On September 11 2014 13:16 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 11 2014 13:11 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On September 11 2014 13:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 11 2014 12:57 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On September 11 2014 12:38 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 11 2014 12:37 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On September 11 2014 12:31 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 11 2014 12:25 ImFromPortugal wrote: [quote]
Yap gazing civilians = collateral damage. Are you seriously comparing collateral damage with the intent of genocide using chemical weapons?
Its funny how you accuse me of trying to attack you but you are the one being a child and trying to be funny on a serious topic. You even bring adele jokes to the table, very childish. To think that i took you seriously most of the time, i should have known better.
Actually, even in Halabja, there were Kurdish insurgents. The Iraqi response on the town was entirely overkill and even genocide and I have never once denied it (in fact, a big percentage of the 50,000 Kurdish insurgent and civilian deaths (numbers from reports according to HRW) during the war were from that one strike), but to claim that it was entirely unprovoked is insanity. Like I said, there were much better examples of Saddam's brutality that were under no conditions unjustified.
The US killed millions of Vietnamese people with toxic chemical agents. By your logic, the US is infinitely worse than Saddam Hussein (LOL please).
You're extremely mad because you're entirely defeated. You keep on clinging to a single point that has nothing to do with the discussion, and you brought up as a strawman to try to make any response at all. Entirely pathetic.
And here's a news flash: No one takes you seriously.
Defeated on what ? I'm just here to debate and get information regarding the issue, you seem to take this topic as a competition. I don't mind, you can keep the trophy. The thing is i'm just pointing facts, you can try to debate them and show your sources without having to resort to attacking the users posting here. In my humble opinion the gazing of the Kurds was not overkill but an act of terrorism by a monster that was supported by the west, that was the point i was debating.
To quote my last post: You have also failed to prove your original points: That the Iranian regime is not, as your claim, one of the world's biggest state sponsors of terrorism, and that the Iranian regime is, as you claim, better than the West. You are not pointing facts. Let me explain to you how you are ignoring very many facts.
And as previously stated twice, your "western supported monster" was destroyed to a greater degree than anyone the West has ever devastated since WW2. You're not even acknowledging facts. You're completely ignoring the fact that there was a very justified and clear counter-insurgency campaign going on. This suddenly doesn't change because of a monstrous atrocity. It shows you have a very clear agenda considering you are ignoring all the facts, and only picking your own. It takes some effort to be fair like me, I agree, but you can do it.
If he was western supported aside from off-hand cheerleading, Iraq would have never been touched by the American "monster", who did magnitudes worse to Iraq than Hussein did to the Kurds. I'd also like to know how many of the 50,000 deaths were insurgents. Considering the insurgency was quelled, I can only imagine it was a strong majority of it. The fact you also entirely ignore that there was a violent Kurdish insurgency also shows your willingness to ignore facts. Meanwhile, I am acknowledging all the facts, including the ones you do not like to admit.
The US murdering millions of Vietnamese civilians in utter overkill doesn't change the fact that they were trying to expose and strike all the hidden North Vietnamese and VC fighters in the jungles and hiding in Vietnamese towns. It's almost as if Saddam modeled his counter-insurgency model after the US in Vietnam lol. Except Vietnam was the whole war and the US could put all its resources into it. The Kurdish terrorism was a side-war to the Iran-Iraq War, and resources and manpower to divert to that were extremely limited. It's probably the only reason why chemical weapons were used there. If the Kurdish insurgency was an isolated conflict, there would have been no need for massively destructive weapoins as the Kurdish insurgency would have been easily crushed by a concentrated push of ground forces.
And as previously stated twice, your "western supported monster" was destroyed to a greater degree than anyone the West has ever devastated since WW2
1. Dude i have talked about that many times before here on teamliquid the embargo, the wars etc when speaking against the western attack on Iraq, and even mentioned the possible reasons why Saddam was invading Kuwait (Slant Drilling).
2. What i'm saying was that he was supported by the west while he was useful then they got ride of him.
3. I think the killing of civilians is bad and i understand that there is collateral damage. The thing is the attack on the Kurds with chemical weapons was deliberated and it was considered genocide.. its quite different.
1) Kuwait was a very good trap. Why do you think I consider Saddam to be one of the dumbest idiots to live? No country like Kuwait starts slant-drilling, over producing oil despite many agreements, claiming a $12 billion grant for the war effort against Iran was to be entirely repaid (which Iraq paid in blood despite the war being as important to all the Arab nations as much as it did Iraq) and with interest (IIRC), and other provocations ALL AT ONCE, if there isn't some REALLY funny business going on. But then again, what can you expect from some stupid uneducated villager from near Tikrit?
2) He wasn't supported. Yes, Iraq had strong relations with France, the Germanies, and Russia, but not with the US. The US was only "cheerleading" for Iraq, because Khomeini's Islamic Revolution and jihad was quite literally the most terrifying thing to happen in the world since Hitler. If the US supported Saddam, we would have been showering him with all types of weapons (asides from a few leftover Hueys and chemical weapons from Vietnam). In fact, we were actually arming Iran during the Iran-Contra affair. To say we supported Saddam is heavily overstating our relations with him.
3) You realize the murder of Kurds was only considered bad when the Gulf War came and the wartime demonization of Iraq through propaganda? I agree the atrocious parts were genocide, but it was a very long conflict, and most of the fighting was certainly not with the intent to just kill as much as possible. As shitty as it sounds, I don't recall hearing anyone give a damn when it happened.
But it proved to be excellent propaganda for the Gulf War. Honestly, I'm convinced that Halabja was genocide, but I'm pretty sure that 90% of the US's motivation to term it as genocide was to demonize the Iraqi enemy in the Gulf War.
Do you also realize that the US-enforced total embargo on Iraq that starved possibly over a million Iraqis to death and additionally entirely crashed the economy, education, social services, industries, agriculture, and social fabric is not considered genocide? What does that tell you?
Do you also realize that the US-enforced total embargo on Iraq that starved possibly over a million Iraqis to death and additionally entirely crashed the economy, education, social services, industries, agriculture, and social fabric is not considered genocide? What does that tell you?
