Either accept U.S. imperialism or live with the consequences of what happens without it.

I cant believe you said that, so thats what its all about, is it, thats whats really behind the 'spreading democracy' bullshit, 'accept imperialism?' Whats scary is yous aint even denying the shit anymore.

Personally I'd rather the consequences, better to die in defence of your liberty than 'accept imperialism'.

You wanna think about those terms next time some suicide bombers blows the shit out of some poor bastards somewhere.

What liberty do you speak of Len?

Last I checked, Europe was free and they are basically the same thing as the U.S. now.

And the reason the U.S. does what it does is to prevent extreme idiots from doing exactly that. If we're not around, that's exactly what happens....or 100X worse like is happening in Iraq right now.

But hey, I'm tired of hearing it.

And our type of "imperialism" is anything but imperialistic.

Look at some of the nations that "bought into" our system....Saudia Arabia and the U.A.E.....those are among the two most thriving countries in the Middle East.

Yeah, U.S. imperialism really sucks.

LOL.

Whats funny is i always thought that those of the American public that supported this shit were like...yknow, they meant well with it, they really thought it was a case of spreading democracy, i didnt think there was a cross-section of that populus that was of the 'accept imperialism' mentality, thats actually seriously scary, that supposedly good decent civilised people could think like that, Americans of all people, to whom liberty means so much.

There's some of that, but mostly we truly believe in our hearts that we're better than everyone else. It's scary.

I certainly don't and most educated people shouldn't. There's a difference in believing your "system" is better than believing that you, yourself are better. I think most Americans believe our system is better compared to a lot of countries (not all, just most)...and for the most part, they're right.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Kasanova King

[shades]

I'm assuming you were referring to Shades in your post? Or should I be getting my psyche checked.

Yup I quoted the wrong post, very enlightening as to the quality of my psyche....

Like i said, one of his following rambling on again.

you goof balls amuse me at least.

So for the sake of showing your ideology has no reasoning beyond the shallow display shown so far.

I am assuming now your thought process is that we let Bagdahdi and his reign of terror sweep in and take over Iraq? Along with all of the US weaponry laying about scattered across the country? Set up shop with control over billions of dollars worth of oil?

Do the two of you, or have you ever thought outside the little card board box you live in?

[Ace Nova]

So for the sake of showing your ideology has no reasoning beyond the shallow display shown so far.

I am assuming now your thought process is that we let Bagdahdi and his reign of terror sweep in and take over Iraq? Along with all of the US weaponry laying about scattered across the country? Set up shop with control over billions of dollars worth of oil?

If anything, Russia and China should be the ones getting involved since they're the ones that got 90% of the Iraqi oil contracts anyway.

[shades]

If anything, Russia and China should be the ones getting involved since they're the ones that got 90% of the Iraqi oil contracts anyway.

Well yea,, everyone "should" be getting involved but of course won't. And I think oil has very little to do with it. All the talk of the US being there for the oil turned out to be ridiculous don't you think?

The larger picture should be, imho, about the current state of terror spreading across the middle east. It is a world security issue, or should be.

All the ramblings on about the US imposing their will, trying to "make" people embrace democracy. When in fact this has nothing to do with democracy, other than the fact that in a perfect world a civilized election of a majority rule government would ultimately lead to what should be the issue here.

Fighting terror, these players are getting bolder by the day. and left unhindered will only get more dangerous.

In the case of Iraq, and my problem with leaving has very little to do with going in in the first place. In hindsight maybe having Sadaam in charge as sad as that thought is from a humanitarian standoint may have been the better option for the US. No argument there. But its done, join us in the present for fucks sake.

Hindsight doesn't mean shit right now, whats done is done. Blame Bush, whatever man.

Iraq was not ready to be left to totally fend for themselves when Obama decided to make it a political feather in his cap. And they may well never be ready to be left to fend for themselves. We needed to maintain a presence there. just because Maliki turned down our offer to remain a presence doesn't mean we should have left. For our own interest, as we now see it was our duty to protect our own security, ISIS taking that country is a very bad thing, trust me. Fuck what Maliki wanted, we just gave 4500 lives to set his ass up to what he his today.

