- Joined
- Feb 23, 2015
- Messages
- 26,575
- Reaction score
- 26,798
- Location
- New York State, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Isis may not make it to the weekend. Let alone 30 years. Just remember how the ussr looked in the 80s. Isis isn't going to thrive like pre 9/11 terrorists. America woke up to those idiots. We have a playbook for them now. And we haven't been the only ones using that playbook.
Terrorism is relatively new. And it thrived in a world where communists backed the anti capitalists. And the capitalists backed the anti communists. Now that America won...and the world has since realized the price of letting these people get trained and run amok...
Sorry. Rambling. Isis won't last. They will be done in for violating sun Tzu. They crossed their own people. We may be able to just blow on them, but they destabilized themselves.
Ever play jenga?
You're assuming ISIS is the end of the terrorists line? I disagree. When/if ISIS is crippled another organization will pop up, then another, then another. Saddam was a despicable vicious dictator, I don't give a rats ass about him. But taking him out was a mistake and it left a huge vacuum in the Middle East that's going to last for decades. Again, the middle east isn't ready for western democracy. They don't want it, and they're not ready for it.
Ok? Well let's ask ourselves: WHO is going to kill Isis? That is the most important question.
And Arab spring?
The Coalition's invasion completely threw the region into chaos: the power vacuum led to the creation of ISIS which then spread into Syria (turning it into a civil war) and beyond, Iran's influence grew in the Shiite areas, Al Qaeda finally had a presence in an area formerly suppressed by Saddam Hussein, over 4 million refugees, hundreds of thousands dead, Kurdish secession and potential for a whole scale civil war in Turkey, etc. Do you want more?Yes and I understand the point people are trying to make but no one has yet to tell me how EXACTLY did the Iraq war effect the region.
I'm not sure of what you are asking me. You are the one who said ISIS may not make it to the weekend. I'm saying it doesn't matter who defeats them. Because even if they are defeated, someone else will pop up. IMO We're stuck in the muck and mire mess we created for a long long time.
It was just a year or so ago all we heard about was the Taliban and AQ. Now? We hardly hear about them, now it's ISIS. who's next?
The Coalition's invasion completely threw the region into chaos: the power vacuum led to the creation of ISIS which then spread into Syria (turning it into a civil war) and beyond, Iran's influence grew in the Shiite areas, Al Qaeda finally had a presence in an area formerly suppressed by Saddam Hussein, over 4 million refugees, hundreds of thousands dead, Kurdish secession and potential for a whole scale civil war in Turkey, etc. Do you want more?
Yes and I understand the point people are trying to make but no one has yet to tell me how EXACTLY did the Iraq war effect the region. This was unstable country that had invaded its neighbours, caused a major conflict ( gulf war), used chemical weapons on its own people and broke international law numerous times resulting in NATO bombing raids. Iraq was and remains unstable so to me other events in the region are not directly linked to the fall of Saddam.
I think it has been explained to you on numerous occasions, but I understand as a veteran of that war, your need and desire to defend it. Do you recall by the way that your own Downing Street noted that George Bush was massaging the intelligence coming out on Iraq to fit his predetermined policy of regime change? Do you realise that the necessity of a war with Iraq was sold to the American public on the merits that Saddam Hussein was connected with AQ and had a relationship with OBL. And was capable of producing a mushroom cloud over a US city? None of which was true? Not all of the unrest in the ME is due to the removal of Hussein. There's the US/NATO action in Libya that removed the stabilising leader there, too! You probably don't pay much attention to the mess that countries in now because it too is an embarrassment to Western interference.
ISIS were on the run and had been beaten back in Iraq, read up on "the awakening". What allowed them to spread and prosper in Syria was the West's inaction, if we had intervened earlier we could of stopped groups like ISIS from ever gaining any ground. Syria is an open wound which needed to be healed, instead we let it fester and the infection spread. Again this had little to do with the fall of Saddam.
Thats literally just a narrative , your narrative at that and has nothing to do with the question at hand.