How many times i will have to tell you that i have mentioned that on this thread and other threads and already talked with you like one year ago regarding that issue. Also sent you a video about some pilots from the french army that flown some mirages fighting for saddam in iraq.
I know that you know. I'm just making the point that this was a genocide that isn't considered a genocide. I'm glad about Halabja being publicized as genocide even if the purposes were largely motivated for wartime propaganda, because despite the reasoning and fighting going on, murder on that scale was far beyond the means of counter-insurgency. But the embargo? Or the Gulf War where all types of civilian infrastructure was deliberately targeted? Or the clusterfuck that was the Iraq War? None of the events from these were considered atrocities, nevermind genocide? It is a disgusting display of US hypocrisy and self-righteousness.
However, it does not change the fact that the US has radically changed its Mideast policy within the last couple of years and that nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran and the terrorist organizations they sponsor are the biggest threats to stability and prosperity in the region.
They didn't change the fact that still sponsor Saudi Arabia and other gulf states that as you said are some of the biggest sponsors of terrorism.
That's why I've posted in this thread that the US must ditch these nations and sanction them. It is infuriating when you fought terrorists those nations directly support and by supporting these nations, that your country indirectly supports. Of course our reasoning is to have good relations with cooperative "friends" in the Middle East, but I don't think aligning ourselves with terrorist regimes outweighs betraying the American people and the servicemen who have fought against those terrorists.
What we need to do is make Iraq more American than we made Japan. Our influence has to be so strong that even the Shiite radical clerics in Najaf and Kerbala will even stop liking Iran's supported for terrorist groups. Then we can have a strong, democratic, stable ally in Asia and especially the Mideast that isn't hated by almost everyone (see Israel and Japan), because we don't have any of those. Iraq's our best opportunity, and we can't blow it.
I agree that Iraq is very important not just for the americans to save face but also for the stability in the region. Its a good opportunity as well for Iraq to become a great country and a good example in the region. The thing is that i don't know how this ISIS problem is going to be solved and what will happen after the fighting is don. There are many variables that can turn this into never ending cicle of violence.
On September 11 2014 13:16 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 11 2014 13:11 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On September 11 2014 13:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 11 2014 12:57 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On September 11 2014 12:38 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 11 2014 12:37 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On September 11 2014 12:31 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 11 2014 12:25 ImFromPortugal wrote: [quote]
Yap gazing civilians = collateral damage. Are you seriously comparing collateral damage with the intent of genocide using chemical weapons?
Its funny how you accuse me of trying to attack you but you are the one being a child and trying to be funny on a serious topic. You even bring adele jokes to the table, very childish. To think that i took you seriously most of the time, i should have known better.
Actually, even in Halabja, there were Kurdish insurgents. The Iraqi response on the town was entirely overkill and even genocide and I have never once denied it (in fact, a big percentage of the 50,000 Kurdish insurgent and civilian deaths (numbers from reports according to HRW) during the war were from that one strike), but to claim that it was entirely unprovoked is insanity. Like I said, there were much better examples of Saddam's brutality that were under no conditions unjustified.
The US killed millions of Vietnamese people with toxic chemical agents. By your logic, the US is infinitely worse than Saddam Hussein (LOL please).
You're extremely mad because you're entirely defeated. You keep on clinging to a single point that has nothing to do with the discussion, and you brought up as a strawman to try to make any response at all. Entirely pathetic.
And here's a news flash: No one takes you seriously.
Defeated on what ? I'm just here to debate and get information regarding the issue, you seem to take this topic as a competition. I don't mind, you can keep the trophy. The thing is i'm just pointing facts, you can try to debate them and show your sources without having to resort to attacking the users posting here. In my humble opinion the gazing of the Kurds was not overkill but an act of terrorism by a monster that was supported by the west, that was the point i was debating.
To quote my last post: You have also failed to prove your original points: That the Iranian regime is not, as your claim, one of the world's biggest state sponsors of terrorism, and that the Iranian regime is, as you claim, better than the West. You are not pointing facts. Let me explain to you how you are ignoring very many facts.
And as previously stated twice, your "western supported monster" was destroyed to a greater degree than anyone the West has ever devastated since WW2. You're not even acknowledging facts. You're completely ignoring the fact that there was a very justified and clear counter-insurgency campaign going on. This suddenly doesn't change because of a monstrous atrocity. It shows you have a very clear agenda considering you are ignoring all the facts, and only picking your own. It takes some effort to be fair like me, I agree, but you can do it.
If he was western supported aside from off-hand cheerleading, Iraq would have never been touched by the American "monster", who did magnitudes worse to Iraq than Hussein did to the Kurds. I'd also like to know how many of the 50,000 deaths were insurgents. Considering the insurgency was quelled, I can only imagine it was a strong majority of it. The fact you also entirely ignore that there was a violent Kurdish insurgency also shows your willingness to ignore facts. Meanwhile, I am acknowledging all the facts, including the ones you do not like to admit.
The US murdering millions of Vietnamese civilians in utter overkill doesn't change the fact that they were trying to expose and strike all the hidden North Vietnamese and VC fighters in the jungles and hiding in Vietnamese towns. It's almost as if Saddam modeled his counter-insurgency model after the US in Vietnam lol. Except Vietnam was the whole war and the US could put all its resources into it. The Kurdish terrorism was a side-war to the Iran-Iraq War, and resources and manpower to divert to that were extremely limited. It's probably the only reason why chemical weapons were used there. If the Kurdish insurgency was an isolated conflict, there would have been no need for massively destructive weapoins as the Kurdish insurgency would have been easily crushed by a concentrated push of ground forces.
And as previously stated twice, your "western supported monster" was destroyed to a greater degree than anyone the West has ever devastated since WW2
1. Dude i have talked about that many times before here on teamliquid the embargo, the wars etc when speaking against the western attack on Iraq, and even mentioned the possible reasons why Saddam was invading Kuwait (Slant Drilling).
