- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Let Iraq disintegrate
Posted on 6/15/14 at 8:31 pm to TupeloTiger
Posted on 6/15/14 at 8:31 pm to TupeloTiger
quote:
I say divide the country into 3, based on the tribes territories. Sunni, Shia, and Kurds
That would be nice, but you're inviting a Turkish invasion, because they would view Kurdistan as a threat. And Turkey is a NATO member which we're obliged to protect, unfortunately.
2
Posted on 6/15/14 at 8:35 pm to maine82
ain't no "let" to it - we can't do anything about it if we wanted to
I sure wouldn't want any of our people to die over there, not when it would just collapse again after we left.
You'd have to kill all of them or they'll come back, like if you have a roach infestation in your kitchen.
I sure wouldn't want any of our people to die over there, not when it would just collapse again after we left.
You'd have to kill all of them or they'll come back, like if you have a roach infestation in your kitchen.
Posted on 6/15/14 at 8:40 pm to maine82
BTW I associate myself with the people who say this is our problem. I hesitate to fault the Bush Administration because I think they genuinely thought there was WMD, and you have to proactively attack a country if you think they are going to attack you.
(Although Paul Bremer did a horrendous job of running the country after the invasion and a lot of the current problems stem from his failures. Bush deserves blame for that.)
But in retrospect, had we known there was no WMD, we should have found another way to deal with Saddam, and we also shouldn't have left in 2011. We have mishandled Iraq on the front end and the back end. This is our responsibility. If we let Baghdad fall and ISIS takes over large swaths of Iraq and Syria, we are allowing an Iraqi-Syrian version of pre-9/11 Afghanistan to emerge. If a terrorist attack based from that region is launched against one of our allies, America is morally culpable. We caused this problem and now we've got to manage it.
The President should assess the situation and figure out whether we need to launch air strikes and even no-fly zones. We should be able to get a NATO resolution backing such an effort because I don't think Turkey wants an unstable Iraq on its borders. A U.S.-Turkish alliance should be enough to persuade NATO to go along and for the British, French and Canadians to help out. If we do those things, we should have new leverage over al-Maliki to bend him to our will, bring in Sunnis and Kurds into his government and revamp his military by our instructions. We should also make sure the Kurds are able to protect themselves since they are our biggest allies in Iraq, but not to the point where we lose Turkish support.
(Although Paul Bremer did a horrendous job of running the country after the invasion and a lot of the current problems stem from his failures. Bush deserves blame for that.)
But in retrospect, had we known there was no WMD, we should have found another way to deal with Saddam, and we also shouldn't have left in 2011. We have mishandled Iraq on the front end and the back end. This is our responsibility. If we let Baghdad fall and ISIS takes over large swaths of Iraq and Syria, we are allowing an Iraqi-Syrian version of pre-9/11 Afghanistan to emerge. If a terrorist attack based from that region is launched against one of our allies, America is morally culpable. We caused this problem and now we've got to manage it.
The President should assess the situation and figure out whether we need to launch air strikes and even no-fly zones. We should be able to get a NATO resolution backing such an effort because I don't think Turkey wants an unstable Iraq on its borders. A U.S.-Turkish alliance should be enough to persuade NATO to go along and for the British, French and Canadians to help out. If we do those things, we should have new leverage over al-Maliki to bend him to our will, bring in Sunnis and Kurds into his government and revamp his military by our instructions. We should also make sure the Kurds are able to protect themselves since they are our biggest allies in Iraq, but not to the point where we lose Turkish support.
This post was edited on 6/15/14 at 8:43 pm
Posted on 6/15/14 at 8:56 pm to tigerpawl
quote:
what's the difference between the Iraq thing and a dozen thugs beating up a helpless 3 years old across the street? In each case, it's terribly wrong and in each case "we" have the ability to stop it in an instant.
What the hell? Am I missing something here? How can we stop it in an instant? And how long are you willing to be Iraq's bodyguard?
Posted on 6/15/14 at 11:26 pm to maine82
quote:
you have to proactively attack a country if you think they are going to attack you.
Do all nations have the right to attack nations who they "think" might attack them in the future, or is the U.S. the only nation with this right? What you're doing is advocating international anarchy.
This post was edited on 6/15/14 at 11:28 pm
Posted on 6/15/14 at 11:35 pm to 4LSU2
quote:Uh, what? When did I get involved? I don't remember.
This is our doing
Posted on 6/15/14 at 11:45 pm to gthog61
quote:
You'd have to kill all of them or they'll come back, like if you have a roach infestation in your kitchen.
According to the Islamic apologist on this board, it's only 1% of Muslims that are bad. So all you have to do is get rid of the pesky 1% and all is well! Rainbows and unicorn milk for everyone!