Many posters have stated that the fall of Saddam is to blame for ISIS growing in numbers in Syria, this is just not accurate. As I pointed out before the fall of Syria many regions of Iraq including the famous 'anbar awakening" were successful at driving out extremists. These groups did not get a foothold in the region until the Syrian civil war which was ignited by the "Arab Spring". So I ask you how is the fall of Saddam responsible for this?
Wtf do you mean narrative? I'm not the one that has blamed the growth of the Islamic State on the fall of Saddam. I blame it on the Western powers interference that has removed the forces of Saddam, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad for the instability of the region.
Wtf do you mean narrative? I'm not the one that has blamed the growth of the Islamic State on the fall of Saddam. I blame it on the Western powers interference that has removed the forces of Saddam, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad for the instability of the region.
Dictators come and go in the middle east as demonstrated in the past few years. Name me a country where this "power vacuum" emboldened people to seize power in their own country? Also worth pointing out we (the west) have been propping up/ toppling governments in the middle east since the fall of the Ottoman empire.
I can't name you a country off the top of my head where a "power vacuum" (Power vacuum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) has existed and I don't care enough about this tangent to look one up. if it is truly your position that removing a powerful dictator from power and dismantling his army does not have an impact on the surrounding region then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
ISIS were on the run and had been beaten back in Iraq, read up on "the awakening". What allowed them to spread and prosper in Syria was the West's inaction, if we had intervened earlier we could of stopped groups like ISIS from ever gaining any ground. Syria is an open wound which needed to be healed, instead we let it fester and the infection spread. Again this had little to do with the fall of Saddam.
So you base your opinion on the fact the term " power vacum" exists. Fair enough, didnt really answer my question or explain exactly how the fall or Iraq led to the Syrian civil war but fair enough.
So you base your opinion on the fact the term " power vacum" exists. Fair enough, didnt really answer my question or explain exactly how the fall or Iraq led to the Syrian civil war but fair enough.
lol what? when did I say the fall of Iraq led to the Syrian civil war? I literally don't know what else to say.
Don't wiki quote "power vacum" and then shy away when someone asks you to explain in more detail how this power vacum directly affected the surrounding regions. If you dont want to debate about it don't post in the thread.
well to be fair I did give you at least one example of how it affected the surrounding region but I wasn't really talking about any one specific event. I'm not shying away from a debate with you over the middle east. I just don't really have strong opinions about any specific event in the middle east. your initial post suggested that the Iraq war had no affect on the surrounding region ("what does the Iraq war have to do with the rest of the middle east" I think is what you asked. ANY time a country's regime changes significantly like that there will be effects in the surrounding region, both good and bad. that seems like an obvious point to me, so I'm not going to sit here and debate you on it.
I literally only quoted wiki because I thought you didn't know what the term meant. that's all.
here's a tip: try not to assume everyone has an agenda.
Here's a tip for you mate, don't be so vague in the future. Term's and political models dont always fit for every specific case.
So if the Arabs are the ones who kill Isis? Muslims who are tired of the radicals? You don't think that would pose a problem for OTHER radical Islamic groups? The world would become a lot less safe for them. Kind of like what happened to the world for left wing terror groups at the fall of the Soviet Union.
Isis isn't a threat and we really aren't stuck. We are dealing with the results of 85 years of involvement in the Middle East. And 70 years of political involvement. But we aren't "stuck." We could wash our hands and be done. And that is what is happening. We are going hands off.
And if the Arab Muslims kill the radicals, then the flower of democracy might start to take ahold.
The MIC and the Corps and Oil companies aren't going to allow us to 'wash our hands and be done with it'. I wish it was an option, but it's not. Not now.
And I don't see ANY indication that the Arabs are tired of the radicals, actually I see just the opposite. Muslims are signing up and joining terror groups from all over the world, not just the middle east. You seem to be looking for a reason to excuse the mess we made in 2003 invasion. That invasion and dismantling the Iraqi Army will go down as one of the biggest screw-ups in American history. It left a huge vacuum, there's no doubt.
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?