2. What i'm saying was that he was supported by the west while he was useful then they got ride of him.
3. I think the killing of civilians is bad and i understand that there is collateral damage. The thing is the attack on the Kurds with chemical weapons was deliberated and it was considered genocide.. its quite different.
1) Kuwait was a very good trap. Why do you think I consider Saddam to be one of the dumbest idiots to live? No country like Kuwait starts slant-drilling, over producing oil despite many agreements, claiming a $12 billion grant for the war effort against Iran was to be entirely repaid (which Iraq paid in blood despite the war being as important to all the Arab nations as much as it did Iraq) and with interest (IIRC), and other provocations ALL AT ONCE, if there isn't some REALLY funny business going on. But then again, what can you expect from some stupid uneducated villager from near Tikrit?
2) He wasn't supported. Yes, Iraq had strong relations with France, the Germanies, and Russia, but not with the US. The US was only "cheerleading" for Iraq, because Khomeini's Islamic Revolution and jihad was quite literally the most terrifying thing to happen in the world since Hitler. If the US supported Saddam, we would have been showering him with all types of weapons (asides from a few leftover Hueys and chemical weapons from Vietnam). In fact, we were actually arming Iran during the Iran-Contra affair. To say we supported Saddam is heavily overstating our relations with him.
3) You realize the murder of Kurds was only considered bad when the Gulf War came and the wartime demonization of Iraq through propaganda? I agree the atrocious parts were genocide, but it was a very long conflict, and most of the fighting was certainly not with the intent to just kill as much as possible. As shitty as it sounds, I don't recall hearing anyone give a damn when it happened.
But it proved to be excellent propaganda for the Gulf War. Honestly, I'm convinced that Halabja was genocide, but I'm pretty sure that 90% of the US's motivation to term it as genocide was to demonize the Iraqi enemy in the Gulf War.
Do you also realize that the US-enforced total embargo on Iraq that starved possibly over a million Iraqis to death and additionally entirely crashed the economy, education, social services, industries, agriculture, and social fabric is not considered genocide? What does that tell you?
Do you also realize that the US-enforced total embargo on Iraq that starved possibly over a million Iraqis to death and additionally entirely crashed the economy, education, social services, industries, agriculture, and social fabric is not considered genocide? What does that tell you?
How many times i will have to tell you that i have mentioned that on this thread and other threads and already talked with you like one year ago regarding that issue. Also sent you a video about some pilots from the french army that flown some mirages fighting for saddam in iraq.
I know that you know. I'm just making the point that this was a genocide that isn't considered a genocide. I'm glad about Halabja being publicized as genocide even if the purposes were largely motivated for wartime propaganda, because despite the reasoning and fighting going on, murder on that scale was far beyond the means of counter-insurgency. But the embargo? Or the Gulf War where all types of civilian infrastructure was deliberately targeted? Or the clusterfuck that was the Iraq War? None of the events from these were considered atrocities, nevermind genocide? It is a disgusting display of US hypocrisy and self-righteousness.
However, it does not change the fact that the US has radically changed its Mideast policy within the last couple of years and that nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran and the terrorist organizations they sponsor are the biggest threats to stability and prosperity in the region.
They didn't change the fact that still sponsor Saudi Arabia and other gulf states that as you said are some of the biggest sponsors of terrorism.
That's why I've posted in this thread that the US must ditch these nations and sanction them. It is infuriating when you fought terrorists those nations directly support and by supporting these nations, that your country indirectly supports. Of course our reasoning is to have good relations with cooperative "friends" in the Middle East, but I don't think aligning ourselves with terrorist regimes outweighs betraying the American people and the servicemen who have fought against those terrorists, the Americans who were killed in 9/11, and the nations in the Middle East and North Africa who suffer the brunt of terrorism and murder by these groups.
What we need to do is make Iraq more American than we made Japan. Our influence has to be so strong that even the Shiite radical clerics in Najaf and Kerbala will even stop liking Iran's supported for terrorist groups. Then we can have a strong, democratic, stable ally in Asia and especially the Mideast that isn't hated by almost everyone (see Israel and Japan), because we don't have any of those.
Iraq's our best opportunity, and we can't blow it. I think it's the only way that the entire world can be ensured that the future Mideast will be a stable one, because if the future Iraq is a strong, democratic nation with good relations with most nations in the region, then it will almost certainly bring that future Mideast.
You really think we can just tell them to abandon there religion and they will just do it? The Shiites and the Sunnis have been fighting for I believe about 1000 years and you think they will just stop because we ask them nicely? Why would these clerics basically abandon everything they have believed in because we ask them to? Your desire seems based in a reality far different from this one and is virtually impossible to carry out.
As for why we keep allies such as Saudi Arabia it really does come down to us needing strong allies in the region. The last thing we want is to jilt a stable middle eastern country that is I still believe the worlds 2nd largest oil producing country. Alliance are not and have never been forged based on right and wrong they are forged based on necessity. You pointed out Iran before the current regime we supported a brutal dictator not because it was right but because it was in the United State's best interested for him to do so. That's how alliances work in this world and its why we also have relations with China and not for example Cuba because necessity dictates our relationship with China.
On September 11 2014 13:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 11 2014 13:22 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On September 11 2014 13:16 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 11 2014 13:11 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On September 11 2014 13:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 11 2014 12:57 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On September 11 2014 12:38 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 11 2014 12:37 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On September 11 2014 12:31 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: [quote] Actually, even in Halabja, there were Kurdish insurgents. The Iraqi response on the town was entirely overkill and even genocide and I have never once denied it (in fact, a big percentage of the 50,000 Kurdish insurgent and civilian deaths (numbers from reports according to HRW) during the war were from that one strike), but to claim that it was entirely unprovoked is insanity. Like I said, there were much better examples of Saddam's brutality that were under no conditions unjustified.
The US killed millions of Vietnamese people with toxic chemical agents. By your logic, the US is infinitely worse than Saddam Hussein (LOL please).
You're extremely mad because you're entirely defeated. You keep on clinging to a single point that has nothing to do with the discussion, and you brought up as a strawman to try to make any response at all. Entirely pathetic.
And here's a news flash: No one takes you seriously.
