Iraq falling apart?

[Berkut]

And you have an interesting definition of "stable" that includes the state gassing it's own citizens. That isn't stability worthy of aspiring too.

Razgovory = Ron Paul.

I am not sure who that is being overly harsh on...

[Ideologue]

And you have an interesting definition of "stable" that includes the state gassing it's own citizens. That isn't stability worthy of aspiring too.

Razgovory = Ron Paul.

I am not sure who that is being overly harsh on...

How would you feel if a coalition of nations kept America from using chemical weapons on its citizens?  Golden rule, dude.

[Viking]

And you have an interesting definition of "stable" that includes the state gassing it's own citizens. That isn't stability worthy of aspiring too.

Razgovory = Ron Paul.

I am not sure who that is being overly harsh on...

How would you feel if a coalition of nations kept America from using chemical weapons on its citizens?  Golden rule, dude.

If Obama was nerve gassing Red States I'd be for the UN Black Helicopters landing in Redneck Bob's backyard to steal his guns.

[Razgovory]

The first Gulf War came about as a result of Iraq attacking their neighbor in a war of naked aggression.

What is dishonest is saying that the "source" of the instability in post GF1 Iraq was the US (and presumably the rest of the world, since everyone was in on that one).

And you have an interesting definition of "stable" that includes the state gassing it's own citizens. That isn't stability worthy of aspiring too.

I never said that it was "Good" or anything like that.  But Iraq was unstable before the invasion and the sanctions and no fly zones were a major source of this instability. Nor am I saying the US wasn't justified in kicking Iraq's teeth in during the Gulf War.  Part of the problem was that the US never had a real concrete plan of what to do after the War.  Some wanted to see Saddam overthrown, and some wanted to see him remain in power as a bulwark against Iran.  The result a rather confused policy that led to Saddam being severely weakened and not having full control over his own country, and said country never really recovering from the war.

To say, "the situation was already bad when we got there, not our fault" is simply disingenuous.  The US was one of the major backers of the sanctions and the main enforcer of the no-fly zone.  This can't be denied.  Whether this was right or wrong is irrelevant.  It was a source of instability (not the only one of course.  Saddam himself was a source of instability, as was the fractious nature of the country in the first place).

[Neil]

If things go tits up in Iraq, America will get the blame, and rightfully so, sad to say. 

Nah, there's a point at which the Iraqis have to step up and take responsibility for making their own country work.

But not really, since the US destroyed their country.

[Siege]

So, how long until Gulf War 3?

[Berkut]

Obviously the US took part in the situation that ended with Iraq in an unstable state. That doesn't make them responsible for it, when actions taken by Iraq directly precipitated the response that ended with them on the losing end of a war they started.

And the fact that the US took a part in creating instability has no bearing on whether or not Iraq itself is primarily responsible for their own stability and security once the US and allies have done all that is reasonably necessary to allow them to succeed assuming a basic desire and capability to do so. The US fucked up Iraq, and then the US paid through the nose to give them every chance to put things back together.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot force them to drink. We fucking built the horse a gold plated river of water right up to its nose. Now it is up to them to decided if they want to drink, or would rather just fall apart. More to the point, I don't think the US staying longer will matter in the long run anyway. They are either capable of governing themselves, or they are not. If they are not, us keeping them from trying for another decade won't help, and may very well hurt.

[Razgovory]

Your Tribalism is getting the best of you Berkut.  The US was not obligated to do what it did.  No one put a gun to our head.  I don't think we had a defense pact with Kuwait.  It may have been the right thing to do, but it was our choice and our choice led to destabilization.  After two wars, a bunch of sanctions, and a no fly zone it's absurd to throw up your hands and say "Well, what ever happens to the Iraqis is their own fault".

[Neil]

Obviously the US took part in the situation that ended with Iraq in an unstable state. That doesn't make them responsible for it, when actions taken by Iraq directly precipitated the response that ended with them on the losing end of a war they started.

And the fact that the US took a part in creating instability has no bearing on whether or not Iraq itself is primarily responsible for their own stability and security once the US and allies have done all that is reasonably necessary to allow them to succeed assuming a basic desire and capability to do so. The US fucked up Iraq, and then the US paid through the nose to give them every chance to put things back together.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot force them to drink. We fucking built the horse a gold plated river of water right up to its nose. Now it is up to them to decided if they want to drink, or would rather just fall apart. More to the point, I don't think the US staying longer will matter in the long run anyway. They are either capable of governing themselves, or they are not. If they are not, us keeping them from trying for another decade won't help, and may very well hurt.