There are no options now, options are obtained only when you think things through before you take action, not after the fact.

Do you think Obama thought this far ahead? That is rhetoric, of course he didn't, or worse he maybe didn't really care.

So now what? that's my conversation, not what if, who started it, or what "might" happen.

Obama has no earthly clue on so many different fronts around the world right now that's it would be comical if it wasn't so dangerous.

Edited June 13, 2014 by shades

[Guest Len B'stard]

What liberty do you speak of Len?

The liberty to choose that Imperialism denies. However right you think you are or evils you are or think you are averting the fact remains that the concept that you either accept Imperialism or pay its anti-libertarian at it's very core.

Last I checked, Europe was free and they are basically the same thing as the U.S. now.

Whats that got to do with anything?

And the reason the U.S. does what it does is to prevent extreme idiots from doing exactly that. If we're not around, that's exactly what happens....or 100X worse like is happening in Iraq right now.

Imperialism is still Imperialism and just because you save people from profound horrors doesn't mean you have the right to subjugate them to your own more subtle horrors, just because the other options much worse kids, be thankful. Quite apart from the fact that the validity of your position per se is pretty questionable.

And our type of "imperialism" is anything but imperialistic.

Are you listening to yourself?

Look at some of the nations that "bought into" our system....Saudia Arabia and the U.A.E.....those are among the two most thriving countries in the Middle East.

Yes, those champions of human rights and liberty!

[Ace Nova]

Well yea,, everyone "should" be getting involved but of course won't. And I think oil has very little to do with it. All the talk of the US being there for the oil turned out to be ridiculous don't you think?

The larger picture should be, imho, about the current state of terror spreading across the middle east. It is a world security issue, or should be.

All the ramblings on about the US imposing their will, trying to "make" people embrace democracy. When in fact this has nothing to do with democracy, other than the fact that in a perfect world a civilized election of a majority rule government would ultimately lead to what should be the issue here.

Fighting terror, these players are getting bolder by the day. and left unhindered will only get more dangerous.

In the case of Iraq, and my problem with leaving has very little to do with going in in the first place. In hindsight maybe having Sadaam in charge as sad as that thought is from a humanitarian standoint may have been the better option for the US. No argument there. But its done, join us in the present for fucks sake.

Hindsight doesn't mean shit right now, whats done is done. Blame Bush, whatever man.

Iraq was not ready to be left to totally fend for themselves when Obama decided to make it a political feather in his cap. And they may well never be ready to be left to fend for themselves. We needed to maintain a presence there. just because Maliki turned down our offer to remain a presence doesn't mean we should have left. For our own interest, as we now see it was our duty to protect our own security, ISIS taking that country is a very bad thing, trust me. Fuck what Maliki wanted, we just gave 4500 lives to set his ass up to what he his today.

There are no options now, options are obtained only when you think things through before you take action, not after the fact.

Do you think Obama thought this far ahead? That is rhetoric, of course he didn't, or worse he maybe didn't really care.

So now what? that's my conversation, not what if, who started it, or what "might" happen.

Obama has no earthly clue on so many different fronts around the world right now that's it would be comical if it wasn't so dangerous.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying here, Shades...and this is one of the more level-headed posts you've made in a while.

The thing is, even high ranking generals wanted to pull out of Iraq. On my way home from work, they were interviewing a 4 star General who commanded troops in Iraq (I missed his name). He is Republican aligned BUT he said he actually "sympathized" with the Obama Administration's decision to pull troops from Iraq. The Iraqi government DEMANDED that ANY U.S. troops that stayed in Iraq had to conform to Iraqi laws and were subject to the Iraqi judicial system, just like anyone else. They were no longer immune to prosecution.

The General stated that although staying in Iraq as "peace keepers" would have made a lot of sense, the fact that the Iraqi government refused to negotiate these terms, made it impossible. (In his eyes).

So if the General that was leading his troops over there agreed that pulling out was the right thing to do, it's good enough reason for me...and should be for just about anyone else with any common sense.

Like you said, hindsight is 20/20....the Iraqi Government's stubbornness and ridiculous demands is what got them into this situation, not Obama.