Defeated on what ? I'm just here to debate and get information regarding the issue, you seem to take this topic as a competition. I don't mind, you can keep the trophy. The thing is i'm just pointing facts, you can try to debate them and show your sources without having to resort to attacking the users posting here. In my humble opinion the gazing of the Kurds was not overkill but an act of terrorism by a monster that was supported by the west, that was the point i was debating.
To quote my last post: You have also failed to prove your original points: That the Iranian regime is not, as your claim, one of the world's biggest state sponsors of terrorism, and that the Iranian regime is, as you claim, better than the West. You are not pointing facts. Let me explain to you how you are ignoring very many facts.
And as previously stated twice, your "western supported monster" was destroyed to a greater degree than anyone the West has ever devastated since WW2. You're not even acknowledging facts. You're completely ignoring the fact that there was a very justified and clear counter-insurgency campaign going on. This suddenly doesn't change because of a monstrous atrocity. It shows you have a very clear agenda considering you are ignoring all the facts, and only picking your own. It takes some effort to be fair like me, I agree, but you can do it.
If he was western supported aside from off-hand cheerleading, Iraq would have never been touched by the American "monster", who did magnitudes worse to Iraq than Hussein did to the Kurds. I'd also like to know how many of the 50,000 deaths were insurgents. Considering the insurgency was quelled, I can only imagine it was a strong majority of it. The fact you also entirely ignore that there was a violent Kurdish insurgency also shows your willingness to ignore facts. Meanwhile, I am acknowledging all the facts, including the ones you do not like to admit.
The US murdering millions of Vietnamese civilians in utter overkill doesn't change the fact that they were trying to expose and strike all the hidden North Vietnamese and VC fighters in the jungles and hiding in Vietnamese towns. It's almost as if Saddam modeled his counter-insurgency model after the US in Vietnam lol. Except Vietnam was the whole war and the US could put all its resources into it. The Kurdish terrorism was a side-war to the Iran-Iraq War, and resources and manpower to divert to that were extremely limited. It's probably the only reason why chemical weapons were used there. If the Kurdish insurgency was an isolated conflict, there would have been no need for massively destructive weapoins as the Kurdish insurgency would have been easily crushed by a concentrated push of ground forces.
And as previously stated twice, your "western supported monster" was destroyed to a greater degree than anyone the West has ever devastated since WW2
1. Dude i have talked about that many times before here on teamliquid the embargo, the wars etc when speaking against the western attack on Iraq, and even mentioned the possible reasons why Saddam was invading Kuwait (Slant Drilling).
2. What i'm saying was that he was supported by the west while he was useful then they got ride of him.
3. I think the killing of civilians is bad and i understand that there is collateral damage. The thing is the attack on the Kurds with chemical weapons was deliberated and it was considered genocide.. its quite different.
1) Kuwait was a very good trap. Why do you think I consider Saddam to be one of the dumbest idiots to live? No country like Kuwait starts slant-drilling, over producing oil despite many agreements, claiming a $12 billion grant for the war effort against Iran was to be entirely repaid (which Iraq paid in blood despite the war being as important to all the Arab nations as much as it did Iraq) and with interest (IIRC), and other provocations ALL AT ONCE, if there isn't some REALLY funny business going on. But then again, what can you expect from some stupid uneducated villager from near Tikrit?
2) He wasn't supported. Yes, Iraq had strong relations with France, the Germanies, and Russia, but not with the US. The US was only "cheerleading" for Iraq, because Khomeini's Islamic Revolution and jihad was quite literally the most terrifying thing to happen in the world since Hitler. If the US supported Saddam, we would have been showering him with all types of weapons (asides from a few leftover Hueys and chemical weapons from Vietnam). In fact, we were actually arming Iran during the Iran-Contra affair. To say we supported Saddam is heavily overstating our relations with him.
3) You realize the murder of Kurds was only considered bad when the Gulf War came and the wartime demonization of Iraq through propaganda? I agree the atrocious parts were genocide, but it was a very long conflict, and most of the fighting was certainly not with the intent to just kill as much as possible. As shitty as it sounds, I don't recall hearing anyone give a damn when it happened.
But it proved to be excellent propaganda for the Gulf War. Honestly, I'm convinced that Halabja was genocide, but I'm pretty sure that 90% of the US's motivation to term it as genocide was to demonize the Iraqi enemy in the Gulf War.
Do you also realize that the US-enforced total embargo on Iraq that starved possibly over a million Iraqis to death and additionally entirely crashed the economy, education, social services, industries, agriculture, and social fabric is not considered genocide? What does that tell you?
Do you also realize that the US-enforced total embargo on Iraq that starved possibly over a million Iraqis to death and additionally entirely crashed the economy, education, social services, industries, agriculture, and social fabric is not considered genocide? What does that tell you?
How many times i will have to tell you that i have mentioned that on this thread and other threads and already talked with you like one year ago regarding that issue. Also sent you a video about some pilots from the french army that flown some mirages fighting for saddam in iraq.
I know that you know. I'm just making the point that this was a genocide that isn't considered a genocide. I'm glad about Halabja being publicized as genocide even if the purposes were largely motivated for wartime propaganda, because despite the reasoning and fighting going on, murder on that scale was far beyond the means of counter-insurgency. But the embargo? Or the Gulf War where all types of civilian infrastructure was deliberately targeted? Or the clusterfuck that was the Iraq War? None of the events from these were considered atrocities, nevermind genocide? It is a disgusting display of US hypocrisy and self-righteousness.
However, it does not change the fact that the US has radically changed its Mideast policy within the last couple of years and that nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran and the terrorist organizations they sponsor are the biggest threats to stability and prosperity in the region.
They didn't change the fact that still sponsor Saudi Arabia and other gulf states that as you said are some of the biggest sponsors of terrorism.
That's why I've posted in this thread that the US must ditch these nations and sanction them. It is infuriating when you fought terrorists those nations directly support and by supporting these nations, that your country indirectly supports. Of course our reasoning is to have good relations with cooperative "friends" in the Middle East, but I don't think aligning ourselves with terrorist regimes outweighs betraying the American people and the servicemen who have fought against those terrorists.