Iraq started the War in Iraq?

At any rate, blaming the Iraqis for US stupidity in creating the state is a pretty poor show.

[Siege]

Arabs are not responsible for anything they do.
They are like enraged children, but uglier and with a tendency to explode.
Or so the Balls Of Light tell us.

[Neil]

Your Tribalism is getting the best of you Berkut.  The US was not obligated to do what it did.  No one put a gun to our head.  I don't think we had a defense pact with Kuwait.  It may have been the right thing to do, but it was our choice and our choice led to destabilization.  After two wars, a bunch of sanctions, and a no fly zone it's absurd to throw up your hands and say "Well, what ever happens to the Iraqis is their own fault".

Well, there is collective security, but that's something that is ignored whenever it's convenient to do so.

[Siege]

Berkut is not Tribalist.

[Neil]

Arabs are not responsible for anything they do.
They are like enraged children, but uglier and with a tendency to explode.
Or so the Balls Of Light tell us.

There are no people in the Middle East worth being allowed to live on.

[Camerus]

The chain of causality for the current situation leads directly to the US, though.  The entire war was started by the US and Dubya over the need for regime change.  Thus the current regime is the culmination of the entire US strategy and *justification* behind the Iraq war, which was:  remove Saddam --> institute regime change for teh people -->  leave and let them enjoy their new government.   All the death, destruction and loss of US global prestige caused by the US invasion (with its dubious causus belli) was supposed to be justified by the new great regime they would be leaving in place.

The fact that the US spent shitloads of blood, treasure and diplomatic capital in the process - all for a people who would prefer to kill each other over a 1400 year old epileptic rather than live in a modern society - does not change that fact.  Rather it just serves to highlight the incredible stupidity of the whole fucking policy.

[Berkut]

The chain of causality for the current situation leads directly to the US, though.  The entire war was started by the US and Dubya over the need for regime change.  Thus the current regime is the culmination of the entire US strategy and *justification* behind the Iraq war, which was:  remove Saddam --> institute regime change for teh people -->  leave and let them enjoy their new government.   All the death, destruction and loss of US global prestige caused by the US invasion (with its dubious causus belli) was supposed to be justified by the new great regime they would be leaving in place.

The fact that the US spent shitloads of blood, treasure and diplomatic capital in the process - all for a people who would prefer to kill each other over a 1400 year old epileptic rather than live in a modern society - does not change that fact.  Rather it just serves to highlight the incredible stupidity of the whole fucking policy.

You can make a compelling argument that the entire war was a mistake (although your strawman reasons for why the US went to war make your argument weaker), but that doesn't mean you can make a compelling argument that the US is responsible if Iraq cannot create a stable state.

The problems with Iraq today, to the extent that they exist, are intrinsic to the region and the people who live there - they were not created by the actions of the US. At worst, the US removed the temporary "solution" that kept a facade of stability in place as long as Saddam was willing to simply murder anyone who opposed him.

So no, the chain of casualty does NOT lead to the US, it leads to Saddam Hussein and those who supported him. Why would you stop the chain at GF2, rather than follow it back to GF1, and what started THAT war? Absent Saddam invading Kuwait, he is likely still sitting in one of his many palaces killing people who are trying to depose him.

Finally, if you want to call Iraq even pre-GF1 "stable", it shows a somewhat simplistic view of the country. Like all dictatorships, Saddams hold on the country was based on fear and war. He had a war with Iran that went on damn near forever, and left his country in debt to Kuwait to the tune of some $30 billion. He had wars with his own people. He manufactured claims to Kuwait, and invaded. The war with Iran ended just two years before the invasion of Kuwait.

Is that stability? A state the relies on being at war with its neighbours in order to keep its own populace in line, and when that doesn't work, it simply goes to war with its populace instead?

The idea that the US (rather the UN really, since it was a UN operation) should have just sat back and let him happen so as to not be responsible for what might happen in Iraq some 20+ years later is rather...well, crazy. Hell, the Brits were the first to tell Iraq to back off from Kuwait back in the 60s when they threatened to take it over. Guaranteeing the integrity of Kuwait was not some crazy idea thought up by the crazy Americans.

The "chain of casualty" that ends in Iraq today goes back much further than GF2. Absent GF2, there is no reason to believe that Iraq would be in better shape today, or with a better opportunity for a stable future, than they have right now.