Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 395

On April 06 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
Iraq is the poster child of the fact that if you have a dictatorship, you can easily fuck up and make it worse by turning it into perpetual civil war instead.

On April 06 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
Iraq is the poster child of the fact that if you have a dictatorship, you can easily fuck up and make it worse by turning it into perpetual civil war instead.

On April 06 2017 06:13 Wrath wrote:


If you are talking about the WWI result and dividing the left over of Ottoman empire, then that implies on all the Arab world.
It is true that in the middle east in general tribes loyalty was strong, but it was not sectarian that would result on killing on identity like it is now. After about 100 years of Ottoman empire fall, people started to have some loyalty to the nation they were born within. It is true that Saddam was a dictator, not defending that, if there was a revolt against him like the current one in Syria things would have been different.

But what happened is that a nation that was "stable", no revolt or anything and suddenly it is under occupation for a never found WMDs until recently which makes it even more suspicious.

On April 05 2017 15:48 xM(Z wrote:
the other side take on it: so, they shot a depo/its vicinity and it leaked chemical gases.

An alternate theory peddled by Moscow is that Syrian rebels struck a nearby chemical weapons warehouse, inadvertently unleashing nerve agents that killed dozens and injured hundreds more. This allegation was swiftly knocked down by one British chemical weapons expert, Col. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, as “pretty fanciful” because immolating sarin eliminates sarin. Eliot Higgins, the founder of the open-source investigations website Bellingcat, told The Daily Beast, that such an explanation “would have to account for the first images from the attack being shared hours before the time the Russian Ministry of Defense provided as the bombing of the warehouse occurred. It would be absurd to claim the chemical attack was linked to a bombing that occurred hours later. “

On April 06 2017 09:06 Philoctetes wrote:
The Iraq was surely wasn't about Hussein having nuclear weapons. I can't believe we are having this debate in 2017.

I would like to say that Iraq was about oil. But even that wasn't true. Iraq was about delusion. Trump was right on Iraq (after he stopped supporting it, which he did initually). From Bush' point of view, if you go in, why not take the oil?

They were too incompetent to do even that. They didn't take the oil. They didn't bring democracy (btw they didn't try or even desire that). All they did was give one half of Iraq to ISIS, the other to Iran. Why? Because they puppet government failed, and they lost control.
That's all they did. Besides ruining the US economy with the financial burdens of that war, of course.

On April 06 2017 05:53 Plansix wrote:
Few people in this thread are defending the war in Iraq. The only thing they are opposing is the romanticized notion that dictators like Saddam and Assad provided more stability for the region.

On April 06 2017 17:34 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

There was more stability with dictators in power in the Middle East and N Africa.This massive refugee problem didn't exist before dictators like Gadaffi, Hussein and Assad were either killed or undermined by the west in Assads case.

People who live in the west are literally being taxed to pay for these wars and then taxed to pay for the massive influx of refugees caused by these wars.For their housing and welfare benefits.How is this sustainable? It's total lunacy.

On April 06 2017 17:34 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

There was more stability with dictators in power in the Middle East and N Africa.This massive refugee problem didn't exist before dictators like Gadaffi, Hussein and Assad were either killed or undermined by the west in Assads case.

People who live in the west are literally being taxed to pay for these wars and then taxed to pay for the massive influx of refugees caused by these wars.For their housing and welfare benefits.How is this sustainable? It's total lunacy.

On April 06 2017 19:14 Philoctetes wrote:


There is instability in these countries right now because they had a dictator. This is backward thinking. A dictator creates grievances, and a desire for revenge. Dictators play the sectarian card. Dictators arm paramilitary units. List goes on and on and on. The crazier the dictator, the more chaotic the country when that dictator finally falls. And in a dictatorship, eventually you will get a really crazy, really weak one.

That NATO, the US, Russia, Saudi or Iran make it worse by sending in even more weapons or by bombing, that's a secondary issue.

BTW, many of these African refugees are relocating because their ancestral farming lands have become uninhabitable because of climate change.




These wars are western hobbies. People who are in the west helped create this mess. You bomb several countries for several years, and you are surprised it creates a stream of refugees? Yes, it is fucked up. Let's put Bush and Blair on trial, finally.

BTW, where were you when I was protesting the Bush invasion of Iraq? Were you there in the streets with me?

Also, Trump is about to meet with Sisi, and we also have this US alliance with Saudi, who are bombing Yemen. What if civil war breaks out in Egypt and Saudi? It is inevitable.

If you want less civil wars in the middle east, it is very easy. Stop participating in them. Second, stop supporting dictators, as dictatorships cause civil wars. And stop selling arms. The more arms a country has, the more likely that country is to use them, either against another country or against it's own people/own minorities.

And when a war breaks out, you do not bomb one side so that hopefully the other side wins. No. You block all arms sales and call for peace talks.


And if Russia doesn't agree, there is nothing you can do. Russia will have it's own civil war eventually. Maybe after that, they will have learned.