What we need to do is make Iraq more American than we made Japan. Our influence has to be so strong that even the Shiite radical clerics in Najaf and Kerbala will even stop liking Iran's supported for terrorist groups. Then we can have a strong, democratic, stable ally in Asia and especially the Mideast that isn't hated by almost everyone (see Israel and Japan), because we don't have any of those. Iraq's our best opportunity, and we can't blow it.
I agree that Iraq is very important not just for the americans to save face but also for the stability in the region. Its a good opportunity as well for Iraq to become a great country and a good example in the region. The thing is that i don't know how this ISIS problem is going to be solved and what will happen after the fighting is don. There are many variables that can turn this into never ending cicle of violence.
The Iraqi military is probably the most organized it's been since 2003 and improving considerably. Now it is a military not for Maliki's power-mongering, but for Iraq. It's actually being armed now, is backed by thousands of Kurdish and Shiite militiamen,, the Sunni militias have by-and-large turned on ISIS, and the ONLY advantage ISIS holds is that they hide amongst civilians, making fighting extremely difficult.
Here's three things that need to happen: 1) The new Iraqi regime can't be as bad as Maliki's (although I'm pretty sure this is impossible. His sectarian policies and matching brutality are responsible for a lot of the shitstorm in Iraq. I'm surprised he hasn't been tried and executed).
2) Iranian influence in Iraqi politics has to be eliminated. It has been the Claymore sword in the side of Iraq's struggle for stability and peace, and needs to be removed.
3) Once ISIS in Iraq is eliminated, the Kurdish and Shiite militia radicals must not explode. There have been hints at this from both groups due to Shiite militia's atrocities and Kurdish land-grabbing, but to ensure a stable Iraq, both groups must also end fighting once ISIS is defeated. If they do not, there will be more violence, and I'm sure they'll get swift retribution from an Iraqi regime backed by many Western and Mideastern nations. Even the US is a lot closer to the Iraqi government that it is to the KRG, and I'm sure the US would condemn further violence by Shiite or Kurdish militias once ISIS is defeated in Iraq.
On September 11 2014 13:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 11 2014 13:22 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On September 11 2014 13:16 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 11 2014 13:11 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On September 11 2014 13:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 11 2014 12:57 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On September 11 2014 12:38 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 11 2014 12:37 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On September 11 2014 12:31 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: [quote] Actually, even in Halabja, there were Kurdish insurgents. The Iraqi response on the town was entirely overkill and even genocide and I have never once denied it (in fact, a big percentage of the 50,000 Kurdish insurgent and civilian deaths (numbers from reports according to HRW) during the war were from that one strike), but to claim that it was entirely unprovoked is insanity. Like I said, there were much better examples of Saddam's brutality that were under no conditions unjustified.
The US killed millions of Vietnamese people with toxic chemical agents. By your logic, the US is infinitely worse than Saddam Hussein (LOL please).
You're extremely mad because you're entirely defeated. You keep on clinging to a single point that has nothing to do with the discussion, and you brought up as a strawman to try to make any response at all. Entirely pathetic.
And here's a news flash: No one takes you seriously.
Defeated on what ? I'm just here to debate and get information regarding the issue, you seem to take this topic as a competition. I don't mind, you can keep the trophy. The thing is i'm just pointing facts, you can try to debate them and show your sources without having to resort to attacking the users posting here. In my humble opinion the gazing of the Kurds was not overkill but an act of terrorism by a monster that was supported by the west, that was the point i was debating.
To quote my last post: You have also failed to prove your original points: That the Iranian regime is not, as your claim, one of the world's biggest state sponsors of terrorism, and that the Iranian regime is, as you claim, better than the West. You are not pointing facts. Let me explain to you how you are ignoring very many facts.
And as previously stated twice, your "western supported monster" was destroyed to a greater degree than anyone the West has ever devastated since WW2. You're not even acknowledging facts. You're completely ignoring the fact that there was a very justified and clear counter-insurgency campaign going on. This suddenly doesn't change because of a monstrous atrocity. It shows you have a very clear agenda considering you are ignoring all the facts, and only picking your own. It takes some effort to be fair like me, I agree, but you can do it.
If he was western supported aside from off-hand cheerleading, Iraq would have never been touched by the American "monster", who did magnitudes worse to Iraq than Hussein did to the Kurds. I'd also like to know how many of the 50,000 deaths were insurgents. Considering the insurgency was quelled, I can only imagine it was a strong majority of it. The fact you also entirely ignore that there was a violent Kurdish insurgency also shows your willingness to ignore facts. Meanwhile, I am acknowledging all the facts, including the ones you do not like to admit.
The US murdering millions of Vietnamese civilians in utter overkill doesn't change the fact that they were trying to expose and strike all the hidden North Vietnamese and VC fighters in the jungles and hiding in Vietnamese towns. It's almost as if Saddam modeled his counter-insurgency model after the US in Vietnam lol. Except Vietnam was the whole war and the US could put all its resources into it. The Kurdish terrorism was a side-war to the Iran-Iraq War, and resources and manpower to divert to that were extremely limited. It's probably the only reason why chemical weapons were used there. If the Kurdish insurgency was an isolated conflict, there would have been no need for massively destructive weapoins as the Kurdish insurgency would have been easily crushed by a concentrated push of ground forces.
And as previously stated twice, your "western supported monster" was destroyed to a greater degree than anyone the West has ever devastated since WW2
1. Dude i have talked about that many times before here on teamliquid the embargo, the wars etc when speaking against the western attack on Iraq, and even mentioned the possible reasons why Saddam was invading Kuwait (Slant Drilling).
2. What i'm saying was that he was supported by the west while he was useful then they got ride of him.
3. I think the killing of civilians is bad and i understand that there is collateral damage. The thing is the attack on the Kurds with chemical weapons was deliberated and it was considered genocide.. its quite different.
