DVSentinel
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,647
- Reaction score
- 1,579
- Location
- The Republic of Texas.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
No selective amnesia and more importantly no excuses. Obama is president, though he apparently would rather vacation in marthas vinyard while the world burns.
Damnit, I told them to buy him a fiddle.
don't you mean extremists?
Islamism is how Islam has historically been. What you might call "moderate" muslims are largely the result of nationalist arab states. History is very big to these people.
I only ask what I've asked before: How many Americans have to die for a place that either can't or won't get past sectarianism? I just don't see our interests at stake here if the Maliki government falls. Certainly, ISIS is bad news. Given their actions and those of Maliki, I'm starting to wonder if Iraq wasn't a better place with Saddam. I won't begin to defend him, but we didn't have to keep sending in more people to die for his sake, and there was no significant Islamist uprising. And if there had been, I'd like to think that we'd have been smart enough to say "Good riddance" if they did get rid of him.
maybe you should study some of their history.
I understand your comments on Americans killed there-but I DONT understand your comments on our interests there. If Iraq falls, or we ignore the situation what will happen? Well that vacuum will be filled. By whom? Russia. Iran. Syria. In other words our geopolitical adversaries if not enemies in some cases. Now-how will THAT impact our interests? Terror. Oil access and production. Etc. You dont GIVE your adversaries advantages if you dont have to-its unwise.
There's a vacuum in Syria right now too, that's why ISIS is as powerful as they are. I'm not sure how you can have a democracy in Iraq without increasing Iran's power anyway. A majority of Iraqis are Shiite same as Iran. In a place where sectarianism is so powerful, the Shiite Mullahs in Iran are going to have significant influence over the Shiite population of Iraq. Short of installing a Sunni dictator (which is exactly what Saddam was) to be a check on Iran, their influence is greater.
There is not a vacuum in Syria-Assad isn't just handing it over-theres an active conflict there. ISIS is free to move into Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, and Jordan as needed. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism (even if it happens to be fighting ISIS right now) and we should do EVERYTHING we can to diminish its influence...this will be harder after the Obama admin allows them to finish their nukes.
If diminishing Iran's influence is the most important thing in the region, wouldn't you think removing Saddam from power was a mistake?
No-because its not that simple. Saddam was his own type of bad actor-in fact more so than Iran since the gulf war. He needed to go as well. Theres a reason Bill Clinton made regime change the official policy of the US towards Iraq.
I can handle that logic. I just think that any democratic Iraq is going to result in increased influence for Iran given the sectarian bent that everything seems to take there.
Why is it so hard to put "I am neither" as a choice?
Maybe you are right, but the US pulling out of Iraq leaving a vacuum, and then an influx of sunni terrorists that Iran is already fighting invading unopposed-is essentially delivering Iraq to Iran.
Frankly I'd rather they vote in the influence.
Really you're wanting us to annex Iraq right? Because that's the only way for us to actually "stabilize" the region for any protracted period of time.
First off, it saying "Libertarian - Left", so I don't get the neutral part.
Second, I doubt you're neutral and be interested to hear that reasoning.
Third, if you answered this before, then sorry for bringing it up again.
No, thats a false choice. Did we annex south Korea or Germany?
I only ask what I've asked before: How many Americans have to die for a place that either can't or won't get past sectarianism? I just don't see our interests at stake here if the Maliki government falls
We didn't have to. Neither of those countries were smack down in the center of the middle east and ruled by religion. Time and time again we've seen that when Arab populations are given a choice in the government, radicalism follows.
We didn't have to. Neither of those countries were smack down in the center of the middle east and ruled by religion. Time and time again we've seen that when Arab populations are given a choice in the government, radicalism follows.
We ruled both of those nations and then continued to influence heavily. Ditto with Japan. A US military presence and capacity to engage in wondrous destructive violence is an incredible piece of leverage for US diplomats to bring to the table.
Worth remembering is that Maliki was always a pain - but he was't a self-destructive fitna-monster until after we left.
And Islamism gained not a little from Fascism. Japan, too, was ruled by an absolutist ideology. Half of Korea went Communist on us.