This post was edited on 6/15/14 at 11:46 pm
Posted on 6/15/14 at 11:47 pm to maine82
quote:
we should have new leverage over al-Maliki to bend him to our will, bring in Sunnis and Kurds into his government
ISIS is out for blood - they don't give a shite about being re-included back in the Gov't. Why should they stop now? They've taken a sizable portion of the country already.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 3:57 am to Revelator
quote:
According to the Islamic apologist on this board, it's only 1% of Muslims that are bad. So all you have to do is get rid of the pesky 1% and all is well! Rainbows and unicorn milk for everyone!
Are all Christians good???
Just look at what Serb Christians did or how the Russians behave.
No religion is without its crazies. Islam just has more and the normal ones don't speak out b/c they end up in a ditch.
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 3:58 am
Posted on 6/16/14 at 5:43 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Islam just has more and the normal ones don't speak out b/c they end up in a ditch.
Yeah. That's why they're worse.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 5:48 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Yeah. That's why they're worse.
points to Russia
Posted on 6/16/14 at 7:56 am to 4LSU2
quote:
This is an American clusterfrick of epic proportions that has to end so that the terrorism doesn't spread across the world
It pains me that after all that has happened, people still have this mindset.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:27 am to trackfan
quote:
Do all nations have the right to attack nations who they "think" might attack them in the future, or is the U.S. the only nation with this right? What you're doing is advocating international anarchy.
If they have reasonable grounds, sure. If Iran, which has called for the destruction of Israel and the United States, is close to having the bomb, it is perfectly reasonable for one of its potential targets to pro-actively strike them.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:29 am to idlewatcher
quote:
ISIS is out for blood - they don't give a shite about being re-included back in the Gov't. Why should they stop now? They've taken a sizable portion of the country already.
I don't think ISIS would have nearly the same traction if they didn't have local support. If al-Maliki starts bringing Sunnis back into the government and positions of power, I think local support for ISIS gradually deteriorates. We're not talking about tomorrow, but over time, and you do have to start somewhere.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:33 am to maine82
This should clear things up.....
LINK
"When the Americans invaded, in March, 2003, they destroyed the Iraqi state—its military, its bureaucracy, its police force, and most everything else that might hold a country together. They spent the next nine years trying to build a state to replace the one they crushed. By 2011, by any reasonable measure, the Americans had made a lot of headway but were not finished with the job. For many months, the Obama and Maliki governments talked about keeping a residual force of American troops in Iraq, which would act largely to train Iraq’s Army and to provide intelligence against Sunni insurgents. (It would almost certainly have been barred from fighting.) Those were important reasons to stay, but the most important went largely unstated: it was to continue to act as a restraint on Maliki’s sectarian impulses, at least until the Iraqi political system was strong enough to contain him on its own. The negotiations between Obama and Maliki fell apart, in no small measure because of a lack of engagement by the White House. Today, many Iraqis, including some close to Maliki, say that a small force of American soldiers—working in non-combat roles—would have provided a crucial stabilizing factor that is now missing from Iraq. Sami al-Askari, a Maliki confidant, told me for my article this spring, “If you had a few hundred here, not even a few thousand, they would be coöperating with you, and they would become your partners.” President Obama wanted the Americans to come home, and Maliki didn’t particularly want them to stay."
A perfect storm.
LINK
"When the Americans invaded, in March, 2003, they destroyed the Iraqi state—its military, its bureaucracy, its police force, and most everything else that might hold a country together. They spent the next nine years trying to build a state to replace the one they crushed. By 2011, by any reasonable measure, the Americans had made a lot of headway but were not finished with the job. For many months, the Obama and Maliki governments talked about keeping a residual force of American troops in Iraq, which would act largely to train Iraq’s Army and to provide intelligence against Sunni insurgents. (It would almost certainly have been barred from fighting.) Those were important reasons to stay, but the most important went largely unstated: it was to continue to act as a restraint on Maliki’s sectarian impulses, at least until the Iraqi political system was strong enough to contain him on its own. The negotiations between Obama and Maliki fell apart, in no small measure because of a lack of engagement by the White House. Today, many Iraqis, including some close to Maliki, say that a small force of American soldiers—working in non-combat roles—would have provided a crucial stabilizing factor that is now missing from Iraq. Sami al-Askari, a Maliki confidant, told me for my article this spring, “If you had a few hundred here, not even a few thousand, they would be coöperating with you, and they would become your partners.” President Obama wanted the Americans to come home, and Maliki didn’t particularly want them to stay."
A perfect storm.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:43 am to tigerpawl
I have a hard time believing that a few hundred of our guys would've indirectly fixed everything.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 9:30 am to tigerpawl
Confirms what I said. We Fed up on the front end and we Fed up on the back end.
Page 6 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News