1) Kuwait was a very good trap. Why do you think I consider Saddam to be one of the dumbest idiots to live? No country like Kuwait starts slant-drilling, over producing oil despite many agreements, claiming a $12 billion grant for the war effort against Iran was to be entirely repaid (which Iraq paid in blood despite the war being as important to all the Arab nations as much as it did Iraq) and with interest (IIRC), and other provocations ALL AT ONCE, if there isn't some REALLY funny business going on. But then again, what can you expect from some stupid uneducated villager from near Tikrit?
2) He wasn't supported. Yes, Iraq had strong relations with France, the Germanies, and Russia, but not with the US. The US was only "cheerleading" for Iraq, because Khomeini's Islamic Revolution and jihad was quite literally the most terrifying thing to happen in the world since Hitler. If the US supported Saddam, we would have been showering him with all types of weapons (asides from a few leftover Hueys and chemical weapons from Vietnam). In fact, we were actually arming Iran during the Iran-Contra affair. To say we supported Saddam is heavily overstating our relations with him.
3) You realize the murder of Kurds was only considered bad when the Gulf War came and the wartime demonization of Iraq through propaganda? I agree the atrocious parts were genocide, but it was a very long conflict, and most of the fighting was certainly not with the intent to just kill as much as possible. As shitty as it sounds, I don't recall hearing anyone give a damn when it happened.
But it proved to be excellent propaganda for the Gulf War. Honestly, I'm convinced that Halabja was genocide, but I'm pretty sure that 90% of the US's motivation to term it as genocide was to demonize the Iraqi enemy in the Gulf War.
Do you also realize that the US-enforced total embargo on Iraq that starved possibly over a million Iraqis to death and additionally entirely crashed the economy, education, social services, industries, agriculture, and social fabric is not considered genocide? What does that tell you?
Do you also realize that the US-enforced total embargo on Iraq that starved possibly over a million Iraqis to death and additionally entirely crashed the economy, education, social services, industries, agriculture, and social fabric is not considered genocide? What does that tell you?
How many times i will have to tell you that i have mentioned that on this thread and other threads and already talked with you like one year ago regarding that issue. Also sent you a video about some pilots from the french army that flown some mirages fighting for saddam in iraq.
I know that you know. I'm just making the point that this was a genocide that isn't considered a genocide. I'm glad about Halabja being publicized as genocide even if the purposes were largely motivated for wartime propaganda, because despite the reasoning and fighting going on, murder on that scale was far beyond the means of counter-insurgency. But the embargo? Or the Gulf War where all types of civilian infrastructure was deliberately targeted? Or the clusterfuck that was the Iraq War? None of the events from these were considered atrocities, nevermind genocide? It is a disgusting display of US hypocrisy and self-righteousness.
However, it does not change the fact that the US has radically changed its Mideast policy within the last couple of years and that nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran and the terrorist organizations they sponsor are the biggest threats to stability and prosperity in the region.
They didn't change the fact that still sponsor Saudi Arabia and other gulf states that as you said are some of the biggest sponsors of terrorism.
That's why I've posted in this thread that the US must ditch these nations and sanction them. It is infuriating when you fought terrorists those nations directly support and by supporting these nations, that your country indirectly supports. Of course our reasoning is to have good relations with cooperative "friends" in the Middle East, but I don't think aligning ourselves with terrorist regimes outweighs betraying the American people and the servicemen who have fought against those terrorists, the Americans who were killed in 9/11, and the nations in the Middle East and North Africa who suffer the brunt of terrorism and murder by these groups.
What we need to do is make Iraq more American than we made Japan. Our influence has to be so strong that even the Shiite radical clerics in Najaf and Kerbala will even stop liking Iran's supported for terrorist groups. Then we can have a strong, democratic, stable ally in Asia and especially the Mideast that isn't hated by almost everyone (see Israel and Japan), because we don't have any of those.
Iraq's our best opportunity, and we can't blow it. I think it's the only way that the entire world can be ensured that the future Mideast will be a stable one, because if the future Iraq is a strong, democratic nation with good relations with most nations in the region, then it will almost certainly bring that future Mideast.
You really think we can just tell them to abandon there religion and they will just do it? The Shiites and the Sunnis have been fighting for I believe about 1000 years and you think they will just stop because we ask them nicely? Why would these clerics basically abandon everything they have believed in because we ask them to? Your desire seems based in a reality far different from this one and is virtually impossible to carry out.
As for why we keep allies such as Saudi Arabia it really does come down to us needing strong allies in the region. The last thing we want is to jilt a stable middle eastern country that is I still believe the worlds 2nd largest oil producing country. Alliance are not and have never been forged based on right and wrong they are forged based on necessity. You pointed out Iran before the current regime we supported a brutal dictator not because it was right but because it was in the United State's best interested for him to do so. That's how alliances work in this world and its why we also have relations with China and not for example Cuba because necessity dictates our relationship with China.
Let me tell you something. From what it looks like, your knowledge of Iraqi history only goes back to 2003. That's okay, that's what I'm here for.
Let me tell you of a time when there was much peace in Iraq, it was apparently taboo to even solicit and discuss people's religious denominations and even many marriages were between Sunnis and Shiites, and a society that was far more secular than it is now. When insane dolts like Muqtada al-Sadr would have been spat on if not arrested for such extremism. Even most of the founders and members of the Baath party were Shiites, and no one really cared, because Iraq used to have a firm national identity. Minority religions like Christians were well-protected and respected. Then the US came in and created an entirely sectarian order, creating and encouraging the formation of tons of sectarian-based organizations and requiring a sectarian identification. Then we disbanded the entire military and executed and fled into hiding all the competent politicians in Iraq, most of whom were entirely innocent, and they were put in a fight for their lives. Then Maliki made all of that much, much worse.
This is why Iraq is the way it is today. But do you understand why I'm proposing something different? Because the good was how Iraq was before. If they did it for 100s of years (there's so many Shiites in Iraq due to the Safavid Persian empire, which made Iran and its territories, which included much of modern Iraq, Shiite, bet you didn't know that either) and including the 20th century, I'm sure they can do it again. My desire, as you put it, is based in reality that already existed.