Last I checked, Europe was free and they are basically the same thing as the U.S. now.

Whats that got to do with anything?

Look at some of the nations that "bought into" our system....Saudia Arabia and the U.A.E.....those are among the two most thriving countries in the Middle East.

Yes, those champions of human rights and liberty!

Europe and the U.S. have almost the same overall "system"....they're first cousins...almost brother and sister. So if you want to fault the U.S., you're faulting Europe too. (And by Europe, I mean the U.K. too... )

Actually, compared to other countries in the middle east, they most certainly are.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Kasanova King

[arnold layne]

yes, we should have given the middle finger to ANYONE who potentially put our national security interests at risk

Edited June 13, 2014 by arnold layne

[OmarBradley]

Well yea,, everyone "should" be getting involved but of course won't. And I think oil has very little to do with it. All the talk of the US being there for the oil turned out to be ridiculous don't you think?

The larger picture should be, imho, about the current state of terror spreading across the middle east. It is a world security issue, or should be.

All the ramblings on about the US imposing their will, trying to "make" people embrace democracy. When in fact this has nothing to do with democracy, other than the fact that in a perfect world a civilized election of a majority rule government would ultimately lead to what should be the issue here.

Fighting terror, these players are getting bolder by the day. and left unhindered will only get more dangerous.

In the case of Iraq, and my problem with leaving has very little to do with going in in the first place. In hindsight maybe having Sadaam in charge as sad as that thought is from a humanitarian standoint may have been the better option for the US. No argument there. But its done, join us in the present for fucks sake.

Hindsight doesn't mean shit right now, whats done is done. Blame Bush, whatever man.

Iraq was not ready to be left to totally fend for themselves when Obama decided to make it a political feather in his cap. And they may well never be ready to be left to fend for themselves. We needed to maintain a presence there. just because Maliki turned down our offer to remain a presence doesn't mean we should have left. For our own interest, as we now see it was our duty to protect our own security, ISIS taking that country is a very bad thing, trust me. Fuck what Maliki wanted, we just gave 4500 lives to set his ass up to what he his today.

There are no options now, options are obtained only when you think things through before you take action, not after the fact.

Do you think Obama thought this far ahead? That is rhetoric, of course he didn't, or worse he maybe didn't really care.

So now what? that's my conversation, not what if, who started it, or what "might" happen.

Obama has no earthly clue on so many different fronts around the world right now that's it would be comical if it wasn't so dangerous.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying here, Shades...and this is one of the more level-headed posts you've made in a while.

The thing is, even high ranking generals wanted to pull out of Iraq. On my way home from work, they were interviewing a 4 star General who commanded troops in Iraq (I missed his name). He is Republican aligned BUT he said he actually "sympathized" with the Obama Administration's decision to pull troops from Iraq. The Iraqi government DEMANDED that ANY U.S. troops that stayed in Iraq had to conform to Iraqi laws and were subject to the Iraqi judicial system, just like anyone else. They were no longer immune to prosecution.

The General stated that although staying in Iraq as "peace keepers" would have made a lot of sense, the fact that the Iraqi government refused to negotiate these terms, made it impossible. (In his eyes).

So if the General that was leading his troops over there agreed that pulling out was the right thing to do, it's good enough reason for me...and should be for just about anyone else with any common sense.

Like you said, hindsight is 50/50....the Iraqi Government's stubbornness and ridiculous demands is what got them into this situation, not Obama.

This is what I was talking about in my post directed at shades... downzy said practically the same thing you did KK, but in different terms; but instead of a "oh well that makes more sense why Obama did that," he got a "you are officially the biggest dumbass on the board." Shades, not all of what you have to say is garbage, but when you phrase it as a personal attack and fail to understand when people are actually agreeing with you, you're not going to find much support.

Also the "everything is Obama's fault" tirade wasn't cool in 2012, and it's still not cool in 2014. It reflects a poor understanding of international governance, presidents have far less power than people think they do (albeit, it's still a lot).

Edited June 13, 2014 by OmarBradley

[DieselDaisy]

Nobody cares about this particular news, that is about the middle east falling into the lap of Jihadist terrorists, because the world cup has just started.

(At least I am honest!).