The point was a small presence was there to keep the peace, and deter aggressive neighbors. Thats what we should do in Iraq, unless you would rather hand it over to Russia, Iran, and the terrorists.
Okay, let's break this down properly then.
First off, it's very important to remember that with all three of these countries, there was always an outside threat to keep in check.
We never had to be a brute and threaten "wondrous destructive violence"
West Germany never would of survived without the Allies backing them (Soviets would of loved to finish them off), the South Koreans wouldn't be around today if the US hadn't kicked the North back across the 38th Parallel
and then you have Japan who low and behold are looking at a hostile China
In Iraq, we never had this option because the greatest threat to the Iraqi people, were the Iraqi people.
Also, it was only a matter of time until Maliki joined up with Iran and became the asshole we all knew he was capable of being.
The US was never going to offer him the level of support that Iran was more than willing to make. Lest we forget where Maliki hid out for all those years *cough* Iran *cough*. Unless we were willing to use the forces in Iraq to enforce the peace, for example, deploying into Sunni areas to ensure that Iraqi government played fair, then it was never going to hold.
And say what you want about Fascism, it isn't the same as the problem that Islam is today.
Never underestimate the religious animosities that are at the route of these problems, and we never had to deal with anything like that.
Well, I guess there was Japan but, one picture and we showed the Japanese who's the boss:
There's one final piece to the puzzle that was in play in Japan and Germany that we never got with Iraq... they were never broken. After WW2, Germany was utterly shattered; they had last a second straight war, lost millions of people, their cities lay in complete ruin... they were a people that were tired of war. With Japan, we didn't have to break the will of the entire people, but that of only the one man that mattered. And after killing around 500,000 Japanese in two devastating attacks, not to mention a third earlier in the year that burned Tokyo to the ground, Hirohito had seen enough. In both these cases, there was no long the will the fight. The Iraqis have clearly demonstrated that even after 10 years of conflict, the thirst for blood hasn't been satiated.
That small presence, would of have to of been substantial and you know it as well as I do
Okay, let's break this down properly then.
First off, it's very important to remember that with all three of these countries, there was always an outside threat to keep in check. We never had to be a brute and threaten "wondrous destructive violence"; West Germany never would of survived without the Allies backing them (Soviets would of loved to finish them off), the South Koreans wouldn't be around today if the US hadn't kicked the North back across the 38th Parallel, and then you have Japan who low and behold are looking at a hostile China who they had just murdered 15 million people... so they could also use a little US made firepower. In Iraq, we never had this option because the greatest threat to the Iraqi people, were the Iraqi people.
Also, it was only a matter of time until Maliki joined up with Iran and became the asshole we all knew he was capable of being. The US was never going to offer him the level of support that Iran was more than willing to make. Lest we forget where Maliki hid out for all those years *cough* Iran *cough*. Unless we were willing to use the forces in Iraq to enforce the peace, for example, deploying into Sunni areas to ensure that Iraqi government played fair, then it was never going to hold. And say what you want about Fascism, it isn't the same as the problem that Islam is today. Never underestimate the religious animosities that are at the route of these problems, and we never had to deal with anything like that. Well, I guess there was Japan but, one picture and we showed the Japanese who's the boss:
There's one final piece to the puzzle that was in play in Japan and Germany that we never got with Iraq... they were never broken. After WW2, Germany was utterly shattered; they had last a second straight war, lost millions of people, their cities lay in complete ruin... they were a people that were tired of war. With Japan, we didn't have to break the will of the entire people, but that of only the one man that mattered. And after killing around 500,000 Japanese in two devastating attacks, not to mention a third earlier in the year that burned Tokyo to the ground, Hirohito had seen enough. In both these cases, there was no long the will the fight. The Iraqis have clearly demonstrated that even after 10 years of conflict, the thirst for blood hasn't been satiated.
That small presence, would of have to of been substantial and you know it as well as I do. And they wouldn't of had the authority to curb the Iraqi Government's aggression against the sunnis because Maliki would of never of given it. Finally, it's not the aggressive neighbors that you have to worry about in this case (which was the case for the other three countries), but the crisis within. ISIS is a two bit player right now if Iraq was run by either Saddam or the US, because we wouldn't of let the Sunnis get the short end of the stick...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?