Seriously, please don't try to lecture me if you don't know the history. This was the reality. The fact that you don't know this reality that characterizes modern Iraq all the way up until 2003 makes this discussion one-sided and superficial. It's like someone who wonders why there's so few Jews in Europe compared to before because he's completely oblivious to the Holocaust and mass emigration. That is how most people are, including myself when I was the definition of MURICA, regarding Iraq. Of course I'm a special case: I had the advantage of being extremely studious with history and sciences etc., coming from a hometown stock full of Iraqi Christians, and other experiences that put me into direct contact with Iraqi society and history. So maybe I shouldn't be so harsh on ignorance?
Do you realize before the monarchy was overthrown, Iraq was a lot more Islamic than it was in the 60s-90s, if not even now? And yet it became pretty damn secular. I'm sure it can be done again. And unlike in the 60s, Iraq has literally the entire Western world pushing for it to become secular and united again. The Iranian influence is really the primary thing preventing it, and in the coming years, I don't even know if that'll be an issue considering they lost their #1 pawn.
Iran is one of the world's biggest oil producing countries and we are jilting them. Iraq was one of the biggest, and we obliterated them. Russia is an energy giant and advanced European state but we hate them because they're a very powerful nation we've rivaled and hated since 1945. The US interest is less in "who has oil" (because a shitload of countries do) and a lot more to do with submissive regimes.
The Saudi regime is submissive to us. That's what makes all the difference. Otherwise, we'd shitlist him like we shitlisted Iran. Do you see what I'm saying? We will support terrorist regimes if they are submissive and cooperative, and it is entirely disgusting and traitorous, but that is politics. We are an imperialistic nation. That's how politics works. But despite the fact we have shit relations with Iran, we are doing very little to undermine their support for terrorist organizations... removing Iranian support for terrorism and radicals from the board would be a colossal improvement in Iraq and the region.
Now China we actually need. Seriously, they're literally the world's super abundant slave labor for insanely cheap manufacturing. Of course, our political relations with them are pretty bad, but they're willing to give us extremely cheap labor, so it's a good opportunity. I think they're a special case, because for example, we don't have bad political relations with Saudi Arabia. I think China's the only country we have shit political relations with that we have strong economic ties to, because it is so unimaginably beneficial for us. No other country comes close.
I mentioned Iran because before the current regime they were also very secular but once the takeover happened a reverse in culture happened (as it often does in these situations) and it became a heavily religious country even if that is lightening up lately (it really is).
The only way for Iraq to go back though is for the new government to be extremely inclusive so that the warlords who basically run western Iraq feel like following the government is in there best interest. The US can help but the direction Iraq takes is mostly dependent on the direction the leadership wishes for it to take just like how it was before in Iraq and Iran.
You are right that we are jilting Iran though but that was mostly due to the fact that Iran also wanted nothing to do with the US. I say that in the past tense only because if the US and Iran can come to an agreement over the nuclear talks it is completely possible that Iran works its way back into being a US ally in the region.
Saudia Arabia as an ally is very valuable and both sides profit from this allegiance and as long as that remains true the alliance will continue because as I said before alliance are not based on morality they are based on need and we truly do need to keep Saudia Arabia as a close ally because they are an insanely useful ally to have both regionally and globally even if there actions are in many ways heinous.
On September 11 2014 14:28 Adreme wrote: I mentioned Iran because before the current regime they were also very secular but once the takeover happened a reverse in culture happened (as it often does in these situations) and it became a heavily religious country even if that is lightening up lately (it really is).
The only way for Iraq to go back though is for the new government to be extremely inclusive so that the warlords who basically run western Iraq feel like following the government is in there best interest. The US can help but the direction Iraq takes is mostly dependent on the direction the leadership wishes for it to take just like how it was before in Iraq and Iran.
You are right that we are jilting Iran though but that was mostly due to the fact that Iran also wanted nothing to do with the US. I say that in the past tense only because if the US and Iran can come to an agreement over the nuclear talks it is completely possible that Iran works its way back into being a US ally in the region.
Saudia Arabia as an ally is very valuable and both sides profit from this allegiance and as long as that remains true the alliance will continue because as I said before alliance are not based on morality they are based on need and we truly do need to keep Saudia Arabia as a close ally because they are an insanely useful ally to have both regionally and globally even if there actions are in many ways heinous.
Iran is a good case study, but the circumstances compared to Iraq are different. Iran is not a good comparison to Iraq, primarily because Iraq is not led by an Islamist radical regime like Iran is. I'll explain.
Honestly, if the Iranian Ayatollah asked the Iranian people tomorrow, "Do you want us to stop forcing you to be super Islamic?" I bet 95% will say yes, guaranteed. Iran's a crazy place, not because of the people, but because the people there are pretty much forced to be religious and then the only people in the spotlight are the most radical figures. It gives us the image that the society as a whole seriously want to be Islamic, but I highly doubt that's the reality. Everything points to the government seriously forcing everyone to be really Islamic, and before '79 it was pretty obvious the last thing Iranians wanted was to be forced into Islamic nutjobbery. However, my knowledge of Iran is nowhere near as deep as that of Iraq, admittedly.
But Iraq, even now, is mostly led secular regime. Iraq, unlike Iran, is not a pariah state. Iraq is once again flooded with American and European influence. Maliki the sectarian dictator is no longer in power. He was put in a political position but a powerless ceremonial one, just so his very few supporters would stfu and not cause problems. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis don't want problems. In fact, over the years, it seems pretty apparent Iraqis are pretty happy to be Iraqis, and don't join sectarian radicals but instead fear them. Polls during the Iraq War showed that Iraqis entirely hated the insurgent groups, and an overwhelming majority supported the US forces attacking them (despite an overwhelming consensus that opposed the US being there in the first place, which I think most people would oppose a country that destroyed their livelihoods and nation for 12 years even before the war).
Don't forget that during the Iraq War, many (if not most, but don't quote me on that) of the insurgents were not even from Iraq.
Where does this shitstorm in Iraq come from? There was trouble because of the sectarian order the US introduced, the Iranian backed terrorist organizations, tons of terrorists entering the country from every part of the Islamic world (Libya had the most per capita insurgents in Iraq), the persecuted Sunnis and others under Maliki's brutal regime, and the hundreds of thousands of people from the former disbanded Iraqi military and deposed regime now finding themselves persecuted, all of this led to the shitstorm in Iraq.
Well let's see: Maliki is no longer in power, Iraqis are starting to remove the sectarian policies, ISIS's defeat will be the death of foreign terrorists in Iraq, the new regime has stopped the persecution of Sunnis and people associated with the former military and regime. Things are on the up and up, and the causes of the shitstorm in the first place since 2003 are starting to be cured.
I think we can agree that the political and social scenario is MUCH different from Iran's.
The big outstanding problem is Iran. Remove Iran from the equation, and things in Iraq will get so much better. Iran is that thug who will break your legs the second they start to heal. Iran needs to go one way or another. Their backing of terrorists and divisive figures within Iraq to keep Iraq divided and chaotic is absolutely disgusting. Iran has a very sinister agenda, and I think it is within the interests of the entire region, the EU, United States, Russia, and other nations to diminish them until they're no longer able to use their power politics that have been responsible for so much death and destruction.
we truly do need to keep Saudia Arabia as a close ally because they are an insanely useful ally to have both regionally and globally even if there actions are in many ways heinous.
Insanely useful? How? For the oil, hating Iran, and the fact they suck Uncle Sam's impressive penis? There's really no other reason why they're useful. They're a terror state. Strategically speaking, turning Riyadh into a parking lot would probably cripple Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Now, that would be useful, though the only bad thing is that it would empower Iran more. But Egypt, Israel, and Turkey are infinitely more useful than Saudi Arabia (minus the oil), and aren't the world's greatest sponsor of Islamic terrorism. The point is, in light of the subject of this thread, nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Iran must stop their sponsorship of radicals and terrorists that are demeaning Syria and Iraq.
Obama said that the US will attack ISIS in Iraq AND Syria ? What a dumb thing to say. Who writes his speeches ? So now in order to defeat the so called terrorists, USA will declare war on Syria ? Really smart.
On September 12 2014 10:36 Pr0wler wrote: Obama said that the US will attack ISIS in Iraq AND Syria ? What a dumb thing to say. Who writes his speeches ? So now in order to defeat the so called terrorists, USA will declare war on Syria ? Really smart.
If declaring war were necessary for the US to bomb a place they'd be at war with half the Middle East. Turkey does strikes on Syria. Israel does strikes on Syria. The US has been carpet bombing bits of Pakistan for years now. A declaration of war is a formality no longer needed in a world where national sovereignty is subsumed by American hegemony.
The Syrians already said that they will treat it like an act of aggression, so yeah... I know that it doesn't mean a thing nowadays and the Americans will do whatever they want anyways. But it's kinda hypocritical of them to bomb whoever they please and then "punish" Russia for taking some land from Ukraine.
On September 12 2014 10:47 Pr0wler wrote: The Syrians already said that they will treat it like an act of aggression, so yeah... I know that it doesn't mean a thing nowadays and the Americans will do whatever they want anyways. But it's kinda hypocritical of them to bomb whoever they please and then "punish" Russia for taking some land from Ukraine.
Yes you are right. The Americans should have said its not their troops, just vacationing American pilots who rented some jets from the jet rental place.
On September 12 2014 14:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Hollande has landed in Iraq to support to new Iraqi Government. Whether that means $$$, or weaponry or both remains to be seen.
If French history with Iraq is worth anything, probably both. Iraq has historically up to the present has a lot of trust and good relations with France and Russia moreso than other European nations or the US, so you can expect something to come out of this.
On September 12 2014 16:51 IgnE wrote: ISIS has basically been begging for the United States to get involved for a long time. Is doing what your enemies want you to do smart policy?
Also makes you wonder why Israel hasn't done anything about it if ISIS is such a threat.
ISIS isn't very smart, that's the thing. They had it in their heads they're going to take over everywhere that Muslims exist, and that obviously backfired.
Israel is directly concerned about its own security. ISIS is not butt-fucking Jerusalem, so Israel need not take action at the moment. Also, they're taking the same view towards Syria as Iraq is towards its Kurdish and Shiite militias. Let these militias take the brunt of the damage as be weakened, so they're less of a threat to the stability of Iraq later on, and quite honestly, what Iraq needs is stability, not to be undermined by Iranian-backed Shiite radicals or land-grabbing Kurdish militias. In the meantime, the Iraqi military is being completely reorganized and re-established as Maliki had it rife with his goons responsible for the army's collapse in June, and is meanwhile being armed to the teeth by Russia and the US with 300,000 active duty personnel in the Army. In the last month, it's arguable that the Iraqi military is in the best shape it's been in since 2003, and expected to improve considerably if reports out of Iraq are worth anything. Maliki was the paradigm of Murphy's Law, and his departure from power is a huge milestone in Iraqi history.
Israel's stance from what it looks like is "As long as Assad and all these other parties in the Syrian civil war are being destroyed then that's good for us."
It's certainly something, but we won't be making real progress until IS is banned in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, where a large percentage of the fighters are apparently coming from :/
Lol StealthBlue, something did come out of it. France has pledged military support and will be involved in airstrikes against the Islamic State.
BAGHDAD — France will join the U.S.-led airstrikes targeting extremists in Iraq as part of an expanding international effort to combat the Islamic State group, Iraq’s new prime minister said after talks with the French president on Friday.
Haider al-Abadi’s remarks came after talks with Francois Hollande, who was in Baghdad to bolster Iraq’s new government as it struggles to unite the nation amid the rampage by the Islamic State group.
“In order to confront Daesh, we need aerial support from our allies,” al-Abadi said, referring to the group by its Arabic acronym. “The French president promised me today that France will participate in this effort, hitting the positions of the terrorists in Iraq.”
Al-Abadi spoke at a joint press conference with Hollande in Baghdad. Neither of the two leaders provided details about when the French could join the aerial campaign.
Hollande added that France has delivered four arms shipments and 60 metric tons (66 tons) of humanitarian equipment to Iraq.
EPT
